Introduction

In every society, there must exist some problems. These problems could be in the areas of

politics, commerce, education, agriculture, communication, housing, transportation, health etc. In

order to solve these problems as they might exist at given points in time, government is always

seen formulating policies in response to them and in relation to the objectives of growth, national

development and wellbeing of the citizens. This is necessary because if attempts are not made to

address these problems as they arise, they may degenerate into uncontrollable stages with the

society‟s social-economic growth and development endangered.(Okoli & Onah, 2002).

Fundamentally, a public policy is a government action or proposed action directed at achieving

certain desired goals or objectives (Ikelegbe, 2006). In the light of a given societal problem,

public policy guides and determines present and future public decisions as well as private

individual or private business institutional actions, decisions or behavior. In essence, a public

policy determines the activities of government and given private institutions in relation to

providing services designed to solve a given problem. Ugwuanyi et al.,(2013).

Policymaking involves a combination of processes. Although not always clear-cut or easily

distinguishable, political scientists have identified these processes for purposes of analysis. They

include the following:

Identifying policy problems: Publicized demands for government action can lead to

identification of policy problems.

Formulating policy proposals: Policy proposals can be formulated through political channels

by policy-planning organizations, interest groups, government bureaucracies, state legislatures,

and the president and Congress/parliament.

Legitimizing public policy: Policy is legitimized as a result of the public statements or actions

of government officials, both elected and appointed in all branches and at all levels. This

includes executive orders, budgets, laws and appropriations, rules and regulations, and decisions

and interpretations that have the effect of setting policy directions.

Implementing public policy: Policy is implemented through the activities of public

bureaucracies and the expenditure of public funds.

Evaluating public policy: Policies are formally and informally evaluated by government

agencies, by outside consultants, by interest groups, by the mass media, and by the public.

Policy processes ideally involve different stages: agenda setting; formulation; implementation;

and evaluation. Although this stages or phases approach to policymaking has been criticized for

being too simplistic, insufficiently explicating that some phases may occur together, and not

saying much about why policy turns out as it does, it does provide a way to discuss many of the

ways policy is constructed, carried out, evaluated, and made again. All these activities include

both attempts at rational problem solving and political conflict.

Definition of a Policy

Policy is defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as a definite course or method of

action selected from among alternatives to guide and determine present and future decisions.

A policy is defined in the New Oxford Dictionary of English as: “a course or principle of action

adopted or proposed by a government, party, business or individual".

Other scholars define a policy as making decisions that reflect values and allocating resources

based on those values. Thus, policy represents a particular political, ethical, or programmatic

viewpoint. Governmental policy reflects theoretical or experiential assumptions about what is

required to resolve a particular issue or problem. It is the process by which governments translate

their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver 'outcomes' – desired change in the real world.

Policy can take a range of different forms, including non-intervention; regulation, for instance by

licensing; or the encouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; as well as direct

public service provision.

Definition of Public Policy

Fundamentally, a public policy is a government action or proposed action directed at achieving

certain desired goals or objectives (Ikelegbe, 2006). In the light of a given societal problem,

public policy guides and determines present and future public decisions as well as private

individual or private business institutional actions, decisions or behavior. In essence, a public

policy determines the activities of government and given private institutions in relation to

providing services designed to solve a given problem.

Many scholars have defined Public policy as whatever governments choose to do or not to do.

Public policy deciding at any time or place what objectives and substantive measures should be

chosen in order to deal with a particular problem.

Public policy is the strategic use of resources to alleviate national problems or governmental

concerns. Public policy is the public response to the interest in improving the human conditions.

In these definitions there is divergence between what governments decide to do and what they

actually do. Public policy is a guide which government has designed for direction and practice in

certain problem areas Nduka.E et al., (2010).

POLICY FORMULATION AND CHALLENGES

Policy-making is the process by which governments translate their political vision into

programmes and actions to deliver „outcomes‟ - desired change in the real world.

Two parts to policy formulation: Effective formulation (analytical phase) means that the policy

proposed is regarded as a valid, efficient, and implementable solution to the issue at hand.

Acceptable formulation (political phase) means that the proposed course of action is likely to be

authorized by the legitimate decision makers, usually through majority‐building in a bargaining

process. That is, it must be politically feasible.

The analytical and political aspects of policy formulation Involve:

First, effective policy alternatives, presumably based on sound analysis, must be

conceived and clearly articulated.

Second, a political choice among these alternatives must be made: The policy must be

authorized through a political process, such as legislation or regulation.

Both phases: analysis and authorization – make up policy formulation

Analysis + Authorization = Formulation

On Analysis – Professional policy analysts, use their skills and analytical tools to study

an issue and to devise policy alternatives to address the issue. They consider aspects such

as means, behaviour, cost, implementation strategy, and consequences

Elected or appointed officials, however, have the final choice among the alternatives

presented.

This brings judgment, wisdom, and accountability to policy formulation. They consider goals,

trade‐offs, value priorities, and weighing the overall effects of the policy which makes them

accountable to the people, under our representative form of government.

Steps in Policy Formulation and Implementation:

Deciding whether a new policy or reform is required, promote the new policy or reform an

existing one, make the process more participatory by engaging stakeholders, adopt the new

policy, (often merged with the actual implementation stage). Finally, the policy is implemented,

after implementation, policies must be monitored and evaluated and a strategy and an action plan

are also required for the policy implementation process.

