54214516 policy evaluation
TRANSCRIPT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------What do you understand by policy evaluation? And to what extent are policies evaluated in most countries?
___________________________________________
Term paper presented toMr. E.C. Kujeke
Calvary University
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course of
Public Policy---------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Presented ByDavies Chiriwo536 Bath Road,
Greenhill,Bindura.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Due date25-07-2009
1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Master of
Business Leadership Degree---------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Contents page
Title page
1
Contents page
2
Introduction
3
Understanding policy evaluation
4
Extent of policy evaluation in most countries
6
Conclusion
10
2
References
12
Introduction
According to Dye (1987) public policy is whatever governments choose
to do or not to do. He goes on to state that these public policies
regulate conflict within society, organize society to carry on conflict
with other societies, distributes a variety of symbolic rewards and
material services to members of society and extract money from
society. Since these policies regulate society in all its engagements
with or within its boundaries, it is imperative for those governing these
societies to fully engage in ways that real bring out the best out for
3
their societies they represent by putting up the best monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms that can reveal inadequacies or strengths that
policies they put forward have on the lives of their electorate or
populace.
This allows for the evaluation of the impact of policy formulation
processes have on their ownership and outcomes. Thus this paper will
bring out what we mean by policy evaluation, the importance of policy
evaluation, what it involves, who the main players are in policy
evaluation as well as highlight to what extent policies are evaluated in
this country and the world at large.
Understanding by policy evaluation
4
According to Dye (1987: 351) policy evaluation refers to the’
assessment of the overall effectiveness of a national program in
meeting its objectives, or assessment of the relative effectiveness of
two or more programs in meeting common objectives.’ (Kapfunde
2004:173) views policy evaluation as the ‘systematic measurement of
performance in terms of specific policies, guidelines and procedures.’
Policy evaluation is an essential part of the policy processes which
largely looks at the effectiveness and efficacy of promulgated and
implemented policies in any system of governance or organisation.
Policies are enunciated usually to address certain pertinent issues that
relate to how a nation or organisation interacts with its environment.
Dye (1987) also envisages policy evaluation as the assessment of the
consequences of / or the impact of public policy on the real world
conditions which cover the following five aspects: impact on the target
situation or group; impact on situations or groups other than the
target; impact on future as well as immediate conditions; direct costs
in terms of resources dedicated to the program; and indirect costs,
including loss of opportunities to do other things. Policy evaluation is
conducted for checking the effects of the policies of respective
governance institutions in terms of necessity, efficiency, validity, etc.
to improve the planning and implementation process. The
development of effective institutions and tools for evaluation is
5
essential to adequately view the effectiveness of policies employed by
governments and organisations across the global divide.
Evaluation identifies the progress and gaps in development thus
influencing heavily on future policy formulation and implementation
strategies. It also identifies individuals, agencies and organizations
responsible for various activities and duties thus providing information
on how well institutions of governance across nations are meeting their
mandates or obligations. According to Kapfunde (2004) the objectives
of conducting policy evaluations are the following: to realise efficient
and high quality public administration focusing on the citizens; shift to
performance-based public administration from the viewpoint of the
citizens; and thorough accountability to the citizens. Reliable and valid
data and statistics are critical components of any monitoring and
evaluation system.
Evaluation at the national level, according to the Economic
Commission for Africa (2004) should consist of five fundamental things:
- Benchmark indicators;
- Systematic surveys;
- Impact analysis;
- Dissemination of results; and
- Identification of responsibilities.
6
A thorough approach would consist of developing a comprehensive
statistical structure with benchmark surveys; systems for data
collection through censuses and surveys; provisions for gender-
sensitive and disaggregated data on the basis of regional and
geographical differences, socio-economic groups and ethnic
disparities; timely and reliable means for updating the system
regularly; and systematic dissemination of information. Benchmark
surveys and indicators should be understood, developed and
interpreted with regard to local conditions. Data and indicators are
tools for making policy better; they are not an objective in themselves.
The accessibility, cost and reliability of data are central criteria in
selecting an indicator. Often, finding reliable and accessible data on
problems related to services from citizen is difficult if they are
excluded from the process, and other cost-effective methods to find
data that involve citizens should be considered (e.g., participatory
process).
