Prof.Dr.

Azhar Kasim,MPA
SGPP

 Public

policy is policy made

by govenment and its officials
Policies are guidelines
followed by the official or
officials in dealing with public
issues (Adapted from
Anderson, 1978)
2

 Public

policy is the government's

decision to regulate various
aspects of life in the country
Public policy analysis is the
process of formulation of public
policy alternatives and selection
of the best alternative decisions

Public Policy studied by various disciplines

such as political science, administration,
economics and so on
Public policy is whatever governments
choose to do or not to do (Dye in
Anderson, 1978:2)
what governments do, why they do it,
and what difference it makes. (Dye,
1992)

In a democratic state public policies are

made reflect the aspirations of the people
Whereas in countries that have not yet
democratic, there is distortion which
hamper the delivery of community
aspirations to policymakers.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Elite Theory
Institutionalism
Group Theory
Political System Theory

Elite theory is the theory that considers

public policy in a country or region created
by the ruling elite.
Public policies are made based on their
values and preferences, masses does not
have access to the formulation as well as
implementation of policy.

Elite Theorybelieves that a wealthy elite

runs the United States. The economic elite
consists of the same people as the political
elite (wealth equals power). The elite
exerts power downward on the masses. A
large minority of political scientists believe
the theory. Leading advocates are Karl
Marx, GaetanoMosca, Robert Michels ("the
iron law of oligarchy"), and C. Wright Mills
(The Power Elite).

The theory maintains that very rich families are in

power, people such as the Rockefellers, the Fords,
and the Pews. They tend to live in the Northeast
and attend exclusive prep schools and Ivy League
universities. They tend to belong to mainline
Protestant churches and they marry one another.
Often members of the elite do not occupy
governmental positions themselves, but depend
on elected and appointed officials who do their
work for them. It takes two or three generations
of wealth to arrive in the elite.

New members of elite are thoroughly

socialized by the time they arrive at the top.
Power flows downward making it democratic
theory in reverse. The elite shares a
consensus on the importance of private
property, limited government, individual
liberty and the fact that change should be
incremental rather than revolutionary. As
demonstrated in many charities, the elite
may be may be public regarding, displaying a
sense of noblesse oblige.

On the other hand, big foundations like the

Rockefeller Brothers, Ford, Pew, Johnson, etc.
have the added benefit of keeping control of
stock in the hands of the family and avoiding
taxes. The elite manipulates the masses by
exploiting symbols such as charity or elections.
Philanthropy reduces the threat that the
masses will demand that money be seized
from the wealthy. The power of money is latent
and takes a long time to have its effect. It is
not the direct "money talks" of group theory.

Although few political scientists who

believe the elite theory consider it good
for democracy, they consider it to be an
accurate view of reality. It does have the
advantage of reducing conflict due to elite
consensus. Two presidents make an
interesting contrast. George H. W. Bush
(Senior) came from an old New England
family that gained its wealth in banking.
He attended Andover School and Yale
University.

Bill Clinton came from a working class

family in Arkansas. Rising out of the
masses, he attended a mid-range prestige
university, Georgetown, and an Ivy League
law school, Yale. He also won a Rhodes
Scholarship to study at Oxford University
in England. He married Hillary Rodman,
who had her undergraduate degree from
one of the Seven Sisters and was the
daughter of a Chicago businessman.

Elite theory is based on the assumption that

the governmental system has not been
supported by a democratic political culture.
Formally, the system of government may be
desinged as democratic government but in
reality it is not functioning effectively

Thomas Dye dan Harmon Ziegler (1970)

mentioned that Elite System has the
following acharactistics:

1.

2.
3.

Elite Theory (9)

Society consist of small groups of people that
are very powerful and the rest are majority of
people that are powerless and depends on the
willingness of the small group as the ruling
elite
The ruling elite group originating from the
middle class and up
Mobility of non-elite groups into the elite group
is limited to maintain the stability and survival
of the elite group. Only those who have
internalized basic elite consensus would be
acceptable

4.

5.
6.

Elite Theory (10)

Public policy is made in the interests of the
ruling elite, and do not reflect the needs and
wishes of the masses
Changes in public policy is not only
incremental but also evolutionary
Elite group more influence on the masses,
rather than vice versa

Institutionalism is a policy study based on

a formal approach to the role of
government institutions involved in the
formulation and implementation of a
policy. For example, the legislature, the
executive, the judiciary and the political
parties. Formal aspects of these
institutions include: legal authority,
procedural rules, functions and activities.

