The second stage is the formulation stage. This is where the policy makers decide how they are going to attempt to solve the problem identified in stage one. Obviously the policy maker might get it wrong at this stage, by choosing the wrong approach. All policies have their critics, as different people, parties and organisations have their own different theories on how to solve a problem. Over the past fifty years this can best be illustrated by examining economic policy. The two main strands of economic theory have become the monetarist approach, as adopted by Thatcher and Reagan, And the Keynesian approach, adapted from the theories of John M Keynes. Both attempt to solve the same economic problems, but in different ways. Unfortunately both have successes and failures and can cause their own problems to the policy process.
Policy success does require that is formulated upon a valid theory of cause and effect. Often it is based on inadequate understanding of the problem, which can lead to reasoning of its effects, which are very different from the eventual actualality. If policy does fail it might be this underlying theory that is at fault.
In the formulation stage the policy maker must face other problems that will restrict his power on the choices open to him, like limitations of resources, or maintaining adequate support. Governments may therefore chose not to be clear on policy objectives, but this in itself is a limitation, "as a result governments create and become limited by unclear policies."*
The third stage, that of implementation, can also contribute to policy failure. This stage is obviously concerned with implementing the policy, putting the ideas of stage two into action. It may not seem clear how this stage can contribute to the problems as it is only carrying out what has already been decided, but this is not the case. Political analysts started to look at this stage more carefully after many polices introduced by liberal governments in the 1960s, "had in practice brought about relatively little by the way of fundamental or lasting change."* This was illustrated clearly by the failure of Labour's polices of reform.
To identify the problems caused by implementation first the difference between non implementation and unsuccessful implementation has to be acknowledged. Unsuccessful implementation is where the failure is in the policy, or the theory it is based upon. Non implementation is when a policy is not put into effect as it was intended. It could be that those involved in its execution are unco-operative or inefficient, "Government influence on the interpretation and application of laws, rules and guidelines was seen to be diluted by the delegation of wide discretion to those actually carrying out the policies."* The government may leave it to the discretion of agencies, Civil Service departments or local government.
Different implementing agencies may depend on other agencies for success. Chance of success would be greater the smaller the number of relationships between agencies and the smaller their importance. The more they depend on others the more inefficient they will become. Earlier the problem of unclear objectives was noted. There is a need during the implementing stage for an understanding and agreement on clear objectives, that persist throughout the stage, for it to be successful.
'Perfect implementation' is only an ideal type. Administrators can face many obstacles outside their control, as they are external to the policy or the implementation process. Sometimes these can be put down to bad luck, like physical obstructions such as drought upsetting an agricultural programme. Sometimes it may be political obstacles that get in the way, as with the public condemnation of the Poll Tax, leading to reforms in the policy cycle.
Charles Lindblom suggested that western democracies have structures that puts limitations on their ability to solve problems effectively*. He puts emphasize on the veto powers found throughout the process, like those held by civil servants, trade unionists and party activists. Their opposition can stop the formulated policy being implemented. This has been seen recently, with Tory backbenchers threatening over European policies and defeating the further increases on V.A.T. on fuel bills.
"If we lived in a world of complete certainty and perfect administration there would be no need for evaluation."* As we have seen we cannot be certain of the results policies will bring, or of the efficiency and success of implementing them. Therefore there is a need for evaluation in the policy process. Thus the fourth stage is the evaluation stage.This is required as our understanding of social issues and the effect of government intervention is imperfect. It must be decided whether the policy the objectives it was designed for. Even when a policy has enjoyed some level of success it is unlikely that it will be a once and for all act, as maintaining this level of improvement, or raising objectives, is more likely to lead to a continuation or modification of the existing policy.
Success itself has to be evaluated, A policy to cut unemployment may well do so but at the cost of rising inflation. Therefore the costs and benefits need to be examined in every case. Side effects, like inflation, must be taken into account. Governments can be seen to create their own problems which then require new public policy to deal with them. Another, more difficult, area of evaluation, is to look at where the policy went wrong. If the fault is in the theory behind the policy, the government may well be reluctant to admit they got it wrong. Likewise a government agency may wish to avoid blaming the implementation stage, if they were responsible for its execution.
"It might be thought that having gone through the various stages from issue search to evaluation we had reached the end of the policy process. However this would be to neglect....how the policy cycle is terminated or leads into a new policy cycle."* The evaluation stage provides us with a fifth stage, the changing stage. The results of evaluation may suggest that the programme ought to be abolished, or replaced with a new approach to the issue. Also we must take into account the resources on offer and wider programmes of the government. It may be that they are trying to reduce their budget, requiring them to prioritise over problems when they return to stage one in the policy cycle. Complete terminations in policy, however are rare and more often than not some degree of replacement follows. Those policies where the underlying theory is questioned are the most at risk of being terminated.
Changes in policy may be needed to provide alterations in the scale of existing provisions. The government could be increasing its commitment to an existing programme. on the other hand, it could be reducing its commitment. Even when policy objectives have been met, new objectives can be found. The public policy process shows that policies are dynamic entities.
It may appear easy to us to spot social problems and even put forward solutions we think would work, but as this study has shown, "Government faces severe problems in making public policy effective."* A number of problems have been high lighted throughout the process. These included finding the problem before time became an added constraint, the extent of the division of resources the difficulties in implementing policies, and the impact it has, both direct and indirect, upon society. It is hardly surprising the ideal type is far from reality. There is clearly a policy process that goes through at least five clear stages and because of mistakes returns to the beginning to form a policy cycle.
Notes:
*1 M Burch & B Wood : Public Policy in Britain
Robertson, Oxford 1983
*2 B W Hogwood & L A Gunn : Policy Analysis For The Real World. Oxford University Press 1990
*3 C Lindblom : Still muddling, not yet through.
Public Administrative Review 1979
*4 M Burch & B Wood : (as before)
*5 B W Hogwood & L A Gunn : (as before)
*6 B W Hogwood & L A Gunn : (as before)
*7 M Burch & B Wood : (as before)
Bibliography:
Burch M & Wood B : Public Policy in Britain
Robertson, Oxford 1983.
Hall P, Land H, Parker R, Webb A : Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy
Heinemann, London 1975.
Hogwood B W & Gunn L A : Policy Analysis For The Real World
Oxford University Press 1990.
Starkie D : Policy Changes, Confiurations and Catastrophes
Policy And Politics Vol. 12, No. 1, 1984.
