Policy is defined as a guide to human institutions.

The policy making process is achieved by

the use of policy tools/instruments. Thus, policy tools/instruments often focuses on how
policies are made (Howlett & Ramesh, 2018). The stages of a policy process include problem
identification, agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation and the
monitoring and evaluation processes.

Models of public policy-making help decision makers to identify the most important elements
that intervene in the process of policy making and analysts to generate the necessary
questions for the analysis (Patton & Sawicki, 2017). These mainly include Rational,
Incremental and Political.

The decision making model constitutes the above mentioned decision models. Decisions are
made in a series of sequential phases starting with identification of problem or issue and
ending with policy implementation and monitoring and evaluation.

In the linear model, the shortcoming is criticized for being overly linear and simplistic. In
reality, stages of the policy process may overlap or never happen. This model fails to take
into account the multiple factors attempting to influence the process itself as well as each
other, and the complexity this entails.

In the incrementalism model, it is conservative in that existing programs; policies, and

expenditures are considered as a base, and attention is concentrated on new programs
and policies and on increases, decreases, or modifications of current programs.

There is no better illustration of the dilemmas of rational policy making in Uganda than in the
field of Health, the first obstacle to rationalism is defining the problem. The ministry of
health goal is to have good health - that is, whether we live at all (infant mortality), how well
we live (days lost to sickness), and how long we live (life spans and adult mortality)? As the
first step in sound policy-making is properly identifying a problem and designing the right
response(s) to address it.

As a new Policy Advisor to the Cabinet Minister at the Ministry of Health using knowledge
gained from this course; some of the problems that I can refer to in accordance to the
normative stages of policy formulation and decision-making (process model). Multiple
factors influence the identification of policy challenges and their incorporation into the policy
formulation at the Ministry of Health, including:
There could have been lack of effective stakeholder-engagement at Ministry of Health that
would enable the government to launch and sustain dialogue with relevant civil-society actors
and with citizens on the issue and on how to address it successfully.

There could have been lack of capacity of the government to anticipate challenges through,
for example, strategic foresight, horizon scanning and debates on alternative futures,
including with civil society.

There could have been lack of an updated agenda and subject matter for the policy. To start
with the most obvious, a good policy-making process would involve due consideration of up-
to-date available subject-matter knowledge and relevant data, and the use of available
analytical tools (Chambers, 2010).

There could have been inadequate professionalism of policy-makers and advisers. Debates
have been common in many institutions about the pros and cons of ‘generalists’ vs.
‘specialists’ in policy planning in institutions. There is a school of thought which suggests
that the excessive involvement of poorly informed generalists is the main cause of poor
policy-making and implementation. However, when it comes to the realm of policymaking
and the making of trade-offs, experience in government and the private sector suggests that
this is usually best handled by an intelligent, well-informed person who has a wide rather
than narrow perspective (Lynn, 2011). This person could be termed the “intelligent and
informed generalist” who, though not a specialist in any one field, is in fact a specialist in
analysis, integration and synthesis i.e. identifying problems, trade-offs and solutions. His
strength and training lie in being well-informed about a variety of related subjects, in incisive
analysis, and in intelligent use of information provided by 15 specialists to frame policy
options and assess their consequences (Moore, 2012).

In many cases, public policy-making has frequently been characterized by a failure to

anticipate needs, impacts, or reactions which could have reasonably been foreseen, thus
impeding economic development. Policies have been reversed or changed more frequently
than warranted by exogenous changes or new information.

There could have been a poor pre-policy consultative process. Structures for consulting
outsiders either do not exist or if they do, are moribund. In the absence of good consultative
structures, outsiders who do make themselves heard in the policy-making process are often
single issue advocates. This makes them liable to the charge of having vested interests, and
their views lose credibility. Even if a receptive civil servant were to take their views
seriously, he would run the risk of appearing to do an illegitimate favour.

