Introduction:

According to Dinica (2004), it is widely accepted that it is difficult and tiresome to sketch a conceptual
distinction between policy formulation and policy implementation. This is because policy formulation
basically takes place throughout the entire policy process. As Hill and Hupe (2003) care to frame it,
what is needed is a way of combining the analytical benefits offered by the stages model with the
recognition of the interaction between the stages. They think that use of the term policy-making for
the entire process, policy formation for the initial part of policy-making, and policy implementation
for the latter part of the policy-making process would be more suitable.

Components of Policy Formulation and Implementation:
The first and foremost step in the process of policy-making, or implementation of policy is deciding
whether a new policy or policy reform is required in the first place. As is obvious, this is a vital step and
the first in a series of methodical procedures.

Once it has been decided that a new policy has to be promoted, or an existing one reformed, a
comprehensive journey of analyses and diagnoses is embarked upon. This is the process of identifying
the policy down to its very core. The step of formulation adds more detail to the earlier policy analysis.
These details are including a statement of the problem, the goals and objectives of the policy, a
framework that sketches programs in support of those targets, and a statement of the resources needed
for this policy. All these elements need to be sketched and analyzed in elaborate detail so that effective
action and implementation can be carried out (Burke, 1990; Starling, 1988).

At this point, the policy-makers have the option to make the process more participatory by engaging
civil society in policy analysis and formulation. Their options could be anything from simple information
sharing to outright collaboration. In Ireland, there is an innovative method of going about this process:
there exist social partnerships which aid negotiation between the government, the private sector and
civil society on monetary, fiscal and public policies. In the course of the past five years, the country has
effectively made use of these social partnerships to formulate and develop a national social contract
which has led to a significant improvement in its economic performance. The benefits which can be
derived from using such a participatory and negotiated process to arrive at consensus on principal
elements of fiscal and monetary policy are many. As in Irelands case, this social partnership helped in
negotiations for budget deficits, wage rates, social sector spending and safety nets. Also, it created
opportunity for the many partners to fulfill their part of the pledge and made them accountable for it
(Dinica, 2004; Starling, 1988).

Policy adoption is the next step, but this is a step which is often merged with the actual implementation
stage. There can be little external participation in this stage since formal adoption often warrants a legal
or administrative requirement of referendum, a parliamentary vote, a cabinet memorandum, or other
formal measures. Hence, participation in policy adoption is mostly just simple information sharing
(Matland, 1995; Dinica, 2004).
Finally, the policy is implemented. Dinica (2004) finds it useful to conceive of implementation as a
mixture of activities because implementation activities are often e very complex in terms of their types,
the aim or effect in mind relating to them and the actors involved. She further pointed out two distinct
types of policy implementation activities that are often taking place side by side or one after the other.
These are policy-making and policy operationalisation.

Policies are not completely designed once the formulation process is over. As mentioned earlier,
formulation often continues happening throughout the entire process. Policy formulators may distribute
the job either explicitly or implicitly and ask other actors to complete the task of policy specification.
Such actors could be politically elected at EU/national/regional/local standards or could even originate
from the public administration component of the government or from the judicial system. But then,
these actors could be other entities as well for example, mixed public-private agents and private actors
such as companies, households, NGOs, who can make their own decisions or involve public participation
in the process. Hence, the policy formulation process might very well continue in the policy
implementation stage if the earlier design of policy had not been completed in a way that implementing
actors are able to work with (Dinica, 2004).

Policy operationalisation is the other activity which might be taking place in the implementation stage.
This is performed when the policy goals, means and schemes are completed and specified such that
implementing actors find it possible to work with them either directly, or via applying them in the local
contexts in which they have to operate, or for the different types of target groups, or the various types
of industrial / social / economic activities, as put forward by the policy program initially (Dinica, 2004).

This stage can also be carried out with the help of external participation. Depending on the type of
policy, there usually exist various means for involving public participation in the process. For example,
according to Dinica (2004), if it is a sectoral policy, opportunities for collaboration, shared decision-
making, and empowerment through partnerships are rampant. Public administration policies, for
example the administrative reform policies have introduced methods for external consultation, like
decentralized public personnel policies that warrant input and feedback from local citizens on
performance. But public participation has not been adopted as a measure in macroeconomic policy
implementation other than simple information sharing and dissemination (Starling, 1988). When it
comes to social and poverty issues, a lot more attention is paid to public participation and citizen
consultation when opting for adjustment and reform policy. For example, a process of extensive
consultations was carried out in the Andhra Pradesh (AP), India program of reform for the irrigation
sector. This was highly crucial owing to the high priority given to agriculture in the country. The
government wanted to understand and consider the viewpoints of all the involved parties. Hence, in this
case, it did not restrict participation in the public consultations to only farmers, but also included
politicians, political parties, researchers, and the press. This was a well thought-out step on the
governments part as these consultations helped the government to manage the entire scenarios
happenings in a transparent manner (Dinica, 2004).