Policy Circle

The Althaus, Bridgman & Davis model covers the following: issue identification, policy

analysis, policy instrument development, consultation (which permeates the entire process),

coordination, decision, implementation and evaluation.

Features of Policy Making

Nine Features of Modern Policy Making include: forward Looking, outward looking, innovative,

flexible and creative, evidence based, inclusive, joined up, reviewed (should be regularly),

evaluation and learns lessons and disseminates them (what worked & best practice).

Policy analysis

At this point, it may be said, more generally, that policy analysis is carried out before policy

formulation, since the analysis of the consequences of the various possible policies has to be

made in order to supply the necessary information to the decision-maker, so that he may select a

particular policy and, after policy formulation, when that policy is being translated into concrete

actions, i.e. in terms of plans, programmes and projects for implementation. In other words, it

shows the role of policy analysis in relation to policy formulation and policy implementation.

Policy analysis means making criticisms. Making criticisms means exposing the implicit values

that guide our research and recognizing that research which precludes implications for alternative

policy choices is not worth doing.

According to Nduka .E et al., (2010), Policy analysis is defined as simply put is the study of the

causes, processes, formulation, implementation and consequences of public policy. It involves

the description and explanation of particular policy choices and contents; determination of

strategies for optimal policy.-making, performance, implementation and impact of public

policies. It uses collected data to systematically explain, describe and prescribe policies with the

aid of certain social science methods, theories and approaches. However, almost all participants

in policy formulation have stakes in the configuration that policy takes.

Policy analysis as a technique puts data to use in, or deciding about, estimating and measuring

the consequences of public policy. Its purpose is twofold. It provides maximum information with

minimal cost about: The likely consequences of proposed policies and the actual consequences

of the policies already adopted.

Establishing the context: What is the underlying problem that must be dealt with? What

specific objectives are to be pursued in confronting this problem?

Laying out the alternatives: What are the alternative courses of action? What are the

possibilities for gathering further information?

Predicting the consequences: What are the consequences of each alternative action? What

techniques are relevant for predicting these consequences? If outcomes are uncertain, what is the

estimated likelihood of each?

Valuing the outcomes: By what criteria should we measure success in pursuing each objective?

Recognizing that inevitably some alternatives will be superior with respect to certain objectives

and inferior with respect to others, how should different combinations of valued objectives be

compared with one another?

Making a choice: Drawing all aspects of the analysis together, what is the preferred course of

action?"

Although Strokey & Leckhauser insisted that the five criteria areas must be considered, they did

not expect an analyst always to proceed from one stage of the analysis to the next, but to revise

the framework to suit his own operational style.

In establishing the context, it is essential to focus attention on policy areas where there is widely-

shared consensus and treat delicate issues cautiously. The problem areas in analysis may be

examined in terms of equity/ equality, efficiency and effectiveness in qualitative or quantitative

terms or according to the impact on the economy and so on. Once the analyst knows what the

problem is about, he will conceptualize it in order to eliminate courses of action that will be

costly, redundant and unfeasible, thus finding a way to seek the preferable choice and propose a

course of action. This proposed course of action should take into account the consequences as

well as the unexpected effects. The issue of making choices that favour the present at the

expense of the future is raised and an explanation of how to think about choices and how they

can be compared is presented.

CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED IN POLICY ANALYSIS

The world for which policies have to be developed is becoming increasingly complex, uncertain

and unpredictable. Citizens are better informed, have rising expectations and are making growing

demands for services tailored to their individual needs. Key policy issues, such as social need,

low educational achievement and poor health, are connected and cannot be tackled effectively by

departments or agencies acting individually.

In his analysis of the major constraints to African development, Balogun (1992) has pinned

institutional rigidity as another characteristic of policy management dispensation on the

continent. He lashes at African cultural values that have largely contributed to this rigidity. He

informs us that due to internal conflict, the African culture impedes any cooperative action in

political associations and in modern administrative agencies. So whose rigidity matters in any

given policy? And what mechanisms are in place to enforce cooperation in policy management

in developmental states? To enhance policy management capacity in Africa, Basheka et al

(2012) suggests the need to review of what he termed the critical skills in the policy process

among policy makers and implementers. Such skills entail leadership and motivation,

entrepreneurial skills and innovation, planning and forecasting, programming, sequencing,

precision-management/coordination, resource mobilization and optimization, information

storage, retrieval/scanning, utilization, human resource management, conflict resolution, and

crisis control. At a close range of analysis, these skills are crucial for addressing a number of

institutional and process constraints for effective policy management.

Most policies in in developing countries like Uganda are managed through a set of institutions;

defined as a set of informal and formal rules that structure interactions between organizations

and between individuals. The literature also suggests that a reality gap between ideas of the best

practice and the actual legal, administrative, political and economic processes that exist in low-

income and middle-income countries means that a „one size fits all‟ approach is likely to produce

perverse outcomes or what is called „fatal remedies‟ (Hood, 1998: 208). Politics has been

identified as a key issue to understand policy management. It has been observed by Goran Hyden

(2006) that in neo-patrimonial systems the president and other politicians at the top play a

significant role in policy implementation. He postulates that because African governments do not

control power, politics emerges as supreme and undermines other rational bases for policy

determination; subsequently, a policy deficit is caused. The transition from the movement type of

politics to competitive politics has further compounded this problem because the ruling regime

will ensure that there is total monopoly over state resources (Lindberg, 2003: 123) and this leads

those in power to become directly involved in policy management even where the work would

have been delegated to street level bureaucrats.