There could have been lack of identification of stakeholders with any policy. In countries like
the USA, institutions are often strong advocates on both sides of a policy question. In India,
judging by the public reaction to many policy announcements, it would appear that almost
every new policy announced by institutions has “only opponents”. This is because the
‘winners’ from an institution policy rarely feel involved in it, and hence rarely stand up and
support it (Moore, 2012).

Social policy could also have been short of explaining how major changes happen. There are
times that drastic policy changes emerge. These kinds of policy changes are likely to emerge
in different conditions than policies with little changes over time. Not all policy initiatives are
paid attention. Evidently, there are different conditions and dynamics must be to promote
particular policy actions. Nevertheless, policy making in Uganda today lack such a strong
background that can sufficiently help one’s understanding of why some policy issues gain
attention while others are ignored. However, policy making in Uganda is weak to explain
these differences because it treats all policies with the same logic.

There could have been lack of target audience inputs and informed debate. Often public
policy is made without adequate input from outside government and without adequate debate
on the issues involved. The best expertise in many sectors lies outside the institution
(Chambers, 2010). Yet the policy processes and structures of the institution have no
systematic means for obtaining outside inputs, for involving those affected by policies or for
debating alternatives and their impacts on different groups. Most developed countries have a
system of widespread public debate before a policy is approved. Such debates not only enable
an assessment of different viewpoints but also help build up a constituency in support of the
policy through sound arguments (Moore, 2012).

There could have been a lack of an assessment of winners and losers in the policy. Especially
in a democratic polity, such analysis should invariably include an assessment of the
"winners" and "losers" from a given policy and a strategy for dealing with likely opposition
from losers to what has been determined to be the "right" policy (Kitebo et al., 2010).

A good policy-making process should produce policies which can be executed swiftly and
successfully. This requires the close involvement, during formulation, of the persons who
actually have to implement a policy on the ground, (Moore, 2012) and implies a degree of
‘decentralisation’ of policymaking. At the same time, a degree of centralised control is
necessary, so that the priorities and interests of implementers do not supplant the public
interest. Whether this central control should be confined to “process control” (i.e. control
over how the decision is made) or should extend to “quality control” (control over the
substance of the decision) is the subject of debate, but the choice is partly a factor of the kind
of organisation and the kind of policy being made. On the whole, while policy-making must
remain in touch with reality and be conscious of implementation issues, it should not be a
prisoner of the current short-term priorities, time constraints and conveniences of
implementers. A good policy making structure should, therefore, provide for appropriate
separation between the policy and implementation functions (Chambers, 2010).

The capacity of representative institutions (for instance political parties, trade unions or trade
associations) to articulate the challenge;

The media’s role in translating and communicating the challenge in a way that resonates with
citizens;

The availability of data and evidence to enable the government to confirm that the issue is
real and that it is in the government’s purview to address it;

In order to make the (often difficult) decisions on priorities and make them without undue
delay, information, analysis and good procedures alone are insufficient. Those charged with
making, or advising on, policy, must possess certain skills (e.g. in coordination, synthesis and
integration) and attributes (such as freedom from bias) which increase the likelihood of quick
and sound decisions.

There could have been a problem with the formulation and adoption of the policy. Policy
formulation means coming up with an approach to solving a problem. Parliament, the
executive branch, the courts, and interest groups may be involved. Contradictory proposals
are often made. The president may have one approach to immigration reform, and the
opposition-party members of parliament may have another. A bill goes before parliament or a
regulatory agency drafts proposed rules. The process continues with adoption. A policy is
adopted when parliament passes legislation, the regulations become final, or the court renders
a decision in a case (Kitebo et al., 2010).

There could have been issues with evaluation and termination. Evaluation means determining
how well a policy is working, and it is not an easy task. People inside and outside of
government typically use cost-benefit analysis to try to find the answer. Cost-benefit analysis
is based on hard-to-come-by data that are subject to different, and sometimes contradictory,
interpretations (Kitebo et al., 2010).

Part b).

