Module in Public Policy and Program Administration
August 3, 2022 | Author: Anonymous | Category: N/A
Short Description
Download Module in Public Policy and Program Administration...
Description
PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Course Code: PA 13
SY 2020-2021 BACHELOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
BRIEF OVERVIEW
This Learning Material includes public policy formulation and implementation with emphasis on administration and evaluation of public programs. This course aims to provide students with an understanding of how and why the public policymaking process functions as it does. This process has been widely criticized by both academic and media observers and we will assess the nature of contemporary these criticisms and evaluate their accuracy. We will also explore the consequences of the character of our policymaking system for equity, efficiency, and democracy. An overview of the existing programs, institutions, and political dynamics for a variety of public policy areas will be provided. This Self-Learning Material is designed for use as guide for self-learning by the student outside of the usual classroom setting. The student is therefore expected to achieve the learning outcomes by him/herself, away from school and with minimal intervention by the teacher. Each student will be provided with a digital folder containing all the documents pertinent to the course. The student is strictly prohibited to share sh are any of such documents to anybody. Doing so will be treated as a disciplinary case and the perpetrator will have to face sanctions. DISCLAIMER: This learning material is used in compliance with the flexible teachinglearning approach espoused by CHED in response to the pandemic that has globally affected educational institutions. Authors and publishers of the contents are well acknowledged. As such the college and its faculty do not claim ownership of all sourced information. This learning material will solely be used for instructional purposes not for commercialization.
Rommel R. Regala, Ph.D Ph.D.. CatSU College of Arts and Sciences
GUIDELINES IN STUDYING STUDYING WITH THE LEARNING MATERIAL
1.
Start by taking note of the objectives. Then at the end of each lesson, check if you have have fulfilled all of the objectives.
2.
Be sure to read first the required reading/s for each lesson before proceeding to the summary provided in the “Content” part of the learning material. Remember, what is in the lesson is only a summary which is not enough to gain adequate understanding of the topic/s covered in the lesson. Also, it will be most advantageous for the student to read more materials over and above what is required here. You can search for them in the internet and at the CSU Library.
3.
Have a separate notebook. Make your your own notes as you read through the reading materials and summary provided for here. Transferring the ideas, organizing and rendering them in your own words and understanding, help you to absorb and internalize the content.
4.
Have a dictionary or thesaurus handy handy to be able tto o check out the meaning meaning of words that are not very familiar to you.
5.
Do the self-assessment activity to end your work fo forr each particular lesson. lesson.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
1|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
6.
Answers to your self-assessment questions must be written in digital word document document by clusters and submitted either by email or in printed hard copies to your teacher. Clustering and deadlines will be posted on Google Classroom.
7.
Be sure to write your name on your submission. Submit on or before deadline. Late submission will not be accepted.
8.
Compose your answers to the self-assessment questions in you yourr own words. Do not copy any portion/s the learning materials fromorany source (book or the internet). DO NOT COPY FROM of YOUR CLASSMATE, in part in full. Both the original and the copied papers will be given “0” mark.
It is advised therefore that a student should not show his/her self-assessment activity paper to any classmate so as to prevent copying. 9.
The rubrics below will be used in assessing your answers in the self-assessment questions that you will be submitted. EXCELLENT – 10 EXCELLENT – 10 Points (1.0 (1.0)) • Concise and direct to the point • Precise explanation of concepts and exact illustrations VERY SATISFACTORY – SATISFACTORY – 8 8 Poin ts (1.5 (1.5-1.1 -1.1)) • Concise and direct to the point • Explanation and illustrations are quite adequate SATISFACTORY – 6 SATISFACTORY – 6 Poin ts (2.0 (2.0-1.6 -1.6)) • Moderately concise • Explanation and illustrations are moderately adequate LESS SATISFACTORY – SATISFACTORY – 4 4 Poin ts (2.5 (2.5-2.1 -2.1)) • Fairly concise • Explanation and illustrations are fairly adequate POOR – 2 POOR – 2 Points (3.0-2.6) • Vague but intelligible • Explanation and illustrations are minimally adequate VERY POOR POOR – – 0 0 Point (5.0) (5.0) • Answers is thoroughly out of range, or no answer at all
10. There will be written midterm and final examinations. You have to come to school for the examinations. Examination will be on the following schedules: Midterm Examination - _________________________________ Final Examination - _________________________________ 11. We will create a group chat on Messenger. This will be used only for clarifications regarding lessons/topics in the course. No submissions will be accepted on group chat/messenger. Socializing and raising unrelated issues should be minimized.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
2|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this handout, handout, you should be able to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Learn and pr practice actice concepts about the different values and ideologies that inform debates over public policy. Develop greater understanding about how do “politics” and “policy” interact. Understand the ke key y charac characteristics teristics the policy making process. process. Identify the key actors involved in of policymaking and the di different fferent kinds of influence that they deploy. Acquire better understanding concerning factors that influence the administration of policies once they are enacted and the future direction of Philippine policymaking.
COURSE CONTENT
De Desired sired L ea earning rning Outcomes
A. At the end of the unit, the students shall be able to: 1.
Know the definition of Public Policy; understand the features of Public Policy; understand the uses of public policies; and Identify types of public policies.
Course Content/ Subject Matter
A. Int I nt ro du ct io n t o Pu bl ic Pol ic y
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
B. At the end of the unit, the students shall be able to:
1.
Distinguish between the two houses of congress in their exercise of legislative power; recognize the legislative privileges, inhibitions and disqualifications; explain the importance of quorum and how the congress votes on a certain bill; Describe the electoral tribunals and the commission on appointments; and Enumerate and expound the powers of congress.
Definition of Public Policy The Features of Public Policy Three Kinds of Policy Three Policy Arenas Three kinds of Policymakers Five Ways Elected Bodies Make Policy Key Trends Today The Policy Process
B. Policy Making: Structur es a and nd Processes (The (The Philip Philip pine Legislative Department)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Who may exercise legislative power Houses of congress Legislative privileges, inhibitions and disqualifications Quorum and voting majorities Discipline of members Electoral tribunals and the commission on appointments Powers of congress
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
3|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes De Desired sired L ea earning rning Outcomes
C. After studying this Unit, the students should be able to: 1.
Understand the different theories of policy change; describe multi-level governance and policy networks; discuss the politics of change and reforms; and give the lessons from policy change research.
D. After reading this unit, you will be able to: 1. Familiarize top-down and bottom-up approaches; describe the rationalchoice theories; give examples from education policy; and discuss the lessons from implementation research.
Course Content/ Subject Matter
C. Theories Theories of Policy Change
1. 2.
Path Dependence Advocacy Coalition Framework
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Policy Learning Policy Diffusion Punctuated Equilibrium Institutional Change Multi-Level Governance Policy Networks Disruptive Innovation Politics of Change and Reform Lessons from Policy Change Research
E. Policy Implementation 1. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches 2. Rational-Choice Theories 3. Examples from Education Policy 4. Lessons from Implementation Research
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
4|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
LESSON 1 INTRODU INTRODUCTION CTION TO PUBLIC POL ICY
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, the student must b be e able to: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Know the definition of Public Policy; Understand the features of Public Policy; Understand the uses of public policies; policies; and Identify types of public policies.
READINGS “A Public Policy Primer” From: Hollister, D. 2007. A Public Policy Primer: How to t o Get Off the Sidelines and Into the Game. Michigan: Institute for Educational Leadership, pp. 1-9. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510117.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510117.pdf
CONTENT
Understanding public policy is not all that difficult once one understands the fundamentals. DEFINITION DEFINI TION OF PUBLIC POLICY
A policy can refer to a proposal, of a programmed, major decision or the refusal to make certain decision. (Sharkanskv: 1978:7) In other words, policy is simply actions taken or to be taken by government or private organization. (Ikelegbe: 1996.1) A policy option made by an individual is known as "private policy" because it affects the person alone and no any other person. (Olaniyi: 1998:13) However, “Public Policy”. Policy”. Emanates from the 'public sector' including both the institutions of central and local government and state created agencies such as water or health authorities, commission and corporations- it may be implemented through and directed at a wide variety of individuals and organizations which may or may not be part of the state apparatus and which may be to a greater or lesser degree independent of state influence or control. (Barrett and Fudge: 1981.V)
Chandlier and Plano (1988:107) defined Public Policy "as the strategic use of resources to alleviate problems or government concerns". Similarly, Dimock, et al (1983:40) described Public Policy as deciding at anytime or place what objectives and substantive measures should be chosen in order to deal with a particular problem issue or innovation. It also includes the reasons they should be chosen.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
5|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
The Fea Features tures of Public Polic y
The main features of a policy is that, first, it involves a choice. It is an important choice or a critical or important decision taken by individuals, groups or organizations. Therefore, there has to be several policy alternatives and policy formation involves the development of several policy alternatives and the choice of an alternative. Second,orpolices are proposed courses of actions or projected set of decisions. Policies are prospective are statements of future actions. Policies states what is going to be done or would be done. It outlines a course of contemplated or desired action in relation to certain desired objects or events in the real world. Third, a policy is goal oriented. It is directed at the attainment of certain end states or objectives. A policy has certain purposes or intention. Fourth, policies have to do with particular problems or problems areas. They are not abstracts, but rather relate to and are actually responses to the challenges and pressures arising from an environment. Furthermore, policies are designed and targeted at dissolving existing or future problems or satisfying certain needs. Finally, a policy is a course setting action. action. It provides the direction, the guide and the way to the achievement of certain goals. It provides the frame within, which present and future actions are undertaken. It is a major guideline for action. (Ikelegbe 996:2-3).
THREE KINDS OF POLICY
Basically, there are three kinds of public policy: • Good Policy/Good Politics • Good Policy/Bad Politics • Bad Policy/Good Politics. Good Policy/Good Politics
Assume that you, the policymaker, have a group of ten experts evaluate a proposed intervention to resolve a problem. Good Policy/Good Politics occurs when they conclude that it will produce a measurable and positive outcome (good policy) —and no one is expected to criticize you, write negative letters to the editor, send negative e-mails, or flog you on a blog (good politics). Case-in-Point: One example of good policy/good politics is the rightturn- on-red bill that was enacted by many state legislatures during the energy crisis of the late 1970s. Policymakers wanted to promote oil conservation and also deal with people’s natural impatience. So, laws were enacted that allowed one to pull up to a stop light, look both ways, and proceed to turn right if there was no traffic, thereby saving energy (good policy) and addressing people’s level of impatience (good politics). Legislators were never criticized for enacting this policy even though some deaths and injuries might have resulted from it. This was good policy and good politics.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
6|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Good Policy/Bad Politics
The second kind of policy is Good Policy/Bad Politics. In this case, nine of the ten experts agree that, if adopted, the proposed intervention will lead to a measurable and positive outcome (good policy). You will be criticized, however; negative letters to the editor will appear; and you will pay some kind of political price for advocating or supporting the proposal (bad politics). Anlegislator, example Iofwas good policy/badby politics is the mandatory seatbelt Case-in-Point: law. As a young approached the Secretary of State and asked to read a study by the University of Michigan indicating how many lives would be saved, how many injuries reduced, and how much money saved by enacting mandatory seatbelt legislation. I was also given a copy of a University of South Carolina survey indicating very little public support for this policy. At that time, about 60 percent of the people interviewed in a national survey were somewhat or strongly opposed to mandatory seatbelt legislation. While it was good public health policy, it was also clear that it was bad politics. Because the evidence was overwhelming that mandatory seatbelts would indeed save lives, reduce injuries, and save Medicaid dollars, I introduced the first mandatory seatbelt legislation in America. The response was immediate and overwhelmingly negative. At first blush, the issue was interpreted as a civil liberties issue—governmental coercion versus a public health issue. It took four years of advocacy and education to persuade the public and the legislature that seat belts save lives and, more importantly, that it is the proper role of government to regulate public health and safety issues. As people came to understand the public health nature of the policy, attitudes changed and seat belts became not only good policy but also good politics. Case-in-Point: Another important public policy issue that falls in good policy/bad politics category is the durable power of attorney legislation that deals with people’s right to die. I introduced the first bil l of this kind in America after watching my grandfather be put on life support against his expressed but unwritten will. I learned how inadequate the laws were when dealing with incapacitated and unconscious people. I tried to intervene on behalf of my family to stop unwanted and unnecessary treatment for my unconscious and incompetent grandfather who had suffered a series of strokes. While he had made his wishes known and did not want to be hooked up to life support equipment, the circumstances of his last stroke initiated a full range of lifesupport equipment. Unfortunately, the laws did not allow family members to stop treatment. After watching my grandfather suffer for weeks, with his hands and feet tied to the hospital bed, I decided that I would tackle this public policy issue.
I created a statewide task force to look at this complex issue and introduced the first durable power of attorney legislation in the country. The initial response was overwhelmingly negative. While it was good policy, and most public health experts agreed that clarification was needed in this area, the politics were terrible. (I was accused of wanting to kill people.) It subsequently took 16 years of public education and continuous lobbying to get the bill passed. Basically, our task was to make it both good policy and good politics, which eventually happened through a concentrated, disciplined, strategic effort involving broad public health and senior citizen constituencies and their advocacy.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
7|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Bad Policy/Good Politics
The third type of public policy is Bad Policy/Good Politics. In this situation, the group of ten experts will tell you that the proposed intervention will not get the outcome you want, but it is still good politics. Case-in-Point: The HIV crisis of the early 1980s is an example of bad
policy/ good politics. hadurged become a something. national andPolitics international health and legislatures wereHIV being to do required somecrisis, kind of action. Eventually, several legislatures passed legislation that would require couples getting married to undergo HIV counselling. Public health experts agreed that this intervention would not be effective policy — couples getting married were not the at-risk group. The most at-risk groups were intravenous (IV) drug users and people with multiple sex partners. Several states considered legislation that would have given free needles to IV drug users. While this might have been good public health policy, it was extremely bad politics and no state adopted the free needle policy. The same was true of a proposal to provide free, unlimited access to condoms. I have found over the years that legislative bodies spend a disproportionate amount of their time on bad policy and good politics. That is why it is so important for people to understand and to participate in the policy process. Most policymakers want to do what’s right and productive, but they also have to get re-elected. Therefore the policy suffers and politics all too often prevail. THREE POLICY POLICY ARENA S
Once one understands the three kinds of policy, one needs to understand the three different arenas in which public policy is made in a democratic society. Elected Ele cted Bo dies
The first arena is public Elected Bodies. On the national level, there is Congress; the state legislature on the state level; and, on the local level, the county commission, city council, township trustees, and school boards. In each instance we elect someone from our neighborhood to represent us in the elected body. The idea of representing a specific geographic area is key, as policymakers are expected to be accessible to and reflective of this constituency. The elected body comes together for a specific period of time, usually called a session. The first order of business is establishing a consensus agenda on the most urgent issues facing the community, whether on the national, state, or local level, and then developing a strategy for dealing with each specific agenda item. Elective bodies are generally very open, participatory, and deliberative. The process is one of consensus building and compromise. Given the great complexity and diversity of our nation, our state, and our community, it is difficult and time consuming to agree on the agenda of priority, urgent issues, and, more specifically, on a strategy for solving the problems that are identified. If the elected body is not successful in resolving the problem, the problem doesn’t go away. The Courts Courts
If unresolved, the problem moves to the second arena we have created to make policy — the Courts. The courts offer a completely different kind of arena for policymaking. It is not as open, as participatory, or as consensual. Courts are an adversarial arena. You must be or have an attorney to participate. The process is very structured and follows strict points of law. Opponents are offered the opportunity to reach a settlement outside of the courtroom, if the PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
8|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
parties are willing and able to compromise. If the parties cannot reach agreement, however, the courts will oversee a legal process that creates a winner and a loser. Whatever the out-come, the court issues an opinion that prevails as “public policy” until changed by a higher court or an elected body. Sometimes the court is unsuccessful in reaching a solution —or it chooses not to act. The issue does not go away. The Streets
Instead, the The unresolved issue moves third debate arena that created to make policy— the Streets. street strategy allows to forthe a public in a we lesshave formal atmosphere. It can be as simple as writing a letter to the editor, circulating a petition, or protesting at City Hall or the state Capitol; more active involvement might include organizing or taking part in public marches, mass demonstrations, or even civil disobedience. The participants in the street strategy are trying to educate the public and policymakers about their particular issue. The posters, handbills, speeches, and actions are all designed to increase awareness of the problem and educate the public about the issue. If enough interest or tension is created, the various elected bodies will be forced to take action. The streets become the forum when the elected bodies and courts fail to adequately address an issue. This important safety valve is provided in a democratic society. It is no accident that when a totalitarian government takes over, its first action is to limit freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Over the years the civil rights movement, women’s movement, antiwar movement, environmental movement, and the debate over abortion policy have played out their dramas in the streets. When this avenue is not available, violence is generally the alternative. Therefore, it is important to understand the critical role the streets play in a democratic society and the formulation of public policy. THREE KINDS OF POLICYMAKERS
In addition to the three kinds of public policy and the three arenas in which to make policy, there are three kinds of public officials, who see their role as policymakers quite differently. Delegate
The first kind of policymaker is a Delegate. Delegates believe themselves to be representative of their neighbourhood or district; they see their role as reflecting and representing the views and values of their constituencies. They are very sensitive to the polls and are always trying to understand the prevailing public opinion in their specific districts. These public officials take the concept of “representative” literally, working hard to reflect the interests and values of their neighbours. Delegates are acutely aware of public opinion and polls and, consequently, tend to be more followers than leaders. Delegates make up the majority of elected officials serving in most elected bodies. Trustee
The second kind of policymaker is a Trustee. The trustee is someone who advocates a specific ideology, principle, or value that they believe best serves the public and is less interested in the prevailing public opinion. Trustees place a high value on principle and their particular world view and are often seen as uncompromising and rigid. A liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican would view themselves as trustees, as would pro-choice or right-to-life advocates, even environmental advocates. The key idea here is that trustees are concerned about public opinion and may be persuaded by information or research that reflects their particular world views. Trustees see themselves as leaders and enjoy policy as it relates to their world views. Trustees generally make up 10 to 15 percent of public bodies, clearly a minority but an important factor in policymaking.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
9|Page
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Politico
The third kind of policymaker is the Politico. This person is more interested in the campaign, trappings, and benefits of office than the particulars of public policy. Politicos are always looking for the next office, always campaigning, and focus little time on public policy, except as it impacts their ability to seek and achieve another office. As one considers impacting public policy p olicy and approaching public officials, it is iimportant mportant to know how they each view themselves. One approaches a delegate differently than one approaches a trustee. With a delegate, one would want to demonstrate broad public support for the issue they are advocating. One would want to approach the delegate with petitions, pol polls, ls, and letters of support from important individuals. When one approaches a trustee, however, it is more important to have data that support that individual’s philosophical orientation and enhance the public good as they see it. One approaches the politico with an eye on the next campaign and how the issue you advocate will be impacted by the next election. The politico will also be very sensitive to current polls. One easy way to remember these introductory comments is to think of three Ps —policy, politics, and personality—as all three interact in this dynamic process. FIVE WAYS ELECTED BODIES MAKE POLICY