Although most political sociologists and

political scientists nowadays either consider
themselves or are deemed
institutionalists, key differences remain
among major schools of
institutionalism (see reviews in Pierson and
Skocpol 2002; Amenta 2005). We review
sociological institutionalism, historical
institutionalism, and political
institutionalism.

We discuss their similarities and

differences, theoretical and
methodological insights, research gains,
analytical problems, and prospects for the
study of politics. To focus our discussion,
we mainly consider research regarding the
development of public policy, the terrain
on which many advances in political
sociology and political science have taken
place and an occasional battleground for
these approaches.

The basic similarity in all institutional

theoretical claims is that something
identified at a higher level is used to
explain processes and outcomes at a
lower level of analysis (Clemens and Cook
1999; Amenta 2005). Institutionalists tend
to avoid both individual-level explanations
and explanations situated at the same
level of analysis.

 Institutionalist

typically have
problems in explaining social
and political change, notably
in institutions themselves,
and often resort to claims
about exogenous and
unpredictable shocks or the
actions of various agents.

 Yet,

these three types of

institutionalists tend to focus
on different sorts of higherorder
determinants and differ in
how much they matter
causally.

The sociological institutionalists in the

sociology of organizations (Powell and
DiMaggio 1991) and those examining the
influence of the world society (Meyer et
al. 1997) focus on cultural and ideational
causes. These are posited to exert
influence either at the supra-societal or
supra-state level for states and their
policies, or at the societal level for
organizations.

Historical institutionalists typically focus on

determinants at the macropolitical or
macroeconomic level, though they rely on no
particular type of institutional theory, and instead
expect causation to be multiple and conjunctural
and often involving time-order
and path dependence (Pierson and Skocpol
2002). Historical institutionalism is an approach
to political research that focuses on asking big
questions, highlights the importance of
institutions in explanations, and rejects
functionalist explanations for why institutions
emerge

Like sociological institutionalists, political

institutionalists form a theoretical school,
though one with a weaker selfidentity.
Political institutionalists typically situate
their claims at the state or macropolitical
level
and argue that the process of formation of
states, political systems, and political
party systems strongly influence political
processes and outcomes (see review in
Amenta 2005)

Institutional Economics view economic policies

according to the government's role in regulating
the life of the economy to correct the weaknesses
of market mechanisms.
As banking control to prevent excessive lending
to the public that can lead the rise of the
symptoms of the bubble economy because
lending is only based on false demand. Examples
of the danger of the bubble economy is the
subprime mortgage fiasco in the United States
that triggered the global financial crisis

The new institutional economics is an attempt to

incorporate a theory of institutions into
economics. However in contrast to the many
earlier attempts to overturn or replace neoclassical theory, the new institutional economics
builds on, modifies, and extends neoclassical
theory to permit it to come to grips and deal with
an entire range of issues heretofore beyond its
ken. What it retains and builds on is the
fundamental assumption of scarcity and hence
competition--the basis of the choice theoretic
approach that underlies micro-economics. What it
abandons is instrumental rationality--the
assumption of neoclassical economics that has
made it an institution-free theory.

Herbert Simon has accurately summarized the

implications of this neo-classical assumption, as
follows: If we accept values as given and
constant, if we postulate an objective description
of the world as it really is, and if we assume that
the decision maker's computational powers are
unlimited then two important consequences
follow. First we do not need to distinguish
between the real world and the decisionmaker's
perception of it: he or she perceives the world as
it really is.

Second we can predict the choices that will

be made by a rational decision maker
entirely from our knowledge of the real
world and without a knowledge of the
decision maker's perceptions or modes of
calculation (we do, of course, have to know
his or her utility function). (Simon, 1986, p.
s 210)

The new institutional economics is an

attempt to incorporate a theory of
institutions into economics. However in
contrast to the many earlier attempts to
overturn or replace neo-classical theory, the
new institutional economics builds on,
modifies, and extends neoclassical theory to
permit it to come to grips and deal with an
entire range of issues heretofore beyond its
ken.

 What

it retains and builds on is the

fundamental assumption of scarcity
and hence competition--the basis
of the choice theoretic approach
that underlies micro-economics.
What it abandons is instrumental
rationality--the assumption of
neoclassical economics that has
made it an institution-free theory.

Group theory is the theory that considers

public policy as a product of the struggle of
the group. Public policy is an equilibrium
point in a struggle between groups.
Emphasis on the role of political interests
groups in the process of policy formulation
and implementation.