Another political dimension worth mentioning has been the issue of donors. In their policy

implementation model, Meter & Horn (1975) explain that several environmental factors can

influence the implementation process. They include the economic, social, and political

conditions prevailing at the time, as well as the nature of public opinion that exists in the

implementation environment. Yet these factors also have a cultural aspect. For instance, the

influence of donors often leads to failure. The World Bank for example has immense influence

due to its resource capacity and politics of residency, which makes it a willing and able lender.

Hence, it can impose its preferences on reforms (Harrison 2001:668-670; Polidano 2001) and

sometimes the imposed reforms may be inappropriate. Thus, high-level dependence on external

funding, which comes with conditionalities, may require new policies that may contradict

homegrown policy preferences. It remains to be seen if such external agencies have a sufficiently

clear vision of successful reforms. However, we can well ask, why do countries accept donor

influence (e.g., agree to implement a reform which the donor recommends), yet at the same time

suspect that a reform programme will fail? The answer to this has to do with resources: while

these countries need resources, civil servants know they can individually profiteer from them.

For example, donor money and jobs created in connection with a reform implementation process

can be awarded based on ethnicity and nepotism. Mwenda & Tangri (2005), confirm this

hypothesis by arguing that policies are at times accepted primarily for political survival, and

worse still, they have perpetuated neo-patrimonial networks that have a devastating effect on the

way policies are managed in Uganda and other developing countries.

Policy making does not take place in distinct stages

The „stages‟ of policy making do not just often overlap, they are often inseparable. In the real

world, policy problems and policy solutions frequently emerge together, rather than one after

another. In other words, plans may be present at the same time, or before, a need to act has been

identified. This can lead to poorly conceived policies if ministers present a fait accompli solution

that is flawed, or whose relationship to a policy problem is unclear – but will not hear it

challenged. The current policy process does not do enough to address these difficulties. Policy

makers agreed the solution was „directed exploration‟, where ministers are clear about their

goals, and then are prepared to engage in an honest, iterative discussion about how to achieve

them. However, such discussions are impeded by a lack of time, appropriate institutional

arrangements, and problems in ministerial-civil service relationships. We need better ways of

ensuring that the policy problem has been fully considered, and the option tested properly.

Hallsworth. M et al., (2011).

Unclear or Ambitious Policy Goals

It has been observed that most policies and plans are inefficient in learning from past

experiences. As a result they often devise ambitious targets which ultimately fall short of their

desired outcomes (Ahsan, 2003; The World Bank, 1999). One of the main reasons for such a

situation is the absence of reliable data for educational planning in Pakistan. It is very often the

case that even official documents carry discrepancies. Ahsan (2003) has shown that great

variation exists among many official and semi-official sources, including such basic educational

statistics as the percentage of literacy. Tsang (1988) strongly suggested that there is a dire need

in developing countries to strengthen the informational base to improve policy frameworks.

Political Commitment

The problem related to politics and politicians sits at the root of the problems of implementation

in Pakistan. Literature on implementation highlights the importance of political commitment by

leadership as critical to policy success (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983, pp. 158-59). Sri Lankan

reform experience suggests that successful implementation crucially depends on the consistent

support of top political and bureaucratic leadership (Cummings, Gunawardena, & Williams,

1992, pp. 15-16). Citing the example of civil service reform in Swaziland, McCourt (2003)

noticed that the lack of „political commitment‟ of government was the principal reason for failure

of reform programmes. In the case of Pakistan there have been many instances where

governments have failed to provide the political support needed for implementing and sustaining

policy initiatives. Each new government has discontinued most programmes of its predecessors

soon after assuming power, for example, a literacy project titled Nai Roshni (new light) was

launched in 1987 and was discontinued in 1989 with the change of government (Ahsan, 2003, p.

264). Other mass literacy programmes have also failed due to low political commitment both at

federal and local levels (Akhtar, 2004, p. 176).

Governance Structure

The issues of ineffective governance and corruption, particularly among politicians and civil

servants, have also been described as a major obstacle to proper policy implementation in

Pakistan (World Bank. Country Department I South Asia Region, 1997, p. 12). One of the major

reasons for the ineffectiveness of governance is lack of coordination and trust among political

representatives and government officials, and also the lack of cooperation among different

government departments (Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development &

Department for International Development, 2003, p. 5; The World Bank, 1999). In the case of

SAP, the lack of trust among finance and education departments has caused a shortage of

finances for the project, which has seriously affected the envisaged outcomes (World Bank.

Human Development Sector Unit, 2003, p. 16). This observation indicates towards the issues

that are related to the joint action of multiple actors, and its inherent problems. The Sri Lankan

experience suggests that a reform that involves fewer government agencies would experience

more cooperation, and stand a better chance of successful implementation (Cummings et al.,

1992, p. 16). The lack of cooperation among different organs of government and their mutual

disrespect create several „clearance points‟ that hamper the overall organization and

implementation of policy (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983).

Eventually due to distrust among different agencies and due to the tendency of civil services to

resist change, the policy is implemented only symbolically (Firestone & Corbett, 1988, p. 513).