Public policy is traditionally made in elected bodies. Most people believe that the lawmaking process is the beginning and end of policymaking, but it is important to understand that there are five separate and distinct ways that public bodies make policy. Lawmaking
The first and most obvious is Lawmaking itself. On the national level, Congress enacts laws. On the state level, the legislature enacts laws. On the local level, elected bodies pass resolutions and ordinances that have the force of law but are secondary to the state and federal laws. The lawmaking process itself is one of compromise and consensus building. Any lawmaker can introduce any bill at any time in the legislative session. These sessions are twoyear cycles in which proposals are considered and either become law or not. Most state legislatures consider about 4,000 bills in a two-year legislative cycle. On average, 90 percent of the bills introduced will fail and only 10 percent will become law. This is true on the national, state, and local level. What distinguishes those ideas and bills that become law from those that fail is twofold—aligning good policy with good politics and the effective participation of multiple constituencies, which creates power. (Later, I will discuss the multiple forms of power and how to effectively use power to impact public policy.) The average time it takes an idea to become a law, if it’s not too controversial, is three to five years. It takes time to convince the leadership that your ideas have broad enough support to make it to the agenda. The proposal is then sent to committee to be studied and refined. Input is received from every sector, and the bills are examined and approved a line and a page at a time. In Congress and State Legislatures (with the exception of Nebraska which has a one-house legislature), the same versions of a bill must pass both the House and Senate. Case-in-Point: Lawmaking is a deliberative, participatory, consensusbuilding process that can take years. If the issue is controversial, it can take 10 to 20 years. As I indicated earlier, the Michigan durable power of attorney (right to die) bill took 16 years to become law. Sixteen years of public education,
advocacy, and lobbying to convince skeptical legislators that this idea was both
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
10 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
good policy and good politics. Critical to that process was the uniform, broad, consistent, and strong advocacy by the senior citizen network in Michigan. As difficult and time consuming as it is to have an idea become a law and get the bill signed by the governor, it is important to understand that you’ve actually just begun the policymaking process. Budget Process
A law without a Budget is simply rhetoric. The budget-making budget -making process is as critical as the lawmaking process. The budget process generally is an annual process that runs independently of the lawmaking process. Each year the president, governor, mayor, school superintendent, or township supervisor presents their annual proposed budget to their respective elected bodies. The entire body does not consider the budget; it is referred to an appropriations (or budget) committee. These budget committees are generally not as representative demographically as the entire elective body, but tend to be made up of the more senior members of the legislature. These senior members have more experience, seniority, and power. The appropriations committees themselves are broken into subcommittees, which parallel the Cabinet department s on the national, state, and even local levels. So, you’ll have a House subcommittee on education and a Senate subcommittee on education. You’ll have a House subcommittee on state police, a Senate subcommittee on state police, and on it goes until the entire cabinet is covered. The subcommittees are organized along partisan lines with the majority party controlling the subcommittee in the same ratio that it controls the particular chamber. The subcommittees and the subcommittee chairs are extraordinarily powerful because the members are usually experts on the particular department and have considerable influence on the policies and budget of that particular department. It is absolutely critical to know who those subcommittee members are and to follow their actions as the budget moves through the process. Most subcommittees hold hearings, seek public input, and operate transparently in the initial phases of the budget process, which generally occurs o ccurs early in the year. The budget bills get full consideration by both chambers and eventually end up in a joint House Senate Conference subcommittee to resolve all policy differences. Those final decisions are made in the middle of the night on the last night before the Legislature adjourns for its summer recess, generally the night before the Fourth of July holiday. These complex multimillion-dollar budgets are generally negotiated between the chairperson of the House subcommittee and the chairperson of the Senate subcommittee in the middle of the night, without anyone else knowing the details and actual line items in each bill. The chair of the subcommittee briefs the leadership, and then the modified bill is considered by the full Legislature and, again, enacted late in the night without the non-appropriations members understanding the detail or the complexity of the budget they are voting on. This is why it’s important to be informed and engaged in the hearings, so that you understand your relative position going into this initial period. It is also imperative to meet with and understand the policymakers themselves, whether they see themselves as trustees or delegates, and to get your idea or program understood by these influential policymakers as they consider the budget options late into the night before the summer recess. While you will not be there in person, you can still have an impact if you have met with, informed, and persuaded the key leaders of the merits of your program or policy. Generally speaking, governors will not support funding a new program at 100 percent in the first year. More than likely, the governor will recommend a modest beginning and incrementally increase the program over a period of years. It is important to follow the budget process over time as well. Case-in-Point: I personally was involved in enacting a law requiring
bilingual education in Michigan. The law said that any school district that had more than 50 students with limited English speaking ability must provide a fullPA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
11 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
time bilingual education to those students. Unfortunately, the law did not define what “full-time program” meant nor did it appropriate the funds necessary to get it started. So while we celebrated the law l aw (policy), we were frustrated by the lack of implementation (budget). It wasn’t until the activists focused on t he budget that the program got implemented. Persistence and follow-through are critical in this process. While it has taken three years to get the law enacted and initially funded at only a 25 percent level, we are only part way through the legislative policymaking process. Rule Making
As elected bodies consider legislation, they have the option of writing a complex, comprehensive, and detailed bill that tackles all of the issues and offers specific answers to the multiple policies involved. This strategy has the advantage of offering clarity, but the disadvantage is that the bill is considered a page and a line at a time and must pass both chambers exactly the same. The longer and more complex the bill, the higher the likelihood of adding years to the process. An alternative legislative legis lative strategy is to pass a simple, two- or three-page bi billll that creates a policy framework, but leaves the detail to be worked out later. More and more legislatures are choosing the second option because it is simpler and faster and leaves some of the tougher decisions to the brief state legislation bureaucracy. The process of formulating the specific policyorgrowing out of this generalized is called the Administrative Procedures Process promulgating Rules and Regulations. Most states have enacted an elongated, transparent, and painfully precise process of formulating rules and regulations that clarify the policy. po licy. These processes require public hearings, extended public comment, and a guarantee of a written response to every individual who testifies over the period of review. Unfortunately, consumers and advocates, who are traditionally active and engaged in the lawmaking process and somewhat in the budget-making process, generally stay away from the rules and regulation process because it is so intimidating and precise. Special interest groups have lobbyists, research resources, and budgets to fully engage in the complex and precise rule-making process. While citizen advocates feel comfortable dealing with broad policy issues and are willing to talk to their elected officials, they generally are less comfortable with the nitty-gritty detail. Special interest groups often succeed in reversing or significantly modifying the intent of original legislation because they have the time and resources to shape the details. (It is not uncommon for the rule-making process to go on for five to seven years.) Oversight
Another policy-making arena iin n elected bodies is the Oversight Committee. These timelimited committees are created to look at a specific problem or issue and make recommendations to the full body. Oversight committees have the advantage of cross-fertilization with members from multiple standing committees and the appropriations committees of the legislative body. The process of creating an oversight committee involves simply finding enough interested legislators to commit the time and effort involved in the process —and convincing the leadership of either the House and Senate, or both, to create, staff, and provide resources so that oversight can be effective. Once created, their task is to define a problem, look at alternative solutions, hold public hearings, create public awareness, and make recommendations to the full body; then to advocate and follow through, getting those recommendations adopted as policy. (Examples of policy issues that have been effectively addressed by oversight committees include the medical malpractice insurance crisis, homelessness, environmental contamination, and lead paint extraction.)
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
12 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Sunset Option Option
The final way that elected bodies make policy is through Sunset, referring to the concept that some kind of automatic review or termination is built into a policy. For example, the first mandatory seatbelt legislation had a provision that the bill would terminate after five years, giving the legislature the option to reenact it only if it were proven to be successful. (The final version excluded that provision but it was an important part of the early discussion of the policy.) Legislatures often enact laws that expire after a given number of years. The idea is to give the policy a chance, then re-enact it only if proven successful. Another sunset strategy is to create a new program and an automatic review, but not termination, after five years. The idea behind the review is to create some kind of evaluation and accountability within the policy-making process. While accountability is important, it should be noted that many constitutional offices and their departments are exempt from sunset (e.g., secretary of state, attorney general); the politics are that you’re not going to sunset the state police or the prison system or popular established programs. The tendency is to focus the sunset process on more vulnerable, less popular human service programs. Nevertheless, sunset is an important policy tool. === To recap, then, we have a Lawmaking process that is open, participatory, and consensual, taking three to five years; a less participatory, annual Budget process; a five- to seven-yearonRuleMaking process; an law, Oversight that and allows an evaluation and judgment the effectiveness of the budget,process and rules; the for potential to Sunset a program or policy. Conceptually, these legislative processes fit together. Ideally, a lawmaker helps formulate the law, participates in the budget, helps hel ps provide oversight, and is engaged in any serious sunset review of the policy or program. This happens when you have an extraordinarily talented and fully engaged policymaker who is committed to follow through during this extensive process. (Term limits, enacted in many states, severely hamper the ability of elected officials in playing this role. So, more than likely, a special interest group ends up providing continuity and advocacy over time. Power clearly has shifted to the t he special interests and the bureaucracy.)
KEY TRENDS TODAY
Now that we understand the three different kinds of policy, the three arenas around which policy is made, the three different ways that policymakers view themselves, and the five different ways that elected bodies make policy, let’s look at some key trends that are impacting policymakers on the national, state, and local level. The Futurists Let’s begin with the observations of many futurists. Ad apt in g To Chan ge
Basically, futurists are saying that everything is changing and that change is accelerating. All institutions (i.e., business, social, political, educational, and even the family) are being challenged and must change, innovate, and adapt. The institutions that survive and thrive will have several things in common: they will be organized around the autonomy of the individual; provide customized, flexible programs and services; and be committed to self-actualization, eliminating barriers and enabling people to participate at the level that facilitates their potential. (You see this phenomenon particularly in the disability community whose members insist that barriers preventing their full participation be corrected, or that devices be created, to allow maximum contribution.) Workers engaged and empowered to undertake bottom-up decision PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
13 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes making will fully embrace adaptability and innovation. This is the essence of Deming’s1 work and the continuous, quality improvement process. New Definitions of “Community” “Community”
The futurists are also saying that the nexus of power, the center of decision making, has shifted or devolved from the federal government, where it was pervasive in the 1940s through the 1960s; it then shifted to the states in the 1970s, 1980s, and even 1990s. Today, new regions are evolving that are defined by labor markets, not political boundaries, and led by the busi- ness community, not the political leadership. These new regional configurations are engaged with universities and are arranged through non-governmental organizations (both for-profit and nonprofit). This is a significant change and a common element of those communities that are thriving in America today. Ag in g Po pu lat io n an d L egac y Co st s One of the overriding trends is the aging of America’s population. The Aging and “Baby“Baby-Boom Generation” Factors Factors
The economic and political implications of the aging of America are best understood when one focuses on how dramatically this has developed in the last few decades. In the middle of the last century, you were considered old if you were 50 or older. Today, those 65 to 75 are called thefastest “younggrowing old”; those 75 to 85 are the “middle and“old those and older are the at “old old.” The portion of our population todayold”; is the old”85 category, in creasing a rate of four times the national average. To see how graphically this has changed in the last several years, let’s look at 1950. Case-in-Point: In 1950, if you were 65, your chance of living to age 90 was 7 percent. In 2000, if you were 65, your chance of living to 90 increased to 33 percent. Because people are living longer, it should be no surprise that currently one million Americans are 100 years old or older. While this fact is interesting, it becomes troubling when one looks at the labor market supporting this aging cohort.
In 1950, 17 people worked to support each retiree —by paying social security and taxes, producing goods and services, and providing a social safety net. By 2000, the number of people working to support each retiree dropped tto o 3. By 2020, projections show only 2 workers per retiree because of the pending retirement of 77 million Baby Boomers (those born between 1945 and 1960.) As people age, more is spent on health care; consequently, issues of how to pay for health care will become a much bigger policy issue. Health Care Costs
Health care costs are the fastest growing segment of all state budgets. Medicaid is a state- administered program that provides health insurance for the poor, the blind, and disabled; it receives a lot of attention as legislatures wrestle to control those cost. But states also pay public employee and retiree insurance, school teachers’ insurance, and provide health care for prisoners and those in mental facilities. Taken together, these costs are squeezing all state budgets and causing cuts in education and other human services. The burden of increased health care cost is not limited to state budgets. Congress is struggling with the uncontrolled growth of Medicare and trying to figure out how to serve 45 million Americans who are currently uninsured. Nationally, health care represents 15 percent of America’s GNP, almost double the rest of the world. Annual health care car e cost increases have been PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
14 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
averaging 12 to 15 percent, double and triple the rate of inflation. This cost crunch will require the attention of policymakers for years to come. On the positive side of the pending Baby Boomers’ retirement is the fact that 50 percent of the current workforce will be eligible to retire in the next ten years, creating enormous employment opportunities for those who have the necessary skills. As Boomers age and spend more on health care, the impact will be felt in the economy as well. The health care industry is one of the most rapidly growing sectors of the economy. Health care jobs will be plentiful, with
most specialties experiencing shortages. In many communities, if not most, health care is already the single largest employer. Furthermore, our mature manufacturing sector is at a significant disadvantage internationally as it competes against foreign competitors from countries that have tax-supported, national health insurance and therefore no health care cost associated with their products. Economic Costs
While the legacy cost associated with the aging workforce burdens the manufacturing sector, there are three other trends impacting the overall economy. Shift to Informatio n and Service Service Economy
First, the U.S. is shifting from a manufacturing to an information i nformation and service economy. In 1950, 60 percent of jobs were available to the unskilled; by 2000 only 15 percent of jobs were available the unskilled. Today, even the mostofbasic employment requires higher is math, science, and socialtoskills. Manufacturing, the mainstay the twentieth-century economy, not going to disappear; but, through increased use of technology, it takes far fewer workers to produce more and higher-quality products. Manufacturing productivity increased dramatically in the last decade, while manufacturing employment continued to decline; that trend will continue. Additionally, the economy is becoming much more technological and workers more highly skilled. Having posthigh school training, whether it be through a university, community college, or some skilled training, has become an absolute necessity. We have now added a new dimension to participation in our economy, dual literacy. You must be functionally literate —able to read, write, understand basic math—and technologically literate, meaning that you are comfortable with computers, robots, and other forms of technology. No longer will one be able to be a high school dropout and get a good job in the new and ever-changing, technological economy. The flip side of this new equation is the possibility of being dually illiterate, meaning that you are neither functionally literate—able to read and write —nor technologically literate, comfortable with computers, robots and technology. This dual illiteracy phenomenon is something we must come to understand and solve. With the aging of America and the pending retirement of an additional 77 million baby boomers, it is imperative that anybody who is able to work have the skills necessary to participate fully in the economy. Ne New w L ea earning rning Fundamentals
Will Daggett, an international expert on education and the workforce, calls for “future basics.” Professor Daggett believes that every student coming out of high school must have three years of technical reading and writing, at least two years of applied physics, a year of statistics, a year of logic, and at least one foreign language. These future basics are currently the norm in European and Asian high schools. These countries place a premium on science and math and have clear policies that encourage emerging and technical training in areas that America has lost ground in over the last few decades. This has serious policy implications for us all. An Int ern ati on al Wo rk pl ace
A third way our economy is changing is that it is becoming international. In auto manufacturing, the Big Three are no longer General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler; the Big Three PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
15 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes employers in Michigan are McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Toyota has already overtaken DaimlerChrysler and Ford and is challenging General Motors as the number-one automaker in the world. One out of six American workers currently works for a foreign-owned company. Thomas Friedman’s hot selling book, The World Is Flat, is required reading in every Board Room in America and should be required reading for every American.
=== So, key trends impacting policymakers on the national, state, and local levels are the aging of America and an economy that is shifting from manufacturing to one that is international, technological, and service based. While we have traditionally looked to the federal government for solutions to the complex problems facing our society, the locus has shifted to new regional configurations led by business leaders through nongovernmental organizations. This last feature creates enormous opportunities for participation, engagement, and impact on the local level. Secondary Secondary Trends
Two other trends need to be highlighted. Prison Growth
The first is the enormous growth in prison populations across America. The Department of Corrections has the fastest-growing budget in most states and is taking up a larger share of state spending. must While be it isunderstood. good politicsPolicymakers to be “tough on and putwith more people in prison, consequences arecrime” confronted either raising taxesthe or making deep cuts in higher education, revenue sharing, health care, and other discretionary human service programs. Prisons are becoming a major public policy debate, which takes on a special edge when one considers that the people going to prison are basically young, poor, minority males. It is a national disgrace that more young, minority males are in prison or on parole than are enrolled in our institutions of higher education. It’s cheaper to send a young person to Harvard than it is to send them to prison, yet the prison building goes on unabated. From a policy viewpoint, we know that these young, minority males have three things in common: they dropped out of school, have substance abuse problems, and, most importantly, were abused as children. With that knowledge, we ought to be able to develop public policy initiatives that reduce the crime rate, drop-out rate, substance-abuse rate, and child abuse rate. We must invest in these young people instead of destroying their ability to work and participate in this economy by putting them in prison. Which category of public policy do you think the prison debate revolves around? Good policy/good politics? Good policy/bad politics? Or bad policy/good politics? Knowing that 77 million baby boomers will retire in the next decade makes it imperative that we intervene early and make sure that everyone who is able gets the skill sets they need to participate in this increasingly complex, technological, and international economy. We simply cannot afford to have a generation of minority youth in prison and unproductive. Growth of Tax Expenditures
The other trend that is going on in most legislative bodies across America is the growth of tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are special provisions enacted into the tax code that create special incentives, or loopholes, to exempt a particular service, business, or industry from the tax burden. While these tax expenditures can promote good policies —installing solar energy on your home, encouraging hydrogen cars, and facilitating home ownership, each loophole forfeits tax collection for that particular service or product, which means that the federal, state, or local budget must absorb cuts in other areas to make up for these lost revenues. Tax expenditures are second to prisons as the fastest growing part of state spending. Most importantly, they are not subject to periodic review nor to the annual budget process that we discussed earlier.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
16 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes THE POLICY PROCESS Democracy is not a spectator sport. So, let’s shift gears and look at how elective bodies go about making policy and how an individual can impact that process. Think of elected bodies as large stadiums. In the arena are the policymakers who are armed with a tool called the vote. Each day the policymaker goes into the arena and struggles, debates, persuades, persuade s, and eventually votes on the public policy.
