PM 241 - 1 - 13

Introduction to Public
Policy and Program

Administration
Ma. Fe Villamejor-Mendoza
University of the Philippines

OPEN UNIVERSITY
Introduction to Public Policy and Program Administration
By Ma. Fe Villamejor-Mendoza
Copyright  1998 by Maria Fe Villamejor-Mendoza

and the UP Open University
Apart from any fair use for the purpose of research or private study,
criticism or review, this publication may be reproduced, stored
or transmitte, in any form or by any means
ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION
of the authors and the UP Open University
Published in the Philippines by the UP Open University

Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
2/F National Computer Center
C.P. Garcia Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City 1101
Telephone 63-2-426-1515
Email [email protected]
First Printing, 1998
Printed in the Philippines

CONTENTS
UNIT I: Rationale for Public Policy and Program Administration
Module 1 Public Policy Defined: With Some Inspiration

The Concept of Public Policy from Various Authors and Scholars 5
The Various Meanings and Uses of the
Concept 15
Characteristics of Public Policies 17
Examples of Public Policies 19
Guides in Defining Public Policy 22
Public Policy is Larger Than Decisions 23
It Involves Behavior as well as Intentions 23
It Involves Action as well as Inaction 23
It Is a Purposive Course of Action, But
Purposes May be Defined
Retrospectively 24
It Has Outcomes Which May or May Not
Have Been Foreseen 24
It Is Subjectively Defined 25
It Involves Intra- and Inter-Organizational
Relationships, and A Key, But Not
Exclusive Role for Public Agencies 25
It Arises from A Process Over Time 26
The ‘Public-ness’ of Public Policies 27
Towards a Working Definition of Public Policy 28
Module 2
The Public Policy Process Assumptions About the Nature of the Policy
Process 34
Public Policy Process Defined 35
Models of Public Policy Process:
Components, Contributions and
Limitations 45
Focus on Anderson’s Model 45
Policy Demand 45
Policy Decision 46
Policy Statements 49
Policy Outputs 50
Policy Outcomes 50
The Rushefsky’s (1990) Model 53
Problem Identification 55
Agenda Building 56
Back to Rushefsky’s Model 60
The Mendoza’s Model 61
The Philippine Policy-Making Process 62
The Cabinet 65
The NEDA Board 67
The LEDAC 69
The Legislative Mill
ii
The Effects of Globalization on the
Process of Domestic Policy-Making 75
Summary and Conclusion 76
Module 3
The Evolution of the Discipline of An Enlightened Future from a View of the
Public Policy Past 84
The Evolution 85
The Seed 85
The Plant and its Branches 87
Synoptic and Anti-Synoptic Tradition 88
The Neo-Pluralist Reaction, Handmaiden
Approach and Applied Social
Science Discipline 88
Design Science 89
Naturalistic Inquiry 90
Debates and Other Concerns 92
What is Policy Science? 92
What Roles Do Policy Scientists Play? 95
What Are the Controversial Comments on
the Field? 97
A Temporary Fad or Stale Material? 97
Too Practical or Too Theoretical 97
Too Multi-Disciplinary or Too Narrowly
Focused on Political Science 98
Too Quantitative or Too Subjective 98
Too Underutilized or Too Overutilized 99
Too Conservative or Too Liberal 99
Some Agreements 100
The Policy Science in the Philippines 103
As An Academic Schedule 104
Policy Research Institutions and Other
Scholarly Activities 105
Future and Prospects: Toward
Institutionalizing Public Policy in the
Philippines 107
Limited Reach of the Academic
Discipline 108
Long Gestation Period 108
Newness of Policy Research Institutions 108
Disjointed Incrementalism and
Individualism 109
Module 4
Models, Theories, and Approaches in Policy Models Defined 116
Public Policy Types and Examples of Policy Models 118
The Descriptive and Process-
Oriented Models 118
Elite Theory: Policy as Elite
Preference 118
Group Theory: Policy as Group
Equilibrium 123
iii
Institutionalist Model: Policy as
Institutional Activity 128
Neo-Institutionalist Model: Policy as
Arenas of Power 126
Streams and Windows Model: Policy
as an Intellectual Process of
Interaction between and among
the Problem, Policy and Political
Streams 129
Game Theory: Policy as a Rational
Choice in Competitive Situations 132
The Prescriptive Output and Effect-
Oriented Models 136
Rational-Comprehensive Model:
Policy as Efficient Goal
Achievement 138
Incremental Model: Policy as
Variations of the Past 138
The Variants and Other Integrative Lenses 141
Allison’s Models 141
Pfeffer’s ‘Power in Organizations’
Model and Whiteley’s ‘Models of
the Policy Process’ 145
Uses of Policy Models 148
Summary 150
UNIT II: The Policy System and Policy Research and Analysis
Module 5
The Public Policy System The Concept of the Policy System 170
The Framework of the Policy System 170
Political Culture 172
Socio-Economics Characteristics 173
Technology 173
Physical Environment 173
Demographic Characteristics 174
Regime Characteristics 174
Focus on the Policy Stakeholders 174
What is Stakeholder Analysis? The 176
Concept Explained 150
The Component Steps 178
Uses of Stakeholder Analysis 184
Requirements and Limitations 185
Module 6
Policy Research and Analysis What is Policy Research and Analysis? 191
Policy Advocacy 193
Information for Policy 193
Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 194
Analysis of Policy Determination 194
Analysis of Policy Content 194
iv
What are the Main Features of Policy 196
Research
Policy Research Pays Attention to the 196
Politics of Policy-Making
It Views Decision-Making Beyond 196
Resource Allocation or Economics
It Emphasizes Creativity and 196
Encourages Innovation
It Emphasizes “Futures” as Essential for 197
Current Policy-Making
It Approaches Problems and Solutions 197
Systematically
It Is applied, Inter- and Multi-
Disciplinary, Politically Sensitive and 197
Client-Oriented 198
Basic Principles of Policy Research
For Policy Research, Partial Information
Available at the Time an Action Must
be Taken is Better Than Complete 198
Information After the Time
The Ultimate Product of Policy Research is
not a Contribution to Existing
Knowledge in the Literature, But a
Social Policy Modified by the Research 199
Results
The Similarities and Differences with Other 203
Types of Research 204
Similarities 204
Differences 207
Doing Policy Analysis 207
Preparations for Policy Analysis
Some Do’s and Don’ts in Communicating 215
Policy 217
Summary 218
References
Module 7
Rationale for State Intervention What is the State? 224
What Do you Mean by State
and Public Policies
Intervention? 226
The Rationale for Public Policies and the
Frameworks for State Intervention 228
The Appropriate Roles of the State or
the General Public Functions 228
Circumstances Warranting State
Intervention: Focus on the Philosophy
of the State 230
The Political and Economic
Rationality or Political and
Economic Jurisdictions for State
Intervention 235
v
Market Failure vs. Government Failure
The Market Failures 238
Other Market Failures 248
Government Failures 251
Equity 259
Generic Policies 260
Summary and Conclusion 265
Module 8
Policy Implementation Policy Implementation: Where Actions
Speak Louder than Words 269
How Policy Instruments and
Organizational Forms are Chosen for
Implementation 270
The Importance of Implementation in
the Policy Process 272
Implementation Gap or Policy Failure 274
Policy Failure Due to Non-
Implementation 275
Policy Implementation Due to
Unsuccessful Implementation 276
Disentangling Success and Failure
Factors 278
Success and Failure Factors 280
Preconditions to Successful Policy
Implementation 285
Approaches to Implementation Study 291
Planning for Successful Implementation 295
Anticipating Implementation
Problems 295
Approaches to Implementation 297
Summary 300
List of Figures
List of Tables
Appendices 304-323
vi
CREDITS
Author Romeo C. Quieta

Professor
College of Social Work and Community Development
UP Diliman
Reader Dr. Editha V. Maslang

Associate Professor
College of Social Work and Community Development
UP Diliman
Instructional Designer Prof. Fe Josefa G. Nava

Assistant Professor
College of Education
UP Diliman
Editors Dr. Nemah Hermosa

Associate Professor
College of Education
UP Diliman
Course Manager Bernadette S. Pablo

Professorial Lecturer
UP Open University
Encoder Ms. Rosita S. Zamora
Page Layout Carlos J. Domingo
Production Team Myrth V. Soriano

Renato G. Ilagan, Jr.
Allan B. Pamulaklakin
Perfecto E. Ramos, Jr.
© UP Open University Final Version 2000-B

UP Open University Unit I: The Nature of and Need for
Public Policy
1
The Concept of Public Policy
INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the study of public policy! This module is the first leg of your cruise
into the wonderful and stimulating world of public policy.
In this module, you will get a practical introduction into the study of public
policy, particularly the concept of “public policy as an output”. You will analyze
an array of definitions and meanings of the concept. Later, you will be asked to
crystallize your own notion of the public policy.
To help you with the latter, a guide in defining and distinguishing the publicness
of public policy will be given to you. In addition, an explanation on the need to
understand both the fields of study and practice of public policy will be provided.
OBJECTIVES
I hope that upon completing this module, you will be able to:
• comment on and criticize the meanings and implications of various

definitions of public policy;
• explain the essence of public policy and develop your own definition of the
concept;
• explain what makes a policy “public”; and
• ascertain the need for studying public policy both as a field of academic
discipline and a practice in governance and administration.
Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy 1

Unit I: The Nature of and Need for UP Open University
Public Policy
TIMING OF ACTIVITIES
I hope that you can complete Module 1 within two weeks and in at least 20 hours,
broken down as follows:
Consulting Course Manual/

Study Guide 10 hrs.
Reading 4 hrs.
Research and Assignment 5 hrs.
Integration 1 hr.
Total 20 hrs.
If you are fairly well read and socio-politically aware, you may need just the
minimum to complete Module 1. If you are not, you may have to commit more time
and effort. Don’t be discouraged if some of these ideas seem abstract and difficult to
understand at first. You will find a way to grasp them later, and as you go through
this course.
Read through the course notes below as well as the other reading materials
recommended in your Set 2: Core Reading. Also, work on the Self-Assessment
Activities in this module and discover how seemingly ‘simple’ the complex term
of “public policy” is.
So, what are you waiting for? Read on and digest these bits and pieces in the
public policy puzzle…
2 Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy

Public Policy
ACTIVITY 1-1
I very well know that you have your own notion of public policy. But what is
public policy really?
To answer this seemingly elementary question, I want you to go through the
following topic heads found in a local daily (Philippine Daily Inquirer)
sometime in June 1996. Opposite them, classify whether they are a) public
policies (PP); b) related to public policies (RP); or c) clearly, not public
policies (NP). Also, explain why you categorize them as such.
The topic heads are :
1. Local officials shut down lotto stations in Davao, Cebu
2. Cholera hits Laguna; 1 dead, 75 stricken ill
3 Ramos defends extension of Enrile’s term
4. Ramos, spokesman explain eviction of squatters anew
5. Fog stalls search for 24 RP sailors
6. Campus press in peril
7. CHED orders phase out of 8 accounting schools
8. Internet Class on
9. Solons rush bill vs. private armies
10. Bay fishermen face bleak future
11. Sharpshooter scores again. Single shot frees hostage student
12. Parade of stars ushers in Manila film festival
13. Malaysians deny RP bid to visit jailed Pinoys
14. Rats eat rice in Iloilo
15. Strike fever hits South Korean industries
16. I’ll die first!
17. Japan firm to put up P300-M plant in Cavite
18. Cebu Air to buy long-haul aircraft
19. Uniwide to open thrift bank
20. IMF expects RP to post higher growth this year
21. Electric cars to be launched (in Japan)
22. Welcoat swamps Chowking, 79-65
23. Gas bus makes the going cleaner, greener
24. Fixers rake in multi-million from bureaucratic red tape
25. “I am not guilty”, The Trial of Rizal
26. Military justice is no justice at all
27. Abadilla finally paid for his crime- ABB
28. ‘Araw ng Maynila Tragedy’, Parachuter dies in 2,000-feet dive

29. Day One of Odd-Even Plan, Some car owners spare no tricks
Public Policy
30. El Shaddai fund row worries bishops
You may make a matrix like this to simplify your work:
Topic Head Classification Explanation
Your efforts here will not be graded. However, they may help in giving you a
better understanding of the complex oxymoron that is public policy. The
answers and explanations for this sub-activity are somewhere in this module.
But don’t “peep” now. Read through them only at the right time, which is
later!
SAQ 1-1
What is public policy?

Public Policy
PUBLIC POLICY DEFINED: WITH SOME INSPIRATION FROM

VARIOUS AUTHORS AND SCHOLARS
“Public policy”, according to Cunningham (as quoted in Nicolaidis, 1973) “is like
an elephant. One readily recognizes it when he or she sees it. However, one
cannot easily define it .”
An elephant is usually defined as a mammal. It is also a big eared, long-tusked

creature. Likewise, it is the animal that conceives the longest, which is about two
years. These descriptions do not however, wholly or completely capture the
essence of an elephant. Because an elephant is all of these and more.
The same can be said of public policy. Many know it. Numerous scholars define
it. Predictably, many interpret it differently.
In the Philippine setting, one often hears of an office policy, a policy set by one’s
parents or supervisor, or a policy enacted by government or provided for in the
Constitution. An office policy may include rules on tardiness, union organizing
or promotions and incentives. A policy set by one’s parents may include having
breakfast before leaving the house, going home before curfew hours, or you,
taking on a career of their choice, i.e., not yours.
A policy provided for in the mother of all laws in the country, which is the
Constitution, may include the State’s policy of providing equal access to basic
services , recognizing equality between the laws of men and women, or that of
preserving and maintaining the patrimony of the land.
Other examples of these policies are specific acts of Congress approved by the
President, official pronouncements by the Executive, or more specific provisions
of existing laws and regulations. More specifically, these may comprise the act re-
imposing the death penalty on heinous crimes, e.g., murder, kidnap for ransom,
rape, etc.
These may also include the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan, more
commonly known as Philippines 2000; the privatization of government
corporations or public enterprises like the Philippine Airlines, PETRON, Manila
Hotel; the Water Crisis Act; the deregulation of the airline, oil,
telecommunications and retail industries; the liberalization of trade; the
announcement of public holidays; or even the specific projects of government
instrumentality, e.g., the mega-dike project against lahar of Mt. Pinatubo in
Central Luzon.

Public Policy
More recently, these may include the compromise law on “sin” taxes (for products
like beer, cigarettes and the like), the Mining Act of 1995, the Social Reform
Agenda (SRA) of 1995, the Manila Action Plan for APEC ’96, the Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 or the Revised Rape Bill of 1998.
All these are so-called policies, in a sense that these are actions, guides to actions,
or the rules of the game, taken by individuals or group(s) of persons, purposively
for a particular objective or goal. These are also outputs of authorities, whether
institutions or individuals, in the policy system.
The first sets of examples are basically those of individuals and the private sector,
and are thus known as private policies . Reporting on time is a rule or “policy”
which an office worker must follow. One has to be prompt, not only out of respect
for others’ time, but more importantly, to see to it that he or she productively adds
values to the goals of the organization. A son who is not yet independent from his
parents, obeys the latter, for his own good. Private policies are seemingly
independent of public policies, and vice versa. However, as we will explain later
in Module 2, both types of policies, e.g., private and public, do influence each
other in a lot of ways.
The third set of examples are public policies, i.e., those which citizens generally
refer to as what governments do or do not do. They are more or less, the tangible
manifestations of government actions and decisions. They are outputs, which, in
my conceptualization, are courses of action, sometimes inaction, rules and
guidance for action, taken and adopted by government or its instrumentality,
presumably to address a given problem or set of interrelated problems in the
society. Ideally, they are intended for the common good and welfare of the people.
Let me explain my concept of public policy as an output:

First, public policies are courses of action, sometimes inaction, rules and guidance
for action. They are modern governments’ quintessential response to the
environment (Pal, 1992). They connote a plan, a coherent vision, a direction, and
a resolve to take on the job. They are sets of directions for government operations.
They are what are actually done or intentionally left undone by government, as
against what are proposed or intended to be done. They include a series of
procedures, processes, rules, modes or ways for government’s conduct of the
affairs of the State. They connote decisive actions or postures of decisive actions
by the State.
A number of examples of public policies as courses of action are found in the

subsequent pages of this Module, e.g., see pages 17 onwards.
As earlier noted, public policies also include intentional withdrawal of

governmental action, or government willfully refraining from doing, waiting, or
leaving things as they are. These are “inactions” of some sort wherein government
Public Policy
does other more strategic things than actively doing particular functions, e.g.,
policy setting than engaging actively in business; eradicating the poverty of the
100 most poor in each provinces, rather than fighting a seemingly “over-critical”
press.
For example, the current government’s policy of global competitiveness to achieve

NIChood by the year 2000, as embodied in our Medium Term Philippine
Development Plan (MTPDP), includes actions, sub-policies or strategies intended to
realize our dream of becoming the new economic tiger in Asia. These courses of
action consist of, among others, liberalizing trade and investments, signing up in the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT)-Uruguay Round and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC,
deregulation, decentralization, and privatization. These also include people
empowerment, and a minimalist role of the State in the economy and society. The
latter in the reinventing parlance of Osborne and Gaebler (1993), means that the
Philippine government merely “steers and not rows” the affairs of the State.
The latter also refers to government inactions in the sense that the government is
actually withdrawing from actively doing some of the functions which it has been
doing in the past, e.g., providing womb to tomb services (Ocampo, 1988), and letting
other sectors, e.g., the civil society and the private sector, who can do them better, do
them. As you very well know, the government, starting from the Aquino regime, has
been aggressively active, despite or in spite international prodding or pressures, in
delegating operational policies to sectors within and outside the government. At the
same time, it has been concentrating on strategic policies, such as those of the
standard-setting, steering, facilitating types. This trend continues up to the present

Estrada administration with each governance thrusts until year 2004. More particular
examples of government “inaction” include the government’s privatization thrusts,
decentralization or the Local Government Code of 1991, the build-operate-transfer
policy and others already mentioned above.
Another example of inaction is the policy on diplomacy and war. The State does not
attract war against her neighbors, e.g., aggression against China with regard to the
Mischief Reefs in the Spratlys. Rather, it forges harmonious relationship with other
members of the international community. Thus, the inaction is with regard to war and
aggression. However, there is also action with regard to policy setting and diplomacy.
These policies of the steering and “rolling back-of-the-state” mode may or may not be
beneficial to us, Filipinos. But only time and vigilance can tell.
Second, public policies are taken and adopted by government or its instrumentality.
This special characteristic of public policy stems from the fact that they are defined,
assessed, formulated, adopted, implemented, sometimes monitored and evaluated,
mainly by what Easton (1965) calls “the authorities” in a political system. They are,

Public Policy
namely, the “elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators,

councilors, monarchs, and the like”.
The authorities, he says, are the persons or institutions who “engage in the daily
affairs of a political system,” are “recognized by most members of the system as
having responsibility for these matters,” and take actions that are “accepted as
binding most of the time by most of the members so long as they act within the limits
of their roles.” (Ibid.) Public policies are issued by authorities or by the official
policy stakeholders which we will discuss in Module 5. Although, of course, other
(“non-authorities” or unofficial) stakeholders have a role to play in policy-making as
well.
The civil society, particularly its non-government organizations members, may frown
on this idea of “authorities.” Mainly, this may be because in our so-called democratic
space, power emanates from the people. Democracy is supposed to be governance
“for the people, by the people and through the people.” True enough. But again, this
does not ignore the orchestrating role of the state or the officials who are
representatives of the people. This qualification in conceptualizing public policy does
not ignore the role of other “authorities” in policy-making. It only gives “officious”
consideration for the government authorities who have the mandate to formulate,
implement and interpret policies for the welfare and interest of the people.
Third, public policies are made presumably to address a given problem or set of
interrelated problems in the society. Dunn (1991) theorizes, “ (if there is) no
problem, (there is) no policy solution”. He insists that public policies exist as
intended solutions to the problem(s) that beset the society, e.g., poverty,
underdevelopment, environmental degradation, subsistence quality of life, etc. They
are either the effects of government interventions, or the causes of changes in the
society, however incremental they may be.
The airline liberalization policy, for example, otherwise known as Executive Order
No. 219 series of 1995 and entitled, “Establishing the Domestic and International
Civil Aviation Liberalization Policy” aims to address the need to regulate and
prohibit monopolies in the airline industry, when public interests so require. It also
aims to control unfair competition, increase access for Filipino as well as foreign
passengers and, more importantly, improve air service availability, quality and
efficiency through exposure to markets and competition.

Public Policy
Its mandate includes dealing with the perceived inefficiency, un-affordability and
poor air service of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) -dominated airline industry.
Such is deemed a policy problem that has a solution, e.g., EO 219, which is well
within the management control of the State or its intrumentalities.
The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997, meanwhile, is supposed to respond

to the IP’s ancestral domain claim. The new Rape Bill of 1998 is supposed to
redefine rape as a crime against chastity. The list may go on. But the basic idea
remains that public policies have purposes and goals which are intended to
solve/resolve societal problems and concerns.
Lastly, public policies are ideally intended for the common good and welfare of
the people. President Aquino once said in her State of the Nation Address (1991)
that
I did not always adopt the ideal solutions proposed by those who
have the luxury of contemplation. Government often had to do
what pressing realities compelled it to do. And if the government
sometimes lacked better choices, it never lacked the sincere desire
to do good.
Since policies “can never be completely unintentional” (Pal, 1992), they are
ideally supposed to achieve a certain purpose or goal beneficial to the public.
They are intended to improve society. Positively, they are undertaken to achieve
goals of say, eliminating poverty, preventing crime, so on. In real life though, and
particularly in the Philippine context, something sometimes goes awry and even
the best intentions are not always met. Nevertheless, as long as public policies are
symbolically for the public interest, they seem to be good enough than none at all.
Otherwise, some public may view society as “not worth saving”, with
government not even trying to do or undo things for them (Dye, 1972).
In my earlier example above, the policy of global competitiveness and NIChood

by the year 2000 is ideally intended to improve the quality of life and make the
Philippines more economically comfortable and “powerful”, less poor and more
developed. This changed state is the intention of such policy. Whether this can be
achieved or not, and to what extent, only the next years or so can tell. Meanwhile,
the
Newsweek magazine labels “the Philippines as Asia’s New Tiger and no longer
the economic laughingstock of the region” (November 25, 1996). Whatever this
means, you and I know better. Besides, people frequently judge public policies in
terms of their good intentions rather than their more tangible accomplishments.
This expanded meaning of the concept of public policy connotes outputs of

government, e.g., courses of action or inaction. However, take note that:

Public Policy
1. public policy is not restricted to its outputs, nor to its stated “objectives” or
“formal strategies” to pursue government’s objectives, e.g., for the common
good and welfare. It encompasses the actual activities taken by government,
whether or not a government’s strategies and objectives are explicit, or
congruent with its activities (Aucoin in Doern and Aucoin, eds., 1979).
Public policy is , as Dye (1972) puts it, “whatever governments choose to do
or not to do”; and
2. the concept of public policy includes the impacts which result either from a
government’s action or lack of the same. The logical justification for this
inclusion is that governing is essentially the continual choice between
preserving or altering the status quo, and that governments must accept
responsibility for the extent to which their actions affect the status quo.
To me, the above definition and its two qualifications here are a simplified
construction of the complex concept of public policy and its various components
and ramifications. We will graphically flesh out this working definition as we go
along this module (See section on “The Anatomy of Public Policy”).
Meanwhile, take a look at the various definitions of public policy from the
perspective of various authors and scholars. Read through Table 2.

Public Policy
Table 2. Public Policy as Defined by Various Authors
1. “the relationship of a government unit to its environment” -Eyestone, 1971
2. “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” -Dye, 1972
3. “a long series of more or less related activities (rather than discrete decisions)” -Rose,
1969
4. “a proposed course of action of a person, group or government within a given environment

providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy was proposed to utilize and
overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realize an objective or purpose” -Friedrich, 1963
5. “a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a

problem or matter of concern” -Anderson, 1975
6. “also a purposive or goal-oriented than random or chance behavior; consists of courses

of action than separate, discrete decisions; what governments actually do, not what they
intend to do or say they are going to do; based on law and is authoritative; broken down
into categories of 1) policy demands; 2) policy decisions; 3) policy statements; 4)
policy outputs; and 5) policy outcomes.”
Anderson, 1975
7. “a rule for action, manifesting or clarifying specific organizational goals, objectives,

values or ideals, often prescribing the obligatory and most desirable ways and means of
their accomplishment. Such a rule for action established for the purpose of framing,
guiding, or directing organizational activities, including decision-making, intends to
provide relative stability, consistency, uniformity and continuity in the operations of the
organization” - Nicolaidis, 1963
8. “ a multi-dimensional entity of the organizational world; has pluralistic purpose, character,

form and development; is generally incomplete and sometimes ambiguous to leave
enough freedom to the operating levels to shape the (final) policy” -Nicolaidis, 1963
9. “guidance for action”- UN, 1975
10. “major guidelines for action directed at future, decided mainly by government organs,
formally aim at achieving what is in the public interest by the best possible means” -
Dror, 1978
11. “long series of more or less related choices (including decisions not to act) made by
governmental bodies and officials dealing with many different issue areas such as
defense...” - Dunn, 1981
12. “an identifiable set of government actions toward some situations perceived problematic;
what those actions are from the perspective of the public; and what their consequences
are” - Lynn, 1987 as quoted in Crew, Jr., 1992

Public Policy
How is the concept of public policy defined by various scholars and authors? What are
your opinions on these definitions?
As you may have very well observed, the term “policy” or “public policy” lacks a
precise and generally acceptable definition among scholars. Numerous authors define
the concept differently. Some define it vaguely. Others define it comprehensively.
Some define it sketchily. Others define it lengthily.
Eyestone (1971) perceives it as the “totality of government relationship with its

environment.” Nicolaidis (1963), meanwhile, describes it as “a multi-dimensional
entity which has an important role in maintaining uniformity, consistency, relative
stability and continuity in government (organizational) operations.” Some definitions
are futuristic. Others are set in the present tense.
The bottom line though is that policy has an intention and purpose (although this may
be defined retrospectively, or after policies were formulated). As a public policy, it is a
set of government action or inaction, directed ideally at improving society and its
people.
To some extent I have integrated the finer points of these constructs in my working
definition above. I suppose you can do the same, can’t you? Work on your own concept
of public policy in your SAQ No. 2, okay? Good luck!
Meanwhile, move on.

Public Policy
ASAQ 1-1
I told you that the answers to SAQ 1-1 are somewhere in this module. Don’t
look farther now, for they are here.
For SAQ 1-1, the more probable grouping of the topic heads is as follows.
Expectedly, there are overlaps in some cases, i.e., topic heads are classified in
either one of at least two groupings. However, these are explained, together
with the justifications for the other topic heads, below:
PP or a Public Policy:
Topic Heads 1, 3, 7, and 13
Shutting down lotto stations is an act emanating from the Local

Government Code’s provision giving local executives (decentralized)
discretion to decide on matters beneficial to their localities.
President Ramos’ decision to extend the term of General Enrile as the
commanding general of the Armed Forces of the Philippines emanates from his
discretion to appoint officials of the land , especially so for positions which
directly affect national welfare, defense and interest.
The Commission on Higher Education is the policy-making body for

matters related to tertiary education. Its order of phasing out eight
accounting schools may originate from a finding pointing to the students’
low performance in professional licensure examinations (in this case,
accounting board exams) for the past five years, or from other indicators
of mediocre performance of the schools’ graduates and programs.
To some extent, topic head 13 is a policy, this time, Malaysia’s foreign
or defense policy, denying the country’s request to visit Filipinos jailed
in Sabah and who were allegedly found maltreated and abused of their
human rights in this part of Malaysia. Allowing or disallowing other
countries’ meddling into seemingly pure internal affairs of a country is a
prerogative or a policy right of a State.
RP or Related to Public Policy
Topic Heads 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24,
26, 27, 28, 29

Public Policy
Topic head 1 could also be technically, only an effect of a public policy as

contained in the Local Government Code of 1991. In this case, the policy is the
Code and its contents and intentions. Shutting down lotto stations is a logical
consequence of the Code’s authorizations and provisions, granting autonomy to
local units the right of local executives to assert this autonomy.
Other topic heads speak of either a consequence, effect or impact of good or
bad/poor policy (action or inaction, implementation or non-implementation),
e.g., the increase incidence of diseases, eviction of squatters, unsuccessful
search mission for sailors lost in the sea, a dying campus press, a freed hostage,
a crop harvest in peril because of rats, a rash of labor strikes in Korean
industries, an incentive to put up foreign business in Cavite, another incentive
to a private firm (Cebu Air) to upgrade its facilities (aircraft) maybe as a result
of the airline industry deregulation or the Open Skies policy of the government,
the morally questionable flourishing of the “fixing business” as a result of red
tape in government, and a tragedy that marred the celebration of a public
holiday, or confusion or chaos in the implementation of a government strategy
or traffic plan.
Other topic heads speak of a policy demand, public perception, observation or

feedback into a government policy, e.g., misgiving on the private armies in the
country and the urgency to enact a law to contain or eliminate them, the Alex
Buncayao Brigade (ABB)’s threat to wipe out misfits and corrupt in the police and
military and their perception that General Abadilla (who was a brilliant officer of
the Army and the Vice Governor of Ilocos Norte before he was ambushed and
killed) deserved to die.
NR or Clearly Not a Public Policy

Topic Heads 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 30
These speak of activities of the private sector, which may have bearing on
existing policies, or vice versa, but were not found too significant to tilt their
grouping to either PP or RP. These include an ad for an Internet class by a
computer school, Jose Rizal’s assertion that he is not guilty of the charge of
sedition, the launching of electric cars by private car manufacturers in Japan,
the observation that gas bus makes the going cleaner and greener, and the
financial row in El Shaddai, a charismatic group within the Catholic church

Public Policy
that worries Bishop Bacani or even Cardinal Sin. To some extent, these may
have happened as a result of government pronouncements such as shaping up for
the Information Highway, gearing for a cleaner environment in car
manufacturing, etc. But for this exercise, the topic heads do not have obvious or
clear links between these demands, insights, observations, consequences, effects
or impacts, on one hand, and particular public policies on the other.
As earlier mentioned, your answers to this SAQ are not graded. They are, however,
intended to elucidate some aspects or components of the module and entice you to
more fully appreciate the topics contained herein. Working through the SAAs may
prove difficult. But as the saying goes, “No pain, no gain.”
THE VARIOUS MEANINGS AND USES OF THE CONCEPT
My working definition of public policy above gives us a conceptual anatomy of

public policy. At a more concrete level, however, the concept of public policy may
be dissected into its various uses and meanings as boxed in Fig. 1 below:
a label for a field of government activity

expression of general purpose
aspirations of, for the society
specific proposals or means for achieving larger ends
decisions of government
formal authorizations
program of government
an output or what government actually delivers
a theory or model of cause and effect
a process
Fig. 1. The Various Uses and Meanings of the Concept of Public Policy

Public Policy
As a label for a field of government activity, public policy may consist of

economic policies, social policies, policies on international relations, policies on
defense, peace and order, and so on. Economic policies may further include the
liberalization of trade (in the airline, downstream oil or retail industry), the
MAPA’96, the Philippine (Individual) Action Plan (IAP) committing to free
trade and zero tariff by 2004-2020, the Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization
Act, etc. Social policies may include Quality Education by 2000, Health for All,
respect for human rights, the Social Reform Agenda and Erap’s “Lingap sa
Mahirap” program. The list may go on and on.
Despite the seeming compartmentalization of these fields, it is still my belief that

they are not mutually exclusive in the sense that one is immune from the
influence or interrelation of or by other fields. Likewise, as Aucoin (in Doern and
Aucoin, eds., 1979) opines, “although each field or public policy may not be well
integrated or coordinated, they are still interdependent, even if they vary in their
degrees of interdependence”. For example, becoming an industrialized country
depends on the quality of its human resource (which is addressed by the social
policies). Achievement of economic growth is not without political stability.
Sustainable development is not achievable without social, economic, political
reforms.
As an aspiration of or for the society, it may include government pronouncements

such as “war against poverty”, “NIC-hood by the year 2000”, “health for all”,
“global “competitiveness”, “people empowerment”, “gender equity by 2025”,
“food security for all”, “liberation of the masses”, others. Such do more than
affect change in societal conditions. They also seem to hold people together and
maintain an orderly state. For example, the “war against poverty” may not have a
significant impact on the poor, but it reassures moral men, the affluent as well as
the poor, that government “cares” about poverty and how it can be reduced or
eradicated. President Estrada even states that “even if the poor is alleviated,
everyone else, even the rich, is alleviated” SONA 1999).
As an expression of general purpose, it may read something like: “it shall be the
policy of the State to deregulate the downstream oil industry to foster a truly
competitive market which can better achieve the social policy objectives of fair
prices and adequate, continuous supply of environmentally-clean and high-
quality petroleum products” (Sec. 2, Ch. 1, R.A. 8180, “An Act Deregulating the
Downstream Oil Industry, and For Other Purposes”).
As a theory of cause and effect, it may include assuming that “privatization

improves industry efficiency, promotes competition, encourages private
entrepreneurial behavior, broadens the ownership base, and raises capital” of
government corporations (E.O. 237 s. 1995). It may also include assuming that
with the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) in place, its three agenda, namely, 1)
access to quality basic services or the imperatives of survival; 2) asset reform and

Public Policy
sustainable development; and 3) institution building and participation, will be

addressed.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POLICIES
Public policy possesses various characteristics. It is also a multi-purpose ‘device’

(Nicolaidis, 1973). It is a guide or norm for action. It is a control device used to
keep individual activities within the standards or norms set forth. Likewise, it is a
simplification method of acting and doing, e.g., as a scale of authoritative or
agreeable evaluation of ethical values; as a list of priorities of goals and
objectives to be accomplished; a stock of pattern behavior; a list of preferences of
ways and means of doing things.
It is a compass for organizational navigation or “policy lighthouses” helping to

maintain continuity and uniformity among institutions. It is a regulating device of
the communication system. It gives guides as to whom one has to ask or demand
certain actions. It is also an adjusting device between overlapping levels of
organizational action (Nicolaides, 1993).
Expanded into the organization of the State with the government as the main
controller and coordinator of public actions, public policy is the essence of
governance and service. Although it is important at this point to stress that it “is
merely a subset, albeit one of the most important, of all the things that
government do” (Pal, 1992). It is the rationale for state intervention into private
actions, either to encourage, regulate, inspire or direct (Weimer and Vining,
1994).
Moreover, public policy has dual character: command and agreement (Nicolaidis,
1973). It is a rational articulation of the means and objectives or maximization of
government outputs. It is also a method of compromise and agreement between
and among parties that may be affected or are affecting the form and substance of
policies. This is needed to eliminate conflicts and secure smooth operation of the
government and its organs.
Its form could be a set of rules arranged hierarchically or logically (normative

form) or not as a unified or harmoniously as pictured (empirical), such that it has
pluralism, generality, abstractness and intermediateness (Nicolaides, 1973).

Public Policy
In addition, Nakamura (1981) explains that vagueness may be a characteristic of

(the) policy (formulation stage) because it allows coalitions to be built,
differences to be papered over, and the “real” policy to be defined at the
implementation stage. The specification of lethal injection as against the use of
electric chair for death convicts is an example of a clarification at subsequent
(policy) stages of a seemingly “vague” policy directive. In addition, this was in
response to calls for more humane and economical method of death penalty.
To some extent, this is advantageous to the operators at the implementation level

since they are more knowledgeable of the problems and solutions at their end. This,
however, also poses some gaps in policy and implementation as implementors
sometimes unduly skew a particular policy in a particular direction of their choice
and interpretation, very much different from those of the policy makers’. We will
discuss this phenomenon of “policy failure” or “policy gap” later on in Module 8.
Meanwhile, Aucoin (in Doern and Aucoin, eds., 1979) mentions three principal
characteristics of public policies: coercive, distributive and systematic. Public
policy is coercive in that it entails the capacity of government to bring on citizens
the full force of political authority, including of course the imposition of sanctions,
e.g., death penalty for heinous crimes. It is distributive insofar as it entails the
capacity of government, directly or indirectly, to allocate goods and services,
rights and privileges in socio-economic affairs and of equal importance, to arrange
the offices or positions of authority in the political system itself, e.g., in
distributing powers and functions among the three branches of government: the
executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Finally, public policy is systematic in that it
entails the exercise of political authority across the total range of public affairs,
however much these affairs are themselves characterized by discontinuity.
Corollarily, Dye (1978) asserts that public policy, being authoritatively defined,
determined, implemented and enforced by government institutions, has
legitimacy, universality and coercive characteristics. Government lends
legitimacy to public policies. Governmental policies are generally regarded as
legal and command the loyalty of citizens. They also involve universality in the
sense that only government policies extend to or cover all people in the society. In
addition, only government monopolizes coercion on society and legitimately
imprisons violators of its policies.
Taxation is a case in point. Taxing, say, of income derived from the practice of
one’s profession, business, and other gainful occupation is a legitimate action of
the state. It universally applies to everyone (who is gainfully employed). In
addition, it coerces everyone to pay. Otherwise, sanctions (surcharges and other
fees) are imposed on those who disobey, violate or fail to obey. “Underground
taxation”, i.e., by the rebels or members of the underground movement, which
was significantly prevalent during the Marcos regime, is not a legitimate,
universal nor coercive policy of the State. It is a “policy” of forces other than the
government and theoretically does not impose obedience from everyone.
Public Policy
Although of course, some of those given the “bill” by these entities, had no other
recourse but to obey. Otherwise, they suffer from other forms of sanctions or
persecution, e.g., be salvaged or massacred.
ACTIVITY 1-2
Give examples of public policies. Explain why you think they are public
policies.
EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC POLICIES
For your appreciation, below are some examples of public policies in the country.
They include specific acts of the Legislature and the Executive, and the
Constitutional Convention of 1987, for that matter. Go through them one by one
and try to mentally deduce and explain why they are considered public policies.

Public Policy
Table 3. Some Examples of Public Policies in the Philippines
The Philippine Constitution of 1987

“The State shall establish and maintain a system of free public education in the
elementary and high schools levels.” (Art. XIV, Sec.2)
“Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.” (Art. III, Sec. 3)
“The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of
freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.” Art. III, Sec. 7)
“The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order (Sec. 9)… and promote
social justice in phases of national development.” (Sec. 10)
“The State recognizes the role of the youth (Sec. 13) and women in nation building.”
(Sec. 14)
“The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.” (Sec. 19)
“The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.” (Sec. 25)
“The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take
positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.” (Sec. 27)
“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities in the public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. (Sec. 26)
“The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in
scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police
commission.” (Art. 16, Sec. 6)
Free Public Secondary Education Act fof 1988 or R.A. 6655

an act providing for better and broader educational opportunity for the people,
particularly the poor, by providing free tuition and other fees to qualified students in
secondary course offered in government owned schools, colleges and universities.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or 6657

an providing for a comprehensive agrarian reform program in the country; more
particularly, establishing a 10-year gradual program under which beneficiaries, e.g.,
farmers and landless farm workers, would receive three (3) hectares of land.
The Generics Act of 1988 or R.A. 6675

an act to promote, require and ensure the production of an adequate supply,
distribution, use and acceptance of drugs and medicines identified by their generic names
or their scientifically and internationally recognized active ingredients.
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public officials and Employees or
R.A. 6713
an act promoting high standard of ethics in public service; among these norms are
commitment to public interest, justice and sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to
the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy and simple living.

Public Policy
R.A. 6735 or an Act Providing for a System of Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
under this system of initiative, the people may make a petition (1) proposing
amendments in the Constitution; (2) proposing to enact a legislation; or (3) proposing to
enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal or barangay law, resolution or ordinance; also
this provides for a system of referendum where the electorate may approve or reject a
legislation through an election called for the purpose.
R.A. 7042 or the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 or 7042

an act setting clearer and more liberal guidelines to induce foreign nationals and
entities to invest in the country, without compromising our national interest; it provides no
restrictions on the extent of foreign ownership for export enterprises, except in areas on
the negative list where only 40% of the equity capital is allowed; among those in the latter
include the following: (list A) – those areas exclusively reserved for Philippine nationals
by the Constitution and other laws; (list B) – those (1) activities which are defense-
related, requiring prior clearance and authorization from the Department of National
Defense; (2) those which have implications on public health and morals, such as the
manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs, all forms of gambling, nightclubs, bars,
beer houses, dance halls, sauna and steam bath-houses and massage clinics; and (list C) –
those areas in which existing enterprises already serve adequately the needs of the
economy and consumers as determined by the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA).
The Anti-Plunder Act or R.A. 7080

punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment; more specifically, it
punishes commission of extortion, theft, robbery, malversation, falsification or bribery,
and more importantly, the plunder of the entire nation by any public officer, resulting in
grave damage to the national; economy.
The Foreign Service Act of 1991

an act revising R.A. 708, as amended, which has been the basis law governing the
conduct of our foreign service since 1952; it seeks to reorganize and strengthen the
foreign service in order to upgrade the career system and enable it to respond to the
challenges and demands of twenty-first century diplomacy.
The Local Government Code of 1991 or R.A. 7160

Provides for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms for recall, initiative and
referendum; decentralizes the powers, responsibilities and resources of the National
Government in favor of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, with a view to
making them more self-reliant and developed.
What can you infer from these examples? What are their common strands? their
common characteristics? Did you find the characteristics listed in the earlier section
present in these examples?

Public Policy
Do outline your answers to these questions in your notebook. They will come in
handy in clarifying your own notion of the concept of public policy. They may also
reinforce your integration of the theoretical inputs you have learned so far in this
course, into our very own Philippine experience. This early, you would have been
able to contextualize generic concepts and themes into our situations, and vice versa.
SAQ 1-2
What are some criteria or guides in defining public policy?
GUIDES IN DEFINING PUBLIC POLICY

I suppose that by now, you have already a clearer idea of what public policy is,
both in theory and practice, particularly as it is applied in the Philippine context.
The following guidelines originally framed by Hogwood and Gunn (1994) but
contextualized and explained by the writer here using Philippine examples will,
however, further direct you to a more satisfactory understanding and appreciation
of the concept of public policy.

Public Policy
PUBLIC POLICY IS LARGER THAN DECISIONS
Public policy usually involves a series of more specific decisions, sometimes in

“rational” sequence, typically generated by interactions among many related
decisions.
For example, the selective ban on the posting of overseas domestic helpers (DHs)
is not a mere decision of the Ramos administration after the infamous
“Flor Contemplacion debacle”. It is a course of action arrived at by government
after finding out how Filipino DHs in other countries are maltreated, abused or
short-changed. It has come as sort of a jolt, or a re-awakening to the fact that our
government and its instrumentality here and abroad, particularly our consulate
and embassy people, should protect and look after the welfare of its constituents,
more so, this particular human resource and their cohorts. The overseas contract
workers (OCWs) are bannered as the biggest revenue earner of the country and
hailed as the “new heroes” of the land. Thus, they deserve protection and
nurturing from the State.
IT INVOLVES BEHAVIOR AS WELL AS INTENTIONS.
This is so, particularly because, not all intentions or plans and aspirations, are
successfully realized. The Social Reform Agenda (SRA) is a package of
interventions intended to improve access to basic services, particularly of the
disadvantaged and marginalized sectors, e.g., farmers and fisherfolks, indigenous
people, women, others. It is a public policy nevertheless, in spite or despite the
possibility that its goals may or may not be successfully achieved.
IT INVOLVES ACTION AS WELL AS INACTION.
Public policy also includes the deliberate decisions by government to act or not to
act. As mentioned earlier, the government’s thrusts toward globalization,
privatization, decentralization, people empowerment, de-regulation, and the like,
are manifestations of government’s philosophy of minimalist role in the society
and economy. Such policies let other sectors do the things they can do better,
because they have more resources, capability and willingness than the State.
Such, at the same time, however, allow the State to concentrate on aspects it can
do better such as policy formulation, standard setting, and “steering than rowing”.

Public Policy
IT IS A PURPOSIVE COURSE OF ACTION. BUT PURPOSES MAY BE

DEFINED RETROSPECTIVELY.
Purposes may be invented ex post facto or after the fact, in order to rationalize
past actions rather than be formulated ex ante or before everything else, as a
rational guide to future actions. A policy of the latter includes the de-regulation
of industries which aims in general to break up monopolies and make industries
competitive. These purposes in the end, should benefit the consumers.
For example, with the de-regulation of the telecommunications industry, the

monopolistic hold of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company or PLDT,
the Cojuangco-owned empire, is assumed corrected. This implies entry of more
telecommunications companies like the Bayantel of the Lopezes, Globe Telecom
of the Ayalas, Islacom, etc. With more competitors, the giant PLDT woke up and
instituted “Operation: Zero Backlog”. In addition, the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) drew up a master plan assigning
telecommunications carrier per region to ensure maximum hook up to telephone
and other communications line of the Filipinos.
To a certain extent, this resulted in more people connected to telephone lines and
in more communication media available in the market , e.g., cellular phones,
internet servers, pagers, etc. at less prohibitive prices.
An example of an ex post facto -type of public policy on the other hand, is the
creation of government owned- and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs) during
the Marcos regime. This policy was consistent with the regime’s philosophy of
the State, e.g. state and/or crony- capitalism, which resulted in, among others, the
creation of pseudo-GOCCs like the tomato canning factory in Ilocos, the Marcos
Golf Foundation and the like. As history tells us, these state enterprises were
used as milking cows by the authoritarian government.
IT HAS OUTCOMES WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN

FORESEEN.
Public policy embraces what are intended and what occur as a result of
government intervention. Their outcomes may be positive or negative, officially
beneficial but sometimes disadvantageous to some sectors.
The Mining Act of 1995, for example, is intended to resuscitate the ailing mining
industry and open doors to multi-billion investments by some multinational
mining companies. Its (short-term) outcomes may include infusion of fresh
capital, new
technology and the re-birth of the mining industry. It may also include massive
extraction of our mineral resources as more efficient technology favors massive
open pit mining and the like. It may also include environmental degradation,
Public Policy
displacement of labor, and utter disregard of claimed ancestral domain of our

indigenous people (IPs), as well as their cultural, political and economic
dislocation.
IT IS SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED.
As youe will see in Module 5, public policy is differently viewed, structured and
defined by various actors, stakeholders and “players in position” who use various
“conceptual lenses” (Allison, 1971). Thus, the final structure of a public policy
becomes a political resultant, a “hydraulic press” that slants or tilts in favor of
those whose interests, power and resources predominate. This is just a teaser, as
you could have inferred. I have more explanations on this in Modules 4 and 5.
IT INVOLVES INTRA- AND INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL

RELATIONSHIPS, AND A KEY, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE ROLE FOR
PUBLIC AGENCIES.
Decisions may be taken by single organizations, even by individual actors. But

policies typically involve the interplay of many actors and organizations, and the
working out of complex relationship between them. The policy-making system in
the country is an intricate web of actors, institutions and organizational turf that
facilitate, or deter the passage of progressive policies.
The proposed rape bill which “redefines rape as a crime against person, not against
one’s chastity, and also includes marital rape”, was filed in the 8th Congress. It has
not accomplished much because of this intricate web of vocal progressives,
conservatives, cause-oriented groups, women’s groups, etc. You may be already
familiar with this, and that is good. But I will discuss more of this complex policy
system later on. (This proposed bill was finally enacted into law in the 10th
Congress towards the latter part of 1998.
In addition, the government which has authority, legitimacy and coercive power
over public policies, has the key role in policy-making. But as in most policies in
the land, other sectors, whether private or non-governmental, also have a role to
play. They may either be the “agitators”, lobbyists, the critical mass who brought
to the attention and agenda of government certain perceived policy problems and
concerns.
The case of the critical press and the issue of press freedom are by no means
legitimate concerns in 1999, which have dominated people’s consciousness both in
government and beyond.

Public Policy
IT ARISES FROM A PROCESS OVER TIME.
For a policy to be regarded as a “public policy”, it must to some degree, have been
generated or at least processed within the framework of governmental procedures,
influences and organizations. We will discuss this concept in more detail in
Module 2.
SAQ 1-3
What distinguishes a public from a private policy?

Public Policy
THE ‘PUBLIC-NESS’ OF PUBLIC POLICIES
How would you distinguish a public policy from other state instruments or from the
so-called policies of other sectors? I have ventured an answer to this in earlier
sections. Remember the “LUC” of Dye, e.g., legitimacy, universality and coercion?
Also Nicolaidis’ command and agreement, intermediateness, pluralism, generality,
abstractness?
Thus, what you will be reading here is my sort of integration of the earlier features of
public policy. I have boxed them as follows:
A policy is public
• if it is authoritatively determined,
implemented and enforced by
governmental institutions (Dye, 1971);
• if it is legitimate, universal and coercive

in effect (Dye, 1971);
• if it commands obedience as well as

agreement (Nicolaidis, 1963);
• if it has the key role of government and also

the participation of other institutions/
sectors (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984);
• and more importantly, if it is for the achievement

of societal improvement, or ideally for the common
good of the public (Mendoza, 1991).
Do you have any comment or reaction to this? I will appreciate your feedback on
this. Do write or call me.

Public Policy
TOWARDS A WORKING DEFINITION OF PUBLIC POLICY
I have defined the concept of public policy (as an output). I have also reinforced
this notion with some examples in the Philippine context. I have also given you
some guides in further understanding this complex and complicated concept. I
have also stressed the public character of public policies in the section above.
As you may have already grasped, public policy is dynamic and evolves into
various forms when defined by different individuals, scholars and students of
policy and governance. However, to make the concept less abstract, we can
synthesize the various meanings, definitions and connotations of the concept into
the following:
1. In terms of form , public policy is a guide, a rule, a course of action or

norm for present and future decisions and actions, providing a framework
or pattern solutions to anticipated future problems.
2. Its character is that of a manifestation or clarification of specific goals,
objectives, values or ideals, as well as normative patterns of action needed
for their accomplishments.
3. It is a theory of cause and effect, is both an output, a process, an outcome
and effect.
4. Its ultimate objectives are towards stability, consistency, uniformity and
continuity in the operations of organizations like governments and
societies.
5. It is public if it is made by government who have the legitimacy, authority
or mandate to enforce coercion and universality of actions intended for the
common good and welfare.
6. It has various manifestations which can be organized into a hierarchy. It
ranges from the choice of priorities through plans, to decision rules.
Fleshing out the various forms, hierarchy and specificity of public policies, I
suggest the following composite definition of the concept of public policy. It
differs from my earlier definition in terms of its more concrete manifestations.
Although of course, as in earlier sections, the basic integrated idea is still
captured. Now look at Fig.2 .

Public Policy
General purpose/ intent

guiding principle
rule for action Desired state of affairs
vision and mission for
governance
Laws, rules, regulations

series of government Outcomes; effects;
decisions and actions change or no change
purposive course of from the status quo
actions
Programs Field of activity of

government projects
Government actions/inaction
CAUSE EFFECT, IMPACT
Fig. 2. The Anatomy of Public Policy
As you may have noticed, the anatomy fleshes out public policy from the broader
and seemingly more vague “statement of general intent or mission of
governance” to the more specific or narrower “governmental actions or inaction,
programs, projects and activities”. The range is from the broader to the more
detailed or specific aspects of governmental decisions, implying that here, the
distinction between policy and administration at most reflects nothing more than
an artificial dividing line between the “broader or narrower” aspects of
governance. This anatomy also fleshes out other distinctions which I suppose you
can easily uncover.

Public Policy
ACTIVITY 1-3
In the preceding sections, I have tried to conceptualize and integrate the

various meanings, connotations, and implications of public policy. To some
extent, I hope I have made myself clear to you and that I have helped you,
one way or the other, to understand and appreciate the complex and
complicated concept of public policy. It may have a seemingly Western slant.
But I hope I have successfully reflected on them, using Philippine
experience.
Since learning is a two-way street and you, as the learner, have more
responsibility to learn, I am encouraging you now to firm up your
understanding of the concept. More specifically, how would you define public
policy? Thus, on your notebook, draw a model and explain your understanding
of the concept of public policy.
In addition, if you have more time, try to locate other participants in this course
and compare notes with them. Also, try to approach your tutor who will gladly
exchange ideas and opinions with you.
SUGGESTED READINGS
You will find the materials in Set 2 helpful in enriching your understanding of this
module. Do read them and digest their relevance to you and Module 1.
OTHER NOTES
Do not be intimidated by the volume of materials you have to go through to complete
the course. I will try to give you chunks of information, so that you will not suffer
information overload. In addition, I will try to always think of your own difficulties
at the moment, so that we will not give you packages that may overwhelm you. I
will try to be very reasonable in giving you assignments and projects. Rest assured
that I merely want to help you and bring out the best in you.

Public Policy
The rest of the bargain, however, is that you have to do your part. You have to strive
and give your best shot; because as the saying goes, “no pain, no gain”. Also, if you
have any problems or concerns, contact your faculty-in-charge and tutors. They will
always be around to help you.
Take note: If you have any problems, questions or points for clarification, lift the
phone, send your fax message, mail your letter, or send us your e-mail.
We want you to be enlightened and wise. We also wish you’ll enjoy breezing
through this course.
And now, are you ready for Module 2? Good, you will then advance to the next
page. Congratulations for completing Module 1!

