British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 59

April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

Public Policy and the Challenges of Policy Evaluation in the Third World

Chris. I. Nwagboso (Ph.D In-View)

Assistant Lecturer
Department of Political Science
University of Calabar, Calabar
P.M.B. 1115, Unical.
Cross River State – Nigeria

ABSTRACT

This paper examines public policy and the challenges of policy evaluation in the third world social

formation. The study adopts descriptive analysis as it methodological orientation. The paper argues that

why most well-conceived public policies abysmally fail in the third world countries is largely due to lack

of according priority to the relevance of policy evaluation by policy makers. It further argues that most

policy makers in the third world are basically concerned with policy formulation and sometimes pretend

that they are committed to effective implementation of development policies and programmes. Thus, the

result of the investigation also shows that most policy makers in the third world pay scant attention on the

importance of engaging in policy evaluation process to ascertain if public policies have succeeded in

achieving the objectives for which they were designed or not. Hence, this lackadaisical attitude largely

accounts for the abysmal failure of most policies and programmes in the third world. The paper,

therefore, recommends among others, the need for policy makers and „evaluators‟ to be well –equipped

with intelligence and technical know-how to enable public policies achieve desired policy objectives in

the third world countries.

KEY WORDS: Public Policy, Challenges, Evaluation, Third World

INTRODUCTION

Public policy making is an indispensable ingredient of political process. Whether in democratic or

authoritarian regimes, policy-making is therefore imperative since it serves as a guide to the exercise of

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 60
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

power by those that pilot the affairs of the state. This partly explains why Dye (1995:2) argues that public

policy is concerned with what government do, why they do it, and what difference it makes.

Public policy no doubt, is not a new concern of political science. This is succinct because, the

earliest writings of political philosophers revealed an interest in the policies on society. Rather, our major

concern is why do governments find it difficult if not impossible to achieve their policy goals in most

third world social formations? Also, why do governments in the third world face serious challenges in

the effective and efficient implementation of public policies despite colossal sum of money ear-marked

and utilized for realization of development programmes?

In consideration of these questions, this paper attempts a critical examination of an important

aspect of policy making process referred to as policy evaluation. As an indispensable stage of policy

making process that is often neglected in the third world, policy evaluation is concerned with learning

about the consequence or assessment of the relative effectiveness of two or more programmes in meeting

common objectives (Dye, 1995:322).

To Egonmwan (2000:76), policy evaluation research is the objective, systematic and empirical

examination of the effects an on-going policies and public programmes have on their targets in

terms of the goals they are meant to achieve. Therefore, this paper examines the challenges of policy

evaluation to competent governmental agencies and ways by which such challenges that

impinge on the achievement of public policy goals could be mitigated particularly in the third world

countries, Nigeria inclusive.

Thus, the identification of the challenges or problems confronting policy evaluation as well as

prognosis for addressing them would go a long way to mitigate numerous problems that

often beset policy making process particularly in peripheral social formations.

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 61
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

PUBLIC POLICY: A CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION

Public policy as it is the case in social sciences, does not have generally acceptable definition.

This is partly because, the term means different thing to different people. Thus, scholars

and policy makers conceptualize public policy implicit in their experience, environmental consideration

and objectives they intend to achieve. In spite of this problem, scholars and experts have attempted with

fair degree of objectivity to conceptualize the term for concise understanding and intellectual explication.

According to Dye (1995:2):

Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do ...

Governments do many things; they regulate conflict within societies;
they distribute a great variety of symbolic rewards and material service to
members of the society; and they extract money from society, most often in
the form of taxes ... Public policy may regulate behaviour, organize
bureaucracies, distribute benefits, or extract taxes - or all these things at
once...

The above definition by Dye suggests that public policy is the action of government in addressing

identified problems in the state. This action however, is distinguished from the action taken by corporate

bodies or agencies in resolving a particular problem (private problem). Thus, such action embarked upon

by appropriate and competent governmental agency to address critical problem of public concern, always

have far- reaching implication on many individuals and organizations in the state. This position however

captures the views of Dror (1968:3) that:

The major problem with the contemporary public policy making is the constantly
widening gap between what is known about policy making and how policy is
actually made ... corporations, private institutions, government organizations, all
need to have their decision-making tools continually improved...