The process is very open and participatory. Each day the legislature and the Congress publicize the issues that will be considered on that day. One can observe this process on cable television (e.g., C-SPAN) and see the reporting of the results through the traditional news media. What is not so obvious is the power and influence of other people who participate in the policymaking while sitting in the stands.
The Actors
Basically, there are three sets of actors or warriors who also participate in the policymaking process. Special Spe cial Interest Groups
First are the special interest groups. These groups generally represent a specific interest, business, pointThe of view. They are represented by sophisticated are armed with weapons asorwell. lobbyist provides expert information that canlobbyists be usedwho to persuade policymakers to agree with their point of view. That information is also used to educate and inform the public of their point of view. Lobbyists also have enormous power because they have mon- ey to buy policymakers lunch, to entertain, to persuade, and to influence campaigns. State Government Government Depa Departments rtments
The second set of warriors sitting in the balcony are the departments of state government. Each department has a “legislative liaison” whose job it is to follow the process and educate the policy- makers and the public. The departmental legislative liaison’s powerful tool is expert information, which is supposed to be neutral, not self-serving, and in the best interest of the entire community. Consumers, Citizens, and Ta Taxpayers xpayers
The third set of warriors are the consumers, interested citizens, and the taxpayers. Some groups are organized and sophisticated, like Common Cause, the National Rifle Association, and the senior citizen network, AARP. All kinds of citizens groups organize to follow, observe, and participate in the policymaking process. The power of this warrior group is seen in their ability to generate large numbers of people who are informed, get actively involved in the policy process, and vote regularly. Policy into Law
When all three groups agree—the special interest groups, the department liaison, and the consumer groups—their power coalesces around the policy, and it becomes law. It is good politics and generally good policy if all three of these groups are in agreement. Unfortunately, these groups don’t always agree nor get along with each other; they are often at odds. An effective policymaker will work to get at least l east two of the three groups to support su pport the evolving consensus or compromise policy. The politics are to at least get the special interests and the consumers on the same page. The departments and the expert “neutral” information they PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
17 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
represent do not carry the same weight as the well-financed lobbyists representing the special interest and the powerful influence of organized consumers who vote. vo te. Power is the bottom line! === The most important point that can be made is that the democratic process is a participatory process; it works best when all of the interests are involved and engaged and part of the process. If consumers and taxpayers get discouraged —give up and walk away from the policymaking process—power goes by default to the special interests. Thomas Jefferson once said that “The best cure for an ailing democracy is more democracy.” Democracy is best served by getting people involved, organized, and focused.
SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1.
Define Public Policy and describe its features. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
2.
Identify and describe the aims of Public Policy. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
3.
What are the types of Policy? Discuss each. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
4.
Describe the three Policy Arenas. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
5.
What a are re the five ways elected bodies make a policy? Discuss each. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
18 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes LESSON 2 POLICY MAK ING: STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES The Philip Philip pine Legislative Department
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, the student must b be e able to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Distinguish between the two houses of congress in their exercise of legislative power; Recognize the legislative privileges, inhibitions, and disqualifications; Explain the importance of quorum and how the co congress ngress votes on a certain bill; Describe the elect electoral oral tribunals and the commission on appointments; and Enumerate and expound the powers of Congress;
READINGS “Legislative Department” From: Political Law (2017) by UP College of Law - BAR Operations Commission, pp. 20-38 https://www.scribd.com/document/388699452/UP-POLITICAL-LAW-REVIEWER2017-pdf CONTENT WHO MAY EXERCISE LEGISLATIVE POWER Legislative power is is the authority to make laws and to alter and repeal them. It is vested
in: 1. 2.
The Congress of the Philippines, which consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives [CONST., art. VI, sec. 1 ] The people to themselves, by the system of initiative and referendum [ Id.] Legislative power may also be exercised by:
1. 2.
Regional/local legislative assemblies – – N.B. A regional assembly exists for the ARMM President, under martial rule or in a revolutionary government. [See CONST., art. VI, sec. 23(2)]. Congress may delegate legislative powers to the president in times of war or in other national emergency. [BERNAS]
Congress - Grant of legislative power to Congress is plenary. Congress may legislate on any subject matter provided that constitutional limitations are observed. Initiative and Referendum. The power of initiative and referendum is the power of the people directly to “propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body.” (art. VI, sec. 32)
The operationalization of initiative and referendum has been left by the Constitution to Congress (art. VI, sec. 32; BERNAS); The provision is not self-executory [ Santiago v. COMELEC (1997) ]; RA 6735 – – “An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefore” – valid for laws, ordinances, and resolutions, but NOT amendments to the Constitution [Santiago, supra] PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
19 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes HOUSES OF CONGRESS
COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS AND TERM OF OFFICE Senate (Art . VI, sec. 2-4) 2-4) 24 senators elected at large
House of Representatives (Art . VI, sec. 5-8) 5-8) Composition Composition Not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law, consisting of: 1. District Repre-sentatives 2. Party-List Representatives Representatives
Qualifications Qualifications Natural-born citizen 1. Natural-born citizens At lea least st 35 years old on tthe he day of tthe he 2. At least 25 years old on the day of th the e election election 3. Able to read and write 3. Able to read and write 4. A registered voter 4. Registered voter in the district he seeks to represent 5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years immediately preceding the day of o f the said district for at least 5. A resident of the election election 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election election Term of Office Office 6 years years 3 years Term Term L imits imits 2 consecutive terms terms 3 consecutive terms 1. 2.
Article 6 states stat es that “The Senate shall be composed of t wenty-four senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.” (Section 2). By providing for a membership membership elected at large by the electorate, this rule intends to make the Senate a training ground for national leaders and possibly a springboard for the Presidency. The feeling is that the senator, having national rather than only a district constituency, will have a broader outlook of the problems of the country instead of being restricted by parochial viewpoints and narrow interests. With such a perspective, the Senate is likely to be more circumspect and broad minded than the House of Representatives. No person shall be a senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of election (Section 3).
The term of office of the Senators shall be 6 years, commencing at noon on the 30 day of June next following their election. The term limits is only up to 2 consecutive terms. However, they may serve for more than 2 terms provided that the terms are not consecutive (Article 6, Section 4). The composition of the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members unless otherwise fixed by law. Representatives shall be elected from legislative districts and through party-list system (Article 6, Section 5). Elected cted ffrom rom legislative district districts s apportioned among the District Representatives - Ele provinces, cities, and Metro Manila area. Rules on Apportionment of Legislative Districts:
1.
Apportionment of legislative districts must be by law which could be a: a. General Apportionment Law; or b.
Special Law (i.e. creation of new provinces)
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
20 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
2.
Proportional representation based on number of inhabitants a. Each city with a population of at least 250,000shall have at least 1 representative. b. Each province, irrespective of the number of inhabitants, shall have at least 1 representative. c. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. d. Re-apportionment by Congress within 3 years after after the return of each census.
Party-List Representatives –shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives, elected through a partylist system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Sectoral Representatives - For 3 consecutive terms from 2 February 1987, ½ of the partylist seats shall be allotted to sectoral representatives to be chosen by appointment or election, as may be provided by law. Until a law is passed, they are appointed by the President from a list of nominees by the respective sectors. [ Art. Art. XVIII, Sec. 7 ] No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident tthereof hereof for a period of not less than one year imm immediately ediately preceding the day of the election (Article 6, Section 6). The term of th
office shall years, commencing the 30 at day Junesituations next following their election. Tenure maybe be3shorter than the term at or noon it mayonnot exist all. of T These hese will not change the duration of the term of office. [ Dimaporo vs Mitra (1991)]. No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms (Article 6, Section 7). For Party-list System Atong Paglaum Guidelines were followed: 1.
Three different parties or organizations may participate in the part party-list y-list system: (a) national; (b) regional; or (c) sectoral;
2.
National and regional parties or orgs do not need to (a) organize along sectoral lines or (b) represent any “marginalized or underrepresented” sector;
3.
Political parties may participate in the party-list system provided: (a) they register under the party-list system; (b) they do not field candidates in i n legislative district elections. a. A party that participates in the legislative district elections may still participate in the party-list through a sectoral wing. b. The sectoral wing can be part of the political party’s coalition, but the former must be registered independently in the party-list system.
4.
Sectoral parties or orgs may either be (a) “marginalized or underrepresented” (e.g. labor, peasant, fisherfolk); or (b) “lacking in well-defined political constituencies” (e.g. professionals, women, elderly, youth)
5.
The nominees of secto sectoral ral parties or orgs, of either type, m must ust (a) belong to their respective sectors, or (b) have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. Majority of the members of a sectoral party, of either type, must belong to the sector they represent.
6.
National, regional, or sectoral parties parties or orgs shall not be di disqualified squalified if some of their their nominees are disqualified, provided they have at least one (1) nominee who remains qualified.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
21 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Parties, organizations, and coalitions must obtain at least 2% of all votes cast to obtain a party-list seat. Those garnering more than 2% are entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes, but may not have more than 3 seats. Disqualified parties:
1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8.
Religious Sects Foreign Organizations Those Advocating Violence or Unlawful Means It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political par party, ty, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; It declares untruthful statements in it its s petition; petition; It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or It fails to participate in the last two (2) pr preceding eceding elections or fails to obtain at least 2 per centum of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. Qualified Sectors:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Labor Peasant Fisherfolk Urban Poor Indigenous Cultural Com-munities Elderly Handicapped Women Youth Veterans Overseas Workers Professionals
Political parties are allowed by the constitution to participate in the party-list system provided that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented. The following conditions must be complied: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Must represent marginalized and under-represented sectors; Major political parties must com comply ply with this st statutory atutory policy; Must be subject to the express constitutional constitutional prohibition against religious religious sects; The p party arty m must ust not be disqualified under RA 7941; The party must not be an adjunct or entity or project funded by the government; The party and its nominees must comply with the requirement requirements s of the the law; The nominee must al also so represent a marginalized or under-represented sector; The nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation. [ Ang Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC (2000)]. Four inviolable constitutional and statutory parameters in the party-list system:
1.
20% Allocation – the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the House of Representatives. Re presentatives.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
22 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
2. 3. 4.
2% threshold – only those parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House. Three seat limit – each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained is entitled to a maximum of three seats se ats (1 qualifying and 2 additional seats). Proportional representation – the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes”. [Veterans [ Veterans Federation v. COMELEC (2000)].
LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND DISQUAL IFICATIONS PRIVILEGES Salaries. The salaries of Senators and Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. [Art. VI, Sec. 10]. Freedom from Arrest. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. [ Sec. 11, Art VI]. Preventive suspension is not a penalty. Order of suspension under R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own members,
and did not exclude Sandiganbayan (2001)] members of Congress from its operation. [Defensor-Santiago v. In People v. Jalosjos (2000), the SC denied the request of Cong. Jalosjos that he be allowed to attend legislative sessions. He denial was premised on the following: (a) membership in Congress does not exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons; (b) one rationale behind confinement is public self-defense; (c) it would amount to creation of a privileged class, without justification in reason; and (d) he was provided with an office in the New Bilibid Prison. Speech and Debate Claus e. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
To come under the guarantee the speech or debate" must be one made "in Congress or in any committee thereof." Publication of an allegedly libelous letter is not covered by the privilege [Jimenez v. Cabangbang (1966) ] Each House of the Congress can discipline its members for disorderly conduct or behavior. What constitutes disorderly behavior is entirely up to Congress to define. The immunity, although absolute in its protection of the member of Congress against suits for libel, does not shield the member against the disciplinary authority of the Congress. [Osmeña v. Pendatun (1960) ] DISQUALIFICATIONS
1.
2.
May not hold any other office or em employment ployment in the government during his term term without forfeiting his seat. [Art. VI, Sec. 13 ] The provision refers to an Incompatible Office. Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall be automatic upon the member’s assumption of such office deemed incompatible. [ Adaza v. Pacana (1985)]. May not be appointed to any office created or the emoluments thereof were increased during the term for which he was elected. [ Art. Art. VI, Sec. 13 ]
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
23 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
3. 4. 5.
The provision refers to a Forbidden Office. He cannot validly take the office even if he is willing to give up his seat. Cannot personally appear as counsel before any court, electoral tribunal, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies during his term of office. [ Art. VI, Sec. 14 ] Shall not be financially interested , directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or franchise or special privilege granted by the government during his term of office. [A rt. VI, Sec. 14 ] Shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government when it is for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. [ Art. VI, Sec. 14]
Appearance as counsel : Certain salient circumstances militate against the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC Case. He had acquired a mere P200.00 worth of stock in IPI, representing ten shares out of 262,843 outstanding shares. He acquired them after the contested election of Directors, after the quo warranto suit had been filed before SEC, and one day before the scheduled hearing of the case before the SEC.
Before he moved to intervene, he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent, which was objected to by petitioners. Realizing, perhaps, the validity of the objection, he decided, instead, to "intervene" on the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation. Under those facts and circumstances that there has been an indirect "appearance as counsel before ... an administrative body" and that is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. The "intervention" was an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. [ Puyat v De Guzman, (1982) ] Duty to Disclose
1.
SALN: A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of of office fice and as often as may may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. Cases wherein declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law: a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
President Vice-President the Members of the Cabinet the Congress the Supreme Court the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank [ Art. Art. XI, Sec. 17 ]
2.
All Members of the S Senate enate and the House of Representa Representatives tives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors. [ Art.VI, Art.VI, Sec. 12 ]
3.
The records a and nd books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member. [ Art. Art. VI, Sec. 20 ]
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
24 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes QUORUM AND VOTING MAJ ORITIES
QUORUM. Majority of each House shall constitute a quorum. A smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent members. In computing a quorum, members who are outside the country, thus outside of each House’s coercive jurisdiction, are not included. “Majority” refers to the number of members within the “jurisdiction” of the Congress (those
it can order arrested for the purpose of questioning). In this case, one Senator was out of the Philippines which is not within the “jurisdiction” of the Senate, so that the working majority was 23 Senators. There is a difference between a majority of "all members of the House" and a majority of "the House", the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore, an absolute majority (12) of all members of the Senate less one (23) constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of the quorum. [ Avelino Avelino v. Cuenco (1949) ] VOTING MAJORITIES. Doctrine of Shifting Majority – For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required. Exceptions to Doctrine of Shifting Majority: 1.
Votes whereis requirement based on “ALL of THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS” requirement based on theisentire composition a House or Congress (in its entirety),– regardless of the number of Members present or absent
Ac ti on Override presidential veto Grant of tax exemptions Elect President in case of tie Confirm appointment of VP Revoke or extend (a) Martial Law or of writ (b) suspension of Habeas Corpus Confirm amnesty grant Submit question of Const. Convention Call for Const. Convention Propose amendments as Const. Assembly
Vote Required (out of all members) members) 2/3
Houses votin g
Basis Basis
Separately
Art. VI, Sec. 27(1)
Majority
(Silent)
Art. VI, Sec. 27(4)
Majority
Separately
Art. VII, Sec. 4(5)
Majority
Separately
Art. VII, Sec. 9
Majority
Jointly
Art. VII, Sec. 18
Majority
(Silent)
Art. VII, Sec. 19(2)
Majority
(Silent)
2/3
Prevailing view: by default, houses vote separately (because Congress is bicameral)
¾
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Art. XVII, Sec. 3 Art. XVII, Sec. 3 Art. XVII, Sec. 23(1)
25 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
2.
Other Special Cases Ac ti on Deter mine mine President’s disability Declaring a State of War
Vot e Requ i red (out of all members) members) 2/3 of both Houses, voting separately 2/3 (of both Houses, in joint session), each House oting
Basis Basis Art. VII, Sec. 11(5) Art. VI, Sec. 23(1)
separately
DISCIPLINE DISCIP LINE OF MEMBERS
Each house may punish its members me mbers for disorderly behavior, and with the c concurrence oncurrence of 2/3 of ALL its members:
1. 2.
Suspension (shall not exceed 60 days) Expulsion Other disciplinary measures:
1. deletion of u unparliamentary nparliamentary remarks from the record 2. fine 3. imprisonment 4. censure The suspension contemplated in the Constitution is different from the suspension prescribed in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The former is punitive in nature while the latter is preventive . [Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (1995)]. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS AND THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS [ Art. Art. VI, Sec. 17 ]
1. 2.
Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) House Electoral Tribunal (HRET) There is a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), but it is governed by different provisions. Composition
1. 2. 3. 4.
3 Supreme Court justices, designated by CJ Senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman 6 members of the Senate or House, as the case may be, chosen on the basis basis of proportional representation from parties; The ET shall be constituted within 30 days af after ter the Senate and tthe he House shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. Members chosen enjoy security of tenure and cannot be removed by mere change of party affiliation. [Bondoc v. Pineda (1991)]. Valid Valid grounds/just c ause for termination termination of membe membership rship to the tribunal:
1. 2.
Expiration of Congressional term of office; Death or permanent disability;
3. 4.
Resignation for form m political party which one repre represents sents in the tribunal; Removal from office for other valid reasons.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
26 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Disloyalty to party and breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. [ Bondoc, supra] Na Nature ture of Function Jurisdiction: sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. When does it acquire jurisdiction : ET has jurisdiction only when there is an election contest, and only after the proclamation of a candidate. [See Lazatin v. HRET (1988) ]. Election ContestContest - one where a defeated candidate challenges the qualification and claims for himself the seat of a proclaimed winner.