Even though all elements of this thorough approach have not been
introduced in many countries Zimbabwe included, some countries such
as Lesotho, Malawi and Senegal have been able to evaluate its
capacity development policies in areas of poverty assessment and
monitoring through strengthening national statistical offices (Economic
Commission for Africa 2004). The system of policy evaluation entails
7
the measuring compliance of set targets which are inherent in the each
individual policy statements. These systems should also bear a high
level of congruency to the political, socio-economic situations on the
ground which has direct effect to the general populace within a
nation’s boundaries. The important measures of success or failure and
or effectiveness and efficacy of policy should be part of the policy
itself. Every policy statement should contain in it benchmarks or
targets it is supposed to address or correct stated unambiguously.
The evaluation of policy should be such that the greatest say emanates
from those constituencies that are constantly in touch with various
policies under scrutiny or categorically all policy that are employed as
part of their day-to-day governing machinery. This implies that the
monitoring and evaluation machinery should be largely decentralised
in order to get the correct sentiments and effects of issues or problems
policies purport to address. The evaluation of policy can largely be
viewed from a layman’s perspective if they address problems that the
common man can actually really see.
Extent of policy evaluation in most countries
(Hogwood and Gunn 1984: 220) states that,’ a precondition of
meaningful evaluation-and an essential element of successful
implementation-is that the activities involved in delivering the policy
8
should be specified and the outputs so far as possible identified.’ Dye
(1987) highlighted that policy evaluation has both symbolic and
tangible effects on the populace and that generally the symbolic
aspect which are predominantly people perception is mainly used to
judge government policy rather than the tangible which is the things or
actual impact on the ground. It is the mandate of national
governments to monitor and evaluate its policies in line with its set
targets or benchmarks; after impact analyses; systematic surveys;
dissemination of results; and identification of responsibilities.
Though the task of evaluation is supposedly a domain of national
governments, civil society plays an important role as they promote
democratic governance by providing government policy makers with
information on the needs and demands of citizens and directly
collaborating in the decision-making process for developmental
purposes. According to Dye (1987) policy evaluation can be carried out
through various formats which include among other ways the
following: hearings and discussions; site visits; program measures;
comparison with professional standards; and evaluation of citizen
complaints. Transparency and accountability require that results of
evaluations and impact analyses should be broadly disseminated,
debated and discussed to identify obstacles, learn lessons and create
conditions for future reform. At the same time, it is critical to identify
9
which duty holders have satisfied their obligations and which have not
and to suggest proper measures to rectify the situation. This curtails
the problem of government officials manipulating the evaluation
process to report favourably to their own advantage on the impact of
public policy, as is the case in most developing countries hence the
need to incorporate non-governmental agencies in the process.
Through community and grassroots organizations, civil society can
effectively communicate the needs of vulnerable groups that are often
voiceless and serve as a bridge between them and government
institutions. It is able to articulate, aggregate and represents specific
interests of the population, especially those traditionally excluded from
access to power and representation such as women, minorities and
indigenous peoples and serve as brokers with political parties and
state institutions. Through such activities, civil society can contribute
to making state policies more sensitive and responsive to the needs
and opinions of these groups hence they play a critical role in the
evaluation of policies.
The establishment of a development structure that integrates the
participation of civil society and government at local/village,
intermediate/commune and/or district, regional/province and national
levels within a single coherent framework is of paramount importance
10
in as far as policy evaluation is concerned. This integration can help
countries to capitalize, in policy terms, on experience gained at the
community level and to institutionalize grassroots participation in
policy evaluation. The above being an ideal case but most African
governments do not work hand in glove with Civil society hence policy
evaluation can be deemed as being just lip service as the vital
machinery is not available at the grassroots level were most activities
take place. Most African governance institutions have a tendency of
having the craft competency of promulgating policies that end up not
being evaluated but are immediately replaced by other beautifully
organised policies that do not bear any resemblance to the actual
problems or situations on the ground. This literary translates to the
fact that the methodologies for evaluations being used are out of touch
with reality and thus do not measure their intended variables
effectively and efficiently, as they should.
However, the evaluations done by most governments are desk based
and thus present fictious impressions of the prevailing conditions on
the ground. Whilst policy evaluation is an essential tool for good or
democratic governance, most governments in Africa leave this task to
non-governmental organisations or civic society. They are however
quick to point that these organisations have hidden political agendas
when reports generated by civic society organisation are published
11
highlighting shortcomings of some government policies leading to the
expulsion of these organisations from the so called ‘sovereign nations’
leaving a huge vacuum between governments and their citizens.