Interest Group Theorybelieves that

many different interests compete to control
government policy, and that their
conflicting interests can balance out each
other to provide good government. It is a
very American theory that is popular with
political scientists. It fits well with economic
principles such as Adam Smith.

Leading advocates are James Madison

(Federalist No. 10),Alexis de Tocqueville
(1824), Bentley (1905), David Truman
(1950), and Robert Dahl (Who Governs?).Its
advantages are that it is comparatively
neutral as to values and explains process.
The theory is also called pluralism because
there are many groups.

An interest group may be defined as an

organized body of individuals who share
policy goal and try to influence policy, for
example the AFL CIO, the American Bankers
Association, the American Medical
Association, NRA, the Diabetes Association,
the Children's Defense Fund and the NAACP.

It differs from a political party in that it does

not try to win office. The power of an
interest groups comes from its: 1. size
(number of members), 2. wealth, 3.
organizational strength, 4. leadership, 5.
access to decision makers and 6. internal
cohesion. Groups form when a disturbance
occurs and people come together to resist
change.

The leader is a policy entrepreneur like

Ralph Nader, Lois Gibbs, Clara Barton, or
David Brower. Interest groups often lobby
in Washington, where their techniques are
direct, grass roots, information campaigns
and coalition building. Groups sometimes
compete with each other, and sometimes
cooperate.

The tenets of the theory are that the task of

the political system is to manage group
conflict by establishing the rules of the
game, arranging compromises, enacting the
deals into law, enforcing the laws and
adjudicating them. Government is like a
referee calling the balls and strikes. Public
policy is only a temporary equilibrium.

Adherents believe that government is held

together by: 1. latent group which supports
the system, 2. overlapping membership in
different groups, 3. checks and balances of
group competition and 4. agenda building.
Both the group leaders and political
scientist believe that situation will remain
fluid permanently; no one group will have a
permanent victory.

The recent campaign finance reform law is

premised on interest group theory. It
assumes that many groups are too powerful
because they can raise money to donate to
politicians, therefore the law restricts them.
Critics often agree that the groups can
spend a lot of money, but believe the law
will merely make the donations harder to
track.

Like James Madison, they believe the

solution is to play one group against
another. The idea that "money talks" in this
direct fashion is a form of group theory.

Based on thee the principle of the people,

by the people, and for the people
In modern society these principles can not
be applied directly because of the
magnitude and complexity of scope,
functions and duties of government today,
In particular the principle by the people
can not be carried out directly, but
through the selection and appointment
(elected and politically appointed officials)
and career officials or bureaucrata

Is the theory that considers public policy in

response to political system demand that
emerged in the community environment.
Input of the environment in the form of
requests (demands) and support . This
support can be in the form of compliance to
the law, pay taxes, vote in elections, and so
on. Furthermore, the policy can affect the
community and in turn will affect the new
demands on policy makers.

Te
c

&

Organizations

International
Relations

hn
ol
og
y

iat
ion
s

sA
ss
oc

nc
e

Political Culture

Bu
sin
es

ts
Social
u
/
p
d
n
I
n
Structure Sosiala t
m or etc
e
D upp its
S im
Social
L

e
tur

POLICY
MAKING

Sc
ie

NGOs

External Environm

c
tru
ras
Inf
ic
om
s
on
ie
Ec
rt
Pa
al
ic
lit
Po
Outputs

Climate

Action

Internal EnvironmentNatural Resources

c
i
h
Topography
p
a s
r
e
l
g
o ab
m
e ari
D V

Public Problem
Public Demand

Failed to be in
Policy Agenda

Policy Agenda
Policy Formulation:
Policy Analysis
Policy Decision
Policy Statement

Leave it alone
No policy decision

Positive Action

Policy
Implementation
Policy Output
Policy Evaluation
Feedback

a) Those who initiate and

maintain process
b) Effect on state of society

In a non-democratic country, "ruling elite"

makes their interest as the basis for public
policy, for example, "private problem"
pursued the settlement with the public
policy
Conversely in a democratic country, public
policy is only intended to resolve the "public
problems" and the main criteria in making
public policy is the consideration of public
interest

 In

backward and non-democratic

countries, public policy formulation
process is more determined by
"political horse trading" and not
supported by the analysis of
policies that can be justified
scientifically and methodologically

 In

developed countries,
democratic, policy formulation
process is determined by the
debates with arguments
supported by policy analysis, and
lobbying should be done in a
transparent manner should not
be giving gratuities