In the absence of election contest, and before proclamation, jurisdiction remains with COMELEC. [See Lazatin, supra] Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission for the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly." [Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936) ] Constitution mandates that the HRET “shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election,isreturns and qualifications” of of itsthe members. word “sole,” the Constitution emphatic that the jurisdiction HRET in By the employing adjudicationthe of election contests involving its members is exclusive and exhaustive. Its exercise of power is intended to be its own — full, complete and unimpaired. [Duenas Jr. v. HRET (2009) ] Independence Indepe ndence of th e Ele Elector ctor al Tribunals Since the ET’s are independent constitutional bodies, independent even of the respective House, neither Congress nor the Courts may interfere with procedural matters relating to the functions of the ET’s. [Co [ Co vs HRET, (1991)]
The HRET was created to function as a nonpartisan court although two-thirds of its members are politicians. To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the House Electoral Tribunal must be independent. Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests is not to be shared by it with the Legislature nor with the courts. "The Electoral Commission is a body separate from and independent of the legislature and though not a power in the tripartite scheme of government, it is to all intents and purposes, when acting within the limits of its authority, an independent organ; while composed of a majority of members of the legislature it is a body separate from and independent of the legislature. [ Bondoc v. Pineda (1991) ] Powers
As constitutional creations invested with necessary power, the Electoral Tribunals are, in the exercise of their functions independent organs — independent of Congress and the Supreme Court. The power granted to HRET by the Constitution is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature [ Co v. HRET (1991) citing Angara vs. Electoral Commission (1936)]. Judici al R Review eview of D Decisions ecisions of Electoral Tribunals
With the Supreme Courtonly insofar as the decision or resolution was rendered: PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
27 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
(1) without or in excess of jurisdiction, or (2) with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to denial of due process. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS (CA) COMMISSION (Art. VI, Sec. 18)
Composition 1. 2. 3.
Senate President as ex-officio chairman (shall not vote except in case of a tie) 12 Senators 12 Members of the HOR
The CA shall be constituted within 30 days after the Senate and the House of Representative shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The CA shall act on all appointments within 30 session days from their submission to Congress. The CA shall rule by a majority vote of all its members. It is NOT mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the Commission; what the Constitution requires that there must be at least a majority of the entire membership. [Guingona v. Gonzales (1993) ]. The power to approve or disapprove appointments is conferred on the CA as a body and not on the individual members. [Pacete v. Secretary (1971)] Rule on Proportional Representation – The 12 Senators and 12 Representatives are
elected on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and party-list organizations. HOR has authority to change its representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. It is understood that such changes in membership must be permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another. [ Daza v. Singson (1989)] The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation. By requiring a proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, sec. 18 in effect works as a check on the majority party in the Senate and helps to maintain the balance of power. No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. [ Guingona v. Gonzales (1993)] Meetings
1. 2.
CA shall m meet eet only while Congress is in session. Meetings are held either (a) at the call of the Chairman or (b) by by a majority of all its members.
Since the Commission on Appointments is also an independent constitutional body, its rules of procedure are also outside the scope of congressional powers as well as that of the judiciary. Jurisdiction
1.
CA shall confirm tthe he appointments by tthe he President with respect to the following positions:
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
28 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
a. b. c. d.
2.
Heads of Executive departments ((except except if it iis s the Vice-President who is appointed to a cabinet position); Ambassadors, other public ministers or consuls; Officers of the AFP from the rank of Colonel or Naval Captain; Other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution (e.g. members of constitutional commissions); [ Sarmiento v. Mison (1987)]
Congress cannot by law require that the appointment of a person to an office created by such law shall be subject to CA confirmation.
Appointments extended by the President to the abovementioned positions while Congress is not in session (adinterim appointments) shall only be effective: 1. 2.
Until disapproval by tthe he Commission on Appointm Appointments; ents; or Until the next adjournment of Congress.
POWERS OF CONGRESS INHERENT POWERS
These are inherent powers of the State which are reposed, under the Constitution, in Congress. 1.
2.
Police Power a. Make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances as they shall judge j udge for the good and welfare w elfare of the constituents. b. Includes maintenance of peace and order, protection of life, liberty and pr property operty and the promotion of general welfare Power of Taxation
3. 4.
Power of Eminent Domain Contempt power LEGISLATIVE POWERS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
powers of appropriation, taxation expropriation authority to m make, ake, fr frame, ame, enact, amend, and repeal laws ancillary power powers s (e.g. (e.g. conduct inquiry and punish fo forr contempt contempt [See Arnault v. Nazareno (1950)] NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS (SCOPE)
1. power to canvass the presidential elections; 2. declare the existence of war; 3. give concurrence to treaties and amnesties; 4. propose constitutional amendments; 5. impeachment; SPECIFIC POWERS
1. 2. 3. 4.
Constituent power Legislative Inquiries Appropriation Taxation
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
29 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
5. 6.
Concurrence in treaties and international agreements War powers and delegations powers LEGISLATIVE. Legislative Inquiries and the Oversight Functions (Art VI, Sec. 21) Requisites of Legislative Inquiries:
1.
Must be in aid of legislation
2. 3.
In accordance with duly published rules of procedure Right of persons appearing appearing in or affected affected by such inquiries shall be respected
Comparison between Legislative Inquiries and Question Hour [See also Senate v. Ermita (2006)] Legislative Inquiries Inquiries Question Hour Constitutional Provision Art. VI, Sec. 21 21 Art. VI, Sec. 22 Topic In aid of legislation On any matter pertaining to the subject’s department Persons Subjected Any person upon subpoena Heads of departments departments only Appearance of Exec. Officials Appearance of executive officials Appearance of executive officials officials generally mandatory via request
The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative inquiry. [Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks (2007)] Additional limitation: Executive Privilege Categories of congressional oversight functions
1.
2. 3.
Scrutiny: Passive inquiry, the primary primary purpose purpose of which is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities. In the exercise of legislative scrutiny, Congress may request information and report from the other branches of government. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration of the agency involved. Congressional investigation: More intense digging of fa facts, cts, compared compared to scrutiny. Power of investigation recognized by art. VI, sec. 21. Legislative supervision (Legislative Veto): Most encompassing form. Connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of a congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. Allows Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making authority, and permits Congress to retain part of that delegated authority. Through this, Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies.
Legislative supervision is NOT allowed under the Constitution. [ Abakada Guro Partylist v. Purisima (2008)] Bicameral Conference Committee
Ways of passing bills: 1.
Jointly: in a joint session, supra
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
30 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
2.
Separately: each house takes up bill on its own; the houses, in turn, can pass th the e bill: a. Simultaneously: houses ttake ake up a bill at the the same time b. Sequentially: bill originates from one house and, upon proper passage, is transmitted to the other house f or or the latter’s own passage. In case of conflict between the two houses’ versions, a bicameral conference committee is organized. Bicameral Conference Commit tee (BCC): (BCC):
1. 2. 3. 4.
Composed of equal number of of members from the Senate and the HOR Makes recommendations to houses on how to reconcile conflicting provisions/versions BCC member members s are usually granted blanket autho authority rity to negotiate/reconcile the bills. At the end of the process, the BCC comes up with a Conference Committee Report, which is then submitted to the respective chambers for approval. Upon approval, the bill may be engrossed.
The Bicam report need not pass through three readings. The Bicam may also include entirely new provisions and substitutions. [See Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (1994), Phil. Judges Association v. Prado (1993)] Enrolled bill doctrine – –The signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment. While Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance does NOT hold
that enrolled billtoembodies a conclusive the rule is not absolute, “where therethe is no evidence the contrary, the Court presumption, will respect thei.e. certification of the presiding officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly passed.” [ Arroyo Arroyo v. De Venecia (1997) ] Limitations on Legislative Power Formal/Procedural Limitations
Prescribes manner of passing bills and form they should take. 1.
Rider clause: ev every ery bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title. [ Art. VI, Sec. 26(1) ] The title is not required to be an index of the contents of the bill. It is sufficient compliance if the title expresses: a. the general subject and b. all the provisions of the statute are germane to that subject. [Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Commission (1987) ]
2. 3.
No bill passed by either house shall become law unless it has passed 3 readings readings on separate days. [Art. VI, Sec. 26(2)] Printed copies in iits ts final form have been distributed to its members 3 days before the passage of the bill. (art. VI, sec. 26[2])
Exception: President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.
Presidential certification dispenses with the requirement: 1. 2.
printing requirement and readings on separate days requirement [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance (1995) ]
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
31 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Substantive Limitations
Circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subject of legislation Express limitations:
1. 2.
On general powers - Bill of Rights [ Art. Art. III ] On taxation [Secs. 28 and 29(3), Art. VII]
3. 4. 5.
On appropriation [Secs. 25 and 29(1) and (2), Art VI ] On appellate jurisdiction of the SC [Sec. 30, Art. VI] No law granting title of royalty or nobility shall be passed [Sec. 31, Art. VI]
Implied Limitations:
1. 2. 3.
No power to pass irrepealable law Non-encroachment on powers of other departments Non-delegation of powers LIMITATIONS ON REVENUE, APPROPRIATIONS AND TARIFF MEA SURES
Appropriations General Limitations:
1. 2.
Appropriations must be for a public purpose. Cannot appropriate public funds o orr property, directly or indirectly, in favor of a. Any sect, church, de denomination, nomination, or sectarian institution or system of religion or b. Any priest, preacher, m minister, inister, or other rreligious eligious teacher or dignitary as such. Exception: if the priest etc. is assigned to: a. the Armed Forces; b. any penal institution; c. government orphanage; d. leprosarium
3.
Government iis s not prohibited prohibited from appropriating money for a valid secular purpose, even if it incidentally benefits a religion, e.g. appropriations for a national police force is valid even if the police also protects the safety of clergymen. Also, the temporary use of public property for religious purposes is valid, as long as the property is available for all religions.
Specific Limitations For General Appropriations Bills
1. Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. 2. Form, con content tent and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed prescribed by law. 3. No provision o orr enactment shall be embraced embraced in the the general appr appropriations opriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. 4. Procedure in approving appropriations FOR THE CONGRESS shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. 5. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriation appropriations. s. However, the following may, BY LAW, be authorized to AUGMENT any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices FROM SAVINGS in other items of their respective appropriations: a. President PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
32 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
b. c. d. e.
Senate President Speaker of the HOR Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Chairs of Constitutional Commissions
Guidelines for disbursement of discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials:
1.
For public purposes
2. 3.
To be supported by appropriate vouchers Subject to such guidelines as may b be e prescribed by law
If Congress fails to pass the general appropriations bill by the end of any fiscal year:
1. 2.
The g general eneral approp appropriations riations bill for the previous previous year is deemed reenacted It shall rem remain ain in force and effect until the the general appropriations bill is passed by Congress.
For Special Appropriations Bills
1. 2.
Shall specif specify y the purpose for which it is inte intended nded Shall be supported by funds a. actually available as certified by the National Treasurer; or b. to be raised raised by corresponding revenue proposal therein
Limitation on Use of Public Funds [ Art. Art. VI, Sec. 29 ]
1. 2. 3.
No m money oney shall be paid out of the National Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. However, this rule does not prohibit continuing appropriations, e.g. for debt servicing, for the reason that this rule does not require yearly or annual appropriation.
Four phases phases of Government’s budgeting process: process:
1. 2. 3. 4.
Budget preparation Legislative authorization Budget execution Budget accountability
Taxation [Art. VI, Sec. 28] Nature of provision Sec. 28 is a listing of the limits on the inherent and otherwise unlimited power Purposes of taxation
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Pay debts and provide for the common defense defense and general warfare; warfare; Raise revenue; Instrument of national and social policy; Instrument for ext extermination ermination of of undesirable acts and ente enterprises; rprises; Tool for regulation; Imposition of tariffs designed to encourage and protect locally produced goods against competition for imports.
Limitations
1.
public purpose. Public purpose- Power to tax should be exercised only for a public
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
33 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
2. 3.
Uniform and equitable. a. Operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found a. Classification for the purpose of taxation is not prohibited prohibited per se, BUT it must comply with the Test of Valid Classification [see Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City (1968), on equal protection and local taxes]
Test of Valid Classification
1. 2. 3. 4.
Based on substantial distinctions which ma make ke rreal eal dif differences ferences Germane to the purpose of law Applies to present and future conditions substantially substantially identical to those of the present Applies equally to tthose hose who belong to the same class
Progressive
The rate increases as the tax base increases Tax burden is based on the taxpayers’ capacity to pay
Suited to the social conditions of the people Reflects aim of the Convention that legislature following social justice command should use taxation as an instrument for more equitable distribution of wealth Progressive taxation is a directive to Congress and is not a judicially enforceable right [Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra] Constitutional Tax Exemptions:
1. 2.
3.
Religious, charitable, educational institutions and their properties All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions are exempt from taxes and duties PROVIDED that such revenues and assets are actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes [ Art. Art. XIV, Sec. 4(3)] Grants, endowments, donations or contributions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax, subject to conditions prescribed by law [Art. XIV, sec. 4(4)]
Special Funds
1. 2.
Money collected on a tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. Once the special purpose is fulfilled or ab abandoned, andoned, any balance shall be transferred transferred to the general funds of the Government
Presidential Veto and Congressional Override Submission to the President; President’s Veto power [ [Sec 27, Art VI ] Every bill, in order to become a law, must be presented to and signed by the President. If the President does not approve of the bill, he shall veto the same and return it with his objections to the house from which it originated. The House shall enter the objections in the journal and proceed to reconsider reconsider it. The President must communicate his decision to veto within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof. Otherwise, the bill shall become a law as if he signed it.(“Lapsed it.(“Lapsed into law”) PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
34 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
To override the veto , at least 2/3 of ALL the members of each house must agree to pass the bill. In such case, the veto veto is overridden and becomes a law without need of pr presidential esidential approval. General Rule: Partial veto is invalid; all-or-nothing Exceptions:
1. Veto of particular items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill; 2. Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions (See below) Item veto The President may veto particular items in an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill. The whole item (and not just a portion) must be vetoed. [Bengzon v. Drilon (1992)] Item - in a bill, refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts; an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose; in itself, a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be in an appropriation bill. The president cannot veto unavoidable obligations, i.e. already vested by another law (e.g. payment of pensions, see Bengzon, supra). This veto will not affect items to which he does not object. Veto of a Rider
A rider is a provision which does not relate to a particular appropriation stated in the bill. Since it is an invalid provision under art. VI, sec. 25(2), the President may veto it as an item. The executive's veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions. If the veto is unconstitutional, it follows that the same produced no effect whatsoever, and the restriction imposed by the appropriation bill, therefore, remains. [Bolinao Electronics Corp v. Valencia (1964)] Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions
A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item. [ Gonzales vs Macaraig, (1990) ] NON-LEGISLATIVE Informing Function Via legislative inquiries: Conduct of legislative inquiries is intended to benefit not only Congress but the citizenry , who are equally concerned with the proceedings. [ Sabio v. Gordon (2006)] Impeachment [CONST., Art. XI] The HOR shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. [ sec. 3(1)] Two modes of initiation
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
35 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Regular Procedure: [Sec. 3(2)(3)]
FILING by (a) any member of the HOR or (b) any citizen upon e endorsement ndorsement by a member of the HOR; followed by REFERRAL to the proper HOR committee
COMMITTEE REPORT by proper committee (i.e. HOR Committee on Justice), which either favorably or unfavorably resolves the complaint
Above resolution AFFIRMED (if favorable) favorable) or OVERRIDDEN (if unfavorable) by vote of 1/3 of all the members of the HOR
Verified complaint or resolution [Sec. 3(4)]
FILED by 1/3 of all the members of the HOR; trial by Senate forthwith proceeds Basic limitation: No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period pe riod of one year (CONST., art. XI, sec. 2[5]) Initiation means filing coupled with referral to the Committee on Justice.
Court cannot make a determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense ; it is a purely political question [citing Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003)] On motion to inhibit: Impeachment is a political exercise. The Court cannot apply (to Congressmen) the stringent stands it asks of justices and judges when it comes to inhibition from hearing cases.
Constitutional requirement that HOR shall promulgate its rules on impeachment (see CONST., Art. XI, Sec. 3[8]) is different from the publication requirement in Tañada v. Tuvera. (In the Gutierrez case, promulgation was found to be sufficient.) The SENATE shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. (sec. 3[6])
By virtue of the expanded judicial review (art. VIII, sec. 1[2]), the Court’s power of judicial review extends over justiciable issues arising in impeachment proceedngs. [Francisco v. HOR (2003)] BUT the question of WON Senate Impeachment Rules were followed is a political question. [Corona v. Senate (2012)] Other non-legislative powers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
power to canvass the presidential elections; declare the existence of war; give concurrence to treaties and amnesties; propose constitutional amendments; implied powers such as the power to punish contempt contempt in legislative investigations.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
36 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1.
Where does the constitution vest legislative power? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
2.
How man many y kinds of legislative power are there? Describe each. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
3.
How does party-list system work? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
4.
May religious leader be elected or se selected lected as sectoral representatives? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
5.
How are district representatives apportioned? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
6.
What is the parliamentary privilege of sp speech? eech? What is the scope of the privilege? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
7.
About what matter is a member of Congress obliged to make public disclosure _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________
8.
Who are the officers of congress? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
37 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
9.
What is the existence of a quorum based on? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
10. What is the composition of each Electoral tribunal? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 11. May the Supreme Court intervene in the creation of the Electoral Tribunal? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 12. What is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Electora Electorall Tribunal? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 13. What is the composition of the Commission on Appointments? What is the function of the Commission on appointment? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 14. What steps are needed before a bill finally becomes a law? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 15. If a bill is vetoed by the President, may it still become a law? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 16. What is the effect of an invalid veto? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 17. What is the purpose of the power to tax? What is the general limit on the power to tax? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
38 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
_______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 18. What is a progressive system of taxation? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 19. What are the limits o on n the power of Congress? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 20. Does Congress have the exclusive rright ight to pass national legislation? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
39 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
LESSON 3
THEORI THEORIES ES OF POLICY CHANGE
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, the student must b be e able to: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Understand the different theories of policy change; Describe multi-level governance and policy networks; Discuss the politics of change and rreforms; eforms; and Give the lessons from policy change change research.