UP Open University Unit I: The Nature of and Need for Public
Policy
2
The Public Policy Process
INTRODUCTION
I started your cruise with the module on public policy as an output. I did this because
the complex concept is more readily grasped by its concrete manifestations or by
what one readily senses or feels. When one is asked, “What is public policy?”, the
usual answer could be any of the following: 1) an official pronouncement or
aspiration (RP 2000 or NIC, a newly industrializing country by 2000); 2) a
Constitutional provision, e.g., it is the policy of the State to protect and preserve the
national patrimony of the land; 3) a government program, e.g. quality education by
2000, health for all, SRA’s flagship programs; or 4) a government project or
particular set of activities, e.g., the unified traffic volume reduction scheme,
economic zones, or rural electrification.
There is nothing wrong with this orientation which I likened to experiencing the
coolness of rain on a hot summer day. One readily senses the rain. In fact, one
welcomes it. But one does not always think of the processes it underwent, e.g.,
evaporation and condensation, before it became rain. We also likened public policy
to an elephant, but did not yet explain how an elephant came about (conception) and
how it became one big mammal (rearing, training, etc.).
Thus, in this module, we will enrich what we have learned in Module 1 by focusing
on the process or processes that a public policy undergoes.
Here, we will try to clarify how policy-making works, assuming some degree of
rationality and politics in each of the processes or stages of the policy cycle. We will
focus on the process which churns the output that is public policy.
Module 2: Public Policy Process 32

Unit I: The Nature of and Need for Public Policy UP Open University
Conceptually, I will provide you with a list of definitions of public policy process;
compare and contrast a number of public policy process frameworks; and briefly explain
and analyze the different stages of the process. Empirically, I will provide a general
description of the Philippine policy-making process and cite some policy outputs of
various procedural modes in the country, e.g., through the Executive, Legislative or joint
Legislative-Executive modes. I conclude this module with some general statements on
the advantages of understanding and studying public policy as a process.
OBJECTIVES
Upon completing this module, you should be able to:
• synthesize the essence of public policy as a process;

• identify, explain, compare and summarize the main ideas, strengths and
weaknesses of various models of the policy process;
• assess the relative utility of the policy process framework vis-à-vis the policy
output perspective in understanding the concept of public policy.
Module 2 will require at least two-week man-hours or a minimum of 20 hour-work.

Two weeks should give you adequate time to digest your reading and learning and
reflect on their implications and use in our setting.
By activity, you are expected to give a minimum of 20 hours for the following:
Consulting Course Manual
Study Guide 10 hrs.
Reading 5 hrs.
Completing Assignment/Research 4 hrs.
Synthesis/Integration 1 hr.
Total 20 hrs.
33 Module 2: Public Policy Process

Policy
Don’t be shocked by the length of time you have to commit for Module 2. Always
remember that you can breeze through these activities in a jiffy! Psyche yourself with
these words: “I can do this, I can do this!” But if you feel you need more time,
commit more time. Work hard. Work smart!
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE POLICY

PROCESS
Let me preface this module with a note on the assumptions about the nature of
public policy process. You see, policy-making (process) may be studied by
adopting one of at least two schools of thought, namely: 1) that the process is
rationally done; or 2) that it is politically negotiated.
As a rational process, policy-making is assumed to be essentially based on the

classic problem solving steps from problem formulation and evaluation of
alternatives through implementation. Conflicts over goals or perceptions of the
situation may be admitted, but these are assumed to result in stable and determinate
outcomes, which do not interfere with the consistency of the system’s operations.
Typically, the problem is seen as technical, the climate as consensual and the
process as controlled.
On the other hand, policy-making may be seen as an inescapably political activity

into which perceptions and interests of individual actors enter at all stages. In this
case, implementation becomes problematic rather than something that can be
taken for granted as in the rational process model. Policy is seen as a bargained
outcome; the environment as full of conflicts and the process itself characterized
by diversity and constraint.
In this module, we will not assume away the conflicts between these perspectives.
Both frameworks matter and actually happen. Thus, while it is important for you
to see the analytical distinctions among each of these stages, it is also important to
develop the sense of the process as an organic, evolutionary whole. As such, it
involves communication and negotiations among many independent, and
oftentimes disagreeing parties.

SAQ 2-1
What is your understanding of the concept of public policy process?
PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS DEFINED
The concept of a process usually refers to a regularized cycle of behavior that

policy actors to some extent have to work through or around (Doern and Phidd,
1992). As a public policy process, it is a sequential flow of interactions between
government and non-government participants who discuss, argue about and find
some ‘common’ grounds for agreeing upon the scope and types of policies
appropriate in dealing with a particular societal problem (Lyden, Shipman and
Wilkinson, 1988).
Here, I present various models of the public policy process. Some are linearly or
cyclically assumed to evolve; however, the policy cycle may not always be linear
and its stages are not always clear cut. Also most of the time, it is cyclical and
iterative.

Policy
In addition, the process of public policy-making is extremely complex. It is

analytical and political (Lindlom, 1967). It is an ongoing cycle (Brewer, 1974)
which has no beginning or end. Its boundaries, actions and interactions are
uncertain and circuitous. It is dynamic and gets contributions from various
institutions, groups or individuals who have a say in governance. It is likened to “a
big pot which many stir” (Meltsner, 1978). Its course is a tortuous one: it has
various steps or stages, and policies may be changed at any one step. It may also
fail to pass through a step.
The policy process is a course of transformation which turns political inputs into
political outputs (Brewer, 1974). It also translates vague and often abstract societal
commitments into specific commitments to one or more specific courses of action
(Etzioni, 1967). Likewise, the policy process decides major guidelines for action
directed at the future, mainly by government organ (Dror, 1981).
The operative principle behind the notion of the policy process is the logic of applied
problem-solving (Howlett and Ramesh, 1995). Usually, as shown in (Fig. 3), the policy
process involves stages that correspond with the various phases of applied problem-
solving.
Phases of Applied Problem-Solving Stages in Policy Cycle

1. Problem Recognition 1. Agenda Setting
2. Proposal of Solution 2. Policy Formulation
3. Choice of Solution 3. Decision-Making
4. Putting Solution into Effect 4. Policy Implementation
5. Monitoring Results 5. Policy Evaluation
Source: Michael Howlett and M. Ramesh, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy
Subsystems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Fig. 3. Five Stages of the Policy Cycle and their Relationship to
Applied Problem-Solving
The policy process is an activity of finding or defining problems that can be solved. It
is a learning process of error detection and correction (Wildavsky, 1978).
Hopefully, it aims at positively modifying societal conditions.
In my conceptualization, the policy process includes a core activity following a

Problem- Alternatives and Solution Analysis- Solution sequence (PAS). More
commonly, it includes the following activities (Adapted from Lyden, Shipman and
Wilkinson, 1988 , Lasswell, 1956, and Vig and Kraft, 1984):

1. Seeking information to define and re-structure the societal problem;

2. Developing alternatives to solve the problem;
3. Reaching and adopting an agreement on which alternative will best solve the
problem;
4. Implementing the solution; and
5. Evaluating the outcomes.
Activities #5 and #1 may correspond to the P component. They basically refer to

recognition and re-structuring of a societal problem that may require government
action. Activity #2 may correspond to the A component and involves finding
alternative solutions to the problem. Activities # 3 and #4 may stand for the S
component and may include choosing a solution to the problem, putting it into
effect, carrying it out, and may be, also monitoring the results.
I know you have done these activities in your own organization. The more
common experience though is being confined to any one and only one of these
stages of the cycle. Our organizations tend to reinforce division of tasks and
compartmentalized expertise. The policy process framework, however,
encourages us to look beyond our compartmentalized view and concern ourselves
with what are happening in the other stages of the cycle. In this way, we prepare
and plan to ensure successful progression of events. We also anticipate problems
and the like, instead of merely reacting to situations and being content with our
own parochial turf.
To clarify these seemingly abstract stages of the policy cycle, let me explain using
the case of the power shortage in the country in the late 80s to early 90s.
1. Seeking information to define the societal problem. This is usually the stage
referred to as problem identification and re-definition. It involves the
persistent articulation of a concern or issue besetting the society as a whole. It
can emerge from an external demand ( e.g., to “structure the economy” as in
the IMF lingo) or internally, from the executive-bureaucratic or legislative
arena ( e.g., the need to provide accessible, efficient and affordable electric
power supply to the constituents) or from a combination of both external and
internal (from and to the government) sources.
It also involves a process in which “the problem” is shaped or confined to

more practical limits from the point of view of the policy-makers and
advisers. This involves discussion and elaboration of the ideas inherent in the
problem, the objectives to be met, and the consequences, both positive and
negative which have to be enhanced or avoided (Doern and Phidd, 1992).

Policy
Towards the middle of the term of President Aquino, and after surviving
several man-made and natural calamities, e.g., coup attempts against
her government, typhoons, landslides and earthquake, the country was
in the dark, literally. There was not enough electric power and outages
commonly called brown or blackouts stretched from a low of four to as
high as 24 hours a day. Many areas didn’t have power eight hours a
day. Others were luckier either because they had electricity during
more parts of the day, or that they have bought generators as stand-by
facility in case of blackouts.
This problem was basically because 1) most of our power plants were
decades old and were never well-maintained; in fact many were about
to crank dead anytime; 2) most plants were dependent on imported oil;
3) alternative sources of energy such as coal, hydro, geothermal,
nuclear, etc. were not as extensively harnessed; in fact, a nuclear plant
in Morong, Bataan was mothballed because of its 1,001 technical flaws
or defects, e.g., being located in an earthquake fault, etc.; and 4) other
reasons, e.g., perceived inefficiency of the National Power Corporation
(NAPOCOR), the state enterprise mandated to generate and distribute
energy to the country, the lengthy process of securing loans for the
plants, power thieves, etc.
Industries were incurring losses because of low production and

additional power cost. People were complaining because of the
inconvenience brought about by a powerless modern-day living. The
government seemed slow in addressing the problem. However, some
sectors like the sellers of generators were smiling.

2. Agenda Setting. If the problem is valued as a ‘legitimate’ concern of

government, it may be set in the agenda of the government as a whole, or of
an agency of the government in particular.
People marched in the streets. An ATOM- (August Twenty One

Movement) led group even sought audience with the General Manager of
NAPOCOR to articulate the inconvenience wrought by the series of
electric interruptions to the country, economy and society as a whole.
The business group also made representation with Malacañang,

impressing on the President that for the economy to grow, power should
be restored and stabilized.
The President and her cabinet knew too well that the situation had
become crucial to the very survival of the economy and society. They
were in fact, not spared the inconvenience and discomfort brought about
by blackouts. They knew they had to do something fast to nipthe problem
in the bud.
They called in the management of the NAPOCOR. They toyed with the ideas
of resurrecting the Department of Energy (DOE), which was abolished in 1986
because of its alleged “dark record.” The cabinet met, together with
representatives from among the government, private and non-government
sectors.
3. Search and Analysis of Alternatives or of Ways to Solve the Problem.

Ideally, in this policy formulation stage, all major alternatives are assessed as
to their potential costs and benefits, and their likely efficiency and
effectiveness. This would involve a search for alternative instruments
(exhorting, spending, investing, regulating, taxing) a combination of these
instruments. Often, it will include a consideration of the option of doing
nothing and/or maintaining the status quo.
It is at this stage that bureaucratic influence (especially of the executive

department) is strongest. Ideas and facts are present in abundance here,
though they may be glibly buried in rhetoric and/or in the terminology of
short-term politics and analysis. It is also here where it is most difficult to
separate the myths, realities and perceptions of the relative influence and
power of the bureaucrats and secretaries, of solons and of the Executive.

Policy
Going back to the problem of power blackouts, the problem was

articulated both by sectors in and out of government. The President and
her cabinet met and brainstormed on the following suggestions: 1) fast-
tracking the repair, rehabilitation and building of power plants; 2)
reorganization or privatization of NAPOCOR; 3) re-creation of the
DOE; 4) de-regulation of the oil industry; 5) launching of an energy
supply sufficiency and conservation program which will be directed at
efficient generation of energy from various sources, e.g., water,
geothermal, nuclear, coal, while at the same time, promoting efficient
utilization of this scarce resource.
The first option would entail both short- and long-term strategies. It
would include a) streamlining the loan processing facility (official
development assistance or ODA) of the government, reducing processing
time and red tape; b) using “emergency power” to speed up processing
of fund releases; c) consistent with the privatization thrust of the
government, assessing the possibility of private ventures for power and
infrastructure plants, using the build-operate-transfer (BOT) scheme
(This became the basis of the Ramos government’s “independent power
producers (IPPs)” program, based on the BOT policy.); d) using power
barges; e) regular rehabilitation and repair of existing power plants; f)
scheduling/rationing electricity.
Since the options were not mutually exclusive, the second and other
options were complementary to the first. Each potentially would
contribute to the attainment of the goal of ensuring steady and continuous
supply of electricity (to the Filipino people) that would “fuel” the growth
of the economy. These would contribute in the end, to achieving economic
development, industrialization, and a quality of life better than that of the
previous regimes.
4. Deciding on the Best Choice. Assuming that a final ‘best’ choice among the
alternatives is reached, it may need legitimization and official adoption by the
government in power. Among various options, a new energy development
plan (Philippine Energy Sufficiency by 2020 or PES 2020), a NAPOCOR
memorandum providing power barges to emergency service certain areas, an
executive order (E.O.) or republic act (R.A.) on the creation of the DOE,
privatization of the NAPOCOR, or a Power Crisis Act may have to be
formulated and enacted, both by the executive and legislative arms of
government. Energy sufficiency and “no brownouts” may have to be declared
as policies of the State.

From the Aquino to the Ramos administration, the following best

choices were enacted into law or declared as State policies on energy
and electricity:
1) servicing areas with power barges;

2) fast-tracking release of development funds for the construction,
repair or rehabilitation of power plants;
3) enactment of the build-operate-transfer policy;
4) enactment of the Power and Energy Crisis Act of 1991;
5) re-creation of the Department of Energy;
6) de-regulation of the downstream oil industry;
7) privatization of the NAPOCOR;
8) re-structuring of the power sector;
9) plans and programs for energy supply sufficiency and pricing
strategy for global competitiveness, including the creation of Power
Patrols (Committees on Power Conservation and Demand
Management) which aim to complement government efforts directed
at energy supply development while promoting efficient utilization
(E.O. 123 of the DOE).
As you can see, these are courses of action (1, 2, 4, 5, 9) and inaction (3, 4, 6, 7,
8, 9) taken by government to address a given societal concern, ideally to achieve
the goal of energy and electricity/power sufficiency, for the good and welfare of
the society and economy. They also evolve over time, in this case, from the
Aquino to the Ramos to the Estrada administration. This implies that the time
frame for the resolution of societal problems is may be protracted.
5. Policy Implementation. Hopefully, resources, e.g., funded programs and

projects, shall have been committed for the purpose of attaining energy
sufficiency. In addition, personnel and organization shall have been
harnessed to make things work, guided by a manager who knows how to lead,
etc. And thus, the implementation phase is on center stage. The intent of
implementation is to produce results in a reliable, predictable way to meet the
ideas and objectives sought by a policy solution. Implementation occurs over
time and is usually the longest and most permanent stage in the policy cycle.
(More discussion in Module 8.)

Policy
6. Policy Monitoring and Evaluation. Finally, it would be both necessary and

desirable to monitor the impact and evaluate the results of adopted and
implemented policies to see if the objectives have been met. In the broadest
sense, it is assumed ideally, that the policy maker (and his/her constituents)
wants to learn and obtain feedback so that corrections can be made later. The
results of evaluation may be a re-conceptualization of policy problems and
solutions. It may also lead to the termination, reform and change of existing
policies.
To forecast the final stages of our example on power outages, let us suppose
that the proposed sets of actions and inaction above were all in place.
Resources, expertise, technology, procedures, human resource, political will
and other ingredients for successful policy implementation were already
committed. However, problems and pitfalls sometimes occur. Policy
administrators thus work out solutions to the problems. Other sectors, e.g.,
the Legislature, the judiciary, the media, non-government organizations, the
constituents, interact as they directly or indirectly assume roles either as
beneficiary, service agency, or interested party.
At the monitoring and evaluation phase, meanwhile, we would like to know

whether in spite or despite government interventions, the irritations,
discomforts, industry and other sectors’ concerns were addressed, abated or
resolved. In more concrete terms, we would like to know whether the length
of power interruptions has been reduced or wiped out altogether. We would
also know whether costs, damages to lives, industries and properties were
minimized. We would also want to know whether the problem of brownouts
and blackouts was totally resolved or not. Then we go back to the problem
of re-structuring phase again if answers indicate non-resolution of the
societal problem. Otherwise, the cycle ends, if the problem, more or less, is
abated, solved and completely done with.
A graphic summary of these activities is shown in Fig. 4 on p. 47. Here, the

policy cycle or process being described seems simple. It seems too logical as
well. But as you probably know yourself, the policy process goes into a grind.
There may be stumbling blocks along the way, say political, economic, cultural,
psychological, geographical. Also, there is the possibility that a policy concern
may not reach full-cycle. Some would become policy issues, problems,
statements, outputs, outcomes. Some won’t. Some skip steps. Some don’t.
Others have a definite life cycle- moving from ‘birth’ to ‘death’, creation and
termination. Others evolve in just slightly different guises, as one stage succeeds
another with only slight modification.

Moreover, even though it is recognized that these stages are not always discrete
and watertight, it is nonetheless intuitively appealing to visualize the policy
process in this way. It is cyclical. It is seemingly simple but complex. It is
torturous. It is long and winding. It is normally a series of iterative events that
follow some overall cycle. It evolves over a long period of time.
SAQ 2-2
What models or frameworks of public policy process?

Explain them one by one.

Policy
Brownouts/ Articulation of the

societal & industry
blockouts 1980s problem by various
inconveniences, irritations,
sectors in the
costs, damages
society
Cabinet met with the

noted sectors complained
President
& sought resolution of
the problem by
government
Legislature also worked
hand in hand with the
Executive
What should be done?

Alternatives are What is the problem?
assessed and evaluated Problem is defined by
government (1980s-
1990s))
Policy Legitimization BOT law, re-organization &

& Adoption (1980s-present) privatization of NAPOCOR,
power barges, streamlining restructuring of the power
problems in implementation ODA procedures & sector, energy supply
of policies and programs releases, repair, development & conservation
rehabilitation & plans & programs, Power
construction of Patrol
power plants,
Power Crisis Act
reduced brownouts/blockouts
steady power supply
people happier; industries more

productive; society & economy more efficient use of scarce
more comfortable (1990s-beyond) resource
Fig. 4. The Policy Process: The Case of Power Brownouts

MODELS OF PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS: COMPONENTS,

CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
There is an abundance of models and frameworks of the public policy process.

Figure 5 gives a capsulized glimpse of the more common frameworks found in
policy books and journals. Basically, as in the PAS or problem-alternative-
solution genre, there are the models by Anderson (1975, 1978, 1984), Rushefsky
(1990), Dunn (1981), Vig and Kraft (1984), Wildavsky (1978), Brewer (1974)
and Lasswell (1956). The models by Gonzales (1995) and Mendoza (1994) may
also interest you since they are fairly recent and approximate the Philippine
policy-making process. They are in the next pages as Figures 6 and 7,
respectively.
As you can see in Figures 5-7, some authors would add a stage or two to the core
PAS framework. Others would ignore or skip some steps.
FOCUS ON ANDERSON’S MODEL
Anderson’s model, developed in 1975 and modified in 1978 and again in 1984, is
appealing in that it reflects transformations themselves. Anderson in 1975 started
by conceptualizing the policy process in terms of categories of action, policy
demand, policy decision, policy statement, policy action or output, and policy
outcome.
Policy Demand
These are claims made upon public officials by other actors, private or official, in
the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problem.
In our earlier example on power brownouts and blackouts, the march by ATOM
members and the audience sought by the business community on the President of
the Republic, are manifestations of policy demands and articulation of their
perceived public problem, e.g., the brownouts and the damages, inconvenience,
losses, etc. that result from them, which the government and no other sector must
authoritatively address.

Policy
Policy Decision
This pertains to the decision by public officials that authorizes or gives direction
and content to public policy actions, e.g., the decision to enact a law or
administrative order.
The resolve by the government to do something to address the power outages or
blackouts in the country, is a policy decision that logically stems from the
articulated policy demand above. It was just fortunate that the important
stakeholders in government listened and did not turn a deaf ear to the problem.
Otherwise, it might have taken ages before the policy problem acted upon.

I. Anderson, II. Rushefsky, 1990 III. Wildavsky, 1978 IV. Lasswell, 1956
James,
1975 1978 1984
Policy Demand Policy Agenda Problem Identification Problem Identification Problem Succession Intelligence
& Agenda Formation Agenda Building
Promotion
Policy Decision Policy Formulation Formulation Policy Formulation Prescription
Policy Statement Policy Adoption Adoption Policy Adoption Problem Resolution Invocation
Budgeting
Policy Output Policy Implementation Implementation Policy as its own Application
Implementation
Policy Outcome Policy Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Cause Termination
Policy Succession Appraisal
V. Dunn, VI. Vig & Kraft, 1984 VII. Hogwood & Gunn, 1984 VIII. Brewer, 1974
1981
Method Information
Problem Policy Agenda Setting Deciding to decide & how to decide Invention/Initiation
Structuring
Monitoring Problems Policy Formulation Issue Definition & Forecasting Estimation
Forecasting Alternatives Options Analysis Selection
Evaluation Actions Policy Adoption Policy Implementation Implementation
Recommendat Outcomes Policy Implementation Policy Monitoring & Evaluation Evaluation
ion
Practical Performance Policy Evaluation Policy Maintenance, Succession Termination
Inference or Termination
Fig. 5. Some Common Frameworks, Models and Sequential Stages of Public Policy Process
Policy
Problem Analysis
* understanding the problem

- receiving the problem:
assessing the symptoms
- framing the problem: analyzing Information
market and government failures Gathering
- modeling the problem:
identifying policy variables
Solution Analysis
*
* choosing evaluation criteria
* specifying policy alternatives
* evaluating: predicting impacts of Communicating
alternatives & valuing them in terms of Advice
criteria set
Implementation
Monitoring Policy Outcomes &

Evaluating Policy Performance
Adapted from Weimer and Vining, 1994
Fig. 6. The Policy Process Simplified

(Gonzales, 1995)*

Policy Problem
Definition
A d
Evaluating Advocating
Performance Change
Policy Politics & Agenda Building,

Implementation: Dynamics Citizens’ Access &
Successes & Initiatives
Pitfalls
Policy Adoption & Developing

Advocacy: Alternatives:
Stakeholder Analysis Methods & Tools
Fig. 7. The Policy Process (Mendoza, 1994)
Policy Statements
These are formal expressions or articulations of public policy, e.g.,

Administrative (AO) Executive Order (EO) or Republic Act (RA).
The Power Crisis Act of 1991, the emergency use of power barges, the
streamlining of ODA procedures and fund releases, the reorganization of the
NAPOCOR and the re-creation of the DOE, as well as the development of an
energy supply development and utilization plan, together with the issuance of AO
123, represent the set of decisions and statements, e.g., public policies, taken by
the government to resolve the brownout problem and its disruptive effects on the
economy and society.
In the power outages problem, there seemed to be no disagreement as to the best
way to resolve the problem. This may be because the concern then was basically
to lick the problem and prioritize government decisions.

Policy
There are instances, however, in real life, when an actual or potential course of
action by government involves conflict among different segments of the society
(Dunn, 1981). In such a case, a policy issue exists. Debates, negotiations,
bargaining, compromises and the like follow. Also, the final decision or policy
arrived at symbolizes the tilt to those whose interest, power and resource
prevailed.
An example of a policy issue is the contentious and emotional debate on the death
penalty (solution) for heinous crimes. Pro-life and pro-death advocates would
strongly endorse “No” or “Yes” for death penalty. Redefining the crime of rape
from a crime against chastity to one against person, whether male or female, is
another example of a conflict-ridden polemic.
Policy Outputs
This pertains to ‘tangible manifestations’ of public policies; they are the things
actually done by government in pursuance of policy decisions and statements;
they are ‘simply’ what the government actually does, e.g., taxes collected, roads
constructed, schools created, etc.
In our earlier case, this category of action may be noted in the actual number of
communities served by power barges; the number of power plants rehabilitated,
repaired or constructed; the number of power plant projects under the BOT
scheme; the number of Power Patrols created; etc.
Policy Outcomes
These are the consequences for society, intended or unintended, that flow from
the action or inaction by government, e.g. the Ormoc tragedy and the Mt. Parker
‘eruption’ which were the unintended consequences of the government’s seeming
helplessness in enforcing environmental policies against illegal logging, dynamite
fishing and unauthorized mining. These also resulted in the people’s seeming
disrespect for Mother Nature and a “tragedy of the commons” – type of
unintended effect, which we will explain in Module 7.
In the meanwhile, going back to our case, policy outcomes may be identified after
examining whether the supply of electricity has normalized or whether brownouts
and blackouts have been reduced. Consequently, we would see whether such
stabilized situation reduced discomfort, loses and damages in the society and
economy. Finally, policy outcomes may be deduced by finding out whether as a
result of normalized electric power situation, our country is now on the road to
industrialization or not.
This framework focused more on the tangible manifestations of each of the stages
in the policy cycle, as highlighted in Module 1, e.g., outputs. However, Anderson
felt the need to supplement these categories of action with activities or strategies
to make the process more procedural. Thus, in 1978, he transformed his key
categories of action to policy stages. These include policy agenda setting,
formulation, adoption, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Fig. 8 on the
next page shows this modified framework in more detail.
Andersons explanations are in layman’s terms i.e., common sense. Study the
model well make sure you digest and internalize what he is saying.
Policy Stages
Terminology Agenda Policy Policy Policy Policy

Setting Formulation Adoption Implementation Evaluation
Definition Those The develop- The Application of Efforts by the

problems, ment of develop- the policy to the government
among many, pertinent and ment of problem by the to assess
which receive acceptable support for government’s whether the
the serious proposed a specific administrative policy was
attention of courses of proposal so machinery effect or not
public action for that a policy
officials dealing with can be
a public legitimized
problem or autho-
rized
Common Getting the What is being Getting the Applying the Finding out
Sense government proposed to government government’s whether the
to consider be done to accept a policy to the policy
action on a about the particular problem worked
problem problem solution to
the problem
Fig. 8. Anderson’s 1978 Policy Process Model

Policy
ACTIVITY 2-1
Not content with his second framework, Anderson in 1984, supplemented

these stages with questions on the most important considerations in each stage
of the policy cycle. He wanted us to consider these vital questions in
understanding what goes on in the policy process.
Now, read through these questions in Table 4 below and make a critique. Be
reminded though that a good critique always starts with a good grasp of the
subject being examined.
Apply any one of his models to a policy problem or issue familiar to you,
similar to what I did with the power blackouts problem. Go on! Don’t hesitate
to bring in your own perceptions of how things and events fall into place.
Experiment, tap your creativity and imagination.
Write your answers in your notebook. Be conscientious and patient in
structuring and scribbling your thoughts. Rewards will come to you soon as
you gain a better understanding and appreciation of the course.
By the way, there is not only one correct answer to this activity. As long as
you go through the stages of the framework/s and reflect on the relevance and
implications of these stages in our own setting, you are on the right track.
You are an expert here and your agency and individual experiences will see
you through.

Table 4. Anderson’s 1984 Policy Process Framework
1. Problem Identification and Agenda Formation

- What is a policy problem?
- What makes it a policy problem?
- How does it get into the agenda of government?
2. Formulation
- How are alternatives for dealing with the problem developed?
- Who participates in policy formulation?
3. Adoption
- How is a policy alternative adopted or enacted?
- What requirements must be met?
- Who adopts the policy?
- What processes are used?
- What is the content of the adopted policy?
4. Implementation
- Who is involved?
- What is done, if anything, to carry a policy into effect?
- What impact does this have on policy content?
5. Evaluation
- How is the effectiveness or impact of a policy measured?
- Who evaluates?
- Are there demands for change or repeal of the policy?
THE RUSHEFSKY’S (1990) MODEL
Rushefsky’s (1990) model works in a linear fashion, i.e., as in a straight line,

starting from the first point to the last. He nevertheless recognizes that this
pattern may not always be true in reality, and that complexities occur at every
step of the process. In fact, he added that, for most problems, all the stages in his
model are going on almost at the same time. Some stages are re-visited and re-
negotiated as the cycle progresses. And small decisions cumulate to a layer of
policy action in other stages.

Policy
Rushefsky’s model has the following stages:
Problem
Identification
Agenda Building
Policy Formulation
Policy Adoption
Budgeting
Implementation
Evaluation
Policy Succession

ACTIVITY 2-2
Can you notice the similarities and/or differences between Rushefsky’s model
and the other policy process models? Write your observations in your
notebook, okay?
Now let me explain Rushefsky’s model using Philippine examples.
Problem Identification.
Here, the demand for government action to resolve a problem or take advantage
of an opportunity is verbalized by affected groups or individuals or those who
have a stake in the policy issue or concern. They belong either to the
government, private or non-government sector.
In addition, attempts to get government to see that a policy problem or

opportunity exists are ventured into by affected or interested parties at this stage.
In our earlier case, the lobbying by ATOM and business community members is
an identification of a policy problem, e.g., power crisis that the government has to
address. The societal problem was identified and articulated and assessed. Later,
it was assessed by the government as to its severity and adverse impact.
Rushefsky maintains that a societal problem will not become a policy problem if
it is articulated and identified.

Policy
His contribution in this phase of the policy cycle is distinguishing between policy
problems public problems and private problems. He contends that not all private
problems become policy problems and that only policy problems should be
addressed by government. His distinction goes like this:
1) a private problem is limited in effect to one or few persons directly
involved;
2) a public problem has broad effects, including consequences for
persons not directly involved ;
3) a policy problem is a condition or situation that produces needs or
dissatisfactions on the part of the people for which public relief or
redress is being sought.
Going back to the case of power outages, such problem has become unbearable
and disruptive affecting not only a limited group of individuals, but almost
everyone, including the high and the mighty. It has wrought havoc not only to the
industries and economy as a whole but to the lives of the multitude of Filipinos as
well.
On the other hand, if a residence or company suffers from power interruption

because of its own doing, e.g., illegal connection, electric current overload, non-
payment of electric bills, etc., and if the blackout is confined only to their place,
then the problem is a private problem. As such, government may not be called
upon to do something about it. It should be resolved by the particular power
supplierparticular consumers affected and the power supplier.
Agenda Building
Here, items, particularly the more important ones, are “built” into the agenda of
government, so that policy makers are expected to discuss and seriously consider
them, later. Policy agenda are the demands that policy makers make choose or
feel compelled to act upon. They consist of the sum of all issues judged to require
public intervention.
According to Rushefsky, there is a so-called agenda formation process. It is a

course wherein private problems are transformed into public problems, which in
turn become a policy issue, and later built into the agenda of government, either
systemically or institutionally. It is represented by the diagram below (Fig. 9):

private public (policy)

problem problem issue
systemic institutional
agenda agenda
Fig. 9. Rushefsky’s (1990) Agenda Formation Process
As mentioned, a policy issue arises when a public problem seeks or demands

government action and when there is public disagreement over the best solution to
the problem. On the other hand, a systemic agenda consist of all issues
commonly perceived by members of the political community as meriting public
attention and involving matters within the legitimate jurisdiction of existing
governmental activity. They are also known as discussion agenda. An
institutional agenda, meanwhile, consist of those problems which public officials
feel obliged to give serious attention to. They are otherwise known as the
decision agenda.
If you may recall, in our power brownout case, the problem was articulated not
only to the NAPOCOR management which had a direct hand on the power
outages experienced in the 1980s-90s. It also reached President Aquino and her
cabinet. Afterwards, the problem also reached President Ramos and his cabinet.
If this was the case, the private problem of ordinary citizens and individual
companies suffering from discomforts, losses and damages because of power
outages, reached an alarming proportion and became a policy and public problem.
It went further to the systemic agenda of the Aquino and Ramos administrations
and then delegated to a smaller sub-committee in the cabinet, with the re-created
DOE at the helm.
This sub-committee was the cabinet cluster which the Aquino administration
introduced. There were at least five clusters, e.g., economic, social, political,
defense, etc., which were so grouped for manageability and focus in addressing
societal concerns. This practice was continued by the Ramos administration and I
believe this is still being continued today by the Estrada administration.

Policy
The cluster on economic development then, to whom the energy problem was
assigned, can be considered in this power crisis case as the locus of the
institutional agenda. It was where specific solutions were identified, assessed and
decided for policy enactment or formulation.
In addition to lobbying and seeking audience with authorities, there are other
ways for an issue/problem to become part of the policy agenda. These include,
among many,
a) pressures (suggestions) by interest groups;
b) desires of important people or group in the community;
c) attention given by media;
d) triggering events;
e) personal interests of legislators;
f) pressures of public opinion or public outcry; and
g) statistics and indicators.
Technically, what ATOM and the business leaders did fall under a) and b). Their
actions were complemented by the activities of the tri-media, e.g., print, radio,
TV; thus, bringing the policy problem to the attention of everyone, including the
government leaders.
In other policy concerns, worthy examples are the investigative exposes of the
journals and dailies, e.g., the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Today, Manila Chronicle,
Star, on such topics as the pork barrel, vanishing indigenous tribes, child abuse
and exploitation, domestic violence, privatization of government-owned and/or
controlled corporations, de-regulation of the oil industry, heinous crimes, the
plight of overseas contract workers (OCWs), globalization, APEC, the problems
of garbage disposal and traffic, and the like. Other important activities of the
media include the television’s public affairs programs like “Hoy Gising!”,
“Brigada Siete”, “Probe Team”, “Inside Story”, “Dong Puno Live”, “Magandang
Gabi Bayan”, “I witness” “Debate with Mare and Pare” and “Correspondence”
which continue to provide incisive reports on various societal issues and
concerns.
After the issue on Flor Contemplacion, for example, the same unfortunate fate
was avoided to fortunately benefit Sarah Balabagan. The Philippine media
brought to the consciousness of people in government, both here and in our
embassies abroad, and of others concerned, the abuses suffered by the OCWs
and the need for the State to do something to alleviate their sad plight.

Triggering events like the Ormoc tragedy, the Bocaue Pagoda tragedy, the Mt.
Pinatubo eruption, the Ozone Disco fire, the flattening of two hills in Bohol’s
famed Chocolate Hills, the death of Macli-ing Dulag, the assassination of Ninoy
Aquino, the Cebu Pacific crash, the sinking of the “Pearl of the Orient”, the
death of John Kennedy Jr. and his wife in a plane crash en route to Martha’s
Vineyard, the closure of the Manila Times, etc. all spurred people to reflect on
why these eventshappened, what inadequacies can be corrected, and more
importantly, what reforms can be done to avoid them from happening again.
I am sure, the memory of these events is still fresh in our minds. We can still
recall vividly the frail bodies being excavated from the mud of the Ormoc
flashfloods; the rumbling lahar as well as the graying ashfall of Mt. Pinatubo.
Who can forget the wails and stampede in the Bocaue pagoda and Ozone fire
tragedies, the blood-stained land in the Cordillera after Macli-ing Dulag was
slain? Who can forget the long funeral march for the slain senator, Ninoy
Aquino? Didn’t his death galvanize the country into one victorious “Yellow
Revolution” against the dictator?
Our history and current events provide us inspiration, drive and resolve to heed
the lessons of the past, especially the dark past, to act, and never allow then to
happen again.
ACTIVITY 2-3
In the meantime, there are numerous instances wherein policy problems

were included in the agenda of government because of other agenda setting
methods above. Can you think of at least one instance? Scan your memory
bank for recent and not too recent examples, okay? Scribble your thoughts
in your notebook.
As in the previous activities, there is no one correct answer. Yours is as

good as mine. Your perception of how things went in the past and at present
is more or less what has happened. I am sure you also have documents to
support your perception of things?

Policy
BACK TO RUSHEFSKY’S MODEL
The subsequent stages in Rushefsky’s policy process model are more or less the
same as in the other models. Policy Formulation is the stage where a policy,
plan, program or project to remedy the problem is developed. It is also the stage
for real and conceptual problem solving. Policy Adoption is the acceptance by
some person or group that has power or authority to make decisions on a referred
to her/him/them. Budgeting is a multifaceted process of providing funds to an
adopted preferred solution to a problem. Implementation is carrying out a policy,
program, project or activity intended to address a particular (set of) problem (s).
Evaluation is assessment of how well a policy, program, project or activity has
worked. Policy Succession is the phase when reflection on whether a policy is to
be changed, amended or terminated is done.
Rushefsky’s contribution is his insistence that budgeting be part of the policy

process. Unlike other schools of thought that normally subsume such phase under
policy adoption and implementation, Rushefsky asserts that resources should be
allotted officially to ensure a more successful policy implementation. A policy
thrust on food security for example, will not achieve its purpose/s if funds were not
alloted to agriculture. Quality education by 2000 will mean nothing if schools and
teachers exist only in plans. For as one of our local sayings mouth: “Konting bato,
konting buhangin, konting semento ang kailangan bago matayo ang rebulto!”
Rushefsky’s model also stresses the need for policy succession or termination,
particularly if the reason for a policy’s existence has already been satisfied.
Although logical in other setting, it does not seem to work in our culture because
our people are sentimental and tend to cling to the past. In addition, our
government seem does not bent on ending what has been started, especially if it is
perceived as good. As a people, we don’t let go of anything too easily. I will
explain this kind of Filipino political culture in Module 5.

SAQ 2-3
How is policy-making and reform done in the Philippines?
THE MENDOZA’S MODEL
Initially, I prepared my policy process model (Fig. 7) for the PPPA (Public Policy
and Program Administration) curriculum committee of the College of Public
Administration, U.P., in 1994. At that time we at the College were evaluating the
PPPA field of specialization in the MPA program.
Our initial assessment then was that the PPPA curriculum was too
compartmentalized in the sense that each course (PA 241-Introduction; PA 242.1-
Economics of Public Policy; PA 242.2-Tools; PA 243- Project Management; PA
245-Program Administration, PA 247-Policy Paper; PA 248-Workshop) deals
with particular topics and phases of the policy cycle distinctly and separately.
Also, there was no course integrating or weaving all these courses into one
wholistic framework.
Thus, PA 244 (The Policy Process) was born; and so was my model.
The Mendoza model is basically a reflection of the politics and rationality of

public policy-making in the country. The process is cyclical and dynamic. Each
phase is replete with objectivity, subjectivity, balance and tilt, rationality and
politics. Each may be the beginning or end. Each reflects some of the foci of the
PPPA courses at the College of Public Administration e.g., overview of public
policy and program administration, policy methods and tools, project evaluation,
implementation analysis.

Policy
My model is similar to other policy process paradigms in the sense that policy
making is traced backward from problem identification to agenda building, and
forward to policy formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation.
It is different from other models in that it emphasizes problem re-definition,

assuming a serious evaluation of policy performance has been made, or that an
agitated sector/s have already perceived a critical problem and re-defined it as
well, in order that it becomes more acceptable to the policy agenda makers and
setters. Also, it espouses more participation by citizens and other institutions of
democracy, as well as their advocacy role for change and reform in the society.
Moreover, it advocates orientation to the processes, methods and tools of policy

analysis and research in developing alternative policy solutions. This is crucial,
particularly in our society where the technology of policy science has yet to seep
into the consciousness of our policy makers and analysts. Likewise, the tool of
stakeholder analysis is stressed to promote its use in making our policies more
politically acceptable and administratively, technically feasible.
My model also stresses the ingredients for successful policy implementation in

order to influence a more serious concern for the possible successes and pitfalls in
implementing government policies.
I have a more detailed step-by-step explanation of the phases in my policy cycle

model in the PA 244 course offering of the MPM. My students and I are also
applying this model in the PA 244 residential course in our MPA. Whether
residential or distance mode, don’t hesitate to enroll in PA/PM 244 later, okay?
So, ‘til we meet again?
THE PHILIPPINE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
The Philippine policy-making process is generally characterized as precedent-

bound, based on laws and forged by such structures and mechanisms provided for
in the Constitution and other laws of the land. Such institutions include the bi-
cameral legislative body, composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives; the executive branch of government, headed by the President of
the Republic; and the judiciary headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
This has review power over the decisions of the executive and legislative
branches, particularly on such questions as constitutionality and statutory
construction.
By and large, the process of policy making in the country follows the models so far
presented in earlier sections. However, Sec. Sobrepena of the Presidential

Management Staff (PMS) (then of the NEDA and METRO Bank) visualizes the
process more specifically into the following: (see Fig. 10)
AGENDA SETTING POLICY POLICY

identification and FORMULATION LEGITIMATION
definition of development of /ADOPTION
problems, crises and specific proposals mobilization of
advocacy of action or series of support and
alternative enactment in
proposals in the form of
response to the legislation,
emerging crisis exeecutive
specification of orders,
goals and choice of administrative
means for achieving regulations and
them court decisions
POLICY EVALUATION POLICY

government reviews and IMPLEMENTATION
attempts to determine mobilization of
whether policies/programs resources and
have worked and should be application to goal
continued achievement
Fig. 10. The Public Policy-making Process in the Philippines,

Sobrepena (1995)
In every branch of government, various mechanisms are in place for public policy-
making. Among them are 1) the Cabinet; 2) the NEDA Board; 3) special
consultative bodies as the LEDAC (Legislative-Executive Development Advisory
Council), for the Executive branch; and 4) the committees and the procedures for
enacting laws, for the Legislative. For the judiciary, various courts, from the,
municipal, regional trial courts to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court,
represent its tiers and structures for policy and decision-making.

Policy
By levels of government, local units (LGUs) pattern their system of decision and
policy-making with that of the national government. However, other LGUs may
differ from the latter’s system minimally or substantively. At the LGU level, the
executive branch is represented by the local executive (governor or mayor) and
his offices. The legislative is in the Sanggunians or Local Councils headed by the
vice-governor or vice-mayor. The judiciary is represented by the Barangay or
(Municipal or Regional) Trial Courts. But I suppose this process of policy-making
and reform at the LGU level has been explained fully in PM 251.
The policy stages of the three branches of government differ. The executive
branch is supposed to be involved in almost all phases of the policy cycle from
policy reformulation and re-definition to implementation and evaluation. (Note
that on the politics-administration dichotomy, it is supposed to be responsible for
policy implementation only. It participates in the various stages of the budget
cycle. The legislative branch, on the other hand, is mainly involved in the policy
formulation and legitimization stages. Although of course, in aid of legislation, it
can be involved in other stages of the policy cycle also.
The judiciary’s role is more in arbitration of constitutional concerns. Thus, its

involvement is more on policy legitimization. Although, of course, it can also be
immersed in policy adoption and review. Recall what happened in the Manila
Hotel privatization issue when it invoked “national patrimony” to intervene in the
economic policies of the State. The Supreme Court also intervened in the
Sumilao farmers land claim case and in the execution of death convicts Echegaray
et al.
In the latter case, the Supreme Court decided on the legality of the death penalty
law for heinous crimes as well as for the use of lethal injection for the execution
of convicts. It also issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to give the
Legislative the opportunity to review the wisdom of the law.
I suppose you have some idea about these processes and mechanisms for policy-
making in the country. Nevertheless, I will give you some explanations to refresh
your memory.

THE CABINET
The cabinet is composed of all the heads of departments and those occupying the
rank of secretary, in the executive branch. It is headed by the president, who is
the prime initiator and implementor of policies and programs in the country. Its
main function is to orchestrate, with the guidance and leadership of the President,
all activities, proposals and policies of the government. It meets regularly to
discuss, deliberate and decide on programs and projects of the government.
As you may have already known, the following agencies in the Executive branch
comprise the cabinet:
1. Department of Agrarian Reform

2. Department of Agriculture
3. Department of Budget and Management
4. Department of Education
5. Department of Energy
6. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7. Department of Finance
8. Department of Foreign Affairs
9. Department of Health
10. Department of Interior and Local Government
11. Department of Justice
12. Department of Labor and Employment
13. Department of National Defense
14. Department of Public Works and Highways
15. Department of Science and Technology
16. Department of Social Work and Development
17. Department of Trade and Industry
18. Department of Transportation and Communications
19. Department of Tourism
20. National Economic Development Authority
21. Office of the Executive Secretary
(Under the Estrada administration, the heads of the offices of the press secretary
and president’s spokesperson both carry cabinet rank. So do a number of
commissioners and advisers.)

Policy
Other agencies, e.g., the National Security Council (NSC), etc., may be invited,
consulted or called upon by the cabinet, depending on the need or particular
circumstance. For example, just recently, President Estrada called in the NSC to
help the present administration address the Mindanao “problem” and the Mischief
Reef/Spratlys issue.
These agencies are grouped into clusters, as earlier mentioned, depending on the
sector they represent, e.g., economic, social, defense, political, etc.
The policy making process through the cabinet is something like what is
illustrated in Fig. 11.
DEPARTMENTS/
AGENCIES
INTEREST
CABINET
GROUPS CABINET
CLUSTERS
OTHER OTHER
SECTORS GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES
Fig. 11. The Executive Policy-making Mechanism through the Cabinet
Among the urgent administration bills which emanated from the cabinet were the
proposed national ID system, the Power Crisis Bill, the Omnibus Energy Bill, the
Rape Bill, etc. Some of these were submitted to the Legislature as urgent
administration bills for enactment into law. Some remained with the Executive and
formulated into Executive Orders like the one creating the SPCPD or the Southern
Philippines Council for Peace and Development.
As earlier alluded to, the participation of interest groups and other agencies beside
those in the regular departments in the cabinet policy-making process is ad hoc. The
cabinet has not yet institutionally opened its membership to other sectors. This may
be due to the confidentiality of most of the decisions of “national importance”. This
may also be so because the formal structure has not yet recognized the need to
institutionalize membership of other sectors.

THE NEDA BOARD
The NEDA Board is like the mini-cabinet or the midi-cluster. Its chair is also the
President of the Republic. Its vice chair is the Director-General of the NEDA
Secretariat. Among its members are the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of
the following departments: Finance, Trade and Industry, Agriculture, Environment
and Natural Resources, Public Works, Budget, Labor, Local Government, Agrarian
Reform, Foreign Affairs and Health. The NEDA Secretariat, meanwhile, consists
of staff and line offices at the national and regional levels
Figure 12 show the organization of NEDA including the agencies and inter-agency
committees attached to it.
ATTACHED NEDA BOARD NEDA BOARD
AGENCIES INTER-AGENCY
COMMITTEES
- Tariff Commission* - Development Budget

- Philippine National Coordination Committee
Volunteer Service - Infrastructure Committee
Coordinating Agency* - Investment Coordinating
- Philippine Institute for Committee
Development Studies** - Social Development
- Population Commission* Committee
- National Statistical - Committee on Tariff and
Coordination Board Related Matters
(NSCB)*
DIRECTOR GENERAL
NATIONAL REGIONAL CENTRAL

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
OFFICE OFFICE OFFCICE
Fig. 12. The NEDA Organization Per E.O. 230
* Agencies under the administrative supervision of NEDA
** Agencies attached to NEDA for policy and program integration or coordination.

Policy
The flow of the policy-making process through the NEDA Board is similar to that
of the cabinet, with slight modifications. This is presented in Fig. 13 below:
DEPARTMENTS
AGENCIES
NEDA BOARD NEDA BOARD

COMMITTEES
OTHER AGENCIES,
GOVERNMENT AND
PRIVATE
Fig. 13. The Policy-making Mechanism through the NEDA Board
As you may have noticed, the unofficial stakeholders, e.g., other agencies both in
the public and private sectors, are also included in the process. Their participation,
though, is basically in the form of inputs, e.g., demands or support, to policy
decisions of the formal structure.
As of 1995, some of the major policy decisions arrived at through the NEDA Board
were the following: 1) the Capital Market Development Program, approved on May
9, 1995, which has the objectives of a) promotion of diversified and competitive
capital market; and b) enhancement of investors’ confidence by introducing
internationally-accepted standards in the conduct of business; 2) the National
Information Technology Plan 2000, approved on 19 July 1994, to spur the country
to global competitiveness through information technology (IT) diffusion; 3) the
Government Infrastructure Program, approved on 19 July 1994; and 4) the National
Policy, Strategy and Action Plan for Urban Sewerage and Sanitation, approved on
15 March 1994 (Sobrepena, 1995). Recently, NEDA has come up with the
“Philippine National Development Plan. Directions for the 21st Century” and the
“Philippine Medium Term Development Plan, 1999-2004.”

THE LEDAC
The LEDAC is a special consultative body, which aims to provide advisory and
consultative mechanism to ensure consistency in coordinating executive
development planning and congressional budgeting. Constituted in 1992 under
R.A. 7640 dated December 9, 1992, it also aims to provide a mechanism for
consensus building and serve as a consultative and advisory body to the President.
Based on LEDAC Notes (1995), it is composed of the following:

Chair: President of the Republic
Vice Chair: Vice President
Members:
President of the Senate
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Seven (7) members of the Cabinet to be
designated by the President
Three (3) members of the Senate to be
designated by the President of the Senate,
at least one of whom shall come from the
dominant minority party
Three (3) members of the House of Representatives
to be designated by the Speaker of the House,
at least one of whom shall come from the
dominant minority party
A representative of the local government units
A representative of the youth and
A representative of the private sector from any or a
combination of the following: business,
cooperatives, agriculture and labor.

Policy
Per LEDAC Resolution No. 2 on May 19, 1993, a LEDAC Secretariat was
formed with the following internal structure (Fig.
14):
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
(Chair is NEDA Director-General; the following

are Members: Office of the President-
Presidential Management staff (OP-PMS) Head;
CPBO director-General; and Senate
Representative)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
TECHNICAL GROUP
Fig. 14. The Internal Structure of the LEDAC Secretariat
Unofficially, it is held that the LEDAC was created to facilitate appreciation by

the Legislature of the Executive’s urgent bills in Congress. The animosity and
undue checks and balances between these two branches in the past were believed
to cause the delays in the reform efforts of government. Thus, there was a need to
open the communication lines and smoothen the flow of policy-making between
them.
Among the important policy issues tackled by the Council in 1994 were 1) the
phased reduction in the forward cover on oil; 2) impact of peso appreciation on the
domestic economy; 3) proposals on how to mobilize savings to sustain economic
growth; 4) possible lowering of interest rates for loans granted to farmers by the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Philippine National Bank (PNB) and
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP); and 5) the participation of Philippine
troops in the peacekeeping operation of the United Nations in Haiti (LEDAC,
1995).

Its major accomplishments relative to the Uruguay Round of the General

Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (UR-GATT) comprise the following:
1) identification of safety nets and adjustment measures that need to be put in

place to cushion the adverse impact of the GATT-UR on the economy;
2) preparation of a list of existing laws and administrative issuances which
need to be passed, repealed or amended to conform with the trade treaty;
3) identification of communication/advocacy strategies to promote public
awareness of the GATT-UR;
4) preparation of the GATT-UR Master Plan and the GATT-UR
Communication Plan;
5) provision of a separate GATT Fund in the General Appropriations; and
6) facilitation of the passage into law of the Anti-Dumping Bill and Exports
Development Act.
The Council discussed, deliberated and decided on these policy concerns using a
process flow drawn below (Fig. 15):
DEPARTMENTS/
AGENCIES
LEGISLATIVE BODIES
LEDAC
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNITS
NON-GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATIONS
Fig. 15. The Policy-making Process through the LEDAC
Being a special consultative body, LEDAC’s link with various sectors giving
inputs is more direct than in other mechanisms. Its only problem is to manage,
screen out and assess the more important policy concerns and propose resolution
of more manageable problems, with the help of its Secretariat. As it is its
Executive Committee works on a part-time basis with members doing other
equally pressing tasks in their respective agencies, e.g., the NEDA Director-
General, et al.

Policy
THE LEGISLATIVE MILL
The process of policy legitimization and adoption, which the Legislature

undergoes, is explained in our Political Science courses at the undergraduate
level. Things have not yet changed since the first bi-cameral legislature in the
1940s. The increments though are in the names and number of committees so far
formed as of the present Congress.
The policy making process in the Legislature is basically the flow chart of how a
bill becomes a law. Here, policy enactment is not the Legislature’s monopoly nor
sole prerogative since a presidential action (approval or veto) is needed for a bill
to become a law. There are few cases in our recent history when the President
vetoed a bill. Among these are the veto on debt cap and moratorium (1989,
1992); another one, on the use of the COMELEC budget for constitutional
amendments (1997 General Appropriations). Most bills when they have passed
through third reading or the Conference Committee stage are almost always
approved by the President.
The flow chart is reproduced below for your information and appreciation.
Kindly refer to Fig. 16 on the next page.
Among the national policies that went through the legislative mill, particularly the
last (ninth and tenth) Congress, are:
1) R.A.s 7636 (An Act Repealing RA 170, Otherwise known as the Anti-
Subversion Act),
2) (An Act to Impose Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes),
3) (Modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines),
4) (Inter-Country Adoption of Filipinos Act),
5) (New Central Bank Act),
6) (General Appropriations Act of 1994),
7) (Restructuring the VAT (Value-Added Tax) System),
8) (Amending the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987),
9) (Creating the Department of Energy),
10) (National Water Crisis Act), and
11) (Creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority).

ACTIVITY 2-4
Make a matrix summarizing the main points stressed by various models of

public policy process. Also write your own reflections of the power of these
models in explaining policy-making and reform in the country.
Your matrix and practical application exercise will enhance your grasp of the
framework of public policy-making we seem to have in our setting. They
will also help you value the power of models in describing, clarifying,
explaining and possibly, predicting public policy outcomes and processes in
the country.

Policy
A bill introduced in the House of A bill introduced in the Senate is

Representatives is labeled “H” labeled “S” and assigned a number
and assigned a number
ACTION ON BILL
FIRST READING Reading of Title/Author(s) FIRST READING

Referring to Appropriate
Standing Committee
Committee Studies &

Recommends:
If Action is Favorable, the Report
is submitted through the Committee
on Rules
If unfavorable, the Bill is laid on the table
and the author/s are informed
Committee on Rules Calendars
Bill for Floor Discussion
SECOND READING Floor Discussion/Debates SECOND READING

Period of Amendments
Voting
THIRD READING Distribution of Bill in Final Form THIRD READING

Roll Call Vote
IN CASE OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,

an Ad Hoc Conference Committee is
constituted to Reconcile Differences
Floor Deliberation on the

Conference Committee Report
Voting
PRESIDENTIAL ACTION
APPROVES Failure to Act within 30 days after VETOES

Receipt, Bill lapses into Law
Returns to Originating House with

Explanation
LAW Legislative Accepts or Overrides by 2/3 Vote in
Both Houses
Fig. 16. How a Bill Becomes a Law: A Flow Chart

THE EFFECTS OF GLOBALIZATION ON THE PROCESS OF

DOMESTIC POLICY-MAKING
The policy stages explained in this module focused on the internal (domestic)
mechanisms for policy-making and reform. This does not imply ignorance of the
international context of policy-making nor a deliberate attempt to insulate local
from international domains. It is but to focus more on the local arena.
The real policy is however replete with interfaces and influences of external
patterns, trends and developments. In this section, I would like us to realize and
reflect on a real and present danger and challenge which is globalization. As a
theoretical construct, globalization brings about an orientation beyond parochial
turfs. It widens one’s perception beyond local boundaries. It agitates “think
global”, “be competitive”, “find your niche!” Its influence could be appreciated in
the following representation below:
GLOBALIZATION AND
THE INTERNATIONAL
ARENA
LOCAL POLICY-
MAKING SYSTEMS
As you can see, globalization provides a broader vision of the process of policy-
making and reform worldwide. It emphasizes interdependence, though
sometimes, lopsided relationships occur between and among nations in the globe.
Globalization brings with it both positive and negative effects on individual

country’s policy-making systems. It may impose conditionalities and limits to
economic growth and social changes. It may on the other hand expose peoples
and governments to new and creative ideas that may bring about substantive
reforms.