Institutional challenges

In his analysis of the major constraints to African development, Balogun (1992) has pinned

institutional rigidity as another characteristic of policy management dispensation on the

continent. He lashes at African cultural values that have largely contributed to this rigidity. He

informs us that due to internal conflict, the African culture impedes any cooperative action in

political associations and in modern administrative agencies. So whose rigidity matters in any

given policy? And what mechanisms are in place to enforce cooperation in policy management

in developmental states? To enhance policy management capacity in Africa, the author suggests

the need to review of what he termed the critical skills in the policy process among policy

makers and implementers. Such skills entail leadership and motivation, entrepreneurial skills and

innovation, planning and forecasting, programming, sequencing, precision

management/coordination, resource mobilization and optimization, information storage,

retrieval/scanning, utilization, human resource management, conflict resolution, and crisis

control. At a close range of analysis, these skills are crucial for addressing a number of

institutional and process constraints for effective policy management.

Most policies in for example in Uganda are managed through a set of institutions; defined as a

set of informal and formal rules that structure interactions between organizations and between

individuals. The literature also suggests that a reality gap between ideas of the best practice and

the actual legal, administrative, political and economic processes that exist in low-income and

middle-income countries means that a „one size fits all‟ approach is likely to produce perverse

outcomes or what is called „fatal remedies‟ (Hood, 1998: 208). Politics has been identified as a

key issue to understand policy management. It has been observed by Hyden (2006) that in neo-

patrimonial systems the president and other politicians at the top play a significant role in policy

implementation. He postulates that because African governments do not control power, politics

emerges as supreme and undermines other rational bases for policy determination; subsequently,

a policy deficit is caused. The transition from the movement type of politics to competitive

politics has further compounded this problem because the ruling regime will ensure that there is

total monopoly over state resources (Lindberg, 2003: 123) and this leads those in power to

become directly involved in policy management even where the work would have been

delegated to street level bureaucrats.

Institutional constraint

Policy analysts also face the problem of institutional acceptance on policy outcomes.

Institutional characteristics limit what can or will be done. Specifically, an agency accustomed to

doing things in a particular way cannot innovate very often. Rather, it looks for an effort to

integrate new demands into existing patterns of doing business.

Donors Dependence.

In their policy implementation model, Meter and Horn (1975) explain that several environmental

factors can influence the implementation process. They include the economic, social, and

political conditions prevailing at the time, as well as the nature of public opinion that exists in the

implementation environment. Yet these factors also have a cultural aspect. For instance, the

influence of donors often leads to failure. The World Bank for example has immense influence

due to its resource capacity and politics of residency, which makes it a willing and able lender.

Hence, it can impose its preferences on reforms (Harrison 2001:668-670; Polidano 2001) and

sometimes the imposed reforms may be inappropriate. Thus, high-level dependence on external

funding, which comes with conditionalities, may require new policies that may contradict

homegrown policy preferences. It remains to be seen if such external agencies have a sufficiently

clear vision of successful reforms. However, we can well ask, why do countries accept donor

influence (e.g., agree to implement a reform which the donor recommends), yet at the same time

suspect that a reform programme will fail? The answer to this has to do with resources: while

these countries need resources, civil servants know they can individually profiteer from them.

For example, donor money and jobs created in connection with a reform implementation process

can be awarded based on ethnicity and nepotism. Mwenda & Tangri (2005), confirm this

hypothesis by arguing that policies are at times accepted primarily for political survival, and

worse still, they have perpetuated neo-patrimonial networks that have a devastating effect on the

way policies are managed in Uganda, Kenya and other developing countries.

Constraints of politics

The activities of political leaders constrain policy analysis. Policy ideas are dropped because

elected politicians and other appointees oppose them. The reaction of Senators, House of

Representatives, the President and Presidential Advisers are anticipated as proposals are debated.

Many ideas are discarded because specialists cannot conceive of any plausible circumstances

which they could be approved by elected politicians and their appointees. Policy analysis suffers

these political constraints when policy issues are being analyzed.

Budgetary constraint

Budgetary constraints also affect policy analysis. Expectations may always outpace the

capabilities of government. Before any proposals is accepted and approved, decision-makers

need to be convinced that it has the resource to do them. As observed by Kingdom (1984:145-6),

“decision-maker need to be convinced that the budgetary cost of the programme is acceptable;

that there is a reasonable chance that politicians will approve; that the public in its various facets

both mass and activists will acquiesce”. There must, therefore, be sufficient fund to meet policy

expectations, failure which policy analysis suffers.

Values

Though, objectivity is relative as many analysts believe that policy analysis is not value-free

since value judgment also influences how they record or present information. Nonetheless,

policy analysts are more objective than programme administrators as analysts often recommend

alternatives, review consequences before arriving at policy conclusion, whereas the bureaucrats

are national maximizers of self-interests (Down, 1967, Niskanen, 1971). In relative terms, policy

analysts are more objective where there is no conflict of interests. Policy analysis cannot provide

solutions to problems when there is no general consensus on what the problems are. It is

incapable of resolving societal value conflicts. At best, it can offer advice on how to accomplish

a certain set of end values. It cannot determine what those end values should be. Furthermore,

social science research cannot be value-free. Besides, it is difficult for the government to cure all

or even most of the maladies of the society. They are constrained by certain values in the society,

such as: religious beliefs, diversity in culture and languages. These cannot easily be managed by

the government.

Anticipation of acquiescence by society

Anticipation of acquiescence within a community is another constraint to policy analysis.