 New

trend indicates that policy

adoption is driven more heavily by
factors from rational and
technocratic theory, whereas actual
implementation is influenced by
factors addressed by political and
cultural considerations (Julnes and
Holzer, 2001)

Public policy as a political process rather

than as a legal process that results in the
social contract between the state and the
people
The social contract in the form of a Act that
does not require implementing regulations
such as PP (Government Regulation)
This system comes from the UK and USA,
and influencing public policy system in the
former colonies

Public policy as tiered legal products and

made by the state, ranging from the
constitution, Acts, government regulations
and other lower level legislations.
Act require implementing regulations, i.e.
government regulation (PP) to be
implemented. Some Acts requires a lot of
PPs to be implemented

This legal system originally developed in

mainland Europe and Indonesia embraced
this system because of the influence of
Dutch colonialism

1.

2.

Peraturan Perundang-undangan
(legislation)
Keputusan operasional yang dibuat oleh
para pejabat/birokrat (operatioal decision)

1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

Undang Undang Dasar 1945 (UUD 1945)

Ketetapan MPR
Undang Undang (UU)/ Peraturan
Pemerintah Pengganti Undang Undang
(Perpu)
Peraturan Pemerintah (PP)
Peraturan Presiden (Perpres)
Peraturan Daerah (Perda)/Qanun/
Perdasus/Perdasi

DISTRIBUTIVE

Public policy that aims to provide

facilities and services for specific
population groups

REGULATORY
Public policy aimed at regulating the life of
society by restricting the freedom of action of
the subject (population groups) to reduce the
conflict between rival factions
Example: Anti-Trust Legislation, Environmental
Protection

SELF-REGULATORYT
Policy cultivated and supported by interest
groups to promote and protect Reviews their
interests
Example: Licensed by the Association of
Professional Practice, Reviews such as IDI

 James Q. Wilson: Concentrated and diffused

cost & benefits
A criticism of Lowis typology of policies

It is difficult to assign policies to just one

category
Some policies have redistributive and
regulatory attributes, such as the regulation of
consumer product safety that redistributes the
responsibility for risk away from consumers
and to the companies that manufacture
products

 Wilsons cost-benefit policy typology

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Efficiency
Effectiveness
Equity
Equality
Public Participation
Freedom
Predictability
Procedural Fairness

1.

2.
3.

4.

EFFICIENCY that is about the extent to which

a public policy generates a large amount of
output for a small number of input
Efficiency = O / I = Benefits / Costs
EFFECTIVENESS is about how far a public
policy achieve the desired goal
EQUITY that is about the extent to which the
spread of benefits and costs among the
various groups, area / region in terms of the
proportion of the total population, needs,
etc.
EQUALITY is to what extent the spread of
benefits and costs among the various
groups and regions / territories so that each
share in the benefits and costs the same

5.

6.
7.

8.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION is the extent to

which the majority of people with an interest
to have an influence on the formulation and
implementation of public policy. Conversely,
to what extent the minority view was given
the opportunity affects the majority
FREEDOM how far the freedom to live and
strive guaranteed
PREDICTABILTY is the extent to which public
policies implemented in an objective and
interested members of the public can find
out in advance what the scope and direction
of the policy
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS that is the extent to
which people are affected by public policy
can defend himself from treatment as those
who do not need help. For example, the
case of welfare policy.

PARETO OPTIMALITY
Community prosperity increased if at least one person
grew prosperous (better off) with no cause other people
getting poorer (worse off).
KALDIR-HICKS CRITERION
Public welfare increases when people who benefit from
public policy / development (WHO gain) to help others
who are disadvantaged (who lose) so that no one else
even poorer if there are people who grow rich.

The Classical Hierarchical Model

MAX WEBER
Birokrasi yang ideal adalah yang sangat rasional,
wewenang dan struktur berdasarkan hukum,
dikendalikan dari atas oleh sekelompok kecil
pembuat keputusan kebijakan. Implementasi
kebijakan dilakukan oleh bawahan (subordinate
administrator).

WOODROW WILSON
Kebijakan publik dibuat oleh politikus. Administrasi
(publik) yang dikelola berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip
manajemen ilmiah bersifat netral dan profesional,
berfungsi sebagai implementor kebijakan.

1.

2.

3.
4.