Policy
Empirically, though, globalization creates tensions on the independence of

national governments to formulate policies consistent with the needs and
aspirations of their constituencies. This is particularly evident in cases where
individual nations do not temper the effects of globalization to suit local needs.
Agreements and commitments entered into by the Philippine government at the

international level, e.g., GATT, International Protocol on Human Rights, Child
Labor, Women in Development, have significant impacts on the lives of the
Filipinos. These would also require revisions and adjustments on our existing
laws and policies and such may aggravate than alleviate conditions existing in our
country. An example of the latter is the death penalty law, which many believe
will deter commission of heinous crimes. Internationally though, it is not in
conformity with the provisions of the International Protocol on Human Rights.
Opening up trade and dismantling barriers to competition is internationally sound.
Domestically, though, it compromises the viability and growth of Filipino
industries.
As students and practitioners of public policy, public administrators and

governance, the challenge is for us to understand how to tame the tempest that is
globalization and work out reforms that will redound to our advantage as a nation.
The more we think local in a global setting, the more we will be advantaged by
reforms.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this module, I introduced you to another perspective at studying public policy,
i.e., as a process. I also explained a number of frameworks of the policy process
and public policy focused on three important ones: 1) Anderson’s, Rushefsky’s,
and Mendoza’s. In the latter part of this module, I delved on the policy-making
processes and mechanisms in the country, both at the executive and legislative
branches. I also touched on the effects of globalization on domestic policy making
and reform.
A process connotes a (sequential) pattern of action, involving a number of

functional categories, steps or phases of activity. Its course is tedious, long and
winding. Some policy concerns go through the entire cycle. Some don’t.

The policy process, meanwhile, is both rational and political. It is political

because it involves conflict and struggle among individuals and groups having
opposing desires on issues of public policy. It is rational, in the sense that stages
logically flow from those before them.
Understanding public policy (making) as a process helps capture the flow of action
in the policy process. It is open to change. Thus, additional steps can be introduced
if experience indicates they are needed. This framework also yields a dynamic and
developmental rather than cross-sectional or static view of the policy process.
Moreover, it emphasizes the relationships among political phenomena rather than

simply listing factors or developing classification schemes. It is not culture-
bound, and can be utilized to study public policy-making systems here and
elsewhere.
The policy-making process in the country is precedent-bound, based on law and

hinges on formal structures and mechanisms in place, as provided for by the
Constitution and other laws. People participation is encouraged in the different
phases of the policy cycle. However, their participation in most formal structures is
not yet institutionalized.
The advent of globalization made us think of policy-making systems beyond our

internal policy processes. Although it may be a challenge for nations to take on, only
time will tell whether our policy processes will dominate or not in real global
policies and politics.
In conclusion, this module attempted to describe the framework of public policy

process, both in terms of generic models as well as actual mechanisms and structures
existing in the Philippine setting. However, the problems and inadequacies in these
empirical and conceptual explanations may have been glossed over here. Hence, it is
up to you to reflect on ways to improve our present policy process and help enshrine
and enhance empowerment and people participation in policy-making and reform.
I hope you have learned a lesson or two, in the modules we have done so far. Also, I
hope you are still craving for more. Pause for a while before leafing through the next
module. In addition, prepare for a game of pictionary as we unveil the history and
evolution of the field of policy science. See you!

UP Open University Unit I: The Nature of and Need for Public Policy
3
The Evolution of the
Discipline of Public Policy
INTRODUCTION
Derogatorily, Filipinos are described as one race who easily forgets the past. Only a
few Filipinos learn their history. As a result, we as a nation don’t go as far as we can
and should. Prophetically this might be because, as Francisco Balagtas said in his
epic, “Florante at Laura,” “Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan, hindi
makararating sa paroroonan.”
Now, do you look back and know our history? I, for one, have never liked history (or
as the gender and development advocates label, “her story”). I became averse to it
when my teacher in Philippine History made me hate the subject. In addition, I am
not too keen at remembering dates and personalities.
It was only when I met my first boyfriend (who is now my husband, lover, and
friend) that I started re-thinking the value History plays in my life. At first, I was
only challenged to outdo my boyfriend/husband. He was too good at remembering
and retelling the far and recent past, and even the ramifications of current events. I
felt I was dumb, not being able to relate to him nor even be as smart as him.
It was only when I refreshed my memory bank that I realized how little I knew and
how pitiful was my use of what I knew to appreciate our life as a nation. All I did
before was to stock all memories for quiz bee tournaments and honors race. I
internalized them at their face value. I never appreciated them beyond that. I didn’t
know then how important the past is in moving on to the future.
Now, I have come to terms with wisdom and what is wiser and better. I don’t merely
read, listen and digest facts and information. I relate them to what has been, what is
and what could be. I try more to dissect, analyze and internalize.
Module 3: The Evolution of the Discipline of Public Policy 78
Unit I: The Nature of and Need for Public UP Open University
Policy
I am sharing you a bit of my life story not merely to romanticize, but also to urge you
to give history a chance: a chance to be understood in its context; a chance to be
appreciated to guide our future. I urge you to read and live not only the history of our
nation and the world. But also of the discipline we are studying now, which is the
science and art of public policy.
The discipline of public policy has had an ambivalent intellectual evolution in the
West, e.g., America and Europe. Module 3 sort of captures this by providing an
exploration into the evolution of the field in the West and in the Philippines.
This module also highlights the issues and debates in the evolution of policy science
as a field. It concludes by posing the question, “How can the analysis and
development of public policies in the Philippine bureaucracy be improved using the
‘technology’ of public policy?” In addition, “How can people participation be
enshrined in the public policy-making process in the country?”
OBJECTIVES
By the end of this module, you are expected to be able to:
• reconstruct and comment on the development of the field of public policy in

the West and the Philippines;
• explain the debates and concerns in the evolution of the field over time;
• reflect on the status , challenges , prospects and future of the field of public
policy in the country; and
• suggest ways to improve the analysis and development of public policy in the
country.
79 Module 3: The Evolution of the Discipline of Public Policy

You are expected to complete this module in a week or approximately 15 hours. Scan
the required readings in your Set 2 and read through this module of your Study Guide.
Digest what are written and reflect on their implications in your study and in the
application of the course in our setting.
By activity, these are what you should do in at least 15 hours:

Consulting Course Manual/
Study Guide 8 hrs.
Reading 5 hrs.
Integration 2 hrs.
Total 15 hrs.
As earlier advised, if you need more time, devote more time. If you think the
minimum is enough, congratulations! You may thence move on to the next, after
completing this module. Be sure though that you have completely digested your
“learnings” so that in progressing to the next activities, you would not ‘choke’ nor
suffer from “idea indigestion”.

Policy
ACTIVITY 3-1
Speaking of indigestion, I surely don’t want you to experience one because of

the jargon that come a-plenty in Module 3. The latter may turn you off or
completely discourage you from studying this module.
Initially to ensure no indigestion, we will play “pictionary.” Do you know this

game? Well, it is basically guessing or identifying the words or phrases that
will be given to you, using clues from pictures , scribbles or drawings.
Each clue will be supplemented by a line with slash or cuts to represent the
number of syllables of each term. For example, “ / / / ” means one
word with four syllables. An means “sounds like”.
For example, a “ / / ” with pictures of “butter” + “fly” means “butterfly”!

A “ / ” with the pictures of “book” and “worm” is “bookworm” .


Now, do you understand the mechanics of the game? It is easy if you concentrate.
So, are you ready now? Okay, guess the following terms and write your answers on
the blanks opposite the numbers. You can easily do this exercise. Just focus on the
clues. Open your eyes and mind. And then, the answers will logically come to you.
Good luck!
1. Answer: _____________ __________
______/____/____ ___/________
2. Answer: _______________
___/_____/ - ____/___/___/___/___
3. Answer: _____________ ______________
__/____/____ ___/___/____
kissing the hand of elders for “tradition”
4. Answer: ___________________ __________
____/____/___/___ ____/____
(ballots/elections, Cory in EDSA, people power all for “democratic”)

(prices of goods in the market, e.g., fish, meat, eggs for “values”)

Policy
5. Answer: _________________ ___________
____/_____/____/_____ ______
(traffic light with arrow on the “go” ) + (sounds like “bear” for “ver”) +
( addition for “n”) + (men for “men”) + (“tall” for “tal”)
(sounds like “knees” for “needs”)
6. Answer: _____________ _________ ___________
___/___/____/_____ ____/___ _____/_____
(“U.P. Oblation” for “academic”) (“Einstein” for “theory”) (“building” for

“building)

ANSWER TO ACTIVITY 3-1
Were you able to answer all the items correctly? Find out by comparing your
answers with those below:
1. handmaiden approach
2. inter-disciplinary
3. synoptic tradition
4. democratic values
5. governmental needs
6. academic theory building
If you got a perfect score, congratulations! You’re cool, take things in stride
and enjoy life to the fullest. On the other hand, if you got less than the perfect
score, don’t fret. You are just warming up and will recover soon. Smile and the
world will be kinder later.
Now, what do all these terms mean?
AN ENLIGHTENED FUTURE FROM A VIEW OF THE PAST
One way to appreciate the relevance and significance of the course is to learn from
its past. The terms we worked out earlier are part of the field’s rich history from
Garson’s (1980-81) account of Merriam and Lasswell’s grand dream of a “policy
science” to Ocampo’s (1978) seminal essay on the nature of and need for policy
studies in the Philippines.
I have prepared an outline for this module so that you may easily take down notes of
the time lines and important events related to the history of public policy. Do
remember though that these bits of information, e.g., dates, events, people, places,
only provide the basic foundation of the history of public policy. They do not, by
themselves represent the only account of the evolution of the field. Thus, you are
advised to read through its vivid details from the suggested references in Set 2 and 3,
okay?

Policy
The outline for this module is:
An Exploration into the Evolution

of the Field of Public Policy
I. The Evolution of Public Policy in the West
According to
A. Garson (1980-81)
B. Kelly (1986)
C. Dye (1971), Ocampo (1978), Henry (1989)
D. Nagel (1987)
E. Hogwood and Gunn (1984)
II. The Present Status of Policy Science

A. ‘Status Nascendi’ (1978)
B. ‘Has Taken Off/Has Arrived’ (1987)
III. The Philippine Experience
IV. Prospects and Constraints
THE EVOLUTION
THE SEED
Garson’s (1980-81) account of the evolution of the field starts with Lasswell’s
grand dream of a “policy science” to what the dream has become now,
particularly in America. He traced the transformation of the field from policy
sciences to policy analysis. Also, he sketched the various schools of thoughts that
blossomed in response to such dream.
He outlined the beginning of the new field from Charles Merriam’s view of
planning as an interdisciplinary policy science; and not just
economic analysis, agricultural planning and other specialized
perspective.
Merriam, who then (1940s-50s) was secretary of a state planning body in the
USA and also a faculty member of the Yale University, was ecstatic over how his
department was able to produce a very comprehensive development plan in a
relatively short time. He was convinced that this resulted from, among others, the
multi-disciplinary expertise of his staff. He believed that had he harnessed only
one discipline, say his background in agricultural economics, the development

plan would have provided only a partial view of the whole. He thought the latter
only encourages the “screw driver syndrome” which means parochially being
blinded by one’s expertise and background without much regard to the
contribution of other disciplines. He believed that this should wisely be avoided.
He shared his “discovery” with his class which included among others, Harold
Lasswell, now considered as the “modern day father of policy sciences” in
America. Sold to Merriam’s idea, Lasswell vowed to develop a discipline that
would approximate, if not improve Merriam’s interdisciplinary planning.
Lasswell hatched his grand vision of policy science, which to him is:
a theoretically-oriented multi-discipline which is something far
different from applied social science. It is concerned with the
fundamental problems of man; is global in perspective;
emphasizes the historical context of policy; and stresses the study
of change-- diffusion, invention and revolution.
In addition, he thought of it as a policy science of democracy.serving

democratic values, academic theory building, and governmental needs.
Policy science has often been viewed as an applied social science, i.e., a form of
social engineering. As an applied social science, it accumulates knowledge from
various disciplines and uses them to improve social programs and policies.
Lasswell rejected this seemingly narrow instrumental relationship between social
science and policy research (Lasswell, 1951). Instead, he defined policy sciences
as “the disciplines concerned with explaining policy-making and policy-executing
processes, and with locating data and providing interpretations which are relevant
to policy problems of a given period.” (Ibid., p.4).
He emphasized that pursuing a policy orientation does not mean dissipating

energy on a variety of topical issues. Rather, the policy scientist is to study
“fundamental and often neglected problems which arise in the adjustment of man
in society” (Ibid., p. 14), and develop a policy science of democracy. He argued
that having a policy orientation does not mean abandoning objectivity. Nor does
it mean reducing emphasis on theory and model building. To him the policy frame
of reference makes it necessary to take into account the entire context of
significant events (past, present, prospective) in which the scientist is living. This
calls for the use of speculative models of the world revolutionary process, and
puts the techniques of quantification in a respected though subordinate place.
(Lasswell, 1951, pp. 14-15).

Policy
His working definition of policy science is one (science) that is concerned with
knowledge of and in the decision processes of the public and civic order
(Lasswell, 1971, p.1). Knowledge of decision processes implies systematic,
empirical studies of how policies are made and put into effect. When knowledge
is systematic, it goes beyond the aphoristic remarks that are strewn through
“wisdom” literature of the past.
The emphasis on decision processes underlines the difference between policy

sciences and other forms of intellectual activity. By focusing on the making and
execution of policy, one identifies a relatively unique frame of reference that
utilizes many traditional contributions to political science, public administration,
jurisprudence and related disciplines. In addition, its emphasis is in both public
and civic order because public order decisions do not exhaust the field of policy.
Semiofficial and nonofficial processes also interplay in policy making (Ibid.).
Lasswell also insisted that policy science must strive for three principal attributes.
The first is contextuality: decisions are part of a larger social process. The second
is problem orientation: policy scientists are at home with the intellectual activities
involved in clarifying goals, trends, conditions, projections and alternatives. The
third is diversity: the methods employed are not limited to a narrow range of
quantitative methods (Ibid., p. 4).
Moreover, policy scientists from Lasswell’s perspective, should be professional

men “concerned with mastering the skills appropriate to enlightened decision in
the context of public and civic order. (They) share the scientist’s disciplined
concern for the empirical, search for an optimum synthesis of diverse skills that
contribute to a dependable theory and practice of problem solving in the public
interest.” (Ibid., p. 13)
THE PLANT AND ITS BRANCHES

While Lasswell was advancing a broad view of policy inquiry, others in the
positivist, behavioral tradition were advocating for a more modest role for policy
science. They contend that grandscale Lasswellian schemes must be abandoned
for less pretentious approaches (Scott and Shore, 1979).
Among them were those advocating for a 1) Synoptic Tradition; 2) Anti-synoptic

school; 3) Neo-pluralist reaction; 4) Handmaiden approach ; and 5) Design
Science approach. Rita Mae Kelly’s typology (1986) for these trends in the logic
of policy inquiry is as follows: 1) Applied Social Science; 2) Design Science; and
3) Naturalistic Inquiry.

Synoptic and Anti-Synoptic Tradition
According to Garson (1980-81), the Synoptic tradition (from synopsis or

summary, overview of the whole) considers systems analysis as metatheory;
statistical empiricism as methodology; optimization of values and efficiency as a
deciding criterion; and policy as a science. As a science, it is value neutral and
carries competence in the pursuit of empirically verifiable information (op. cit.,
p.2).
However, policy is commonly assumed to be value oriented and that scientific

activities are untenably value neutral. Knowledge of scientists is itself a valued
outcome. In addition, scientists themselves are not without passion. Thus, the
Anti-synoptic school came into being. It advocates pluralism as metatheory,
contextual and case analysis as methodology, social rationality as a deciding
factor, and policy as an art and craft.
In layman’s term, the synoptic tradition may be associated with the orientation of
looking at the forest in its entirety. On the other hand, the anti-synoptic tradition
views particular specie of flora and fauna in the forest, e.g., particular trees or
animals in it. The former is more generalist in orientation, say for example,
analyzing the problem of poverty as a composite problem of lack of access,
entitlements and opportunities, unemployment, low purchasing power of the peso,
low literacy rate, low investment, etc.
The latter, on the other hand, is more specialist, such that the problem of poverty
in this tradition is viewed mainly a problem of lack of access and opportunities of
particular sectors who are worse off, say the marginalized farmers or fishermen .
Thereafter, a deeper probing of causes and resolution of the problem follows.
In the first orientation, details are glossed over. In the second, particular concern
is on specific areas were problems exist. However, generalizations have not held
over time and space. Large-scale, highly funded studies that were supposed to
produce solutions to society’s problems simply did not do so (Miller, 1984).
The Neo-Pluralist Reaction, Handmaiden Approach and Applied Social

Science Discipline.
The Neo-Pluralist Reaction, meanwhile, is to the goal of policy science .

According to this school of thought, the goal is not vaguely toward developing a
policy science of democracy . It is in developing a logic of policy inquiry that is
geared toward preparing a cadre of professional experts with sophisticated
quantitative methodological and analytical skills, who can provide supportive
researches to policy makers (Dunn, 1981; Coleman, 1972; Campbell, 1971).
Thus, to put it simply, the reason for policy analysis is to serve policy maker’s
information needs (Quade, 1977). This is basically the handmaiden approach of
Policy
social science which implies that policy analysis, similar to handmaids during the
reign of royalties in the early centuries, exists to help policy-makers arrive at a
more enlightened decision.
Moreover, according to Coleman (1972), the job of policy researchers is to act as

translator between the two worlds they live in: the world of their discipline, and
the world of action outside their discipline, i.e., the policy makers’ world. They
should also realize that action-oriented research has a different philosophical base
than disciplinary research. The former has concern for timeliness, action, and the
use of everyday language and concepts, the ever present involvement of special
interests, conflict and struggle over resources, and the need for redundancy than
economy of information.
In contrast to Lasswell’s bias (1951), Coleman (1972) emphasizes statistical
methods and research design over “speculative models encompassing entire
epochs”. He specifies the need to be concerned with policy variables that can be
manipulated, e.g., program resources. Generally, he stresses the use of policy
research “in modifying social policy …, than in contributing to existing
knowledge in the literature.”
[Oops…these may sound Greek to you. But don’t worry, we will explain these
principles in more detail later in Module 6. Hang on!]
In sum, this trend in the logic of policy inquiry puts a modest but major role for
social sciences in an experimenting society (Kelly, 1986). It uses scientific
methods, statistical models and research designs. It includes evaluative and
normative analyses. It is geared towards preparing a cadre of professionals with
sophisticated quantitative, methodological and analytical skills. Also, it is a form
of social engineering, i.e., it is designed for the improvement of social policies.
Design Science
The design science orientation has recently been proposed by Miller (1984).
However, it goes back to Simon’s (1969) notion that design is a tool not only for
acting, but also for understanding. Science is “a collective enterprise using
systematic and empirical inquiry, which may either or both be quantitative and
qualitative, in the pursuit of enlightenment.” (op. cit.)
The goal of design science is to improve public sector performance. Policy

inquiry focuses on performance of humans and entities they create, rather than
merely observe. Also, it aims to increase the number of reform options open to
decision-makers and enhance the probability of attaining their specified goals.
Miller (1984) also believes a design science, based on recent quantitative

advances in the hard sciences , will “remove apparent conflicts between getting
things done and being scientists” (p. 285). She believes that design science is an
improvement over traditional applied social science because it will enable the
quantification of “diversity as well as central tendency, disequilibrium as well as
equilibrium, disorder as well as order, human laws as well as natural laws.”
(p.285)
Naturalistic Inquiry
Naturalistic inquiry, on the other hand, focuses on natural than experimental

setting to comprehend a reality that is constructed, multiple, holistic, and
sometimes existing essentially only in the minds of individuals.
Propagated by Lincoln and Guba (1985), it presents the most radical alternative to
the applied social science approach of policy science. It posits fourteen
characteristics.
These include , among others,

• focusing on research in natural than experimental setting so that a holistic
reality can be understood;
• using humans rather than survey instruments as data gathering devices;
• using intuitive, felt tacit knowledge to reflect “more fairly and accurately
the value patterns of the investigator”;
• using qualitative rather than quantitative methodologies;
• conducting inductive rather than deductive data analyses;
• reporting in case study modes than in scientific or technical reports;
• using new criteria for judging the trustworthiness of data. These new
criteria are credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.
According to its proponents, research, evaluation and policy analysis are different
forms of inquiry. The phrase “evaluation research” is confusing and illogical
since it brings together apples and oranges. Also, empirical, objective policy
science is impossible.

Policy
SAQ 3-1
1. Who is the father of modern-day policy sciences in America?
2. What is Lasswell’s grand vision of policy science?

DEBATES AND OTHER CONCERNS
The debates, factions, dissent and assent that sprang to entangle the nature and
ramifications of Lasswell’s grand vision of policy science did not stop at the
“branches” mentioned here. They continued with debates on the basic questions
of what the discipline really is, what policy scientists or analysts are for, and other
concerns.
WHAT IS POLICY SCIENCE?
There remains some confusion in scope and wide variations in level between “policy
science” and “policy analysis”. This sort of vacillates the field between “mystique
and modesty”, between fundamental and topical issues, between description and
prescription. Thus, is policy science a science? Is it public policy? policy studies?
policy research? policy analysis?
Policy science is public policy (James, 1976). It is a relatively new and emerging field
that focuses upon the interrelationships between substantive issues and the political
process. The emphasis is on the components of policy-making, the sequentiality of
policy development, and the impact of policy outputs upon problems brought to the
attention of government (Ibid., p.251).
More specifically, public policy considers how problems come to the attention of
government, how the governmental agenda develops, the actors who shape policy
proposals, the interaction of legislative-executive bargaining, administrative
implementation and program evaluation (Ibid.).
Policy science is policy science . It is a vast field concerned with the causes and
consequences of public policy (Dye, 1971). It inquires into how policies are
formulated and legitimized, e.g., “policy determination” as well as into what
effects, beneficial or adverse , intended or unintended, policy produced, e.g.,
“policy impact” studies. Also, it is a field committed to broadening, rather than
narrowing the theories, issues, processes examined in government and society.
It is problem-oriented, contextual, eclectic and process-sensitive (Dror, 1978).
Policy science is policy analysis and involves the description, analysis and
explanation of the causes and consequences of governmental activity (Dye,
1978; Anderson, 1975). It is concerned with how to make public decisions
rigorously and analytically on the basis of systematic quantitative evidence
(Yates, 1983). It places “hard” analytical subjects at the core of its inquiry-
economics, statistics, decision theory (Elmore, 1986, p. 70). Policy analysis is
also finding out what governments do, why they do it, and what difference it
makes (Dye, 1978, p. 1).

Policy
In the confines of the study of politics, public policy analysis involves a shift
from pure to applied to practical research. These are the tripartite divisions
between types of inquiry inaugurated by Aristotle, e.g., the division between
“theoretical”, “technical” and “practical” knowledge (as quoted by Dallmayr,
1980-81).
While the first type was meant to provide knowledge for its own sake (and thus is
distantly but awkwardly related to modern “pure” science), and while the second
supplied knowledge needed for “making” of artifacts (thus paving the way to
modern applied science and technology) , the category of “practical” thought was
reserved for insights garnered through life experiences and through practical
conduct preferably in public affairs.
As a practical research, policy science involves the systematic identification of

the causes and consequences of public policy, the use of scientific standards of
inference, and the search for reliability and generality of knowledge (Dye, p. 3).
Ocampo (1978), on the other hand, labels policy science as policy studies. He
describes it as a movement that came about as “a call for the active orientation of
social sciences, psychology and other disciplines to the solution of policy issues
and problems.” (Also in Bautista et al. (eds.), 1993, p. 283). It has gained
considerable ground with the emergence of academic units and degree programs,
institutional researches, new journals and organizations, and the conduct of
analysis, planning, and allied activities devoted to public policies (Engelbert,
1977, pp. 228-230; Nagel and Neef, 1977, pp. 383-386). Policy studies refers to
the teaching, research and related academic and professional activities directed at
gaining and applying knowledge for the improvement of government policies.
Nagel (1987), meanwhile, defines public policy studies as the study of the nature,
causes, and effects of governmental decisions in dealing with social problems. He
posits that the policy studies field has developed into a well-organized discipline,
sub-discipline, and/or multi-discipline. These origins and growth stem partly from
1) the intense concern for public policy problems in the 1960s and after, 2)
government as a supplement to the academic world for research funding and job
opportunities, and 3) the development of new methodologies for evaluating
alternative public policies (Ibid., p. 219). Public policy studies is also “a
profession now developing in which people are trained to examine alternative
approaches to public policy programs, to evaluate the effects of policies, and to
facilitate the implementation of programs.” (Nagel and Neef, 1977, p. 387).

Henry (1989), meanwhile, likened Public Policy to a field in a “twilight zone” with
ambivalent evolution in both the disciplines of political science (descriptive) and
public administration (prescriptive). Since it deals with both the institutions and
processes as well as outputs and impacts of governance, its identity is being
challenged by these disciplines, each of which claims “motherhood” of this emerging
field.
Thus, policy science can be illustrated as having sort of an identity crisis, it being in
the twilight zone between political science and public administration (Fig. 17).
Political Twilight Public

Science Zone Administration
deals with the deals with the political

content, politics, economy,
intellectualized organizational theory,
understanding of implementation, &
public issues evaluation of public
policies
Fig. 17. Policy Science in Twilight Zone, Henry’s (1989)
With regard to this seeming identity crisis, Engelbert (1977, pp. 228-231) believes
that no other field has done more in propagating policy studies than public
administration. Nearly all major public administration (PA) programs now offer
courses in policy studies. Special degrees are offered in the undergraduate, masters
and doctoral levels (Ibid.).
In addition, although political science departments are paying more attention to

substantive issues, policy implementation and analysis of impacts, they retain
emphasis on the political, institutional and behavioral dimensions of policy making.
Public administration programs, on the other hand, give greater attention to program
management and control, and the more specialized public policy programs to
quantitative and non-quantitative methods and analyses. (Ibid., as quoted in Ocampo,
1978).

Policy
WHAT ROLES DO POLICY SCIENTISTS PLAY?
Are policy scientists neutral researchers, client’s advocate or issue advocates.

This is a question on the ethical dimension of the profession of policy scientists.
This proves that debates have heated up not only on the basic issue of what policy
science is, but also on what policy scientists are for?
Weiner and Vinning (1934) give at least three basic views on the role of policy
scientists or analysts. These are as 1) objective technician or neutral researcher; 2)
client’s advocate or handmaid; and 3) issue advocate (Weimer and Vining, 1994).
As Objective Technicians hold analytical integrity as their fundamental value.

They see their analytical skills as the source of their legitimacy and they let their
analysis speak for itself. The proper role for the analyst, in their view, it to
provide objective advice about the consequences of proposed policies. They
realize they do scientific research under severe time constraints and data
limitations. Nevertheless, they do methodologically sound analysis, using well-
established tools from the disciplines of economics, statistics and operations
research (Ibid., p. 17).
As shown in Fig. 18, objective technicians view their clients as necessary evils.
Clients provide the resources that allow them to work on interesting questions. In
return, they give their clients the most accurate predictions possible. They
maintain a safe distance from their clients and place only second priority to the
latter’s political fortunes. They prefer institutional clients, e.g., Congressional
Budget Office, because these provide greater opportunities for preparing and
disseminating objective analyses, than individual legislators who must run for
reelection after three years.
The objective technician believes that values relevant to the choice of policies
should be identified. When no policy appears superior in terms of all the relevant
values, however, trade-offs among competing values should be left to the client.
He or she should not impose his or her preference. The analysts contribute to the
good society by consistently providing unbiased advice even if it does not lead to
the selection of personally favored policies (Ibid., underscoring mine).
The client’s advocate places primary emphasis on his or her responsibility to the
client. He or she believes that analysts derive their legitimacy as participants in
the formation of public policy from their clients, who hold elective or appointive
office, or who represent organized political interests. In return for access, clients
deserve professional behavior that includes loyalty and confidentiality. Like
physicians, analysts should “do no harm” to their clients; like attorneys, they
should vigorously promote their client’s interests. (Ibid., p. 18). To some extent,
they may be likened to yes-men or handmaids.

Client’s advocates view analytical integrity in the same way attorneys, yes-men or
handmaids view their responsibility in the adversary system. Analytical integrity
prohibits lying, but it requires neither full disclosure of information nor public
correction of misstatements by their clients (Ibid.).
Issue advocates, on the other hand, believe that analysis should be an instrument
for making progress toward their conception of the good society. They focus on
values inherent in policy outcomes rather than on values, like analytical integrity
and responsibility to the client, associated with the actual conduct of analysis.
They see themselves as intrinsically legitimate players in the policy process. They
may also see themselves as champions for groups or interests, such as the
environment, the poor, or the victims of crime, that they believe suffer from
underrepresentation in the political process (Ibid., p. 19).
Issue advocates select clients opportunistically. Clients unable or unwilling to

promote the advocates’ personal policy agenda should be abandoned for clients
who can and will. Analysts owe their clients only those duties spelled out in the
contractual agreements defining the relationships. Loyalty to one’s conception of
the good society should take priority over loyalty to particular client (Ibid.).
Role of Analytical Integrity Fundamental Values Adherence to One’s

Policy Responsibility to Clients Concept of Good
Analyst
Objective Let analysis speaks for Clients are necessary Relevant values should
Technician itself. Primary focus evils; their political be identified but trade-
should be predicting fortunes should be offs among them should
consequences of secondary be left to the clients.
alternative policies considerations. Keep
distance from clients;
select institutional clients
whenever possible.
Client’s Analysis rarely produces Clients provide analysts Select clients with
Advocate definitive conclusions. with legitimacy. Loyalty compatible value
Takes advantage of should be given in return systems; use long-term
ambiguity to advance for access to political relationships to change
client’s positions. power. client’s conceptions of
good.
Issue Analysis rarely produces Clients provide Analysis should be an
Advocate definitive conclusions. opportunity for instrument for progress
Emphasizes ambiguity advocacy. Select them toward one’s conception
and excluded values opportunistically; change of the good society.
when analysis does not clients to further
support advocacy. personal policy agenda.
Fig. 18. Three Views of the Policy Scientist’s Role

(Weimer & Vining, 1994, p. 18)

Policy
WHAT ARE THE CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS ON THE FIELD?
During the 40 years or so of growth of the field (in the West), there have been
many evaluative comments made. According to Ukeless (1977), some criticized
policy science for having either too much or too little of a certain characteristic.
Some bashed the field for being 1) a temporary fad or stale material; 2) too
practical or too theoretical; 3) too multi-disciplinary or too narrowly focused on
political science; 4) too quantitative or too subjective; 5) underutilized or
overutilized; and 6) too liberal or too conservative (Nagel, 1987). The more
contentious issue is whether policy science is a science or an art.
A Temporary Fad or Stale Material?
Policy science, or policy analysis, policy studies or policy evaluation has been
criticized only as a fleeting concern for policy problems and societal goals. Nagel
(1987), however, avers that it cannot be so. This is because policy science reflects
a long-term philosophical concern in social sciences for public policy problems,
policy causes, policy formation, implementation and impacts.
Public policy evaluation has been around since the dawn of social philosophy.
The changes and additions though, were only on the new scientific methods
applied in analyzing essentially normative philosophies of Plato through Marx.
The “new” policy science is especially concerned with making normative
judgments concerning political institutions and social policies based on
systematic statistical and mathematical analyses relevant to the criteria of
effectiveness, efficiency and equity (Ibid., p. 220).
Too Practical or Too Theoretical
Allegedly, it is possible for policy science or evaluation to be too practical in the

sense of being too narrowly focused on a policy problem of a specific place at a
specific point in time. Here, it has little practicality beyond those who are
immediately concerned. It also has little theoretical interest, particularly because
it is confined to a particular concern, sector or place.
However, policy research may also be too theoretical in the sense that it
systematically does comparative analyses that provides theoretical significance
beyond their immediate concern.

Too Multi-Disciplinary or Too Narrowly Focused on Political Science
Policy science, being an eclectic field draws from various disciplines, among
them political science, public administration, economics, business administration,
statistics, and mathematics. Dye (1978, p. 5) even contends that policy science is
“really a vast domain populated by sociologists, psychologists, educators, public
health specialists, social workers, systems analysts, operations research engineers,
planners and others- all of whom have been concerned with the causes and
consequences of public policy for more than decades.”
However, policy science is often associated with political science basically

because the latter does represent an important component in policy studies.
Political science, like policy science, is concerned with the study of government.
Making and implementing public policy are key government activities. Political
science also refers to government institutions which are relevant , in turn, to our
understanding of how policy is formulated. The field of political science is also
concerned with explaining the development of public policy and formulating
public policy on inter-governmental and international relations.
In addition, political science in its more traditional philosophical aspects is

concerned with tasks which are also concerns of policy science. These include
“emphasizing the importance of normative goals, especially public participation,
predictability, and procedural due process, as well as the more economics-
oriented goals of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Likewise, political science
in its scientific methodology is concerned with how one tests hypotheses about
causes and effects of public policies and other political phenomena.”
Nevertheless, political science is a late bloomer in policy research, focusing its

attention to public policies only recently. Its scientists have a great deal to learn
from an impressive body of accumulated knowledge about the methods of design,
measurement and analysis in policy studies (Dye, 1978, p. 5).
Moreover, although political science may be an important component of public

policy evaluation, all public policy problems benefit from a variety of other
disciplinary orientations.
Too Quantitative or Too Subjective
Policy science may be overly quantitative and technical when it relies heavily on
operations research, econometrics, management science, and quantitative decision
analysis. It may, however, also be overly subjective when it uses simpler methods
that are more qualitative, easier to use, and often more valid, although relying less
on basic mathematical-scientific principles for expressing relationships.

Policy
Too Underutilized or Too Overutilized
One can easily criticize policy analysis as being underutilized by emphasizing the
number of policy researches that have not been used in any way by policy makers.
It is more difficult to criticize the field as being overutilized. But Lawrence Tribe
(as quoted by Nagel, 1987, p. 228) does argue that policy analysis has that
potential by causing policy makers to think such analysis is more meaningful than
it really is.
Too Conservative or Too Liberal
Some policy analyses arrive at conservative conclusions or prescriptions that

favor relatively well-off groups in the society. Other studies arrive at liberal
conclusions which favor relatively deprived groups. Some conservative studies
arrive at their conclusions because they start with conservative goals or the
researcher perceives relations between alternatives and goals that favor
conservative alternatives. Likewise, some liberal studies arrive at their
conclusions because they start with liberal goals or the researcher perceives
alternatives and goals that favor liberal alternatives (Ibid., pp. 228-229).
Underlying all these comments are issues of the status of policy studies as a
science, its scope and focus as an academic discipline and practical field, its
levels and areas of inquiry, and the basic outlooks, roles and attitudes of policy
analysts.
According to Ukeles (1977), the science of policy studies has not been firmly
established. After 15 years, the original proponent of “policy sciences” was still
“pre-viewing” them (Ibid., p. 224). However, others have picked up the banner.
Dror, for example, has proposed the development of policy sciences as “a new
interdisciplinary field” aimed at accelerating the discovery and use of policy
knowledge (Dror, 19768, p. 240). A more recent work by Fay (1975, pp. 11-14)
on the relation between social theory and political practice characterizes policy
science as the political theory of positivistic social science.

SAQ 3-2
Cite some of the debates or disagreements in the field of policy science,
particularly during its period of evolution in the West.
SOME AGREEMENTS
Despite these conflicting claims, debates and negative evaluations of policy

science, the field has succeeded in galvanizing different factions, dissenters,
dreamers and visionaries in the West. Policy science is being hailed as:
• A new perspective on political and social phenomena, which at the same time
preserving substantive and methodological principles that have been
developed over the years;
• An interdisciplinary perspective across all fields of knowledge;
• A scientific field concerned with normative questions as to the good society,
ultimate values and good policy;
• A combination of diverse ideas that enable the field to deal better with
systematic evaluation of alternative public policies. It is based on both
1. long-term philosophical principles and new analytic methods/substantive
problems;
2. theory and practice;
3. political science and multiple disciplines;
4. inherent subjectivity and potential objectivity;

Policy
5. occasional utilization and frequent non-utilization necessary to generate

important successes; and
6. liberal and conservative uses (Nagel, 1987).
Moreover, policy science is also known interchangeably as policy analysis, policy

research, policy studies policy evaluation. It is one and the other. It is a dynamic
field concerned with knowledge of and in the decision processes of the public and
civic order (Lasswell, 1971). It is concerned with analysis for and of policy
(Gordon et al., in Hill (ed.), 1995). It lies in a continuum of activities from policy
advocacy on one end, to the analysis of policy content on the other (Ibid., p. 5;
also see Fig. 19).
Policy science is both exploratory and explanatory, descriptive and analytical. It

consists of both policy studies and analysis which deal respectively with the
knowledge of and in policy-making.
More specifically, policy studies examines the content of public policies, the policy
process(es) and outputs, and does some evaluations of the impacts of public
policies. Being exploratory, it helps us understand the complexity of and constraints
in policy formulation and reform. It also focuses on the source of change, believing
in the adage “what you would change, you must first understand.”
Studies of policy content focus on the origins, intentions and operations of

specific policies. Studies of the policy process deal with how policies are actually
made. Studies of policy outputs, meanwhile, establish the determinants and
effects of public policies.
Policy Science
Policy Studies Policy Analysis

(Descriptive) (Prescriptive)
* deals with knowledge * deals with knowledge
of the policy & the policy in the policy process
process
Study of Policy Policy Evaluation Analysis of Process Policy

Policy Proces Output Information Advocacy Advocacy
Content for Policy-
Making
Fig. 19. The Model of Public Policy Science

(Adapted from Gunn, 1980, Gordon et al., 1977; Hogwood & Gunn, 1984)

Evaluation studies assess the extent specific policies have achieved their
objectives and outcomes. Analysis of information for policy-making examines
data to aid policy decision or advise on the implications of policy alternatives.
Process advocacy, meanwhile, deals with understanding and changing the policy
making process, to make it more participative, accessible and fair. Policy
advocacy prescribes what government ought to do and why.
Let me at this point, summarize my perceptions on the field. Generally, to me,

public policy is:
• a multi-disciplinary, eclectic, problem-solving activity intended to improve
societal situations;
• descriptive, evaluative and prescriptive;
• both policy studies and analyses;
• both theoretical and practical, pure and applied;
• applied social science, social engineering, design science and naturalistic
inquiry.
In addition, from my understanding of its evolution in the West, its status now is
beyond take-off and status nascendi. Although there is still much debate on the
level and scope of policy inquiry, and on whether its science overshadows its art,
the field of public policy has blossomed into a much respected academic and
practical discipline, both in teaching, training, research, publications,
organizations and other scholarly activities.
The Congressional Research Service of America even reported in 1985 that “there
is a new disciplinary field called policy sciences, which represents a shift from a
discipline-oriented approach of the production of knowledge, to a problem-
centered approach.” (as quoted in Nagel, 1987, p. 232).
Moreover, despite the problems and limitations that have marked the career of
policy science in the US, it has apparently prospered with the conviction that
public policy-making deserves and needs to be better informed and that science
can supply the knowledge and “intelligence” that it requires in contemporary
world (Ocampo, 1978; also in Bautista et al. (eds.), 1993, p. 288).
The field of public policy, policy science, policy studies or policy analysis has
arrived as a respectable and useful field of discipline in North America and
Europe. Many universities now offer policy science in both the bachelor and
graduate programs.
In addition, research institutions, “think tanks”, new organizations and journals,

and a host of articles and books dealing with public policy have emerged. Among
the universities offering policy studies programs are the Graduate Program in
Public Policy of the Harvard University; the Graduate School of Public Affairs at
the University of California at Berkeley, the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public

Policy
Affairs at the University of Texas and the Fels Institute of Public Policy Studies at
the University of Pennsylvania (Dye, 1978, p. 4).
Now, policy science is spreading in other parts of the globe…
THE POLICY SCIENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES
In the Philippines, the growth of the field of public policy started in the late 70s. It
came about “alongside a compelling respect for science and a felt need for sustained
interest, inquiry and advocacy “ for reforms in the society” (Ocampo, 1978/1993).
The latter was agitated by the context of Martial Law, “when the expanding scope
and authority of government, and the widening array of programs and projects it has
launched to accelerate national development”, worried many a Filipino.
The Martial Law era also gave rise to technocrats - the leaders of “technological
politics,” as policy makers. Technocrats and technocracy in general left little room
for public nor private participation in decision-making as the latter became much
more internal to the government in power (Intal, Jr., n.d.).
This period also saw the marked recognition given to the role of policy research by
technocrats. This is because the technocrats tend to hold advanced academic degrees
and come from or have connections with recognized academic institutions.
Moreover, Marcos, like other autocrats around the world, recognized the importance
of utilizing the most skilled economists and administrators to give (scientific)
legitimacy to his claims. In fairness to the technocrats, however, many of them were
willing or lured to work with government by tasks of reform, structural adjustments
and political renewal (Ibid., p. 100).
In the face of these developments, public administration and allied disciplines went
beyond “administrative tinkering”. Those concerned with government took policy as
a distinct and central problem. They took it as an element essential to the conduct
and impact of government. (Ocampo, 1978/1993). They went beyond technocracy
which “sublimates politics” into the “administration of things”. They put policy at
the center of things and idealistically attempted to infuse values and questions
related to legitimacy and political processes. (Ibid., p. 290).
Public policy in the country did not, however, experience the same intensity of
debates and transformation as the field did in the West. It was adopted as a
technology of policy studies or studies on policy content, process, outcomes, effects
and advocacy, encompassing both descriptive and prescriptive values of policy
science.

In addition, it was never in a twilight zone as Henry (1989) outlines the field. Here, it
is a sub-field of public administration, not political science. In addition, it draws from
the expertise and contributions of numerous other disciplines, e.g., social sciences,
Philippine studies, political science, psychology, education, economics, business
administration.
AS AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE
As an academic discipline, public policy started with the creation of a Policy Studies
Program (PSP) in the College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines
in 1978, and the introduction of policy courses in the CPA graduate (and later
undergraduate) program.
The PSP was originally funded by the Ford Foundation and later became the CPA’s
program for policy education, research, re-tooling and advocacy. Together with the
faculty of the College, it developed academic and non-academic courses in policy
studies and analyses which were eventually adopted by the College (CPA) and other
member-schools of the Association of Schools of Public Administration in the
Philippines (ASPAP).
At CPA, a PPPA (Public Policy and Program Administration) field of specialization

is offered at the master’s level. Policy courses (introduction like PM 241, policy
tools and project management) are also offered at the BAPA program. Other ASPAP
members also offer the PPPA courses and/or the policy courses at the graduate level.
The PSP also developed policy training programs “to spread the gospel of policy
science in the country.” (PSP brochures). It trained middle management officers of
various agencies in the Executive and Legislative branches, among them, the
Departments of Local Government, Environment and Natural Resources, Health,
Agriculture, Population Commission. It has also conducted training programs for
some non-government organizations like the Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI).
It has also conducted several multi-disciplinary policy researches. Among them are the
policy review on the malnutrition of pre-school children, success and failure factors of
the Philippine Food and Nutrition Program, and the ESIA-WID (Economic and Social
Impact Analysis-Women in Development) Project.

Policy
It was, however, reorganized in 1989 to expand its functions to include

administrative development, research and policy. It became the Center for Policy and
Administrative Development (CPAD) of the CPA. When the College was
transformed to and recognized as the National College of Public Administration and
Governance in November 1998, CPAD became CPED, with additional focus on
executive development research, extension and consultancy.
Being a relatively new discipline, the impact of public policy in Philippine policy
making is not yet visible. Its graduates, particularly in the CPA, have not yet actively
manifested their Lasswellian influences, nor of the effects of Dunn and Dror in their
life and career in public or private organizations. (Although we can say the College
faculty have continuously lent support and technical assistance to government
leaders, particularly in the present (Estrada) dispensation.)
In addition, getting a degree in MPA, major in public policy, does not guarantee a
policy analyst or scientist among the graduates. This is basically because the
institutional mechanisms and stakeholders for policy making in the country are not
yet fully aware nor sold to the technology of policy science. Thus, they do not
provide automatic slots for policy tinkering in their workplaces. Moreover, assuming
policy sections or staffs exist in their workplaces, the kind of policy analysis or
research they do still pale in comparison with the kind, level of intensity, scope and
clout of those being done elsewhere in the World.
POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER SCHOLARLY

ACTIVITIES
As an aid to policy making, policy research institutions, journals, associations and

other scholarly activities related to the propagation of the field are unfortunately
pathetic few in the Philippines. There is no organization of policy analysts, researchers,
academicians, or scientists yet. No policy journal is yet in place, though many are in
the drawing board, e.g., Policy Issues by the University of the Philippines (which was
launched in 1997). Think tanks, advisory groups are not too many either. In addition,
most come from the academe and seemingly, with weak linkages with the Executive
and Legislative branches. Most produce good policy researches. However, not much is
utilized by Congress nor by Malacañang.
Among the policy research institutions in the country at present, including the
CPAD/CPED of the U.P. CPA/NCPAG, are:
1. the Institute of Economic Development and Research (IEDR) of the U.P. School
of Economics; the Center for Integrative Development Studies also of U.P.;
2. the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP); the Philippine Institute
of Development Studies (PIDS) attached to NEDA; the NEDA Secretariat;
the National Tax Research Center (NTRC);

3. the Center for Research and Communications (CRC), now of the University
of Asia and the Pacific (UAP),
4. Ibon Databank,
5. the Economic Development Foundation,
6. the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP),
7. the Asian Institute of Management Research Institutes, and
8. the Ateneo Policy Studies Institute, Institute of Government Affairs, and
Institute of Church and Social Issues.
9. the Center for Investigative Journalism; and
10. the Center for Democracy in Asia
Various non-government organizations have also policy advocacy units doing

independent researches on selected topics, e.g., environmental protection, economic
development, political stability, gender and development. These include the think
tanks of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, GABRIELA, Circle of Women Lawyers,
Haribon Philippines, Green Forum and the Center for Alternative Policy Studies.
Most of these research institutions were created in the 70s. Therefore, their
researches made impact on policy-making only recently, after almost thirty years of
existence. The notable exceptions though are the PIDS and CRC/UAP which are
believed to have been particularly successful in making their presence and usefulness
felt by policy makers (Intal, Jr., n.d.).
The PIDS was created in 1977 to develop a comprehensive and integrated research
programme that will provide research materials and studies required for the
formulation of national development plans and policies (PD 1201 s. 1977). It is
believed to have been successful in seizing the unique opportunity of co-ordinating
the preparation of the so-called Yellow and Green Books which were the bases for
the policy agenda of the Aquino government during its initial years (Ibid., p. 102). It
has also been successful in reaching out to a more academically-inclined audience,
both locally and abroad (Ranis, 1987). Its seeming drawback though is its heavy
reliance on researchers and professionals solely from academic institutions, primarily
the University of the Philippines.

Policy
The CRC/UAP, meanwhile, is believed to have established “credible independence

as a research institution to watch and heeded to “ largely because of 1) its sufficient
funding support from 700 or so sources, including the Ford and Rockefeller
Foundations, which allowed it to attack a greater variety of issues without fear of
reprisal from the power that be; and 2) its visible leaders, particularly Dr. Villegas
(Roxas et al. as cited in Ibid., p. 103), who have influence and clout in the policy
system prevailing. Dr. Villegas who was asked to head the national planning body
(NEDA) in 1980 (but declined), acknowledged that knowing people “high up” was
an advantage in getting CRC’s papers noticed. In addition, resorting to having their
papers published in newspapers and other forms of popular media, is a good CRC
strategy in communicating their findings and reaching out to a wider audience.
As earlier mentioned, the emergence of technocrats in government during Martial

Law has given rise to the marked recognition of the role of policy research. This is
because most technocrats hold advanced academic degrees and come from or have
connections with recognized academic institutions. In the post-Marcos scenario,
meanwhile, the Executive and the Legislature have been far more receptive to the
results of policy research and cognizant of the importance of technical expertise on
policy issues. Thus, nowadays, legislators have as consultants or consult with
industry leaders and academicians. As a result, there has been increased involvement
of independent research institutions and individuals in policy formulation and
evaluation
Recently, the NGO think tanks of the FDC, GABRIELA, and Green Forum were
cited for making their contributions to policy making evident through their
consultative co-operation in formulating among others, the Philippine Strategy for
Sustainable Development, the Social Reform Agenda, and the Manila Action Plan
for APEC.
FUTURE AND PROSPECTS: TOWARD

INSTITUTIONALIZING PUBLIC POLICY IN THE
PHILIPPINES
Having achieved respectability in the US, the field of public policy has moved on to
further developing wider applications of political and social science to important policy
problems. It has spread to other countries, including the Philippines.
Public policy in the country is a relatively new technology of policy studies. Its
reach or impact is still limited. This is basically because of the following factors.

• the limited reach of its academic offerings;

• the long gestation period to produce the cadre of policy professionals ;
• the newness of many policy research institutions; and
• the disjointed incrementalism and individualism of most institutions doing
policy research, education and advocacy.
• its low recognition as a tool to improve policy making.
• Dismally poor the utilization of its outputs.
LIMITED REACH OF ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE
As earlier mentioned, the U.P. National College of Public Administration and

Governance pioneered the introduction of policy courses in its graduate (and later
undergraduate) programs. Other ASPAP-member schools followed suit. However,
only a few of these schools have a well developed policy education program.
Many have copied the syllabi of the NCPAG offerings with less of the heart,
content and soul in teaching and training for policy analysis and research. In
addition, ASPAP runs to only a hundred of so many schools offering public
administration, public management and related courses. There are still hundreds
out there who have not heard of the discipline nor care about offering it because
they do not have the capability yet.
LONG GESTATION PERIOD
For the CPA’s PPPA program, a prospective policy analyst or scientist takes
about six to seven policy courses in 3 to 4 semesters, part time study or 2 to 3
semesters, full time study, exclusive of the core and survey courses. Thus, before
the College can produce PPPA majors, it takes about 2 to 5 years, more or less.
They become PPPA majors all right. But do they automatically become policy
professionals who practice the policy sciences and propagate the field to reform
the society? Of course not, and you very well know the reasons why.
NEWNESS OF POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUIONS
As earlier mentioned, most policy research institutions were created in the late
70s. Not many of them have visible leaders and members who can project a good
image for policy research. Not many are independent institutions that can attack
as many issues as possible, without insecurity or fear of reprisal from the powers
that be.

Policy
DISJOINTED INCREMENTALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM
In addition, many focus on particular issues they have expertise on and seem to
fiercely compete with anybody else who stands in the way of their research
findings. Since many research institutions were still concerned with their basic
survival, only a few appreciated the adage “unity in diversity”. Only recently do
we see collaboration among policy institutions as the Kilusan Rollback did in
harnessing the strengths and expertise of various academic and non-governmental
institutions such as U.P., FDC, BISIG, and even the business sector, for a good
cause.
Nevertheless, the field of policy science can still blossom into a full blown
multidisciplinary science in the country. Particularly so, if 1) more funding can be
made available for policy education, research and advocacy; 2) more graduates
and researchers with the needed commitment and resolve to help the nation
develop can be produced; and more importantly, 3) if more policy makers and
administrators would recognize the potential of policy analysis in helping them
formulate and implement better policies for the good of the greater Filipinos.
If these happen, more people may participate in policy making and reform. In
addition, the impact of policy science in the country may be greatly felt and
appreciated.
Maybe you can do something to help. In your own way, I hope you can be a
Lasswell in my PM 241 Class!

ACTIVITY 3-1
So far, we had a brief ‘revisit’ into the past of the field of public policy. Its
present status in the West is near ideal; in the Philippines, it is in its infancy,
raring to take off. Its future here may be bright, particularly if you become a
disciple of Lasswell and Mendoza.
The task of advancing the utilization of the technology of public policy in

Philippine bureaucracy is before you and me. How could we help? How could
we ensure that people participation be enshrined in the public policy-making
process in the country?…
What I would like you to do in this section is review the past, present and
prospects of the field of public policy in the Philippines. Answer the
following questions which may serve as your reviewer later on:
1. Why do we delve into the roots of the field of public policy?
2. What historical stages had the field undergone in the West and in the
Philippines? What concerns, implications and debates were argued in these
periods?
3. What is the future of public policy in the Philippines?
4. How can public policy be further advocated, adopted and advanced in the
country? How can people participation be enshrined in the public policy-
making process in the country?

Policy
Use these guides to speed up your work in answering the questions above.
1. Make a table chronicling the periods in the intellectual development of the

field of public policy, both in the West and in the country. By historical
period, show the major thoughts or arguments presented, advocates or
personalities involved, and your own reflection on these thoughts and
concerns.
2. Integrate your thoughts by summarizing the status, challenges and future of

the field of public policy in the Philippine society and government. List
down a number of your suggestions on how the field could be further
adopted, advocated and utilized in order to improve the development and
analysis of public policies in the country. Also suggest ways to enshrine
people participation in public policy -making in the country. Build on what
you have done in Module 2.
I won’t give you answers to this exercise because they are found in this Module
and in the reading materials in your package. I urge you to read through Garson
(1980-81), Kelly (1987), and Ocampo (1978) thoroughly. They are must-readings
and hopefully, will shed greater light and inspiration. Come on, read!