Conversely, exclusion of civil society contributes to inefficiencies and
failures and can negatively affect people’s livelihoods. Most
governments are aware that ‘in diverse dynamic and complex areas of
society activity, no single governing agency is able to realize legitimate
and effective governing by itself’, according to Gerry Stoker of the
University of Southampton, UK hence the need for the inclusion of
CSOs in policy formulation and governance issues. Civil society groups
usually champion the causes of vulnerable and marginalized groups
meaning that civil society involvement in policy-making and
subsequently its evaluation requires the creation and maintenance of
their constant links with governments and donors. Although distrust
between the two sectors can limit cooperation, experience indicates
that it is precisely when civil society organizations collaborate with
state institutions that they have more opportunities to strengthen and
improve state policy formulation and evaluation. The absence of these
linkages largely transform these countries into dormant volcanoes that
will later explode as time goes by as policies that will be implemented
by governments do not address the needs or aspirations of its
citizenry. In most developing countries, national monitoring and
12
evaluation is complicated by lack of available and reliable data and
limited expertise on human rights and the justice system; and the
continued twist of facts to tilt the beam of promoting the balance of
power towards certain political players at the expense of people’s
birthrights.
Countries need to pay particular attention to the generation of
indicators and data to measure the progress in people’s enjoyment of
their rights and access to justice, as well as governments’ commitment
and fulfillment of their human rights obligations. The sub-standard
capacity in national statistical offices which are suppose to gather data
which is used to carry out evaluation functions are due to absence of
human, technological and financial resources is common in most
developing countries. There is a dire need for the strengthening of
national statistical units and civil society organisations through better
mandates, improved human resources, technological and adequate
financial resources with more emphasis being placed on
methodologies, statistical techniques and instruments and setting up
of systems. What is critical for governments and all the stakeholders in
public policy is to develop a system that aligns the cost factor to the
benefits of any public policy pronouncements. This includes amongst
other measures according to Dye (1987) comparisons that real can be
attributable to the impact of certain policies pronouncements or vice
13
versa. There are research designs for policy evaluations such as the
before versus after comparison; projected trend line versus post
program comparisons; comparisons between jurisdictions with and
without programs; and comparison between control and experimental
groups before and after policy implementation (ibid: 357-9).
Conclusion
It can be seen that policy evaluation is major part of the policy process
in any country as this sheds the way forward for any policy formulation
process in any country. It is the mandate of national governments to
monitor and evaluate its policies in line with its set targets or
benchmarks; after impact analyses; systematic surveys; dissemination
of results; and identification of responsibilities but the role of other
stakeholders such as the UNDP, NGOs and other CSOs can never be
downplayed as most governments are now taking a back seat in as far
as social issues and social services are concerned.
According to Kapfunde (2004) the objectives of conducting policy
evaluations are the following: to realise efficient and high quality public
administration focusing on the citizens; shift to performance-based
public administration from the viewpoint of the citizens; and thorough
accountability to the citizens. Civil society groups usually champion the
causes of vulnerable and marginalized groups meaning that civil
14
society involvement in policy-making and subsequently its evaluation
requires the creation and maintenance of their constant links with
governments and donors. Although distrust between the two sectors
can limit cooperation, experience indicates that it is precisely when
civil society organizations collaborate with state institutions that they
have more opportunities to strengthen and improve state policy
formulation and evaluation.
In most developing countries, national monitoring and evaluation is
complicated by lack of available and reliable data and limited expertise
on human rights and the justice system; and the continued twist of
facts to tilt the beam of promoting the balance of power towards
certain political players at the expense of people’s birthrights. What is
critical for governments and all the stakeholders in public policy is to
develop a system that aligns the cost factor to the benefits of any
public policy pronouncements and these should be heavily aligned to
meeting the tangible needs of society rather than the symbolic ones,
however the plight of the generality of the populace should be at the
fore front rather than the needs of the elected political office bearers
as is the case in most post colonial African governments were the
liberties of the majority are sacrificed for the sole benefit of a couple of
individuals because of their political inclinations and not for the
15
delivery or compliance with the basic premises to the basic principles
of good governance issues.
References
Dye T.R.1987. Understanding Public Policy 6th Edition, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kapfunde C.L. 2004. Policy Analysis, Implementation and Evaluation
(Module DAE504), Harare: Zimbabwe Open University.
Hogwood B. W. and Gunn L.A. 1984. Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Economic Commission for Africa. 2004. Public Sector Management
Reforms in Africa: Lessons Learned, Addis Ababa: Development Policy
Management Division (DPMD).
Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. International
Social Science Journal 50 (155): 17–28.
16