Therefore, public policy must be clearly distinguished from what most policy analysts refer to as

„empty rhetorics‟ by those who mischievously found themselves at the seat and Corridors of power

(Egonmwan, 1991). Thus, public policy should be conceived as what governments do to improve the

living standard of the people in the state as well as concerted efforts to address the challenges of

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 62
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

insecurity, power/electricity failure, poor standard of education, climate change unemployment problems,

poor infrastructure, industrial unrest, environmental degradation, among others.

Thus, the formulation and implementation of such policies by the government is capable of

addressing other socio-economic problems existing in the state. Also, the evaluation of such policies to

ascertain if they have been able to achieve the objectives for which they were designed and formulated is

another critical step of improving policy making process (Ikelegbe, 1996).

Consequently, public policy should be viewed as what governments do rather than what they did

not do (Laxmikanth, 2009). This, however, implies that Dye's definition of public policy as whatever

government chooses to do or not to do is refuted in this paper. This study perceives public policy as

simply the action of the government strategically designed and adopted to resolve issues of public

concern. The issues of public concern are those that have far- reaching impacts or implications on the

lives of the majority of the citizenry, whether in the developed or developing countries of the

contemporary globe.

PUBLIC POLICY AND POLICY EVALUATION

Public policy making is incomparably more complex than primary

education, but the same difficulties and solution apply to evaluating it ...
the best method for ascertaining the achieved quality is by
means of the primary criterion ... when the best method is impracticable
which it usually is, secondary criteria must be developed that can
ascertain the achieved quality by measuring elements of process pattern,
output/ structure, and input... (Dror, 1968:86).

Public policy as an important aspect of political process passes through series of stages. This

includes policy initiation, policy formulation, policy implementation and policy evaluation (Wholey,

1982). Thus, policy evaluation is no doubt, the last stage of policy making process but often neglected by

policy makers (David, 1979).

Policy evaluation, therefore, is the bringing to the public policy decision-makers the available

knowledge about a problem, relative effectiveness of past strategies to addressing or reducing that

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 63
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

problem and about the observed effectiveness of particular public programme (Nicholas Henry,

1999:179). Thus, it involves monitoring whether priorities are being adhered to, bearing in mind that such

priorities may have to be implemented progressively (Nwagboso, 2008:81). However, the figure

presented below clearly demonstrates an ideal public policy making process in a democratic political

system:

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 64
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

FIG. 1: An Ideal Public Policy Making Process

POLICY INITIATION &

FORMULATION

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

POLICY MONITORING &

IMPACT EVALUATION

FEED BACK MECHANISM

Source: Nwagboso’s Field Survey, 2012

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 65
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

From the above analytical perspective, it is, therefore, pertinent to note that evaluation is the last

stage of programme implementation process. Hence, it seeks to determine as systematically and as

objectively as possible, the relevance, effectiveness and impact of programmes on the target group, in the

light of their objectives that form an integral part of the public policy decision-making process (Grabe,

1983). The import of evaluation with regards to public programmes is summarized by

Dye(1995:319):

Government usually know how much money they spend, how many
persons (clients) are giving various services, how much these services cost;
how their programmes are organized, efficiently operated, widely utilized,
adequately financed and generally supported by major interest groups. We
may still want to ask, so what? Do they work? Do these programmes have
beneficial effects on society? Are the effects immediate or long range?
Positive or negative? What is the relationship between the costs of the
Programme and the benefits to society? Could we be doing something else
with more benefit to society with the money and workforce devoted to
these programmes?

Thus, the implication of these posers by Dye is that most public programmes fail largely due to

the inability of relevant government agencies to evaluate whether the policies or programmes have

achieved the objectives for which they were formulated. It is, therefore, unapologetically and

unequivocally to state that government organizations most times institutionalized monitoring and

evaluation units/departments, but such departments, or units are usually found wanting in

evaluating the impacts of public programmes on the target group, particularly in the third world (Riggs,

1963).