4
Models, Theories, and
Approaches in Public Policy
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the field of public policy has developed and evolved a number of
models, theories and approaches in understanding public policy making and reform.
Represented by “symbols and boxes”, they include, among many, various descriptive
and prescriptive models such as the elite, incremental, rational, mixed scanning,
group, institutionalist and the streams and windows model.
These models simplify and clarify our thinking about government, politics and policy
making. They also identify important political forces in the society, communicate
relevant knowledge about political life, direct inquiry into policy making and suggest
explanations for policy events and outcomes (Adopted from Dye, 1978, p. 19;
Anderson, 1984, p.7).
Because of these importance, I will explain in this module, the features, uses and
limitations of these theories, approaches and models of public policy, both from the
perspective of policy as an output and as a process. I will also give some practical
application of these models using Philippine examples.
Since these models are not competitive in the sense that any one of them can be
judged “best”, you are advised to open your minds to their unique contributions and
separate focuses. Although at first glance, some policies lend themselves to
explanation by one particular model, bear in mind that most policies are a
combination of different influences, theories and models.
Module 4: Models, Theories, and Approaches in Public Policy 112

OBJECTIVES
By the end of this module, you should be able to:
• explain the main ideas, strengths, power and limitations of the various models
of public policy ; and
• critically apply the “best” and most appropriate models of public policy in
defining public policy-making in the Philippines.
You are expected to complete Module 4 in at least 25 hours for two weeks. What you
will do here are the following:
Consulting your Course Manual/Study Guide 15 hrs.

Reading Required Materials 7 hrs.
Integration and Self-Assessment Activities 3 hrs.
Total Minimum 25 hrs.
Be mindful of your schedule. Always pace your work. If you think you need more
time, then take more time. If you think you have enough, then move on to the
next. However, always “slowly but surely” digest and internalize what you are
learning. Also, reflect wisely on their relevance in our setting.
113 Module 4: Models, Theories, and Approaches in Public Policy

ACTIVITY 4-1
Before cruising into the so called “symbols and boxes” of public policy, I want
you to find out how many of these models you already know and recognize. We
will not play pictionary here. What we will do is plain identification game.
Basically, what you will do is name as many models as possible, based on their
generally accepted representations or symbols. Write their names as they are
numbered, in your notebook or on the space provided for after the drawings. I
trust you will answer this exercise first, before going to the next pages (and
looking at the answers). Agree? Be honest to yourself and you will see the
wonders it will bring later. Now here goes:
The Representations or Symbols of Public Policy:
2 3
A
E D C
I O
Rg Rd
F B
4 5 6
P A S A1
7 C2 B3
8
9
10

Write your answers here:
1.
2.
3
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Note: You will find the correct answers somewhere in this module and in the text
that follows. However, as I earlier asked you, answer this exercise first, then check
whether or not you are fairly familiar with the models of public policy.
A perfect score of 10 means you are fairly well-versed with the models of public
policy. You may have already encountered them in your earlier courses or read about
them and appreciated them, somewhere. Very good! You may skip most of this
module, except those sections which apply and give some critique on their relevance
and usefulness in the Philippine setting.
A score of 6-9 means you are fairly familiar with some of the models. Good! Maybe
you have read and understood some of them already and it maybe useful to find out
in this module how these models and some others, can help enlighten us on the
complexity, ambivalence and uniqueness of the Philippine policy system.
A score of 5 and below means you have to read through the reading materials and the
text for this module. Read and see for yourself how wonderful it can be if you are
aware of various policy models, their strengths, application and relevance to our own
situation. Go on.

SAQ 4-1
What is the meaning of the concept of policy models?
POLICY MODELS DEFINED
There are various perceptions of what models are. More commonly, models are
acknowledged as representation of something else. Ramp models, for example,
represent the creativity and unique style of fashion designers. Model airports,
blueprints of houses, plans of dams and water reservoirs, prototypes of
spaceships, etc. represent what could be built or expected to be seen after a period
of construction. Equations, as in mathematical equations, represent relationships
between and among variables.
Models are also what are desirable or to be emulated; what ought to be than what
is. For example, my mother and father are model parents. They reared us with a
lot of love, understanding and encouragement. They helped make us what we are
today. Just recently, my mother received a “Gintong Ina” award! My husband is
also a model partner and soulmate. He is always a friend, a shoulder to lean on, a
“booster pump” and a compass that leads to the better path. In this
conceptualization of models, the exploration of ideal concepts or the development
of ideal types or mental constructs (in the genre of ‘perfect competition’ and
‘charismatic authority’) is involved.

Models are also interchangeably and generally taken as an abstraction of reality,

a ‘paradigm’, or a systematic statement of basic assumptions, concepts, and
propositions employed by a school or schools of analysis.
Policy Models, meanwhile, are simplified representations of selected aspects of a

problematic situation constructed for particular purposes. They are also artificial
reconstructions of ‘reality’ in issue areas in the society. They may be expressed in
concepts, diagrams, graphs or mathematical equations. They may be used to
describe, explain, predict elements of a problematic situation, or improve
problematic situations by advocating courses of action to resolve particular
problems. They are also artificial devices for imaginatively ordering and
interpreting our experience of problematic situations.
Models, be they generic or policy models, are designed for a specific purpose.
This ranges from being a representation as in a model seaport; to simulation, as in
scenarios; to explanation as in the concept of a ‘working economy’; to prediction,
for example using difference equations; and even to hypothesis testing.
IDENTIFICATION GAME
The answers to our identification game are:

1. Elite Model
2. Group Theory
3. Institutionalist Model
4. Systems Model
5. Neo-institutionalist Model
6. Game Theory
7. Allison’s Models
8. Rational Model
9. Incremental Model
10. Streams and Windows Model
Did you get all correct? I hope you did! Good work!
To enrich your understanding of these models and other theories and

approaches in public policy, read on.

SAQ 4-2
What is elite theory? How different is it from group, systems,
institutionalist and streams and windows models?
TYPES AND EXAMPLES OF POLICY MODELS
Policy models may be descriptive and evaluative; prescriptive and normative.

They may explain parts of a policy situation, evaluate or predict probable
outcomes, or prescribe the better alternative. Their forms may be in any or a
combination of the following: verbal, symbolic, procedural. Our concern in this
module will be on the last two forms, and on the descriptive and process-oriented
as well as prescriptive and output oriented models of public policy.
THE DESCRIPTIVE PROCESS AND PROCESS-ORIENTED MODELS
These include the elite theory, group, institutionalist, neo-institutionalist, systems,

game, streams and windows model.
Elite Theory: Policy as Elite Preference

Approached from the perspective of elite theory, public policy can be regarded as
reflecting the values and preferences of a governing elite. This reflects a
seemingly negative bias against participatory democracy , particularly the
participation of the masses in governance, since the model’s main argument is
that it is not the people or the “masses” who determine public policy through
their demands and action. Rather, public policy is decided by a ruling elite and
carried into effect by public officials and agencies that are believed to be
“instruments” of the elite as well. Policies flow “downward” from the elite to the
masses, not the other way around.

.Represented into symbols and boxes, the elite theory looks like this:
Elite Policy
Mass
Other representation of the elite model has an intervening section for the
government bureaucracy and officials, which in the words of Marx are
derogatorily labeled as “instruments of the State for the alienation of the masses”.
The bureaucracy allegedly widens than bridges the gap between the rulers and
the ruled, or between the government and the governed. The representation looks
like this:
Policy
Elite
Bureaucracy
Mass
Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler, in The Irony of Democracy, (1975) provide a
summary of the elite theory:
• The society is divided into the few who have power (elite) and the many
who do not have (masses). Only the elite allocate values for society; the
masses do not decide public policy.
• The elite are not typical of the masses. They are drawn disproportionately
from the upper socioeconomic strata of the society.
• The movement of the non-elites to elite position must be slow and
continuous to maintain stability and prevent revolution. Only the non-
elite who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to
governing circles.
• The elite share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and
the preservation of the status quo.
• Public policy does not reflect the demands of the masses but rather the
prevailing values of the elite. Changes in policy will be incremental rather
than revolutionary.
• The active elite are subject to relatively little direct influence from a
largely ill-informed, passive and apathetic (“IPA”) masses. The elite
influence masses more than the other way around.

So stated, public policy according to the elite theory is the product of the elite,
reflecting their values and serving their ends (Anderson, 1984, p. 17).
In policy analysis, elitism implies that
• change or innovations in public policy will come about as a result of the

definitions by the elite; that changes will be incremental rather than
revolutionary ; that changes will occur when events threaten the system,
and the elite, acting on the basis of enlightened self-interest, institute
reforms to preserve the system and their place in it;
• elections, parties and other “democratic institutions”, are for the most part,
important here only for their symbolic value since they do not enable the
masses to govern; the latter being ill-informed, passive and apathetic, the
masses have only at best an indirect influence over the decision-making
behavior of the elite; and
• though may be disagreeing in some instances, the elite share in a
consensus about fundamental norms underlying the social system. They
agree on the basic “rules of the game” as well as the continuation of the
social system itself (Dye, 1978, p. 27).
In the Philippine setting, do the elite lord over policy-making and governance?
Don’t the majority of Filipinos, particularly the masses, have any role to play?
Are the latter indeed “IPA”, literally and figuratively? (“Ipa” is rice husk or the
residue from milled palay or rice grain.)
Who belong the elite in the country? A cursory look at the elite in the Philippines
reveals a mix of individuals and orientation (Fig. 20). Their outlook ranges from
being conservative to progressive, or from being concerned with retaining or
strengthening the status quo because they benefit from the system, to advocating
substantial changes in the present system. Our elite comprise the economic,
political, and intellectual elite. They also include those working underground, i.e.,
outside our legal framework.
The profile of our legislators gives us the impression of a Congress dominated by

old political elite (dynasties, e.g., Aquinos, Marcos, Recto, Lopez, Osmena,
Roxas, Magsaysay), old hands of Marcos, Aquino and Ramos (e.g., Enrile, Ablan,
Tatad; Arroyo, Drilon, Fernan; Cayetano, Flavier), economic elite (e.g., Villar,
Enrile, Sotto, Lobregat), famous people (i.e., they were once popular movie stars
or society figures, e.g., Revilla, Sotto, Legarda) and the so-called “progressives”
and “intellectual elite” (e.g., Arroyo, Zubiri, Jaworski, Tañada, Roco, Fernan,
Pimentel, Defensor-Santiago).
Our Executive branch is also ruled by presidents who come from well-heeled
families, economically and politically. President Marcos was a brilliant lawyer, a
bemedalled soldier and war veteran who founded a political dynasty in Ilocos.
President Aquino was educated in the USA in French and Mathematics, an heir to
a vast Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac, was married to a brilliant future-ex-president,
Ninoy Aquino, and belongs to a political clan of the Cojuangcos, herself.
President Ramos is an engineer and a military man, educated at West Point, is

believed to have vast real estate and logging holdings in the country, is a son of a
former ambassador and educator, and has served Presidents Marcos and Aquino
as defense officer and chief.
President Estrada is a wealthy San Juan mayor, movie star and film producer. He
attended Ateneo de Manila University and Mapua, and has links with the
prestigious University of the Philippines, the old rich and new rich in both the
high society and business.
Our Supreme Court justices are likewise among the well-to-do e.g., Concepcion,
Reyes, Teehankee et al. They have also carefully crafted their glorious careers in
the legal profession. They have been bar topnotchers. Some belong to the best
legal minds around town, e.g., the previous and present Chief Justices Narvasa
and Davide.
Our local executives, meanwhile, are generally, also of the elite class, belonging
to any of the similar categories listed in the Legislature. Many are traditional
politicians or are members of political dynasties. Some belong to the landed
gentry in our semi-feudal rural areas. Others are scions of rich families. Others
belong to the new breed of idealist change agents. Among the more popular
executives are Mayors Lim (Manila), Binay (Makati), Gordon (Subic), Duterte
(Davao), Hagedorn (Puerto Princesa), Governors Orbos (Pangasinan),
Pagdanganan (Bulacan), Velasco and Revilla (Cavite), Lina (Laguna), Dy
(Isabela), Chiongbian (Saranggani), Lopez (Camiguin), and Misuari (ARRM).
(Many of them have tried running for higher office, e.g., Senator, Congressman,
Vice President and President of the Republic but lost.)
If most of our policy and decision makers are of the elite class, what does this
make of our policies? The elite theory does not categorically say that policies,
being the preference of the elite, are bad or disadvantageous to the masses.
However, it hints of a seemingly tilted policy making in favor of those who have.
If those who do not have cannot articulate or raise their voices for or against a
particular proposition, then policy making tilted in favor of the elite has won the
battle for the latter already. If such is the case, this is sad.

Group Perspective Progressive Moderate Conservative

• advocates • advocates • works to retain
substantial changes within or strengthen the
changes in the the existing status quo
present system order
Type of Elite • revolutionary • nationalist • middle class

• intellectuals • middle class • dynastic and
• nationalist colonial
• middle class administration
Political Forces • nationalist - • middle class • traditionalist -

1. Pressure BAYAN, traditionalist - LDP, NP, KBL
Electoral People’s Caucus, LP, PDP Statehood USA,
Politics FDC • middle class PCCI
• socialist - nationalist - • technocrats -
BANDILA, NEPA CRC, Opus Dei
BISIG
• communist -
PKP
2. Armed Struggle • communist -

and Non- CPP-NPA, NDF
conventional • militarists -
RAM, YOU
• secessionist -
MNLF
Source: Jorge Sibal & Oliver Garcia (eds.) Political Map of the 90s, TNM-Cooperative Library,
Research & Publications, 1992.
Fig. 20. The Political Map of the 1990s
(The Political Elite in the Philippines)

Group Theory: Policy as Group Equilibrium
The Group Theory begins with the proposition that interaction among groups is
the central fact of politics. Individuals with common interests band together into a
group, formally or informally, to press their demands upon government.
Individuals then become important only when they act as part of, or in behalf of
the group’s interests. The group thence, becomes more important and forms the
essential link between the individuals and their government. The task of the latter
is to manage group conflict by
• establishing the rules of the game in the group struggle;
• arranging compromises and balancing interests;
• enacting compromises in the form of public policy; and
• enforcing these compromises.
According to group theorists, principally David Truman who explained the model
at length in his book, The Governmental Process (New York: Knoft, 1951) and
Earl Latham in his essay, “The Group Basis of Politics” (in Heinz Eulau et al.,
eds., Political Behavior, New York: Free Press, 1956), politics is really a struggle
among groups to influence public policy. Public policy, on the other hand, is at
any given time the “equilibrium” reached in the group struggle. This
“equilibrium” represents a balance which contending parties constantly strive to
tip in their favor.
Group influence in policy making is determined by their numbers, wealth,

organizational strength, leadership, access to decision makers, and internal
cohesion (Dye, 1978: 24).
The group theory purports to describe all meaningful political activity in terms of
group struggle. It views policy makers as constantly responding to group
pressures- bargaining, negotiating, and compromising, among competing
demands of influential groups. In addition, it posits that:
• Policy will move in the direction desired by groups gaining influence and
inversely, away from the desires of groups losing influence.
• The ‘hydraulic thesis’: The polity is a system of forces and pressures

acting and reacting to one another in the formulation of public policy.

It is represented by symbols and drawings as below:
a)
b) Influence of Influence of
Group A Group B
Alternative
Policy
Equilibrium = Policy Policy
Change
Positions
c) Political power
Policy Makers
Political power
& skill of Group A & skill of Group B
Pressure Pressure
Policy Outcome
Favorable to Not too Favorable to
A B

The group theory recognizes several forces that hold together the whole political
system in equilibrium. They include:
• a nearly universal, large latent group in any society which supports the
constitutional system and prevailing “rules of the game”; this is not
always visible but can be activated to administer overwhelming rebuke to
any group that attacks the system and threatens to destroy the equilibrium;
• overlapping group membership which helps to maintain the equilibrium
by preventing any one group from moving too far from prevailing values;
and
• the check and balance resulting from group competition whereby no
single group constitutes a majority in any society.
The power of each group is checked by the power of competing groups.

Countervailing centers of power function to check the influence of any single
group.
Normally in the West, e.g., the North Americas, the group model is associated
with the legislature rather than the bureaucracy. However, it also has long been
recognized by scholars that the “neutral” executive branch is buffeted by pressure
groups, too. The same is true in the Philippines, I am sure that you can recall the
following controversies:
• The contraceptive issue between theExecutive branch and the Catholic
church
• The Cha-cha or more to change the Charter between the Pro Cha-cha in
the Executive (Pres. Ramos and others) the PIRMA group (People’s
Initiative for Reform and Modernization) vs the anti cha-cha led by
Cardinal Sin and Pres. Aquino
• The issue on the imposition of the death penalty between those in favor
led by Pres. Estrada, 155 or so legislators and the Crusade Against Crime
and Corruption, on one hand, and the Pro-Life group led by the Catholic
Church, the FLAG (Free Legal Assistance Group) lawyers, the group of
dissenting justices in the Supreme Court and senators in the Upper House.
The model may also depict the “struggle” between groups for or against the
Generics Act of 1988; for or against the continued opening of duty free shops; or
those for or against the deregulation of the downstream oil industry (with the
Supreme Court recently nullifying R.A. 8188 or the Deregulation of the
Downstream Oil Industry Act of 1995). The traffic gridlock caused by the protest
of Tamaraw FX and Isuzu Highlander taxis against their classification as pure
shuttle service vehicles or taxis is also an example of lobbying for or against a
regulatory agency’s decision, in this case the Land Transportation Office or LTO.

System Model: Policy as a System Output
A third emphasis in the procedural public policy literature is the systems model.
The systems model relies on concepts of information theory (e.g., feedback, input,
output) and conceives the process of policy making as being essentially cyclical.
It also conceives public policy as a response of the political system to forces
brought to bear upon it from the environment (Easton, 1957).
Forces generated in the environment that affect the political system are viewed as
inputs. The environment is any condition or circumstance external to the
boundaries of the political system. The political system is that group of
interrelated structures and processes which function authoritatively to allocate
values for the society. Outputs are authoritative value allocation of the system
which constitutes public policy.
This conceptualization of public policy as an output of the political system is

diagrammed below. It is a simplified version of Easton’s idea of a political
system described at great length in his article, “An Approach to the Analysis of
Political Systems” published in World Politics in 1957.
Environment
I O
Feedback
where I represents the inputs of citizens and organizations to the

policy making process which may be support or demand for a
particular government action;
O represents the outputs of government, which may be a set of

purposive course/s of action or inaction, or what we know as
public policy;
■ represents the black box which is the government or the only

authorized institution to formulate, implement, monitor,
evaluate public policies. As a black box, whatever goes in it
is “not” known by nor privy to the public;
Feedback are reactions to the outputs of the policy system,
which may be negative, positive or neutral;

Environment is the context of policy making and reform.
The contribution of the systems model to policy analysis lies in the questions it
poses such as:
1. What are the significant dimensions of the environment that generate
demands upon the political system?
2. What are the significant characteristics of the political system that enable
it to transform demands into public policy and preserve itself over time?
3. How do environmental inputs affect the character of the political system?
4. How do characteristics of the political system affect the content of public
policy?
5. How do environmental inputs affect the content of public policy?
6. How does public policy affect, through feedback, the environment and the
character of the political system?
Analyzing the power crisis example in Module 2 using the systems approach may help
us simplify our understanding of the dynamics of the formulation of the Power Crisis
Act. Said policy is an output of the political system in response to the demands of
various sectors of the society to put an end to the power outages experienced in the
country since 1988. Similar application of the model may be found in the enactment of
the New Rape Act of 1998 which took almost nine years to finally legislate. The Act
redefines the concept of rape as “a crime against person, and not merely a crime
against chastity”. The raging battle between President Estrada and some sectors of the
print media may also be understood using the systems model. Similarly, other policies
and citizens’ support or demands may also be “boxed” using this systems framework. I
suppose you can name several examples:
Figure 21 shows another representation of the systems model in its detailed form:
Environment
Black Box:
Inputs: Outputs:
the Political
demands, Public Policies
System
goods, resources,
services, support,
policies & opposition
other symbols
of public
policy-making
Feedback: the influence

of outputs on the environment
Fig. 21. The Systems Model of Public Policy-Making

Institutionalist Model: Policy as Institutional Activity
The Institutionalist model treats public policies as activities of state institutions

which are the only ones authorized to determine, formulate and implement
policies. These authorities comprise, in our case, the three branches of
government, e.g., the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.
This model focuses on the organizational chart of government. It describes the

arrangements and official duties of bureaus and departments. It also emphasizes
the distinctive public-ness of policies which only government institutions provide,
e.g., legitimacy, universality and coercion. Government institutions lend
legitimacy to policies in the sense that government policies are generally regarded
as legal obligations which command the loyalty of citizens. Government policies
involve universality such that only government policies extend to all people in
the society. Finally, government monopolizes coercion in society, i.e., only
government can legitimately imprison violators of its policies (Dye, 1979).
Traditional institutional studies in public policy usually describe specific

government institutions, their structures, organization, duties and functions,
without systematically inquiring about the impact of institutional characteristics
on policy outputs. Most give little attention to the linkages between the structure
of a government institution, say a department, and the content of public policy.
However, such relationship is an empirical question that deserves further
investigation. In addition, further studies are needed to assess the impact of
institutional changes on policy changes.
The institutional model may be applied to government reorganizations to find out

how the structure of government works and how the content of public policies
have been designed or formulated in these institutions. For example, the Generics
Act may have emanated from the institution of the Department of Health. The
Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 may be the handiwork of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. A renewed understanding of the
structures of these institutions and how they facilitated or enhanced the chances
of enacting such controversial policies may be an interesting research area in the
future.

The representations of the institutionalist model are as follows:
1) Anderson, 1978
E L J
2) Rushefsky, 1990
Voters
Courts President Congress
Fig. 22. The Institutionalist Model of Public
Neo-Institutionalist Model: Policy as Arenas of Power
The neo-institutionalist model springs from the institutional model and is chiefly
concerned with political institutions. It attempts to categorize public policies
according to policy sub-systems or arenas of power. Moreover, it seeks to
generate theoretical and analytical predictions about how policy types relate to
branches of government, to the polity in general, and to the typologies of political
behavior associated with each policy arena in particular. Its proponents include
among others, Theodore Lowi, Randall Ripley, Robert Salisbury and John Heinz,
and Dean Schooler, Jr..
Lowi’s classification of public policies into “four arenas of power”, namely:

redistributive, distributive, constituent, and regulative, however, is the most
popular. See Fig. 23 below.

D C
Rg Rd
where:
D stands for the Distributive policy arena;
Rd for Redistributive policy arena;
C for Constituent policy arena; and
Rg for Regulative policy arena.
Fig. 23 Lowi’s Policy Arenas of Power
According to Lowi, from these policy arenas, which are determined by the target
and probability of government coercion, emerge certain identifiable types of
political behavior. For example, the more redistributive a policy, the greater the
need for immediate government coercion to contain ideological and special
interests and bargaining among groups who have and don’t have (something to
redistribute or be redistributed about, e.g., land, resources, wealth).
For example, the Comprehensive Reform Program, being redistributive, would

meet with a strong resistance from landlords who would be affected by it.
Government should therefore be prepared to counter these intransigences for the
policy and program to survive.
Redistributive policies apportion power and wealth from those who have to those
who don’t have. As such, in the redistributive policy arena, emotionally charged
fights are common and to be expected. Those from whom power and wealth
would be taken away will do everything to resist such change; those to whom
resources would be distributed will not be much in a position to speed up the
process.
Another example of a redistributive policy arena is on measures towards

progressive taxation, e.g., in the comprehensive tax reform package, in the taxing
of real propery, road use, etc. Here, those who are in the better position to pay are
taxed more than those who may not be able to afford (to pay higher tax). Such
moves will give rise to lobbying, ideological debates and advocacy for or against
their adoption and implementation.
To reiterate, policies falling under the redistributive policy arena call for the
transfer of resources largely from one better-off group or class in the society to
another less privileged. They are highly ‘productive’ of conflicts and tendencies
for class clashes.

Distributive policies include giving out scholarships, rations, relief goods during
calamities, pork barrel projects and the like. They may also include quests of
communities for flood control projects, of industries for tariff concessions, or of
companies for government contracts. Generally, they are beneficial to individuals
and institutions to whom such goods or services are directly provided. They affect
relatively smaller number of people who seemingly rely on philanthropy and
goodwill. As such, they may not require much of government coercion as in the
redistributive policy arena.
Regulative policies, meanwhile, are likely to be identified with costs, e.g.,

apparent sanctions and fines, to particular groups who violate or negate regulatory
policies. They produce demands for the restriction or limitation of actions of
others. The latter include traffic rules and regulations wherein traffic violators are
punished with ticket citations and fines; waste disposal or pollution regulations
whereby erring parties are given sanctions or closure orders (particularly when
apprehended); dangerous drugs laws which penalize pushers, drug lords and
others for wasting the lives of their victims with death; regulations against false
or fraudulent advertisements, and others which I know you are familiar with. In
this policy arena, the conduct of erring individuals necessitates immediate
coercion from the government.
Constituent policies pertain to those which affect the people as political actors,
policy stakeholder or constituents of a particular politician. They do not single
out individuals for either punishments or rewards; on the contrary, these policies
tend to reallocate political and economic values through the social structure itself.
The pork barrel is one such constituent policy which is in the arena which is
legislatively centered (Rushefsky, 1994: 295). Government coercion is remote in
the sense that the conduct of the society receiving or asking the pork barrel
(whether to/from the constituents/legislators) is rarely sanctioned or monitored,
except of course when anomalies exist that necessitate government regulation and
coercion, e.g., graft and corruption, etc.
The representation of the neo-institutionalist model is presented in more detail in

Fig. 24.

PROBABILITY OF TARGET OF GOVERNMENT COERCION

GOVERNMENT Conduct of Individual Conduct of System
COERCION
Remote Distributive Policy Arena Constituent Policy Arena
- subsidies - reapportionment of Congress
Immediate Regulative Redistributive
- elimination of fraudulent - progressive income tax
advertising
Source: Lowi, 1964.
Fig. 24. The Neo-Institutionalist Model of Public Policy-Making
Streams and Windows Model: Policy as an Intellectual Process of Interaction

between and among the Problem, Policy and Political Streams
The visual representation of the streams and windows model shown in Figure 25
was conceptualized by John Kingdon after years of conducting interviews and
analysis of the policy agenda setting and policy making processes in two areas in
America, e.g., health and transportation.
Problem
Political Streams Window
Policy
Fig. 25 The Streams and Windows Model
Kingdon observed three “streams” that flowed largely independently of one

another and which constitute the policy making process. He identified the
streams as the problem, political and policy streams.

Policy Stream. This stream involves focusing the attention of the public and the
policy-maker on a particular social problem, then defining the problem and either
deciding to apply a new public policy to the resolution of the problem or let the
problem fade from sight.
Policy problems may get into the agenda of government through a number of
processes, including
• the routine monitoring of social data;
• the occurrence of certain focusing events; and
• the feedback from existing programs that can be obtained through such
devices as congressional hearings in aid of legislation or the on-going
administration of public programs.
For example, although illegal logging is believed to have been rampant in the
country since the early 40s, the debate on whether there should be a total or
selective ban on illegal logging came into the national consciousness presumably
only after the Ormoc Tragedy in 1987. Visions of mud-covered corpses being
transported into garbage trucks and dumped into common burial grounds as a
result of the flash floods coming from the denuded mountains of Leyte roused the
conscience of many.
If genocide is a crime against human beings, particularly against certain race or

creed, isn’t utter destruction of our natural resources through illegal logging also a
crime against the Filipino nation? Thus the Ormoc tragedy rekindled the issue of
illegal logging.
Other examples of social problems which made us rethink our policy options on
various concerns include:
a. the providential eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (on whether we would allow or
not allow the continuation of the RP-US Bases Treaty);
b. the Ozone (Fire) Tragedy (on who is responsible for safety in public
places);
c. the hanging of Flor Contemplacion in Singapore or the murder case
against Sarah Balabagan for killing her Arab employer who was about to
rape her (which made us rethink of what should be done to prevent abuses
committed against our overseas contract workers (OCWs) and promote the
welfare of our so-called “Present-day Heroes” who contribute
significantly to our GNP);
d. the domino effect of the regional currency crisis (which made us rethink
whether amidst the regime of globalization, deregulation, liberalization
and privatization, the country’s economic “fundamentals” are still sound
or not);

e. the Cebu Pacific plane crash in Cagayan de Oro (which made us rethink
the safety of our airlines, amidst the open skies policy);
f. and many more.
Political Stream. It is in this stream that the policy problem reaches the agenda of
government and that solutions to address particular policy streams are considered
and formulated by the government as a whole (systemic agenda) or specifically
by, a particular agency of the government which has primary responsibility over
such concern (institutional agenda). The formulation of resolutions to the problem
occurs as a result of the interaction of major forces, such as the national mood, the
perspective and clout of organized interests and the dynamics of government
itself.
The primary participants in the political stream are what Kingdon calls the
“visible cluster”, or those participants readily seen on the public stage. They
include the administration, including high level government appointees; members
of Congress; the media, interest groups, those actors associated with elections,
parties and campaigns; and public opinion. A consensus is achieved by
bargaining among these participants and at some point, a “bandwagon or tilt
effect” occurs as a consequence of an intensifying desire by the participants to be
“dealt with” not to be excluded in the policy resolution process.
Policy Stream. The policy stream, meanwhile, is the stream where the decision
agenda or “alternative specification/s” of solution/s to the problem is/are
formulated. The decision agenda is the list of alternatives from which a public
policy may be selected by policy makers. Here, the major forces are not political,
but intellectual and personal ideas of the so called policy analysts or researchers,
policy entrepreneurs and others who hold a deep and long-abiding commitment to
a particular policy change. The major participants in this stream are what
Kingdon calls the “hidden cluster” which includes among others, the career public
administrators; academics; researchers and consultants; Congressional staff; the
Office of Budget and Management; and interest groups.
If and when these three streams meet, a public policy can result. Kingdon calls
this occasion, a “window”. Windows open because of a change of administration,
a shift in the national mood, or when a pressing public problem emerges.
In the Philippine setting, the political stream is led by politicians and executives;
the policy stream is led by policy institutes and independent media practitioners
committed to a particular policy change. The latter include the University of the
Philippines, Ateneo de Manila’s Institute of Social Policy, the Center for
Investigative Journalism, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), the Haribon
Foundation, Abanse! Pinay, Foundation for Philippine Environment, Institute of
Politics and Governance, MIGRANTE and many others.

The lobbying and protest actions against the government’s seeming inaction to
stall the hanging of Flor Contemplacion at the Changi Prison in Singapore, if you
may recall, led to the resignation of key officers of the Foreign Affairs and Labor
Departments of the government (e.g., change of administration); the creation of a
Gancayco Commission to investigate the plight of our OCWs (later renamed OFWs
or overseas Filipino workers) and the changing national mood from revenge to
mellowing down, i.e., “let’s work these things out”; and the adoption of a (new)
policy of selectively banning the deployment of OFWs to abuse-prone areas,
particularly in countries which have markedly different culture from the
Philippines.
These actions and policy solution were the handiwork of interest groups
(MIGRANTE, among others), policy institutes (CIJ), a government commission
(Judge Gancayco’s), and policy makers (the “enlightened” Ramos administration
after the Manglapus fiasco, e.g., “While at it, enjoy it!”, referring to rape attempts
and other abuses committed on women OCWs). Here, a policy is formulated and
adopted, i.e., a window opens, after the convergence of the three streams, e.g.,
problem, political and policy streams.
In many ways, “Kingdon’s model provides us with the single satisfactory

explanation of policy making as a process. Although his model has limitations, it
nonetheless, is comprehensive, systemic, and empirical. This is a rare
combination in the literature of public policy as a process, and it should not be
dismissed lightly.” (Rushefsky, 1994, 298). See Kingdon’s Streams and
Windows Model in Fig. 25a.

Problem stream 2. Problem is defined 3. Problem

1. Getting attention according to: fades
via: y values
y indicators y comparisons
y feedback y categories of policy
y budget
prioritization
Political Stream
1. Formulation of government Windows opens to 2. Concensus 3. Tilt
agenda, major forces structure decision building with effect
include: agenda: 3 streams bargaining (band-
y national mood converge among wagon
y organized interests participants effect
y changes in government
y visible clusters of
participants
Policy Stream
1. Formulation of 2. Softening up 4. Consensus
decision agenda, phase (trialballoon) building
major forces include 3. Some ideas through
*ideas, policy survive persuasion
entrepreneurs, based on 5. Tilt effect
hidden cluster of feasibility,
participants anticipation of
future constraints
Fig 25a. The Streams and Window Model

Kingdom (as cited in Rushefsky, 1994)
Game Theory: Policy as a Rational Choice in Competitive Situations
Game theory is the study of rational decisions in situations in which two or more
participants have choices to make and the outcome depends on the choices made
by each of them. It is applied to policy making situations where there is no
independently best choice that one can make because the best outcomes depend
on what others do (Dye 1978:34).
The idea of a “game” is that decision makers are involved in choices that are
interdependent. Each “player” must adjust his or her conduct to reflect not only
his or her own desires and abilities but also his or her expectations about what
others will do. One anticipates what other “competitors” will do in order for his
or her action to be more responsive to the competitive situation.
If the idea is to win, one has to use strategies to achieve optimum payoff. Such
strategies include minimax that minimizes the maximum loss or maximizes the
minimum gain for a player, regardless of what his or her opponent does (Dye
1978:36).

Game theory is more frequently proposed as an analytic tool by social scientists

than as a practical guide to policy making by government officials. Seldom do
policy makers know the real payoff values for themselves or their opponents. In
addition, seldom do policy making manifest itself rationally.
However, game theory provides an interesting way of thinking clearly about

policy choices in conflict situation. In the Philippine setting, game theory could
be interestingly applied in situations that call for anticipation of the possible
actions of other players and stakeholders. President Aquino, for example, could
have employed this in anticipating the likely reception by the Senate of the
proposed extension of the US Bases Treaty in 1992. As events would unfold,
despite her walk in the rain together with thousands of Filipinos, the Senate said
“No” to the Treaty.
President Ramos could have also used the game theory in anticipating the fate of
the Charter Change (Cha-cha) move. Had he heeded the call for more categorical
statements on the move and not insisting on “keeping his options open”, bloody
debates on Cha-cha vs. Ibasura vs. “No to Cha-cha Now”, and the September 21
Rally by millions of Filipinos, which was initiated by the EDSA Duo of Cardinal
Sin and President Aquino, would not have happened and would have saved him
from losing face. Added to this was the Supreme Court ruling nullifying the Cha-
cha initiative.
President Estrada could have also used the game theory in the Philippine Airlines
(PAL) issue rather than let emotions ran high between Lucio Tan’s group and the
PAL Employees Association (PALEA) and other labor unions. He could have
used it in his continuing fight against the critical press and the more enlightened
segments of the society who are more disenchanted with his administration’s
performance.
For me, the importance of the game theory in our context is in the anticipatory
rigor and discipline it requires of policy makers and players. Had they used the
game theory, our leaders could have drawn scenarios and forecasts that may have
kept their careers, integrity and credibility intact.
The representation of the game theory in Fig. 26, takes off from “the game of
chicken.” I suppose you have heard of already. Anyway this is how it is supposed
to be played. A head on collision path is set in a race track. Starting from
opposite ends two car racers are to drive straight along the designated path. If
they veer away to avoid the collision they are disqualified and labeled a coward or
“chicken.” If they went ahead they could get hurt or even killed. So what should
they do?

The game of chicken is also illustrated in other reel stories as “The Prisoner’s
Dilemma”, and in such real stories as the Marcos wealth, the issue on cronies,
charter change and the like.
Player A Player B
Alt. 1 Alt. 2
Alt. 1 outcome outcome
Alt. 2 outcome outcome
A
B
Fig. 26. Representations of the Game Theory
THE PRESCRIPTIVE OUTPUT AND EFFECT-ORIENTEDMODELS
Rational-Comprehensive Model: Policy as Efficient Goal Achievement
The rational comprehensive model expects policy outputs to be rational, such that
they represent efficient goal achievement. They must also be comprehensive in
the sense that they capture the essence of problem solving and solution analysis.
More specifically, this model requires that to select a rational or efficient policy,
policy makers must:
• know all the society’s value preferences and other relative weights;
• know all the policy alternatives possible;
• know all the consequences of each policy alternative;
• calculate the ratio of achieved to sacrificed societal values for each policy
alternative; and
• select the most efficient policy alternative. (Dror 1968).

As shown in see Fig. 27, it is not enough to know and weigh the values of some
groups and not others. On the other hand, there must be complete understanding of
all societal values. In addition, it requires the existence of information about
alternative policies, the predictive capacity to foresee accurately the consequences of
alternative policies, and the intelligence to calculate correctly the ratio of costs to
benefits. Also, addition, it requires a decision making system that facilitates
rationality in policy formation.
P A S
Fig. 27. Representations of the Rational Comprehensive Model
where:
P represents the complete conceptualization of the problem in
the society;
A represents all the possible alternatives to resolve the
problem; and
S represents the solution arrived at rationally and
comprehensively, i.e., it is presumed to address all the
values in the society.

a) The P-A-S Framework
Input: data in the form of accurately

quantified social values & the
administrative capability to
comprehend those data
1. Setting & weighing of 2. Preparation of a full set 3. Establishing and

operational goals of predictions of costs & inventory of values &
benefits of alternatives their weights
4. preparation of a full set of

predictions of costs &
benefit of alternatives
6. Comparison of policy effects

5. Calculation of expected (using the criterion of efficiency
effects of each policy & selection of policy with the
alternative highest net expectation
7. Policy Output

b) The Rational Steps
Problem Analysis Solution Analysis
1. Understanding the problem 4. Choosing evaluation criteria

- receiving the problem: 5. Specifying policy
clients description of alternatives
symptoms 6. Evaluating: predicting
- modeling the impacts of alternatives &
problem: analyzing valuing them in terms of Policy
market & government criteria set
failures 7. Recommending actions
2. Choosing & explaining
relevant goals & constraints
3. Choosing solution method
Information Gathering
Conveying useful advice to

clients
Information Gathering
Identifying & organizing relevant data, theories

and facts as evidence about future consequences
of current & alternative policies
c) The Summary Steps
In reality, however, there are several important obstacles to rational policy

making. For example, policy makers are not always motivated to make decisions
on the basis of societal goals. Instead, they try to maximize their own personal
rewards--power, status, reelection, money, etc.
Also, policy makers cannot possibly know all the values of society nor all
possible alternatives and their consequences. They have limitations, both in their
intelligence and in the resources at their disposal.
Incremental Model: Policy as Variations of the Past
The incremental model offers an alternative to the rational comprehensive model

in that it views public policy as a continuation of past government activities with
only incremental modifications.

According to its proponents, foremost among whom is Charles Lindblom,

decision makers do not review the whole range of existing and proposed
alternatives, identify societal goals, research the benefits and costs of alternative
policies, rank-order preferences, nor make a selection on the basis of all relevant
information. On the contrary, constraints of time, intelligence and costs prevent
policy makers from identifying the full range of policy alternatives and their
consequences.
Incrementalism describes a more conservative and “satisficing” (i.e., satisfactory

or optimum at the moment) process of policy making. Here, existing programs,
policies and expenditures are considered as base. Attention is concentrated on
new programs and policies and on increases, decreases or modifications of current
programs. Policy makers generally accept the legitimacy of established programs
and tacitly agree to continue previous policies because of uncertainty about the
consequences of completely new or different policies.
They do this because they do not have the time, intelligence or money to
investigate all the alternatives to existing policy. In addition, they do not have
significant predictive capacities to know all the consequences of each possible
alternative. Thus, completely “rational” policy may turn out to be “inefficient” if
the time, intelligence and cost of developing a rational policy are not excessive.
In addition, there may be heavy investments in existing programs (“sunk costs”)

which preclude any really radical change. Besides, incrementalism is politically
expedient in the sense that it reduces conflict, maintains stability and preserves
the political system itself.
An example of incrementalism in the country is the expansion of the international

airport within the Pasay-Paranaque area despite calls for its relocation in other
areas away from this residential, commercial and military zone, say at Clark,
Pampanga.
The international gateway has been the subject of plans and programs by the
Chinese-FilipinoTaipans – Tan, Sy, Gokongwei, Uytengsu, et al., upon the
encouragement of President Ramos. It would be “water down the drain” of sort, if
present improvements and investments, as well as proposed expansion plans will
go to naught as a result of “arbitrary” plans to move the airport out to some rustic,
ideal locations.

Thus, as a consequence of incrementalism, the international airport remains in

Parañaque and Pasay. However, it is being improved and expanded up to the
Nayong Pilipino-Villamor Air Base areas to accommodate more passengers and
showcase an improved, modernized airport.
The annual General Appropriation or budget is also reflective of incrementalism

in the sense that its total does not vary much from year to year.
The Incremental model is represented by the following:
Policy
Increments
Past Policies/
Commitments
Mixed Scanning: Policy as a Mix of Rationalism & Incrementalism
Mixed scanning is a conceptual integration of the merits of rationalism and

incrementalism. Its actual realization, however, did not occur until the strategic
planning model of the 1960s. The representations for mixed scanning and
strategic planning, are as follows:
Mixed Scanning Construct: Conceptual Integration
where the bigger circles represent the bigger lenses of

rationalism and the smaller circles represent the smaller
lenses of incrementalism.

The bigger lenses look at the forest in its entirety while the smaller lenses look at
forest’s flora and fauna species individually. Stated differently, the mixed
scanning model conceptualizes a public policy that is both a macro- and
microcosm of societal values and preferences.
The model is supposed to minimize the criticisms of the rational and incremental
models, e.g., the mechanical approach of rationalism that is not suited to the
complexity of decision making in reality; the lack of imagination and limited
viewpoint of incrementalism.
At the same time, it is supposed to maximize their virtues and approximate what
Etzioni put as a model that “is not as exacting as the rationalist model as well as
not as constricting in its perspective as the incrementalist approach; a strategy that
is not as utopian as rationalism, but not as conservative as incrementalism; not so
unrealistic a model that it cannot be followed, but not one that legitimizes myopic
self-oriented, non-innovative decision making.” However, its concrete application
came only with the introduction of strategic planning in the 60’s.
Strategic Planning: Policy as a Guided Strategy
The Strategic Planning model is the concrete manifestation of the mix of

incremental and rational resources in policy making. As drawn below, it
harnesses resources as follows (see Fig. 28):
Incrementalist Resources
Public Sector Strategic Planning
Rationalist Resources
a) Summary

I
budgetary, political, managerial,

traditions, values, & aspriations & intellectual resources of agency leadership: abilities &
of agency & its personnel agency & its line personnel policy priorities
analyses of long –term analyses of short-term political inter-agency competition:

environmental trends & trends: threats, opportunities, perceptions & directions
opportunities perceptions, & directions
a) Resources used in Strategic Planning

Fig. 28. Representations of the Strategic Planning Model
THE VARIANTS AND OTHER INTEGRATIVE LENSES
In addition to the prescriptive and process-oriented models are a number of

variants and integrative lenses like the ones briefly explained below:
ALLISON’S MODELS:
Allison , a former dean of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard

University, offers three conceptual lenses in studying public policy making. As
experienced from the critical hours of the Cuban missile crisis, he likened policy
making into three lenses or models, e.g., 1) the Unitary Mind, wherein Policy is
Rational Choice; 2) the Organizational Process Model wherein Policy is an
Organizational Output; and 3) Bureaucratic Politics where Policy is a Political
Resultant. See figures below:

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3:
A1 C3
B2
D4 E5
In the Unitary Mind model, policy is Rational Choice as in the rational

comprehensive model above. It is also known interchangeably as the rational
actor model, rational comprehensive model, rational policy-making, and the
unitary purpose model. It views actions and decisions as at least ‘intendedly
rational’, purposive, calculated, goal-oriented and planned. Thus, policies are
taken by a monolith, a black box called government in the systems theory.
In the Organizational Process model, Policy is an Organizational Output similar

to the output of governments in the institutionalist model. It is also called the
process and pluralist process model. Similar to the institutionalist model, it views
actions as outputs of large organizations which have particular tasks or functions.
In the Bureaucratic Politics model, Policy is a Political Resultant, e.g., an output

of a process of bargaining among individuals or groups with diverse interests
and varying degrees of power to support these interests. It is also called the
bargaining model.
Allison’s models (see Figure 29 for a more detailed description) are too powerful
in explaining policy making from various conceptual lenses and I suggest you
read through Allison’s book yourself to appreciate his models better. I for one
used them in explaining the management of official development assistance in the
country in 1991.

UP Open University PM 241
Paradigm Model I Model II Model III

National Government National Government National Government
Goals (objective A B
function) Organizations Z r Players in position
Black box Options (A-G) Y y (A-F)
Consequences Goals C D E Goals, interests,
Choice SOPs and programs n t z stakes and stands
x y r (r-z)
F Power
P Action-channels
r
Basic unit of analysis Governmental action as choice Governmental action as organizational output Governmental action as political resultant
Organizing concepts National actor Organizational actors (constellation of which is the Players in positions
The problem government) Parochial priorities and perceptions
Static selection Factored problems and fractionated power Goals and interests
Action as rational choice Parochial priorities and perceptions Stakes and stands
Goals and objectives Action as organizational output Deadlines and faces of issues
Options Goals: constraints defining acceptable Power
Consequences performance Action-channels
Choice Sequential attention to goals Rules of the game
Standard operating procedures Action as political resultant
Programs and repertoires
Uncertainty avoidance (negotiated
environment, standard scenario)
Problem-directed search
Organizational learning and change
Central coordination and control
Decisions of government leaders
Dominant inference Governmental action-choice with regard to Governmental action (in short run) - output Governmental action-resultant of bargaining
pattern objectives largely determined by present SOPs and
programs
Governmental action (in longer run) - output
importantly affected by organizational goals,
SOPs, etc.
General propositions Substitution effect Organizational implementation Political resultants
Organizational options Action and intention
Limited flexibility and incremental change Problems and solutions
Long-range planning Where you stand depends on where you sit
Goals and tradeoffs Chiefs and Indians
Imperialism The 51-49 principle
Options and organization Inter- and intra-national relations
Administrative feasibility Misperception, misexpectation, miscommunication, and
Directed change reticence
Styles of play
Fig. 29. Summary Outline of Allison’s Models and Concepts
MODULE 4: MODELS, THEORIES, AND APPROACHES IN PUBLIC POLICY 147
Unit I: The Nature of and Need for Public Policy
PFEFFER’S ‘POWER IN ORGANIZATIONS’ MODEL AND

WHITELEY’S ‘MODELS OF THE POLICY PROCESS’
Pfeffer combines four models, e.g., 1) the Rational Model; 2) the Bureaucratic Model;
3) the Decision Process model; and 4) the Political Power model in explaining policy
and decision making in organizations. These are described in detail in Figure
30.Whiteley, meanwhile, uses the following in explaining policy making: 1) Systems
Model; 2) Rational; 3) Pluralist-Incremental; and 4) Organizational Theory-
Bargaining Model.
From their titles, these models integrate the various models of public policy and
policy making process which I have explained earlier. The value of these models
is in seeing the phenomenon of policy making as a complex activity which no
single particular policy model may possibly capture completely.
USES OF POLICY MODELS
The policy models I elaborated here have fundamental uses as follows:

1. They simplify systems of problems (messes), reduce and make manageable
the complexities in problems;
2. They help distinguish essential from non-essential features of a problem;
3. They highlight relationships among important variables or factors;
4. They assist in explaining and predicting the consequences of policy choices;
5. They play a self-critical and creative role in policy analysis by forcing
analysts to make their own assumptions; make explicit and challenge
conventional ideas and methods of analysis; and help direct inquiry and
research into public policy;
6. They communicate something meaningful;
7. They suggest an exploration of public policy, its causes, consequences, etc.;
and lastly,
8. They attempt to be congruent with reality.
However, policy models suffer from the following limitations:
1. They are ‘inherently untrustworthy creatures’;

2. They contribute to selective distortion of reality;
3. They cannot tell us to discriminate, describe, predict, evaluate or recommend
since these judgments are external to the model.
4. They are difficult to communicate to policy makers and other stakeholders
for whom models are designed as aid to better decision-making; and
5. They may lead decision-makers to ignore non-model based
recommendations.

In addition, (model building ) is time consuming and can be very expensive.

Nevertheless, they give us ideas to ponder on, as we attempt to appreciate and
discern the complexity of policy making.
Understanding the Role of Power
Dimension Rational Bureaucratic Decision/ Process Political Power

Model Model Organized Model
Anarchy Model
Unclear, ambiguous,
Goals, Consistent Reasonably Consistent within
may be constructed
preferences within and consistent social actors;
across social ex post inconsistent,
actors pluralistic within the
to rationalize
organization
action
Power and Centralized Less centralized Very decentralized, Shifting coalitions and
control with greater anarchic interest groups
reliance on rules
Decision Orderly, Procedural Ad hoc Disorderly,
process substantively rationality
characterized by push
rational embodied in
and pull of interests
programs and
standard operating
procedures
Rules and Norm of Precedent, Segmented and Free play of market
Norms optimization tradition episodic forces; conflict is
participation in legitimate and
decisions expected
Information Extensive and Reduced by the Haphazard Information used and
and systematic use of rules and collection and use withheld strategically
computational procedures of information
Requirements
Beliefs about Known at least Consensually Unclear, Disagreements
action- to a probability shared acceptance ambiguous
about technology
consequence distribution of routines technology
relationships
Decisions Follow from Follow from Not linked to result of bargaining
value- programs and intention; result of and interplay among
maximizing routines intersection of interests
choice persons, solutions,
problems
Ideology Efficiency and Stability, fairness, Playfulness, loose Struggle, conflict,
effectiveness predictability coupling, winners and losers
randomness
Fig. 30. Overview of Pfeffer’s Four Organizational Decision Making Models

SUMMARY
This module has explained answers to the following questions:
1. What is a policy model? What does it do? What are its various forms?;
2. What are the various models of public policy? Which are the process-oriented
ones? the output-oriented ones? the composite and combination variants?; and
3. Why do we need models?
Attempts were also made to apply models to particular Philippine situation with
the end in view of influencing you to do the same, e.g., reflect on the use and
relevance of policy models to our context. I hope you will try.
ACTIVITY 4-2
To make your application easier, I have here a number of scrambled concepts
which when unscrambled within one minute at most per concept, will hopefully
help you remember the key features and contributions of various models of
public policy.
Here now, unscramble the words:

1. TIELE ERPECEFREN
2. ALINTISNITUTOL CIYTATIV
3. CEFITENIF OLGA EVIMEACENHT
4. ITAROLAN ICECHO IN TECOVEMPIIT UTATISOSNI
5. CITARCUAERUB SCITILOP
Answers are below. But, don’t look yet, okay?. Sweat some more. I know you
can answer this easily.

1. Elite preference 2. Institutional activity 3. Efficient goal achievement 4.

Rational choice in competitive situations and 5. Bureaucratic politics.
Did you answer them all correctly? Very good!
How well did you fare?
ACTIVITY 4-3
Now for the more “serious” business, I want you to do the following:
1. Make a matrix which summarizes the main ideas, contributions and

limitations of various models of public policy . Build on the matrix you
earlier developed in Module 2. Also , write your own reflections on the
power of these models in explaining public policy-making in the
Philippine context; and
2. Reading through and experiencing the general policy-making processes in

the Philippines, what do you think is the model/set of models that best
explain them? Apply this model or set of models in a specific policy
concern pf your choice, and explain your reasons for applying the
model/s.
Your matrix and practical application exercise will enhance your grasp of the
framework of public policy-making we seem to have in our setting. They
will also help you value the power of models in describing, clarifying,
explaining and possibly, predicting public policy outcomes and processes in
the country.
You will not be graded for these activities. Mastering this Module, however,
would help you a lot in completing TMA 1.

UP Open University Unit II: The Policy System and Policy
Research and Analysis
5
The Public Policy System
Module 5 provides an introduction to the concept of the public policy system. It

synthesizes the interrelationships of the major components of the system, e.g., public
policy, policy environment and policy stakeholders. In addition, it spells out some
variables within these components which may influence the kind of policy system
our country may have.
The concept of the policy system is complex and dynamic. It requires an inventory of
the terrain of policy making--who matters, what do they have, what are the values and
factors in the policy environment that influence policy making, and what kind of
policies are made. It requires knowledge of the politics of policy making and the
intricacies of policy reform.
OBJECTIVES
• explain the concept of the policy system, its major components and
interrelationships, especially as they relate to the Philippine setting;
• describe the public policy system prevailing in the country;
• analyze the political feasibility of some policy proposals, using the method of
stakeholder analysis; and
• demonstrate the dynamics involved in the Philippine public policy system by
doing a policy research project integrating the lessons learned in this course.
Module 5: The Policy System 152

Unit II: The Policy System and Policy UP Open University
You are expected to complete this Module within three weeks, approximately in at
least 30 hours. You are expected to work on the following:
Consulting Course Manual 10 hrs.

Reading 4 hrs
Self-Assessment Activities/Integration 4 hrs
Policy Research Project 18 hrs.
Total 30 hrs
As earlier suggested, if you think you need more time for Module 5, then give it
more time. If you think you have had enough, move on to the next. However, always
digest what you are learning, and reflect wisely on their relevance to our setting. In
addition, review what you have studied so far and prepare to do your first
assignment.
153 Module 5: The Policy System

ACTIVITY 4-1
PRELUDE TO UNDERSTANDING THE POLICY SYSTEM: A
LEARNING ACTIVITY “FOR YOUR PLEASURE AND
ENLIGHTENMENT”
1) Reading a Script
Before we go to the formalities of the concept of policy system, I would like

you to read a script on “Domestic Violence” which was written by my students
in 1997. It is in Filipino, and hopefully, in a language understandable to all.
In reading the script, I would like you to assume one role (among several
characters in the script) and ask members of your family, your friends or office
mates to assume the role of the other characters. Then together, read through
the script and empathize with your characters. If you do not want to bother your
friends and family, you may read the script alone and put yourself in the shoes
of all the characters in the story. In either instance, you need an open heart and
mind to fully grasp the complexity of the policy system in the policy arena of
domestic violence.
Here is the script:
Domestic Violence: Tampok ang Kuwento ni Bina

by Judith Claridades et al., 1997
INTRO: Screaming wife (being battered) Tama na! Tama na!
MOTHER: Sinabi ko na sa kanya noon pa lang nanliligaw iyang si Anton na

wala siyang mapapala diyan. Halos mamatay sa sakit ng puso ang ama niya
nang sila’y magpaalam magpakasal. Pero wala kaming nagawa, nasunod pa rin
ang gusto niya.