Specialists in policy community know that ultimately their proposals must be acceptable to the

public reaction as they design their proposals. The public possible negative reaction to policy

proposals acts as a constraint to policy analysis.

Multiple causes of a problem

There are also certain societal problems which may have multiple causes and a specific policy

may not be able to eradicate the problem. There are policies that solve the problems of one group

in society which create problems for other groups. In a plural society one person‟s solution may

be another person‟s problem. This is a constraint to many policy proposals and such policy

analysis proposal to solve such societal problem becomes an uphill task.

Costly solutions

Policy analysis also faces the constraint of solutions to some problem being more costly. For

instance, certain levels of public disorder including riots, civil disturbances and occasional

violence cannot be eradicated without the adoption of very regressive policies which would

prove too costly to democratic values, freedom of speech and press; rights of assembly; freedom

to form opposition parties. Thus, a certain level of disorder may be the price to pay for

democracy. All these act as constraints to policy analysis.

Uncertainty

As future is always uncertain, it is questionable whether policy analysis can find solutions to the

problems regarding the future of society. Poverty, unemployment, inequality, and environmental

pollution are some of the major problems in the society. Of course, this is an excuse for failing to

strive for a better society. It must be realized that solutions to these problems may be difficult to

find. There are several reasons for tempering our enthusiasm for policy analysis.

Lack of communication

It has been observed that policy analyses are gathering dust because they are either too long or

too hard to understand. A policy analysis is of no use if it cannot be communicated to others. Too

often, the policy analysis deals with subjective topics and must rely upon the interpretation of

results. Professional researchers often interpret the results of their analyses differently.

Obviously, quite different policy recommendations can come out from these alternative

interpretations of the results of research.

Policies need to be designed, not just conceived

Current processes greatly underestimate the value of policy design. A greater emphasis on policy

design helps to ensure that the planned actions represent a realistic and viable means of

achieving the policy goals. In business, there is a quality control phase where new products are

prototyped and stress-tested, before being trailed and finally going to market.

While such testing does happen for some public sector policies, it should be much more

extensive and rigorous: the policy process still does not provide enough support to make it

happen systematically. Nevertheless, the complexity of modern governance means it is unlikely

that policies can be designed perfectly, so that nothing will go wrong or need to be revised.

Therefore, the people implementing a policy need the capacity and opportunity to adapt it to

local or changing circumstances.

Policy making is often determined by events

Policy making does not take place in a vacuum, where the government is in total control of its

agenda. The result can be sharp discontinuities and apparently illogical decisions, as the

government‟s coherent position can get overwhelmed by events. But not all events are the result

of the external world affecting policy makers; some are „self-generated‟. Many of our

interviewees made it clear that the desire to capture the news agenda, generate headlines, or be

seen to be acting, could lead to over-hasty announcements.

The effects of policies are often indirect, diffuse, and take time to appear

Current guidance presents policies as discrete interventions to tackle specific problems, whose

effects can then be reliably measured and evaluated. But there is plenty of evidence that the

effects of these interventions may be complex, wide-ranging and unintended. Given the

complexity of the problems with which government deals, it may be unlikely that a policy will

produce effects that are both measurable and attributable. Indeed, it may actually be unhelpful to

think of policies as discrete interventions that can achieve a particular goal on their own. Policy

may be the cumulative impact of many different initiatives in a particular area, or it may be about

managing a wider system. Unless the policy process is set up to capture those impacts and be

sensitive to other, interlinked policies, the real impact of a policy cannot be properly understood.

The more one delves into the reality of policy making, the more that policy cycles and their like

resemble a comforting narrative that imposes specious order on a complex reality. Maintaining

this narrative often means that, in practice, policy makers often have to fall back on their native

wits. This is why many interviewees voiced concerns about the ad hoc nature of policy making:

there is not so much a lack of recommended processes, just a lack of realistic ones.

POLICY FORMULATION AND CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED

There are two key stages to the policy formulation process: determining the policy options and

then selecting the preferred option (see Young & Quinn, 2002: 13-14).

For both stages, policymakers should ideally ensure that their understanding of the specific

situation and the different options is as detailed and comprehensive as possible; only then can

they make informed decisions about which policy to go ahead and implement. This includes the

instrumental links between an activity and an outcome as well as the expected cost and impact of

an intervention. The quantity and credibility of the evidence is important.

At this stage, the public administration concerned examines the various policy options it

considers to be possible solutions. It should be noted that coalitions of actors strive, through the

use of advocacy strategies, to gain priority for one specific interpretation of both the problem and

its solution. It is at this stage that power relationships crystallize, determining the direction a

policy will take.

This stage is the most crucial one after policy formulation is its implementation. It is, perhaps,

for its importance that some scholars refer to the policy implementation stage as the hub of

policy process. Fundamentally, policy implementation is the process of translating a policy into

actions and presumptions into results through various projects and programmes (Okoli and Onah,

2003; Ikelegbe, 2006). Kraft & Furlong (2007) and Ajaegbu & Eze (2010) state that policy

implementation actually refers to the process and activities involved in the application,

effectuation and administration of a policy. A variety of activities are involved in policy

implementation that may include issuing and enforcing directives, disbursing funds, signing

contracts, collecting data and analyzing problems, hiring and assigning personnel, setting

committees and commissions, assigning duties and responsibilities and also making interim

decisions etc. (Nweke, 2006).