A rational policy is one that achieves "maximum social gain"; i.e. governments should
choose policies resulting in gains to society that exceed costs by the greatest amount, and
governments should refrain from policies if costs exceeds gains. Conflict is heightened when
decision making focuses on major policy shifts involving great gains or losses, or especially
by elites or major interest groups.

Framework highlights governance practices that support open, equitable and evidence-
informed problem identification as a way, inter alia, to avoid the capture of public policies by
interest groups. They also should focus on the importance of civil servants having the right
analytical skills to define policy problems, notably to detect and understand their root causes.

No policy should be adopted if its costs exceed its benefits. Second, among policy
alternatives, decision makers should choose the policy that produces the greatest benefit over
cost.

Policymakers should accept the legitimacy of previous policies because of the uncertainty
about the consequences of completely new or different policies especially when the
consequences of new programs cannot be predicted. Often policy alternatives are considered
when current ones appear to be unsatisfactory to warrant venturing out toward more radical
policy innovation.

Once an issue has been correctly identified, defined and framed, governments can determine
adequate courses of action to solve the problem and/or implement a reform. . The policy
formulation stage is the process by which governments translate long, medium and short-term
policy goals into concrete courses of action.

People who can define problems, consider options, make choices, and implement a plan have
all the basic skills required for effective problem solving.

Identify and define the problem: Here, the problem solver should state the problem as clearly
as possible. For example: “I don’t have enough money to pay the bills.”
There is need for being specific about the behaviour, situation, timing, and circumstances that
make it a problem. For example: “I need to pay the phone and gas bills, and I don’t have
enough money to cover both this month.”

Generate possible solutions: The problem solver should list all the possible solutions; don’t
worry about the quality of the solutions at this stage. Try to list at least 15 solutions, be
creative and forget about the quality of the solution.

Policies are believed to be incremental95 in the most cases; however, there is always policy
innovation. It should also be noted that not every policy that countries use is invented by
theirselves. Some polices are adopted from other countries, which can be defined as policy
diffusion. In other words, diffusion of policies indicates the geographical spread of policies.
Indeed, there are two models in the context of adoption of new policy programs by any given
state or country; internal determinants models and diffusion models. The internal
determinants models indicate that social, economic, and political attributes of the state
determine adoption of new policies. Internal factors are significant to determine policy
actions. If one allows themselves to be creative, they may come up with some solutions that
they would not otherwise have thought about.

The policy advisor should evaluate the alternatives: The next aspect is to go through and
eliminate less desirable or unreasonable solutions. One needs to order the remaining solutions
in order of preference. Then evaluate the remaining solutions in terms of their advantages and
disadvantages.

The policy advisor should decide on a solution: Here, the problem solver needs to specify
who will take action. Also, specify how the solution will be implemented. Then specify when
the solution will be implemented. For example: tomorrow morning, phone the gas company
and negotiate to pay the gas bill next month. Then implement the solution as planned.

Evaluate the outcome: Finally, evaluate how effective the solution was. Decide whether the
existing plan needs to be revised, or whether a new plan is needed to better address the
problem. If the problem solver is not pleased with the outcome, they can return to aspect 2 to
select a new solution or revise the existing solution, and repeat the remaining steps.

In addition, successful implementation depends on the complexity of the policy, coordination

between those putting the policy into effect, and compliance. The justices realized that
desegregation was a complex issue; however, they did not provide any guidance on how to
implement it "with all deliberate speed." Here, implementation depended upon the close
scrutiny of circuit and appeals court judges, as well as local and state school board members
who were often reluctant to push social change (Lynn, 2011).

Engage the unofficial Policymakers. Unofficial policymakers do not occupy formal public
positions or political offices. They are not in government but they derive their relevance and
policy-making roles from government and the official policy makers. Mainly, they harness
their interests and demands, harmonise them and influence official policymakers to factor
them into the policymaking process.

