PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Submitted by : Beverly A. Cannu – DPA student

OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY

What is Policy?

A policy often comes in the form of general statements about priorities, written regulations or
guidelines, procedures and/or standards to be achieved. At its simplest, policy refers to a distinct path of
action which is suitable for the pursuit of desired goals within a particular context, directing the decision
making of an organization or individual.

What is Public Policy?

Generally speaking public policy is what the government chooses to do, or not to do. It is a
decision made by government to either act, or not act in order to resolve a problem. Public policy is a
course of action that guides a range of related actions in a given field. They rarely tackle one problem,
but rather deal with clusters of entangled and long-term problems. Public policy provides guidance to
governments and accountability links to citizens. Decision making is clouded by values, rather than
based purely on objective data. Most issues tend to involve deeply held values/ interests and large
amounts of money, making the policy process very complex.

The policy process is a process of balancing different solutions that address the different aspects
of a cluster of problems. Every policy has three key elements: a problem definition, goals to be
achieved, and the policy instruments to address the problem and achieve the goals. Policy may be formal
or informal: a formal policy might take the form of a planned policy document that has been discussed,
written, reviewed, approved and published by a policymaking body. It could be a government’s national
plan on HIV/AIDS for example. An informal policy might be an ad hoc, general, unwritten but widely
recognized practice or understanding within an organization that a course of action is to be followed.
Even though this policy may not be made explicit in writing it still exists in practice.

Who Makes Public Policies?

Policy comes from those who have legitimate authority to impose normative guidelines for
action. It is made by elected officials acting in concert with advisors from the higher levels of the
administration. Government ministers are the elected officials at the apex of government who have the
right to articulate policy. Non-elected officials then are required to implement the policy through
programs.

What is a Policy Framework?

A policy framework is a broad set of policies that governs the actions of groups and
organizations. The broad set of policies forms a web and impacts new policy development and policy
amendments. The presence or absence of a policy affects all other policies within the web (both existing
and new).

What is the Public Policy Cycle?

Public policy development is an iterative process, rather than a linear one. There are five key phases
which result in public policy:
1. The emergence of a problem that requires the attention of the public and decision
makers.
2. Placing this problem on the government’s agenda in order to find a solution.
3. The formulation of various alternatives to resolve the problem.
4. The adoption of a policy.
5. The implementation and evaluation of the policy.

In reality, the process is less orderly than this: the idea of a ‘cycle’ facilitates more organized thinking
about policy.

Who is Involved in the Policy Cycle?

The policy cycle links a variety of key players in the policy process through their involvement
with the different stages. Individuals, institutions and agencies involved in the policy process are called
actors. Government is often thought of to be the only entity involved in policy making. Government
does have the ultimate decision making and funding power, but there are many other actors that
contribute to public policy, often in a network on which government relies for the delivery of complex
policy goals.
 Government: social control of behaviour, power of coercion
 Cabinet: monopoly over supply of legislation, locus of power- few people make
decisions
 Public Servants: technical knowledge and policy advice, service providers
 Political Parties: develop relationships in exchange for political support
 Media: report information to the public, generate interest, shape public opinion Interest
 Groups: seek to advance interests of members, can have a major influence can force
policy network to react
 Legal system: interpret laws, acts independently
 Public: elects government, forms opinions, joins interest groups and coalitions, relies on
the media for information

What are Policy Instruments?

Policy instruments are techniques at the disposal of the government to implement policy
objectives. After the issue/ problem is defined, tools are found to achieve the desired outcome.
Examples of policy instruments used are expenditures, regulations, partnerships, exchange of
information, taxation, licensing, direct provision of services, doing nothing, contracts, subsidies and
authority.

The purpose of policy instruments are to:

 Achieve behaviour change within individuals
 Realize social, political or economic conditions
 Provide services to the public

Government’s choice of policy instruments is bound most importantly by past actions (policy
instruments the current government has used in the past). Other restraints include financial, social,
international and cultural pressures. The political framework may be the largest constraint.
The types of policy instruments available to government include :

 Doing nothing: decide not to intervene. There may be no problem, financial constraints
or precedents that cause the government to choose to do nothing. Or, the problem may be
self-corrective
 Information-based: influence people through knowledge transfer, communication and
moral persuasion (behaviour is based on knowledge, beliefs and values). This is the least
coercive of the instruments
 Expenditure-based: money is used as a direct instrument to achieve outcome (grants,
contributions, vouchers, etc.)
 Regulation: government’s role is to command and prohibit - this is the most widely used
instrument/ tool. It defines norms & acceptable behaviour or limits activities
 Acting directly: providing a direct service to achieve outcome (rather than working
through citizens or organizations to achieve goals). Examples include education, garbage
collection, Parks and Recreation