The failure of relevant agencies of government to embark on intensive monitoring and evaluation

largely explains why public policies abysmally fail to achieve pre-determined goals, particularly in the

third world. Consequently, evaluation of public policy or programme eliminates or reduces bureaucratic

bottleneck which slows down implementation as well as cost reduction, which ultimately makes the

programme accessible and affordable to the target group (Sharma and Sadana, 2006).

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 66
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

Also, evaluation of public programmes leads to questions by the policy makers not only on

whether the policy has succeeded in achieving the goal for which it was initiated and formulated or

designed, but also assists in finding out from the target group how they perceive the programme or

policy as well as various prognosis/strategies necessary to make the programme more viable. The failure

to adhere strictly on the methodology of evaluation by policy makers and stakeholders results in abysmal

failure of numerous government programmes in the developing world.

THE RELEVANCE OF USING INDICATORS TO EVALUATE

PUBLIC PROGRAMMES

In evaluating public programmes and policies, it is, therefore, advisable that "evaluators" must

adopt or use certain relevant indicators in such exercise. Thus, indicators are indication of a given

situation, or a reflection of that situation (WHO, 1981:8). Therefore, the use of indicators will guide the

investigator or policy maker to ascertain what should be measured, the criteria for such measurement and

comparison of the phenomenon with other existing public programmes already implemented. In WHOSE

guidelines for health programme evaluation as well as Health for All Series Number 6 (1981), indicators

are defined as variables which help to measure changes.

Consequently indicators are used particularly when these changes cannot be measured directly.

Therefore, WHO (1981:19) noted that:

... the ideal indicators should be valid, that is they should actually
measure what they are supposed to measure, they should be objective ...
the answers should be the same if measured by different people in similar
circumstances, they should be sensitive to changes in the situation; and
they should reflect changes only in the situation concerned.

It is, therefore, imperative to note that in real life situation, there are very few indicators that comply with

all the above criteria. In spite of this shortcoming, one must not loose sight of the fact that indicators are

mere reflections of real thing. Thus, they are indirect or partial measures of a complex situation, but if

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 67
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

measured sequentially, overtime, they can indicate direction, speed of change and assist to compare

different areas or group of people at the same moment in time (Okoroafor, 1997).

In consideration of this, it is argued that some policy makers in the third world countries lack the

pre-requisite knowledge and technical know-how on what constitutes an indicator, let alone why they

should be used in evaluating the performance of public policies and programmes. Also, since evaluation

research is a rigorous exercise, some policy makers who have knowledge of the use of indicators to

measuring the efficacy and performance of public policies abandon them, largely due to laxity and time

constraints. Unfortunately, such policy makers fail to consider the implications of their actions not only

on policy making process but also, on the socio-economic development of their states and the people.

This ugly trend has resulted in the failure of most government policies and programmes despite colossal

sum of money sunk in them.

Therefore, indicators must be used by evaluators or policy makers in determining whether a given

policy has succeeded or failed to achieve the goals for which they were designed. Thus, the use of

indicators must serve as a guide to evaluation and any result of public programme evaluated without the

use of indicators should be discarded by the benefiting groups, authorities and organizations. In Nigeria,

for instance, indicators should be used to measure government efforts to improve the education sector,

health, power/energy, security (Boko Haram, Niger Delta Crisis, Jos Crisis, Kidnapping in the South-

East, etc), job/employment creation, management of external debts, development of agricultural sector,

climate change, environmental degradation, among others.

What this suggests is that the use of indicators for public programme evaluation should not be

restricted to a particular sector of the economy such as health. Therefore, as WHO produced guide lines

for health care evaluation, other international and local organizations should intensify efforts to issue

guidelines for evaluation of their programmes that have far-reaching impacts on large number of citizens

in the third world. Such effort will not only re-enforce the confidence of the people on their public

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 68
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

officers (policy makers), but also ensure that public policies would always achieve the goals for which

they were initiated, formulated and implemented with the tax payers‟ resources in the society.

PROBLEMS OF POLICY EVALUATION IN THE THIRD WORLD

Using both the optimal model and my evaluation and diagnosis of current
public policy making, I can set down the major areas in which
contemporary public policy making needs to be improved. These areas
can be derived fairly easily from my descriptive listing of the ways in which
current policy making differs from optimal policy making ... (Dror,
1968:217).

