Policy Formation: Focused Evidence-Based Review

The Nature of Policy and Policy Formation

The term policy has often lacked a definitive description that encompasses all that it stands for and its full nature. Authors have come up with varying descriptions depending on their subjects, interests, research, and interpretations. Kingdon (1993) suggests that every definition of the term policy has differing research needs in terms of extent and nature of research.

According to Ball (1993), one of the outstanding conceptual problems that exist in policy sociology and policy research is the failure of analysts to provide a definitive description of what they mean by policy. The meaning of policy has been taken for granted by analysts. It is not very hard to find cases where the word ‘policy’ has been used in describing different concepts at different points in the same study (Ball, 1993).

The definitions available usually do not get us any closer to identifying a policy. As a result, it is only fair to assume that the definitional problems of the concept of policy arise from the difficulty in treating it as a specific and concrete phenomenon. Hill (2009), therefore, advises that in the analysis of the policy process, it is essential to recognize that different actors will often use the term policy in different ways, usually with the goal of influencing how others view their actions.

However, some authors have managed to come up with consistent definitions of policy. According to Juma and Clark (1995), policy can be described as an interactive process. Hill (2009), while admitting that policy is easy to recognize but difficult to define, described policy as a rational; action of web of decisions.

Banks (2009) also provides an invaluable contribution to the definition and characteristics of policy by asserting that policy development that occurs in a fluid environment is commonly subjected to varying political interests and can also be easily driven by social pressure to act quickly and thus solve headline-grabbing problems.

Ball (1993) suggested two different conceptualizations of policy; “policy as text and policy as discourse,” in a bid to come up with a solution to inconsistencies in policy definitions. This was borne of the notion that it is misleading to make uninvestigated assumptions about policies as just ‘things’ yet they also involve outcomes and processes.

Under the concept of policy as a text, policy is seen as representations which are complexly encoded and decoded. A policy can be encoded through authoritative public interpretations, reinterpretations, compromises, and struggles. They can also be decoded through context, resources, skills, experiences, interpretations, and meanings relating to history. 

Additionally, under the concept of policy as a text, policy is always contested and in a constant state of change.

On the other hand, policy in discourse incorporates the concepts of social intentionality social agency. In this case, the actors involved make meaning, are influential, contest, construct responses, deal with contradictions, and attempt representations of policy.

However, as Ball (1993) notices, there is a shortcoming to this ideology. It concentrates on what is or what can be done thereby missing the big picture. That means policy as a discourse deals too much with what those who inhabit policy think about and neglects what they do not think about.

The Role of Theory and Evidence in Policy Formation

Theories are essentially plausible explanations for complex phenomena. They simplify our realities to a level that is easily comprehensible. Given the complexities involved in the definition and formation of policies, it is hard to isolate the process of policy formation from theories and evidence that support them.

Therefore, this suggests a close relationship between them. Theories on policy-making processes help in the description of how policies are formed and implemented. The theories make specific assumptions and focus on frameworks that are necessary for analysts to diagnose phenomena, explain their processes, and predict their outcomes (Kingdon, 2003). For instance, theories that inform the public policy formation process arise from within the general society. They are usually subject to legally instituted organizations such as government bodies, as well as the ideologies and system characterizing that specific society.

However, according to Kingdon (2003), theory can play both positive and negative roles in the formation of policies.  This suggests that each theory has its own benefits and limitations. Thus, the process of policy formation cannot be best described by just one theory.

A particularly insightful example involves the system transformation in South Africa post-1994. The system transformation was aimed at achieving growth, redistribution, reconstruction, nation-building, and reconciliation. The formation of policies and their translation into actionable programs to drive the objectives of the system transformation in South Africa was driven by a combination of underlying theories and beliefs.

Different theories and models have come up over time giving explanations for policy formation. One such theory is the technical or rational model of policymaking. This theory involves key steps, presented in a logical sequence, in policymaking. It assumes that individuals act in their own best interests (Hill, 2009).

According to Althaus et al. (2013), the formulation of policy according to the rational model of policymaking is approached through a means-end analysis. That is, the ends are first isolated, then the means to achieve them are sorted. Research can be incorporated to help identify problems and causes, provide ideas about options, and analyze the pros and cons of various options. However, as earlier stated, the rational model of policymaking has a limitation. It fails to take into account the role of emotion in policymaking (Freiberg & Carson, 2010). Other theories for policy formation include incrementalism and the multiple streams model.