Policy instruments used by governments are now being influenced by:

 Government and Governance: financial and regulatory policy instruments are
constrained within a new governance environment (increase in policy networks)
 International Influence: environmental policy, taxation and fiscal policy are now
subject to international pressure

These put increasing emphasis on alternative policy instruments, or on policy

instruments that complement traditional command and control

 legislation Benchmarking: setting standards for industry

 Co-regulation: allows for considerable industry autonomy under clearly defined
parameters set out in a statutory framework. Also allows for greater flexibility
and efficiency within the system while offering the same levels of protection
afforded by more traditional means of regulation
 Voluntary Codes of Conduct: set out specific standards of conduct for how an
industry will deal with its customers. Businesses voluntarily agree to uphold these
standards by signing up to the code. Usually there are sanctions for businesses
that breach the code, which may include: having to pay a fine, being expelled
from the industry association or having to advertise that they have breached the
code and explain what they are going to do to resolve a complaint.
 Negotiated agreements: organizations follow negotiated agreements in order to
stay part of the community

Recommendations to Increase the Use of Evidence in Decision Making
 1. Learn and use ‘public policy language’ with policy-makers.
Policy-makers do tend to use a different language. Read a variety of policy
documents to get a feel for their preferred words and phrases, and for what they really
mean.

2. Focus on effective communications to various stakeholders and target

audiences.
It is important to understand your target audience in order to effectively
communicate with them. Use various communication channels (internet, radio,
television, print, journals, conferences, etc) to convey the message in multiple
ways, and reach various target audiences. Additionally, it is important to provide
the information in a way that the target audience can understand and use. Use
plain language to effectively communicate information to any audience from
policy-maker, to the public, to a scientist. Help the audience understand why the
information is important to them, and what they should do now that they know
the information.
3. Strategically align with organizations and agencies that can get the message
out in different ways.
Private and not-for-profit organizations/agencies may not have the same
communication restrictions as public agencies. Organizations/agencies within the
policy network may be able to advocate a position in a different way in order to
affect the policy agenda, another policy cycle stage, or other network member’s
positions. The use of visual policy networks can help in understanding the actors
within the system. Be creative and use a variety of tools available.
4. Use new technology and communication channels to connect with the target
audience. Or, use tools in a new, unexpected way in order to increase the
chance that the target will pay attention to the message.
Evaluate the needs of clients. Understand how stakeholders want data,
how they want to receive it, and what they want to do with it. This will increase
the reach of your agency, as well as the use of research generated evidence. It is
important to understand and respond to the needs of all the actors within the
policy network, as each actor can affect policy. Involve policy-makers in research
planning.
5. Policy-makers should be involved from the beginning of the research
process.
Spend time assessing your present and ideal role (if any) in each of the
stages of the policy cycle. Work out where and how you could best contribute and
what impact you are likely to have. Sitting on an advisory committee could be a
good way of getting into the process and understanding policy’s needs and
timetables.

The Policy-Making Process

The policy-making process is ongoing, messy and generally without a definitive beginning or
end, political science scholar Susan J. Buck explains. However, those involved in the process do tend to
follow a general procedure, broken down into six phases.
Phase 1: Agenda Setting

As the first phase in the cycle, agenda setting helps policy makers decide which problems to
address. Topics for discussion go through several types of agendas before these individuals may move
them forward. Types of agendas might include:

 Systemic agendas. Systemic agendas comprise all issues policy makers

deem both worthy of note and in their realm of authority to address.
 Institutional agendas. These agendas are formed from the content of
systemic agendas. Here, policy makers analyze problems and their
proposed solutions in a strict amount of time.
 Discretionary agendas. These agendas address problems chosen by
legislators that have not necessarily made it into the agendas mentioned
above.
 Decision agendas. Decision agendas are the finalized list of issues to be
moved to the next phase of the policy-making cycle.

Phase 2: Policy Formation

In policy formation, solutions to problems are shaped and argued. This phase is characterized by
intense negotiation between parties. Leaders, bureaus and other factions must fight for their own needs
and desires, often in opposition to one another. Concerns might include budgetary issues, personal or
political constraints, or the protection of certain existing programs. Public policies are therefore formed
far more by the act of bargaining than by any other means. Policy formation continues even after initial
legislation is passed, arising whenever amendments are suggested or the original legislation is
reauthorized.

