Policy Problem in Public Policy - Essay Example

Policy Problem in Public Policy By Devangini Mahapatra Chauhan A policy problem is an unforeseen circumstance that takes away from the basic effectiveness of a particular public policy. It arises due to many factors, of which negligence in the planning stage and faulty implementation, are the most common. To understand the nuances surrounding the nature of policy problem, one must first be aware of the fact that a public policy is a tool that addresses and handles the manifestation of social problems and issues in a public arena. In more ordinary words, this implies that a public policy is one that deals with various quarters of the society in context of representation of a minority group and its interests. Therefore, on this basis, it may be concluded that a public policy is extremely vulnerable when it comes to hurting the sentiments of another section of the society by virtue of its inherent features that target a certain group and unintentionally ignore another one. While this may not be the whole and sole reason for a policy problem and a possible policy failure, it is definitely a basic premise upon which most problems start. The true character of a policy problem may be revealed in policy evaluation – therefore the two are complementary to each other’s existence. In this context, we will further discuss the nature of a policy problem with an example. As far as the income policy in the US goes, there has been an increasing trend towards inequality in recent decades. In this regard, there have been large changes in U.S. tax rules over time. These changes have gone ahead to make a considerable difference to what is reported as income on individual tax returns. With these tax changes encouraging thousands of businesses to switch from filing under the corporate tax system to filing under the individual tax system, various studies of inequality that are founded on tax return data invariably end up excluding transfer payments, which results in exaggerating the shares of income received by those at the top by ignoring growing amounts of income at the bottom. This may be defined as the basic policy problem in the US income policy. With a consistent fall in the top tax rates on wages or capital gains, there has been an increase in the reported incomes, where a larger percentage of the incomes of those at the top tend to feature in the tax returns. To put it across in a more precise manner, studies based on tax return data provide highly misleading comparisons of changes to the U.S. income distribution owing to dramatic changes in tax rules and tax reporting in recent decades. There is little evidence of a significant or sustained increase in the inequality of U.S. incomes, wages, consumption, or wealth over the past 20 years, apart from stock option windfalls during the late-1990s stock-market boom, on which policy makers base the planning of their policies. Therefore, this may be labeled as a policy problem where the policy makers were unaware of ground realities in the analysis of projections when planning the policy. References 1. Anderson, James E (October, 2002) Public Policy Making: An Introduction (6th Edition). London: Houghton Muffin Company. 2. Dye, Thomas R (June, 2001) Understanding Public Policy (11th Edition). London: Prentice Hall. Policy Evaluation By Devangini Mahapatra Chauhan Policy evaluation has to continuously examine the content of different policy elements owing to the fact that nobody can predict what line of action will eventually be implemented at the beginning of a public policy formulation and implementation process. In order to understand and explain public policy, different parties’ perceptions of the policy problem need to be scrutinized with special emphasis on lines of rationality. This forms the crux of the policy evaluation process. In this regard, a policy evaluation facilitates the interpretation of policy in a broader context so as to justify the problem area and find a fitting solution where the values and order that the policy or programme is meant to promote is concerned. It has been proven repeatedly that with the use of an open evaluation framework and a mix of criteria, one can facilitate a broader interpretation of the policy process. The policy evaluation process is one that goes through stages like policy implementation, policy learning and finally the arrival of a solution for the policy problem. It is true that the formal process of policy evaluation begins with the implantation of the policy as this is where analysts start recording the progress of the policy to find any deviations in the path. In this way, the process proceeds towards learning about the characteristics that the policy must comprise of in order to have the planned impact. This stage, otherwise known as policy learning, is one where the there is extensive research into the reasons for deviations and any problems encountered thereof. This stage flows into another which has to do with problem solving. With the information gathered in the policy learning stage, there is a concerted effort towards finding the solution that will put the policy and it progress on the right path so as to render maximum benefit to maximum people. There are various problems encountered in the process of policy evaluation. These have to do with the variety of perspectives offered on the progress of a certain policy – what one person may label as failure, is not necessarily a failure for another. Further, the need for immediate action is another problem that is encountered in policy evaluation. This problem invariably leads to further mistakes owing to the urgency to correct any deviations. Also, there is the problem of staying focused on the democratic environment around the policy implementation process as well as concentrating on the basic objective in the face of new information that may be overwhelming for the evaluating party. Within authoritarian regimes, there is a need for evaluators to let go of the pressure to essentially represent the objectives of their superiors and thus place more emphasis on a comprehensive and objective view of the problem at hand. Further, with the dynamic environment of politics, the evaluation process needs to keep reinventing itself to prevent itself from becoming obsolete. References 1. Anderson, James E (October, 2002) Public Policy Making: An Introduction (6th Edition). London: Houghton Muffin Company. 2. Dye, Thomas R (June, 2001) Understanding Public Policy (11th Edition). London: Prentice Hall. Stages in the Budgetary Process By Devangini Mahapatra Chauhan As the most important economic policy instrument, the budget reflects a governments social and economic policy priorities more than any other document. It does so by translating policies, political commitments, and goals into decisions on where funds should be spent, and on who and how these funds should be raised. A well-functioning budget system is required for fool proof formulation of a sustainable fiscal policy which further facilitates economic growth and development. In this way a government’s budget directly or indirectly affects the life of all its citizens. The budget cycle usually has four stages: • Budget formulation. This stage commences when the budget plan is decided upon by the executive branch of government. Usually there is one office —the budget office in the Ministry of Finance — which coordinates and manages the formulation of the budget. It does so by requesting information from individual departments and proposing the trade-offs necessary to fit competing government priorities into the budget’s expenditure totals. • Enactment. In this stage the budget plan may be challenged, altered, and approved by the legislative branch before it is formally enacted into law. This stage begins when the executive formally proposes the budget to the legislature. Following this, the legislature opens a debate on the budget to include public hearings and votes by legislative committees. The process ends when the budget is adopted by the legislature, either in its original form or with amendments. • Execution. This is the third stage where the policies of the budget are carried out by the executive. While the various governments differ widely in how they regulate and monitor spending to ensure adherence to budgets, the US example demonstrates strong central control over spending, reviewing allocations to departments and approving major expenditures, in most cases by the Treasury or Finance Ministry. • Auditing and assessment. This final stage shows the actual expenditures of the budget as they should be accounted for and assessed for effectiveness by the executive, as well as the external auditors independent of the executive. Here, there are a number of activities that measure the level of utilization of public resources and the effectiveness of the same. In the US, the executive branch is generally made to report extensively on its fiscal activities to the legislature and the public. As an example of the influences on the budgetary process and budgetary elements, there is the case of an NGO called Fundar, which is dedicated to the analysis and interpretation of the government’s budget, in a bid to influence the same. This NGO carried out a project that evaluated the amount of public resources allocated by Mexico towards a reduction in the maternal mortality in 2002. Among the various strategic choices made within the wider network, the most important one was to pitch the money allocated to maternal and reproductive health against other areas of spending. As demonstrated by Fundar, the resources that could have been utilized for reducing maternal mortality had been spent on other programs. Apart from the Ministry of Health, members of Congress working on health and gender issues were prompted to make more efforts to hold the executive accountable for its budget decisions, on the basis of the information provided by Fundar. References 1. Anderson, James E (October, 2002) Public Policy Making: An Introduction (6th Edition). London: Houghton Muffin Company. 2. Dye, Thomas R (June, 2001) Understanding Public Policy (11th Edition). London: Prentice Hall. Read More