Policy Process: An Implementation-Centered Model

Abstract??

The traditional policy process provides a staged process that might help to study a policy area but does not necessarily reflect the complexity of policy making, therefore, making it less useful for a policy practitioner. This paper suggests that a theoretical policy process is relevant but it requires thinking of and prioritizing policy implementation, and acknowledging that policy is initiated more often by the top-down decision-maker and not only by the evidence-based analysis.? It describes how to practically look into policy leadership, planning, coordination, communication, options & alternatives development, and innovation early in the process to ensure accountability, achieve coherence, promote buy-in, and then successful implementation of the intended policy. The paper concludes with a suggested new policy model that ties these factors and makes the policy process focused on implementation.?

Limitations to the traditional policy process?

We can illustrate the traditional policy process in a linear model that starts with problem identification, followed by policy options development, consultation, decision making, implementation, and evaluation.? The evaluation step would loop back to the first step to refine or amend the analysis, thereby varying the process into a circular one.? This traditional policy cycle could provide policy advisors and policymakers with a systematic framework that helps them navigate the policy process in manageable steps.? But this model assumes that they always rationally approach the issues, going through each logical stage of the process,? and carefully considering all relevant information, yet, there is much evidence to suggest that this model is far from how we formulate the majority of policies in a real-life situation (Sutton, 1999).??

Observations on this policy model vary around the complex reality of policy development in the public and private sectors. Per the different views, the policy steps could overlap, some could get overstepped, and the process does not always start from the problem identification/agenda setting. Sometimes, the process loops back at any of the following stages with or without an evaluation step. Additionally, the influence of the political factor and the predominance of the top-down decision-maker has weakened the relevance of a staged policy process. Some of the policymakers’ discussions deviate from the core process and discuss the applicability or best tools for analysis. The urgency and scope of policy could be additional influencing factors. Clay and Schaffer (1984) go further by describing the policy process as a chaos of purposes and accidents and not just logical implementation of decisions via selected strategies.???

Implementation in the policy process??

Throughout my work and self-study (focusing on the humanitarian sector), I have developed some observations on the linear and circular traditional policy systems. The main remark is that the implementation shall be at the heart of the policy cycle and not just a casual or incremental step. I think this is not a separated individual view, but there is an increasing awareness that policies do not succeed or fail on their own merits, but their advance is dependent upon the process of implementation; therefore, we need to ensure purposes are turned into outcomes by avoiding several traps including over-optimism, weak governance, lack of coherence (we often call it working in silos), or lack of accountability to process and results (Hudson, et al., 2019).???

Evidence-based or outcome-driven policymaking????

We prefer implementation to be informed by a sound problem-analysis that critically reviews a current policy to refine or from a bottom-up problem identification resulting in evidence-based policy options to address the issue at hand. But it is the political will or strategic desire coming from the top-down that influences policy implementation, and not the needs only. For instance, in the humanitarian sector, this could include a senior management vision, host government interests, a donor agency global policy, or merely competition against a disruptive new idea in the sector (cash assistance, localization, and so on).??

Even when dealing with less complicated policy areas and intending to incorporate evidence into the policy-making process, we must have good data to start. Evidence development is not merely data collection but also an investment in research and ensures that policy analysts have the right skills to differentiate between beneficial and not beneficial facts (Banks, 2018). Some argue further that the policy cycle is not a substitute for decision-making but an administrative and bureaucratic mechanism for effectively setting a process after making the tough decisions already (Everett, 2003).?

Factors for successful implementation??

In both cases, evidence-based or outcome-driven, what matters is that prioritizing implementation then should start early with multiple different enabling activities and factors.????

Policy Leadership

The main factor is the policy leadership, and here we do not refer to the ultimate decision power (e.g., an organization board) but the leadership for the individual policy issue or focus policy area. Leadership could be a senior policy position, ahead of a functional unit, or an internal or external advisor or group depending on issue scale and complexity. In some cases, setting up a reference group is necessary to incorporate as many technical views as possible and monitor and ensure coherence and quality across the formulation implementation period.??

Also, this helps to draw the attention earlier the interactions between different bodies responsible for policy formulation at the ministerial level (The Head Office/Technical Division in the context of humanitarian aid) and those in charge of policy implementation at different established administrative levels (Area/Country/ and Field offices) (Knill, et al., 2021) Scholars refer to it as the Vertical Policy Integration: the consistency between policy agendas at supranational, national, regional and local levels (Howlett, et al., 2017)?

Planning

Following the identification of the policy leadership, defining the scope of work will be a key step to initiate the policy implementation. The planning-early phase helps to lay out the possible methodology and approach and also identify the resources required. It is critical that there is a clear work plan and accountable structure across the whole life of the policy implementation period, otherwise, we lose track of whether the policy is successful or not and miss the opportunity to bring it back to track, or back to the discussion table on time.???

Coordination, Consultation, and Communication

Policy coherence, successful leadership, planning, and implementation usually require coordination with a wide range of external and internal stakeholders early in the process to help inform planning, share resources, ensure buy-in, promote learning, and build forces with similar organizations.? In the humanitarian sector, consultation with stakeholders includes the affected communities, staff, governments, donors, partners, and other organizations working in the same areas or sectors of interest of the policy area. Internally, the consultations should approach all levels within the organization from field/country to regional hubs, and global functions. We could formulate good recommendations and develop the best available options for this policy based on such wide-scale and deep consultations. A good recommendation tells a policymaker precisely what they should do the instant they walk out of the meeting, all the way through to the concluding implementation (Pomeroy, et al., n.d.).?