Phase 3: Policy Legitimation

“Legitimacy” means that the public considers the government’s actions to be legal and
authoritative. To gain legitimacy in the United States, a policy must be moved through the legislative
process. Once this happens, it is considered the law of the land and can be implemented as such. It must
be mentioned that the legitimacy of a policy is only as good as the willingness of citizens to accept it.
Therefore, it is possible for people to reject policy if they view the policy makers’ behavior or the
legislation itself as unacceptable in some way.

Phase 4: Policy Implementation

This phase puts policies into action. Responsibility passes from policy makers to policy
implementers, and the policies themselves may again develop further while this happens. Whether a
policy succeeds can often be traced back to this phase; a well-written policy with a poor implementation
can end in failure.

Phase 5: Policy Evaluation

Policy makers conduct evaluations to determine if the policies they create are effective in
achieving their goals. When determining this, they must consider:
 How to evaluate outcomes effectively
 How to measure the outcomes
 How to navigate between the efficiency of a policy and its effectiveness (the
former is often easier to measure than the latter)
 Evaluation may occur either during implementation or after the policy in question is finished.

Phase 6: Policy Maintenance, Succession or Termination

Once implemented, policies are periodically gauged for their relevancy and use. This may result
in their continuation, amendment or termination. These incidents often occur due to policy makers’
shifting goals, values, beliefs or priorities.

When new issues arise, the policy-making cycle begins again, helping governing bodies
successfully address new and important challenges.
The Philippine Context of Public Policy and Policy-Making
Public policy is defined as a system of courses of action, regulatory measures, laws, and funding
priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by a government entity or its representatives1 .
Numerous issues can be addressed by public policy including crime, education, foreign policy, health,
and social welfare. Public policy is, in fact, the product of a public policy making process.

According to Sabatier (1999), “public policy making process includes the manner in which
problems get conceptualized and brought to the government for solution; governmental institutions
formulate alternatives and select policy solutions; and those solutions get implemented, evaluated and
revised”. As such, the establishment of a public policy making process is indispensable, yet, may vary
from country to country.

The Philippines, being a democratic and republican state, has three branches of government,
namely: the executive, legislative, and judiciary which are co-equal and inter-dependent of each other.
As regards legislation or policy making, each branch has a role to play.

The legislative branch formulates laws, the executive implements the enacted laws, and the
judiciary interprets the laws. As regards administrative policies, the executive branch takes the lead. The
President of the Republic designs his/her platform of government or his vision for the country. On the
basis of his platform or reform agenda, national policies and programs are designed.

The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Board is the country’s premier social
and economic development planning and policy coordinating body. It is composed of the President of
the Philippines as chairman, the Secretary of Socio Economic Planning and NEDA Director-General as
Vice-Chairman, and the heads or secretaries of the different departments of the government as members.
[NEDA] It is to be noted, though, that the members of the board may be changed from time to time or as
deemed necessary by the President of the Republic.

The policy cycle of the Philippines takes five steps, namely: agenda-setting; policy formulation;
legislation; implementation; and monitoring Firstly, the board conducts performance review of the prior
year, considers emerging issues and concerns locally and internationally and also considers any shift in
the policy agenda of the present administration. Secondly, the board formulates policies on education,
health & nutrition, social welfare, housing, investment, infrastructure development etc. The process also
includes the determination and review of the corresponding budget by the Department of Budget and
Management. The output is the so-called proposed National Budget which is submitted to Congress for
deliberation. Thirdly, the Lower House (House of Congress) deliberates on the proposed National
Budget in three (3) readings. Once done, they submit the proposed National Budget to the Upper House
(Senate) for deliberation which also comes in three (3) readings. After which and once signed by both
houses, the proposed National Budget is forwarded to the Office of the President for approval. It
becomes a law when the President signs it or when the President fails to act on it within 30 days from
receipt thereof. However, if the President vetoes the proposed budget in whole or in part, the same shall
be given back to both houses for reconsideration. The veto power of the President may, however, be
overridden by at least two-thirds vote in both houses, otherwise, the proposed changes of the President
be made effective.