BINA: Hindi naman siya dating ganyan. Halos di niya nga ako masigawan.
Akala ko mahal niya ako, kaya kahit ayaw sa kanya ng mga magulang ko,
pinakasalan ko pa rin siya. Naaalala ko nga, no’ng kasal namin, napakaayos
ng lahat, hindi man engrande, nando’n naman lahat ang mga mahal namin
sa buhay. Kahit si Ma at Pa, labag man sa loob nila ay nagpunta pa rin sila.
Ako na yata ang pinakamasayang babae noong panahong iyon. Kahit

dalawang buwan ko pa lang siyang nakilala bago kami kinasal, siguradong-
sigurado akong mahal ko ang pinakasalan ko. Ano bang pakialam ko sa
sinasabi ng iba, basta ang alam ko masaya kami. Pero ngayon…
M-in-L: Pinakasalan ng anak ko itong si Bina 10 taon na ang nakakaraan.

Mabigat nga ang loob ko sa kanya. Tumira siya sa amin, kahit ayaw ko’y
okay lang. Marunong naman akong tumanggap. Pero ayoko talaga sa
kanya. Sinubukan kong makibagay sa kanya para sa anak ko, kaya’t kahit
inis ako sa kanya’y hindi ko na lang pinansin.
BINA: Pag wala ang asawa ko, lagi akong pinanagagalitan ng biyenan ko. Ayaw
niya talaga sa akin. Mahal na mahal niya si Anton, nag-iisang anak lang
kasi. Ito namang si Anton, ibang-iba ang trato sa akin pag nandyan ang
kanyang ina. Para bang ang lamig-lamig niya. Pero sabi ko sa sarili ko, di
bale na, basta mahal niya ako, tama na yon. Mahirap tumira sa bahay na
‘yon, pero tiniis ko para lang sa asawa’t anak ko.
M-in-L: Isang araw, hindi na ako nakatiis. Sabi ko sa anak ko, “Bakit mo
pinakasalan ‘yang babaeng ‘yan? Hindi marunong magluto; hindi pa ako
tinutulungan dito sa mga gawaing bahay. “Yan! Yan ba ang klase ng asawa
ang karapat-dapat sa ‘yo?” Sabi ko sa kanya baka naman nagkamali lang
siya sa pagpili ng asawa, at habang maaga pa ay mag-isip-isip na siya.
Kawawa nga ang anak ko, litong-lito.
‘Pag kinakausap ko siya, linalayo naman siya ni Bina. Pero nakikinig naman
sa akin ang anak ko at kailanman ay hindi niya ako sinagot nang pabalang.

BINA: Alam ko naman eh, kung anu-anong masasamang sinasabi nang nanay
niya tungkol sa akin. Isang umaga nga, nagkaroon ako ng morning
sickness. Galit na galit siya at ang daming masasakit na salitang
binitawan niya sa akin dahil lang sa nasukahan ko ang sahig. Tumakbo
ako sa kwarto at umiyak nang umiyak. Nando’n si Anton. Hindi ko na
natiis, sabi ko sa kanya sumusobra na talaga ang nanay niya. Sinigawan
niya ako at ‘wag na ‘wag raw akong magsasabi nang kahit na anong
masama tungkol sa kanyang Mama. Tama raw ang nanay niya, masyado
raw akong suplada at masama sa kanya. At wala raw akong karapatang
magsalita nang ganoon. Dapat pa nga raw ay magkaroon daw ako ng
respeto sa ina niya. Wala akong masagot sa sobrang gulat. Kailan man
hindi niya ako sinigawan. Ngayon ko lang siya nakitang magalit sa akin.
Pero naisip ko, hindi naman niya kasalanan ‘yon. Normal lang ang
magkaroon ng away.
M-in-L: Sabi ko dyan kay Anton “Buti na lang sinigawan mo ang malditang
babae ‘yan. Dapat malaman niya kung saan siya lulugar.” Hindi pa rin
sumagot si Anton. Mabait talaga ang anak kong ‘yan eh.
BINA: Sinigawan niya ako nang malakas. Ibang klaseng galit ang nakita ko.
Nanlilisik ang mga mata niya. Tinulak niya ako sa kama. Sabi niya
napakawalang respeto ko raw na manugang. Ni hindi man lang daw ako
tumutulong, puro trabaho ko lang daw ang inaasikaso ko. Humihingi
ako ng pagkakataong mag-explain pero hindi niya ako pinakinggan.
Galit na galit siya, hinigpitan niya ang paghawak sa mukha ko. Never
niya akong sinaktan at pinagsalitaan nang ganoon. Dalawang buwan
na akong buntis noon.
M-N-L: Bwisit na bwisit ako isang araw diyan kay Bina. Pinalayas ko siya.
Aba, sinagot ba naman ako. Buti na lang dumating si Anton.
BINA: Narinig ni Anton ang sinabi ko sa kanyang ina. Hindi ko na kayang

tumira sa impiyernong iyon.
M-IN-L: Haaay, mabuti nga’t nando’n si Anton at nakita niya kung gaano
ka-hipokrita ang asawa niya.

BINA: Gusto ko na talagang umalis no’n. Abot hanggang langit na ang

paghihirap ko. Pero hindi pa ako tapos magsalita, sinampal niya ako.
Tumakbo ako sa kwarto, habang humahagulgol. Sinundan niya ako at
pinatigil umiyak. Pitong buwan akong nagdadalantao noon.
MOTHER: Umuwi na lang bigla itong si Bina isang araw. Iyak siya nang
iyak at sinabi niya sa akin ang lahat. Ilang beses na raw siyang
sinaktan ni Anton, pero hindi ako nagulat. Nararamdaman ko, sabi ko.
Pero dahil pinasok niya iyon, dusa niya rin dapat ‘yon. Hindi kasi siya
sumunod sa amin eh. Payo ko sa kanya: “Umuwi ka na lang kay
Anton,. mag-alaga sa magiging anak ninyo, at sundin lahat ang gusto
ng asawa mo.” Mag-asawa na sila eh. Dumating pa nga ang Papa
niya. Sinigawan siya at pinauwi rin kay Anton.
BINA: Bumalik ako. Walong buwan na ang tiyan ko noon. Lumapit sa

akin ang asawa ko, pero hindi ko siya kinibo. Sinundan niya ako sa
kwarto at nag-sorry. Nilambing-lambing na para bang bagong kasal
pa lang kami. Naawa ako sa kanya, mukha naman talagang sising-sisi
siya. Hindi na raw mauulit. Kaya pinatawad ko na siya.
Namatay ang nanay niya, ilang buwan matapos akong manganak.

Masyadong naapektuhan si Anton. Pagkatapos ng kanyang
pagluluksa, akala ko magiging maayos na ang lahat. No’ng una, hindi
niya nilalaro ang anak namin. Akala ko dahil lang ‘yon sa sobrang
lungkot niya nang mawala ang nanay niya. Sabi ko nga, magbabago
rin si Anton pagkalipas ng ilang buwan. Nagbago nga siya pero hindi
as I expected. Para bang wala siyang pakialam sa anak namin. Sa
tingin ko, hindi niya mahal ang bata. Gusto niya kasi lalaki.
Isang araw nang umuwi ako galing sa trabaho iyak nang iyak ang bata.
Tinanong ko si Anton kung bakit, sabi niya bwisit daw si Suni. Tapos
sinigawan niya ako at sinabing dumating daw ang kapit-bahay at basta-
basta na lang daw iniwan ang bata sa kanya. Sumigaw na naman siya,
dapat raw nauna akong dumating sa bahay kaysa kanya. Sabi ko, hindi
maiiwasan pero tulad nang dati, hindi na naman niya ako pinakinggan.
Sigaw lang siya nang sigaw tulad nang madalas kapag lasing siya. Eh
hindi ko na talaga mapigilan kaya sumigaw na rin ako para tumigil siya.
Pero wala na akong matandaan kundi ang sakit ng suntok at paghampas
niya sa akin. Si Suni naman ay nagsisigaw sa takot.

NEIGHBOR: Gabi noon, at matutulog na kaming mag-asawa nang bigla

kaming may narinig sa aming kapitbahay. Nagbabangayan at walang
tigil na pag-aaway. Tila nagkakasakitan pa dahil dinig na dinig ko ang
mga hiyaw at iyak ng babae. Sabi ko naman sa asawa ko ay tumawag
siya ng pulis o di kaya naman ay barangay para maawat ang mag-
asawa. Madalas na kasing nangyayari yon at talaga namang
nakakaperwisyo na. Sagot ng mister ko sa akin, ay huwag daw akong
maging pakialamera. Sabagay, tama siya dahil buhay nila yon at dapat
sila ang magtuwid ng kanilang gusot.
BINA: Isa’t kalahating taon na ang anak namin. Habang lumalaon ay

palala ng palala ang sitwasyon namin sa bahay. Mala-impyerno na
ang tinaguriang uliran kong tahanan. Tila hindi ko na kilala ang
aking asawa, di na tulad niya ang pinakasalan, minahal at ipinaglaban
ko noon.
Ngayon ay para siyang isang hayop na mabangis. Malupit na siya sa

akin. Minsan pa nga nang umuwi siya na nakainom ay halos
lampasuhin at kaladkarin niya akong parang basahan. Di pa siya
nakuntento doon at pinagpraktisan pa niya ako ng mga suntok na ala-
Onyok Velasco style. Halos knock out ako noon – walang malay sa
paulit-ulit na pambubugbog niya sa akin. Pakiramdam ko’y gusto na
niya akong mawala sa kanyang buhay kung kaya gayun na lamang
ang pagtingin niya sa akin … parang punching bag.
Binalak ko ding magsumbong sa pulis sa pag-aakala ko na sila ang

makakatulong sa ‘kin subalit …

PULIS: Ah, tandang-tanda ko pa ang babaeng ‘yon na halos di ko na

makilala dahil dami ng mga maga sa mukha. Agad akong sumugod
sa kanilang bahay nang siya’y tumawag dahil akala mo’y niluoban
siya o dili kaya naman ay binantaan ng isang serial killer. Yun pala
naman ay asawa niya lang ang may gawa noon sa kanya. Pagdating
sa ganoong bagay ay wala kaming say, wala kaming “K” na
makialam dahil problema nilang mag-asawa iyon. Hindi ko naman
siya pinabayaan ng gayon na lamang sa kamay ng kanyang asawa.
Pinagsabihan ko si mister na ibahin ang paraan ng paglalambing kay
misis. Si misis naman ay pinayuhan kong bigyan pa ng pagkakataon
si mister na magbago, kaya dugtong ko’y magtiis pa siya nang
kaunti.
MOTHER: Nabigla ako ng isang araw ay umuwi sa amin si Bina at ang

aking apo. Payat-na-payat siya at halos mahinang mahina ang
katawan. Alam ko kung bakit siya nagkaganoon. Sabi niya sa akin
ay ibig na niyang iwan ang kanyang mister. Naaawa naman ako sa
kanya pero di ko maaring payagan ang gayon. Nakakahiya! Di pa ito
nangyari sa aming pamilya, kami’y kinikilala sa aming komunidad, at
ano na lang ang sasabihin nila sa amin? Isa pa’y wika kong bahagi
lamang iyon ng buhay mag-asawa at papel niya bilang may-bahay na
panatilihin ang kaayusan at katahimikan sa kanilang tahanan.
BINA: Iniwan ko si Suni sa amin, at napilitan akong umuwi sa hayop kong

asawa. Hindi ko talaga alam kung bakit sa kabila ng pang-aabuso niya
sa akin ay di ko pa rin magawang tuluyan siyang talikuran. Marahil
ay tama ang pulis at ang nanay na problema namin itong mag-asawa at
walang dapat makialam sa paglutas nito kundi kami lamang. Alam ko
na, para makalimutan ko ang aking problema na tila walang pag-asang
malunasan ay iinom muna ako ng napakasarap na alak. Masarap ito!
Ah!!!

MOTHER: Tuloy pa rin ang pagmamalupit ng manugang ko sa aking

anak. Kinupkop ko muna siya upang makapagpagaling siya sa sakit
na dinanas niya. Subalit isang araw ay dumalaw ang kanyang asawa.
Pinatuloy ko pa rin si Anton dahil gawain ko na na sila’y pagbatiin
upang mapanatiling sagrado ang kanilang pagsasama. Umiiyak at
nakaluhod na nagsisi at humingi ng tawad sa aking anak si Anton.
Sinsero itong nangakong di na gagawin ang gayun sa kanyang asawa.
Natuwa naman ako dahil sa akala ko ay iyon na ang katapusan ng
paghihirap ni Bina. Hinayaan ko na silang umuwing magkasama.
PRIEST: Balisang-balisang humingi ng payo sa akin si Bina tungkol sa

kanyang kalagayan. Ikinumpisal pa nga niya ang ilang ulit niyang
pagtatangka na hiwalayan ang kanyang asawa. Di ko ito pinayagan
dahil sabi ko ang pag-aasawa ay hindi tulad ng mainit na kaning
isinubo subalit nang napaso ay iluluwa. Dagdag ko pa, ayon sa turo
ng simbahan, “What God hath put together, let no man put asunder.”
SUNI: Lagi-laging nag-aaway si Papa at si Mama, lagi na lang umiiyak si

Mama. Galit yata sa amin si Papa dahil pati ako ay sinasaktan niya.
Hindi ko nga alam kung bakit nagkaganoon si Papa.
BINA: Tinigilan akong bugbugin nang pansamantala ng aking asawa. Ito ay

dahil nagdadalang tao ako para sa aming pangalawa. Pitong taon na
kaming nagsasama at lalo pang gumagrabe ang aking kalagayan.
Paminsan-minsan ay natatauhan siya at mangangakong magbabago.
Nandoon na halos ligawan akong muli na gaya ng dati. Pero pag ako’y
kanya nang nasuyo ay babalik na naman siya sa mala-hayop niyang
asta. Hindi naman ako nadadala! Hinahayaan ko pa rin na yurakan
niya ang aking pagkatao.

SUNI: Sabi ni Mama ay huwag na lang akong umimik, ganoon talaga ang
papel ng mga babae para hindi na lumalala pa ang gulo sa aming
bahay. Love ko naman si Papa pero hindi ko pa alam kung mahal din
niya ako dahil pati ako ay sinasaktan niya kahit wala naman akong
ginagawang masama. Sabi ng mga kaklase ko, di daw ganoon ang
Papa nila sa kanila . . . bakit?
BINA: Ang hirap talaga ng lagay ko dahil kapag may dumadalaw akong
kapit-bahay ay napapansin nila ang galos, pasa at bugbog sa aking
katawan. Pag ito’y kanilang tinatanong ang sinasagot ko na lamang ay
ako’y nahulog sa hagdanan, nadapa o di kaya naman ay nadulas.
NEIGHBOR: Ang akala siguro ni Bina ay di ko alam ang sanhi ng kanyang

mga pasa sa katawan. Saan pa ba niya makukuha iyon kundi sa kamay
ng asawa niyang pulpol. Pinilit ko siyang kausapin hinggil sa bagay na
ito. Nagbakasakali ako na magtapat sa akin si Bina at humingi ng
tulong. Pero hindi, mas ninais pa niyang huwag mapahiya ang asawa at
tiisin nang ganoon na lamang ang kalupitan ni Anton. Sabagay, wala
naman talaga akong magagawa dahil problema nilang mag-asawa ‘yon.
BINA: Pero baka hindi naman n’ya ako ibig pasakitan. Siguro ay ginagawa
niya lang iyon dahil naghahanap lang siya ng outlet na maari niyang
bugahan pag may problema siya lalo na sa trabaho. Siguro, hindi ko
siya masyadong napagsilbihan pag may kailangan siya. Siguro di ako
naging mabuting asawa di kaya naman ina sa aking anak. Hindi ko na
talaga alam ang dahilan at hindi ko na kayang patagalin pa ito.
Sampung taon na akong nagdusa sa kahayupan niya at di na ito maaring

magpatuloy pa. Alam ko na mali ang ginagawa niya sa akin dahil labag
ito sa karapatan ko, di lamang bilang isang babae, ngunit mas higit sa
lahat ay bilang isang tao. Kalabisan ang ginawa ng asawa ko, wala na
akong pakialam sa sabi ng pulis, ng kapitbahay, ng pare at pati ng nanay.
Oo, trabaho ko nga na panatilihin ang kaayusan at katahimikan sa aming
tahanan pero di sa lahat ng pagkakataon ay dapat na manatili akong
tahimik at nagtitiis sa kalupitan niya’t pang-aalipusta. Hindi, hindi, hindi
na maaari at hindi ko na papayagan pa!

SUNI: Ayokong matulad kay Mama. Hindi ako mag-aasawa kasi baka
gawin lang sa akin ng mapapangasawa ko ang mga ginagawa ni Papa
sa Mama.
ANTON: Mahal na mahal ko naman ang aking mag-ina. Ayaw ko silang

saktan. Kaya lang, nakukulitan ako sa kanila, lalo na kapag marami
silang hinihinging kailangan sa bahay. Ayoko ring pinagtataasan ako
ng boses. Para kasing nababawasan ang pagkalalaki ko…
2) Understanding the Policy System in the Arena of Domestic Violence
From the story you have just read and “felt”, answer the following:
a. What do you think is the problem in the story? Why?
b. Why do you think domestic violence is an issue here?
c. What factors and events contribute to the battering of Bina?
d. Who are the major players here and what role/s do they play?
e. If you were to resolve the policy issue of domestic violence, what will you
do?
f. Do you think your suggestion will be received or accepted by our present
policy system? Why?
Write your answers in your notebook.

Some Explanations
1) The Problem
In a nutshell, the problem being presented in the script is the problem of gender
inequality. This is manifested by the issue of (domestic) violence against
women. In this story, Bina is a helpless creature. She is continuously subjected
to abuses by her husband because in cases like this where men seem to be more
superior than women, violence against and battering of Bina seem a natural
recourse.
Violence may be committed by both genders. However, the usual victims of

domestic violence are women. Some 6 out of 10 women suffer physical battery
world-wide; more than 1,400 women are battered daily in the country. Women
usually endure battery for as long as 20 years. In addition, most of their children
witness acts of domestic violence daily.
Violence is the mental, physical, sexual or emotional abuse of a man to a

woman (Philippine Labor, 1995). It occurs everywhere- at home, office, church,
other places. It happens to women of all walks of life- housewives and
professionals, rich and poor, legally married or live-in, with or without children.
2) The Reasons
It happens because of various reasons. These include, among many, the

following:
1) women provoke men, e.g., nagging, over-jealousy, over-acting, etc.;
2) men want to assert their power and control over women;
3) media has a role in propagating the view of women as sex objects and
“objects” to be had and to do anything for or against;
4) patriarchy exists which implies dominance of men over women, men as king
whose will is the law of the land;
5) men have psychological and other problems, and women are logical
“outlets”, e.g., sparring partners, etc.

Moreover, there seems to prevail a culture of machoism and sadism, where

violence against women is a natural recourse. In addition, power domination
seems to be reinforced by stereo-typed socialization by gender, i.e., women
should work in the house doing household chores; men should be outside and be
the main breadwinner of the family.
Add to these, are other factors that contribute to domestic violence, which include
among others,
1) the Church’s and the Philippine Constitution’s (1997) teaching against

separation of couples, to preserve the sanctity of marriage;
2) women’s (economic) dependence on men, i.e., many women are “plain”
housewives;
3) prevailing world-view that violence within the family is a private matter
and not a crime;
4) view that women are possessions of husbands;
5) demographic, biological and other differences between men and women;
and
6) there is no law in the country against wife beating. In the police blotter, for
example, domestic violence as a crime is non-existent.
3) The Major Players
The major players in this issue are the wife-victims, the husband-batters, family
members, e.g., children, friends and relatives of spouses, the Church, lawyers,
members of non-government (NGOs) and government organizations (GOs), media
practitioners and others. Everyone has her or his own perceptions of the issue.
Unfortunately, most of these views tend to reinforce domestic violence.
For example, the following stakeholders would say:

The church
“You have been united by

God. That is part of the
cross you have to carry.
That is part of God’s plan
for you.”
The law enforcers:
“It is only a domestic squabble that

can be resolved solely by the couple.”
“We do not want to interfere with
domestic affairs.” “It is a domestic
issue, and it is out of our jurisdiction.”

The Lawyers
The family and relatives
Misis, we do not have enough
evidence to support your case.
“You wanted him in the first place so
Maybe next time?”
learn to bear and live with it.” “He is
your husband; he may reform in the
future.” “How about your children?”
The Victim
He will reform someday when he

realizes what he has done to me.”
“I don’t have a place to go to.”
“What about my children? They
may turn wayward if they grow
up without a father.”
Public opinion
“It is her fault because she is a nagger.

Or maybe she is a bad wife and a bad
mother.”
She should have kept quiet, if only for

the dignity of her family.” “She
should bear it and live with it for the
children and peace within her family.”

4) Towards Resolution of Domestic Violence: The Policies
These perceptions and world-views of policy stakeholders seem to work within the
framework of a policy system which does not adequately respond to the complexity
of the problem of domestic violence. As earlier stated wife beating is not a crime and
no law exists to punish or deter domestic violence.
More specifically, a perusal of existing and proposed policies related to domestic

violence yields only the following:
1. Existing Policies
a. The Revised Family Code and New Civil Code
1) Article 149: “The family is the basic social institution; family relations
are governed by law and no custom, practice or agreement destructive to
the family shall be recognized or given effect.”
2) Article 57: “Non-commission of acts which will bring danger, dishonor
or injury to each of the spouses or to the family shall be the primary duty
of spouses.”
3) Article 55: “Petition for legal separation shall be accepted only on the
grounds of repeated physical violence, gross abusive conduct directed
against petitioner, or attempts to the life of the petitioner.”
b. Revised Penal Code
1) Article 262: “Mutilation of parts of the body or of the reproductive organ of
another is punishable by imprisonment of 8 to 12 years and 12 to 40 years.”
2) Article 263: “Serious physical injury resulting to mental incapacity,
impotence, blindness, physical deformity or incapacity to work
temporarily or permanently is punishable by 6 to 12 years.”
3) Article 265: less serious injuries shall be punishable by 1 to 6 months;
4) Article 264: administering injurious substances or beverages, same as in
Article 265;
5) Article 246: parricide shall be punishable by 20 to 40 years.
c. The Philippine Development Plan for Gender Responsive Development, 1996-
2025
d. Setting up of Substitute Homes and other Services for Women in
Crisis/Especially Difficult Circumstances
e. Punishing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
f. Creation of the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women

2. Proposed Policies
a. HB 628: An Act to provide a comprehensive program against wife beating,
increasing penalties for habitual offenders thereof, and for other purposes
(authored by Tessie Aquino-Oreta)
b. HB 949: An Act to provide a comprehensive program against wife cruelty,
increasing penalties for offenders thereof, and for other purposes
c. HB 2978: An Act to penalize wife beating, providing penalties against
offending husbands , and for other purposes
d. HB 8289 & SB 1398: An Act that penalizes acts which constitute domestic
violence and provide for immediate relief of victims through the issuance of
protective orders (Laurel-Trinidad and Defensor-Santiago, authors in the
House of Representative and the Senate, respectively); and
e. HB 8618: An Act defining and imposing penalties for the crime of domestic
violence (authored by Liban).
Most of these proposed policies have been filed since the 8th Congress (under
President Aquino) and until now have yet to become laws or policies. Many of them
have reached only up to second reading.
5) Some Tentative Conclusions
Thus, if we were to paint a picture of the policy system that seemingly prevails in our
context, with domestic violence as a case, we may say that:
1. Generally, the policy system in the country is one which conservatively and
unwittingly reinforces male dominance over women, despite the relatively
higher status accorded Filipino women than their Asian counterparts.
2. Wife beating exists and occurs because of reasons enumerated above. Other
factors also contribute, but were not explained here.
3. Numerous stakeholders, either individuals or institutions, have various roles,
influences in and perceptions of domestic violence. Many of these though,
reinforce wife battering.
4. There exists no law or policy against domestic violence, although there are
provisions in the existing policies that indirectly address domestic violence.

5. Numerous proposals to address and deter domestic violence against women exist.
However, though many of them have been in the ‘mainstream’ of policy
legitimation, none has been accepted, adopted and legitimated yet by the
government or public authorities.
6. All these point to the need to re-examine the factors , actors and policies (or lack
of them) that reinforce domestic violence, and also to suggest ways to modify them
to minimize, if not eradicate domestic violence.Fig. 31 presents in diagram form,
our findings on gender inequality and domestic violence.
FACTORS IN THE INDIVIDUAL & POLICIES

ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTIONAL
PLAYERS ⇒ Family Code &
⇒ culture of machoism Civil Code
⇒ patriarchy or male ⇒ wife-victims ⇒ Penal Code
dominance ⇒ husband- batterers ⇒ Philippine
⇒ stereo-typed gender ⇒ children Development Plan
socialization ⇒ family members for Gender-
⇒ (economic) dependence ⇒ friends & neighbors Responsive
of women on men ⇒ police Development,
⇒ view that violence in the ⇒ the church 1996-2025
family is a private ⇒ the lawyers ⇒ Philippine
matter ⇒ the legislators Development Plan
⇒ other psychological, ⇒ NGOs for Women
biological factors ⇒ Media practitioners ⇒ Others
⇒ others
Fig. 31. The (Seeming) Policy System in the Arena of Domestic Violence
This is a very crude representation of the interrelations and linkages of all relevant factors,
actors, variables and components in the policy system of domestic violence. I hope though,
that with this simple conceptualization, you will be able to comprehend this complicated
system.
I know that there may be other components that may not be included in the discussion.
However, I hope you will supply them yourself here, or in the policy research assignment
that you will do after this module.
Now, for the more “formal” discussion of the policy system.

THE CONCEPT OF THE POLICY SYSTEM
According to Dunn (1981), the policy system is the overall institutional pattern within
which policies are made. It involves the interrelationships among 3 major elements,
e.g., public policies; policy environment; and policy stakeholders.
The policy environment includes forces and conditions in the environment that affect
policy-making.
Policy stakeholders, meanwhile, are individuals or groups who have a stake in the
policy process because they affect or are affected by government decisions.
Public policy as an output-oriented concept connotes a long series of more or less

related choices (including decisions to act or not to act) made and taken by
government to provide common good, public welfare and interest, and improve
society. As a process-oriented concept, it is described as an extremely complex,
analytical and political process which has no beginning or end, and with
boundaries which are uncertain. It is a dynamic process whose various
components make different contributions to it. It decides major guidelines for
action directed to the future, mainly by government, for the interest of the public
formally to achieve what is good by the best possible means.
THE FRAMEWORK OF THE POLICY SYSTEM
The policy system is represented by Dunn (1981) in Fig. 32. The arrows connote
interrelationships among the three components of public policy, policy
environment and policy stakeholders.
A Policy B
Stakeholders
C D
E
Policy Public
Environment B Policies
Source: Dunn, 1981 as adapted from Dye, 1978
Fig. 32. The Three Elements of a Policy System

This conceptualization was adapted from Dye (1978) who earlier studied education
policies in the United States. In Dye’s study, he found out that there were various
factors affecting the decision to segregate busing of black and white Americans. In
addition, there were several institutions and individuals whose behavior and
resources influenced policies on racial discrimination and the like. Dye’s model is
presented below Fig.33:
ENVIRONMENT POLITICAL SYSTEM PUBLIC POLICY
Institutions,
A Processes, B
Behavior
C D
Environmental E Public
Forces and
Policies
Conditons F
Linkages: A-F
Source: Dye, 1978 as adapted from Coleman, 1966
Fig. 33 Linkages in Policy Analysis
THE COMPONENTS OF THE POLICY SYSTEM: FOCUS ON

THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT
The public policy component was explained in detail in Modules 1, 2 and 4 of this
Study Guide. For this module, the two other components will be clarified, e.g.,
policy environment and policy stakeholders.
As earlier defined, policy environment consists of forces and conditions in the

environment that affect policy-making. It comprises specific contexts in which
events surrounding a particular policy issue occur. Also, it is that which generates
and transmits demands for policy action. It limits and poses constraints. It
includes the social, political and economic context of policy decisions. It also
includes the intra-social/societal, economic, demographic , physical
environmental and overtly political factors in both our domestic and international
settings.

POLITICAL CULTURE
Among the overtly political factors is political culture. Political culture refers to
the orientations of the people toward “action which are called conception of
legitimacy” (Beer and Ulam, 1968). Lawrence Meyer (1972) calls this variable
the “modal patterns of orientations toward specified political objects.” He also
calls it a “more politically oriented version of that old and rather imprecise
concept of national character that can be traced back at least to the writings of
Montesquieu.”
Gabriel Almond (1970) calls it the “civic culture” while Beer and Ulam calls it
“the structure of norms and beliefs” which is “concerned with how government
ought to be conducted and what it should try to do.” (Meyer, 1972)
Political culture also comprises the widely held values, beliefs and attitudes of
people concerning what governments should try to do and how they should
operate. It also implies the relationship between the citizens and their
government, which in turn could be categorized into parochial, subject or
participant.
A subject relationship pictures the State as the ruler and the citizens as the
governed. The latter merely follow the dictates of the former. A participant
relationship, on the other hand, offers a more active role in governance among the
governed. In the parochial relationship, meanwhile, the citizens seem more
apathetic and unconcerned. In real life, though, no set patterns exist in pure
forms. There may be hybrids and combinations.
The political culture may also be moralistic, individualistic, traditionalistic and

their mutations. It can also include major value orientations such as freedom,
equality, progress, efficiency, practicality, democracy, etc. It also connotes the
society’s time orientation, e.g., whether it is rooted in the past, present, and/or
future.
In the Philippines, the political culture is seemingly (and wrongly?) observed in

the Filipino’s manana habit, passive participation in governance, and time
orientation rooted in the present. However, it seems that democracy and freedom
also prevail in our consciousness, giving us more than a saving grace.
Many Filipinos would not care to participate in governance because many would
better put their energy into satisfying their basic needs and subsistence. If
Filipinos don’t have food on their tables, how can they possibly think of other
people? However, this value orientation seems pervasive in only some segments
of the society. Nevertheless, there is a need to probe into the psyche of the people
to find out why they behave that way.

The seeming Filipino time orientation rooted in the present may be explained by
perceptions that we as a people do not have a sense of history nor any inkling of
what we could be in the future. Some observers say that unlike in Europe where
they preserve, conserve and enhance the legacy of the past, e.g., in art, culture,
architecture, science, engineering, we Filipinos wantonly desecrate historical
treasures and legacies such as our natural patrimony (i.e., our forests and other
natural resources such as rivers, mountains, flora and fauna species are
diminishing; in addition, we don’t have any marker of Andres Bonifacio’s birth
place; we tear down old buildings which represent our past, etc.). Also, unlike in
North America, we do not nurture our scientists and inventors who could bring us
forth into the next millenium.
SOCIO-ECONOMICS CHARACTERISTICS
The country’s socio-economic characteristics, e.g., its urbanization,

industrialization, income classification , education attributes and the like also
influence different political orientation. The more urban and industrialized, the
more exposed to modern technology, thus the more liberal and updated in
perceptions, or so some think.
The structure of a nation’s economic enterprise or who owns the major means of
production also has a role to play in molding the stakeholders’ world-view. This
also sparks debates on which is more effective in bringing about progress, e.g.,
public and private ownership, capitalism or socialism.
TECHNOLOGY
(Advanced) technology or the application of science to the production of goods

and services; wealth; status in the international market (core- periphery; North-
South; G7-G77, now regrouped into the Group of 8 (G8) including Russia as
against the 688, representing the poor nations) also affect our culture of
aggressiveness, submissiveness, silence or militancy.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The same is true with our physical environment including the geographic and other
characteristics of our natural resources, e.g., climate, topography, land and water
bodies, ecological crises. With El Nino and drought, people tend to be more
conscious of water shortage and conservation than when supply were more
adequate. Good weather is capitalized by farmers of staple and cash crops in Baguio
and Davao. Frequent storms , for example in the typhoon belt of old , including
Samar, Sorsogon, etc. (before the El Nino phenomenon), also make people in these

areas more prepared for calamities and adjusted to this natural way of life than
those not used to these natural phenomena.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Demographic characteristics such as population size, age distribution, spatial

location, density, social divisions or cleavages also influence in policy making
and reform. Population control measures, incorporation of interests and claims of
indigenous peoples, compromises with secessionist groups such as the Moro
National Liberation Front (MNLF) of Nur Misuari before the Southern
Philippines Council for Peace and Development, are some of the examples of
policies modified and formulated because of these characteristics in mind.
REGIME CHARACTERISTICS
Political community and regime characteristics, e.g., shared identity and

commitment of members, established democracies and autocracies, are also
environmental forces and conditions that policy analysts and makers should
always bear in mind for they affect the progress and results of policy-making and
reform. As Anderson (1975) put it, “to understand how management and policy
decisions are made and why some decisions are made rather than others, we must
consider social, economic, political and other factors.”
However, which factor has more influence in shaping public policy is still an
open question. It depends on the policy issue concerned and the circumstances
that come into play. The effect of environmental forces may be sole determining,
the irresistible cause, may be liberating or evil, conditioning, interactive,
reciprocating, or ethically neutral. It is up to us to fully discern their effects.
Moreover, we must remember that each factor in the policy environment has
independent effect/influence, either on policy or stakeholders or both. What its
effect is, we must uncover ourselves and appreciate.
FOCUS ON THE POLICY STAKEHOLDERS
Policy stakeholders are interchangeably referred to as ”policy makers”, “policy

actors”, “influential”, “maker”, formulator”, and “implementers”, depending on
the stage of the policy process they are involved in, or depending on the policy
issue being studied.

Policy stakeholders are individuals or groups which have a stake in the policy
process because they affect or are affected by government decisions (Dye, 1978).
They are also players in position or men in jobs (Allison, 1971).
They may be the Chiefs or bosses, e.g., the President of the Republic; Staffers or
the immediate staff of each Chief; the Indians or the political appointees and
permanent officials in government; and the ad hoc players or the actors in the
wider government game, especially Congressional influentials, members of the
press, spokespersons of important interest or lobby groups, and surrogates for
each of these groups.
Nicolaidis (1963) classifies policy stakeholders into three: first, someone who has
formal authority to make decisions; second, someone whose will is the sine qua non
of the policy to be made; and lastly, the total network of all forces within the
organization and its environment which contribute to the development of the policy,
guiding the activities of the organization at a given time.
Anderson (1975) groups them into the official and unofficial stakeholders.
Official stakeholders are those who possess legal authority to engage in the
formation of public policy, e.g., legislators, executives, administrators, judges.
They are further grouped into the primary (i.e., they have direct constitutional
authority, e.g., Congress, to formulate public policies) and the secondary official
players (i.e., they must gain authority to act from others, e.g., from the primary
official stakeholders, and thus are at least potentially dependent upon or
controllable by them, e.g., administrative bodies).
The unofficial policy stakeholders, meanwhile, cover all others not included in the
first set. They do not possess legal authority to make binding policy decisions.
They include interest groups, political parties, individual citizens.
In the Philippine setting, policy stakeholders may include the official

stakeholders, e.g., the President of the Philippines, the legislators, the justices, the
bureaucrats, local officials and others who have official mandate to govern and
make, adopt, implement, monitor or evaluate public policies. It may also include
unofficial stakeholders like interest groups, NGOs, POs, individual citizens, the
clergy, the businessmen and their sectors, academicians, others.
It must be noted at this point that no one person, group or echelon can be marked
as the exclusive policy stakeholder. All of them have roles to play.

For better appreciation of the reason/s why other policies are adopted and others
are not, you as prospective policy analyst and maker must have basic knowledge
of stakeholder analysis. In addition, it would be better for policy proponents to
first “test the balloon” and find out how acceptable or politically feasible their
policy proposals are.
WHAT IS A STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS? THE CONCEPT EXPLAINED
I am sure the memories of the Chico Dam project and the death of Macli-ing
Dulag in the Cordillera are still fresh in your mind. So do, among others, the
aborted Bolinao Cement Plant in Pangasinan , the proposed and now approved
San Roque Dam straddling between Itogon, Benguet and Pangasinan, the
proposed burial of former dictator-president Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan
ng mga Bayani, and the Hacienda Looc land conversion issue.
All these have one thing in common: despite a very efficient cost-benefit analysis,
social acceptability was missing. It is like marrying somebody you do not know
because your parents wanted you to, and spending the rest of your life together,
without knowing whether you will have bliss or spend your lifetime with a beast!
With stakeholder analysis (SA), at least you will know whether proposals are all
right, despite some adverse or beneficial intended results. With SA, you will
know whether your proposal will sell, flop, or need revision to succeed.
Stakeholder analysis is a tool you may use to map the politics of policy
alternatives, choices or decisions. It provides you with an understanding of the
future political implications of policy decisions; thus, enabling you to think
through policy adoption and implementation strategically. It gives you clues on
whether to go on with a preferred option, redefine it a bit, compromise with
strongly contending parties, or do something else.
Technically, SA is defined as political feasibility analysis or a systematic

evaluation of the political implications of policy decisions. Its main proponents
include Arnold Meltsner (1972) of the University of California at Berkeley,
Graham Allison (1971) of Harvard University, and Weimer and Vining (1989,
1994) of the University of Pennsylvania.

Meltsner’s “Loose Algorithm” for stakeholder analysis include the following,

boxed for your convenience, easy reading and recall:
Inventory of Actors
- Who is/are usually concerned about the policy issue or area?
- Who will benefit or lose if a particular policy is adopted?
- What other groups might become involved?
Beliefs and Motivations

- What do the actors believe about the policy issue/area?
- What are their frame of reference?
- What are their policy preferences?
- What are their fundamental ‘non-negotiable’ values?
Resources
- What does each actor have at his or her disposal to get what they
want or block what they don’t want--money, prestige, power, a
de facto vote or what?
Probable Effectiveness
- Estimate which actors can be politically effective and discard
those who are seemingly ineffective
- Be concerned with those actors who are likely to use their
resources to secure political support for their preferences.
Crew’s (1992) Strategic Thinking (as he calls stakeholder analysis), meanwhile,

consists of a systematic assessment of the values and interests of those whose
cooperation is needed to achieve designated goals. It also consists of efforts to
calculate the utility of alternative courses of action. These imply asking ourselves:
• What do we want to achieve?

• Who are the actors that can affect what we want to achieve?
• How do they see their interests and what are they likely to do in
• view of this? and
• How can we alter what they are likely to do, so we can achieve
• our goals?
The basic query is “How can we take advantage of the interests and values of
others to further our ends?”

The Component Steps
Procedurally, these queries and frameworks may be explained by the following

component steps below. These are usually sequential but iterative, moving along
and repeating steps again and again, as we learn about the political environment.
These steps are mainly adopted from Arnold Meltsner’s (1972). We weave
through Thomas Graham Allison’s (1971) version and complement the
discussions with a particular Philippine case that may illustrate the application of
these component steps.
Meltner’s Version (University of California at Berkeley):
1. Specify the policy problem’s relevant political environment

Answer the following:
a. What is the policy space? (e.g., Is the broad problem in health? law? etc.?)
b. What is the issue area or the more specific problem area of your
policy problem, e.g., Is it health insurance?
Research on the problem or issue’s substance or content,
time and visibility, and previous political action or support.
2. Organize political information.

Do either or both of the following:
a. Draft a political scenario. Speculate future political
possibilities of a particular policy alternative.
b. Gather information on
1) Who are the relevant actors?
2) Which individuals or actors are likely to voice an opinion
on the policy issue or problem?
Here, you
a) Identify at least two sets of actors--those with
substantive interests on the issue and those with
official standing in the decision arena;
b) Compile other potential actors. Assume anyone with a
strong interest, whether economic, partisan, ideological
or professional, will become a policy actor.
3) What are their motivations and beliefs?

a) Understand or guess how they will view particular
problems and proposals;

b) Heed the insight of the aphorism, “Where you stand

depends on where you sit”;
c) Consider the background of the actors and the intensity

of their beliefs;
4) Assess the resources the actors have at their disposal

which may include any or all of the following:
a) Power according to Smith (1976) is the ability to bring
about some change in the behavior of others in the
manner which one desires, and/or prevent one’s ways to
be modified in the manner in which one does not desire.
It may be coercive and causative, depending on which
source of power is used, e.g., force, law, expertise,
support or sanction. This is illustrated below:
Smith’s Causative and Coercive Powers, 1976
COERCIVE POWER CAUSATIVE POWER
force law
THE COERCERS THE AUTHORITATIVE
coercion legitimacy
inducements POLICY
POLICY
constraints MAKING expertise
MAKING
THE INFLUENTIALS THE EXPERTS
support/
sanctions knowledge
Power is an elusive blend of bargaining advantages, skill and will

in using these advantages to effectively influence government
actions and decisions (Allison, 1971). It may include :

• formal authority and responsibility, stemming from one’s

official or government position;
• actual control over information to carry out action;
• expertise;
• the ability to affect other players’ objectives in the game; and
• access to and persuasiveness with players who have
bargaining advantages.
In addition, “power wisely invested yield an enhanced reputation
for effectiveness” (Ibid.)
b) Other resources, which may include any or all of the following:
A List of Other Possible Resources of Stakeholders:

Meltsner, 1978: Heaver, 1982:
Generic Resources Specific Resources those who -
material job with increased wages have formal authority
symbolic assignment to high status control resources
Congressional committee control the agenda,
physical street violence budget process,
position Office of the President procurement of physical
information lobbyist expertise resources, information
skill sense of timing are irreplaceable
those departments or interest
Astley & Sachdeva, 1984:
groups who actually get the
hierarchial authority
most or the “finest” resources
resource control
& most favorable treatment
network centrality
3. Choose the Political Arena and their sets of rules about how a
decision is made. Choose the site of decision-making.
a. Site fixes of action of your scenario.

1) Locate potential constraints.
2) Provide a reference point to discuss the key actors, their values,
motivations, beliefs and resources.
b. Explore possible political strategies within arenas.

1) Be guided by Heaver (1982), Weimer & Vining (1994) and
other possible frameworks in assessing stakeholders’ possible
strategies. These are described below (Fig. 34).
Heaver. (1982)
° Political Gamesman - skilled politician, highly sensitive to informal

goals and priorities, to the sources of power and to the key officials or
to the politicians who are now and will become powerful
° Entrepreneur - invests energies where there is greatest prospect of

return
° Incentive Follower or Yes-Man - Reactive and follows the line of least

resistance within a given incentive pattern
Weimer & Vining. (1994)
° Shift issue(s) to more favorable arena(s)
° Co-optation - getting others to believe, support or favor you, especially

when your proposal infringes on the turf of others, through
• heart to heart talk
• coercion, bargaining, side payments
• negotiations
° Compromise - substantive modifications of proposals to make them

more politically acceptable by
• removing or modifying features which are most objectionable
to its opponents
• adding features which are attractive to the opponents
• negotiating and bargaining to reach agreements
° Remember you are dealing with people who have emotions. Save face.
° Negotiate interests than positions.
° Heresthetics Roker. (1986)- strategies that attempt to gain advantage

through the manipulation of the agenda or the circumstances of
political choice
° Rhetoric - use persuasive language
Fig. 34. Possible Political Behavior or Strategies of Stakeholders

4. Make a matrix and judge.

a. Your matrix could have the following topic heads or formats:
Format 1 (Meltsner, 1978):

Stakeholders Motivations Values/Beliefs Resources or Possible Stand or
Power Response on
Issue
Format 2 (Moharir, 1990):

Issue at Hand Actors/ Issue Resources & Anticipated
Stakeholders Relevance Skill(s) in Using Response
Resources
b. Remember to watch out for a combination of very high issue

relevance, availability of very high resources, strong + or -
orientation to policy change, and skills in using resources for the
stakeholder’s own advantage.
Allison’s (1971) Framework:
Allison who used to be the adviser to US President Robert Kennedy during the
Cuban Missiles crisis and before becoming the dean of the Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University, offers the following steps to cautiously ensure
the political acceptability of policy proposals:
1. Determine who plays or who are the stakeholders and players in position.
Also answer: Whose interests and actions have an important effect on
government decisions and actions?”
2. Identify and analyze the factors that determine each player’s stand. These
may include identifying
a) the actors’ parochial priorities and perceptions of issues, which may
stem from one’s position in or out of government, external pressures
or baggage, other factors
b) their goals and interests, which may be personal, sectoral, domestic,
international or organizational
c) their stakes or stands, which are respectively, the individual’s
overlapping interests defined by the issue at hand; and the synthesis of
these interests

d) deadlines or faces of issues which are the actors’ perceptions and

perspectives on the issues and events that force them to make a stand.
3. Determine each player’s impact on the results of the game. This difficult
task can be done by assessing each player’s power and sources of power,
which in addition to those enumerated above, may include, one’s
hierarchical or formal authority, expertise and control over vital
information, personal or charismatic persuasion, and access to power
holders.
4. Evaluate the game by answering how the players, their respective stands,
influences and moves, yield influences or impact on government decisions
and actions.
a) Action channels are regularized means of taking government actions
on specific issues, such as through recommendations, memoranda,
concept or position papers
b) Some rules of the game are explicit; some are not
c) The game of policy making is a political resultant wherein players
pull or haul with power simultaneous with or as their discretion for
outcomes advances their concept of personal, organizational or
national interest.
5. Make a matrix (similar to those above) and judge.
You may want to consider this alternative format:
Format 3 (Allison, 1971):

Stakeholders Stand Parochial Goals & Stakes Faces Sources Effect Game
or Players in of Priorities Interests of of of &
Position Players Issues Power Power Result

I am appending a sample of an application of Stakeholder Analysis on

the issue of land conversion. It is not yet complete since there are
missing parts, e.g.,
1) the definition of the problem; as well as

2) the “final” judgment or assessment on whether to stop or to proceed
with land conversion.
Nevertheless, it will give you an idea of what to expect in, and how to
do stakeholder analysis. See back of this Module for details.
Uses of Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder analysis or SA may be used as input on how to design change, effect

change or adapt to change in public policies.
As input to design change, stakeholder analysis lists the groups or individuals

affected, reviews the interests and concerns of these stakeholders, and determines
their probable effects. As inputs on how to effect change, it lists and observes
alliances and support, assesses strengths and weaknesses of each and all relevant
stakeholders, and projects the stakeholders’ reactions and possible actions. In
addition, as input on how to adapt to change, it monitors reactions and results and
verifies the resources and powers of each relevant policy stakeholders.
Generally, stakeholder analysis

a) improves political feasibility and social acceptability of proposals and
policies;
b) provides an understanding of the complexity of policy making and
c) forces us to watch out in advocating more politically palatable policy
alternatives.
Thus, if the earlier proposals, e.g., Chico Dam project, Bolinao cement plant, etc.,
did some second-guessing and stakeholder analysis, they could have survived
and could have been implemented, more so had the indigenous peoples, the host
communities, the policy makers that matter been studied, “massaged” and
conditioned to accept rational policy proposals. Loss of lives, heated debates and
the like may have been avoided. Easier adoption of urgent proposals may also
have been assured sooner.

Requirements and Limitations

SA, however, requires a great deal of specific information on the political system,
the stakeholders, their strengths, stands, fall back positions, and political and
other data which are difficult to collect. To explain these point, let me refresh you
with the experience in the Chico Dam Project.
Engineering studies in Mt. Province yielded three potential sites for a hydro dam
project that would generate water both to electrify and irrigate lowlands in Luzon.
The first site had the highest elevation and could contain the greatest volume of
water. It got the highest net economic benefit; however, it would submerge a
whole area of ancestral territory claimed by the tribes of Macli-ing Dulag. The
second site had medium net economic benefit; would submerge only part of the
ancestral territory; and was located in medium elevation.The third site was a low
elevation area which could contain only much water which would not flow down
easily by gravitation; had least net economic benefit; and would not traverse any
part of the ancestral territory.
Using purely economic considerations would have yielded only a limited partial
view of the context of decision-making. In this example, site one would have been
the best choice. However, such a decision ignored the plight of the people where
the dam project would be built. Also, it would have have attracted resistance and
feud and exposed the government’s negative bias for the people it should serve.
Using SA in addition to economic and other analyses would hve defused this
volatile situation. It could have paved the way to social acceptance, particularly if
compromises and trade-offs had been rationalized to consider the sectors that
would have been disadvantaged by development initiatives.
Stakeholder analysis could have pinpointed those who matter and those who
would be disadvantaged and benefitted. It could also have led to proposals that
could cushion potential adverse effects of policy proposals.

SAQ 5-1
I would like you to integrate what you have learned in Module 5. Answer the
following and get “enlightenment” from those explained here, and in other
articles intended for this module. Here are the questions:
1. What do you understand by the concept of the public policy system? What
are its components, interrelationships and linkages?
2. Applying this framework, how might you describe the policy system in the
Philippines? What distinct features does the country’s policy system have
?
3. Using stakeholder analysis, how can you analyze the political feasibility of
some policy proposals?
4. What is the relevance of the concept of policy system in our setting?

ACTIVITY 5-2
In addition, work on the following activities that may enrich your understanding
of the policy system:
1. Analyze a particular public policy you are familiar with, say the policy of
resettling the lahar victims of Mt. Pinatubo, the traffic management policy of
Metro-Manila, the population policy of the country, trade liberalization,
economic growth zones, etc. (Of course you may work on a different policy
of your choice!) List as many variables, factors and actors, both individual
and institutions, who may have influenced the form and substance of such
policy. You may construct a matrix with the factors/variables on one section
and the actors in another. Across these entries, you may explain in what ways
you think they have influenced such policy.
This exercise may force you to think of the components of the policy system in
such particular policy arenas. It may also compel you to systemize your
understanding of the actors and factors which interrelate with each other to
form the kind of policies we have at present.
2. Repeat this exercise with other policies you know. Or try some
experimentation by analyzing the interrelationships between actors and
policies to shape the kind of factors/variables that may be present. Do some
combination of analyses of these interrelationships between among the
components of the policy system.

3. Using as guide the section in this module devoted to stakeholder analysis ,

evaluate the political feasibility of any of the following proposals:
a. shift to parliamentary from presidential form of government;
b. legalize divorce in the Philippines
c. ban sending of domestic helpers overseas
d. repeal the Mining Act of 1995
e. repeal the Fisheries Code of 1998
f. scrap the pork barrel
If you do these activities very well, you will have an easy time completing TMA
1. As you may have noticed, TMA 1 is found at the latter part of your Course
Guide.

6
Policy Research and
Analysis
Module 6 provides a conceptual frame to the policy research project you did in
TMA 1. It provides some standards which you should meet to confidently say
you are indeed doing policy research and analysis.
More specifically, this module
a) defines the concept of policy research and analysis;

b) elaborates its main features, similarities and differences with other types of
research;
c) clarifies its basic principles and some do’s and don’ts in communicating
results; and
d) explains its various frameworks, procedures and steps.
OBJECTIVES
• distinguish policy research and analysis from other types of research; and
• explain the importance of propagating the use of policy research in the
Philippines.
Module 6: Policy Research and Analysis 189

This module is an introduction to policy research and analysis. It is relatively

shorter, and easier to read and understand. Thus, you are expected to complete it
only in a week’s time. In terms of hours, you are expected to allot at least 12
(hours), broken into:
Consulting Course Manual 6 hrs.

Reading 3 hrs.
Reflection/Integration 3 hrs.
Total 12 hrs.
Pace your study based on your own style and discipline. Finish this in 12 hours or
less, but always remember to digest your learning and reflect on their meanings in
our context.
SAQ 6-1
Having done TMA 1 you must be fairly familiar with the concept of policy
research and analysis. Now let’s check how familiar you are indeed with the
topic.
In your own words, I would like you to answer:
1. What is policy research and analysis?
2. How different or similar is it to other types of researches you have done so

far?
3. What distinguishes policy research from other types of research?
4. What can you do to contribute in propagating the use of policy research and
analysis in the Philippines?
The answers to these questions are in the text. They are, however, stated in a
different manner e.g., in my own words. Nevertheless, I hope you will be
clarified and enlightened by Module 6. Do read other articles and materials in
Set 2 and 3 of your package, so that you’ll have a richer appreciation of the
topic. Okay?
190 Module 6: Policy Research and Analysis

WHAT IS POLICY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS?

I do not want to belabor you with a definition of policy research and analysis.
Like the field of policy science and studies, these concepts continue to evolve.
They were first used probably in the 1950s when Charles Lindblom spoke of a
study using quantitative and non-quantitative analysis involving incremental
comparisons of values and policy. (See incrementalism in Module 4).
Over the years, policy research /analysis/ science has evolved to also mean:
• an applied social science discipline that attempts to produce useful

information for policy decision-making in the political context.
Policy analysis does not condescendingly regard the wheeling and dealing,
wining and dining, negotiations and compromises in policy-making. Rather,
it considers them in analyzing the feasibility and implementability of policy
options;
• a client-oriented advice relevant to public decisions and informed by social

values.
Its clients are ideally the public for whom public welfare and interest should
rest. Nevertheless, the research’ clients may also be policy makers, politicians
and other stakeholders;
• the use of multiple methods of inquiry to produce and transform policy-

relevant information to resolve policy problems.
These include quantitative and qualitative techniques, e.g., benefit-cost
analysis, decision tree, difference equations, policy Delphi, stakeholder
analysis, scenario writing, and other tools and approaches which you will
learn from other policy courses, e.g., P.A. 242, P.A. 242.2 , P.A. 243;
• reliance on factual information and information about facts, values and ideals.
It depends on statistics and explanations on such statistics. It uses both
objective and subjective information which are relevant to the decision being
made. It also involves imaginative thinking, systematic integration of trained
intuition into policy analysis, development of qualitative tools and
construction of broad quantitative and qualitative models of complex issues,
in cooperation with behavioral sciences and other disciplines;
• its utility as advice to solve societal problems.

Its goal is to provide information as basis for social action, not to further
develop theory about an area of activity (this will be discussed in detail in the
next section on the principles of policy research);

• ‘decision-oriented’ rather than ‘conclusion-oriented’ research.