Policy evaluation as the last stage of policy making process is sometimes bedeviled with several

problems. Thus, the inability of policy makers and top bureaucrats to identify and address these problems

sometimes results in severe problems not only to the political system, but also the larger society. This

partly explains why some well-conceived policies supported with colossal human and material resources

most times fail to achieve predetermined goals particularly in the third word social formations. This thesis

is supported by Emimue (2005:299);

It is held that policies fail more in developing countries than in

advanced industrialized countries. The critical elements in both the
internal and external environments are the implementation processes
of developing countries which account for the gap between goals and
achievements…

Thus, most properly conceived public policies abysmally fail in developing world due largely to

factors such as inadequate data, poor definition of goals, over-ambitions and unrealizable policy goals,

self-contradictory policies and programmes, policy inconsistency, inaccurate identification of social

problems, adoption of top-down rather bottom-up approach of decision-making, among others (Bhagwan

and Bhushan, 2007).

Consequently, the implication of these problems is that evaluation of public programmes is never

carried out to identify the impact of such programmes on the target group and society at large. This ugly

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 69
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

trend explains why critics often argue that policy makers derive pleasure in putting huge sum of money

on public programmes to ensure that such programmes achieve the goals for which they were formulated

for the overall benefits of the people. Perhaps this ugly behaviours among some policy makers resulted to

the statement credited to the former Nigeria‟s Military Head of States, General Ibrahim Babangida.

According to General Babangida, “history would pardon leaders who took wrong decisions but not

leaders who took no decisions at all when they found themselves in problem-solving situations".

In consideration of these pitfalls in the contemporary policy making process in most third world,

policy evaluation that should have served as veritable instrument for apportioning blames to appropriate

governmental agencies responsible for failures of public policies, is grossly neglected (Grindle, 1980).

Also, public officers that should be charged to court for failing to carry out their statutory duties for

which monthly salaries were paid to them with tax-payers‟ resources, always assume higher political

offices in future even when they were found wanting in their previous official capacities in the third

world. Otherwise, how could some Politicians in Nigeria like IBB, Tony Aminih, Orji Uzor Kalu,

Olabode George, Chief Lucky Igbenedion, Atiku Abubakar. EL Rufai, Bola Tinubu, Chimaraoke

Nnamadi etc, still make noise in Nigeria's political environment when it is clear to the populace that

these Nigerians abysmally failed when they were in exacted political offices in the country? Thus,

available evidence has demonstrated that it is only in Nigeria and perhaps few other corrupt countries in

Africa that such crop of politicians could come out publically to solicit for the supports of the electorates

during elections.

In view of this, strategies should be outlined by appropriate governmental agencies in the third

world countries to ensure that policy evaluation receives adequate, attention as it is the case in the

industrialized world (Okowa, 1995). Therefore, it is advocated that efforts should be intensified by the

target group and the media to ensure that their views on the impact of public programmes and projects

are incorporated into public policy making process and agenda setting in the developing countries.

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 70
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES OF POLICY EVALUATION IN THE

THIRD WORLD

This is the final phase in the flow of policy making. But seen as a functional
activity, policy evaluation occurs at any phase of policy making process. It
can happen before the adoption of policy through the assessment and
consequences of various policy implementation and after implementation of
policies ... (Okoro, 2005:29).

Policy evaluation as earlier stated is primarily concerned with establishing the value premises

necessary to produce information about the performance of policies (Cochran et al, 1972), According to

Rossi and Wright, (1997:198), the starting point of any evaluation activity is the question of whether or

not a particular piece of policy or programme works. As a phenomenon concerned with the assessment,

appraisal and rating of the outcomes of a particular public policy on both the people and the state, policy

evaluation should be carried out by well-trained and qualified individuals in the states. Thus, this calls for

adequate training of public officials/personnel charged with the responsibility of assessing and appraising

whether public programmes or policies have succeeded in achieving the objectives for which human and

material resources are sunk in them or not.