Policy formulation and implementation of

policies is a separate and sequential
activities. Policy formulation and policy
implementation separately because of the
division of work
A. Policymakers are able to start the policy
processes because they can
agree on
priorities between
different objectives
B. Implementation is technical capacity,
compliance and willingness to
implement the policy
Decisions in policy implementation stage is
technical and non-political
The policy process is one way that is a top-

Policy Formulation: Politics

(Choose and Instruct)

Policy Implementation:
Administrative (Deliver)
POLICY OUTPUT
ASUMSI:
The ends or goals of administrative action were fixed by
statue or by directive of a responsible political official
The administrators discretion extended only to decision on

ENVIRONMENT I
Policy Formulation

ARENA AND ACTORS

Linkages ENVIRONMENT III

Policy Evaluation

ARENA AND ACTORS

Linkages

Linkages

ENVIRONMENT II
Policy Implementation

ARENA AND ACTORS

Public policy process is complex, the stages of formulation,

implementation, and evaluation of policies are mutually dependent
(interdependent)
Public policy process are not mutually exclusive, an actor (actor)
may be involved in the various stages of the policy
Each stage of policy has a different environment
Linkages
ENVIRONMENT I
Policy Formulation

ENVIRONMENT III
Policy Evaluation

ARENA AND ACTORS

ARENA AND ACTORS

Linkages

Linkages
ENVIRONMENT II
Policy Implementation

ARENA AND ACTORS

 Policy environment is considered the most formally

structured
Centered on the official policy decision-making
mechanism
Main actors are policy decision makers who occupy
important positions in the government which has the
authority in the prioritization and allocation of resources

Anggota DPR - Aktor/pelaku lain dari luar

Pejabat Tinggi
pemerintahan yang mewakili
Menteri - Special Interest
Kepala Daerah
- Other Constituency Groups,
Presiden
misalnya LSM

Programmed
Implementation

Adaptive
Implementation

The objectives to be
achieved are
formulated in detail

The objectives are

formulated in general

Lines of authority
and responsibilities
are clarified
Standardized
operational
procedures

All parties were given

the opportunity to
participate actively
Operational officials
were given
considerable
discretion

Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Reality Based
Time Bound

1.

2.

General Policy Goals

a) The Problem Area
b) The Priority Area
c) A Population to be benefited
General Means to Achieve Policy Goals
a) Suggested approach by which goals are to be
achieved
b) The key actors who will carry out the policy
c) Resources to be expanded in carrying out the
policy
d) Possibly, suggest some indicators for
measuring benefits

Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa pada tahap

implementasi kebijakan tekanan politik ternyata
sangat kuat, dinamis dan kompleks
Berbagai pelaku/aktor yang terlibat: Policy Makers
- Mass Media
Formal Implementers
- Interested Group
Lobbyists
- Evaluator
Penerima/sasaran kebijakan
Karena implementasi kebijakan biasanya tidak
dilakukan secara paksaan, maka para pelaku resmi
harus melakukan persuasi, negosiasi dan kompromi
dengan pelaku lain yang berkepentingan
struktur organisasi dan norma-norma birokrasi
berpengaruh terhadap implementasi kebijakan

Research findings showed that at the stage of policy

implementation there was very strong political pressure,
it was a dynamic and complex situation

Various actors involved:

Policy

Makers
Formal Implementers
Mass Media
Lobbyists
Receivers / policy target groups, and
Evaluators
Since the implementation of the policy is usually not done
in force, then the official must do persuasion, negotiation
and compromise with the other actors concerned
Organizational structure and bureaucratic norms can
influence policy implementation

The actors involved in formulating and implementing policies,

tend to look at the evaluation of the assumptions and
procedures angle with respect to the achievement of the main
goal.

POLICY MAKERS: tend to view evaluation in terms of the

interests of constituents, because their power depends on the
support of the people they represented. How to evaluate the
policy is through a survey of people's satisfaction.

POLICY IMPLEMENTERS: tend to view evaluation in terms of the

success of managing the program. Therefore there is a
tendency to dominate and influence the information given on
the policy decision makers. How they do it?
Select the data and information that supports the performance
Mobilize support for policies

Evaluation by a third party; namely by

professional evaluators, more emphasis on how
the evaluation is methodologically can be
justified (scientifically valid findings)
Policy Makers and or Implementers will receive
the results of the evaluation by professionals as
technical evaluator, if certain requirements are
met:
The purpose desired by policy makers have been
understood correctly by the technical
evaluators;
Achievement of objectives is measured
objectively
The evaluation report describes the relationship
between the results of the program objectives

In contrast, the technical evaluators can

only perform their duties, if:
Clear policy objectives
The purpose can be measured
Implementation is directed to achieve goals
Enough data necessary
Although the technical evaluation is
objective, the results have consequences
for policy evaluation and policy makers
Implementers.