So far the discussion has been centered on the role of theories. However, evidence plays an equally crucial role in the formation of policies. The firearms policy, illicit drug policy, and the crime prevention policy are some of the policies formulated on the basis of evidence and research.

According to Freiberg and Carson (2010), taking an evidence-based approach to policy development helps individuals to make well-informed decisions insofar as programs, policies, and projects are concerned. The same authors posit that this is facilitated by providing concrete research evidence from research studies focused on the development and implementation of policy.

High-quality research plays a crucial role especially in affecting the agenda of change in the area of health policy. For instance, research into the potential adverse effects of drugs such as alcohol and tobacco have led to the formulation of policies that inhibit the direct promotion of such products in both the broadcast and print media in many countries.

Based on these kinds of research, organizations campaigning for a change in health policies have risen. Research also plays a key role in assessing the effectiveness of particular policy approaches (Kingdon, 1993).

How Networks and Stakeholders Exert Power in the Policy Formation Process

The traditional framework for policy formation advocated for centralized and hierarchical processes. However, with time, greater demand for participation in the formation of policy has developed. Additionally, it cannot be clearly proved that the best way to manage technical and policy knowledge follows a hierarchical structure (Hazlehurst, 2001).

A number of bureaucratic structures are slowly fading away and adopting self-organizing networks as a means of keeping up with the complexities brought about by the reciprocal of interdependence.

According to Borzel (1998) and Klijn (1996), a policy network is a connotation that is made up of an established set of stable relationships that are non-hierarchical in nature. Additionally, the authors separately establish that the relationships are also interdependent and, therefore, link various actors that share similar views insofar as policy is concerned. Klijn (1996) further acknowledges that cooperation is key to achieving common goals and thus the exchange of various resources to pursue their shared interests is necessary.

Interdependency forms the core of a network since the actors in a network need each other’s resources to achieve their objectives. Consequently, a network acts as a solution to coordination problems that might arise in policy formation. Networks also incorporate knowledge and information into the policy formation process, as well as improve the problem-solving capacity.

The participation of a wider range of groups, organizations, and individuals provide a wider variety of values and interests to be considered while formulating policies, which is favorable from a democratic perspective.

Participation also has the added advantage of increasing the social acceptance of the policy, thereby simplifying the implementation process. According to Hill (2009), policy communities and networks make policy predictable by allowing us to observe patterns and coalesce interests.

Stakeholders also hold considerable interests and influence in policy information. They provide information with regards to policy and sometimes act as an oversight authority over the policy formation process. Stakeholders usually provide research data, advocacy statements, media statements, letters from constituents, and specialized newsletters.

Stakeholders are divided into the third sector, fourth estate, and the fifth estate. The third sector consists of non-governmental organizations, the civic society, voluntary sector, and community sector. These organizations are never part of the government but are formally organized as a consequence of a collective action that generates common value and benefit (Althaus, Bridgmna & Davis, 2013).

The third sector is usually involved in the delivery and making of policies.  The fourth estate comprises the media. According to Kingdon (2003), the media “act as communicators within a policy community.” The fifth estate consists of bloggers and social media. Their influence is similar to that of the media, especially with regards to obtaining the public opinion.

See an example of policy formation.

References

Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian policy handbook (5^th ed.). NSW. Allen and Unwin.

Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. The Australian Journal of Education Studies, 13(2), 10-17. doi: 10.1080/0159630930130203

Banks, G. (2009). Evidence-based policy making: What is it? How do we get it? ANU

Public Lecture Series, Productivity Commission, Canberra.

Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon‐On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration, 76(2), 253-273. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00100

Freiberg, A., & Carson, W. G. (2010). The limits to evidence‐based policy: Evidence, emotion and criminal justice. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(2), 152-164. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00674.x

Hazlehurst, D. (2001). Networks and policy making: from theory to practice in Australian social policy.

Hill, M. (2009). ‘Studying the policy process’, in The Public Policy Process, (5th ed.). London, UK. Taylor and Francis, pp. 3-22

Juma, C. & Clark, N. (1995) Policy research in sub-Saharan Africa: An exploration. Public Administration and Development,15(2), 121–137.

Kingdon, J. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. (2nd ed.) New York. Harper Collins.

Kingdon, T. (1993). The relevance of research to policy formulation: An Australian perspective. Addiction, 88(s1).

Klijn, E. (1996). Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks. Administration & Society, 28(1),90-119. doi: 10.1177/009539979602800104