Its concern is not, for example, the problem of land conversion of agricultural
areas to residential or industrial use per se, but on the approaches to address
the problem and prevent its negative effects and impacts such as threat to food
security, environmental degradation, etc.
In this case, the decisions to consider may include whether to

• stop land conversion;
• to allow conversion, but with safety nets; or
• to maintain the status quo;
• an audience of a set of political actors, not political scientists.

Its subject is a basic societal concern which is authoritatively addressed or
acted upon by the official stakeholders in the policy-making arena.
Moreover, as we have concluded in Module 3, policy research and analysis are

one and the same and are used interchangeably to mean policy science. As such,
it is a multi-disciplinary, eclectic, problem-solving activity which aims to improve
policies and societal situations. It is both descriptive, evaluative and prescriptive.
Also, it is both art and science.
Policy science, policy analysis or policy research has also various slants and
concerns as we can glean from the Gordon et al.’s 1977 model (Fig. 35) (as
reprinted in Hill (ed.), 1995).
Analysis for Policy Analysis of Policy

Policy Analysis of Policy Analysis of Analysis of
Advocacy Information for Monitoring Policy Policy Content
Policy & Evaluation Determination
Fig. 35 Typology of Policy Analysis, Gordon et at., 1977
According to these scholars, the most obvious distinction in varieties of policy

analysis is in terms of explicit purpose and/or client, separating analysis for policy
from analysis of policy. In terms of established line of research, this is probably
the most important distinction, as it reflects a division of disciplinary concerns.
Yet within the dichotomy lies a continuum of activities from policy advocacy at
one end to the analysis of policy content on the other.

POLICY ADVOCACY
This denotes any research that terminates in the direct advocacy of a single policy,
or of a group of related policies, identified as serving some end taken as valued by
the researchers. The connection of such research with the decision network may
be rather less direct. It may be aimed at policy makers, in which case it assumes a
degree of value correspondence, or it may serve to challenge existing policies and
appeal to rival groups or public opinion at large.
In other cases where a very strong commitment to a particular course of action

predates the research, whatever analysis was conducted may have been designed,
consciously or unconsciously, to support the case to be argued. Information is
gathered and organized in order to sustain a point. This style of policy analysis
“is often carried out by reformist pressure groups”, although it is by no means
entirely absent from some types of university research.
For example, after thorough analysis of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA),
you come to the conclusion that it is disadvantageous to the country as a whole,
your recommended action can be an advocacy against its ratification by Congress
and the Executive.
INFORMATION FOR POLICY
In this mode, the researcher’s task is to provide policy-makers with information

and perhaps advice. It assumes a case for action, in terms of either the
introduction of a new policy, or the revision of an existing one. It may be carried
out within the research branch of a government department; by outside researches
funded by that department; by independently-funded researchers; or by other
individuals or by associations who have simply chosen to address their scholarly
activities to policy issues.
The activity itself may be confined to the provision of useful data (e.g.; on
demographic change) for consideration in policy-making. It may, however, go
beyond this, to elucidate causal relationships, and thereby suggest definitely
policy options.
For example, you found out in your study of land conversion cases in selected
areas in the country that 1) the (land conversion) rates are faster in areas near
highly urbanized areas, say Bulacan which is near Metro Manila; and 2) that there
is a relationship between land conversion and food security, land valuation, and
environmental degradation. By all means bring these vital information to the
Department of Agrarian Reform and other agencies that should act on this
problem!

POLICY MONITORING AND EVALUATION
These frequently take the form of post hoc analysis of policies and programs. In
an obvious sense, all policy agencies perform monitoring and evaluation functions
with respect to their own activities, although some may be facile, uncritical or
self-legitimizing. Evaluation for policy review is, on the other hand, a more self-
conscious business, particularly where the policy or program in question has an
experimental aspect.
Monitoring and evaluation can be aimed at providing direct results to policy-

makers about the impact and effectiveness of specific policies. But it can do more
than this. Post hoc review of policy impact may be used for feasibility analysis in
future policy design, via the specification of a feasible set of actions. In this mode,
the object of policy analysis is to inform policy makers of the limits of possibility.
“Better” policies might then be those which are more closely tailored to the
constraints of feasibility imposed by the intractable external world of policy
makers.
ANALYSIS OF POLICY DETERMINATION
The emphasis here is on the inputs and transformational processes operating upon
the construction of public policy. Attempts to analyze the policy process are
inescapably based on explicit or implicit models of the policy system. In some
cases the model is seen as being driven by environmental forces, in others by
internal objectives and goals, in yet others by the internal perceptions of the
external environment. In contrast to advocacy or information, this mode can tend
to over-emphasize the constraints on action, to the point where patterns of activity
are portrayed as the necessary outcomes of a confluence of forces.
An example of this type of policy research is with regard to analyses of the causes
of the economic crises in the Asian region. Some would point to external factors,
e.g., the domino effect of globalization and currency devaluation, for example of
the Thai baht or the Chinese Yuan. Others would point to the weak national
fundamentals occuring in each of the countries affected by the Asian “contagion”.
Analysis of Policy Content
This category of activity includes many studies which have been carried out,
within the social administration and social policy field, of the origin, intentions
and operation of specific policies. Typical of this category are the numerous
descriptive accounts which have been given by academics on such policy areas as
housing, education, health and social services.

While their results may help to inform policy-makers, it is not usually an explicit
aim of such studies, for they are conducted for academic advancement rather than
public impact. In their more sophisticated variants, content studies engage in
“value analysis” and show social policies as institutionalizing social theories.
ACTIVITY 6-1
Before we proceed to the next sections, I want you to summarize your
understanding of policy research and analysis. As in a previous module, I
want you to unscramble the following words or core phrases which define
policy science. There are five “riddles” and I hope you get all of them
correctly. Here goes:
1. EDIPAP CALIOS CESCENI

2. LINTEC DETNEIRO
3. SESU TILPELUM DOSTHEM FO IQUINYR
4. CEVADI OT COSTALIE SBLORPEM
5. ONSICEDI DETNEIRO
I believe you don’t have to look for the answers anymore because you have
already internalized the meanings of policy research and analysis. Nevertheless,
they are somewhere in this module, for comparison and scoring.
A score of
5 means you have been keen in learning policy analysis;
4 means you knew policy research already but it seems something is

wrong with your eyes;
3 & below means you have not been concentrating on our lessons; thus
there is a need for you to reread the earlier portion of this module. Don’t
feel intimidated though. You are a good and conscientious student, and I
know you’ll do better next time.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN FEATURES OF POLICY

RESEARCH?
Policy research may be distinguished from other types of researches by looking at
its main features and principles which include the following:
POLICY RESEARCH PAYS ATTENTION TO THE POLITICS OF

POLICY-MAKING
Policy research gives attention to, instead of ignoring or condescendingly

regarding the political aspects of public decision- and policy-making.
Also, it gives much attention to the problems of political feasibility (as what is
done in Stakeholder Analysis which was explained in Module 5), recruitment of
support, accommodation of contradicting goals and recognition of diversity of
values. It considers these aspects seriously in order that its policy
recommendations may have better chances of being adopted and implemented.
Put simply, policy research knows the game, the players and the goals of both the
the play and the players.
IT VIEWS DECISION-MAKING BEYOND RESOURCE ALLOCATION

OR ECONOMICS
Based on the premise that a broad conception of decision-making and policy

making should be evolved, policy analysis adopts a qualitative exploration of new
alternatives beyond quantitative analysis and cost-benefit estimation.
This practice is exemplified by lessons from our recent history, e.g., the Macli-ing
Dulag experience and the like, which implore that we view societal solutions in
their totality and in the context they arise.
The lesson that can be learned from that the Macli-ing Dulag experience is
development projects should not rely on economic cost-benefit analysis inputs
alone, but also on other considerations and analyses such as the social, cultural
and indigenous traditions in the area, stakeholder analysis, Delphi, scenario
writing and the like.
IT EMPHASIZES CREATIVITY AND ENCOURAGES INNOVATION
Instead of comparative analysis of available alternatives and synthesis of new

alternatives only, policy analysis encourages innovative thinking and creativity in
addressing societal problems.
It advances fresh ideas, even the revolutionary , untested ones. An example of the
latter is what you are doing now: studying via distance education.
In the past, solutions to the problem of increasing access of people to quality

education were limited to those which 1) provide subsidies and grants, e.g.,
“Study now, Pay later” schemes; 2) relocate schools from the urban centers to the
rural areas; or 3) do not do anything about the problem.
With the introduction of information technology and the technology of distance

learning, you may now avail of quality education in your own home or office.
This innovation has been existing in other countries for a long while; however,
distance learning was never accepted nor known to us Filipinos until 1995.
Increasing access to quality education used to be centered on formal structures

and classrooms. But with the technology of distance learning, access is
democratized and learning is more fun and sensitive to learner’s situations or
predicaments.
IT EMPHASIZES “FUTURES” AS ESSENTIAL FOR CURRENT

POLICY-MAKING
Policy research underscores thinking with long range predictions, alternative

states of future and speculations. It assesses each alternative policy options by
‘writing’ scenarios or probable states, positive and negative effects and impacts
and the like.
IT APPROACHES PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS SYSTEMATICALLY
As you can discover in its processes and steps, policy research and analysis
requires rigor and systematic discipline.
IT IS APPLIED, INTER- AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARY, POLITICALLY

SENSITIVE AND CLIENT-ORIENTED.
It integrates knowledge from a variety of branches of knowledge and build them

up into a “supradiscipline” (Dror, 1971) focusing on public policy making. It is
based in particular, upon the fusion between behavioral sciences and analytical
decision approaches. It absorbs many elements from decision theory, general
systems theory, operations research, strategic analysis, systems engineering and
similar modern areas of study. Physical and life sciences are also relied upon by
policy science, insofar as they are relevant.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF POLICY RESEARCH

Policy research also adheres to some basic principles according to Coleman
(1965). They include:
• Partial information before decision is better.

• Correctness of predictions or results is important; redundancy is
valuable.
• It distinguishes between policy and situational variables.
• Output is social policy modified.
• Research problems are real and beyond any academic discipline
• It requires special self-corrective devices.
• It values seeing one path of action pursued rather than another.
• Acceptance of problem determines utilization of output.
• Disclosure or action upon results of policy research depends on the
benefit it gives to concerned party.
• It requires analyst’s personal values and advocacy.
Specifically, these principles mean:
FOR POLICY RESEARCH, PARTIAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT

THE TIME AN ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IS BETTER THAN
COMPLETE INFORMATION AFTER THE TIME
This is similar to a Filipino adage, “Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang
kabayo?” (or literally, “What is the use of the grass when the horse is already
dead?”). Like the saying, policy research basically asks for speedy intervention in
a seeming “life or death” situation, using whatever relevant materials or data are
available. Otherwise, any delayed action, decided upon using complete
information, will be of no use.
For example, with regard to the Spratlys issue, particularly when the Chinese built
permanent structures in the atolls along the contested area, a policy researcher
does not need to spend years of study to gather confidential and other data
relevant to the issue.
To resolve the question of whether to do something or not with the seeming

Chinese provocation does not require a long period of observation, picture and
other documentary evidence-gathering and the like.
One has “merely” to be knowledgeable about our constitutional provisions against

war and aggression against our neighboring countries, international laws of the
sea, military might of both countries, evidences of alleged altercation or

provocation by the Chinese, among others. Then, the policy researcher has to
assess all possible options and based on various criteria, decide or suggest what
should be done about the issue and soon. Otherwise, the effect of right timing will
be diminished.
In the issue at hand, the probable option is to file a diplomatic protest or

communicate diplomatically the Philippine stand against alleged altercation. If
this becomes indeed the preferred alternative of the policy research, this should
be done immediately to maximize impact and secure immediate positive action
from the Chinese government.
THE VALUE OF POLICY RESEARCH RESULTS LIES IN A HIGH

PROBABILITY OF GIVING APPROXIMATELY THE RIGHT GUIDES
TO ACTION, RATHER THAN IN THEIR DEVIATION FROM OR
CORRESPONDENCE TO A GOOD THEORY. THE CRITERIA OF
PARSIMONY AND ELEGANCE THAT APPLY IN DISCIPLINE
RESEARCH ARE NOT ALWAYS IMPORTANT. THE CORRECTNESS
OF THE PREDICTIONS OR RESULTS IS IMPORTANT AND
REDUNDANCY IS VALUABLE.
In the example above, the main intention of policy research is to resolve the
Spratlys issue and not merely to add to the body literature on the subject. The data
collection, problem structuring, and solution analysis that are undertaken are not
merely to conceptualize the issue and be subject of debates and other academic
theory building exercises. They are done to aid policy and decision-making.
THE ULTIMATE PRODUCT OF POLICY RESEARCH IS NOT A

CONTRIBUTION TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE IN THE LITERATURE,
BUT A SOCIAL POLICY MODIFIED BY THE RESEARCH RESULTS.
The possible outputs of the research tinkering on the Spratlys issue, for example,
may include a) a modification of the international agreement of about five States
on the Spratlys, e.g., Philippines, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei; b) a
diplomatic agreement between the Philippines and China on the reported
provocation; or c) a revised international law of the seas, covering the disputed
Spratlys.
These outputs do not resolve whether there is a correlation between active

aggression or provocation and military might of countries. Although such
relations are always inputted into the policy research.

IT IS NECESSARY TO TREAT DIFFERENTLY POLICY VARIABLES

WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO POLICY MANIPULATION AND
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES WHICH ARE NOT. THE BASIC THRUST
OF POLICY RESEARCH IS TO CONTINUE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF
POLICY VARIABLES.
For example, some policy variables in the population planning and contraceptive
debate, include the existing population policy, the family planning programs and
their components, e.g., IEC, contraceptives, responsible parenthood, reproductive
health, etc., and program resources.
Some situational variables in this policy concern include the program clientele’s
socio-economic status, religion, etc. Outcomes here include fertility, marriage,
migration rates, population size, structure.
Policy research focuses on the first group of variables because policy makers have
“manageable control” over them. The latter set of variables is usually beyond
their control and exists as given. Policy makers would have difficult time
changing them to ensure successful policy interventions. Although of course, we
must admit that in policy making, these givens have to be improved, especially if
resources and political will allow.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM OF POLICY RESEARCH ENTERS FROM

OUTSIDE ANY ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE AND MUST BE CAREFULLY
TRANSLATED FROM THE REAL WORLD OF POLICY OR THE
CONCEPTUAL WORLD OF THE CLIENT WITHOUT LOSS OF
MEANING.
This simply means that policy research begins with a problem formulated outside
any discipline and beyond any intellectual problem posed by previous research or
theory. Its solution will not bring about the advancement of knowledge in the
discipline, but societal policy modified.
Examples of policy research problems include rampant conversion of prime

agricultural lands to industrial or residential purposes; exploitation of children;
forest fires and haze; deregulation of the airline industry; electoral fraud and
others. Note that these problems are not the exclusive concern of only one
discipline but of numerous disciplines.

THE EXISTENCE OF COMPETING AND CONFLICTING INTERESTS

REQUIRES SPECIAL SELF-CORRECTIVE DEVICES SUCH AS THE
COMMISSIONING OF MORE THAN ONE RESEARCH GROUP UNDER
THE AUSPICES OF DIFFERENT INTERESTED PARTIES AND
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS, USING AN
ADVERSARIAL OR DIALECTICAL PROCESS.
Ideally in recognition of the competing and conflicting interests among

stakeholders in the policy process, numerous groups and institutions are assigned
to analyze policy problems. This practice not only prevents the “crippling” of the
intent of policy research, but also enriches the final assessment of policy
alternatives with various perspectives and values of these commissioned policy
analysts.
VALUES IN POLICY RESEARCH IMPLY A DESIRE TO SEE ONE

PATH OF ACTION PURSUED RATHER THAN ANOTHER.
This involves the role of values, both objective and subjective, in policy research.
Here, values are used to advocate certain positions which are believed to be the
best in addressing or solving societal problems. Ethics and causes come into play
and may pose some dilemmas among policy researchers. However, the role they
may assume depends ultimately , on their conscience. We will have a small
discussion on these ethical considerations in the later sections.
THE VALUES GOVERNING TRANSMISSION OF RESEARCH

RESULTS BACK INTO THE WORLD OF ACTION ARE DETERMINED
BY CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLICY RESEARCH
PROBLEM.
The importance of correct and acceptable problem structuring is stressed in this

principle. Technically, this requires avoidance of three types of errors: correct
solution to a wrong problem; a wrong solution to a correct problem; or wrong
solution to a wrong problem, which are the Types I, II, and III problems in policy
research.
Politically, structuring problems in their political context is required to ensure

adoption and implementability of preferred policy alternatives. Stakeholder
analysis likewise is necessary.

RESULTS OF POLICY RESEARCH WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE

ACTED UPON OR OPENLY DISCLOSED TO OTHERS, UNLESS IT
BENEFITS A PARTY’S INTERESTS.
This answers questions such as, “How come the computerization of elections was
not approved for the 1998 elections?”, “How come the PEA-Amari deal was
consummated?”, or “How come the ban on lumber exports was lifted? (and then
re-issued?)”
Important findings of policy research will remain hidden to the public, especially
when their implementation would adversely affect the interests of the party who
controls their dissemination.
Corollary, findings which will benefit the party who controls their dissemination
and adoption, will surely be disseminated to the public. Examples of these are
“coliform dosage” that settled the Boracay issue; the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Acts of 1997 that seemingly “settled” the IP issue in the Social reform Agenda;
and the inclusion of social acceptability in the Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) issued to infrastructure and development projects such as the
San Roque Dam in Itogon, Benguet and San Mateo, Pangasinan, the Fil-Estate
Project in Hacienda Looc, Nasugbu, Batangas, and the coal-fired Quezon Power
Plant in Mauban, Quezon.
THOSE STAGES OF POLICY RESEARCH SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY

THE INVESTIGATOR’S PERSONAL VALUES AND SHOULD
APPROPRIATELY INCLUDE ADVOCACY.
This principle logically encourages advocacy of preferred alternative/s which are

considered the best to address the societal problem at hand, based on a relatively
rigorous study of the advantages, disadvantages and value added of each policy
option.
Thus, if after a rigorous policy research using stakeholder analysis, benefit-cost

analysis, forecasting, scenario writing and other methods of inquiry, the policy
analysts find it best to, say for example, review the privatization policy on
monopolies such as the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS), and National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) and social-service-
oriented specialty hospitals such as the Philippine Heart center (PHC), National
Children’s Hospital, National Lung Center (NLC), and the National Kidney
Institute (NKI), then it is but sensible for them to advocate for the adoption of
such a review. Reviewing the privatization policy of the government at this point,
may be the most rational thing to do, in order to prevent more losses in financial
and other aspects. Thus, there is a need for more active articulation and lobbying
by the policy analyst and maker of the merits of this seemingly best and preferred
policy alternative.

SAQ 6-1
1. What is policy research?
2. What distinguish policy research from other types of research?
THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH OTHER

TYPES OF RESEARCH
Policy analysis is similar to as well as different from other types of researches,
particularly those done by various disciplines, say pure sciences such as physics,
chemistry or zoology, in terms of the following attributes:
Main Similarities and Differences

with Other Types of Research
Similarities Differences
• follows truth wherever it may lead • value-centered

• fact-based • oriented to choice among
• needs clear operational definitions alternatives
• uses rigorous techniques • uses tests of validity
• presents findings that can stand the • needs knowledge of
scrutiny of the scientific community stakeholders

SIMILARITIES
Policy research, like other investigative studies, follows truth wherever it may
lead. For example, like in the PEA-Amari land deal investigation by the Senate
and the Ombudsman, policy research may also uncover, in the process of
tinkering on options to deal with the alleged scam, that the land deal is
disadvantageous to the government and that some under the table arrangements
may have been committed by some government and Ital-Thai Amari officials. If
the buck stops at President Ramos or Speaker De Venecia, policy research will
not and should not shy away from such discovery.
Policy research is also fact-based. And as earlier mentioned, it relies on facts and
facts about facts. For example, in the allegations of assassination plots against
President Ramos by Vice President (now President) Estrada, policy research
could easily discern which is true and which is not, what is the motive of those
who peddle lies and political strategies, and what should and could be done to
minimize mudslinging in electoral contests.
As in other types of researches, policy analysis defines its concepts and uses
rigorous methods of inquiry to arrive at findings that can stand the scrutiny of the
academic and other communities. For example, in arriving at policy options to
address the issue of heinous crimes, say kidnapping and kidnapping with murder
and ransom, policy analysis uses library and other approaches in data gathering,
analysis and presentation. It does not assess options such as hiring foreign
assassins to kill suspected masterminds and leaders of syndicates, basically
because the option is not appropriate, correct and well-thought of. It may be an
idea borne out of desperation and as such, may not be validly considered in policy
research.
DIFFERENCES
Policy analysis is different from discipline and other types of researches. Its
features, as discussed above, and its satisfaction of various considerations or
criteria, as presented Table 5 below, set it apart.
More specifically, policy research does not have the leisure of time which
discipline researches enjoy. The President or any major policy maker would want
recommendations or advice based on policy research in just say, one week.
A recent example is when President Ramos ordered the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to give him
recommendation on the much contested DENR A.O. which lifts the ban on
lumber exports from May to December 1998. The Secretary made a policy
research of sort, conducted hearings and public consultations with various
stakeholders, reviewed the legal, economic and other implications of the said

A.O., and in a matter of two weeks, came out with a recommendation

withdrawing such A.O. and maintaining status quo, e.g., continue with the ban.
Discipline researches, say your thesis, term paper, or experiment, would require
more than that time.
Policy research subscribes to a set of principles which we have explained earlier,

and as such does not always require complete information before deciding on a
particular policy concern. It does not always subscribe to objectivity and
neutrality in values as in rigid scientific basic research. In addition, its decision-
orientation is intended to modify societal conditions whose beneficiaries are not
solely the academics or university libraries. Its clients are decision and policy
makers whose arena is the world of action. Its results, e.g., policy
recommendations or preferred courses of actions must be understood by non-
academicians and therefore, should be communicated in the language of the
layman.
A policy researcher’s preferred alternative in the policy issue on heinous crimes,

say the abolition of death penalty, could not be stated in such a way that it
confuses rather than clarifies. One cannot use on policy makers, for example,
jargons and rhetorical peculiarities such as, “the moral and legal fundamentals
existing are conducive to the abolition of the death penalty”. In policy research,
one says “Death penalty does not deter crime. Nor does it achieve what it legally
and morally mandates it to do… Thus, it should be abolished and instead
alternativ x, should be adopted.”
If you have come across Mobiline ads over television, you know what I mean by
expressing in layman’s term. Saying “you’re pregnant” or “you’re going to have
a baby” is simpler and easier to understand than saying “your uterus wall…”.

Table 5. Differences between Policy and Discipline Research
Criteria Discipline Research Policy Research
nature basic, conclusion-oriented, applied, mission-oriented,

concerned with knowledge & theory concerned with actions &
decisions
aims describe, explain, understand predict, control influence,

prescribe, decide, forecast
origin world of discipline, science, world of action

academe
clients academics, students decision/policy makers
questions factual, e.g., “Will agrarian reform practical, e.g., “Suppose we

bring about a revolution?” implement CARP, will farmers
have better produce?”
language technical, sophisticated layman’s
time leisurely time-bound
information complete partial information at the time

the action must be taken
value neutral, empirical biased, practical

Source: Weimer and Vining, 1991
SAQ 6-2
Compare and contrast policy research and other types of (discipline) research.

DOING POLICY ANALYSIS
PREPARATIONS FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
Based on systems analysis, decision approaches and behavioral sciences

integrated in policy sciences, policy analysis should become a main contribution
to the improvement of policy making. However, this requires a number of
innovations, starting with the training and development of highly qualified policy
analysts who know how to do policy research (Dror, 1971).
In knowing how to do policy research, an analyst must satisfy the following

requisites (Weimer & Vining, 1991):
An analyst must
• know how to gather, organize and communicate information under
deadline pressures and in situations where access to relevant people is
limited;
• be able to develop strategies for quickly understanding the nature of
policy problems and the range of possible solutions;
• be able to identify, quantitatively and qualitatively, the likely costs and
benefits of alternative solutions and communicate these assessments to
their clients.
An analyst needs a perspective for putting perceived social problems in context.

When is it legitimate for government to intervene?
An analyst needs technical skills to enable him or her to predict better and to
evaluate more confidently the consequences of alternative policies.
An analyst must have an understanding of political and organizational behavior in

order to predict and perhaps, influence the feasibility of adoption and successful
implementation of policies.
An analyst should have an ethical framework that explicitly takes account of his
or her relationships with clients, e.g., handmaid or client advocate, neutral
researcher, issue advocate or policy entrepreneur, or according to Meltsner, the
three types: the technician, the politician, and the entrepreneur.
A handmaid or client advocate sees his or her work as support to the “whims” of
the client who commissioned him/her. His or her advocacy is towards the welfare
of the client, not the cause. He or she strives to provide the client or employer an
evaluation of alternatives that can be used as inputs to formulating decisions.

A technician, meanwhile, is a neutral researcher. He or she has excellent

analytical skills but few political skills who would “rather be right than on time.”
The politician is the analyst-tuned-bureaucratic, striving for personal
advancement. He or she is more attuned to politics than analysis.
The (policy) entrepreneur, meanwhile, is highly skilled in both analytical and

political skills. He or she knows how to work with numbers and people…does not
let his or her immediate client constrain him or her… sees the public interest as
his client…has strong normative views of the scope of government… is more
aware that his or her preference guide the selection and solution of societal
problems.
Most analysts prefer the entrepreneur and seek to exercise both political and
technical skills. However, to be an entrepreneur is not easy. He or she must not
only make appropriate use of policy analytic methods ( problem structuring,
forecasting, monitoring, evaluation, recommendation). The entrepreneur must
also be an agent of planned change and as such must:
• win the cooperation and assistance of persons who would affect and are
affected by a given policy;
• produce recommendations that are politically acceptable to the policy
makers, and target groups and beneficiaries of a policy; and
• design recommendations with a view toward their implementability
(Quade, 1975).
The analyst who does not understand the relationship with the client, especially
the analysts responsible to an elected official, is likely to be frustrated and
disappointed. Often, political factors come in the way of technically superior
alternative. And as Lineberry cautions: “It does not stretch a point too much to
say that politicians usually listen more carefully to voters than analysis, whereas
the opposite is true of experts. In essence, the question is whether a policy should
be adopted because a majority prefer it or because it is the rational thing to do.”
Occasionally, the two positions are synonymous, but the analyst must also expect
instances when they are not.
An earlier experience with a “big” politician comes to mind. A senator came to

the College one fine day in 1995 to seek technical expertise. He mentioned he
wanted to chair the Committee on Government Corporation and would need
someone who knew the sector by heart. The dean and a former UP chancellor
gave my name and thus, I received a call from his secretary requesting me to go to
his office in Makati. I came only to get entangled into a debate with him on the
issue of privatization. He was for a more aggressive selling of government
corporations and assets. I was for a more cautious privatization policy which
includes other modes of getting the private sector to own or manage public
corporations. We got into a “heated” debate. That was the end of our
“relationship”.

Policy analysts would get into discussion with policy makers who have closed
minds and limited agenda. More likely, conflicts will always arise.
When there are value conflicts between the policy analyst and his or her client,
the following alternative responses recommended by Weimer and Vining (1991)
may be considered:
ISSUE
1) VOICE 2) EXIT
ULTIMATUM
PROTEST RESIGN
SPEAK OUT
UNTIL
SILENCE
LEAK RESIGN &

DISCLOSE
3) DISLOYALTY
SABOTAGE
Fig. 36. Alternative Responses to Conflicts
In the anecdote I told you, I did not do options 2) exit; and 3) disloyalty basically
because we did not have official ties yet. I “merely” voiced my opinion; protested
and “exited”.
Meanwhile, some analysts are depressed because they do not know what to say.
Others complain that their good ideas and advice are ignored. Politicians like “bad
ideas” as much as, and sometimes more than, those in good currency with the
“political community”. That community’s influence is challenged by the
politicization of the policy research process, in particular by oxymoron-advocacy
think tanks.
Most analysts have experience with the demand for bad ideas. Who has not
briefed a decision maker who wants information to support a fixed position rather
than to select a course of action? Sometimes, this supply-reduced demand seems
strongest on the decision maker’s part, for ignoring quality analysis allows
maintenance of a politically attractive position (Meyers, 1996). That is the policy-
maker’s loss and look out.

SAQ 6-3
1. What would you do if you and your client have conflicting views on how
to resolve a societal problem?
Having been forewarned of what you as prospective policy analyst and researcher
should have been equipped with before undertaking policy research, it is now
time to explain the process step by step. There is no hard and fast rule on this
one, as various scholars espouse one and the other. But I have a mini-
compendium to guide you.
Various scholars and practitioners describe the policy research and analysis
process differently (See Table 5). I will not say which model you should follow.
But try to discern which among the following suit our context as well as the
policy problem you are solving.

Table 5. The Processes and Procedures in Policy Research and Analysis
Stokey and Zeckhauser, 1978 Hogwood & Gunn, 1984

1. Establish the context 1. Deciding to decide
2. Lay out the alternatives 2. Deciding how to decide
3. Predict the consequences 3. Defining the Issue
4. Value the outcomes 4. Forecasting
5. Make an analysis or a choice 5. Setting objectives & priorities
6. Analyzing options
7. Deciding
Dunn, 1991 Mendoza, 1992

1. Structure the problem 1. Structure and define the policy
2. Monitor, forecast policy alternatives problem (P)
3. Evaluate actions, consequences, 2. Layout, value the alternative
performance and possible anticipated
4. Recommend analyses or forecasts (A)
3. Choose the preferred solution
Weimer and Vining, 1994 and work for its adoption and
1. Problem analysis implementation (S)
2. Solution analysis
3. Adoption and implementation
4. Monitoring and evaluation
Basically, they follow the problem-alternatives-solution (PAS) pattern I earlier

explained in Module 2. But of course, they differ on their slant. The common
element though among these processes is the notion that policy research and
analysis is an iterative process in which the policy problem is reformulated as
objectives are clarified, alternatives are designed and evaluated, and better models
and solutions are developed.
Other frameworks of the policy analysis process are quite short; others are longer.
I did not include Kraemer’s (1981) framework in Table 5. I am presenting it here
because it is quite an exhaustive set of guidelines:
1. Identify the policy problem.

2. Identify the client or the stakeholder to whom recommendations
should be addressed.
3. Describe the problem in detail.
4. Review previous suggestions for dealing with the problem.
5. Review past experiences with similar problems.
6. Draw up a list of things you think your client would do to deal with the
problem.
7. Draw up a list of other actions which are plausible to do to deal with
the problem.

8. Describe all these actions, evaluate their anticipated effects and

outcomes.
9. Limit your analyses to those with substantial probability of producing
good results.
10. Review the likely consequences of options narrowed down in Step 9.
11. Assess and decide on the best option.
12. State the concluding recommendation in summary form.
13. Solicit competent reviews, and re-evaluate preferred recommendation.
14. Communicate to the client your preferred option.
Depending on, among others, the problem you are solving, you may not go
through all these steps sequentially. These are just guides to give you direction
and enlightenment.
USUAL FORMS (Mendoza, 1992)
In your Assignment #1 Guide, I described some of the forms of policy research

paper or output you may develop. Among them are:
• position paper
• concept paper
• options paper
• briefing report
• staff report
• white paper
The various manifesto and propaganda of some non-government organizations

and policy research institutes may fall under the first type, e.g., position paper.
Although of course, we may never be sure if rigorous policy analysis has been
made. Nevertheless, their manifestos are the most applicable I can think of for the
moment. Here, you will read or hear these organizations like the Cordillera
Peoples Alliance up North denouncing the Mining Act of 1995 and calling for its
repeal. You will also read the Center for Investigative Journalism calling for a
renegotiation in the PEA-Amari land deal.
Another example of a position paper is the anti-Chacha proponents call for a stop
in moves for Charter change. Also and more recently, the call of pro-death
penalty groups to push through with the execution of Leo Echegaray, is an
example of a position “paper”.

An example of a concept paper is the Senate’s primer materials on the

Implications of the GATT-WTO on Philippine Industries. President Ramos’
blueprint of Philippines 2000 and President Estrada’s “Plan for the Masses” may
also fall under this category.
An options paper is the one I did to address our ballooning foreign debt. (This is
appended in Module 6; pages 222 and beyond. This paper lists a number of
(about ten) options. The numerous papers by concerned sectors, e.g., the
Philippine Export Industries, Inc. and the Chamber of Commerce in the country,
on how to deal with the currency crisis, are also examples of an options paper
which the Philippine government may take to deal with this issue.
Briefing and staff reports are usually the confidential (“For your Eyes Only”)
reports policy analysts in government prepare and submit to their bosses before a
meeting, a briefing or a public consultation. The materials prepared and submitted
by the association of Philippine Foresters on the state of the Philippine forests and
wood materials for production use, e.g., export, manufacturing, etc., are examples
of these reports. The joint statements of the Departments of National Defense and
Foreign Affairs on the Spratlys issues also fall under this category.
A white paper on the other hand, is usually an expose of the state and possible
directions of a particular concern. An example in the Marcos period was the
report of the U.P. School of Economics telling the President that “the problem
(after the assassination of Ninoy Aquino and the plunging economic performance
thereafter) was political, not economic.” The paper was saying, people,
businessmen, investors and others have lost confidence on the authoritarian
regime, and as a famous American congressman later said, it was better for
Marcos “to cut and cut clean”. The Philippine Daily Inquirer’s series (1999) on
the Department of Education and Culture and Sports (DECS) textbook scam and
that on the extradition of Mark Jimenez, President Estrada’s friend, “corporate
genius” and (former) adviser on Latin American affairs, are also an examples of a
white paper.
Whatever form of policy paper you choose to do, always be confident on the
purpose of your research and the role you will be assuming from thereon.
Incidentally, the usual contents your policy research paper should include the
following (Dunn, 1981):
• the background of the problem

• a description of the problem
• your policy alternatives and their analyses, and lastly,
• your policy recommendations

I suppose they are self-explanatory. However, for enrichment, try to read Dunn’s
article in your library and also go over the options paper which I am appending
here. Locate these parts or elements and try to have a feel of what the forms and
contents a policy research paper should usually have.
SAQ 6-4
If you were to do policy research, what steps or processes are you going to
take? What form of policy paper are you going to develop? Why?

SOME DO’S AND DON’TS IN COMMUNICATING POLICY

ANALYSIS
Lastly, before you finally plunge into doing a real policy research and analysis, I
have here some reminders on the “dos” and “don’ts” in communicating the results
of your inquiry.
Do’s:
• Remember your client.
• Set priorities; organize your information carefully.
• Decompose your analysis.
• Use headings that tell story.
• Be balanced on the problem-alternatives-solution (P-A-S).
• Acknowledge ambiguity.
• Be credible.
• Be smart on the margin.
• Be succinct; use plain language.
• Write crisp text.
Don’ts:
• Antagonize your client.

• Offer statistical overload.
• Impress.
Basically,
• Keep in mind that policy analysis has little meaning without a client.
• Organize your information carefully. Put essential matters in the text;
the supporting materials on the appendices.
• Avoid abstract headings such as “market failure”, etc. These are to
organize your analysis, not to write your report.
• If 90% of your analysis is on the ‘solution’, it fails the test.
• Acknowledge the ambiguity but then make sure you provide your
resolution of the ambiguity. Provide sensitivity analysis when
appropriate.
• Document as extensively as possible.
• First make sure you are competent before you try to be brilliant.
• Be succinct and only use as much jargon as is needed to communicate
the point. Clearly explain technical terms.
• Rather than implying some goal is important, argue its importance
explicitly.
• Favor short and direct sentences. Use the active voice.

ACTIVITY 6-2
If you still have the energy to work on some of these activities, please do
them here in order to confidently master Module 6:
1. Reflect on what you did in TMA 1. Assess whether what you did is or
approximates a policy research paper. List your reasons for thinking so.
2. Recall a recent policy decision of the government on a concern you are

familiar with. Critique on the appropriateness, correctness and possible
effect/s of such policy decision. In addition, reflect on what would have
happened had our government officials used the policy research and
analysis framework. Would it make a difference? Where? Why or why
not?
Moreover, you may write a short paragraph on the usefulness of policy

research in improving the development and analysis of public policies in
the Philippine bureaucracy.
These activities will not be graded. However, as earlier mentioned, doing these
would help you internalize the technology of policy analysis and contribute to
your better understanding of public policy formulation and adoption. These would
also help you prepare for your last assignment and final exam. If you continue
working and systematically doing these activities, you may get a perfect score in
your final exam. Who knows?
1. applied social science

2. client oriented
3. uses multiple methods of inquiry
4. advise to societal problems
5. decision oriented

ASAQs 6.1-6.4
You may compare your answers with the content of this module. To make a
more systematic comparison., you may make a summary of Module 6.
Policy research is policy analysis and policy science. It is a client oriented

advice to solve societal problems, it uses multiple methods of inquiry.
It is different from other types of research in terms of various principles it

adheres to and also, based on various features it possesses.
I would adopt any of the frameworks suggested here and develop an options
paper.
I believe others will apply frameworks different from mine. But that is
understandable and should be expected.
SUMMARY
Every learning module you will have completed in this course has its use in
giving you a bigger and sometimes, smaller picture of public policy, the policy
system, policy research and implementation in the Philippines. Digest all of these
as much as you can. Always reflect on their relevance to our own culture, society
and government. In addition, be open as to the values they give and enrich in you.
See you in Module 7.

REFERENCES
Bauer, Dieter
1987 “Deeper in Debt”, Development and Cooperation, No. 2, p. 3.
Briones, Leonor M.
1987 “The Philippine Debt Crisis”, Philippne Journal of Public
Administration (PJPA), Vol. XXXI, No. 3, July-September, pp. 510-522.
1988 The Morning After: Approaches to the Debt Crises”, PJPA, Vol.
XXXII, Nos. 1 & 2, January-April, pp.198-213.
Cline, William R.
1983 International Debt and Stability of the World Economy
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute of International Economics),
MIT Press, pp. 20-25
Espinoza, Robert A.
1986 “Debts for a Century”, Development and Cooperation, No. 1, p. 9.
Freedom from Debt Coalition

1998 “The Philippine Debt Crisis, A Primer”
Griffith-Jones, Stephany
1988 “An Initiative of Philippine Debt in a European Context”, Institute
of Development Studies, University of Sussex, in Europe and the
Philippine Foreign Debt, Background on the Philippine Foreign
Debt. A Philippine Resource Centre Briefing Paper, No. 4 June,
London.
Goode, Richard
n.d. Government Financing in Developing Countries, Studies of
Government Finance, The Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ibon Facts and Figures

1984-1989 As quoted in various articles, manifestoes, speeches.
Kurth, Helmut
1988 “Notes on the Philippine Foreign Debt”, Philippine Journal of
Labor and Industrial Relations, Vol. X, No. 2, pp. 29-34.
Mendoza, Amado Jr. M.

1988 “Europe and the Philippine External Debt” in Philippine Resource
Center Briefing Paper,

Mendoza, Maria Fe V.
1989 “The Debt Management Policies in the Philippines: Dilemmas and
Conflicts from Various Sides”, An MPB100 Paper submitted to
Profs. Sipko de Boer & Ken Post, Institute of Social Studies,
Netherlands.
Moharir, Vasant V.
n.d. “Notes on Normative Policy Analysis”
1989 “Stake holder Analysis”
Montes, Manuel
1988 “Involuntariness is the Name of the Debt Game” (Notes on the
Philippine Government’s Debt Strategy), Kasarinlan (Philippine
Quarterly of Third World Studies), Vol. 3, No. 3.
Ofreneo, Rene E.
1988 “Foreword” on the National Dialogue on Foreign Debt Issue of the
PJLIR, Vol. X, No. 2.
Romulo, Alberto P.
1988 “The Time to Act Has Come!”, speech delivered in the National
Dialogue on Foreign Debt, October 1, 1988, UP SOLAIR.
Sachs, Jeffrey D.
1988 “International policy Coordination: the Case of the Developing
Country Debt Crisis”, in Martin Feldstein (ed.), International
economic Cooperation, National Bureau of Economic Research,
USA.
Tañada, Roberto D.
1989 Ang mga Ugat ng Suliranin sa Foreign Debt”, Speech delivered in
the National Dialogue on Foreign Debt, October 1, 1988, UP
SOLAIR.

UP Open University Unit III: Rational for Public Policy and Program
Administration
7
Rationale for State
Intervention and Public
Policies
Module 7 examines the rationale for State intervention in the economy and society. It
also probes the reasons for public policies or the justifications for the State to
legitimately do things by itself, and not by other sectors in the society, e.g., business,
non-profit organizations, lobby groups, people and non-government organizations.
This module also explains three frameworks in understanding the rationales for State
intervention and public policies. These are 1) the general public functions of the
State; 2) the philosophy of the State; and 3) the rational framework comprising the
political and economic approaches to State intervention on private choices and
actions.
It investigates the concepts of market and government failures. Likewise, it

explains some equity considerations which the State, and no other entity, should
attend to. It also summarizes some generic responses which the State can adopt, to
deal with these failures and considerations.
Module 7: Rational for State Intervention and Public Policies 220

Unit III: Rational for Public Policy and Program UP Open University
Administration
OBJECTIVES
• explain the concepts of State, State intervention, market and government

failures;
• examine three frameworks in understanding the rationales for State
intervention and public policies; and
• reflect on the reasons why rational frameworks for public policy making are
seemingly not being adopted in the country.
This module delves into the economics and politics of making public policies. As
such, it deals with jargon which may be alien to you. It also explains topics which
you might have ‘hated’ in your economics class. But don’t panic or fret. Read and
read on to confidently breeze through this module in three weeks.
Psyche yourself that what you will be exploring here requires ‘mere’ common sense.
In addition, the seeming ‘sophisticated’ and complicated explanations are actually
simple!
Allot a minimum of 30 hours for Module 7, broken down as follows:
Consulting Course Manual and Study Guide 14 hrs.

Reading 9 hrs.
Self-Assessment Exercise 4 hrs.
Integration/Reflection 3 hrs.
Total 30 hrs.
Just like before, you are encouraged to commit more time and effort , if you have to
and want to. Read, review what you have read and do the activities you have to do.
Then read again. Digest what you are learning and always reflect on their relevance
to you and our society as a whole.
221 Module 7: Rational for State Intervention and Public Policies

Administration
ACTIVITY 7-1
As students of public policy, you have to understand the rationale for collective
actions involving the legitimate coercive powers of the State (although of
course, not all coercive powers are bad as you will find out in the next pages).
In addition, you have to tinker with and provide justification and explanation
for adopting and implementing public policies.
For this activity, you are asked to 1) structure what you think are
the appropriate roles of the State; and 2) interpret some frameworks which serve
as bases for state intervention in the economy and society. Do the following:
1. In your notebook, list as many possible roles which you expect the State
should perform, it being the sole legitimate authority who can impose its
coercive authority over others. Explain why you think these functions are
appropriately the State’s and no other sectors’, e.g., the market, peoples
organizations, or non-government organizations.
2. In addition, to complete task 1, you are encouraged to express your work
more creatively by writing a short-poem or song with the following opening
lines (adapted from a TV commercial-Papa catsup):
“Paano na ang ... kung walang Estado,
baka.....”
(Translation:
What would happen to .... if there is no State to do something about ....
Then.....)
1. Interpret the following matrices (Figures A & B). Identify in what
quadrant/s you think State intervention in private choices or actions is
justified. Explain why you think so.
Fig. A Fig. B
Excludable Rivalrous Provision Production
Yes No Market Public
Yes I II Market I II
No IV III Public IV III

Administration
These activities are not graded. But you may use them in developing your own
notion or framework for State intervention in private choices and of rationales for
formulating public policies. More importantly, they would greatly help you in
completing Assignment #2 .
For this activity, there is no absolute correct or wrong answer, particularly for Tasks
1 and 2. Your answers are your perceptions, and they are correct or wrong as you
perceive them to be. However, the discussion below on “What is the State?” and
“What are some of the frameworks for understanding the rationales for public
policies?” may help you structure your thoughts on the matter. For Task 3,
meanwhile, the more correct interpretations (for matrices in Figs. A and B) are
explained under the concept of public good.
As in previous modules, I urge you to work on these activities first and grasp your
own understanding of things, before reading through the text in your Course Study
Guide. That way, you’ll effectively re-validate what you know and strongly feel
what ought to be. In short, you yourself articulate your own perceptions, and to a
greater extent, such is fulfilling. Isn’t it?
SAQ 7-1
Now, answer the following:
1. What do you understand by the concepts of State and state intervention?
2. Why and when should state intervene in private choices and actions? What
are the appropriate roles of the State?
The answers are in the text. I hope you’ll find them and be clarified. If you need
additional explanation, consult and digest the reading materials in your Set 2. Better
yet, ask your tutor. Good luck!

Administration
WHAT IS THE STATE?
The State has profound impact on people’s lives. From womb to tomb (Ocampo,
1988) or from the moment of birth to the instance of death (Ham and Hill, 1993),
the destinies of individuals are regulated and controlled by government agencies
to an extent previously unknown. Yet state intervention is not a completely new
phenomenon.
The concept of State is evolving. Simplistically, the State is defined as “a set of

institutions with superordinate power over a specific territory.” (Hill, 1997). It
can be defined both in terms of 1) institutional make-up (the structural approach);
and 2) the functions these institutions perform (functional approach).
The key organizing concept of the structural and functional approaches is that
essentially, society is constituted on the basis of complementarity and reciprocity
of roles in the social division of labor. Structures, such as those of the political
system and government, exist to carry out necessary functions which can but be
for the good of the society.
An alternative view to these, however, is the market model . This does not reify
society and the state but proceeds instead from the idea of the social process being
constituted by interactions of free acting individuals. As such, these individuals
comprising the state and other units of the society may participate to exploit,
dominate, oppress, subordinate and antagonize class interests (Alavi, in Alavi and
Shanin (eds.), 1982).
Along the first criterion (structural approach), Tabbada (1985) defines the State
“as a set of institutions comprising the (national and local) government. It
includes the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the police and the
military, local governments and semi-autonomous public corporations. It is
synonymous with, although more abstract than government or the public sector.”
Meanwhile, state institutions as I have explained in the systems and

institutionalist models in Module 4, comprise the three branches of government at
various levels of governance. They include the Legislature, Judiciary and
Executive and their sub-units, departments, government corporations, the police
and military, the lower courts, etc. They are located at various levels-national,
regional, and local. (In the globalist regime, however, states transcend national
boundaries and include global, regional and sovereign states.)

Administration
Peripheral institutions vary considerably from central agencies in the degree of

autonomy they enjoy. The autonomy of peripheral agencies is important, because
it will influence whether central policies are implemented at the local level. The
growth of state intervention has tended to increase the powers of central
institutions, although there are important variations, at this point. The existence of
state agencies at different levels means that consideration must be given to the
role of the local as well as national state (Ham and Hill, 1993).
With the Local Government Code of 1991, for example, centralism of “Imperial
Manila” is supposed to be stopped short. Services in five main areas, e.g., health,
public works, social welfare, environment and agriculture, are assumed to be
devolved to the local government units (LGUs). In addition, the internal revenue
allotments (IRA) are supposed to be standardized and increased based on certain
criteria. However, LGUs are still subject to different political influences by other
agencies, particularly the central national agencies.
For the second perspective (functional approach), the State does not refer only to
the institutions that comprise it. The State also refers to partially independent
actors engaged in a struggle for power with various social forces, e.g., the
political-economic and social elite, and the dominant groups (Crone, 1988). It is
constrained by a wide range of groups in society (as what pluralist theorists say),
particularly the elite whose preferences may dominate state policies (as in the
neo-pluralist tradition or elite theory). The state may also be an important
instrument for maintaining the dominance of particular social classes or for the
alienation of the ruler and the ruled (as in the Marxist tradition).
It also includes, empirically and theoretically, the processes, organization and

performance, scope of their decision making, the attitudes of the men and women
who perform within these structures, the roles of informing, studying, consulting
and deciding, the power structure in these institutions, and the constituencies they
serve (as cited in Ty, 1991).
This broadening and deepening of the concept of the state is seemingly echoed in
the redefinition of the concept of public administration by the U.P. College of
Public Administration in 1998. Here, the field is not merely concerned with the
management of state organizations for public purposes or for state functions in
regulating, providing services and policy making.

Administration
It is also concerned with “the role of the state and the civil society in terms of
their power structure and how this power structure enables other forces in the
society to moderate or neutralize the inherent formal powers of the State and the
political-economic elite.” It links the roles of the state and civil society to achieve
structural transformation within the existing democratic space (Re-definition of
Public Administration with the introduction of Voluntary Sector Management in
the Master of Public Administration in the College of Public Administration,
University of the Philippines, March 1998).
The institutions that make up the State perform several functions. These range
from ruling to serving, from rowing to steering. These functions will be discussed
in more detail in the section below.
WHAT IS MEANT BY STATE INTERVENTION?
State Intervention refers to the collective action involving the legitimate coercive
powers of government. It encourages, prescribes, discourages or prohibits private
action. It means, in short, governmental interference with private choice (Weimer
and Vining, 1992).
This “interference” or “coercion” by the state need not be perceived pejoratively,

i.e., it stands in the way of one’s private choice. It may also be “constructive
intervention” (Crone, 1988) by the state who, as we have discussed in the
systems model, has the sole coercive power over and sometimes collaborative
support from its constituencies.
In addition, state intervention encourages private action such, as in encouraging

industries for global competitiveness. Individuals engaged in industries and trade
are given moral boosts and other incentives by the state to make their products
more world-class.
It also prescribes, as in the case of the Department of Trade and Industry asking
manufacturers to label the nutrition information and expiration dates of their
products, or in the Commission of Higher Education prescribing standards and
norms which tertiary schools should conform with in order for them to continue
operating.

Administration
It also discourages, as when election watchdogs and officials discourage the

commission of electoral fraud, e.g., flying voters, bribery, dagdag-bawas (adding-
subtracting). It also prohibits, as when the state criminalizes squatting, or the
comission by individuals and groups of heinous crimes, e.g., murder, kidnapping
with ransom, rape, etc.
In this module, I consider state intervention as synonymous with policy making

and reform, or with formulating and implementing public policies ideally for
public interest and welfare. It also captures the different phases of the policy
process, as well as the power relations existing in our policy system which may
give state intervention, goals other than public welfare.
SAQ 7-2
1. What do you think are the reasons for state intervention and public
policies?
2. What are the frameworks in understanding state intervention?
As before, the answers are in the text. I hope you’ll find them and be clarified.
Happy hunting!

Administration
THE RATIONALE FOR PUBLIC POLICIES AND

THE FRAMEWORKS FOR STATE INTERVENTION
Rationales are reasons why the State, regardless of ideology, actively regulate,
initiate or participate in the provision of a growing range of goods and services.
As earlier mentioned, these may be framed into three: 1) the general public
functions; 2) the philosophy of the state; and 3) the more rational approach
consisting of political and economic justifications.
THE APPROPRIATE ROLES OF THE STATE OR THE GENERAL

PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
The first task in Activity 1 asks for your perceptions of what you expect the
government or the State to do. These functions or roles may be done by the State
collectively as one entity, or separately, by its individual units, departments or
agencies, of course with the support of the constituents, civil society, business and
other sectors in the society, both at the local and international arenas.
The police and armed forces, for example, maintain peace and order. The
education department and the (public and private) schools in the elementary,
secondary and tertiary levels, take charge of educating our people. The House of
Representatives and the Senate are supposed to legislate. The Judiciary arbitrates.
The Executive formulates policy decisions and executes programs and projects to
alleviate social inequity and poverty.
Collectively, however, the state performs the following generic roles, or what the
policy literature calls the general public functions:
1. to rule and serve (Dimock & Dimock, 1964)
2. to rush in areas where businessmen decline to thread because, though

unprofitable, such is socially worthwhile, e.g.,
• provision of public good
• compensation of external economies of consumption
• where there are relatively big economies of scale, and
• preservation of natural resources (Dorfman, 1965)

Administration
3. to perform social functions in modern societies that cannot be adequately

performed by market-oriented organizations because they involve
• large external benefits and costs
• indivisible benefits
• redistribution of income
• regulation of monopolies
• protection of consumers from their own ignorance or incompetence
• compensation for aggregate instabilities in the market
• creation of a framework of law and order and
• maintenance of government itself (Downs, 1987)
4. to allocate resources and wealth; redistribute wealth, income, employment

and price instabilities (Musgrave & Musgrave, 1973)
5. to provide (public) goods, services and opportunities to extract support

from the constituency; to regulate (allocate, redistribute, stabilize); to
inform, disseminate and communicate (Reyes, 1988)
6. to provide communal activities subject to political direction and control,

e.g.,
• conduct of external relations
• internal order
• public works
• social welfare and taxation
• monopoly services like postal communications, immigration controls,
quarantine, currency, weights and measures (Caiden, 1971)
Beyond these, the boundary between those activities which are ‘private’ and
‘public’ is uncertain, i.e., the State may be expected to provide nothing less than a
womb-to-tomb range of services, especially to the poor (Caiden, 1971; Ocampo,
1988) on one hand, or on the other hand, to provide only minimal services. The
latter is highlighted in recent paradigm shifts toward re-engineering and re-
inventing governments (Champy, 1995; Osborne and Gaebler, 1993, 1995),
which call for minimalist states. We will discuss this shift in the second
framework, i.e., state philosophy.