After implementation, policies must be monitored and evaluated. These are the final stages. There are
new and better ways evolving to perform these tasks and external participation in these areas is also
becoming popular. For example, an external actor like the general affected public provides information
to policy monitors and evaluators, or the policy monitors contact the public for their opinions, reactions
and analyses. Monitoring and evaluation can be carried out by joint collaboration, or independent
assessments and evaluations can be compared, contrasted and worked upon for new policies or policy
reform (Starling, 1988).

Traditional policy formulation and implementation very rarely involved external participation. However,
as is evident from the above paragraphs, now external participation can be included in different forms
at many different places in the entire process.

Example:When the World Bank wants to implement policy relating to rural transport, its policy
formulation process is as follows. This step must first and foremost determine which rural transport
issues to find a solution to and in which order of priority. If resulting policies are to be impelmentable
and made in a way so that they last, an approach which is structured and iterative in nature is required.
It should be coordinated with suitable top-down and bottom-up processes so that the entire process is
smooth. The entire approach towards seeking a solution should be one which combines the rural
transport policy into the broad framework of other general policies relating to this area, such as the
ones for the road sub-sector, and the transport sector and the overall rural development. In this stage,
the instruments available for policy implementation must also be considered.

For the policy implementation process, two things are extremely necessary: a strategy and an action
plan. For this particular case, a steering committee with a secretariat is organized and it is their job to
formulate a strategy and action plan for policy implementation. The strategy which this committee
comes up with should very clearly define and draw a distinction between the measures which are
suitable for immediate implementation and those which still need more time on the drawing board. This
is where the difference between a strategy and an action plan comes in. A strategy might be put down
in general and broad terms at even a high level, an action plan is much more comprehensive. The latter
has to be extremely detailed and specific about the activities which are to be undertaken, the individuals
who are responsible for each different part of the strategy, when the implementation is to be carried
out and the resources required for each component of the process. Aside from this, performance
indicators should also be contained so that the implementation process can be monitored and
implemented as is the final step in the entire process. In the World Banks case, the strategy and action
plan are usually publicly available documents and they have within them a framework document, a
corporate plan and business plan (Rural Transport Policies and Strategies).

How policy is made

Policy can be defined as a set of ideas and proposals for action culminating in a government decision
To study policy, therefore, is to study how decisions are made
Burch (1979, p108) distinguishes between two main types of government decisions:
Rules, regulations and public pronouncements (e.g. Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council)
Public expenditure and its distribution
Models of policy making

The conventional model
The ruling-class model
The pluralist model
Corporatism
The party government model
The Whitehall model
Rational decision making
Incrementalism
The policy cycle

Policy is normally best understood as part of a cycle made up of various stages
Hogwood and Gunn(1984) have identified a number of stages:
Deciding to decide
Issue definition
Forecasting
Setting objectives and priorities
Option analysis
Policy implementation
Monitoring and control
Evaluation and review
However, Lindblom disagrees with this analysis
He argues that Deliberate or orderly
steps . . . are not an accurate portrayal of how the policy process actually works. Policy making is,
instead, a complexly interactive process without beginning or end (Lindblom and Woodhouse, 1993, p.
11, quoted in Parsons, 1995, p. 22)
This lecture will look at three stages in the policy process: initiation, formulation and implementation
Agenda setting

John Kingdon perceived it necessary for three streams to conjoin for an item to be added to public
policy:
The recognition of something as a problem (problem stream)
The identification of possible solutions (policy stream)
The requisite opportunities time, accession to power of a party prepared to act and so forth (political
stream)
For example poverty was not seen as a problem by many till Liberalism and Socialism emerged
Policy initiation

Each government decision has a long and complex provenance, but all must start somewhere
Policy initiatives, can originate in all parts of the political system but are often quite hard to identify
Policy initiatives can be started by:
The general public
Cause groups, media and academic experts
Extra parliamentary parties and party groupings
Parliament
Ministers departments, official inquiries and think tanks
Prime Minister and Cabinet
General public