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

It is difficult to create a conceptual distinction between policy formulation and policy

implementation (Dinica, 2004). This is because policy formulation basically takes place

throughout the entire policy process. What is needed is a way of combining the analytical

benefits offered by the „stages‟ model with the recognition of the interaction between the stages.

(Hill & Hupe, 2003). Use the term „policy‐making‟ for the entire process, „policy formation‟ for

the initial part of policy‐making, Policy implementation‟ for the latter part of the policy‐making

process.

Fundamentally and according to Hornby (2010), the word effective refers to producing the

results that is wanted or intended or producing a successful result. In the context of this work,

effective policy implementation, therefore, entails implementing a policy in such a way as to

produce, attain or realize the goals and objectives of the policy. In essence, if a policy is

effectively implemented, the designed and planned development goals and objectives are

realized. The basic end or focus of the bureaucratic activities should then be on how best to

effectively implement policies.

According to Sajid Ali (2006), states that policy implementation is generally held to be the step

that follows policy formulation and is viewed as „the process of carrying out a basic policy

decision‟ (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983). Bhola (2004) suggests that policy implementation is a

process „to actualize, apply and utilize it [policy] in the world of practice‟.

At this stage, the policy‟s implementation parameters are established, which can directly affect

the eventual outcome of the policy. Several factors combine to determine the actual effects of a

policy and how well it achieves its objectives. Factors noted by Sabatier and Mazmanian include:

the type and complexity of the problem addressed, the magnitude of the expected change and the

groups targeted by the policy, the human and financial resources devoted to implementation, and

the administrative structures and regulations that will be put in place to support implementation

of the policy (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1995).

Note that high demands are placed on the technical-administrative apparatus at this stage, and on

groups associated with this policy sector. The term policy network is often used to refer to the

actors within the government, as well as the stakeholders associated with a policy sector, who are

in sense experts in the area. This policy network will have a major influence on how the policy is

implemented.

Policy implementation includes all the activities that result from the official adoption of a policy.

Policy implementation is what happens after a law is passed. We should never assume that the

passage of a law is the end of the policymaking process. Sometimes laws are passed and nothing

happens. Sometimes laws are passed and executive agencies, presuming to act under these laws,

do a great deal more than Congress ever intended. Political scientist Robert Lineberry writes:

“The implementation process is not the end of policy-making, but a continuation of policy-

making by other means. When policy is pronounced, the implementation process begins. What

happens in it may, over the long run, have more impact on the ultimate distribution of policy

than the intentions of the policy‟s framers”.

Traditionally, public policy implementation was the subject matter of public administration. The

separation of “politics” from “administration” was once thought to be the cornerstone of a

scientific approach to administration. But today it is clear that politics and administration cannot

be separated. Opponents of policies do not end their opposition after a law is passed. They

continue their opposition in the implementation phase of the policy process by opposing attempts

to organize, fund, staff, regulate, direct, and coordinate the program. If opponents are

unsuccessful in delaying or halting programs in implementation, they may seek to delay or halt

them in endless court battles (school desegregation and abortion policy are certainly cases in

point). In short, conflict is a continuing activity in policy implementation.

CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

The pattern and nature of policy implementation is the major explanation for the failure or

success of any given policy. In this vein, Nwankwo & Apeh (2008) observe that the

implementation of a policy is the most vital phase in the policy process as it is at this stage that

the success or failure of a policy is determined. Ikelegbe (2006) and Nweke (2006), in this

respect too, note that many policy failures result from ineffective implementation.

The public bureaucracy plays through the effective implementation of government policies,

projects and programmes aimed at achieving development goals and objectives. Most often in

many developing countries, however, policies are well and brilliantly formulated but

ineffectively implemented by the bureaucracy as cited in Nigeria (Obodoechi, 2009; Ikelegbe,

2006). This leads to the failure of public policies to achieve their target goals and objectives and

to ultimately alleviate the problems for which they were designed. Indeed, there are usually wide

gaps between formulated policy goals and the achievement of those goals as a result of

ineffective implementation in almost all facets of public administration (Ozor, 2004; Mankinde,

2005).

The ineffective and corrupt political leadership contribute to poor policy implementation in

developing countries. The leadership corruption, and ineptitude, for instance, affects the content

and quality of policy at formulation stage. For instance, policies are, more often than not, made

for purposes of the selfish and egoistic interest of the political leaders and sometimes only to

attract public acclaim and attention with less regard to their appropriateness in addressing given

problems or the possibility of their effective practical implementation by the public bureaucracy.

It is perhaps for this, that Okoli & Onah (2002) state that implementation of policies in Nigeria

and other developing countries take the form of “learning process” or “trial and error”. In this

context, policies or programmes are haphazardly implemented and even sometimes abandoned or

dismantled midway because the basis for formulating the policy was not, in the first instance,

predicated on existing data, realities or need.

Another factor that constitutes obstacles for the bureaucracy in effectively implementing policies

is the over ambitions nature of some public policies. Some policies actually tend to be over

ambitions, sweeping and overly fundamental in nature (Mankinde, 2005). In most cases, the

formulation of such over ambitions policies is not even borne out of genuine or sincere effort to

bring about rapid and radical development but just to boast the ego of the political leaders. An

example of such policies is policies having as their basic objectives the provision of free

education or free health services to all the citizens or the total eradication of poverty amongst the

citizens. For such policies, there are usually inadequate resources (men and materials) for the

public bureaucracy to effectively implement them.