READINGS “Theories of Policy Change” From: Cerna L. 2013. The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different Theoretical Approaches, (OECD) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/The%20Nature%20of%20Policy%20Change%20a nd%20Implementation.pdf
CONTENT Definitions
First of all, it is important to distinguish ‘policy change’ from ‘policy reform’ as the terms are often used interchangeably in the literature. Po Policy licy change refers to incremental shifts in existing structures, or new and innovative innovative policies (Bennett and Howlett 1992). Reform Reform usually refers to a major policy change. To take the example of health care, reform is ‘the process of improving the performance of existing systems and of assuring their efficient and equitable response to intentional future changes’ (Berman 1995:27). Fullan (2000) rightly notes that reform as an intervention through policy Nonetheless, may or may not n ot generate change. Path dependence
When analysing the question of policy change (or lack thereof), one can draw on the literature on path dependence (Pierson 2000). This model argues that it is generally difficult to change policies because institutions are sticky, and actors protect the existing model (even if it is suboptimal) (Greener 2002). Path dependence means that ‘once a country or region has started down a track, the costs of reversal are very high’ (Levi 1997: 27). As Pierson (2000) notes, public policies and formal institutions are usually designed to be difficult to change so past decisions encourage policy continuity. Applying path dependence to immigration policy, Hansen (2002: 271) argues that ‘path dependence is established only when it can be shown that policy change was considered and rejected for reasons that cannot be explained without reference to the structure of costs and incentives created by the original policy choice’. In addition, to introduce a major change, policy-makers have to wait for a critical juncture (Capoccia and Kelemen 2007) or a window of exceptional opportunity called conjuncture (Wilsford 1994). PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
40 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Taking the example of health care reform in the United Kingdom, Wilsford (1994) and Greener (2002) examine conditions that have enabled reform. Wilsford (1994), drawing on the conjuncture of events, explains health care reforms through a combination of the Prime Minister’s (at that time Margaret Thatcher) increased political authority, the higher heterogeneity of the medical profession, the existence of earlier managerial reforms, and the lack of threat to both patients and the general public (Greener 2002:170).
Strengths and weaknesses
The main strength of the theory is that it is able to explain why policy continuity is more likely than policy change. Once a country has set on a certain policy path, it remains difficult to change this path because actors and policies have become institutionalized which necessitates great efforts and costs by actors who desire change. However, among the theory’s weaknesses is that it is difficult to show the costs and incentives created by the original policy choice and how it affects decisions about future policy choices. In addition, depicting critical junctures (or conjunctures) methodologically is a challenging task. Capoccia and Kelemen (2007: 348) define critical junctures as ‘relatively short periods of time during which there is a substantially heightened probability that agents’ choices will affect the outcome of interest’. This means that actors face a broader range of feasible options during a brief period of time, and their choices will likely have a significant impact on subsequent outcomes. The role of political actors and their decisions during critical junctures is thus important (Capoccia and Kelemen 2007). In the aforementioned health care example, Greener (2002: 177) notes that Wilsford’s use of conjuncture is more useful in explaining the timing of reform than analysing conditions of existence necessary for reform. As a result, considerable challenges remain to identify specific conditions facilitating reform and to pinpoint windows of opportunity.
Ad vo cac y c oal it io n f ram ewo rk
A different theory of change, based on Sabatier (1988) and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith J enkins-Smith (1991), is the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). It specifies that there are sets of core ideas about causation and value in public policy; these coalitions form because certain interests are linked to them. It is possible to map these networks of actors within a policy sector. ‘Change comes from the ability of these ideas to adapt, ranging around a whole series of operational questions and what works in any one time or place’ (Joh n 2003: 490). Policy change occurs through interactions between wide external changes or shocks to the political system and the success of the ideas in the coalitions, which may cause actors in the advocacy coalition to shift coalitions. The model is composed of several parts. The relatively stable system parameters (these can be within and outside the sub-system) influence the external system events. Both of these impact the constraints constraints and resources o off sub-system actors. The policy sub-system is composed of different advocacy coalitions with their own beliefs and resources, and their own strategies. Policy brokers are concerned with keeping the level of political conflict within acceptable limits and reaching some reasonable solution to the problem (Sabatier 1988: 141). The decisions by policy-makers influence governmental programmes and thus affect policy outputs as well as policy impacts. Feedback effects are strongly present in the policy subsystem. The model can be depicted in the following way:
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
41 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes General Gene ral model of pol icy change
Source: Sabatier 1988: 132. Advocacy coalitions within policy sub-systems - these are actors from a variety o off public and private organisations who are actively concerned with a policy problem or issue - are a critical vehicle for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effect of such learning on changes in governmental programmes (Sabatier 1988: 129). These people from a variety of positions (elected and agency officials, interest group leaders, researchers) shape the particular belief system – a set of basic values, causal assumptions and problem perceptions - and exemplify a significant degree of coordinated activity over time (Sabatier 1988: 139). ACF uses belief systems rather than interests because beliefs are more inclusive and verifiable (Sabatier 1988: 142); beliefs can be indicated through questionnaires and content analysis. In each sub-system there will be about two to four important coalitions but twenty to thirty organisations active at one time. To take the example of higher education, Gornitzka, Kogan and Amaral (2005) argue that the ACF can be applied to this policy as it is affected by very stable factors such as overall income and educational levels in a society, as well as cultural norms about elitist and egalitarian strategies governing access to higher education. But more dynamic factors are also present, including socio-economic conditions and system-wide governing coalitions, which provide some of the principal sources of policy change. Then advocacy coalitions involving politicians, interest group leaders and researchers emerge around higher education reform. Strengths and weaknesses
The contribution of this model is that the concept of policy sub-system is used as a basis for developing a theory of policy change by relating it to the larger political system and viewing advocacy coalitions (rather than formal organisations or free floating actors) as key units of internal structure (Sabatier 1988: 158). It brings together the literatures on top-down and bottomup approaches (more on this later) in order to understand policy change over a longer period of time, and draws on other literatures from social psychology and policy sub-systems (Sabatier 2005). In addition, the model does not presuppose that all actors try to maximise their selfPA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
42 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
interest (some collective welfare is thus possible), but assumes that actors have only limited capacity to process information. The framework expects actors to perceive the world through a set of beliefs; hence the concept of ideas and their origins plays an important role (Sabatier 2005). The ACF has been designed especially for policy areas characterised by high goal conflict, high technical uncertainty about the nature and causes of the problem, and a large number of actors from multiple levels of government (Hoppe and Peterse 1993). The framework has been applied to a considerable amount of cases, in particular energy, environmental or social policy disputes, but also education. But the ACF also has a number of challenges. In particular, it is difficult to determine the beliefs of the main actors, map the advocacy coalitions and establish all the external and internal factors which can affect the policy sub-system. In the aforementioned example, Sabatier (2005) proposes that the ACF’s application to higher education has been limited because most reforms do not involve high goal conflict and competing belief systems. In addition, if researchers and agency officials in a policy sub-system were members of advocacy coalitions and actively promoted reform, this would go against their neutral position in the civil service (Sabatier 2005). Policy learning
Another theory of change - policy learning - has a strong connection to other theories, such as the advocacy coalition framework. Policy learning refers to ‘relatively enduring alterations of thought or behavioural intentions which result from experience and which are concerned with the attainment (or revision) of policy objectives’ (Heclo 1974: 306). Policy learning is an important aspect of policy change and can alter secondary aspects of a coalition’s belief system; changes in the main aspects of a policy usually result from shifts in external factors such as macroeconomic conditions or the rise of a new systemic governing coalition (Sabatier 1988: 134). Nonetheless, policy learning is a heterogeneous category. As a result, the literature discusses different types of learning, such as social learning (Hall 1993), political learning (Heclo 1973), policy- oriented learning (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993), lesson drawing (Rose 1991), instrumental learning (May 1992) and causal and diagnostic learning (Levy 1994) (for more information, see Meseguer 2005). However, questions about who learns, what is learned and what effects on resulting policies emerge as a result of learning differ considerably across these types of learning (Bennett and Howlett 1992: 278). For instance, in policy-oriented learning, the agent of learning is the policy network, while learning is less about organizations than about ideas (i.e. members’ beliefs in the advocacy coalitions). In addition, learning is considered a process by which networks learn from past experiences, and thus is mostly about techniques and processes in order to improve policy (Bennett and Howlett 1992: 286). As mentioned before, the innovative aspect of the advocacy coalition framework is to focus on policy-oriented learning: actors’ desires to realise core va lues in a world of limited resources provides strong incentives to learn more about the saliency of problems, the factors affecting them and consequences for policy alternatives (Sabatier 1988: 158). But understanding the process of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning requires a time perspective of a decade or more. For instance, Greener (2002) and Klein (1995) analyse the role of social learning in health care reform in the United Kingdom. Drawing on Hall’s (1993: 78) work, social learning explores how policy- makers try to ‘adjust goals or techniques of policy in response to past experience or new information. Learning is indicated when policy changes as the result of such a process’. Internal reforms began after the 1987 general election, when the government was criticised by the opposition and the media for failures in the National Health Service (NHS) funding, which prompted reforms of the NHS. The government also learned from its own marketbased reforms in education, which acted as a testing ground of ideas later incorporated into PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
43 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
reforms in health care (Greener 2002). Introducing the internal market was a new policy instrument which met the same policy goals that were initiated with the introduction of the NHS in 1948. Therefore, policy-makers learned from previous experiences and included new information obtained when considering reforms. Strengths and weaknesses
Policy learning is an important concept in the theory of change literature – it is part of several theories and highlights that countries, regions and systems can change policies by learning from others and hence shifting their beliefs. However, it has been difficult to operationalise and measure the concept of learning in general. Besides the previously mentioned heterogeneity of the concept, Bennett and Howlett (1992) also point out that policy learning includes three complex processes: learning about organisations, learning about programmes, and learning about policies. Thus they propose to differentiate between the three concepts of government learning, lesson-drawing and social learning (Bennett and Howlett 1992: 289). Nonetheless, adding more categories does not necessarily lead to a better understanding of the concept. Policy diffusion
Similar to policy learning, policy diffusion is a process in which policy innovations spread from one government to another (Shipan and Volden 2008). In other words, the ‘knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions in one time and/or place is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements and institutions in another time and/or place’ (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996: 344). According to Shipan and Volden (2008), there are four mechanisms of policy diffusion: learning from earlier adopters, ec onomic competition, imitation, and coercion. Learning is ‘the process that leads states [this could also be systems or schools] to be called laboratories of democracy’ (Shipan and Volden 2008: 841, Brandeis 1932). Policy-makers can learn from experiences of other governments: if an adopted policy elsewhere is deemed successful, then another country/system might also implement it. The second mechanism, economic competition, can lead to the diffusion of policies with economic spillovers across jurisdictions. Policy-makers consider the economic effects of adoption (or lack thereof). For example, if there are positive spillovers, then governments are more likely to adopt the policy of others (Shipan and Volden 2008: 842). This is less likely in the case of negative spillovers. Another mechanism is imitation (sometimes referred to as ‘emulation’) which means ‘copying the actions of another in order to look like the other’ (Shipan and Volden 2008: 842). The focus lies on the action of the other government. Learning focuses on action (the policy being adopted by another government), while imitation emphasises the actor (the other government that is adopting the policy) (Shipan and Volden 2008). The last mechanism, coercion, is different from the other three which are voluntary. For instance, countries can coerce one another through trade practices or economic sanctions, either directly or through international organisations (Shipan and a nd Volden 2008).
Shipan and Volden (2008) further note that a temporal effect takes place, in which imitation is a more short-lived diffusion process than the others. In contrast, learning and economic competition should have longer-term effects. Different conditions of each mechanism across countries, systems and cities exist. Some factors can condition policy diffusion, such as domestic politics (including political constraints and ideological preferences of politicians) (Meseguer and Gilardi 2009).
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
44 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Drawing on the example of health care reform in Latin America, Weyland (2007) examines the diffusion of the Chilean model of pension privatisation and the moderate spread of health reforms in Latin America in the 1990s. The author further proposes that the diffusion of innovations is characterised by three aspects: 1.
An S-shape in time: a pioneer takes the lead and many other countries jump rapidly on board until this trend eventually decreases (see also Gray 1973). This is similar to Hannon’s (2011) depiction of the S -curve for school improvement and innovation, and it can mean that policy- makers overemphasise initial success. su ccess.
2.
Geographical clustering: diffusion is more likely to happen when countries countries are clustered because they need a close and successful example.
3.
Commonality amid diversity, which means means that the same policy fframework ramework is adopted adopted in varied national settings.
Weyland (2007) argues that policy-makers were not rational because they did not carefully evaluate the evidence after the Chilean pension privatisation and hence drew wrong conclusions. Policy- makers also relied on experience that was close and relevant for them, instead of examining world-wide evidence on privatisation. Lastly, policy-makers copied the Chilean model (with some minor adjustments), rather than adopting a model which would have been a good fit to their national economies (Meseguer and Gilardi 2009: 535). Strengths and weaknesses
While the idea of policy diffusion is not new, it has been used again more recently due to some of its strengths. Policy diffusion differentiates between four mechanisms (including learning which was mentioned in an earlier earlier section) and thus allows analysing change thr through ough a broader spectrum. However, it can be difficult to draw sharp distinctions between different concepts and models, such as the aforementioned policy learning and policy diffusion. (There is also policy transfer which is not discussed further.) Other issues remain unclear, such as why some policies diffuse faster than others or why regional patterns of policy diffusion vary considerably (Meseguer and Gilardi 2009). Punctuated equilibrium
Another model of change is the punctuated equil equilibrium ibrium model (Baumgartner and Jones 1991) which proposes that once an idea gets attention it will expand rapidly and become unstoppable. Many ideas competing attention thenthe something at some point. The process comes aboutare from externalfor events that but disrupt political happens system, particularly the ones that are big enough to disrupt or punctuate its equilibrium. One first has to show that punctuations occur and second that they occur because of political changes. Punctuated equilibrium is the process of interaction of beliefs and values concerning particular policy (termed policy images) with the existing set of political institutions (venues of policy action). It explains both periods of extreme stability and short periods of rapid change. Policy venues are the ‘institutional locations where authoritative decisions are made concerning a given issue’, and different constituencies can be mobilised (Baumgartner and Jones 1 991). Actors seek new venues when they need to adapt to institutional constraints in a changing environment – they resort to framing processes or policy images. Each venue carries decisional decisional bias because both participants and decision-making routines differ. As the venue changes, the image may change as well; as the image of policy changes, venue change becomes more likely (Baumgartner and Jones 1991: 1047).