Administration
In the meanwhile, note that these public functions do not mean the state’s
instrumental purposes only, i.e., they are indeed for the public good, or in other
words, these functions collectively give the state a neutral role amidst a
heterogeneous set of classes and interests in society, maintaining the rules of the
game, aggregating the variety of contending interests into coherent policies and
holding society together for the good of all its members (Alavi, 1982).
These roles may also give the state a “structural imperative” on behalf or at the
behest of a dominating class (the elite , pluralist, Marxist and market models
discussed above and in Module 4). Structural imperative is defined by Alavi
(1982) as the “basis of economic calculation in a capitalist society and the
conditions that govern their outcome, both at the level of the individual enterprise
and at the level of the state.” In short, the role of the state here is as an instrument
for alienating the ruling and dominant class from the masses which look up to the
state for protection and equity considerations. This is exemplified by instances
where certain government programs or policies benefit some sectors only, and at
the expense of the poor. These are common in some BOT (build-operate-transfer)
and privatization policies which benefit foreign investors and their cohorts (local)
more than the laborers, community residents or the public in general. The coal
fired power plant in Mauban, Quezon and the proposed (and already approved)
mega hydro power plant in San Roque, Pangasinan, are specific cases in point.
The state, by examining these public functions, may also be pictured as an arena
of class struggle i.e., the state is not as a homogeneous and monolithic entity but
as a differentiated one, within which we may discover more than one locus of
power. You may recall the elite, group, systems, streams and windows, and
Allison’s models which are described in Module 4, to appreciate the State’s
various conceptual roles, e.g., a neutral monolith, an instrument of a dominant
class, or an arena of class struggle.
CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING STATE INTERVENTION: FOCUS

ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE STATE
There are at least two general state ideologies that may influence the scope and
form of state intervention in the economy and society: the estatist or the
minimalist philosophy.

Administration
In the estatist regime, (from the French d’(e)tat meaning “the state”), which is
also known as state corporatism or capitalism, the state is the prime initiator and
actor, and all other sectors of the society assume only supplemental role. The
state enters in nearly all fields, e.g., producing and selling goods and services,
ruling, arbitrating, maintaining peace and order, etc. And as ‘vanguards’ of
development, the state assumes maximum intervention in the economy and
society.
Socialist countries, particularly before the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, behave
in this fashion. Policy making, implementation and reform lie solely on the state.
The constituents, on the other hand, are expectedly mere passive recipients of
goods and services and have no role in policy making and reform. Visiting East
Berlin, for example in 1989, would have given you a feeling that the state seemed
everywhere: the office where people would get food stamps (for their food
ration); tickets for entertainment; pass for moving about the place; stamp for
going to school, getting medicines, etc.
The Philippines had an estatist regime in the past, i.e., in the Marcos Martial Law
era when the state seemed everywhere: in tomato canning factories in the North;
in television, newspaper and radio; in golf courses in Luzon; in steel and paper
mills in the South; in airline and bus lines; in petroleum refining and selling; in
tourist hotels everywhere, among others.
Such regime though theoretically described as “authoritarian and anti-liberal”

(Schmitter, 1974) is not bad per se. It might have been imposed for legitimate
reasons, which may include assumptions of unwillingness of the private sector to
venture in these pioneering and strategic businesses; or for the purpose of
providing goods and services for public welfare.
In addition, according to Ocampo ( 1988), the State in estatist regimes, “may be

called upon to deal with the vicissitudes of economic processes, supply goods that
are socially necessary in an equitable manner, or at a the right price, quality and
quantity, and to correct market imperfections...”
Also, in poorer countries such as the Philippine in the 1970s to 90s, governments
may be viewed as the only social institution that could effectively spur and lead
national development process, produce new industrial or commercial goods as
well as infrastructure, and develop private markets, to begin with (Ibid.,
underscoring mine).

Administration
However, as our recent history concludes, albeit preliminarily, state capitalism

was also crony capitalism: an era of nepotism, behest loans, hemorrhaging of
public coffers, etc., that benefited only a few who were related or associated with
the Marcos government, e.g., Cojuangco, Benedicto, Silvestre, Disini, Tantoco.
Different conclusions may be drawn here, but as our history and recently, the
Indonesian experience show (remember the “resignation” of President Suharto,
the strongman of Jakarta who ruled Indonesia for nearly 40 years?), state
capitalism may not always redound to public welfare. Different “publics” , e.g.,
their publics or cronies and relatives, would be involved and solely benefit from
it.
In minimalist regimes or market/capitalist economies, the ideology or philosophy

of the state is for minimum state intervention in the economy. Otherwise known
as the laissez faire philosophy, minimalist states are mere coordinator of
economic activities or “promoter” of economic growth and social welfare
(Monsod, 1986). They intervene only in unambiguous cases where there is market
failure (Alburo et al., 1986), to provide direct or indirect capital formation.
Their main role is legitimization to reduce tension (Smith, 1988). Also, they
concentrate on policy making, standard setting, facilitating and guiding ( the
“steering” in the re-inventing paradigm). They let other sectors, e.g., market and
civil society, who can do things better, do them. Privatization, build-operate-
transfer, and partnership with NGOs in forest conservation, provision of health
and other social services, are examples of this “withdrawal of the state.”
This (minimalist) philosophy has been our state philosophy since the early
American period until the present. The estatist regime from 1972 to 1981 (some
say until 1986 when President Marcos was deposed and forced to get out of the
country because of the non-violent EDSA Revolution in February 1986, and of
course, pressures from the US and other influential groups outside the country,
e.g., the International Monetary Fund, others) was a “mere” aberration or
interlude.
In addition, as evidenced from the pronouncements of our Presidents since the

establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth and Republic after the war,
minimalism or minimum state intervention in the economy (and society) has been
our state’s guiding principle.

Administration
More specifically, from various Constitutional provisions, State of the Nation

Addresses and Philippine Development Reports from 1940s to the present, we can
cull the following philosophy on state entrepreneurship:
1. “The State recognizes a mixed economy with free market enterprise as the
dominant feature and a limited role assigned to public enterprises.”
2. “The State should keep out of business and concentrate on providing essential
public services to promote economic development of the country and serve in
a pioneering capacity for private enterprise.”
3. “The State should create public enterprises merely as supplemental to private

capital.”
4. “The State shall avoid engaging in activities which are in competition with the
private sector. It could participate only when
• the goods and services are vital to the society and the private sector is
unwilling or unable to provide; and
• there is a need to create bias in favor of the disadvantaged sectors of the
society.
Moreover, Philippine Presidents have consistently espoused the principles of

minimalism (see Fig. 37).
Specifically, our Presidents have consistently vowed a lean State whose primary
functions are to rule and serve. Thus, policies have been formulated presumably
to reflect these principles. However, there were indications that aberration existed
during the dark years of Martial Rule.
In addition, in spite of a predominantly minimalist philosophy, the Philippine

State has grown to fulfill functions beyond generic public functions, e.g., defense,
currency, diplomacy, social welfare, postal services, etc. Efforts aimed at
clarifying the scope and functions of the state have, however, been evident.
Recently, the Department of Budget and Management (1996) has launched a
guidebook on Re-inventing the Philippine Bureaucracy.

Administration
President Philosophy
Quezon no to government engaging in business directly, except in

public utilities or in cases of national welfare, defense or
pioneering industry
Roxas no to government interference in the process of production

and distribution of economic goods
Quirino the principal function of government is to administer the

affairs of the country, not to develop industries with its
own funds and compete with the private sector
Magsaysay & our national economic development must and will take
Garcia place within the basic framework of public enterprise
Macapagal de-statization or the move for government to get out of

business or private entrepreneurship
Marcos earlier believed in the principle of free enterprise; later on,

adhered to state intervention and (crony) capitalism
Aquino government has no business in business; the private sector

is the main engine of economic growth
Ramos reflect on the government’s capacity to do things; let those

sectors who can do things more efficiently, do them; start
of the “re-inventing the government movement”
Fig. 37. Philosophy of the State as Articulated by

Various Philippine Presidents

Administration
Government Joint Private Initiative

C
B
A
policy making policy making policy making

program development program development regulation
service delivery
Fig. 38. Delineation of the Role of the State and Private Sector
Here, the roles of the state in areas which are predominantly initiated by the
private sector are mainly regulation and policy making. These roles are evident in
the hands-off policy in rate setting for prices of oil and oil-based products in the
regime of deregulation of the oil industry. These are also present in the
privatization policy of the government.
For traditional public functions, however, the state provides the necessary
services, formulates and implements programs and projects, and generally focuses
on policy making and reform. These functions are evident in the provision of
defense services, peace and order activities, policy guidance, macro-economic
“fundamentals,” and the like, to curb or minimize the negative effects of the
currency turmoil in Asia.
President Estrada’s orientation to the “steering” paradigm is also the same as the
post-EDSA leaders. However, his slant is more on reorganizing bureaucracy for
clarifying further the domain of the State, the private sector and the civil society
in good governance and public administration.
THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RATIONALITY OR POLITICAL

AND ECONOMIC JURISDICTIONS FOR STATE INTERVENTION
The first two frameworks in understanding the rationales of public policies are
relatively subjective and contingent on the views and perceptions of leaders. No
clear criteria on when and where the state should intervene in private choices
(except in the PDR matrix in Fig. 38, which is more of a vision than reality) exist,
giving us a semblance of arbitrariness and bias.

Administration
If the President says the government has no business in business, the private
sector is given primacy in producing and providing goods and services needed by
the constituents. If, on the other hand, they say state capitalism is needed to
propel the economy and redistribute wealth for public welfare, then so be it.
Moreover, despite attempts to delineate the role and scope of the state, as was
done in the PDR 1986-92, 1992-98, implementation (especially of visions) is
always another matter. Especially in the Philippine setting, it is usually the case of
one hand doing something different from what the other hand is doing.
A third framework offers an alternative, and a set of criteria to work on. It deals
with the economic and political rationality of state intervention and with criteria
such as market and government failures, as well as equity concerns. These are
necessary but not sufficient grounds for public intervention. Nevertheless, they
guide policy analysts and makers on the why, when and where of policy making.
They basically say that failures exist in both the state and the market, and policies
have to be formulated to correct them to make life easier and better for the public,
e.g., the constituents.
More specifically, in this framework, “state intervention is justified to correct

market imperfections; correct governmental failures; and attend to distributional
concerns, e.g., equity of opportunity, equality of outcomes.” (Weimer & Vining,
1989).
In addition, governments may take it upon themselves to supply public or

collective goods; compensate externalities; regulate or take over monopolies;
supplement meritorious goods and restrict ‘demerit’ goods; and conserve and
develop natural resources (Ocampo, 1988). Examples of merit goods are
museums and art galleries. Meanwhile, demerit goods include vices, e.g.,
gambling. Merit goods have to be encouraged because of their social, cultural
and other uses, e.g., preserving history. Demerit goods, on the other hand, have
to be regulated or controlled.

Administration
SAQ 7-3
What is the meaning of market failure?
The answers are right after this SAQ. Go on, read and digest. Also reflect on their
meanings to our setting. Okay?
MARKET FAILURE VS. GOVERNMENT FAILTURE
Market failure basically means the market or the domain of the private business
is (viewed as) imperfect in structure and operations. It has failures, in the sense
that market cannot adequately supply nor distribute all possible goods and
services needed by the public. In addition, market has numerous features that may
prevent consumers from perfectly knowing its products.
Market failure has various manifestations, among them, public good monopoly,
information asymmetry, externalities, demerit and merit goods. We will explain
them below.
In instances where there are market failures, government policies have to be

formulated. (Although another solution is being put forth by Coas (19_) which
does not give logical need for government to step in in cases of market failure.
The Coasian solution, on the other hand, retains support and solution with the
private sector, even in cases of market failure.) Nonetheless, government policies
are formulated to correct such failures, stimulate and integrate markets, and
prevent misallocation of present and future resources, such as protecting the
environment for the present and future generations. They are also done to allocate
resources, produce goods, and reallocate opportunity and goods to achieve
distributional values (Weimer and Vining, 1991).
Administration
Government failure, on the other hand, says that failures are not the monopoly of
the market and that the state or the government has also imperfections (in its
structure and operations) that may hinder efficient and effective delivery of goods
and services. This includes the issue of pork barrel, rent seeking, limited electoral
cycle and others which we will explain briefly below.
Both the market and government tend to direct the use of resources into economic
growth areas, and therefore, socially low priority areas. The function of public
policies is to counter this trend and be developmental, e.g., to modify the
restraining influence of limited resources by choosing and coordinating
development programs so as to channel these scarce resources into their most
productive outlets.
Simply put, this means that neglect of human development needs because of
(undue) preoccupation with economic growth has to be attended to by
government in order that people will not be disadvantaged socially, morally, or
physically.
Now, what do these concepts exactly mean in layman’s term? Do you understand
their meanings so far?
THE MARKET FAILURES
Economists assume that market failures violate the basic assumptions of the
idealized competitive economy and therefore interfere with efficiency in
production or consumption. An idealized competitive economy simply means a
general equilibrium model of prices in a supply and demand function. It finds the
prices of factor inputs and goods that clear all markets in the sense that the
quantity demanded exactly equals the quantity supplied.
There are various representations and explanations of a perfect competitive

economy. For simplicity, let us assume that
P represents price
D represents demand and
S represents supply.

Administration
In a matrix such as Fig. 39 below,
Price
P3
P2
P1
D2
S1 S2 S3
Supply D1
Fig. 39. The Competitive Economy
P1 represents the low price of a good or service one must pay when the
the supply S3 is greatest and the demand D1 is lowest;
P2 represents the moderate price one must pay for a good or service in lesser
supply (S2) but whose demand (D1) is relatively higher ;
P3 represents the high price one must pay for a good in low supply (S1) but
in
great demand (D2).
Thus, you would expect that the price of a particular good or service would set its
own level depending on the prevailing supply and demand. The greater the
demand but the lesser the supply, the higher the price; the greater the supply but
the lesser the demand, the lower the price; and so on.
This relationship would assume efficient production and consumption, such that
wastage is minimized and criteria of efficiency like the Pareto efficiency
improvement (if a good or service would benefit one consumer, it should not be at
the expense of another; or one should not be better off when one is less of; in
instances where this cannot be avoided, the one disadvantaged should be
accordingly compensated to minimize his or her dire state), and others are
satisfied.

Administration
In real life, this condition is not always served. Prices may change depending on
the behaviors of the market, e.g., hoarding, cartelization, wanton deception, etc.
In addition, efficiency criteria are not always achieved.
When the latter happens, market failures occur. These include:
Traditional Market Failures

• public goods
• externalities (+/-)
• natural monopoly
• information asymmetry (over- or under-estimation of quality)
Other Limitations of the Competitive Framework

• markets with few sellers or buyers
• endogenous or unacceptable preferences
• problems of uncertainty
• intertemporal problems: non-traded assets & bankruptcy
• adjustment costs
(Weimer and Vining, 1994) and
The Market Failures

• imperfect flow of information
• transaction costs (of conducting trades)
• non-existence of markets for some goods, e.g., insurance for some goods
• market power (“the going price” as dictated by monopoly or oligopoly;
each is too small a frog in too large a pond to have any influence”)
• externalities or situations in which the action of one affects the welfare of
another, i.e., in the “Tragedy of the Commons”
• public goods or services that affect the common interests of citizens, e.g.,
non-provision (or gross under-provision)by individuals, unless compelled;
non-rivalry- where one man’s use does not reduce another’s consumption;
non-excludability (even of non-contributors)
• (Stokey and Zeckhauser, 1978).
Weimer and Vining (1991-94), and Stokey and Zeckhauser (1978) have similar
discussions on the concept of market failures as you may notice in their headings.
These forms of market failure tend to obstruct the realization of a perfect
economy, i.e., price equilibrium is not achieved. Market stakeholders are
economic “animals” whose primary job is to survive competition and earn profit
to expand their business. They do not always behave benevolently as most of the
philanthropists and do-gooders around.

Administration
Most of these concepts are self-explanatory. But I will spell them out
nevertheless.
The Concept of Public Good. This concept basically says that there are various
types of goods which the market is unable or unwilling to produce. These include
natural or pool resources which the state is legitimately mandated to protect and
preserve; the generic public functions which by their very term connote the state’s
functions and not of other sectors’, e.g., defense, diplomacy, currency. In such
situations, the State has to do something to produce or facilitate the production of
such goods.
This concept may be understood by defining its elements:
º rivalry
- what one person consumes cannot be consumed by anyone else, i.e., one’s
enjoyment stands in the way of others
For example, a De Beers diamond ring displayed at Rustan’s is both
wanted by myself and somebody else. There is an element of rivalry here
because there are at least two of us competing for that ring. If I get it and
she does not, my enjoyment will stand in the way of hers. It’s the same the
other way around.
º excludability
- because of legal, physical and/or other reasons, some particular persons
have exclusive control over a good or service
From the same example above, either somebody else or myself may be
excluded from getting the diamond ring. The reasons may be anyone of
these:
a) the price may not be affordable to me or to my “rival”;

b) I bought that ring first, and I now have physical possession of the ring;
thus, she cannot get it from me, otherwise I will call the police;
c) her boyfriend bought it ahead of me and he is in possession of the ring
already which he will give to my “competitor” as an engagement
“token”;
d) other reasons, e.g., somebody has bought it; someone has reserved the
ring already, etc.

Administration
º congestibility
when the (marginal social) cost of consumption becomes high (e.g.,
positive) beyond some level of consumption, e.g., in fishing, as the number
of fishermen increases beyond some level, they begin to interfere with each
other so that each must fish longer to get some catch.
Applied to our example, since diamond is a woman’s best friend and has
many attractions, it will not be surprising if many women will yearn to have
one De Beers diamond ring. If many will wish for it, the company may be
lured to mine some more until there comes a time when many mining
companies do the same, sometimes, without regard to the “exhaustability” of
this natural resource. When the latter happens, there may be longer period for
diamond extraction. Also, coal deposits may become depleted sooner.
This phenomenon is an example of “The Tragedy of the Commons” which we

will discuss in the externalities portion.
If we combine all these elements into a figure, the representation of the

concept of public good is Fig. a of your Activity 1. Although the third
element was not included to simplify understanding of the concept, the basic
idea is still the same.
Excludable Rivalrous
Yes No
Yes I II
No IV III
Fig. a. The Concept of Public Good

In Fig. a, the following quadrants represent:
I: market or private goods

II: marketable, toll or quasi-public goods
III: pure or classic public goods
IV: common property or pool resources, ‘free’ goods or limited open access
goods
Thus, only quadrant I may be completely produced and sold by the market for a
price. The rest are goods which the state has sole prerogative and responsibility to
provide or do (that is why they are called public goods), unless it enters into
build-operate-transfer schemes or encourage the private sector to produce quasi-
public or private goods themselves.

Administration
Here are the common examples of market and public goods by quadrant
(see Fig. 40):
I: Private Goods II. Toll or Quasi-Public Goods

bread, butter, shoes, cars, theater, night clubs. toll roads,
books, hamburger cable TV, electricity, telephone
services, education, parks,
health
IV: Common Pool III: Pure or Classic Public Goods

water pumped from the peace & security, national
ground, fish taken from an defense, air pollution,
ocean, grazing controls of currency stabilization,
animals in the pasture diplomacy, dikes
Fig. 40. Some Common Examples of Goods, e.g., Private, Quasi-Public,

Pure Public and Common Pool Resources
In this framework, there are mutations or hybrids , i.e., in some cases, goods may
occupy more than one quadrant. Nevertheless, this framework serves as a guide to
our understanding of the concept of public good/s.
Fig. b in your Activity 1, meanwhile, represents the public enterprise framework:
Provision Production
Market Public
Market I II
Public IV III
Fig. b. The Public Enterprise Framework
In this figure, the quadrants represent:
I: market production for sale

II: public production for sale
III: public production for free
IV: market production for government

Administration
The second quadrant symbolizes the public enterprise form . This produces quasi-
public or private goods for a price (and not for free as classic public goods are) in
order for this structure (public enterprise) to remain economically viable.
Quasi-public goods produced through the public enterprise (PE) form circa pre-
privatization, include among others, electricity (generated and distributed by the
National Power Corporation), water (by the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System, National Irrigation Administration, water cooperatives
financed by the Local Water Utilities Administration), health services (by the
specialty hospitals such as the Philippine Heart Center, Kidney Institute, Lung
Center and Children’s Medical, and the Philippine General Hospital), and
education (by UP and the state colleges and universities). Most of these are up
for privatization or for transfer of ownership or management to the private sector.
Some have, in fact, been partially or completely privatized, e.g., MWSS.
Note that Fig. b is not identical with Fig. a. However, except for the last quadrant,
all other quadrants have the same representations in both Figs. a and b. This
means that
1) market goods are really market-produced and sold for a price;

2) quasi-public goods are quasi-private goods which must be produced, if ever
through the use of state enterprises, and sold for a fee;
3) classic public goods are provided by the State for free; and
4) common pool resources and their use and exploitation must be regulated by
the state.
In sum, the concept of public goods highlights the failure of the market to produce
goods other than private or market goods. However, public goods have
peculiarities and differences with private goods, which in some cases highlight
the limitations themselves (see Fig. 41). Nevertheless, these public goods have to
be provided, produced, or regulated by the state in order to free the market and
make it more efficient. At the same time, basic goods and services are made
available to needy constituents.

Administration
Feature Public Goods Private Goods
degree of difficult to measure easy to measure

measurability,
quantitatively and
qualitatively
excludability of those difficult easy

who did not pay
consumption can be consumed can be consumed

simultaneously and by only one
jointly by many people person
choice to consume or little or no choice has choice

not
relationship of payment not closely related closely related

with demand &
consumption
choice as to kind or little or no choice has choice

quantity of good
decision on allocation primarily made by primarily made

political processes by market
mechanisms
Source: Pradhan, 1992
Fig. 41. Comparison Between Public and Private Goods
The Concept of Externalities An externality refers to any of the following:

• spillover effect
• incidental, unintended by-product of a project, or
• any valued impact (benefit or cost) resulting from any action (whether
related to production or consumption) that affects someone who did
not fully consent to it (Weimer and Vining, 1991).

Administration
A more common example of an externality (problem) is pollution, say of a coal-

fired power plant. It is a negative externality in the sense that it adversely affects
the health of the community, particularly near the plant site, who did not consent
to the health and environmental hazards posed by the presence of the plant. The
community referred here may include the people around, as well as the
vegetation, say mangrove plantation near the coast (since most coal-fired power
plants are located near the coast), and other ecological components around.
The power plant, meanwhile, did not intentionally emit pollutants. However,
pollutants resulted in the course of the plant operations. In cases like this, the state
must regulate, sanction or tax (disincentive) “violating” firms in order to
minimize negative effects and “compensate” those persons and institutions
disadvantaged by the act.
A specific example of a state policy dealing with externalities is in the case of a

Quezon Power Plant (coal-fired) in Mauban, Quezon. The government asked the
power plant operators to pay for an environment fund as well as a community
development fund to ensure the minimized ecological damage to the community.
It also asked the plant to pay the tenants and landowners who would be displaced,
and give them livelihood projects. Although this arrangement cannot completely
eliminate the negative externalities of the plant, it nevertheless, minimizes the
“costs” of the power plant to the environment, and to the social and economic
displacement of the residents.
Other examples of (negative) externalities include cigarette smoking (when

inhaling secondary smoking by non-smokers in a public place, is more dangerous
than smoking itself), squatters colony near a posh village (which indirectly de-
values the price of real estate in the latter), proliferation of beach resorts and golf
courses, etc.
Externalities may, however, be also positive. Economists often cite the pollination
benefits that orchard owners derive from being located near beekeepers; and the
presence of trees and manicured lawns and plazas in upscale villages, and open
spaces for those looking for parking spaces.
Externalities can arise in either production or consumption activities (see Fig. 42).
Production externalities affect either firms (producer-producer externalities) or
consumers (producer-consumer externalities). Consumption externalities affect
the activities of the firms and consumers as well. In this context, consumers as
recipients of externalities include everyone in the society (Weimer and Vining,
1992).

Administration
Positive Negative
Producer-to-Producer warm water from toxic chemical pollution

nuclear power plant harming aquatic
used by downstream commercial fishing
fishermen
Producer-to- private timber forests air pollution from

Consumer providing scenic factories harming lungs
benefits to nature lovers of people living nearby
Consumer-to- immunization by cigarette smoke from

Consumer persons against one person, reducing
contagious disease, enjoyment of meal by
helping protect others another
Consumer-to- unsolicited letters from disturbing of domestic

Producer consumers providing farm animals by game
information on product hunters
quality
Fig. 42 . Examples of Externalities
I have my own example of an externality: the trees in front of our house which we
planted more than ten years ago. These trees filter and give us fresh air. They
also provide us “visitors”, e.g., birds who chirp all day and night and seemingly
serenade us. They also give shade and benefit, not only to us but to our neighbors
who queue for parking space as well. We did not plant the trees to intentionally
profit our neighbors. We originally thought the trees are God’s wonders that
would benefit us solely.
Trees, especially those in our forests, are a common pool resource which is
subjected to much exploitation nowadays. They form part of ambient public
goods which since long ago, have been depleted an alarming at rates. In this
connection, a provocative account of the Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1986)
must be learned by heart.

Administration
Garrett Hardin recounts the practice of the Commons during the medieval period
when grazing in common public lands was the practice of most shepherds in
England. The system compeled him to increase his herd without limit whereas
the pasture land was limited. The practice inevitably resulted in overgrazing of
the common pasture.
The same situation is evident in the fishing industry. In our seas, many fishermen,
big or small, have resorted to blast or dynamite fishing. Initially, they had big
catch. But now the catch has dwindled. They have to work longer or go out
farther to find fish – what little there is left to catch.
In mining, the same is true. Indigenous small scale miners have often said, “There
will always be gold as long as you mine the right way”. However, in order to
increase profit, many big scale mining companies have resorted to open pit and
bulk mining which level or flatten mountains and increase toxic wastes in streams
and other water bodies. At the same time, these practices displace the indigenous
peoples and other small-scale miners. Large scale bulk-mining today is not the
right way. But many are stubborn and greedy. So look- where are the mines now?
From mineral deposits to fishes, to birds, trees, sharks and so on, many of their
kind are vanishing and getting extinct. And this is sad for the present generation
who is deprived of enjoying these bounty from Mother Earth. It is more so, for the
generations unborn.
As the Tragedy of the Commons implies, externalities or situations that potentially

involve externalities are often better classified or defined in order for us to think
ahead of efficiency implications, distributional impacts, and most importantly,
possible remedies, through state policies and other interventions.
OTHER MARKET FAILURES
Natural monopoly occurs when a single firm can produce particular outputs, say
goods or services, at lower declining average costs over the relevant range of
demand than any other market arrangement, including competition (Weimer and
Vining, 1994).
This is exemplified in the oil, telecommunications and airline industries before

deregulation. If you can recall, before deregulation, these sectors or industries
were respectively dominated or monopolized by the oligopoly of (or giant cartel
of) Petron, Shell and Caltex; the monopoly of the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT) and the Philippine Airlines (PAL).

Administration
Since they control the market while at the same time deliver or produce their
outputs at a marginal cost, these giant companies dictated the price with little
concern for their clients. Consequently, consumers complained about high prices
and inefficient service. The acronym PAL became “Plane Always Late.” PLDTs
Oplan Zero Backlog was translted as “Oplan Bakbak Bokay” because of the lack
of results.
In this regime, consumers should be aware of their consumer rights and what they
can do to assert and fight for these rights. The state should also do something to
make the consumers feel better and the monopolist companies to have at least
corporate social responsibility and accountability.
Information Asymmetry occurs when the buyer and seller in a market transaction,
for example, may have different information about the quality of good being
traded. It occurs when information (about particular goods and services which
economists group into search and experience goods) varies across persons
(Weimer and Vining, 1994).
More often than not, information asymmetry occurs because traders would almost
always suppress some negative information about their products in order to earn
profit, at the expense of the consumers. A fish or meat vendor, for example,
would not tell customers that the goods they are selling were caught several days
ago and chances are, are already spoiled. Although there are tests for freshness in
fish and meat products, vendors would usually do something to conceal the true
state (of freshness) of their products, e.g., put red cellophane-covered lamp shade
to reflect the color of freshness, etc. The same is true with shellfish, especially
when there is red tide. Chances are, the vendors would even make a testimonial,
e.g., eat tahong or talaba (clams and oysters) in front of TV cameras, to conceal
the fact that the clams are unsafe to eat.
Before the consumer rights protection policy of the government, stores were silent
about their “policy” on defective products, possibility of return or exchange, etc.
Consumers were left helpless. In contrast now, stores boldly display their policy
of say, “Return within three days of purchase together with the receipt and the
product in good condition” or “If upon receipt of this product you are not
satisfied, we will return your money back, without any questions”.
Also, before the product labeling law, nutrition information and expiration dates
were never found on product labels. Now, these are required by law to forewarn
the public of the shelf life, efficacy and effectiveness of products.
The “Block and White” body lotion issue of some years ago easily come to mind.
Many who wanted to have an even tone of whiter skin used the product on their
faces, not knowing the side effects. The Bureau of Food and Drugs came into the
picture to order the withdrawal of these products or the manufacturer’s written
Administration
apology and instruction for the use of the preparation solely for the body.
(However the incident became a blessing in disguise for the product manufacturer
who capitalized on the Filipinos’ penchant for whiter skin by producing other
preparations, e.g., facial whitening lotion, facial whitening cream, etc.)
Another example where government intervened to correct information asymmetry

was when its Bureau of Customs confiscated a shipment of “Ma-ling” luncheon
meat and dumped them because the products had already expired. Another
example was when the National Food Authority and the Department of
Agriculture sent back the shipload of imported rice from India because it was
found to be heavily fumigated as well as soaked in sea water.
As wittingly or unwittingly committed by producers, there is an imbalance

(asymmetry) in information dissemination to consumers. “Para bueno publico”
(for public good) is not served and the state has to make corrections in order that
public interest and welfare is protected. The state has to intervene to protect
consumers from their own “ignorance” and to counter the massive marketing
plans of market organizations that sometimes intentionally deceive consumers in
order for the producers or manufactures to make money.
Other Limitations of the Competitive Framework . These include markets with

few sellers or few buyers as in the case of merit and demerit goods. Museums and
other repository and venues for art, culture and history are merit goods with few
sellers, in the sense that only few businessmen would dare put up one for profit.
In most cases, they are wealthy patrons and patronesses of arts, culture and
history imbued with philanthropic spirits. To increase their flock, the government
steps in and encourages them to continue the good work and uplift the spirit and
consciousness of the nation. The state itself may also put up museums and the like
to spearhead such meritorious activity and example of the latter include the
Nayong Pilipino (during Imelda Marcos’ time) and the Centennial (Clark) Expo
in Pampanga (during Ramos’ term).
Other market failures include the problem of uncertainty, such as the

problematique of our weather conditions, with the El Nino and La Nina
phenomena in our midst. These weather “disturbances” make crop harvest
uncertain; thus, strongly influencing or suggesting that policies must be in place
to cushion or guarantee the food security of the nation.
Other market failures are fully explained in Weimer and Vining (1994) and
Stokey and Zeckhauser (1978). Do read and give them your serious thought,
okay?

Administration
SAQ 7-4
What do you understand by the concept of government failures?
As in earlier sections, don’t look farther for the answers. They are right here:
GOVERNMENT FAILURES
The theory of government failure is not as developed as the concept of market

failure. Nevertheless, a significant literature describes it as “a situation where
collective action by the state or the government does not necessarily redound to
public welfare. It is also that condition where policies and programs of the state
fail to promote social values in desired and predictable ways.” (Weimer and
Vining, 1994)
Government failures may generally be classified into the following:
problems inherent in direct democracy

• They warn policy analysts to be skeptical of claims that the results of
elections and referenda provide clear mandates for specific policies.
They nclude
• the paradox of voting (the meaning of mandate is ambiguous)
• preference intensity and bundling or the tyranny of the majority
(i.e., minorities bear the costs of inefficient social choices)

Administration
problems inherent in representative government

• They help policy analysts to determine and improve the political
feasibility of preferred policy alternatives. They include the
• influence of organized interests (rent-seeking)
• geographic constituencies (pork barrel)
• limited time horizon induced by electoral cycles
• posturing to public attention (restricted agenda)
problems inherent in bureaucratic supply

• They help policy analysts to anticipate the problems likely to be
encountered during the implementation of public policies. They
include
• difficulty in valuing output
• limited competition
• civil service protections
• agency problems
problems inherent in decentralization including

• diffused authority ( implementation problems)
• fiscal externalities (unequal distribution of local public good)
Let me briefly explain these failures:
The Paradox of Voting. The paradox of voting in Arrow’s General Possibility

Theorem, (1963), simply means that any voting rule that satisfies a basic set of
fairness conditions may produce illogical results.
Voting serves as a familiar way of deriving group choices from the sum of
individual preferences. But
• the voting procedure must combine every possible pattern of individual

rankings into a single ordering of the group’s preferences; and
• the social ordering must always be transitive, so that if A is ranked ahead
of B, B ahead of C, then A would also be ranked ahead of C.
However, reliance on voting to reveal group or social choices suffers from a more
fundamental problem, i.e., no method of voting is both fair and consistent.
Let me explain this using an example. The issue of considering a debt cap in
resolving the problem of foreign debt by the House of Representatives. In capping
the debt (service), the government will tell our (foreign) creditors that we are
willing to pay say, only 10% of the gross revenues for the year.

Administration
In this issue, the following options are the possible choices:
No Action- or status quo, wherein the existing PD 7711 allocates automatic

debt servicing, regardless of the state’s financial position, either
we are bankrupt, in distress, or not;
Debt Cap- where the government puts a limit on the amount that will be paid
to our creditors, depending on our financial position and
development priorities; or
Renegotiation- where the government re-negotiates for better advantageous

positions, including the period for repayment, re-aligning more
official development assistance to grants (than loans), or even the
writing off of suspected behest and other bad loans not
incurred for the Filipino people.
The possible outcomes of these choices are:
Status Quo, No Action or No Debt Cap Law Passed

Debt Cap Bill Passed, and
New Negotiations Follow
Based on a preliminary analysis of the positions of the

representatives from the Ninth to the Tenth Congress, the
following are the hypothetical groupings in the House:
Conservatives (about 49 %)
Pragmatists (29%)
Nationalists (22%)
Now, if we put these factors in probable combinations in a matrix,

and ask the groups to rank their first three choices the results may
look something like this:
Choice Conservatives Pragmatists Nationalists

(Ranking) 49% 29% 22%
1st No Action Renegotiation Debt Cap
2nd Debt Cap No Action Renegotiation
3rd Renegotiation Debt Cap No Action

Administration
Now, to analyze the binary or two-way voting of these groups, assuming

alternative A is no action; B is renegotiation; and C is debt cap bill, and we give
weights of 3, 2, 1 for first to third choices repectively, we may get.
For the 1st Contest:
Opposing Issue Positions No Action vs. Renegotiation

Opposing Voter Groups Conservatives Pragmatists
predominantly predominantly
Vote Split (in %) 49(3) + 29(2)+ 29(3) + 22(2)+
22 = 256% 49 = 180%
Outcome No Action beats Renegotiation
For the 2nd Contest:
Opposing Issue Positions Renegotiation vs. Debt Cap

Opposing Voter Groups Pragmatists+ Nationalists+
Vote Split (in %) 29(3) + 22(2)+ 22(3) + 49(2)+
49 = 180% 29 = 373%
Outcome Debt Cap beats Renegotiation
Now, if choices were transitive, we would expect no action (A) to defeat debt cap
(C) since (A) defeated renegotiation earlier.
But in the 3rd Contest:
Opposing Issue Positions No Action vs. Debt Cap

Opposing Voter Groups Conservatives+ Nationalists+
Conservatives
Vote Split (in %) 49(3) + 29(2)+ 22(3) + 49(2)+
22 = 256% 29 = 373%
Outcome Debt cap beats No Action

Administration
Thus, the following lessons may be learned:
1. If voters must choose between two issues only, majority rule presents no
problem. Here, the transitivity of votes tilts towards debt cap. Yet, once the
House members attempt through majority rule to reach a democratic decision
about pairs of alternatives, debt cap will never be approved as a feasible
solution. Thus, we encounter the phenomenon of the paradox of voting.
“Democratic voting” seems contrary to “common sense.” Debt cap, though
seemingly the better option, will never be the solution from the point of view
of our policy makers.
2. Such discomfort (not having made better decisions because of “voting) seems
to result from the fact that collective preference is cyclic. And that
alternatives cannot be ranked consistently.
Preference Intensity (The Tyranny of the Majority). Policies and programs will
be adopted in a majority rule referendum even if they are inequitable because they
concentrate costs on the minority. Majorities may also inadvertently inflict high
costs on minorities because the “one person, one voice” principle does not allow
people to express the intensity of their preferences.
To illustrate, a simple example may include the question of venue for your
tutorial session here. Most of your session-mates want the venue to be in Los
Baños. However, your preference is in Diliman because you reside there.
However, since many and majority want the venue to be in Los Baños, your
preference was overruled. Thus, you as a minority suffer and the majority do not.
The same may be said of policy problematiques in development programs or

projects. For example, the indigenous peoples of Itogon do not want the proposed
San Roque Dam project because this will displace them economically, culturally
and politically. However, since the “majority”, e.g., the national leaders such as
Shahani, Ramos, and Estrada; the local leaders in Pangasinan; and others, want
the dam constructed anyway because it may provide electricity to ensure adequate
supply of water for irrigation and other purposes, the majority is listened to and
the minority weep at their own “loss” and eventual demise.
Policies in these instances should balance gains and losses so that the minority do
not suffer eternally and the majority enjoy perpetually. These balancing acts are
difficult to formulate and do in the real world.

Administration
Democracy as a Check on Power. The paradox of voting, the possibility of

minorities with intense preferences and the problem of bundling show the
imperfection and the “imperfectability” (Weimer and Vining, 1994) of democracy
as a mechanism of social choice. As policy analysts, we must recognize that
democratic processes will not always give us a true assessment of social values.
In addition,
• Actual participation may make people more willing to accept social

choices that they opposed because they had an opportunity to be heard or
to vote.
• Voting puts divisive practical issues to rest.
• Democracy provides a great check on the abuse of power by giving the
electorate the opportunity to overturn bad policies and remove unpopular
decision-makers from office.
• Moreover, democracy does not always lead to good, but provides
opportunities to correct the worst mistakes.
The Marcos burial issue is a case in point. Debates, protest and support actions
from the Marcoses, their loyalists, human rights victims, the church, media,
Presidents Aquino, Ramos and Estrada, and other stakeholders and sectors were
daily fare from June to July of 1998. Sentiments were articulated. Arguments
and counter-arguments were exchanged. Passion ran high. At the end of the day,
good judgment and conscience prevailed: Pres. Estrada buckled down to public
opinion and he gracefully accepted reality check. His powers were put in
perspective so far.
The Behavior of Representatives. Representatives often face the dilemma of

choosing between actions that advance their idea of good society and actions that
reflect the preferences of their constituencies. They often behave as if they were
trying to maximize the percentage of voters they receive during elections. This
strategy requires them to pay more attention to the interests of their
constituencies.
Thus, instead of long-term and sustainable endeavors, many of our representatives

would rather donate basketball courts, waiting sheds, and the like, rather than
invest congressional allocation to education, health services and the like. (There
are exceptions, of course, and which would include Senators Angara, Roco,
Macapagal, and Pimentel; Representatives Liban, Belmonte, Sandoval, and
Roxas).

Administration
In addition, representatives also suffer from cumulative rent-seeking through the

use of pork barrel, by limited time horizons of electoral cycles, posturing for
positions and the issues of sunk costs, precedents and public agendas, and the
like. I suppose you are fairly familiar with these issues yourself.
Most local politicians who have three-year tenures are observed to play by ear
during their first year, plan their programs and projects by the second year, and
play it safe and slow and “project” for the next elections on their third year. Thus,
no real sustainable projects are in place. In addition, myopia prevails and stunts
real progressive work at the grassroots level. Thus, they would need at least two
terms to make a niche, three terms to ensure continuity of programs and projects
and another term for their relatives and cronies to continue what they have started.
Rent Seeking: Diffused and Concentrated Interests. Constituents find it in their

self-interest to agree to policies that maximize their expected net benefits. No
constituent will find it in their self-interest to protest policies that spread the costs
widely.
The outcome? Collective choice will be biased toward policies with concentrated
benefits and diffused costs. Concentrated benefits often come in the form of rents:
payments to owners of resources above those which the resources could command
in alternative use. Lobbying for such concentrated interests is called rent-seeking
(Buchanan, 1980).
Common examples include bribery by those seeking local monopolies such as

telephone franchises, which has contributed to the corruption of public officials.
Government generates rents for the telephone company. Because they tend to be
more hidden from public view, exemptions from regulations and taxes are often
more attractive targets for rent-seekers.
Generally, it is harder to organize and mobilize those who bear the diffused costs
against those who benefit from concentrated benefits. Exceptions are attention to
the policy issue from a large segment of the electorate; and low public trust in
concentrated interests.
Rent seeking is also evident in SOPs (cuts or commissions) in public

infrastructure projects, countrywide development funds and congressional
initiatives. It is also found in “midnight deals” as perceived in the PEA-Amari
land deal, or in the conversion of agricultural lands to real estate properties or
industrial uses. A more recent example (1999) is the P3-M textbook bribe for the
Department of Budget and Management secretaries.

Administration
Rent-seeking is a manifestation of corruption and waste of government money.

Policies are thus needed to ensure that rent seekers lobby for progressive causes,
e.g., protecting the environment, or for transparency in government transactions
and operations.
Inability to Put a Value on Output. Like private firms, public agencies use labor
and other factor input to produce outputs. Unlike private firms, they need not pass
a market test to survive. Most public firms do not sell products, and if they do,
they do not sell them competitively.
Bureaucracies face the problem of having to impute values to such “public

goods” as national security, health, law and order, etc. Policy analysts can rarely
provide convincing methods for imputing values. The absence of reliable
measures makes it difficult to determine the optimal sizes of public agencies. In
addition, the fundamental differences between private and public goods (as
presented in Fig. 41) make public outputs less susceptible to measurement.
Evaluating outputs should however be done for both public and private
organizations.
Effects of Limited Competition on Efficiency. Competition forces private firms

to produce output at minimum costs. Firms that do not use resources in the most
efficient manner are driven from the market by firms that are efficient. The
resulting X-efficiency is the opportunity cost of wasted resources.
Because public agencies do not face direct competition, they can survive even
when they operate inefficiently. Incentives for innovation are very limited.
Whether inefficiency actually results or not depends on the system of incentives
that budgetary sponsors actually impose on public executives.
Inflexibility Caused by Civil Service Protections. Civil service protection

provides continuity in expertise and a shield against attempts to use government
agencies for partisan purposes. Yet the same rules that make it difficult to fire
employees make it difficult to weed out the incompetent and unproductive.
Fixed pay schedules tend to under-reward the most productive and over-reward
the least productive.
The attrition law, while it serves the purpose of streamlining the bureaucracy, is
particularly severe for the public manager who fears losing allocated slots if they
are not filled up.

Administration
Wastage of Resources: The Concept of the “Discretionary Budget”.Discretionary

Budget is the difference between the budget that the agency receives from the
government and the minimum cost of producing the agency’s outputs.
It would be economically efficient for the agency to produce output at minimum

cost so that it can return the discretionary budget to the national treasury.
If the agency does not return the excess amount, it reveals information to the
national government about the minimum cost--information that the budget cutters
can use in deciding how much to allocate to the agency in next year’s budget.
Agencies not wishing to return their discretionary budgets have an incentive to

increase agency spending.
EQUITY
Efficiency, the least cost allocation of scarce productive resources, and their
sustained growth, is not enough. Of equal importance is distribution, which is
related to competing concept of justice and fairness and the ethical conflicts
surrounding the appropriate basis for distributing resources.
In the Philippines where income inequality is very pronounced (with 10% of the
rich owning at least 80% of the wealth and income of the nation), tremendous
challenge is posed on policy analysts and makers. How could redistributive
policies such as land reform flourish? The answer is harder to find.

Administration
SAQ 7-5
What can be done by the state to address these market and government
failures as well as respond to equity considerations?
GENERIC POLICIES
The various market and government failures or ways private and collective
actions lead to socially unsatisfactory conditions provide a conceptual framework
for diagnosing public policy problems. To resolve them, we can focus on some
generic policies or types of actions government may take to deal with these
perceived problems in the market and the state.
These generic policies represent a range of general strategies that must be tailored
fit to the existing complex context of policy concerns. They include five general
categories:
• freeing, facilitating and stimulating markets;
• using taxes and subsidies to alter incentives;
• establishing rules;
• supplying goods through non-market mechanisms; and
• providing insurance and cushions(economic protections).

Administration
Freeing regulated markets (de-regulation, liberalization, privatization, etc.) should

be considered in situations where an effective market can be expected to re-
emerge with relatively minor efficiency distortions. However, there may be
relatively major windfall, or distributional losses or gains once current
government intervention is eliminated. The case is exemplified in the de-
regulation of the airline industry or the downstream oil industry.
Markets were freed to dismantle monopolies. However, what replaced

monopolies were oligopolies or cartels, which are mere derivatives in the first
place.
Facilitating markets means creating a functioning market, either by establishing

property rights to existing goods (e.g., mining patents or license to operate beach
resorts), or creating new marketable goods (e.g., tradable permits, usually for
environment emissions or pollution).
Simulating markets means acting like a market, using mechanisms such as

auctions, bidding, contractualization, contracts and the like.
The rest of the generic policies are listed in Fig. 43 below and explained in-depth
by Weimer and Vining (1994).

Administration
Generic Policies Perceived Problems
Freeing Markets
Deregulate allocative inefficiency & rent seeking
Legalize changed preferences
Privatize bureaucratic supply
Facilitating Markets
Allocate Existing Goods public goods (common property);
Allocate Property Rights negative externality
Creating New Marketable Goods -do-

(Tradable Permits)
Stimulating Markets natural monopoly; public goods

Auctions
Supply-side Taxes non-competitive behavior

Tariffs by foreign exporters
Supply-side Subsidies
Matching Grants +/- externality; natural monopoly;
public goods (information)
Tax Expenditures -do-

(Business Deductions)
Demand-side Subsidies + externality; equality of outcome

In-kind Subsidies + externality; equity
Vouchers
Tax Expenditures
(Personal Deductions) -do-

Administration
Demand-side Taxes
- externality; information asymmetry;
Commodity Taxes & User Fees
public goods (common pool)
Establishing Rules, Frameworks

Civil Laws (liability rules) public goods; - externality;
information asymmetry; equity (equal
opportunity)
Criminal Law -do-; illegitimate preferences
Regulations
Price Regulation natural monopoly; equity
Quantity Regulation public goods (common pool); - externality
Direct Information Provision

(Labelling, Disclosure) - externality; information asymmetry
Indirect Information Provision

(Registration, Certification, Licensing) -do-
Direct Supply
Bureaus public goods; + externality; equity;
natural monopoly
Independent Agencies
Government Corporations -do-
Special Districts local public goods; -do-
Contracting Out
Direct Contracting Out public goods; bureaucratic supply failure
Indirect Contracting Out

(Non-Profit Organizations) equity; + externality
Source: Weimer & Vining, 1994, Ch. 5, pp. 124-174.
Fig. 43. Some Generic Policies or Possible Government Responses to Correct

Market Imperfections, Government Failures and Address Equity
Considerations

Administration
These policies should be formulated with much caution and thought so that they
themselves do not re-create the problems in the market and government which they
intended to solve in the first place.
ACTIVITY 7-6
Review what you have learned in this module. Answer the following:
1. What do mean when we say, State? State intervention? market failures?

government failures?
2. Why and when should state intervene in private choices and actions? What
are the appropriate roles of the State?
3. What are the justifications for public policies using the political economy
framework?
4. What public policies may be formulated by the State to address market

and/or government failures and equity considerations? Is the privatization
policy, for example, a justified proposition?
5. What general statements or conclusions can you offer with regard to the
topic we have explored and examined so far?

Administration
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This module explained the rationale for collective action by the state or for public
policies to be formulated to intervene in private and government failures that may
lead to socially undesirable values. This also defined the concept of the state, state
intervention, market and government failure.
It also clarified three frameworks for justifying the formulation and implementation
of public policies: 1) the general public functions of the state; 2) the philosophy of
state intervention; and 3) the political and economic framework for dealing with
market and government failures, as well as equity considerations. It ended with some
generic policies or strategies the state may adopt to address these problems and
concerns.
I hope you had an enlightening module. If learned by heart, I know your becoming a
policy analytic citizen will not be farfetched! I hope I am right. See you in Module 8!

UP Open University Unit III: Rationale for Public Policy and Program
Administration
8
Policy Implementation
Policy implementation used to be an “ignored” stage in the public policy process. In

the past, much attention has been given to the formulation of good policies or to
documenting the “moment of choice”, i.e., the period when the decision was taken or
the policy was made.
However, with greater nagging questions being asked as to the effects and outcomes
of public policies, and more importantly, on who are the beneficiaries and how they
are affected by policies, more attention is now focused on the fundamental changes
brought about by adopted and implemented public policies.
If in the previous modules of this PM 241 Manual and Study Guide, more focus
was given to the concept of public policy, policy process, the policy system, policy
stakeholders and policy environment, and lately, on policy research and the
rationale of public policy making, this module focuses on policy implementation.
The latter is generally defined as that period in the policy cycle when concrete
manifestations of the actual progress of policies are evident.
Module 8 also explains the need for implementation analyses and for plans and
strategies to ensure less chances of their going wrong, or less policy gaps and
failures. The latter terms simply mean that something went wrong from policy
adoption to implementation, or simply, the policy adopted was not implemented as
planned. In explaining why policy failures happen, this module also disentangles
some ingredients for the success or failure of public policy implementation.
In addition, this module provides a framework which you may use to plan for a more
“successful” policy implementation.
Module 8: Policy Implementation 266

Unit III: Rationale for Public Policy and Program UP Open University
Administration
Module 8 is generally a prelude to PM 245 (Policy Implementation). Most of the

details and information which you may not be able to get in this module, you will
surely get in PM 245. The latter discusses the nature and dynamics, and the nuts and
bolts of policy implementation.
I am sure you will enjoy reading and doing Module 8, just as you did in the other
enlightening modules of the course.
Module 8 is the last in the series of building-block modules for PM 241. Thus, you
may now feel sort of relieved or excited, because this is a sign that the course is
about to end. Simultaneous with this leg is a period for doing Assignment #2, and
later, for you to summarize your learning in the course and prepare for the final
exam. Hopefully, after all these work, you shall have successfully completed the
course. So, is “Congratulations!” a-coming?
OBJECTIVES

1. appreciate the need to be good planners as well as implementors of public
policies;
2. explain the factors which contribute to successful (and not too successful)
policy implementation;
3. synthesize the preconditions to successful implementation; and
4. plan the successful implementation of a selected policy familiar to you.
TIME FRAME
You are expected to complete these objectives by devoting at least 24 hours studying
PM 241. Suggested timing is as follows:
Consulting Course Manual 12 hrs

Reading 8 hrs.
Reflection/Integration 4 hrs.
Total 24 hrs.
267 Module 8: Policy Implementation

Administration
If you think this may not be enough to digest the value of Module 8, you are as usual,
encouraged to allot more time, effort and interest. If on the other hand, this timing is
adequate, then congratulations! You can now be proudly called a survivor and a
budding disciple of public policy.
SAQ 8-1
Before reading the text, I want you to answer the following questions (SAQs).
These are intended to tease you to go through this last module of the course in a
breeze and master the art and science of policy implementation. Knowing and
learning it by heart will hopefully contribute to more effective policy
implementation in the country, with your help, of course.
Now here goes:
a. What is policy implementation?
b. Why is there a need to study policy implementation?
c. What makes polices fail or succeed? What are some of the factors or
ingredients to successful policy implementation? What characteristics of
policy affect the success or failure of policy implementation?
d. What are some of the pre-conditions to successful implementation?
e. Can successful implementation be planned?
Write your answers in your notebook. This is one way of structuring your
thoughts and preparing for your next hurdles, e.g., TMA 2 and the Final Exam.
The answers are in the text. I organized the headings and contents in such a way
that you can easily find their fit with the SAQs above. However, I urge you to
answer the SAQs first before comparing them with the text here. You will learn
better that way. Trust me.

Administration
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: WHERE ACTIONS SPEAK

LOUDER THAN WORDS
Policy implementation is defined by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) as “a

process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions geared to achieve
them.” To them, implementation means to carry out, accomplish, fulfill,
produce, complete. A policy is a hypothesis of cause and effect, of initial
conditions and predicted consequences.
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), meanwhile, define the implementation
process as “those actions by public or private individuals (or groups) that are
directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in prior policy decisions”
According to Iglesias (1986), policy implementation is a dynamic conversion
process of policies and plans into specific programs and projects. It is also that
critical stage of carrying out or executing programs that have been adopted by
legislation or executive or judicial orders (Ruskefsky, 1990). It is that stage in
the policy process that answers, for example, “Did the poor benefit? Did the
Social Reform Agenda achieve its intended results?”
Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) label implementation as an operationalization

of vague goals through a myriad of organizational activities influenced by the
environment. Paul defines it as a strategic management process involving
orchestration of strategy, structure, process and environment.
Other scholars refer to policy implementation as that stage in the policy cycle
where formulated policies, intentions, plans, visions are executed and
operationalized. It is also that part which is for actual problem solving in a
wider socio-political context, i.e., where the policy problem being addressed by
the adopted policy is actually dealt with.
Policy implementation is also described briefly by Williams (1996) as the stage

between decision and operations. It is the next difficult step after decision,
involving efforts to put into place- to make operational- what has been decided.
More and more frequently, one is warned to be concerned with
implementation- that stage where so much can go wrong.
As an extension or adjunct of the planning process, it is the stage where action

speaks louder than words, and where policies and their goals and objectives are
tested as to their effectiveness or truthfulness of intention. Grindle (1980)
believes policy implementation as an essentially political process which is
influenced by its content and context. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973),
meanwhile, believe that it is both an analytical and political process.

Administration
HOW POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONAL

FORMS ARE CHOSEN FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Public policy making is not only about choosing goals but also selecting the
means to accomplish or move towards these goals. This means that
implementation includes policy instruments and organizational forms.
With respect to the way governments go about selecting policy instruments to

implement policy, Kernaghan and Siegel (n.d.) discuss three theories:
• the Coercion Theory- developed by Doern and Wilson (as cited by Langford,
1995), holds that governments tend to respond to policy issues by moving from
the least coercive policy instruments to the most coercive;
• the Neo-Marxist Approach- developed by Baxter-Moore (as cited by Langford,
1995), holds that the State will choose different policy instruments depending
on the economic power of the constituency group; and
• the Public Choice Theory- developed by Trebilock (as cited by Langford,
1995), argues that politicians choose policy instruments on the basis of
improving their electoral position.
Langford (1995) argues that the main policy instruments available to public
authorities for purposes of governing, implementation and service include:
• exhortation and symbolic policy outputs;
• expenditure through program delivery or direct payments to individuals and
organizations;
• taxation;
• regulation; and
• public or quasi-public enterprise structure.
Jones (1984), meanwhile, contends that implementation involves three main

activities: organization, interpretation and application. Organization requires
appropriate resources (people, funding, facilities, etc.) to carry out the program.
Interpretation involves interpretation of adopted policies. Application of rules is
the last implementation activity.