Engage official policymakers: Accord to Anderson, the official policymakers are those who
possess legal authority to engage in the formulation of public policy. Those involved in this
category are the legislators, the executive, the administrators and the judiciary. Each of them
performs policy-making responsibilities in a different way from the others. They are
governmental actors who occupy formal public positions and political offices and serve as the
actual policy makers.

Engaging Ministers: The Uganda policy guide reveals that Ministers initiate policy work. As
the policy process develops, it is essential to give Ministers regular updates on progress,
highlighting in particular the key issues for decision and retaining a focus on the overall
progress of the policy project. In preparing papers, it is helpful to consult with Ministers'
Personal Assistants and Special Advisers from the start. When policy submissions are before
Cabinet, it is vital that Ministries work out modalities of Briefing the Minister on Key items
on the Agenda of Cabinet. This is a key challenge for the Permanent Secretaries in the
respective Ministries. Here below is a simple template of briefing note.

During policy development, it is also a requirement that Ministries consult with the Ministry
of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development, the Ministry of Public Service and any other relevant agency to identify the
legal, financial, and human resource implications of the proposed policy and how they will
affect other Ministries and stakeholders. Ministries also are required to consult with
Development Partners, who may exercise some veto powers/sanctions which may result in
unpleasant consequences.

Engaging the role of the Judiciary in Policymaking: The judiciary comprises judges and the
courts. Their constitutional responsibilities are the interpretation of the constitution and the
laws, as well as adjudication in conflicts between individuals, groups, governmental
institutions and the arms/levels of government. It is instructive to note that the judiciary is not
constitutionally empowered to initiate, formulate or implement policies. However, through
the interpretation of the constitution and laws, it contributes significantly to the policy
making process. Egomwan (1991) identified four important instruments that the judiciary
employs to react to policies.

The role of Administrators in Policymaking: As indicated earlier, administrators are classified

as supplementary policy makers. They gain their authority from primary policy makers
before they act. They are potentially dependent on the primary policy makers. Administrators
work directly under the executive arm of government as they are implementers of public
policy. As political systems differ around the world, so also are administrative systems. The
kind of political system in place in any nation determines the kind of administrative system,
in terms of size, complexity, structure and space of autonomy. Whatever the situation, it has
been clearly established that administrators, in their implementation assignment, can make or
mar any policy. During implementation, they can engage in foot-dragging or non-
enforcement altogether.

Involve Interest Groups: These are associations of individuals who share common interests,
beliefs and aspirations regarding their demands. They are civil society organizations that
advance and advocate their interests and demands with a view to influencing the policy
process. The cold be private and non private sectors such as National Drug Authority,
National Medical Sores, World Health Organisation, TASO, Global Fund, Uganda Medical
Consumers, private clinics and hospitals among others. These can provide some opinion on
he best way things can be done.

Political Players: These are groups of like-minded people who have come together with the
sole intention of gaining the control of the machinery of government. As they pursue their
primary interest of gaining governmental power, they play prominent roles in the policy
process. A political party that controls the lever of power tends to influence their members in
government to formulate policies that will project and protect their party programmes and
manifesto. Political players that have minority members among official policy makers try to
advocate and build coalitions for factoring their party programmes into policy proposals.
Apart from this, they also wield considerable influence by providing alternatives to existing
policies.
Engage stakeholders during consultations: Consultation is not an end in itself. The most
fundamental reason for consulting in formulating policy is to help develop solutions which
will work and gain acceptance in practice. Early informal consultation with key stakeholders
and in particular those involved in front-line service delivery and service users, is therefore of
key importance. Proceeding with no or token consultation may appear to save time in the
short term, especially in a context of limited resources, but it can result in problems
afterwards.

Depending on the importance and likely impact of the policy, one should normally consider
holding some seminars or organizing other alternative channels for consultation during this
period to help individuals and organizations in the wider community in formulating their
responses. It is important to bear in mind the requirements of groups which may have special
needs and be prepared to make available key documents in alternative formats, such as
Braille, large print or alternative languages.