Another critical factor inhibiting effective implementation of policies is that some agencies or

institutions saddled with the responsibility of implementing given policies do not possess the

requisite manpower and financial resources to effectively implement them. On the issue of

inadequate resources, for instance, Governments in developing countries, sometimes, do not

budget adequately to enable the public bureaucracy properly implement formulated policies

(Ikelegbe, 2006; Dick, 2003). Indeed, to effectively implement policies, the implementing

agency needs resources in adequate and timely manner and such not being the case in Nigeria

explains, in part, the failure of certain public policies to achieve desirable ends, (Nweke, 2006;

Ikelegbe, 1996). Sometimes, though, government gives out sufficient fund but the corrupt

activities within the public bureaucratic organizations do not allow for its judicious use to

effectively execute policy programs. In any case, insufficient financial resources have resulted to

situations where laws could not be enforced, services were not provided and reasonable

regulation not developed and applied.

On the issue of inadequate human resources, the public bureaucracy do not, indeed, have

adequate staff in terms of overall numbers and more importantly in terms of specific areas of

professional, technical or managerial competence and expertise (Aluko & Adesopo; 2002). This

is counterproductive as the capabilities of government bureaucracy in terms of expertise and skill

determine, to a large extent, policy implementation success or failure (Ikelegbe, 1996). Where

abilities exist, policies could be confidently formulated with reasonable assurance of their

effective implementation. Indeed, as Nnamdi (2001) notes, development policies has, in

contemporary times, assumed complex and sophisticated dimension that require highly skilled

and experienced bureaucrats for their effective implementation.

Again, the challenge of keeping away personal interest, prejudice and the influence of primordial

values in the conduct of official business by bureaucrats is equally very critical in developing

countries. Usually, if the bureaucrats are not favourably disposed towards a policy, they may not

approach its implementation with the enthusiasm and zeal that it effectively implementation may

require. Makinde (2005), in this respect, contends that the zeal with which bureaucrats

implement policy depends on how they see the policy as effecting their personal, ethnic and

organizational interest and aspirations. Positive effects will induce enthusiastic implementation

while the contrary may mean that implementation may be resisted, thwarted and even sabotaged

(Ikelegbe, 2006). The ultimate result of this is ineffective implementation of policies that makes

the realization of their goals and objectives difficult.

Another constraining factor to effective policy implementation in developing countries is undue

pervasive political influence on the public bureaucracy (Amucheazi 1980; Aneze) (in Timi and

Tola, 1986). Usually, the political leaders formulate policies and as well control and direct the

implementation activities of the policy. This situation is not proper as such control and directive

are mostly motivated by selfish personal or political interests. Indeed, the bureaucracy cannot

effectively implement policies and meaningfully contribute to national development if it is

fettered, controlled and directed by political authorities. This is more so as in extreme cases of

such political control, the bureaucrats are not even allowed to take decisions or actions on basic

routine administrative matters without consultation and the consent of relevant political

authorities. In this process, much time and energy is wasted and prompt actions required for

effective implementation of policies hampered. Given this, therefore, one can posit that the

extent to which politics influence the bureaucratic activities will continue to determine and shape

the extent to which policies can be properly and effectively implemented by the public

bureaucracy in many developing countries. Very worrisome is the fact that the political influence

or hold on the public bureaucracy is becoming tighter as promotion to the headship positions in

some public bureaucratic organization is based on political patronage or loyalty and not on the

basis of relevant or cognate experience and seniority. Bureaucrats promoted under such

circumstance will be more morally bound to subject their official decisions and actions,

substantially, to the wishes, preferences, control and endorsement of their political masters.

Finally, abrogation of a policy effects their implementation by the public bureaucracy in

Developing countries. It is observable that each new political in many developing countries in

Africa is usually and primarily concerned with making its own impression on public programmes

and projects. For this, certain policies or programmes which are already being effectively

implemented are shelved by the succeeding administration (Nnamdi, 2001). Presidents,

Ministers, Governors, Local Government Chairmen and heads of institutions (both bureaucratic

and political heads) exhibit the tendency to link their administration with distinct social and

economic policies or programmes. Consequently, the policies of preceding administrations are

rarely pursued by succeeding ones and such personalistic styles of administration help to explain

why so little attention is paid to the issue of maintenance of projects or programmes created or

initiated by preceding regimes. Indeed, succeeding regimes conceive the maintenance of existing

programmes as not politically expedient as it does not bring direct personal glory or credit.

CONCLUSION

Public policy analysis faces various problems, such as: politics, budget, institution, values and

expectation of members of the society. In spite of the constraints, it seems safe to say that social

scientists can at least attempt to measure the impact of present and past public policies and make

this knowledge available to policy-makers. Reason, knowledge and scientific analysis are always

better than the absence of any knowledge. Lineberry (1977:135) notes that “policy analysis rests

on the assumption that information is better than no information, and that right questions are

better than no questions asked, even when the answers may not be definitive”.

Policy analysis may not provide solutions to society‟s ills, but it is still an appropriate tool in

approaching policy questions. Policy analysis enables us to describe and explain the causes and

consequences of public policy. Policy analysis is applied to inform the policy-maker about the

likely future consequences of choosing various alternatives. Policy analysis guides decision-

makers in making optimum choices and outcomes among discrete alternatives.

REFERENCES

Abah, N.C. (2010) Development Administration: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach Enugu:

John Jacob Classic Publishers Ltd.