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
45 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Using the example of nuclear policy, Baumgartner and Jones (1991) demonstrate how actors purposefully changed policy images by discussing it in a positive or negative light in relation to the selection of an appropriate venue. More precisely, opponents of nuclear power took advantage of divisions within the expert community, images in the popular media changed, opponents were able to obtain the attention of regulators, Congress, the courts and state regulators, and then then the market responded responded (Baumgartner and Jones 1991: 1067). Policy-makers strategically manipulated the images and venues of local and national governments. Political actors, capable of strategic action, employ a dual strategy: they try to control the image of the policy problem through the use of rhetoric, symbols and policy analysis. They also seek to change the participants who are involved in the issue by seeking out the most favourable venue for consideration of their issues. Both the institutional structures and the individual strategies of policy entrepreneurs play important roles (Baumgartner and Jones 1991: 1045). Policy entrepreneurs try to identify the most receptive alternative venues for the policy (Baumgartner and Jones 1991: 1052). In this regard, Greener (2002: 163) distinguishes three orders of change. First-order change occurs only in settings of policy instruments, while second-order refers to the situation when instruments used to achieve policy goals are changed. Lastly, third-order change (constituting a policy paradigm shift) occurs when policy-makers reject their framework of ideas for interpreting the world and adopt another one. The level of change impacts the means and the policy images used. Strengths and weaknesses
The idea of policy images and venues of action is helpful, and the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been used widely in the literature. How policies and proposals are framed and how actors strategically select venues can have a great impact on the success of change. Policymakers therefore have to think carefully about what policy image they want to create and which venues of action they select in order to bring other stakeholders (including the public) onboard. But the methodology is less clear in this model. For example, it is difficult to define frames in the first place, and then analyse how they change over time. In addition, determining when/how punctuations occur is less evident. In this regard, the punctuated equilibrium model suffers from similar challenges as some of the other models (such as the path dependence). Institutional change
Streeck and Thelen (2005) have developed a useful typology for institutional change. Institutions are ‘formalised rules that may be enforced by calling upon a third party’ (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 9). While institutional change is not necessarily the same as policy change, there are some instances when the two overlap. Theories of institutional change can be theories of policy change, when ‘policies stipulate rules that assign normatively backed rights and responsibilities to actors and provide for their public, that is third party enforcement’ (Streec k and Thelen 2005: 12). Policies are institutions in the sense that ‘they constitute rules for actors other than for policy-makers themselves, rules that can and need to be implemented and that are legitimate in that they will if necessary be enforced by agents acting on behalf of society as a whole’ (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 12). To give an example, early retirement policies create expectations among workers and employers with respect to when people become entitled to receive a pension from the state, and they can consider their expectations to be legitimate and go to courts to have them defended (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 12). First of all, Streeck and Thelen (2005) present a typology of the results and processes of change, which indicate either an incremental or abrupt process of change. The result of change is divided into continuity or discontinuity. For instance, with incremental change and continuity, we PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
46 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
would expect reproduction by ad adaptation. aptation. But when change is abrupt and there is discontinuity, we would expect breakdown and replacem replacement ent of the the institutions. institutions. Table 1 presents presents all the options. Typology of results and processes
Source: Streeck and Thelen 2005: 9. Streeck and Thelen (2005) then introduce five different types of change: displacement, layering, drift, conversion, and exhaustion. In displacement, the institutional configurations are vulnerable to change as traditional arrangements are discredited or pushed to the side in favour of new institutions and associated behavioural logics. Such change o often ften occurs through rediscovery 2005: 20). or activation and the cultivation of alternative institutional forms (Streeck and Thelen The second type - layering - involves active sponsorship of amendments, additions, or revisions to existing set of institutions. Change takes place through differential growth: the introduction of new elements sets in motion dynamics through which over time they actively crowd out or supplant the old system whose domain decreases relative to before (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 24). In drift, institutions are subject to erosion or atrophy if they do not adapt to changing political and economic environment. It can be caused by gaps in rules. Change can be promoted by political cultivation (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 24). Institutions are redirected to new goals, functions or purposes in conversion. This might happen as a result of new environmental challenges or through changes in power relations, or it may occur through political contestation over what functions and purposes an existing institution should serve. There are often unintended consequences, and change involves compromise as actors exploit ambiguities. Time matters for this type of change (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 26). Lastly, exhaustion is a process which leads to breakdown, thus it differs from the other four processes of change (Streeck and Thelen 2005). However, the collapse is gradual and not abrupt. Exhaustion c can an happen when tthe he normal working o off an institution undermines undermines its external preconditions and there is an erosion of resources (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 31). Strengths and weaknesses
The theory by Streeck and Thelen has been very influential in the literature and has been applied across a wide range of institutional and policy changes. It is highly sophisticated as it distinguishes different types of change, and impacts on the system. Nonetheless, for the purpose of this review, the theory of institutional change applies mainly to institutions, even though policies can be institutions in some instances. But in practical terms, it is not always clear when this is the case.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
47 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Multi-level governance
So far it has been evident that change is a multi-actor and multi-dimensional process. Most of the literature has thus pointed to the need to consider policy change processes from a multi-level perspective involving a variety of actors. Policy-making has increasingly become complex where actors move between different levels of action and authority is dispersed across multiple tiers (i.e. national, regional or local) (Hooghe and Marks 2001). Government reforms can be seen as integral parts of ongoing processes of change where policies of governments can be a response to change as well as a source of change (Gornitzka, Kogan and Amaral 2005: 9). Hooghe and Marks (2003) point out that multi-level governance has different meanings, though the term was initially used in European Union studies to describe a ‘system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers – supranational, national, regional and local’ (Marks 1993: 392). Multi-level governance provides a useful transition from policy change to policy implementation as top-down versus bottom-up approaches have been used for both parts of the process (more on this in the implementation section). Top-down processes mean that policy decisions from the national level are passed on to lower levels, whereas bottom-up processes refer to the involvement of the local level in policy-making and subsequent impact on higher levels. But the term of multi-level governance actually encompasses different forms; more specifically I and Type II (see Hooghe and Marks 2003 for further details). governanceType is composed of general-purpose jurisdictions which are bundled in aType smallI multi-level number of packages. It has also non-intersecting memberships (thus they are nested within each other), jurisdictions at a limited number of levels levels (be it international, national, regional, meso or local) and system-wide durable architecture (due to systemic institutional choice) (Hooghe and Marks 2003). For instance, these jurisdictions usually adopt the trias politicas structure of an elected legislature, an executive and a court system. Thus the United States federal government institutions are more similar to a French town than Type II arrangements. Jurisdictional reform is usually costly and unusual, and change mostly consists of reallocating policy functions across existing levels of governance. Institutions for governance are sticky (Hooghe and Marks 2003). In contrast, Type II governance is composed of task-specific jurisdictions. It has intersecting memberships, there is no limit to the number of jurisdictional levels, and a flexible design exists which means that jurisdictions can come and go as demand for governance changes (Hooghe and Marks 2003). It is quite widespread at the local level, for instance in the communes in Switzerland or special districts (including schools) in the United States. The idea of multi- level governance is also evident in Fullan’s (2007) account of educational change, in which he proposes a tri-level reform at the (1) school and community level, (2) district level and (3) state or national level. That there should be a two-way interaction and mutual influence within actors at all three levels highlights the complexity of change on a large scale (Fullan 2007). Strengths and weaknesses
The main benefit of multi-level governance is its scale flexibility, while its main disadvantage lies in the transaction costs of coordinating multiple jurisdictions (Hooghe and Marks 2003). Coordination is necessary due to potential spillover effects of jurisdictions. Since multi-level governance covers a large group of actors, it can also suffer from free riding. To counteract this problem, one solution is to limit the number of autonomous actors, another one is to reduce interaction among actors (Hooghe and Marks 2003). Both Type I and Type II have specific benefits and costs, and they can be complementary. In this theory, it remains difficult to PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
48 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
determine all the actors and jurisdictions involved in multi-level governance and which type of governance they refer to. In addition, it focuses mainly on formal actors and institutions and can thus leave more informal actors and flexible arrangements aside. That is why some scholars have considered a broader analysis of multi-level governance by analysing how decision-making is diffused to informal and overlapping policy networks (see, for instance, Ansell 2000, Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999). For this review, the network approach is particularly relevant, and is discussed in the next section. Policy networks A policy network is ‘a cluster or complex of organisations connected to each other by resource dependencies and distinguished from other clusters or complexes by breaks in the structure of resource dependencies’ (Rhodes and Marsh 1992: 182). This definition is then further elaborated into different types of networks, ranging from highly to less highly integrated networks, differentiated by their membership. According to John (2003: 486), the ‘structure of coalitions across complex policy sectors determines policy outputs (long-term relationships between interest groups and executive agencies) evolved into more complex networks between public and private organisations as the number of institutions and participants grew’.
For example, Phillips (1991) argues that social movements can be seen as networks providing structures within which organizations negotiate meaning by constructing collective identities. She maps the relationships between 33 national Canadian women’s organizations. These diverse groups form an The expansive loosely network that is is a bound by a collective identity of feminism. author but claims that coupled the network position significant predictor of whether social movement organisations are perceived to be effective. Strengths and weaknesses
The policy network theory is useful in highlighting complex interactions between stakeholders (both in the public and private sector) which can span a large n number umber of actors. The networks can be more fluid but also develop over time into an institutionalised structure. But the theory suffers from several weaknesses. For example, Dowding (1995) provides a critical view of the network theory and asks what is not a policy network? In fact, he describes networks as metaphors (as they developed through terms such as ‘iron triangle’ in the United States), rather than models. Thatcher argues that the categories are ‘arbitrarily chosen or do not form part of a continuum and hence are neither comparable nor exhaustive’, and also generally ‘poorly defined’ (Thatcher 1998: 397). In addition, these classifications cannot be used to help in the operationalisation of research questions, as the breadth of factors and linkages arising from poorly defined categories makes them ‘unusable’ (Thatcher 1998: 397). Other literature has also offered critical views of both theoretical and methodological approaches to network theory. One major drawback is that network ideas have not been good at explaining how networks arise in the first place, and how they change. Most accounts of the transformation of networks rely on exogenous shocks such as changing government policy, economic ruptures or natural disasters (Dowding 1995, Thatcher 1998). For instance, a ‘true’ theory should be generalisable to all objects and explain variance as well as similarities between these objects (Dowding 1995). But the policy networks model is not able to do that since it instead provides a map of the policy process than makes predictions about how different actors are expected ‘to behave under different institutional arrangements’ (Dowding 1995: 141). To add to this, the study of networks can be seen as one of classification, rather than theory- building. Dowding (1995) explains this shortcoming with reference to the fallacy of developing theories that are based on the properties of actors rather than the network itself. As a
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
49 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
result, they make up new types for every possible p ossible combination of actor and network configuration, rather than explain how different actors would behave in the same structural context. There are also methodological problems in policy network research. Dowding (1995) uses the example already mentioned of Phillips’ research into Canadian women’s associations which relies on interviews with actors to judge network members’ influence. Those actors at the core of the networks were perceived to be the most important ones (Phillips 1991). However, this does not show their actual power because actors at the core will always have the most contact to those actors that were interviewed. Interviewees often do not understand or know of interest groups, unions or parties that influence those intermediary organisations with which they are in direct contact. They are not objective judges of the actual effect of any group on the formation of policies. Another drawback is that only visible decisions are taken into account, while non-decision and non- participation are ignored (Thatcher 1998). This might overlook potential anticipated reactions. Finally, Thatcher (1998) claims that most theories explain the shape of networks by focusing on the effects that those shapes have on policy-making, which can also lead to problems. While the study of networks is potentially usef useful, ul, a more formal analysis of networks and better data need to be developed in order to reap these benefits. Disruptive innovation
Different from the other theories of change presented in this review, disruptive innovation is a model of social change taken from management. Nevertheless, it is an interesting concept especially for more radical change and has been applied to a variety of policy areas (see Christensen, Aaron and Clark 2003, Christensen et al. 2006). Disruptive innovation needs to be differentiated from sustaining innovation, which ‘introduces improved performance to existing services, systems or products along an established trajectory (OECD 2009: 69, see also Christensen and Laergreid 2001). In contrast, disruptive innovations ‘do not meet existing customers’ needs as well as currently available products or services’ (Christensen et al. 2006: 3). These might be simpler and less expensive products, and appeal to new or less-demanding customers (Christensen et al. 2006). Disruptive innovation is a two-stage process: first, an innovator makes a product more affordable and simpler to use than an existing one, while in the second stage, additional technological change in the industry makes it simple and inexpensive to build and upgrade the products (Christensen, Horn and Johnson 2008: 122-123). As the authors remark, disruptive innovations have had a significant impact on industrial structures and have often led to social change in the process, even if it was unintended. Online learning, corporate training programmes or community colleges are all examples of disruptive innovation in the education sector (Christensen, Aaron and Clark 2003). There are many possibilities to apply this model also at the secondary level, where existing structures are disrupted and new innovations replace old services and products (Christensen, Horn and Johnson 2008). For instance, online language or advanced placement courses offer an affordable option to people who otherwise would not have had any or only lilimited mited access to some types of course content or degree opportunities (Christensen, Aaron and Clark 2003). As a more concrete example, Apex Learning and the non-profit Virtual High School and Florida Virtual School have provided specialised (advanced placement) classes to thousands of students through online learning curricula, which offer students courses at a small fraction compared to live courses (Christensen, Aaron and Clark 2003). But student attrition is higher in online courses than in live ones, so there are some disadvantages.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
50 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Strengths and weaknesses
Disruptive innovation has been a powerful explanation for policy change across a wide range of areas. ‘Disruptio n is how industries achieve the seemingly incompatible goals of increased access, higher quality and lower prices’ (Christensen, Aaron and Clark 2003: 41). At times of challenging education reforms and decreasing state budgets, disruptive innovation could be a useful new framework for improving primary and secondary schools – and thus could be drawn upon more widely by officials in the future (Christensen, Aaron and Clark 2003: 41). However, it remains less clear which conditions predict disruptive innovations, and why they occur in some sectors and countries, but not in others. Therefore, more work needs to be done on cross-national and cross-sectional variation. Politics of ch ange a and nd reform
The presented theories have highlighted so far tha t ‘introducing, sustaining and assessing educational change is a political process’ because it addresses issues of conflict and representation among multiple actors (Hargreaves 1998: 291). In similar vein, Mehta (2013) argues that remaking the schooling system in the United States will not be easy as it will require political will and significant changes to long- standing institutions. Thus the politics of policy change and reform play a substantial part in the whole process. Politics affects origins, formulation and implementation of public policy especially when significant changes are involved (Reich 1995:48). As Reich (1995: 48) emphasises, broad reforms are possible when there is sufficient political will and Reich when (1995: changes a sector are designed and byfollowing capable planners and managers. 49)tofurther notes that reform is implemented political for the reasons: 1.
It repre represents sents a selection of value values s that express express a particular view of society.
2.
Reform has distinct distributional conseq consequences uences in the allocation of benefits and costs.
3.
Reform promotes competition amo among ng groups that seek to influence consequences.
4.
Enactment or non-enactment o off reform is often associated associated with regular political events or political crises. crises.
5.
Reform can have significant consequences for a regime’s political stability.
A strong and narrow political coalition improves the capacity of political pol itical lleaders eaders to resist the pressures of concentrated economic costs. Reich (1995:47) argues that for reform to succeed, policy- makers need effective methods to analyse relevant political conditions and shape key political factors in favour of policy reform. According to him, different models for policy reform exist, and they represent three clusters of political conditions under which policy reform can occur. It should be mentioned that the three models are not mutually exclusive.
Political will model: decisions by political leaders are necessary necessary and sufficient for a major policy change. This model emphasises a technocratic approach with a rational actor model of decision- making, but it tends to ignore political constraints to policy reform. This model is more likely under political circumstances such as ‘a strong mandate, strong state, narrow coalition and strong leadership’ (Reic h 1995: 58).
Political fact factions ions model: politicians seek to serve the desires desires of different gr groups oups (interest (interest groups, political parties). Rational analysis is the main means to promote and serve organisational interests. Reform occurs when it corresponds to a preferred
•
•
distribution of benefits to specific constituent groups of government leaders.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
51 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
•
Political survival model: government officials seek to protect protect individual interests (as power- holders) in order to maintain or expand their existing control over resources. It assumes that politicians operate in a logic of opportunistic politics, in which decisionmakers manipulate policies to achieve desired means. Reform occurs when it serves the personal political survival or the personal interests of political leaders (Reich 1995: 58).
As mentioned before, for reform to happen, several conditions have to be present (Wilford 1995). In health care reform in the United Kingdom, for instance, the state could ignore doctors’ opposition to reform because of ‘increased militancy and heterogeneity and the corresponding decline in the legitimacy of medical representation’ (Greener 2002: 174). In addition, an attack from the media, public and opposition on the government’s record of managing health care can be important for the reforms to be initiated. In another health care example, Immergut (1992) analyses health policy reform across four countries and notes that the degree of public control over health insurance varied considerably because of different institutional structures in each political system. These differences fostered different coalitions of interests, ranging from doctors, patients, labour unions and other actors (Wilsford 1994). Actors and institutions hence play an important role in policy reform. But policy reform can have potentially negative consequences due to the classic collective action problem (i.e. multiple individuals would benefit from an action, but costs make it unlikely that any individual orinfluence will solveonit government alone). Concentrated effects on more societal groups tend to havecan more decisions than diffuse effectspowerful on less powerful groups (Reich 1995: 52). These problems can be overcome by political alliances and compensatory benefits. Bargains reached with external actors have to be politically acceptable and sustainable in the domestic political game (see Putnam 1988). As a result, passing a new policy requires a well-organised and highly mobilised interest group. Political timing provides opportunities for policy entrepreneurs to introduce ideas into the public debate and political management of group competition allows leaders to control the political effects of distributional consequences and protect regime’s stability (Reich 1995: 47). The opportunity to achieve policy reform is often affected by external events (Reich 1995: 54). For instance, change is more possible at the beginning of a regime, and major concurrent events can open up political windows for reform (Reich 1995: 54). Radical changes require careful consideration of timing, while minor incremental changes are not as dependent on timing (Reich 1995: 55). Reich (1995: 75) has proposed an interesting policy mapping model, which is meant to improve the political feasibility of policy reform. It assesses the following six dimensions which should be taken into consideration for a successful policy change. 1.
The consequences of policy reform efforts
2.
The positions of support and opposition taken by key players
3.
The analysis of stakeholders’ objectives
4.
The relationship of players in the policy network map
5.
The transitions underway that create opportunities
6.
The construction of strategies for change
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
52 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Strengths and weaknesses
The politics of change and reform is not a theory per se, but it highlights that political will, favourable timing and suitable institutions are needed in order to push through change. The role of policy entrepreneurs is key in seeking out windows of opportunity (this is also the case in the punctuated equilibrium model). Nonetheless, some scholars have developed specific models in this area, and Reich’s (1995) three models of policy reform are especially helpful since they represent three clusters of political conditions under which reform can occur. In addition, Reich’s (1995) policy mapping model is also very interesting as it is supposed to improve the political feasibility of policy reform. However, it is quite an elaborate process and highlights how difficult it is to determine all six dimensions in the first place. Lessons from policy change research
Lessons from the policy change literature suggest that theories have become more sophisticated over the years, and have built upon earlier ones. Each theory has its own strengths and weaknesses, and their applicability differs across policy areas as well as the extent of change. This review has presented ten theories, which is a small selection considering the number of theories of change proposed in the literature. Sometimes, scholars are creating new theories or renaming old ones, instead of building upon and ameliorating existing theories. Methodologically, it is often difficult to determine the points in time when change occurs, but this is a key question for some of the theories. It is also complicated to establish the preferences of actors and their beliefs, as well as to determine the extent of policy learning or the make-up of coalitions and networks. Theories should be able to generalise observations and have predictive power. But most of the presented theories are more able to explain change in the past rather than predict change in the future based on certain conditions. But this has not stopped researchers from trying to come with more general theories (such as the advocacy coalition framework) though there are usually some conditions and constraints specified. It might not be possible or even desirable to create theories which are applicable across all policy areas since different conditions are usually present. Therefore, it seems reasonable to mix and match convincing elements of the theories, depending on the policy area and context.
SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1.
Distinguish policy change from policy reform. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
2.
Describe Path Dependence. Highlight its strengths and weaknesses. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
3.
Trace the connection of Policy Learning Theory to the the Advocacy Coalition Frame Work. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
53 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
4.
Identify and describe the four mechanism of Policy Diffusion. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
5.
Explain the typology of results and processes. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
6.
What is Multi-Level Governance? Explain your answer. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
7.
Distinguish policy change from policy reform. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
8.
In what sense Policy Network Theory is useful highlighting complex interactions between stakeholders. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
9.
Explain the reasons why Change and Reform is political in nature. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
10. Discuss the Lessons from Policy Change Research. Research. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
54 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes LESSON 4
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, the student must b be e able to: 2. 3. 4. 5.
Familiarize top-down and bottom-up approaches; Describe the rational-choice theories; Give examples from education policy; and Discuss the lessons from implementation research.
READINGS “Policy Implementation” From: Cerna L. 2013. The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different De velopment Theoretical Approaches, (OECD) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/The%20Nature%20of%20Policy%20Change%20an d%20Implementation.pdf CONTENT
Fullan (2007: 14) rightly notes that man y change attempts fail because ‘no distinction is made between theories of change (what causes change) and theories of changing (how to influence those causes)’. Therefore, it is important to point out that policy change go goes es hand in hand with policy implementation. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983: 20) define implementation as ‘the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in a statute but which can also take the form of important executive orders or court decisions’. A policy decision ‘identifies the problem(s) to be addressed, stipulates the objective(s) to be pursued and structures the implementation process’ (Sabatier and Mazmanian 1980: 540). Passing policies does not guarantee success on the ground if policies are not implemented well. Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) were the first ones to show that implementation dominates outcomes. It is difficult to say which factors or conditions facilitate successful implementation since so much depends on the political, economic and social context. For instance, local factors (e.g. size, institutional complexity) matter for policy responses (McLaughlin 1987). In this vein, Payne (2008) argues that only looking for general solutions and not acknowledging the particular context can lead to incoherent implementation efforts. Therefore, no ‘one -size –fits-all’ policy exists. However, this has not stopped some scholars from trying to come up with the most important factors for certain policy areas. To take the example of education policy, according to Payne (2008), successful implementation has been evidenced in schools where there is: •
Coherence
•
Stability
•
Peer support
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
55 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes •
Training
•
Engagement.