Secondly, logistics must be made available for the 'evaluators' to enable them carry out this

assignment successfully. Such logistics support include relevant information concerning a given policy,

the objectives of the policy, time frame for its achievement, the target groups or beneficiaries of

the policy, the material resources already put in for its execution, vehicles needed during inspection of

the projects, motivation of officers carrying out the evaluation activity, among others. It is therefore

imperative to note that unavailability of the above human and material resources result in serious

challenges to policy evaluation process.

Thirdly, evaluation of public programmes or projects does not exist in vacuum. Therefore,

valuation cannot be complete without the integration of the target group(s) in this crucial exercise. Thus,

the government should at any point in time consult the target groups first before formulating or sitting any

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 71
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

project in their communities or areas. Failure of the government in consulting the views of the target

groups before and after implementing certain policies and programmes largely explains why government

policies such as primary health delivery system, agricultural programmes, housing programmes etc,

abysmally failed in most communities in the third world such as Nigeria.

According (Nwosu and Eke, 2007:16), a policy like primary health care delivery system in

Nigerian rural communities, needs a proper education of the target group for it to be successful. Thus,

the rural people have to be educated on how and when to utilize facilities. The above instance is also

applicable to most public projects located in most communities in Nigeria. For such projects like

FADAMA programme, Immunization programme, RBRA etc to succeed, the views and feelings of the

indigenes of the community where they exist must be integrated into policy making process (agenda

setting). This will not only make the recipient communities protect the projects but also enable them

furnish the 'evaluators' with relevant information or data needed during policy monitoring and evaluation

exercise. More importantly, such clue or information will enable policy makers to adjust their policy

making mechanism and apparatus for a result-oriented policy evaluation exercise in the state.

Finally, material resources (money) must be released by the government on time for any public

programme to succeed. Therefore, those saddled with the responsibility of utilizing such resources must

be strictly monitored a distinct governmental to ensure that "a square peg is put on a square hole". Most

pertinently, appropriate sanctions should be awarded to defaulters of public policy process in order to

restore sanity, discipline and prudence in the management of public funds in the third world social

formations. Thus, for concise understanding of the forgoing analogies of policy evaluation process,

Thomas Dye‟s projected –trend –line versus post programme comparisons using Evaluation Research

Designs are presented below:

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

 British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 72
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

FIG. 2: Dye’s Projected-Trend-Line Versus Post Programme Comparisons in Policy Evaluation

Research Designs
Design 2 : Projected vs Post programme
Design 1: Before vs After Programme Post programme
Preprogramme Post programme A2 Actual

Trend line
A1 projected from
Trend Line
A1 A2 Time
Time * A2-A1 = Estimated programme effect.
* A2-A1 = Estimated programme effect.

Design 3 : With vs. without programme Design 4 : The Classic Research Design
Pre programme Post programme control vs Experimental Groups

A2
B2 A2

A1 B2
B1
Time
* A has programme: B does not. A1
* (A2-A1) – (B2-B1) = Estimated Programme B1 Time
Effect * A has programme: A does
* Or difference between A and B in rate of * A and B identical in programme period
change equals Estimated Effect. * A2 – B2 = Estimated Programme Effect

Source: Dye, T. R (1995).

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 73
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

CONCLUSION

The failures of most well-conceived public Policies particularly in the third world is rooted in the

negligence of policy makers concerning the import of evaluation to the success, and efficacy

improvement of policy making process. That the target groups who serve as the beneficiaries of

particular public projects are not consulted before, during and after the formulation of certain policies in

the third world, is a clear manifestation of policy mis-direction by poorly informed policy makers who

assumed public offices via the dastardly practices hitherto referred to as “political patronage” and

“godfathersim” in the third world. This ugly trend has not only affected the quality of most public policy

outcomes but also resulted in the abysmal failures and total collapse of the entire decision-making

apparatus of most states in the peripheral social formations.

In view of the implication of this ugly state of affairs on the socio-economic development of

most peripheral social formations, this study suggests a total departure from the old method and poor

perception the import and relevance of evaluation research to the success of public policies and

programmes in the third world countries. Thus, the policy makers and the „evaluators‟ must be well

educated, committed, motivated as well as people of impeccable pedigrees if this objective must be

achieved in the developing world.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To ensure that public policies succeed in achieving their intended goals in the third world as well

as according evaluation process adequate attention, the following recommendations are proffered:

1. Those saddled with the responsibility of formulating, implementing and evaluating public policies

should be well equipped with intelligence and technical know-how. They must be those who have

acquired the requisite techniques in the field of public policy from the institutions of higher learning.