The publics role in policy making is usually limited to (the democratically vital function of ) voting for a
particular policy package at general elections
However they can also have an impact during referendums (e.g. entry to the EU) or when the public
feels particularly strongly about an issue
For example, legislation on dogs was enacted after a spate of attacks by dogs on children one summer in
the 1980s, and handguns were banned after the Dunblane shootings of March 1996
However they do not always have an impact e.g. public feeling about the war in Iraq did not stop Blair
participating in the conflict
Cause groups, media and academic experts

Often can government policy can be influenced by influential groups, the media an certain academic
experts
Groups like Greenpeace currently have some impact on government thinking due to their mass
membership
Equally the media is very influential, especially Tabloids like the Sun and the Mirror
In practise this translates into political power for their owners, such as Rupert Mudoch
Often governments have to be extremely careful not to offend their owners for fear of receiving bad
publicity
Extra parliamentary parties and party groupings

Both the Labour and Conservative extra-parliamentary parties find it easier to influence their respective
leaders in opposition than in government
This can be done via funding e.g. the Trade Unions and Labour
During party conferences
The research departments can initiate important proposals
For instance the Fabian society and No Turning Back Group are both important political think tanks
Individual politicians can lobby their leaders on issues they feel are important
Parliament

The role of Parliament in initiating policy can be considered under two headings:
Party sources and party groups
Non-party sources
Party groups (some of which have membership outside Parliament) such as the Bow Group, Monday
Club, Tribune and Campaign Group can all have influence on policy making
Select committees all make regular reports and can have impact of government policy
Blair ran into trouble during his time as Prime Minister for seemingly ignoring input from parliament
Ministers departments, official inquiries and think tanks

Strong-minded ministers will always develop policy ideas of their own either as a reflection of their own
convictions or to get noticed and further their ambitions
A Royal Commission set up by the government can be the precursor to major policy changes
Margaret Thatcher didnt trust Royal Commissions but her successors have all made use of them
Many policy ideas can come directly from the civil service but also influential think tanks
Prime Minister and Cabinet

Strong Prime Ministers, especially when backed by a strong mandate can often dominate policy making
Depending on their personality they can take as large (or small) role in policy initiation as they feel
comfortable with
Margaret Thatcher initiated many of her policies herself
However John Major was happier to delegate more policy making to his cabinet and the civil service
Blair was seen as a much more Presidential leader with policy being made by himself and small group of
trusted close colleagues
The concept of the core executive

The idea of the core executive is that decision making takes place at the highest level, constituted by a
body of leading figures drawn from:
The Prime Ministers Office
The Cabinet
The Cabinet Office
The head officials of the departments concerned with the particular issue
Policy formulation

Once a policy idea has received political endorsement it is outlined in further detail
This process involves certain key players from the initiation process including:
Civil servants
Often key pressure group leaders
Outside experts
And, usually at a later stage, ministers
The bureaucratic process

This will entail numerous information-gathering and advisory committee meetings and a sequence of
coordinating meetings with other ministries
Some of these meetings might be coordinated by the Cabinet Office
When ministers become involved the measures will be progressed in Cabinet committees and ultimately
full Cabinet
Finally they are passed on to parliamentary counsel, the expert drafters of parliamentary bills
The legislative process

This process involves several readings and debates in both chambers
Opposition MPs and peers may seek to delay and move hostile amendments, but more important are
rebellions within the government party
The task of piloting measures through the legislature falls to ministers, closely advised by senior officials
Often very few people are involved in government policy formation with some scholars putting the
figure as low as 3,500
This is made up of ministers, civil servants, pressure groups and experts
Policy implementation

Once a government and parliament have decided on a policy they then have to implement it
However this process can often be extremely complicated with several factors impacting upon it
In order to achieve perfect implementation:
There must be a unitary administrative system
The norms and rules enforced by the system have to be uniform
There must be perfect obedience or perfect control
There must be perfect information and perfect communication as well as perfect coordination.
There must be sufficient time for administrative resources to be mobilised
Constraints upon policy makers

There are often many constraints that act upon policy makers. There include:
Financial resources
Political support
Competence of key personal
Time
Timing
Coordination
Personality factors
Geographical factors
International events
The influence of Europe
Policy networks
Comprehensive policy marketing

Lees-Marshment argues in her 2001 book that politicians design policies for the electoral market and
then deliver them once in power
As a result of this parties no longer rely on ideology to guide their thinking
The Labour party was product based in the early 1980s but when this didnt appeal to the voters they
became sales orientated
However when this didnt work either they became market based using polling and focus groups to
find out what the voters wanted
This in part led to the 1997 landslide