Successful system reform means that a small number of powerful actors are interacting to produce substantial impact (Fullan 2009: 108). Successful implementation implies that ‘agencies comply with the directives of the statues, agencies are held accountable for reaching specific indicators of success, goals of the statute are achieved, local goals are achieved or there is an improvement in the political climate around the programme’ (Ingram and Schneider 1990). Local capacity and will matter for policy success; adequate resources and clear goals are important too (McLaughlin 1987). In addition, the implementation process is characterised by a ‘multi-staged, developmental character’ (McLaughlin 1987: 176).
Even if policy implementation appears to be successful, Fullan (2000) points out that there is no guarantee that success will last. In terms of the change process in schools, there has been strong adoption and implementation, but not strong institutionalisation. Fullan (2000; 2007) further notes that both local school development (which engage teachers and students) and quality of surrounding infrastructure are key for lasting success. But successful examples of policy change (in schools) are still in the minority (Fullan 2007). Changing policies is not sufficient if there is no ‘reculturing’ of classrooms (Fullan 2000; 2007). As a result, a number of conditions need to be satisfied to enhance the change of successful and sustainable implementation, though these conditions vary across systems. This adds to the difficulty of the whole process. Top-down and bottom-up approaches
A widely used concept in the policy implementation (and change) literature distinguishes between top-down and bottom-up approaches. The two approaches vary in a number of areas, such as the role of actors and their relationships and the type of policies they can be applied to. Top-down approach
Top-down theorists see policy designers as the central actors and concentrate their attention on factors that can be manipulated at the central level (Matland 1995). The most detailed top-down approach was presented by Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979), who identified a number of legal and political variables and then synthesised them into six conditions needed for effective implementation ranging from clear objectives, causal theory, legal structure of the implementation process, committed officials, supportive interests groups to no undermining of changing socio- economic conditions (for more detail on these conditions, see Sabatier 2005: 19). In terms of policy areas, ‘top-downers’ usually prioritise clear policies (Matland 199 5: 155). Strengths and weaknesses
One strength of the top-down approach is that it seeks to develop generalisable policy advice and come up with consistent recognisable patterns in behaviour across different policy areas (Matland 1995). But top-down approaches are criticised for only taking statutory language as a starting point and hence do not consider the significance of previous actions. The approach may be said to consider implementation as an administrative process and ignores or eliminates political aspects. The emphasis on statute framers as key actors is another source of criticism (i.e. local actors are not taken into consideration). Bottom-up approach
Bottom-up theorists emphasise target groups and service deliverers, arguing that policy is made at the local level (Matland 1995: 146). These scholars (e.g. Hjern and Hull 1982, Hanf 1982, Barrett and Fudge 1981, Elmore 1979) thus criticise top-down theorists for only taking into consideration the central decision-makers and neglecting other actors. The bottom-up approach, PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
56 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
developed by Hanf, Hjern and Porter (1978), identifies the networks of actors who are involved in service delivery in one or more local areas and asks them about their goals, strategies, activities and contacts. It then uses the contacts in order to develop a networking technique to identify the local, regional and national actors involved in the planning, financing and execution of relevant governmental and non-governmental programmes. This provides a mechanism for moving from local actors and decision-makers such as teachers or doctors up to the top policy-makers in both the public and private sectors (Sabatier 2005: 23). In terms of policy areas, bottom- uppers examine policies with greater uncertainty in the policy p olicy (Matland 1995: 155). Strengths and weaknesses
Among the benefits of the the bottom-up approach is its focus on centrally located actors who devise and implement government programmes, thus contextual factors within the implementing environment are important. Actors and their goals, strategies and activities need to be understood u nderstood in order to comprehend implementation. Bottom-up approaches do not present prescriptive advice, but rather describe what factors have caused difficulty in reaching stated goals (Matland 1995). It is significant that strategies are flexible so that they can adapt to local difficulties and contextual factors. Nonetheless, bottom-up approaches have been criticised on two counts. First, policy control should be exercised by actors whose power derives from their accountability to sovereign voters through their elected representatives, but the authority of local service deliverers does not derive from this. Second, this approach tends to overemphasise the level of local autonomy (Matland 1995). Combined approach
Increasingly, the literature has focused on combining (micro-level variables of) bottom-up and (macro-level variables of) top-down approaches in implementation research in order to benefit from the strengths of both approaches and enable different levels to interact regularly (Elmore 1985, Fullan 2007, Goggin et al. 1990, Matland 1995, O’Toole 2000, Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999). Building on Matland (1995), Suggett (2011) develops a framework distinguishing areas by the level of political conflict about goals or intent of a policy, and the level of uncertainty about the means or actions to achieve the goal. The two-by-two typology captures how top-down and bottom-up approaches can vary according to policy areas. For instance, strategies that use bottom-up approaches (e.g. networks and devolution) are more common in areas of low conflict but high uncertainty and lack of consensus about the means to achieve a goal – such as educational disadvantage (Suggett 2011:8). In contrast, strategies that use such top-down approaches as strong political direction and sound governance are more likely in areas of high conflict about the goal but relatively high certainty on how it might be implemented (e.g. taxation for a specific industry sector) (Suggett 2011: 8). Strengths and weaknesses
Combining the two approaches might thus draw on their main strengths while minimising their weaknesses. Policy implementation often takes place because a wide range of stakeholders interact between between differ different ent levels – thus both central policy-makers and local actors on the ground are important for successful implementation. In addition, this combined approach allows for differentiating between various policy areas. For instance, while the suggested framework by Suggett (2011) in its current form could be further elaborated, it is a good start for differentiating between between implementation strategies. strategies. It matters wh whether ether health care, taxation or education policies are considered. Even within policy sectors, implementation strategies are not the same for higher education and secondary education policies, for example (see Gornitzka, Kyvik and Stensaker 2005). As a result, implementation varies according to different content and type of policies. PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
57 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Ra Rational-choi tional-choi ce theories
At times, researchers have looked for more sophisticated ways of theorising about implementation by applying rational-choice approaches. In a nutshell, rational choice theories are based on the assumptions that actors have a fixed set of preferences and act rationally in order to maximise the attainment of these preferences. Politics is seen as a series of collective action dilemmas due to the lack of institutional arrangements to encourage cooperation. In addition, strategic interactions between actors determine political outcomes (Hall and Taylor 1996: 944-945). Game Ga me theory One example of a rational choice approach is game theory which is ‘a mathematical treatment of how rational individuals will act in conflict situations to achieve their preferred objectives’ (Firestone 1989: 18). It is in particular helpful for theories that seek to clarify how coalitions build and pass legislation. The literature on implementation and game theory is still rather sparse in the political science literature (for exceptions, see Bardach 1977, Koremenos and Lynn 1996, O’Toole 1995, Stoker 1991 and Weber 1998). For example, Bardach (1977) considers implementation as a continuation of a political game from the policy adoption stage, but with other actors and other relations between actors. He analyses the type of games that actors apply in the implementation process in order to pursue their own interests. But these games distort implementation from the legislative goals (Winter 2003: 213). Despite limitations, game
theoretic models are helpful for exposing points of leverage for implementation managers (O’Toole 2000). O’Toole (1995) examines the use of rational choice theories (in particular game theory) in implementation research. He argues that while game theory might enhance interorganisational management, it has some serious practical limitations which constrain what might be theoretically possible (O’Toole 1995: 43). There are several challenges in rational -choice approaches to implementation, such as uncertainty across different areas and the lack of institutionalisation in the implementation setting (since many implementation networks are not highly institutionalised). But active and skilful multilateral implementation managers can successfully intervene at several points in a network context to reduce uncertainty and institutionalise cooperation. Such strategies include facilitating moves and linking games through signalling, commitment, and iteration; influencing preferences of actors and persuading them of the benefits to encourage cooperative outcomes; developing norms of trust and cooperation; and shifting the inter-unit structure to facilitate cooperation (O’Toole 1995: 47 -51).
Also drawing on game theory, Firestone (1989) offers an education policy example by analysing an ecology of games. Individuals compete in one or few available games, which can be in government, education, business, religion or news. This model borrows from ecology as species interrelate in their environment in different ways – through competition, cooperation or interdependence (Firestone 1989). Educational games are linked through flows between them: an downward flow of resources and regulation from legislature to classroom, and an upward flow of demands from educators as well as the general public (Firestone 1989: 19). Again, the temporal dimensions and context play an important role in the implementation of education policy. Local variation should be taken advantage of, and practitioners should experiment with different models at the local level (Firestone 1989). Ag enc y t heo ry
A different application of rational choice is agency theory - how principals delegate implementation to state agents - which has been applied in political science, economics and sociology (Kiser 1999). Different political science scholars (e.g. Bendor and Moe 1985, Kiewiet PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
58 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
and McCubbins 1991, Weingast and Moran 1983, Wood 1988) have focused on the monitoring of agents by principals in order to reduce drift in implementation. In contrast to the economics literature on this topic, political science pays attention to three issues: third parties, administrative procedures and multiple principals. But several questions remain unanswered, such as who exactly the principal is that is supposed to monitor the actions of the agents, and how agents are selected (Kiser 1999). Strengths and weaknesses
Rational choice theory proposes a parsimonious framework in which actors are rational in the pursuit of their preferences and interact strategically with other actors in the system. However, as John (2003: 485) argues, ‘rational choice does not offer solutions for all cases and contexts’. The theory is better at explaining outcomes when preferences are settled, rather than clarifying the origin of preferences and the reason for change (John 2003). Game theory provides several advantages, such as a rigorous deductive theory and the potential to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches by treating all relevant actors as strategic players. But, as mentioned before, there are a few challenges, such as uncertainty and the lack of institutionalisation (O’Toole 1995: 54). Overall, there is considerable potential to apply rational choice theories, including game theory, to implementation, especially when there are testable hypotheses. Examples from education policy
A review of the implementation literature several years ago suggested that the education sector constitutes about 65 percent of the research in the 1970s, but other policy areas such as environment and health have increased in importance in later years (Saetren 2005: 570). To stay with the example of education policy, Spillane, Reiser and Reimer (2002) examine why the local implementation of education policy is difficult. In particular they focus on ag ents’ sense-making with regard to reform initiatives. Their framework considers three aspects: individuals and their beliefs and experiences, the importance of the situation or context, and the role of external representation in the sense-making process. Complexity of human sense-making plays a major role as sense-making is not simply decoding policy messages but ‘the process of comprehension is an active process of interpretation that draws on the individual’s rich knowledge base of understanding, beliefs and attitudes’ (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer 2002: 391). In general, implementing agents/participants should have a shared understanding about values and assumptions of a programme (Werner 1980). However, many implementing agents are novices and thus miss deeper relationships. In addition, agents tend to be biased towards interpretations that are consistent with prior beliefs and values. Reform is a value-driven and emotional process. Different sectors structure work practices, innovations and the implementation process (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer 2002). The social context influences the ways in which teachers make sense of policy and the need to revise their practice (Spillane and Zeuli 1999). The challenges of implementation differ according to the level of social change, ranging from incremental change, change requiring growth on the part of those undertaking change and change that represents loss for the implementing agent (Marris 1975). It is not surprising that the more fundamental changes are sought, the more existing frameworks need to be restructured (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer 2002). As Majone and Wildavsky (1978) have argued, implementation is evolution. One explanation for this evolution is the process of human sense-making (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer 2002). According to They Fullanvary (2007), critical factors affect (such the implementation ofcomplexity education policy (see Figure 2). from nine characteristics of change as need, clarity, and quality/practicality), local characteristics (e.g. district, community, principal and teacher) PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
59 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
to external factors (in this this case the government and other agencies). agencies). Thus educational change is a dynamic process which involves interacting variables over time. Figure 2: 2: Factors Factors affectin g implementation
Source: Fullan 2007: 87. To sum up, implementation is a multidimensional process. Three dimensions need to be taken into consideration when implementing a new educational programme or policy. First is the possible use of new or revised materials (i.e. curriculum materials), second is the possible use of new teaching approaches (i.e. teaching practices), and third is the possible alteration of beliefs (or understandings about the curriculum and learning practices) (Fullan 2007: 30). All three aspects are necessary for change. However, while educational change is technically simple, it is socially complex (Fullan 2007: 84). Actors need to have a shared meaning o off educational change, and the commitment to pursue it. Lessons from implementation research
Policy implementation looks different across countries – involving other actors, agencies and contexts. Some useful lessons have emerged from specific research and policy examples. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979: 484-485) present five conditions beneficial for effective implementation. These include: 1.
The programme is ba based sed on a sound theory relating to changes in target group group behaviour.
2.
Policy decisions have to conta contain in unambiguous policy directives and structure the implementation process in a way that increases the chances of good performance of target groups.
3.
The leaders and implementing agencies require significant managerial managerial and political skills and commitment to the goals.
4.
The programm programme e also needs to be supported by organised constituency groups and few key legislators throughout the process.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
60 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
5.
The priority of objectives is not undermined over time b by y conflicting public policies or changes in socio-economic conditions.
According to the authors, the set of conditions should be sufficient to achieve policy objectives. It is possible to omit one of the last three conditions unless a major policy change requiring five to ten years of effort is sought (Sabatier and Mazmanian 1979: 486). Policy feedback and evaluation are important to consider in the wider implementation process in order to take into account a range of impacts. Other scholars (e.g. Cerych and Sabatier 1986, Van Meter and Van Horn 1975, Pressman and Wildavsky 1984) have refined the list for effective implementation, which has led to the following critical variables (Gornitzka, Kyvik and Stensaker 2005: 42).
Policy standards and objectives: objectives: effective implementation depends on the the na nature ture of policy to be carried out and the specific factors contributing to the realisation or non-realisation of policy objectives, which vary across policy types.
Policy reso resources: urces: funds are needed for for implement implementation, ation, but but the the ones available are usually not adequate, which makes reaching policy objectives difficult.
Inter-organisational communication and enf enforcement orcement activities: technical advice and assistance should be provided, and superiors should rely on positive and negative
•
•
•
sanctions.
Characteristics of implementing agencies: both formal structural features of organisations and informal attributes of their personnel are important. These include, for example, the competence and size of an agency’s staff, degree of hierarchical control of processes within implementing agencies.
Economic, social and political conditions: general economic, social and political conditions are important for the relationship between objectives and results.
Disposition of implementers: This concerns the motivation and attitudes of those responsible for implementing the reform.
•
•
•
The variety of conditions identified for a successful implementation has been rather descriptive and highly contextual. In fact, the literature has proposed about 300 potential variables which can affect the success of implementation, but falls short of specifying a model of implementation (O’Toole 1986). Besides the a bove critical variables, a time span of implementation is also important. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) suggest that a time span of four to five years, commonly used in implementation studies, is too short. Instead, they recommend extending it to at least ten years in order to enable policy-oriented learning. Based on Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980: 553), it is also significant to keep in mind that different stages in the implementation process exist: 1.
The policy outputs (decisions) of implementing agencies
2.
The compliance of target groups with those decisions decisions
3.
The actual impacts of agency decisions
4.
The perceived impacts of those decisions
5.
The political system’s evaluation of a statute in terms of major revisions in its content.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
61 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Lessons from decades of implementation research indicate that the trend is towards a multitheoretical approach, in which the direction of change is non-linear and systemic change happens due to dynamic interactive processes, rather than a centrally determined design (Gornitzka, Kogan and Amaral 2005). While theories aim to generalise observations, it is difficult to create generalised implementation theories in culturally saturated areas because national policy-making and implementation systems vary so widely (Kogan 2005). Policy fields such as education are not only country specific but also sub-sector specific (Kogan 2005: 62) which means that different issues arise for primary, secondary and higher education. Therefore, several implementation theories are combined for specific policy areas and contexts in order to draw on the strengths of each theory. For instance, top-down and b bottom-up ottom-up approaches used to to be opposed to each other, but more recent efforts combine the two approaches and differentiate implementation strategies by policy area, context, leadership, stakeholders and organisational capability. In addition, the process of policy-making and implementation should be considered to take place in a network structure mentioned earlier, and no longer as a bilateral relationship between the government and other institutions (Gornitzka, Kyvik and Stensaker 2005). Similar to the discussion on policy change, implementation is seen as a multi-actor and multi-level approach, thus stakeholders operate in a flexible network structure where processes can be informal and constellations spontaneous (O’Toole 2000, Stoker 1991). 1991). Overall, implementation is characterised by complexity, which can create both benefits and risks. That is why Wanna, Butcher and Freyen (2010) argue that it is not possible to come up with any single or simple model for meeting the challenges of implementation. In similar vein, Suggett (2011) proposes that complexity can lead to nuanced implementation strategies. ‘The complexity of public policy and political sub-systems poses serious challenges to the student of implementation, when ideas of self-regulation mix with continued aspirations and practices of central control, and when structures of responsibility and governance are unclear’ (Gornitzka, Kyvik and Stensaker 2005: 48). Thus the variety of implementation implementation frameworks should be taken advantage of, and combined according to the needs and policy areas. Gornitzka, Kogan and Amaral (2005) propose that a case-by-case approach might be necessary as it is difficult to come up with a combined theoretical model applicable to all areas. CONCLUSIONS
This review has sought to answer the following question: how can we explain policy change and implementation? To do so, it has discussed selected theories of policy change and then examined the challenges of policy implementation. The list of theories presented is not exhaustive, but can be built upon in the future. First of all, the paper has presented a number of theories of change, ranging from path dependence, advo advocacy cacy coalition framework, policy learning, policy diffusion, diffusion, punctuated equilibrium, institu institutional tional change, multi-level governance, policy networks, disruptive innovation to the politics of change and reform. The theories of change have their own strengths and weaknesses and apply differently across policy areas and degrees of change. Methodologically, it is often difficult to determine some points in time (such as a critical juncture) when change occurs. Similarly, establishing the preferences and beliefs of actors is complicated, as is the extent of policy learning, the make-up of advocacy coalitions or networks. Overall, theories should help us to generalise observations as well as have predictive power. However, most of the theories presented are better at explaining change in the past, rather than predicting change in the future based on certain conditions. As Fullan (2007: 81) argues, ‘change is and always will be initiated from a variety of different sources and combination of sources’. The initiator of change is less important than the quality of the change process.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
62 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Policy change goes hand in hand with policy implementation. Passing policies does not necessarily mean that the desired outcomes are achieved as policy implementation plays an important part of the process. Thus the second part of the review has sought to present some insights and lessons from the literature on policy implementation. Numerous scholars have come up with a list of conditions that ought to be present in order to facilitate successful implementation. However, challenges remain as the situational context as well as beliefs and priorities of implementing agents differ across policy areas and systems. Therefore, no ‘one -size – fits-all’ solutions exist. It is important to realise that there is diversity in implementation research and hence researchers should not look for one common theory. Instead, it should be sufficient to develop partial theories, which mix and match the most convincing elements of different theories, depending on the policy area and context. It is evident that both policy-making and implementation are composed of multiple layers, be it institutional, regional, state, federal or local), which points to the complexity of this research and practice (Gornitzka, Kogan and Amaral 2005). Future work should review empirical examples of how the theories of change and implementation apply to specific policy areas, including education. For instance, as previously mentioned, Gornitzka, Kogan and Amaral (2005) use the advocacy coalition framework for higher education, but less has been written on how theories of change apply at the primary and secondary levels of education. A similar limited application goes for other theories of change. Additional research should consider how theories of change and implementation apply at various levels (such as countries, systems, communities and schools). It would be fruitful to examine the challenges of implementation across policy areas (such as education policy) and what lessons can be learned from empirical examples. Overall, while policy-makers can plan to pass new policies, the dynamics of policy change change are rather complex, and thus a successful policy change and implementation often does not take place. That is why it is essential to understand better the conditions and factors behind these interactive processes.
SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1.
How policy chan change ge is connected to policy implementation? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
2.
When tthe he System Reform is considered to be successful? Explain your answer. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
3.
Describe and di distinguish stinguish the top-down and bottom-up approaches. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
63 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
4.
Discuss the Game Theories. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
5.
What are the factors factors affecting affecting implementation? Explain Explain your answer. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
64 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
APPENDIX
A Si mp le Gui de f or Soc ial Chan ge
This section provides a recipe on organizing for citizen involvement. ON ORGANIzING— ORGANIzING—WHAT CAN J OHN Q. CITI CITIzEN zEN DO?
How then do citizens and community leaders at the grassroots level organize most effectively to influence the multi-faceted policy and political system described in this primer? The table below provides a simple recipe for social change, complete with ingredients and directions.
A Si mp l e Reci pe f or Soc ial Chan ge Ingredients
Credibility Assumptions Commitment Power Hope Courage Goals Directions
Be there Be informed Be able to count Don’t be intimidated Don’t take “no” for an answer
Follow through A Def in it io n (Defi ( Defi ni ng Our Term s) The verb “organize” as defined by Webster means: “to provide with an organic structure; system- atize; to arrange; establish; institute; bring into being; to unify into a coordinated functioning whole.” This Primer seeks to expand this definition to a more practical level, by providing down- to-earth suggestions for individuals who want to become involved and who want to learn and practice the simple skills needed when organizing any group to achieve specific goals.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
65 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes Two Popular Myths Myths (Dispelling Myth s) You need need large num bers to be effective: False.
Most groups revolve around a small core of individuals who have the trust of the larger group. The core group must learn how to build coalitions and be able to draw on larger numbers at the appropriate time. Don’t be discouraged if only a small group shows up to key meetings. The important thing is not to exclude anyone from the core group and to learn when and how to involve the less committed allies. For those people who miss meetings, keep them involved and up-to-date with phone calls and mailings. The smallness of a group becomes a liability only if it remains small and/or is unable to develop coalitions. You must have special trainin g to be able to or ganize a group : False.
Some of the most savvy and effective organizers are grassroots people who know the wishes of the community and can articulate them. The key to leadership is gaining and keeping the trust of the group. This is accomplished by working with the group —not for them. The Bottom Line: Your Credibility
To organize, you must identify and bring together a core group of individuals. The core group has basically two initial tasks: 1.
To clea clearly rly develop a fo focus cus or set o off goals
2.
To decide how to expand the group to represent represent as man many y viewpoints as possible so that the group’s legitimacy and credibility cannot be challenged.
The makeup of your group will, of course, help shape your goals; a group’s membership and its goals usually shift somewhat over ove r time. As su mp ti on s
Before the group can develop a focus or a set of goals, it is important to state the assumptions the group might share. First, when dealing with institutions (e.g., government agencies), it is helpful to keep in mind the Peter Principle (Lawrence J. Peter. The Peter Principle. W. Morrow Publishers, 1969): Large, organizations develop bureaucratic hierarchies or “pyramids of power.” People are often promoted to positions of power beyond their level of competence. In other words, just because they have impressive-sounding titles, don’t assume they know what they are talking about! Second, our society is organized into institutions that were initially set up to achieve some special social goals. It is always a smart strategy to accept at face value that stated goal of each institution as a legitimate ideal you can embrace, if that goal is consistent with the social change your group wants to achieve. The key to your success in changing the real policies and practices of that institution depends on how effectively you can demonstrate the institution’s failure to meet its own stated goal, thereby diminishing or destroying its legitimacy. You then can demon- strate how your group can do the job more effectively and, hopefully, at a lower cost. Legitimacy and Those Who Have It Are the Keys to Change Change
Once you have effectively exposed the institution for its inability to achieve its own stated goals, the institution has basically two alternatives: 1.
To make changes to achieve the goal
2.
To become defensive and attack your group.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
66 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Most institutions will initially resist change, especially if it is initiated from within. If they do begin to change, be on guard. Your group could be co-opted or sandbagged when a policymaker gives superficial lip service to your suggestion but has no intention of implementing policy or change. Your group, thinking they have won, will become diffused and apathetic —losing interest even though the critical work of implementing the change will require continued oversight and pressure. Quick success is almost always fatal to a community co mmunity group! If the institution attack group, it means youwhen havethe hit a sensitive point and arereacts on thedefensively right track.and Youbegins can betosure youyour have become a threat institution begins to challenge your group’s credibility. You must expect this kind of attack and not become defensive. You can judge the merit of your recommended change by the intensity of the institutional attack. The more defensive and hostile their response to you and your group, the more on target you are. You should move ahead aggressively. Two Kinds of Commitment
It is always important to remember that there are two levels of involvement and commitment to any movement for change. On one level is the emotional commitment —the feeling that something is wrong and the desire to do something to change it. There is also the intellectual level personified by a well-read, knowledgeable, thoughtful individual. A group needs both levels of commitment to be effective. 1.
Those with the emotional commitment commitment are the traditional traditional activist activists. s.
They are highly motivated and are anxious “to get involved” to try to change conditions. They normally have little historical perspective and are unable to articulate the group goals. They are often, but not always, hot heads and can be an embarrassment to your group. They are important to your group, but must learn to subordinate their own interests to those of the larger group.
2.
The intellectual level requires individuals who understand the historical significance of the change being advocated.
These people have a sophisticated understanding of the interrelationships, the nuances and the subtleties of the situation. Unfortunately, many intellectuals are unable to translate the thought into action and, therefore, are not helpful to a group. The ideal group leader has both an emotional and intellectual commitment (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr., and Caesar Chavez) and can harness the energy of the emotions and the thoughtfulness of the intellect to give direction to a group. Unfortunately, few groups have such unique individuals as leaders. It is, therefore, the leader’s task to be sure that both the emotional and intellectual commitment is present in the group. An over-reliance on either will lead to a poorly thought out strategy and subsequent clumsy attempts at change or what may be called “paralysis by analysis”— all thought and no action. Either result can be disastrous and counter productive because it makes future attempts to organize much more difficult. Forms of Power
Now that you have identified a core group, goals and others who share your interest, it is time to consider what kinds of power you and your group can bring to the coming struggle. It is important to recognize that when you advocate change, you take on special interests that will be threatened by a change. Usually the special interest groups have a great deal of influence, often by default, because they possess an abundance of a few types of power: money, knowledge and personal relationships with the policymakers.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
67 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Special interest groups are not necessarily sinister in their use of power. They use money to contribute to policymaker campaigns, to hire lobbyists, to wine-and-dine and to develop detailed materials to document their particular need(s). Special interests can and do play an important role in policymaking. Community groups can learn a great deal from observing how they utilize power to affect public policy. Community groups do not have the money to compete with special interests; therefore, they to use other kinds of power. A core group of organizers must learn to mobilize othermust typesseek of power. 1. Numbers Are Power
Policymakers (e.g., city council members, legislators) are very concerned about large numbers of voters, especially if they are upset. It is important that you identify other groups that agree with your goals and who are willing to show up to a meeting on behalf of your interests. Numbers give you additional legitimacy and credibility. Policymakers continually assess the impact of what they are doing or plan to do. They are extremely sensitive to organized groups. The larger and more diverse the group, the more likely that it will be taken seriously. Seek ways to expand your group. The group, however, must have well-established goals and strategies, or it will become divided and ineffective. 2. Coalitions Are Power
Although your group might be small, you probably can find others who share your concerns. Expanding the numbers of a group involves building coalitions; coalitions involve bringing together diverse groups to work toward a common goal. It is important to identify the goals because there will be area where the various coalition members disagree. The group must learn to agree on the goals and agree to disagree on the areas of difference. 3. Unity Is Power
A large, diverse group presenting a unified position before a city council or a legisla- tive committee has power. Be careful. Choose wisely the person who speaks for your coalition in public meetings. If the spokesperson gets excited, exaggerates a point poi nt or gives misinformation, a smart policymaker will seize upon the occasion to destroy the credibility of all of the information and may discredit the entire group as well. Should the group seek to defend the misstatement, it risks its own credibility. However, if the group disassociates itself from the spokesperson or information presented the group may become divided and ineffective. Do not let this happen! Unity is essential to maintain your legitimacy and credibility. Disunity equals powerlessness. 4. Positions Are Power
It is important to bring to your group people who hold important, credible positions in your community. Bankers, educators, business people, community leaders and clergy give your group legitimacy. Try to involve them in your group. 5. Knowl edge Is Power
Two kinds of knowledge are essential to affect public policy: First, you must be knowledgeable about the process of decision-making. Each public body has rules and policies that describe how decisions are made. Get the rules.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
68 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Learn them. Remember there are also informal rules. Get to know those, too. Then monitor the meetings and impact the decisions at the appropriate time. Second, you must be knowledgeable about the issue you represent. Study and under- stand the issue. Do not exaggerate or misrepresent the facts. Develop good information. Policymakers will learn to trust you and eventually will depend on you for facts. 6. Re Relationshi lationshi ps Are Power
It is always helpful to know the legislator, city councilperson, or county commissioner personally. Don’t be afraid to help on a campaign or volunteer to work in a policy- maker’s office. Development of a personal relationship with the policymaker will give you access and credibility. You should get to know key policymakers to such a degree that you feel comfortable calling them or visiting their offices. You will know that you have power and influence with policymakers when they return your phone calls. It is also helpful to know that each policymaker has a hidden advisor —some trusted friend or associate who meets regularly with the policymaker and has an inordinate amount of influence on the policymaker’s thinking and judgment. You can save yourself and your group a lot of trouble if you get to know that hidden advisor, work- ing to gain this person’s trust. This person can do more for your group over a cup of coffee than you and your group can do in months of organizing. The hidden advisor must feel comfortable with you and perceive your group as a broadly based coalition of knowledgeable people who can impact the process if necessary. Hidden advisors can become important allies and key parts of your strategy. s trategy. Get to know them. 7. Voting Is Power
Elected policymakers listen to voters. Be sure you are registered and vote. Be sure that all of your coalition members are voters and willing to vote as a block. 8.
Use of the Media Is Power
Policymakers dislike bad publicity. You must learn how to develop literature, talk to the press, go on radio, and speak before cameras so you can get your message across. Policymakers will go out of their way to avoid bad press if they can, so don’t be afraid to use the media. 9.
Money Is Power Although most citizens’ groups are at a monetary disadvantage, they must have some funds to develop materials, pay for mailings and keep other members of the coalition informed. You will not be able to compete financially with special interests, but if you have the other elements of power, you can overcome the power of money. No group, however, can function without some funds!
10. The Internet Is New Power In the 20 years since I originally developed this organizing “recipe,” a new ingredient has appeared that is showing remarkable ability to inform and influence policy and policymakers—The World Wide Web. It is a tool that puts information and organizing ability in the hands of real people who would be wise to make sure the other ingredients are on the table when cooking up their plans for social change. The Internet is changing our concept of “community” and extending our reach in ways that were unimaginable, or certainly much more difficult to achieve, before its advent. New strategies and lessons PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
69 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
learned will come from a new generation of organizers for whom this tool has become a vital channel for change. These ten elements of power, if used in combination, will more than offset the special interest groups. No smart public officials will disregard the wishes of a large, unified coalition of knowledgeable voters who have expressed a specific interest to them. The power of money usually will dwindle as the organized community group becomes more knowledgeable, assertive and effective. The Four Four Key Ingredients Once your group is formed —a process that might take weeks or months —four elements must be present before the group can take any action. If one of the four is missing, the group will exhibit the classic defense mechanisms —rationalizing, back stabbing, scapegoating, forming more committee(s)—to avoid taking action. The four essential ingredients are: Hope: The group must believe that all the effort, time, and toil will result in some changes. Courage: The group must be willing to “risk” the confrontation. Goals: The group must clearly understand what it is that is being changed. Strategy: The group must clearly understand how the goal is to be achieved.
As a group leader, one must be constantly aware of the dynamic of the group. If and when the group begins to backstab, rationalize, scapegoat, or turn on itself, it is the leader’s task to assess which of the four ingredients is missing and to “plug in” the missing one. Making It Happen
Once the group has become a group, has identified its goals, and has decided to take an action, follow these six simple rules to achieve maximum results: 1.
Be There “Being there” means finding out when and where the real decisions are made and then getting the appropriate people to that meeting. This might mean having one person monitor a meeting for several weeks just to know what is going on and then, at the appropriate time, bringing in the larger group. “Being there” means making a commitment to understanding the system. Nothing is more frustrating than being at the right place at the wrong time or at the wrong place and missing the real decision.
2. Be Informed
It is important that the group be legitimate. This means developing accurate information and presenting it in the most rational way. Even the slightest exaggeration or smallest piece of misinformation can discredit the group and destroy its legitimacy. When developing specific information for policymakers, assume that they are intelligent but uniformed. Remember, they have more than one issue to be concerned about. It is a mistake to assume they know or care about yours. •
Be prepared to be challenged on your data. Make sure it is accur accurate. ate.
•
Develop a network for information-gathering that is quick and responsive. Once you have established your credibility, you will be called upon again and again.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
70 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes 3. Be Able to Count
This is a democratic society —the majority rules. The group must know the number needed to pass a resolution, law ordinance or policy. They must know policymakers’ stands on issues that concern them and develop arguments that will appeal to the voters. (This might entail compromise, which every group should consider as part of their strategy.) Remember, policymakers can also count. It is therefore important to demonstrate that your group legitimate —well-informed and broadly based. At some point in the process, you mayisneed to produce large numbers of allies to demonstrate your broad base of support, and to do this you must build coalitions. 4.
Don’t Be Intimidated Intimidated
Intentionally or not, the system is intimidating. To personally visit a key policymaker, you may have to go through two assistants and three doors —and then confront a huge, overpowering, walnut desk that separates you from the policymaker. During official meetings, the policymakers sit together, usually on a raised platform, surrounding themselves with “experts” from the bureaucracy. If you wish to addres s the group, you must “come down front” and stand before them— alone—speaking into a microphone that distorts your voice, increasing your discomfort. Don’t be intimidated by all of this. If you are informed, if you have the votes, and if your support group shows up, you will find that your fears soon disappear. 5.
Don’t Take “No” For An Answer
You should never expect a new idea, no matter how logical or reasonable, to be accepted on its face value the first time it is presented. Instead, you should anticipate all of the hostile questions and expect to be turned down initially. In fact, if your idea is accepted up front, without much resistance, there probably will be no real change. It may mean that the policymakers are going to sandbag your proposal—by giving lip service to your idea with no intention of implementing it. In general, the more the resistance, the better the idea. Be prepared to dig in and follow through because it takes a major commitment of time and energy to fully implement a new policy. As you monitor implementation, it is important to show how your idea fits into the goals articulated by this particular institution and how your idea can do the job more effectively or at lower cost. You can often avoid the “it will cost more” argument by saying, “we don’t expect more money but rather hope to ‘reorder priorities.’” 6. Follow Through All of the group’s efforts can be lost if you fail f ail to follow f ollow through. In fact, you can be co-opted by an easy victory since the group will tend to dissolve after reaching its goal. Within weeks or months, things will be back to normal and you’ll find it difficult, if not impossible, to get the group back together. Conclusion
Community change means a commitment to the long haul —to the process. Don’t be confused with winning and losing. Many times, winning in the short term really means losing in the long run. Conversely, losing is often best for the group. After a period of time, a group leader will learn that it is the process of continually participating in change and the integrity of the people who participate in that process that is most important, not winning w inning or losing a few skirmishes.
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
71 | P a g e
CATANDUANES STA TE UNIVERSI UNIVERSITY TY Virac, Catanduanes
Finally, never lose your humanity in order to save humanity. One of the most important assets of a change agent is a sense of humor. Learn to laugh at yourself and with others. Strive to make this world a better place to live, work, and love. In doing so, remember that no single issue—no matter how important it may seem today —is as important as your commitment to each other and your commitment to the integrity of the process.
REFERENCES Hollister, D. 2007. A Public Policy Primer: How to Get Off the Sidelines an and d Into the Game. Michigan: Institute for Educational Leadership, pp. 1-9. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510117.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510117.pdf Political Law (2017) by UP College of Law - BAR Operations Commission, pp. 20-38 https://www.scribd.com/document/388699452/UP-POLITICAL-LAW-REVIEWER2017-pdf
Cerna L. 2013. The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different Theoretical Approaches, (OECD) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/The%20Nature%20of%20Policy%20Change%20a nd%20Implementation.pdf
PA 13 – PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
72 | P a g e
View more...
Comments