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 74
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

2. The study of evaluation as a filed of inquiry should be introduced by the governments in all the

Universities in the third world in order to achieve desired policy objectives in this sphere of human

endeavour.

3. Third world countries should engage in constant monitoring of progress within the trajectory of

public programmes to ensure that their implementation conforms with policy guidelines.

4. The target groups (the community, the media and interest aggregating groups), should always be

consulted and effectively mobilized to ensure that public programmes not only succeed but also

receive the support of the people for whom they were designed.

5. The civil society organizations should be repositioned to play strategic roles in holding relevant

agencies of government responsible for failure of public policies in the third world social formations.

6. The freedom of Information Bill should be passed by the National Assembly of countries in the third

world to enable members of the public have access to relevant information concerning public

policies and programme implementation in the society.

7. The anti-graft agencies should be established and be made more pro-active by the third world

governments to prosecute any erring public officer who toys with the effective implementation or

execution of government policies and programmes not only in accordance with the policy guidelines

but also within the time frame by appropriate governmental institutions.

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 75
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

REFERENCES

Bhagwan, V. & Bhushan, V. (2007). Public Administration. New Delhi: S. Chand.

Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C; Carr, T. R. & Cayer N. J. (1972). American public policy: An introduction
(third edition). New York: St. Martin's Press.

David, N. (1979). Public- policy evaluation. New York: St. Martins Press.

Dye, T. R. (1995). Understanding public policy (eight edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Dror, H. (1968). Public policy re-examined. New York: Chandler.

Egonmwan, J. A. (2000). Public policy analysis: Concepts and applications. Benin City: M. O. Aka &
Sons.
_________ (1991). Public policy analysis: Concepts and applications. Benin-City: M. O. Aka & Sons.

Eminue, O. E. (2005). Public policy analysis and decision- making. Lagos: Concept Publications.

Grindle, M. S. (1980). Politics and Policy implementation in the third world. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Grabe, S. (1983). Evaluation: What it is and why it is done. Evaluation Mannel: Paris: UNESCO

Ikelegbe, A. O. (1996). Public policy-making and analysis. Benin-city: Uli Unpublishers.

Laxmikanth, M. (2009). Public Administration for the UPSC and State Civil Service Preliminary
examinations. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hills.

Nicholas, H. (1999). Public administration and public affairs (Sixth edition). New Delhi: Prentice-Hill.

Nwagboso, C. I. (2008). Public policy and primary health care delivery services in Abia State: A case
study of Isiala Nawa South (2003-2007). Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Political
Science, University of Calabar, Calabar Nigeria.

Nwosu, U. M. & Eke, R. A. (2007). “Utilization of government primary health care facilities in Aba,
Nigeria”. In journal of Public health 1(1) 16-23.

Okoro, J. (2005). Public policy analysis: A theoretical overview. Calabar: Ojies Products.

Okoroafor, G. F. (1997). “Project management and the Nigerian economy”. Journal of Project
Management Technology, 1 (1).

Okowa, W. (1995). “Thirty years of development planning in Nigerian: What have we achieved”. West
African Economic Journal, 8 (1).

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268

British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 76
April 2012, Vol. 5 (1)

Riggs, F. W. (1963). Bureaucrats and political development: A paradoxical view. In Joseph, L. P. (ed).
Bureaucracy and political development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rossi, P. H. and Wright. S. R. (1977). “Evaluation research: An assessment of theory, practice and
politics”. Quarterly journal of public administration, 8, 291-242.

Sharma, M. P. & Sadama, B. L. (2006). Public administration in theory and practice. New Delhi: Kitab
Mahal.

WHO (1981). Health programme evaluation. Guiding principles (Series No. 6) Geneva: WHO.

WHO (1981). Development of indicators for monitoring Progress towards health for all services (Series
No. 4). Genera: WHO.

Wholey, J. S. (1982). Evaluation and effective public policy management. Boston: Little Brown.

© 2011 British Journals ISSN 2048-1268