With the adoption of the Sector Wide Approach for implementing public policy which among
others entails working with civil society organizations and the private sector, many programs
in health, education and community services are currently implemented by None
Governmental Organizations. It is important to consult these organizations during policy
development. Being on the ground, they have useful insights which would help during
implementation. It may be necessary to enlist their support in implementing certain aspects of
the policy for which they may have better capacity.

Individual Citizens: The interests and desires of common citizens are consequential for public
policies (Lindblom, 1986). Governments, all over the world, tend to listen and pay attention
to what their citizens desire in order to minimise social unrest and avoid violent agitations.
Consequently, citizens play vital roles in the policy making process. Citizens are voters, and
through the electoral process, they help to produce basic changes in public policy (Anderson,
1979). Citizens can vote out any political party or the personalities involved if they are not
satisfied with their policy programmes. Thus, they can bring about discontinuity in policy
programmes with their voting power.

Meaningfully involve individual citizens with great intellectual depth and versatility can
make considerable impact on policy issues and policy choices. Government cannot ignore
such people in policy matters because of their intellectual skills, analytical minds, and their
facts and figures. Again, there are also citizens who, themselves, have served in
governmental positions and capacities. Through their experiences and exposure in
government, they influence the policy process by engaging in political activism and
submitting memoranda on policy issues. They also articulate their policy proposals through
the media (print or electronic) and through press conferences.

Engage with service users: It is vital too that consideration is given to how the
implementation of a measure will impact upon those to whom the policy is directed. A key
role for ministries is to maintain close contact with both front-line users throughout both the
policy- making and post-implementation stages. Policy-making must be viewed as a cyclical
process, requiring periodic re-evaluation, rather than one which terminates upon policy
formulation.

Front line staff and those receiving public services have an invaluable role to play in
formulating and shaping policy direction, and providing feedback on how effectively the
policy objective is met in terms of meeting the needs of service users. The adoption of a
whole systems approach towards policy development allows for the incorporation of a wide
range of perspectives from front-line staff, service users and key stakeholders. In this way
both users and front-line staff can provide evidence of the implementation, effectiveness and
robustness of policies.

One way of describing a “good” policy-making process is one that “engages stakeholders”,
“is committed to producing a high quality decision not any particular decision” and that
“invests any decision made with a high degree of legitimacy, power and accuracy” (Kitebo et
al., 2010). Policy-making is the process by which institutions translate their vision into
programmes and actions to deliver outcomes or desired change in the real world. Thus
policy-making is a fundamental function of any institution. Policy-making is about
establishing what needs to be done - examining the underlying rationale for and effectiveness
of policies - then working out how to do it and reviewing on an ongoing basis how well the
desired outcomes are being delivered (Lynn, 2011).
References

Aday, L. A et al. (2015). Evaluating the Healthcare System. Effectiveness. Efficiency and
Equity. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press. Third edition. Pp. 1-56.
(Introduction to Health Services Research and Policy Analysis).

Anderson James E., (2019). Public policymaking: An introduction, 6 th ed (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin, 2019), p. 80

Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh (2018). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy
Subsystems Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Matovu A., (2019). Health Policy in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda.

Nakamura T, Robert T. (2018). The textbook policy process and implementation research.
Policy Studies Review Vol. 7, No. 1, 2018, s. 142-154

Patton, C. Y and D. Sawicki. (2017). Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Second edition. Pp. 1-39 (The Need for Simple
Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, The Policy Analysis Process).

Polidano, C. (2018). Measuring Public Sector Capacity. World Development 28 (5): 805-822.
(Earlier version available from Institute for Development Policy and Management.
University of Manchester.

Wu, Xun, M. Ramesh, Michael Howlett, and Scott Fritzen (2017). The Public Policy Primer:
Managing Public Policy. London: Routledge, 20(410).

Kugonza, S.P.K. (2023). Models of Public Policy-Making.