We should further establish a clear two-way communication strategy to capture and address possible weaknesses and operating obstacles early and promote buy-in for a successful roll-out/roll-down of the chain. This would help us identify these gaps and bottlenecks and design a complementary capacity-building plan to enable its successful roll-out and adoption.?

Policy Options

We should consider the factors of capacity, time, and available resources when developing policy options and instruments. We could identify and analyze alternatives further using basic strategy tools such as the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis and the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental Factors Analysis (PESTLE).??

I prefer to use “Ethical” instead of “Environmental” in strategy and policy analysis. It’s a general term that covers the wider ground of issues and practices, and we should not underestimate the importance of factoring in the ethical aspects and behavior of how we plan and implement policy, including formulating policy options and their impact (on the public, community, organization, etc.). While this is a whole subject area, it is important to mention Mintrom's (2010) five principles: integrity, competence, responsibility, respect, and concern that offer a sound foundation from which to explore how a focus on ethics can promote good practice for policy leaders.?

Other tools like causality mapping could help further to show how this specific option could be directly contributing to the intended impact. A power mapping could help in cases of policy areas that require advocacy and engagement with various decision-makers to endorse or influence change. A cost-benefit analysis is essential for exploring policy options with significant resource requirements.??

Innovation

Looking into different policy options requires us to go beyond our normal sectoral and institutional explanations into new and innovative solutions.? One approach for this could be developing a policy working group or a lab that discusses and tests (at least theoretically) possible solutions by looking into technology advantages or other adaptable innovation solutions from various sectors and industries.??

Such Labs could help in creating new networks, building partnerships between academics and policy professionals, enable building trust and ensuring active participation of diverse communities, work on the language and presentation of evidence and engage policymakers as early as possible to respond when policy windows emerge (Hinrichs-Krapels, et al., 2020). Such elements will empower timely, quality policy formulation and subsequently increase the likelihood for successful sign-off and implementation.??

Policy Evaluation??

The policy evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of information to make judgments about contexts, activities, characteristics, or outcomes of one or more domain(s) of the Policy Process. The evaluation may inform and improve policy development, adoption, implementation, and effectiveness, and build the evidence base for policy interventions. Evaluation could start with a sound analysis by the policymaker, an experienced and informed view by a senior or technical manager, or observations and feedback by the implementers or beneficiaries of the policy.???

Evaluation will not be the final step and could be started at any stage of the policy process.? It will help to reexamine the need and content of the policy, review one or more of the enabling factors and the implementation activities, or judge whether the policy is achieving the intended impact.? The best evaluation will be based on actual evidence-based study and recommend ways to enhance, expand, or phase out. You could apply the OECD six evaluation criteria for informed results: Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability (OECD, 2021).??

Conclusion??

Theoretical policy models are still relevant as logical frameworks to analyze and enhance our understanding of the current policy issues. They would ensure that new policy advisors and makers have a tool to approach their engagements with both existing and new policy analysis and development. But, the traditional linear and circular model could be misleading as a concept as it does not reflect the complexity of the policy-making process.??

Additionally, it does not emphasize the policy implementation making it less practical - in my opinion - for a policy practitioner. Therefore, we need to suggest alternative structures for the policy process to advance both the academic and professional work domains. Now, if we would look for an improved theoretical policy process model that:?

1. Recognizes the influence from both the actual need and the political desire of the decision-maker yet give it fluidity that does not make one aspect diminish the other;??
2. Focuses on implementation with flexibility for different contexts, scales, and complexities;?
3. Considers the importance of aligning the different aspects of policy leadership, planning, and formulation early towards the successful implementation to maximize the intended success and impact.??

I conclude with the below model (see Figure 1) that considers implementation at the heart of the policy process:??

Figure 1: Implementation-Centered Policy Model?

References?

Banks, G. (2018). Challenges of evidence-based policy-making. Retrieved from The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). https://legacy.apsc.gov.au/challenges-evidence-based-policy-making??

Clay, E. J., & Schaffer, B. B. (1984). Room for Manoeuvre, An Explanation of Public Policy in Agriculture and Rural Development. London: Heinemann. Page: 192. ISBN: 0435837591??

Everett, S. (2003). The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm Revisited? Australian Journal of Public Administration, Volume 62, Issue 2, Page 65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8497.00325??

Hinrichs-Krapels, S., Bailey, J., Boulding, H., Duffy, B., Hesketh, R., & Kinloch, E. (2020). Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence. Palgrave Commun. Page 8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0453-0??

Howlett, M., Vince, J., & Del Rio, P. (2017). Policy integration and multi-level governance: dealing with the vertical dimension of policy mix designs. Politics and Governance, Volume 5, Issue 2, Page 72. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i2.928.??

Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice. Pages 2-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378??

Knill, C., Steinbacher, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2021). Balancing Trade‐Offs between Policy Responsiveness and Effectiveness: The Impact of Vertical Policy‐Process Integration on Policy Accumulation. Public Administration Review. Volume 81, Issue 1, Page 158. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13274??

Mintrom, M. (2010). Doing ethical policy analysis. Public Policy: Why ethics matters. Pages 43 - 64. https://dx.doi.org/10.22459/PP.10.2010.03??

OECD (2021). Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully. Paris: OECD Publishing. Page 10. https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en.??

Pomeroy, D. D., Dy, A., Chien, D., Kumar, M., Lindahl, P., & White, P. (n.d.). Public Policy Communication: Introduction. Retrieved from Biological Engineering Communication Lab: https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/be/commkit/public-policy-communication-introduction/??

Sutton, R. (1999). The Policy Process: An Overview. London: Overseas Development Institute. London:? Chameleon Press Ltd.? Page: 9. ISBN: 0850034175??