Realities and Complexities in the Policy Development Process - Coursework Example

Policy Development Insert your name here Insert your University name here Table of Contents 1.0.Introduction 2 2.0.The process of identifying issue 3 3.0.Policy Analysis Process 6 4.0.Consultation and decision process 8 5.0.Conclusion 10 6.0.Reference List 11 1.0. Introduction This essay critically explores three processes in policy development so as to theoretically explore realities and complexities in the policy development process. This will be done based on the point of view of actors or components within the system. The complexities that will be assessed will be based on the theoretical underpinnings as well as model of policy cycle that has been a debate in the public policy as business management literatures. Simulation as it will be observed in the three policy development processes will show unique complexities in each process and such should be given a proper attention especially from policy stakeholder. The essay also attempts to construct a different approach so as to make the stakeholders understand and embrace such complexities. 2.0. The process of identifying issue Through the theory of Large Leaps (commonly known as Punctuated Equilibrium Theory) John (2008) argues that significant changes in policy and organisations are likely to occur especially when the right conditions have been put in place by the same organisation. It is from this theory that the essay introduces the first process in policy development. That is, identification of the issue as one of the key process is usually brought when the right conditions have been put in place by managers or stakeholders in an organisation. According to Laumann et al. (2008), identification of issue comes when such issue demands the attention of the organisation or when environmental factor(s) has dictated for the organisation. Nonetheless, empirical evidences show that such issue has to be initiated from within the organization or company. Taking a case study, during policy development in Nokia there were two categories in the policy identification agenda (Nokia Sustainability Report, 2011). The first one was ‘formal agenda’ which was also called the ‘Sustainability Management Approach.’ This according to the Company was made up of items that the Chief Executive Officer had placed for consideration on the policy agenda by the stakeholders. The second category was the agenda of controversy or what the Company termed as ‘systematic agenda.’ This was made up of issues top managers in the Company declared that had received the needed attention that also reflected a concern shared by their customers and that their competitors were taking advantage of the issue. Therefore to the aspect of sustainability, it was once agreed during a meeting that action was required to redress the issue. In this case, the complexity entailed in the identification of an issue as one of the key processes of policy making is to consider the second category. The first complexity apparent with the identification of issue in this category is what Flitcroft et al (2011) term as the approval of the stakeholders. That is, the committee or the management team tasked with the responsibility of identifying the issue has to get consensus from stakeholders within the Company. Managers tasked with the responsibility of introducing this issue to other stakeholders must know how to articulate it until there will be broad acceptance of the nature of the issue otherwise it will also be difficult to move on if stakeholders are not convinced. Still in the process of identifying the issue, arguments from scholars such as Bauld, Linda and Judge, Ken, (2008) have identified complexities that emanate from other areas such as the government (especially the ministerial departments), the mass media or the press, the consumers and other competing companies. What leaders encounter when making attempts to identify the issue is that each actor as has been identified will always have a strategic resource likely to affect the interaction with other actors. A good case involves Coca-Cola which wanted to team up with Carbon Trust so as to introduce sugar free drinks as one of its policy development. It was noted that government, as it was represented by its relevant ministerial department had their own perception about the issue the Company had identified even before making it as a policy. Conversely, it can be noted that perception gap has always caused the beginning or onset of negotiation of interest when organisations attempts to identify an issue that can lead to policy development. Ideally, it has been noted that negotiation of interest has been fuelled by the mass media and the press especially if they disagree with the agenda the company has identified (Buse, et al., 2012). In such cases, the organisation might be forced to drop the agenda identified or continue to outsource for other agendas until the perception of consumers is satisfied or that the issue identified did not negatively attract the attention of the public. According to the theory of Coalition (also known as Advocacy theory), introduction of an use that ultimately lead to the development of a policy can take place only when there is coordinated activities existing within and among a range of customers, consumers or pressure groups with the same core policy beliefs (Kirton and Cooper, 2009). Basing on this theory, a company is likely to be faced with uphill task in identification of issue that will lead to the policy development especially if such issue will lead the customers’ negative perception. It is common for consumers or the targeted market to have different and opposing perception about an issue that will lead to the policy development. But managers will find that their identified issue will be opposed even strongly if it is not appealing to the market. This is what Linda and Ken (2008) as cited in McDonald et al. (2011) talked about with reference to their research ‘Strong theory, flexible methods.’ Linda and Ken believe that identification of an issue must be theory based so as to ensure that the issue passes to the next process of policy development. They add that when such issues have been identified and evaluated theoretically, an organisation will be in a position to clarify or modify the design and implementation of initiatives of the policy development in a manner that it lends itself to evaluation of the policy. This is also a case where theory-driven methodologies have a potential role to play especially when managers are making attempts to identify issues when developing new policies for their companies or organisations. 3.0. Policy Analysis Process Policy developers in organisations tend to avoid responsibility for policies they make. There is always dichotomy that exists between policy making and implementation and therefore if policy analysis is not done coherently there may not be an avenue to end this escape hatches. While this is one side of the argument, there are complexities that are involved in the policy analysis as one of the processes involved in policy development. To understand the complexities involved in this process, this study reflects on the research conducted by Walt et al. (2008). They note that this stage has challenges when it comes to collection of relevant data to frame the issue to be implemented as a policy. The other one is the clarification of the objectives and key issue to the customers or to the targeted audience. But the biggest challenge in this case is what Walt et al. term as ‘street level bureaucracies’ (p. 29). To conceptualise the term within the context of this study, it means actors who have been tasked with implementing policy changes and the role they have to play. When stakeholders are analysing policies, it has been noted that street level bureaucracies are not always cogs in the process but have substantial power to alter or mould the outcomes of policies developments (Buse et al., 2012). Taking street level bureaucracies to mean institutions such as legal service offices, schools and welfare organisation they complicate the process of developing policies in the sense that they have the ability to affect the practical working out of a policy so as to produce a result that is likely to be substantially different from the one intended by policy makers. To understand the second complication with regard to policy analysis as a process of policy development, the linear model or rational model needs to be linked. As of the model, this study considers it as one of widely-held view on how policies should be developed by avoiding complexities associated with such developments. The linear model postulates policy development as a problem solving situation which is balanced, rational, objective and analytical. In this model, managers are supposed to make decisions in a series of phases or sequential phases and such should start with identifying a given issue or problem and ending with a set of activities that can deal with the problem(s). What this model suggests is that policy makers, in the process of analyzing the policy will be faced with the task of specifying how activities will in turn lead to short term and long term outcome as well as the process of identification of the contextual situations that may affect such policies. This complexity is indeed related to the theory of change approach as postulated by Linda and Ken (2008). This theory requires that during policy analysis process, stakeholders and policy makers be succinct concerning final outcome of the policy as well as the impact such policy will have on the normal operations of organisations. When policy makers follow the theory they will be able to focus the already scarce evaluation resources on how and what to measure concerning these key elements. In addition to the above point, researches have highlighted another complexity associated with policy analysis process. That is, any analysis that will be undertaken by policy makers or stakeholders is likely to go beyond the efforts that have been channeled at the formal stages or processes of the organsation decision-making process, in some instances such becoming part for the decision-making structure that has been set aside for state actors (Laverack, 2007; Lee et al., 2002). What follow in such cases is policy makers at this process or stage being forced to adopt a more analytical strategy that aims at understanding organisation policy analysis in a more pluralist environment. This essay takes a case study of Department of Health, Education and Welfare (U.S) where there was a need to consider State interest when analyzing the a policy (research on the cost effectiveness of new medical technology by National Center for Health Care Technology) (Dur and Bievre, 2007). To factor in such demands, the analysis of the identified policy has to adopt the approach of political mapping so as to try to better factor in multifaceted ideas of interest groups and actors who were seen to be concerned with specific policy issue as they were being analysed. What this essay recognizes with regard to the aforementioned complexity is that there is need for policy makers to consider or recognize forces and actors cross over organizational boundaries. The theory of power politics arguing that policy analysis and change is fulfilled by seeking to work with the regime in power so as to make decision or effectively influence decision making. 