Abdulsalemi, A. (1990). “Public Policy: Concepts, Approaches and Processes”. In Obasi,

I.N. and Yakub, N.O. (1998)(ed). Local Government Policy Making and Execution in Nigeria

Ibadan: University Press Plc.

Adamolekun, L. (1983). Public Administration: A Nigerian and Comparative

Perspectives New York: Longman Inc.

Adebayo, A. (2000) (2nd Edition) Principles and Practice of Public Administration in

Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Book Ltd.

Ajaegbu, F.O. and Eze, E. (2010) Public Policy Making and Analysis Enug: Spring Time

Press.

Aluko, M.A and Adesopo, A. A. (2002). “An Appraisal of the Two Faces of Bureaucracy

in Relation to the Nigerian Society” Journal of Social Sciences,, 8(1) 12 – 21.

Amucheazi, E.C. (ed) (1980). Readings in Social Sciences: Issues in National

Development Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.

Aneze, L (1986). “Bureaucracy and Modernization” in Social Change in Nigeria. Simi, A

And Tola, P. (eds) (1986) Social change in Nigeria England: Longman Group Ltd.

Anikeze, N. (2011) Fundamental issues in Nigeria Politics, Government and

Development Administration. Enugu: Academic Publishers Company.

Dick I, (2003) Contemporary Public Administration: The Nigerian Perspective. Enugu:

John Jacob Classic Publishers.

Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Egeran, T. (2011) “The Development State in Africa: Interrogating the Nigerian Status”

Nigerian Journal of Administrative Science. Vol. 9 Nos 1 and 2 Pp. 314 – 334.

Egonmwan, J. (1984). Public Policy Analysis: Concepts and Applications: Benin City:

S.M.O. Aka and Brothers Press.

Eneanya, A.N. (2010). Policy Research, Analysis and Effective Policy- Making in

Nigeria. Lagos: Concept Publications Ltd.

Ezeani, E. O. (2006). Fundamentals of Public Administration. Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd.

Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods / edited by Frank

Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney.

Heady, F. (1992). Encyclopedia of Government and Politics London: Routlege.

Hornby, A.S (2010) Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. London:

University Press.

Ikelegbe, A. (2006) Public Policy Analysis: Concepts, Issues and Cases. Lagos: Imprint

Services.

Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. USA: HarperCollins

Publishers.

Kraft, M and Furlong, S. (ed) (2007) Public Policy: Politics and Analysis. Washington:

C.Q Press.

Lasswell, H. and Deiner, D. eds. (1951). The Policy Sciences. Standford: University

Press.

Lineberry, R.L. (1977). American Public Policy: What Government Does and What

Differences it Makes. New York: Harper & Row.

Makinde, T. (2005) “Problems of Policy Implementation in Developing Nations” Journal

of Social Sciences, 11(1) Pp 63 – 69.

Niskanen, W.A. Jr. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York:

Aldinel/Atherton.

Nnamdi, H. (2001) Comparative Public Administration. Benin City: Trust Publications.

Nwankwo, B. and Apeh, (2008) Development Administration: Principles and Practice.

Enugu: Zik Chuks Publishers.

Nweke, E. (2006) Public Policy Analysis: A Strategic Approach. Enugu: John Jacobs

Publishers.

Nutley, S. (2003) „Bridging the Policy/Research Divide: Reflections and Lessons from

the UK‟, Keynote Paper at National Institute of Governance Conference „Facing the Future:

Engaging stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy‟, Canberra, Australia 23–4 April.

Obodoechi, O. (2009) Community Development. Enugu: Computer Edge Publishers.

Okafor, (2005). “Public Bureaucracy and Development in Nigeria: A Critical Overview

of Impediments to Public Service Delivery”. CODESRIA Bulletin. Nos. 3 and 4.

Okeke, M. (2001). Theory and Practice of Public Policy Analysis. Enugu: Bismark

Publishers.

Okoli, F.C. and Onah, F.O (2002) Public Administration in Nigeria: Nature, Principles

and Applications. Enugu: John Jacobs Classic Publishers.

Olaniyi, J. (1998). Foundations of Public Policy Analysis. Ibadan: University Publishers

Ltd.

Olarewaju, O, et al (2004) “Evaluation of Programmes and Policies for Supporting Small

Scale Enterprises in Nigeria” Ibadan: Publication of the Development Policy Centre Ibadan.

Onah, R.C. (2005) Public Administration. Nsukka: Great AP Publishers.

Ozor, E. (2004) Public Enterprises in Nigeria: A study in Public Policy Making in

Changing Political Economy. Ibadan: University Press Plc.

Policy sciences--Handbooks, manuals, etc. Public administration--Handbooks, Manuals,

Fischer, Frank, (1942)- II. Miller, Gerald. III. Sidney, Mara S., 1964- IV. Title. V. Series.

H97.H3583 2007 352.3‟4--dc22

Policy hub website: Impact Assessment and Appraisal:

www.policyhub.gov.uk/better_policy_making/

Policy hub: www.policyhub.gov.uk/evaluating_policy

Sophie Sutcliffe and Julius Court (2006), A Toolkit for Progressive Policymakers in

Developing Countries, Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London

SE1 7JD Email: publications@odi.org.uk

Ugo, S. & Ukpere, W, (2011) “Public Policy: Myths and Realities in the Nigerian

Nationhood since Independence” African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5(23