The passage of a bill for specific policies or programs follows the same process. Basically,
proposed policies or programs by the legislative branch emanates from the executive branch. Fourthly,
the implementation of the aforecited policies and programs are delegated to the different concerned
departments of the government like the Department of Education (DepED), Department of Health
(DOH), Department of Tourism (DOT), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Agriculture (DA), National Housing Authority
(NHA), Philippine National Police (PNP) etc. Finally, the NEDA Board coordinates closely with the
implementing departments to get feedbacks as basis for evaluation of the present programs and as
reference for improvement for the next policy cycle.

The role of the judiciary in the policy making or legislation process is the interpretation as to the
legality or validity of the same. Apparently, their role is more of an indirect function. They may not be a
direct participant to the process, but the knowledge of their presence and role as interpreters, would
somehow remind, frame, and guard the legislators (legislative) and implementers (executive) to do their
part well. Of course, their direct function as interpreters is called for when issues, disagreements, or
conflicts arise from the implementation of laws, policies or programs.

Knowing and understanding the policy making process of the Philippines, as well as comparing
it or its result of policies and programs with that of other countries is of utmost importance to all
stakeholders including civil servants like us who, in a way, participate in the implementation process.
Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the policy making process would help us appreciate and
improve the same.

The best way to address the weaknesses or loop holes would be knowing the process and the role
of each player in the society, sharing proper information with others, willingness to coordinate and
participate, feedback mechanisms, and acceptance of changes. Practically, policy making process is
never an absolute or permanent thing. It has to be flexible and should be continuously reviewed and
revised according to the needs of the present times or the current trends and situations. As long as there
is cooperation and proper direction among stakeholders and actors, there is always a hope for
improvement and development.

FORMAL ANALYIS

In the Philippine setting, the relevance of policy-making and its reforms are highly look
upon. The public do not only listen when policies get implemented, most Filipinos nowadays
have something to say. Even though public opinion is arguably given importance by the current
administration, it cannot be denied that their participation is detrimental to the policy making
process in the Philippines.

It is worthy to mention that the policy making process in the Philippines is good, allows
opportunity for the interplay of the different actors, and is geared towards progress and
development. But why is it that up to this time, the Philippines has remained a third world
country such as a developing one? Sad to say, it has been left behind by some of it contemporary
countries in Southeast Asia and worst, it has even been tagged as a “sick man of Asia.” One
reason is the party system in the country. There is so much fragmentation. One may support a
bill of an ally or party-mate and denies that of an opposition. As regards the formulation of
programs/policies, the President has a say, thus, may pursue or support programs which benefit
his/her favoured areas. He also has the power to veto, 7 in whole or in part, a proposition of an
opposition member. More than anything, personal or party interests could be considered over
public interests. Another reason is the policy/program itself or its ineffective & inefficient
implementation. This may be due to insufficient funding since it’s not a top priority of the
administration; misinformation or lack of proper information dissemination such that the
intended beneficiaries may not avail or may not support the program; and lapses in the
implementing guidelines giving rise to confusion on its coverage and real end purpose.
CONCLUSION

Indeed, policy making process is inevitable in each and every country. A policy making
process determines the foundation of a country and determines its directions towards
development. It can make or unmake a country, so to say. Accordingly, a good policy making
process results to good policies.

In the formulation of policies and programs, the policy/program makers should consider
the needs of the present times or current trends and conditions. Further, proper information
should be disseminated to all stakeholders or beneficiaries. Furthermore, these policies should be
carried out efficiently and effectively to achieve the real end-purpose. Along this line, the actors
of the society (President, Legislature, Judiciary, civil society, mass media, etc) should play their
respective roles in the implementation thereof. The monitoring process should likewise be
considered in order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the policies, thus, help improve
the same.

In this light, there is yet hope for the Philippines. Its policy making process is already
good. There is just a need to strengthen the system of coordination among the different actors.
There is just a need to revitalize the Filipino spirit of unity and integration towards its goal of
development. With regard to Korea’s case, there is a similar hope for an improvement,
particularly on the revision of its program on education which has been in place for more than
half a century already. As regards final analysis, except for the matters discussed in the final
paragraph of the formal analysis part, this study cannot make or provide a definitely clear one on
which programs are better or which country has a better policy making process. The data
gathered are limited and, as earlier mentioned, the discussions are basically based on our
personal experiences and observations, hence, more likely subjective in nature. Nevertheless, it
is hoped that, in the near future, a similar study be made with a broader scope and extensive data
in order to establish a more positive and objective analysis on the topic at hand.