4.0. Consultation and decision process Just like before, this process has its own complications. Policy makers will be required to bring what has been done in the previous processes of the policy making to consultation and decision making. It has to be noted that in as much as the policy passed either of the processes mentioned earlier, the credibility of the policy is still an important aspect that the maker must convince the cabinet or the board about. For instance, the economic situation like fiscal situation of a company or organization might give more pressure to the policy at this stage. It may be a case where the strict or the tighter the fiscal situation the lesser the policy will meet complications if it has to be passed through the committee that is supposed to consult and make a decision on it. According to Bacchi (2000), when it comes to policy making in organisations, consultation and decision making process is always marked by a number of complexities and challenges since it involves decisions on how such policies will be budgeted for. He adds that in such cases, the total budget per se is always calculated based on the expected delivery of policy implementation as well as average budget spent for per percentage (in most cases 1%) delivery there posing major threats. To put this complexity succinctly, policy change and adoption should be made through collective bargaining by members involved in the project or organization to be affected by the policy. Therefore it will be the responsibility of the policy maker to convince members about the policy. Kelly and Hillary (n.d) as cited in Flitcroft et al (2011) while looking at the overview of health care financing in the 1980s and 1990s add that one key complexity in the consultation and decision making process is the legal tussle that is likely to compromise both the policy makers’ arrangement and stakeholders’ opinion on the policy. Such legal tussle according to Kelly and Hillary must be factored by the policy introduced as it helps in the clarification of the extent to which organisational arrangements and the policy itself can align with policy objectives and have the ability or capacity to fulfill the roles as stipulated. Policy makers are also supposed to convince the committee how the policy meets a given legal standards that will in turn identify impediments, including a limited ability to adapt to changing contexts or working environments. Linda and Ken (2008) note that the major threat when it comes to consultation and decision process is the legality of the policy. They add that units of action are complicated at this stage and that open systems (they define open system as a case where stakeholders have the right to critique the policy) makes this process even impossible to control all the variables that may influence the conduct of the consultation and decision making. Conversely, Linda and Ken bring one key issue with respect to another complexity in this process when they discussed theories of change in Health Action Zones. That is, policy makers must come up and present a strategy that shows explicit long-term goals. Although Bacchi (2000) notes that this should be the starting point for policy development, scholars agree that strategies showing long term goals must be shown to the committee at consultation and decision making process. Among other things, policy makers must also present ideas on how they are going to develop interventions that finally achieve the goals set in their policies. For instance, policy of economic stimulus has always been rejected at this stage because there has been no set of clear performance measures that could allow the progress against goals to be evaluated. 5.0. Conclusion The purpose of this essay was to critically analyse complexities involved in any three processes of policy making. Among other issue that have been highlighted, this essay finds these complexities to be embedded on the fact that policy makers are needed to respect the experience and knowledge of stakeholders or providers when developing policies that may need practice change. Secondly, the complexities as illustrated are brought by the fact that consumers should be informed and subsequently prepared to hold both policy makers and providers accountable in the making and implementation of such policies. What this essay prepares policy makers to learn is that a policy is not a mere statement in principle but should be permissive and prescriptive and to conform to these requirements there must be complexities in every process. Finally, this essay also notes that no matter how creative and convincing research explain and provide, the process of making a policy will reaming a challenge. 6.0. Reference List Bacchi, Carol (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 21 (1) pp.45-57. Bauld, Linda and Judge, Ken, (2008). Chapter 5: Strong Theory, Flexible Methods: Evaluating Complex Community-Based Initiatives. In Green, Judith and Labonte, Ronald (eds), Critical perspectives in public health (pp.93 - 103). London: Routledge. Buse, K., Mays, N. & Walt, G. (eds) (2012). Making Health Policy (2 nd ed.) London; Open University Press. Dur, A. and Bievre, D., (2007). The Question of Interest Group Influence. International Public Policy, 27, I, 1-12. [accessed on 27th august 2014] from http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/etheredge1.pdf Flitcroft, Kathy, et al (2011). Getting evidence into policy: The need for deliberative strategies? Social Science & Medicine 72 (7) pp.1039-1046. John, Peter. (2008). Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change? The Policy Studies Journal, 31(4): 481-498. Kirton, John J. and Cooper, Andrew F, (2009). Chapter 16 : Innovation in Global Health Governance. In Cooper, Andrew F. and Kirton, John J. (eds), Innovation in global health governance , (pp.309 - 331). Farnham, England: Ashgate Laumann, Edward O. and Knoke, David. (2008). The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Laverack, Glenn, (2007). Chapter 4: Empowerment and Health Promotion Programming. In Laverack, Glenn, Health promotion practice: building empowered communities , (pp.46 - 59). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Lee, Kelley and Goodman, Hilary, (2002). Global Policy Networks : The Propogation of health care financing reform since the 1980s. In Lee, Kelley ; Buse, Kent and Fustukian, Suzanne, Health policy in a globalising world, (pp.97 - 119). cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonald, Julie et al (2011). Collaboration across private and public sector primary health care services: benefits, costs and policy implications. Journal of Interprofessional Care 25 (4) pp.258-264. Nokia Sustainability Report (2011). Sustainability Management Approach. [accessed on 27th august 2014] from http://company.nokia.com/sites/default/files/download/nokia-sustainability-report-2011- overview-pdf.pdf Walt, Gill et al (2008). 'Doing' health policy analysis: methodological and conceptual reflections and challenges., Health Policy and Planning 23 (5) pp.308-317. Read More