The Policy-Making Process: From Agenda-Setting to Evaluation - Endiartia

The Policy-Making Process: From Agenda-Setting to Evaluation

In the policy-making process, we should consider whether a public policy is beneficial or terrible. Realists believe that the policy-making process should be carried out progressively. As seen in Figure 1, agenda-setting leads to policy succession or termination (Anderson, 2003; Dunn, 2018).

For the first time, officials should decide which "agenda" they will treat as a "public concern." The House of Representatives (DPR) should enact the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) for the following five years in the first year. They divide it into yearly goals and what legislation they need to complete. The second step is for politicians from either the government or the House to develop proposed or alternative policies. Even at the agenda-setting stage, a good suggested policy should have strong public support (de Veyra et al., 2019; Lemke & Harris-Wai, 2015).

During the policy formulation stage, there are a lot of people who want to have a say in how the policy turns out. Halligan (1995) mentioned a system for providing policy advice. The "system" stated by Halligan refers to the policy advisory realm, which seeks to shape or influence public policy from the formulation stage (Veit, Hustedt, & Bach, 2017). Those actors based on "location" could be from within or outside the government. Think tanks, policy consultancies, universities, and political analysts are examples of non-government actors (Belyaeva, 2019; Craft, 2015; Diamond, 2019; Fraussen & Halpin, 2017; Howlett, 2015; van den Berg, 2017). Internal ministries, central government research institutes, and policy advisory groups exist within the government (Veit et al., 2017).

Returning to the policy stage, the next step in the policy-making process is policy adoption. At this point, a majority of the House should approve policymakers' proposals. When they agree on a policy, the government, or in Indonesia's case, the president, should put it into effect. Even if the President does not sign the proposed policy, or in this case, the bill (RUU), it becomes effective after 30 days (Article 73, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law No. 12/2011).

Policy implementation is the final stage. This stage involves an administrative unit or bureaucracy executing or applying the issued policy (Anderson, 2003; Dunn, 2018). The dynamics of policy execution can be found here. Edwards III (1980) created a model to investigate what characteristics influence policy implementation success (Figure 2). Edwards III mentions communication, resources, dispositions or attitudes, and bureaucratic structure. Policymakers and implementers should communicate effectively. There should be sufficient resources to implement the policy. Sometimes policy implementers lack the goodwill to carry out a policy; instead, they complicate its implementation. The bureaucratic structure indicated by Edwards III is concerned with the availability of standard operating procedures and the degree of fragmentation within the organization. Endiartia (2019) will like to examine the policy execution on filling senior executive positions (Jabatan Pimpinan Tinggi, JPT) and administrative positions (Jabatan Administrasi) in Lemhannas.

As shown in Figure 1, the following stage of the policy process would include a policy assessment. According to Dunn (2018), this step occurs when "government auditing or accounting divisions determine whether executive directives, legislative actions, and court rulings are in compliance with statutory requirements and achieving their objectives." This stage is referred to as "policy evaluation" by Anderson (2003). At this stage, the policy is being monitored and evaluated to see if there are any barriers to its implementation. Is the policy well thought out from the start? Is there any conflict between the policy and the rule that comes before it? These are some of the issues we hope to address throughout the policy evaluation stage.

After the review or assessment, the policy is sent to the ministries or agencies that are in charge of making, adopting, and carrying out the policy. In this part, policymakers will decide if the policy needs to be "replaced" because its purpose has changed or "terminated" because it is no longer needed (Dunn, 2018).

For the final thought, I'd want to mention evidence-based policy. This phrase by itself does not make the policy-making process or the policy better. There are numerous factors to consider. Dreze (2020) adds three more ingredients: comprehension, values, and deliberation.

Bibliography

Anderson, J. E. (2003). Public Policymaking: An Introduction (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Belyaeva, N. (2019). Revisiting demand, politicization, and externalization in authoritarian political regimes: policy advisory system in Russian practices. Policy Studies, 40(3–4), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1581159

Craft, J. (2015). Conceptualizing the policy work of partisan advisers. Policy Sciences, 48(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9212-2

de Veyra, C. M., Dorotan, M. M. C., Feranil, A. B., Dizon, T. S., Geroy, L. S. A., Lopez, J. C. F., & Sales, R. K. P. (2019). Stakeholders in the Development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda of the Philippines. Acta Medica Philippina, 53(3), 247–253. Retrieved from https://www.actamedicaphilippina.org/article/9536-stakeholders-in-the-development-of-the-national-unified-health-research-agenda-of-the-philippines

Diamond, P. (2019). Externalization and politicization in policy advisory systems: a case study of contestable policy-making 2010–2015. Public Money & Management, 0(0), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1583890

Drèze, J. (2020). Policy beyond evidence. World Development, 127, 104797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104797

Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach (6th ed.). New York and Oxon: Routledge.

Edwards III, G. C. (1980). Implementing Public Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Endiartia, J. J. (2019). Analisis Implementasi Kebijakan Pengisian Jabatan Pimpinan Tinggi dan Jabatan Administrator di Lembaga Ketahanan Nasional. Civil Service: Jurnal Kebijakan Dan Manajemen PNS, 13(2), 39–50. Retrieved from http://jurnal.bkn.go.id/index.php/asn/article/view/222

Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2017). Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9246-0

Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. In Governance in a Changing Environment (pp. 138–172). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Howlett, M. (2015). Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.002

Lemke, A. A., & Harris-Wai, J. N. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics. Genetics in Medicine, 17(12), 949–957. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.8

van den Berg, C. F. (2017). Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9257-x

Veit, S., Hustedt, T., & Bach, T. (2017). Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9266-9