Administration
Also, policy implementation has many uses. It is a tool for

• information- to make people aware of the policy or program;
• inducement- to make it easier for people to adopt new behavior;
• enforcement- to require people to adopt new behavior under threat of
penalties; or
• benefaction- to offer positive benefits or incentives to people who change
their behavior in the desired direction
The COMELEC Hour on television is an implementation tool to inform the
voting public of the rules and regulations governing the national elections, the
steps in voting, the candidates and their qualifications. Although one could
always argue on the inadequacy of this tool in educating the voting public, what
with the Political Ad Ban in place, it is nevertheless intended to inform.
Another example of this information function is the campaign of the PAG-IBIG

Fund notifying borrowers of the recent policy of condoning arrears in housing
loans from participating agencies under the unified housing program of the
government. It likewise encourages borrowers to pay their loans and help the
agency-participants to build more homes for the homeless.
The campaign against burning waste (remember the “Huwag Magsunog” promo
on TV and radio?) is an example of an implementation tool for inducement. It
encourages people to resort to recycling, use of pits, waste segregation and the
like, instead of burning, so as to help maintain the fragile state of the ozone layer.
It also educates the public to help save that layer which protects us from excessive
ultra-violet rays from the sun.
The campaign asking people not to throw waste, particularly the plastics which
are non-biodegradable, in rivers and other waterways is also an example of this
function of policy implementation. Another example is the advertisement line of
the Department of Health, warning us that smoking is bad for our health. How
effective these interventions are in achieving their avowed objectives is, however,
a difficult question to answer at this point.
An example of an enforcement function is the issuance of violation tickets for

drivers who breach certain traffic rules and regulations. Beating the red light,
plying colorum or unregistered vehicles and routes, driving without license,
driving in a one-way street, smoke belching, not stopping at full stops and
following the first-come, first-served rule (particularly in Subic) and speeding, are
among the violations which are no-no in the country, and should be fined a
corresponding amount. The Land Transportation Office does not seem too
aggressive though in disseminating new set of rules for violations and the
corresponding sanctions and fines for traffic violations.
Administration
For the benefaction function, meanwhile, an example that easily comes to mind is
the tax holiday and other incentives given to foreign investors and others with
huge capitalization needed in our export processing zones, mining industry and
other sectors. Another illustration is the tax breaks and discounts given to
taxpayers who pay in advance. Another example is the awarding by the Civil
Service Commission to certain exemplary public servants of the Gawad awards;
and the “Clean and Green” awards given every year. These are incentives for the
do-gooders to sustain their exemplary behaviors.
Doern and Phidd (1983) add other policy instruments for policy implementation
and service delivery. They include exhortation and symbolic policy outputs,
expenditure through program delivery or direct payments to individuals or
organizations, taxation, regulation, and use of the public or quasi-public
enterprise form.
In the real world, these functions and instruments overlap. Thus, we can see
implementation tools with multiple uses.
THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION IN THE

POLICY PROCESS
In the study of public policy, there has been a “missing link” (Hargrove, 1975)
between the concern with policy making and the evaluation of policy outcomes.
Earlier many thought that once a policy is formulated, enacted and adopted, it
will logically be implemented.
However, empirical studies initiated by Pressman and Wildavsky and continued

by other scholars in the field, among them, Iglesias, Van Meter and Van Horn,
Hogwood and Gunn point out that this assumption is not always valid. Policies
do not implement themselves. In addition, there are situations wherein something
goes wrong on the way to policy implementation.
Thus, there’s a need to study implementation, what the policy is, how success
and failures are measured, and how policy is changed during the process of
implementation. It is also important to focus on the nature and dynamics of the
policy implementation process.

Administration
This is to forewarn us of things we should look out for, to ensure successful

implementation. This, despite the fact that there could never be a perfect
implementation in the real world. Nevertheless, it might be wiser to know how
we can ensure successful conversion of policies into actions.
As earlier stated, successful implementation is not easy. Many things can go

wrong. Public policies do not turn out as originally planned. Some are badly on
the other hand manipulated and others produce negative unintended
consequences. Others succeed well beyond original expectations. The reasons
for this may include the following:
• It is difficult to specify details in advance.
• implementation permits matching of local goods and services to local
preferences.
• implementation does not always agree with policy objectives specified in
alternatives.
Moreover, implementation cannot be neatly segmented or isolated in a

compartment in the policy process. It cannot be tidily assigned to some special
unit of the organization and be always completed successfully. It should be
thought of first and included in the complex decision and policy making process
by posing the question: How hard will it be to implement the various policies
being considered?
To elucidate, I will briefly discuss the experience in implementing the

downstream oil industry deregulation law (R.A. 8188).
R.A. 8188 or the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1986 aimed at
opening up the downstream oil industry to competition. By doing so, prices of oil
commodities will ideally be competitive and affordable and oil supply will be
accessible to all. However, these intentions were not achieved when the law was
implemented. Prices of oil products increased by eight times or so; not so many
major players entered the picture; worse, an oil cartel of three giant companies
seemed to unfold.
Thus, when reviewed by the Supreme Court in 1997, it was found out that among
others, instead of opening up the industry, cartelization or oligopoly of the giant
Shell, Petron and Caltex occurred. In addition, competition was not evident as the
4% tariff differential between crude and refined oil was deemed detrimental to the
entry of small companies who had no refinery yet in the country.
Consequently, the law was repealed and deemed unconstitutional. A new law
was enacted in 1998, hopefully, dealing with problems in implementation cited by
the Supreme Court, as well as avoiding the pitfalls suffered by the old policy.

Administration
R.A. 8188 is an example of a policy which did not have the rigor nor the cautious
preparations for implementation. Its framers thought that with the policy in place,
everything, including its goals would logically fall in place (top-down approach).
As experience tells us, this is not always the case.
SAQ 8-2
Write your answers in your notebook.
1. What is implementation gap or policy failure?
2. What are its forms?
IMPLEMENTATION GAP OR POLICY FAILURE
Many, including myself, liken policy implementation to marriage. The courting,

engagement and proposal stages refer to the problem identification and
redefinition, structuring, agenda setting, policy formulation and adoption stages.
The preparation for the wedding, the wedding day itself and reception, and the
duration of the marriage life, “in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer,
‘til death do us part” refer to the policy implementation, monitoring and
evaluation, and problem re-definition stages.

Administration
… Thus, like marriage, it is important to deal with the nuts and bolts of policy
implementation, before and during its occurrence. There is a need to explain
and minimize the implementation gap or the gap between documents (the
policy) and the day-to-day problems of actual plan (implementation).
“To decide” does not necessarily mean “to do”, and the differences between
these two must be bridged by committed implementors assigned to do or make
operational the decision or policy concerned.
Implementation gap is also called policy failure. It means the discrepancy

between
• a legitimate pattern or arrangement and the actual situation;
• a prediction or expectation and observation;
• a desired objective and what is actually achieved; and
• it also means the tension between what is ideal or expected and that which
is perceived and observed.
POLICY FAILURE DUE TO NON-IMPLEMENTATION
In seeking to understand policy failure, it is useful to distinguish between its

two types : non-implementation and unsuccessful implementation. According to
Brian Hogwood (1984), non-implementation is a case wherein a policy is not
put into effect as intended because of various reasons, among them: perhaps
those involved in its execution have been uncooperative and/or inefficient, or
their best efforts could not overcome obstacles to effective implementation over
which they had little or no control.
The “proposed” lifting of the lumber export ban by the DENR is an example
of non-implementation. It was not carried out as planned because of strong
opposition against the policy amidst the currency crisis and the election fever
in 1997-98, and also because of the “sensitivity” or none of it, being projected
by the government to public opinion.
The environment cause-oriented groups and other concerned sectors

articulated their strong objection against such administrative order. In
addition, they categorically expressed their non-cooperation in such alleged
environmentally-degrading activity. The DENR and the President, for their
part, meanwhile, abandoned the plan. They buckled down to public opinion
and to prospective supporters of administration candidates.

Administration
The same fate was experienced by the proposed vehicle occupancy program of
the Metro-Manila Development Authority; the proposed nationwide ID
system; and the proposed Charter change in 1997. They were not
implemented at all.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION DUE TO UNSUCCESSFUL

IMPLEMENTATION
Unsuccessful implementation, as opposed to non-implementation, occurs

when a policy is carried out in full and external circumstances are not
altogether unfavorable. Nonetheless, the policy fails to produce the intended
results or outcomes. And this may be the results of bad execution, bad policy
or bad luck.
Bad execution occurs because the policy was ineffectively implemented.

There is bad policy because the policy was ‘bad’ in the sense that it was based
on inadequate information, defective reasoning, or hopelessly unrealistic
assumptions. There is bad luck when policy initiators and those charged with
implementation may agree that external circumstances were so adverse that it
was no one’s fault- just bad luck- that the policy failed.
The case of bad luck may be exemplified by the recovery plan formulated by
the Aquino administration. The country could have gotten out of the so-called
“boom and bust” cycle of the economy during President Aquino’s term
because of the renewed confidence given by the global community to our re-
democratizing society. However, a series of man-made and natural calamities,
e.g., coup d’etat, typhoons, earthquake, the Ormoc disaster, the Bocaue
tragedy, happened and came in the way of full recovery. These experiences
are the epitome of the Filipino saying, “Malas! Sayang!”
At a more personal level, an example of bad luck is the unexpected rain at a

garden wedding; the unwanted foul of Johnny Abarientos of Alaska during a
championship match against San Miguel; the computer virus eating up your file
at a time when you were about to submit a report; or the whirlwind marriage and
pregnancy of teen stars at the peak of their careers.
An example of bad policy is the lifting of the lumber export ban. The
administrative order issued by the DENR stipulated that with the lifting of the
ban, the currency crisis would be eased and local loggers would have better
value for their commodity. Both of these assumptions were not solidly based on
theory and research. (One buzz around town implied that the A.O. was the
handwork of the Department of Trade and not the DENR. The latter was only
“forced” to defend it because of orders from President Ramos.) In addition, the

Administration
cause and effects of the policy seemed to produce more negative effects than
benefits. Try to look for other reasons though yourself.
Another example of bad policy is land conversion. It is bad because prime

agricultural lands are allowed to be converted into other uses as long as there is
a legislation by the local government unit concerned, there is voluntary offer to
sell by the land owners and the lands are needed for “development”. As a
result, vast tracts of fertile lands were converted to golf courses, plantations,
upscale villages and resorts. Consequently, many poor farmers lost their
agricultural lands and livelihood. They eventually lost food and money to buy
food as in the experience in Mindanao. Thus, what does land conversion lead
to? A lot more insecurities and displacements!
An example of bad execution, meanwhile, is the policy protecting the

exploitation and abuse of children. The signs everywhere, in streets, factories,
slaughterhouses and the like, prove that safeguarding the rights of children has
been inadequate. Children continue to be exploited child laborers; sexually
exploited children; physically abused lot; unschooled; hawkers in our dangerous
streets. They are also sometimes engaged in petty and serious crimes. If all
factors and actors concerned cooperate and support this policy, and the lead
agency does its job, there may not be bad execution.
The course of implementation varies over time. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983)
propose several paths, i.e., effective implementation (relative simple, non-
controversial problems); gradual erosion (where implementation is initially
effective but later worsens); gradual improvements in implementation
(cumulative incrementalism); and almost wavelike declines and increases
(rejuvenation) . Implementation is a complex process of ebbs and flows.

Administration
DISENTANGLING SUCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS

What factors influence the likelihood of success in implementation? This is a
basic question that we will answer in this section. However, before we discover
some ingredients to the success or failure of policy implementation, I would like
you to read the following story:
ACTIVITY 8-1
Have you heard of the story of “Supplies”? Well, if you have, you know what
I am driving at. If you haven’t, read on.
The Story of “Supplies”
Once upon a time, a ship named “Blue King”( and not “Titanic”!) bound for
Mexico from Japan, sank in the deep blue waters of the Pacific Ocean. The
area was shark-infested. Three persons - a Filipino, an American and a
Chinese-swam their way to an island near San Francisco. They thus survived
the shipwreck and the impending attacks of the sharks.
In the morning, and upon recovering from shock and fear, the three met and
planned ways to successfully find help out of the island. They agreed to send
smoke alarms (with the SOS smoke, of course), and form dried plants into a
big HELP word which may be seen from the air. In the meantime, they
would build a small house to shelter them from the elements and wild beasts.
The American and the Filipino agreed to design the plan (blueprint) and
build the house themselves. The Chinese was in charge of procuring supplies
and other provisions.
The first two did what they had agreed to do. They made a design for a small,
improvised nipa hut. The Chinese was asked to look for dried coconut leaves
or anything that could be used as roofing materials. He was also asked to
look for logs and other materials for the walling and floor. In addition, he
was asked to look for provisions along the way.

Administration
The Filipino and American looked for materials to build a fire and also for
other materials that may be used for the hut. They found strong logs for the
posts and fronds for the walls. They used vines to the materials together.
Noon time came. The two felt weak and thirsty. They saw coconuts up a tree
nearby. However, they did not have the will nor the strength to climb up the
tree. They could not drink from the sea. Thus, they just slept their hunger and
thirst away.
Then it was sunset and then it was dark…The Chinaman was still nowhere in
sight.
Suddenly, they heard a loud thud, followed by another. They thought the
coconuts. But to their surprise, guess what?
… The Chinaman suddenly burst in sight holding up a bunch of about eight

coconuts. Smiling he greeted the two: “Surprise! Surprise!”
SAQ 8-3
Write your answers on your notebook.
a. What lessons can you glean from the story?
b. How come “supplies” was understood as “surprise! surprise!”
Was there some miscommunication here?
c. Did the three survivors succeed in achieving their plan? Why?

Administration
SUCCESS AND FAILURE FACTORS
The story of “Supplies” point to some of the factors which we often assume as
given or understood when in fact, a lot of explanations and resources have still
to be made or committed in order that intentions or goals are achieved as
planned.
Here, the American and Filipino thought that the “supplies” they asked of the
Chinese meant materials and food and other provisions for them to build their
makeshift shack and survive. For the Chinese, supplies mean “surprise!”
which really took the two by a big bang. The former were shocked to learn they
had a “surprise” of their life!
The story also leads us to some of the other factors we have to consider to
ensure that what we plan for is carried out. Among them are the ingredients
listed in the mini-survey I did on the subject and found in Fig. 45 (please refer
to the next page).
Other factors identified by the scholars include the provision of adequate

resources and the specificity of instruction by Mountjoy and O’Toole. They also
include Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979) and Ham and Hill’s (1984)
• nature of policy- see that it is unambiguous;
• the implementation structure- keep links in the chain to a minimum;
• the prevention of outside influences; and
• control over implementing actors.
Ham and Hill (1994) further explain the features of a less problematic policy that
facilitate or impede successful implementation see Fig. 44. These are:
Less Problematic More Problematic

(Facilitates) (Impedes)
º simple technical features º complex technical features

º marginal change from the º comprehensive change from the
status quo status quo
º one-actor target º multiple-actor target
º one-goal objective º multiple-goal objective
º clearly stated goals º unclear & ambiguous goals
º short duration º long duration
Fig. 44. Features of Policy that Facilitate or Impede Implementation

Administration
Hogwood and Gunn, 1984

- bud luck
- bad execution
- bad policy
Paul, 1981
- implementing organization’s environment
- leadership & strategies
- structure
- process
- strategic management & leadership
Iglesias, 1986
- resources (financing personnel)
- technology (knowledge, training)
- support (political)
- structure (organization)
- leadership
Grindle, 1981
- content of policy
interest affected
type or benefits or costs
extent of change
site of decision-making
implementers’ capability
resources committed
- context of policy
• power, interests & strategy
• institution & regime
characteristics
• compliance & responsiveness
Weimer & Vining, 1994

- logic of policy, i.e., Is the theory reasonable?
- nature of cooperation required, e.g., tokenism, delayed compliance, blatant
resistance
- availability of skillful & committed people to manage its implementation, i.e.,
Who in the assembly line has the essential elements? Who are the ‘fixers’ who
can intervene in the policy process to help gain cooperation or Are there
needed elements being witheld?
Fig. 45. A Mini-Survey of Some Success and Failure Factors in Policy

Implementation

Administration
The frameworks of such scholars as Grindle, Iglesias, Paul, and Weimer and
Vining, are also worth studying. I urge you to go through these articles yourself
and appreciate the wisdom they give.
To summarize, there are numerous prescriptions to successful implementation.

There are factors and actors that contribute to the success or failure of policy
implementation.
However, their effects cannot be easily determined; no one factor or set of factors
can be considred the sole contributor to or the surefire combination for the
success or failure of implementation. As Williams (1976) states,
“… it is not always possible to say whether policies fail because

they are based on bad ideas or because they are good ideas which
were poorly executed.”
Nevertheless, the more common variables stressed in implementation literature

include:
• nature of the policy itself;
• implementing organizations;
• target groups or clients; and
• environment.
In developing countries, the more important variables seem to be:

• the impact of charismatic leadership;
• extreme degree of resource constraints;
• treatment of qualitative uncertainty in the environment;
• use of non-monetary compliance strategies;
• inter-organization coordination, both vertical and horizontal; and
• the private and non-government organization sectors’ compliance and
support to public policies.
For example, the conversion of Subic Bay Metropolitan area from an abandoned
US air and naval base in the wake of the Pinatubo eruption and as an aftermath of
the Senate rejection of the extension of the RP-US Treaty, into a model economic
zone may be traced in part to the vision of its charismatic and indefatigable Chair,
Dick Gordon; the wide support and participation of its volunteers; the resources
poured into it by the national government, e.g., Office of the President and the
Philippine Export Zone Authority (although Subic is not a regular EPZ); the
willingness of the investors to risk and venture into business in the area; and the
seemingly simple organizational structure it adopted for implementing its vision
of an economic miracle.

Administration
Cebu’s boom (or Ce-boom) or economic miracle is also attributable to the

initiative and vision of Lito Osmena and the support of investors, agency
personnel and officials from the national and local governments, and the trust put
into Ce-boom by the Cebuanos.
The same may be said of Davao’s and Puerto Princesa’s clean and green
development, which sustains forests and natural resources and at the same time,
maintains cleanliness, peace and order, and economic development. Mayors
Duterte and Hagedorn maybe partly credited for this blissful development in the
South.
Mayor Fred Lim’s social projects in Manila, e.g., free medical and hospital
services, free education in public schools, such as the Manila Science High
School, the Manila Polytechnic College and Pamantasan ng Maynila, were
certified hits! These were so because of resources poured in, Lim’s leadership and
keen sense of timing, and support of the stakeholders who matter.
Now, to exercise my “idea structuring”, I made an acrostic, sort of, of the essence
of success or failure in policy implementation. These summarize the major
ingredients found in the empirical studies of various authors in the field, and in
my own studies analyzing the feeder roads project and other development projects
in the Bicol River Basin area, the Philippine Nutrition Program, the privatization
of public enterprises, the implementation of the Mining Act of 1995, the build-
operate-transfer scheme, and the management of official development assistance,
among others.
More particularly, for me, SUCCESS requires the following ingredients:
S- social acceptability; social preparation

U- unity of purpose; understanding and agreement among
implementors and beneficiaries;
C- capability to implement; presence of a critical mass of supporters
and critics; an organized community;
C- communication; commitment; coordination; clarity of purpose
and direction;
E- efficient and effective implementation; empowerment;
S- suitability of surefire solutions; and
S- sufficient resources and support.

Administration
FAILURE, on the other hand, occurs because of
F- fund shortage; feelings of inadequacy, helplessness or insecurity;

A- aims, targets or objectives are not well defined; attitudes of
clients and implementors are problematic;
I- intervention of politicians;
L- limited resources, information and support; laziness on the part of
some implementors;
U- unpreparedness; unity of purpose and personal interests are not
achieved;
R- reliance or dependency on outside institutions and support;
E- exploitation or distortion of the concept of public welfare.
ACTIVITY 8-2
I suppose you can also make your own listing of factors and other
ingredients in policy implementation. Make a summary of these ingredients
in your notebook. Go ahead!

Administration
PRECONDITIONS TO SUCCESSFUL POLICY

IMPLEMENTATION
… Before marriage, we can never tell whether our would-be spouse will be gentle
and kind as he or she projected himself or herself to be. We can never tell whether
he is a wife-batter or she, a gambler. To minimize pain, we should know what lies
ahead, investigate and prepare for better or worse.
The same is true with public policy implementation. We should have the
discipline and habit of anticipating and preparing for “successful” implementation
of policies and programs. This way, we contribute to the efficient and responsive
achievement of effective goals and visions of government.
I must admit that “perfect implementation” may never be achieved. In addition,

such state may appear in reality, as a perfect fantasy or nightmare. Nevertheless,
anticipation is crucial and planning may forewarn us of some degree of failure
that must be expected and minimized.
The former dean of the U.P. College of Public Administration, Dr. Gabriel U.
Iglesias once said that:
“If plans were considered for their implementability, or
contained organizational strategies for implementation,
or if the planning process involved those who are concerned
with implementation, then the attainment of planned goals
and targets could be better achieved.”
However, no amount of implementation planning in the policy design phase may

cover every eventuality. That is why implementation should be regarded as a test,
an opportunity to learn, and if possible, to amend.
I went through the implementation literature to find out several preconditions to

successful implementation. I put them in summary form to help your
understanding in Fig. 46.

Administration
ΧΧWeimer & Vining, 1994

º understanding of the interests of those who would
bear the consequences of the means and ends of policies
Hogwood & Gunn, 1984

º the circumstances external to the implementing agency do not
impose crippling effects
º that adequate time and resources are made available
º that the required combination of resources are made available
º that the policy is based on valid theory, i.e., X Æ Z
“ If the policy is fundamentally incorrect, it will fail no matter how
well it is implemented.” (Bardach, 1977)
º the relationship between cause and effect is direct; and that there
are few links among variables
º the dependency relationships are minimal
º there is understanding and agreement on objectives
º tasks are fully specified in correct sequence
º there is perfect communication and coordination
º those in authority can demand and obtain perfect compliance
Kernaghan & Siegel, 1979

guarding against some of the types of problems or
difficulties common during the Implementation Phase:
• Communication problems
• Organizational rigidities
• Insufficient resources
• Inter-organization complexity
• Fullness of time
• Inadequate participation
Langford & Prince, 1995

guarding against other kinds of problems that may arise during Implementation:
• difficulties due to the need to share authority with other program
or service agencies as well as with central agencies, intergovernmental
• bodies, and interest groups
• difficulties arising from the nature and availability of facilities,
equipment and supplies
• problems because the policy is flawed, i.e., the policy makers have
misread the issue or the community’s needs and values
• problems because of vague and diffuse policy goals, or
conversely, over stated and rigid goals
• problems from bargaining, maneuvering and possibly, resistance
by groups inside and/or outside government
• difficulties due to lack of sustained commitment to the policy
implementation
by political and/or administrative leaders
Fig. 46. Some Preconditions to Successful Policy Implementation

Administration
I cannot explain all of these preconditions in full, otherwise this module will be
very long. Thus, I will only focus on Hogwood and Gunn’s model which seems to
highlight a key point: that the real world rarely meets any one of these
preconditions, let alone all of them simultaneously. However, inevitable failure
must be reduced or minimized in order that certain partial accomplishment or
success may also be achieved.
These preconditions are:
No Insurmountable External Constraints.
Sometimes the world will not cooperate and forces beyond the policy makers’
control intervene to make implementation not merely difficult but impossible.
Courts, for example, can decide that policies and programs are unconstitutional,
as what happened in the oil deregulation law of 1996 and the privatization issue
of the Manila Hotel. Administrators have no choice but to go back to the drawing
boards.
Adequate Time and Sufficient Resources
Policies may be expected to work within an unrealistically short time. Hogwood

and Gunn give the example of trying to combat racism and other discriminatory
attitudes which are often deeply ingrained and difficult to counteract.
Another example is equity employment, or equitable distribution of wealth. The

mechanisms that have created differences in income, wealth and opportunity are
deeply ingrained in the economy and society. Thus, it is unlikely that even
vigorous intervention and implementation will yield immediate results.
Another problem is insufficient resources to effectively implement programs. In

the current economic or financial crisis, many old and new programs feel the
pinch. Doing more with less is laudable, but sometimes doing less means not
doing at all.
Required Combinations of Resources are Available.
Implementation requires not only that resources be adequate, it also requires that
these be available at the right time in the process. Here, timing and adequacy are
needed. In addition, resources have to come on stream as needed to ensure proper
implementation.

Administration
A case in point is the construction of the Metro-Rail System (LRT 3) along

EDSA. Although this project is on a build-operate-transfer scheme, adequate
fund releases at the expected periods should be released to the private consortium
in order that supplies and other materials needed in the project are bought at the
right time. Otherwise, there will be delays that may be costly, not only to the
private consortium, but also to the government.
Another example is the adequate supply of vaccines and other medical supplies
needed by the Department of Health in its Oplans, e.g., campaigns against polio,
loose bowel movement, and other activities. There should be made sufficiently
supply the right time. Otherwise, the campaigns and other activities of the DOH
will not prosper.
Policy is Based on Valid Theory.
In Module 1, I stressed that every policy is supposed to be a hypothesis of cause

and effect. It is supposed to be an educated guess of the underlying factors to a
given policy problem. Central to it are the contested notions about the factors at
work and the most fruitful points of intervention. If the theory is wrong, then the
policy cannot be expected to work. Implementation will fail.
AIDS, for example, is a fatal condition that is largely transmitted through sexual
contact. Public policy to combat the disease has relied extensively on public
education programs on the assumption that, once people know safe sex
techniques, they will be spared from the disease, e.g., the ABC
campaign⎯Abstain if you can; Be good and stay with your partner; and be
Careful if you can’t (avoid) and use Condoms.
However, this assumption may be wrong. The C in ABC seems only an after-
thought, basically because of the cautious approach in dealing with the issue so as
not to antagonize the Catholic Church. Thus, the use of condom use not gained
ground.
Warning against cigarette smoking and alcoholism (particularly if one drives) is

another example. Heavy smokers and drinkers illustrate that people may actually
know about the dire consequences of certain behavior but reason that “it won’t
happen to me”.
Another example is the lifting of the lumber export ban. As earlier stated, the
proposed policy intervention was for wrong reasons or the goals were right for the
wrong problem.

Administration
Cause and Effect Relationship are Direct and Uncluttered.
A good theory, from an implementation perspective, should be robust. If the links

between cause and effect are obscure or heavily mediated, then policy
interventions are unlikely to be successful.
Gender stereotyping , for example, is deeply rooted in family practices, school

curriculum, advertising and in our generally accepted patriarchal society. But the
idea is that “we have to start somewhere”, to the point of attacking only
symptoms and partial causes. By so doing, we cannot expect results for some
time.
Dependency Relationships are Minimal.
We can imagine two institutional extremes. At one end, a single agency that is
entirely responsible and competent to implement a policy, say the DOH for its
health and medical programs. At the other end, multiple actors, each of whom
must agree to some aspect of the implementation strategy before it can be
implemented e.g., the Social Reform Agenda with many agencies and institutions
involved with one as lead or champion agency.
All other things being equal, implementation in the second scenario will be more
difficult than the first. The more fragmented the authority, the more dependent an
agency will be on others for clearances, and the more difficult implementation
will be.
Objectives are Agreed Upon and Understood.
In principle, the more uniform the understanding of objectives, the greater the
likelihood of successful implementation. However, we cannot deny that
objectives are not often clear even to policy makers who support a given
initiative.
An example is the social acceptability requirement in development projects, say a

coal-fired power plant. This requirement is often understood as a mere formality
by most government officials and not as a social accountability check as it is
intended to be. Thus, the intention is compromised, and worst, subverted or
manipulated to suit the dictates and wishes of the power holders. The same can
be said of other development projects like dams, cement plants, etc. Objectives
from top (policy) to bottom (implementation) seem to change from one level to
another.

Administration
Tasks are Specified in Correct Sequence.
Implementation can be conceived of as linking chains of action from conception

to final result. This inevitably involves a logical sequence of tasks. If this is not
laid out clearly or not followed in the proper order, implementation will fail.
This is clearly exemplified in building a house. It usually starts with a blueprint.

Then, the plan is approved by the prospective homeowners. Later, funds will be
released to the contractor commissioned to build the house. Then building and
other permits are secured. Then the foundations are dug and erected. Later, other
parts are built until the roof is set in place. Then finishing and painting are done.
Small deviations from the plan and sequence are acceptable as long as they are
agreed upon by all parties concerned.
The same practice should be applied to government projects with additional

considerations of course like bidding, accounting and auditing, to ensure
transparency and integrity of all transactions. If these are not done, something is
or may go wrong.
Perfect Communication and Coordination.
This is exemplified by the story of “Supplies” above. This embraces some of the
other preconditions cited above. However, it is distinct in that perfect
communication implies that the participants in the implementation game are all
operating with the same information base, which they perceive in the same way.
At least they will understand when this is not the case, and will be able to work
out differences of perception to arrive at a consensus.
Power and Compliance
Hogwood and Gunn admit that this may be the least attainable condition for
perfect implementation. Those with authority also have real power and that they
receive somewhat perfect compliance to their commands. This is fantasy, of
course. But if the problem is to get large numbers of people to do things together,
presumably it is easier if these people simply obey instructions. The more
perfectly they obey, the more mechanically they obey, the “cleaner” the
implementation process. But is this situation any better off?
Perfect mechanical compliance would be disastrous since institutions need to

learn from their environment and its practice, and if necessary, to make
corrections. Fortunately, things now are not so grim and the prospects not so bad.

Administration
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION STUDY
Hogwood and Gunn’s preconditions as well as Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1973)

seminal work on implementation research and Sabatier and Mazmanian’s (1979)
implementation factors epitomize the top-down approach to implementation.
This approach analyzes policy transmission (to implementation) from the top (policy
makers and statutes) to the bottom (implementors and programs) , or from policy
making to administration. Also, it assumes that legally mandated objectives will be
implemented over time by actors who are not forced to make choices between
programmes which conflict or interact with each other.
Also, it assesses important linkages between different departments and organizations

at the local level, and argues that “if action depends upon the number of links in an
implementation chain (from top to bottom), then the degree of co-operation between
agencies required to make those links has to be very close to 100% if the situation is
not to occur in which a number of small deficits cumulatively create a large
shortfall.”
They thus introduce the idea of “implementation deficit” and suggest that
implementation may be analyzed mathematically in this way. In addition,
examination of the implementation process in this approach requires concern with
the nature of policy, the inter-and intra-organizational context within which it is
implemented and the external world on which it is expected to impact.
More specifically, the top-down approach starts with a policy decision by

government (often central government) officials and then asks:
• To what extent were the actions of implementing officials and target groups
• consistent with (the objectives and procedures outlined in) that policy
decision?
• To what extent were the objectives attained over time, i.e., to what extent
were the impacts consistent with the objectives?
• What were the principal factors affecting policy outputs and impacts, both
those relevant to the official policy as well as other politically significant
ones?
• How was the policy reformulated over time on the basis of experience?
(Sabatier, 1986).

Administration
Moreover, in this approach, six sufficient and generally necessary conditions for
effective implementation of legal objectives were listed to synthesize the
contributions of various theorists espousing the top-down approach. These
conditions are:
• clear and consistent objectives;
• adequate causal theory;
• implementation process legally structured to enhance compliance by
implementing officials and target groups;
• committed and skillful implementing officials;
• support of interest groups and sovereigns; and
• changes in the socio-economic conditions which do not substantially
undermine political support or causal theory.
However, these conditions are not necessarily present. Moreover, the nature of
policy is always complex, ambiguous, obscure and sometimes meaningless or
symbolic, formulated by politicians without any intention to secure implementation.
In addition, for policies which are not symbolic, many have the following
characteristics:
• They represent compromises between conflicting values;
• They involve compromises with key interests within the implementation
structure;
• They involve compromises with key interests upon whom implementation
will have an impact; and
• They are framed without attention being given to the way in which
underlying forces (particularly economic ones) will undermine them (Barrett
and Hill, 1981).
In addition, many government actions do not involve the promulgation of explicit

programmes requiring new studies. They involve adjustments to the way existing
activities are to be carried out (incrementalism), or for example, merely increases or
decreases in the resources or structures of specific activities. Take the pork barrel
issue as a case.
Moreover, policy making involves flexibility and the concretization of policy in

action, or a process of moving back and forth between policy and action. It is,
according to Barrett and Fudge, “a policy/action continuum in which an interactive
and negotiative process is taking place over time between those seeking to put policy
into effect and those upon whom action depends.” (1981, p. 25)

Administration
Thus, another school of thought in implementation research evolved, e.g., the

bottom-up approach. This considers implementation as “evolution” (Lane, 1987;
Majone and Wildavsky, 1978), “as learning” (Browne and Wildavsky, 1984), “as
coalition, responsibility and trust” (Hill, 1997). Also, it includes not only the central
officials and decision-makers but also the whole gamut of stakeholders at the local
and national levels.
In addition, as a critique to the top-down approach, the bottom-up approach argues

that:
• it is difficult to use the top-down approach in situations where there is no
dominant policy or agency, but rather a multitude of government directives
and actors, none of them pre-eminent;
• the top-down model likely ignores, or at least underestimates, the strategies
used by street-level bureaucrats and target groups to get around policy and/or
to divert it to their own interests or purposes;
• the distinction between policy formulation and implementation is misleading
and/or useless (Barrett and Fudge (1981), Elmore (1979), Weatherly and
Lipsky (1977), Hjern and Hull (1982)).
Thus, the bottom-up model views the policy-implementation relationship where

policy making process can be seen as setting goals, the extent of whose realization in
action can be measured, as providing an insufficient foundation for studies of
implementation. Therefore, there is a need to think of more bottom-up stance or
“backward mapping” (Elmore, 1980) in studying policy implementation.
Here, “one focuses on the actors and agencies themselves and their interactions, and
for an action-centered “bottom-up” mode of analysis as a method of identifying more
clearly who seems to be influencing what, how and why” (Barrett and Hill, 1981).
Analysis is best focused upon the levels at which this is occurring (bottom), since it
is not so much creating implementation deficiency as recreating policy (Hill, 1997).
The debate between these two perspectives is not yet over. However, two tables
comparing the main features of these approaches (Figs. 47 and 48) may help us
understand the depth of the debate.

Administration
Top-down Bottom-up
Policy rule framework seen as rigid flexible
Policy seen as an input an output
deference to a adaptability to
Accountability seen as
legislative process customer, client, or
depending upon
regulatee needs
Source: Hill, 1997
Fig. 47. Comparing the “top-down” and “bottom-up” perspectives
Top-down Bottom-up
(Sabatier and Mazmanian) (Hjern et al.)
Initial focus (central) government decision, e.g., local implementation

new pollution control law structure (network) involved
in a policy area, e.g.,
pollution control
Identificatio from top-down and from government from bottom-up and from
n of major out to private sector (although private sector to government
actors in the importance attached to causal theory
process also calls for accurate understanding
of target group’s incentive structure)
Evaluative focus on extent of attainment of much less clear; basically

criteria formal objectives (carefully anything the analyst chooses
analyzed); may look at other which is somehow relevant
politically significant criteria and to the policy issue or
unintended consequences, but these problem; certainly does not
are optional require any “careful
analysis” of official
government decision(s)
Overall How does one steer system to Strategic interactions among

focus achieve (top) policy makers’ multiple actors in a policy
intended policy results? network
Source: Sabatier, 1986
Fig. 48. Comparison between top-down and bottom-up approaches

Administration
It is not my intention to force you to choose any of these approaches. My

intention is for you to know alternatives exist in studying and assessing policy
implementation and in so doing, urge you to be more eclectic than choosy.
Synthesize! And feel wiser and better.
PLANNING FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
Despite the extensive literature on implementation, social scientists have offered

relatively little practical advice on how to anticipate and avoid implementation
problems (O’Toole, 1986). Nevertheless, Weimer and Vining (1994), among
many, offer two general frameworks for thinking systematically about
implementation in practical situations.
ANTICIPATING IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS
The most basic is scenario writing. This involves specifying and questioning the
chain of behaviors that link policies to desired outcomes. Because scenarios
move from policies to outcomes, they can be thought of as forward mapping. In
contrast, the other general approach is backward mapping. It begins with the
desired outcomes, determines the most direct ways of producing them, and then
maps out the highest-level policy that must be adopted to realize the desired
outcomes.
Forward mapping emphasizes the specific answers to the question, “Exactly what
must be done by whom for the desired outcomes to occur?” It requires cleverness
and a certain amount of courage or what Levin and Fernan (1986) calls dirty
mindedness- or the ability to think about what could possibly go wrong and who
has the incentive to make it go wrong.
It could be done by following a three-step approach suggested by Weimer and

Vining (1994), which is summarized in Fig. 49 below:

Administration
Scenario: Write a narrative that describes all the behaviors that

must be realized for the policy to produce the desired
outcome. Be specific about who, what, when and why.
Critique: Is the scenario plausible?
For each actor mentioned:
1. Is the hypothesized behavior consistent with personal and

organizational interests?
2. If not, what tactics can the actor use to avoid complying?
3. What counter-tactics can be used to force or induce

compliance?
4. Thinking of the direct and indirect effects of the policy,

what other actors would have the incentive to become
involved?
a. How could they interfere with hypothesized behaviors?
b. What tactics could be used to block or deflect their
interference?
Revision: Rewrite the narrative to make it plausible.

Fig. 49. Thinking Strategically about Implementation: Forward Mapping
Backward mapping, on the other hand, is more of a bottom-up policy design. It

subscribes to the logic as follows:
1. Begin with a concrete statement of the behavior that creates the occasions
for a policy intervention.
2. Describe a set of organizational operations that can be expected to affect
that behavior.
3. Describe the expected effect of those operations.
4. Then, describe for each level of the implementation process what effect one
would expect that level to have on the target behavior and what resources
are required for that effect to occur (Elmore, 1978-80).

Administration
Backward mapping is really nothing more than using your model of policy
research which we discussed in Module 6. It adds something to our thinking about
policy alternatives, however, by drawing our attention to the organizational
processes that give them form.
The development of an implementation plan for the Centennial Celebration of our

Independence in 1998 is a case in point. From the creation of a National
Centennial Commission; to the allocation of funds for its activities to the
construction of the Centennial Expo at Clark Airbase; to the coordination with the
National Historical Commission, the Department of Education and Culture ,
Department of Tourism and other agencies; to the formulation of information,
education and communication programs; to other activities, the implementation
plan must imagine worst-case to best-case scenarios to ensure the successful
celebration of the Centennial and hopefully, the gradual internalization among
Filipinos of values such as love of country, patriotism, nationalism and unity. The
latter is crucial, especially after the divisiveness seemingly brought about by the
May 1998 elections.
An example of backward mapping is the implementation of a program of action

by the winning presidential candidate in the national elections. From a goal of
winning the elections (and hopefully serving the people and accomplishing their
promises), these strategists drew backward to identify various factors and actors
that stand in the way of winning. Polling and surveys were done. Negotiations
with prospective collaborators and supporters, were also done. Thus, strategists
had a heyday and their candidate/s won.
To reiterate: whereas forward mapping is most useful for anticipating the

problems that are likely to be encountered during the implementation of already
formulated policy alternatives, backward mapping is most useful for generating
policy alternatives that have good prospects for successful implementation.
APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION
In addition to anticipating implementation problems, you, as a strategist for

successful implementation may adopt several approaches to improve the
effectiveness of implementation. As summarized by Hogwood and Gunn (1984),
these include the structural, procedural and managerial, behavioral and political
approaches.

Administration
Structural approach requires choosing the appropriate organizational form for

accomplishing the task. This may be in various forms: bureaucratic, in the
Weberian sense of clearly-defined tasks and relationships and a hierarchical
structure; organic, with relatively less of the Weberian features and appropriate in
an uncertain or fast-changing environment; or use of the “matrix structure”,
specific government departments or ministries, central agencies, public
enterprises, regulatory agencies, or other non-departmental organizations, e.g.,
task forces. This may also make use of interdepartmental committees, legislative
“watchdog” agencies, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations
(quangos), or other relevant structures.
Whatever structure is adopted, there are various reasons that influence

government decision makers in selecting one or the other organizational form
(Langford & Prince, 1995).
Procedural and Managerial approach, meanwhile, develops appropriate

processes and procedures for managing and implementing programs. It includes ,
among others,
• network planning and control (NPC) which provides a framework within
which projects can be planned and implementation controlled by
identifying tasks ahead, the relationships between tasks and the logical
sequence in which they should be performed;
• the use of PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) which
allows for probable estimates of the duration of each task, calculation of
the “critical path” along which any slippage would delay the whole project,
monitoring of slack elsewhere in the network, and re-allocation of
resources to permit activities on the critical path to be completed on time;
• LogFrame (short for Logical Framework) Analysis which traces the logical
sequences from goals to objectives to projects and activities;
• iterative scanning of the environment through
forecasting
contingency planning
adopting tentative objectives and programs
constant monitoring and feedback, and
review of assumptions, objectives and programs.
All these procedural and managerial approaches and techniques will be discussed
more fully in PM 243 and PM 299.1.

Administration
Behavioral approach, meanwhile, soothes acceptability and consensus building

required in implementing policies viewed with conflicting lenses by various
stakeholders. This requires stakeholder analysis, which we earlier explained in
Module 5. It also requires study of OD (Organizational Development), MBO
(Management by Objectives), re-engineering, re-inventing and other techniques
aimed at creating an atmosphere of trust, mainly by management showing concern
for people’s interests.
OD is a process for bringing about needed changes through the application of

behavioral sciences. It is a form of management consultancy, in which the
consultant acts as a change agent to influence the entire culture of the
organization (Eddy, 1981). MBO is an approach which combines elements of the
procedural/management techniques with the behavioral analysis. It forms a bridge
between the specification of objectives and their implementation (Fulton Report,
1968).
Re-engineering is starting from scratch and re-designing the culture and structure
of organizations (Champy, 1994). Re-inventing is similar to re-engineering and
completely re-designs structures to internalize values of decentralization and
delegation (Osboerne and Gabler, 1993).
Political (power and influence) approach, on the other hand, anticipates political
obstacles and takes them into account before the formulation of objectives and
selection of options. It is basically political feasibility analysis in stakeholder
analysis which we explained in Module 5. It argues that :
“ If implementation takes insufficient account

of the realities of power, then the policy is
unlikely to succeed.”
This is very important, particularly for new political leaders who would need the
cooperation and support of every relevant stakeholder in order to push for his or
her agenda and priority proposals. The new president of the republic would
require softer, more diplomatic approaches in pushing for more pro-poor or
populists proposals such as abolishing pork barrel and other avenues for graft and
corruption in government.

Administration
More specifically, President Estrada would need the support of the church, the
academe, the business and NGO sectors, the politicians, the justices, the
bureaucrats, the public. His alter egos in various executive departments and
LGUs would also need all the support, trust and confidence, plus resources, of
course in this cash-strapped nation. In manifesting political will, these power
wielders need all the mass- and elite-based support to push even unpopular
though worthy causes, e.g. redistribution policies, abolition of pork barrel,
renegotiation of external debts.
SUMMARY
Implementation is often regarded as an execution process, an elaboration, a
realization of schemes and conceptions. It takes place in the real world, with its
multitude of powers, authorities and organizations. It is both difficult and
experimental and puts policy into action, makes it concrete, and inevitably
changes policy from its original conception and design.
The question of whether a public policy works- whether it is effective- is one of

the most fundamental and important in public policy analysis. However, as
explained in this module, the answer is far from clear in most cases.
Planning for successful and effective implementation is possible. However, one

may not be able to plan for all eventuality. Nevertheless, there are a number of
approaches in anticipating implementation problems and enhancing the success of
implementation.
There is no hard and fast rule on this one. There will always be occasions when
something happens on the way to effective implementation. But if you’re aware
of what to expect and minimize failure, then you will do right, the next time. You
only have to be equipped with vision, clear intention for the greater good,
dedication to put things through, support , resources, leadership and the like.
These are better said than done, of course.
But to improve the chances of success in policy implementation, I am providing

you a summary of the major ideas of various studies on the topic. Please see Fig.
50.

Administration
Author/s Concept of Implementation Main Variables Stressed
J. Pressman & A. both an analytical and political inter-linkages between formulation

Wildavsky process and implementation
Intergovernmental relations,
theoretical basis for intended social
change
Thomas Smith an equilibrium between the idealized policy, e.g., type of
environment & govern-ment policy, support, image of those to
results in tensions between be affected; the target groups,
various actors whose resolution organization, leadership; the
involves bargaining, resources, implementing organization and its
coercion structure, personnel, capability,
environmental factors; transactions
between various actors to resolve
tensions
Van Meter & Van Horn a variable socio-cultural process nature of policy change; extent of
change involved; degree of
consensus among the various actors
about the policy change
Milbrey McLaughlin a dynamic organizational process Strategy used by the implementing
shaped overtime by interactions organization, e.g., mutual
between project goals and adaptation, co-optation, non-
methods and institutional settings receptivity of implementors
Gabriel Iglesias a conversion process of plans resources; technology, support,
into specific progrms or projects structure; leadership
for which administrative
capability is very crucial
Samuel Paul a strategic management process Implementing agency’s
involving the orchestration of environment, strategy, structure,
strategy, structure, process and process; strategic management and
environment, a problem solving leadership
activity in the wider socio-
political context
Daniel Mazmanian and operationalization of a vague Tractability, statutory and non-
Paul Sabatier goal through a myriad of statutory variables, clarity of
organizational activities objectives, theoretical support,
influenced by the environment adequate resources, capability and
commitment, strong support, not
underestimating policy objectives
during implementation
Source: Wagle, Bimal Prasad, 1989 “Project Implementation: An Inquiry into the Problems of Nepal” an ISS Research Paper.
Fig. 50. Summary of the Main Points of Selected Theories on Implementation

Administration
ACTIVITY 8-3
Now, I want you to summarize your understanding of Policy Implementation
by doing the following tasks. Write your answers in your notebook.
Recall a policy, program or project of the government which you are familiar
with, either because you have worked for it, knew the people who
implemented/are implementing it, or have evaluated it. Assess whether it is a
failure or a success. Explain why you think so. In addition, synthesize the
reasons for its success or failure.
1. If you are given a second chance at doing or implementing such policy

yourself, what would you do to ensure its success? Compare your
strategies with preconditions to and planning for successful
implementation which were explained in this module.
2. Make a short essay of not more than 1,000 words on the topic, “Policy
Implementation, Challenges, Problems and Pitfalls in the Philippine
Setting”. Be concise and brief in your essay. But see to it that you express
your opinions on the topic well.
If you wish, you could expand on this essay and make it your core outline/ draft
for TMA 2. As you know, the brief for TMA 2 is in your Course Guide.

Administration
FINAL NOTE
This module ends your PM 241 course manual. I hope you have found working
through it as enlightening and friendly as possible. If you have any suggestions to
improve the course and make you a more learned ‘policy-analytic’ citizen of the
Republic, do write us a note or give us a call. If you wish, you may send me a note at
my e-mail address:
[email protected]
I will be happy reading your letters and feedback. I hope we could do something
about your suggestions and make PM 241 more worthwhile to do.
Good luck and all the best-MFVM

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Approaches Towards Resolving Our Debt Problem

Fe Villamejor-Mendoza
I. Introduction
Our external debt of around $29 billion as of 1989 is believed to be the single
biggest stumbling block to Philippine economic growth and development.
Inherited from the Marcos administration and as a result as well of both historical
and current developments externally and internally, it is also believed to be “the
single most important explanation to the endemic poverty and impoverishment of
the. Filipino masses today” (Ofreneo, 1988). Many Filipinos believed and hoped
that our debt misfortunes would change after the successful yet bloodless EDSA
“Revolution” in 1986; but until now, our miseries are still present. More radical
and innovative ways of handling the debt problem have yet to be attempted by the
present government. For the traditional, more orthodox debt management policies
are still the ones in place today.
II. The Origins of the Present Debt Problem
An earlier study on the phenomenal growth of public external debts in the country
from 1972-83 underscores at least three factors (Briones, 1987) the first was the
“development orgy” launch by the Marcos administration. A series of
development plans required grandiose projects which were premised on massive
and accelerated borrowing. This propensity to borrow purportedly for
development is euphemistically described by the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund as “ development finance “(Ibid.) The second factor
was large-scale waste and over-pricing of these loan-financed development
projects. The foreign exchange requirements of these projects exerted heavy
pressure on external debt. Borrowed funds went to the support of big
bureaucracies purportedly overseeing the development projects. The third factor
was collusion between fixers and lobbyists of both the Philippines and the creditor
countries. The most spectacular case is the nuclear plant in Bataan which is now a
$2.3 billion albatross around the neck of the suffering Filipino people (Freedom
from Debt Coalition, 1988). Kurth (1988), adds mismanagement, lack of
supervision, ill-advised use of funds and outright misappropriation as reasons for
our present debt problem.
305
These domestic causes were induced, reinforced, and complemented by external
developments beyond our shores. Such developments include the international
pressure to borrow massively and in quite an unregulated and uncontrolled money
market in the 60s and 70s “when conservatively dressed gentlemen with elegant
briefcases hurried from one country to another in the Third World, offering
inexpensive loans with five to ten year maturities. Interest rates were always
barely 2% above LIBOR (London inter-bank offered rate). This generously
offered ready money consisted of petrodollars were deposited in European and
US banks” (Espinoza, 1986). This overeagerness to lend was matched by the
“greed and rapacity of the Marcos government” (Briones, 1988), thus
precipitating the debt explosion in the Philippines in 1983 and the continuing
heavy indebtedness from external sources up to the present.
These external factors also include a series of global economic shocks which
pushed our country and other Third World countries, to uncontrolled borrowing:
1) the 1973-74 and 1979-80 oil crises which increased the external debt of non-oil
producing countries from 1974-82 (Cline, 1983); 2) the escalation of interest rates
in the United States; and 3) the world-wide recession from 1980-82 (Ibid., pp. 20-
25). The second oil price shock of 1979 and high interest rates, for example,
increased our country’s import bill and debt service payments, just when a world-
wide recession and the decrease in non-oil commodity prices reduced the
Philippine export earnings in the beginning of 1980s. Now, the world economy is
marked by slow economic growth and further rise of protectionism in developed
countries (Kurth, 1988).
After recognizing the heavy international debt crises in the beginning of the 80s,
foreign banks began to reduce their exposure in developing countries. No
significant lending has occurred since 1982, even for accommodating countries
such as the Philippines (Ibid.). In addition, the accelerated capital flight estimated
at $600 million per annum (Center for Research and Communications,
Philippines, as quoted in Kurth, 1988) caused a reduction in our economic means
for growth and development.
The above combination of internal and external factors pushed the Philippine
debts from a low $2 billion in 1983 (Briones, 1988, p. 201). At present, its level is
about $29 billion (Ibon Facts and Figures, 1989).
III. Debt Management Policies and Strategies
To get out of the debt trap and deal with this problem, the Philippine government
under Marcos tried restructuring the external debt and come to terms (read: agree,
consent) with our creditor institutions (Op.cit). He issued Presidential Decree
(P.D.) 1177 which automatically allocates about 40% of our national annual
budget to debt servicing; he also increased borrowing from official development
assistance (ODA) sources (Freedom from Debt Coalition, 1988).
306
To a large extent, these policies were continued and carried on by the present
administration. As a matter of fact, the Aquino government only incremented on
past policies and carried out basically the same, old “conservative” debt
management policies such as:
1) Honor all debts, even the tainted ones that were believed pocketed by
Marcos and his cronies in the Philippines and abroad;
2) Automatically appropriate 40% of our national annual budget for debt
servicing;
3) Continue on more orthodox approaches such as rescheduling and
renegotiations for lower interest rates and for new money;
4) Increase borrowing from ODA; and
5) Embark on a debt-equity swaps (Ibid.)
IV. Assessment of present Policies
What do these policies and actions mean actually? Are they resolving our debt
problem or just complicating further our dire situation?
To approach these queries, I have developed a framework for analyzing these

policies and assessing their efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness (Table 1).
Efficiency means “the extent to which effectiveness were attained at reasonable
cost in scarce resources or sacrifice of other objectives” (Goode, n.d.).
Effectiveness is the “degree to which objectives are attained”; while
responsiveness is “the extent to which clients have been satisfied” (Moharir, n.d.).
Fig. 1 looks at the broader qualitative and quantitative picture of the debt problem
and tries to peer through the effects of the various debt management policies
above on the various sectors of society as a whole. More specifically, since debt
management policies are heavily influenced by the balance of finance, labor and
the people in general, their implications could be better understood in the light of
their effects on the economy as a whole, the people’s welfare, the creditors’
interest, the nation’s growth and development, and the reactions of various
political, social and economic forces in general.
However, in the absence of information and measures that can fit the indicators
presented below, attempts to just approximate their efficiency, effectiveness or
reponsiveness based on whatever data sets are available, would be carried out.
You are well aware that most of our data sets are qualitative and thus more
impressionistic and indicative than deterministic.
307
Table 1. Framework for Analyzing the Debt Problem
1. Problem: How to approach the massive debt problem and reduce it to a

level conducive to growth and development.
2. Response: Debt Management Policies
a) honoring all debts of the past regime;

b) automatically allocatiing debt service payments from the annual
national budget;
c) carrying out reschedulings and renegotiations for lower interest rates
and new money;
d) increasing borrowing from ODA; and
e) embarking on debt-equity swaps
3 Objectives: To reduce external debt to a level that is conducive to

Philippine growth and development
[Problem: What level is conducive to growth and development?]
4. Effectiveness and Indicators:
a) % and amount of reduction in the level of external debt

b) % and volume of new money pouring in the economy
c) monetary value of old debts renegotiated favorably, e.g., longer
maturity; decreased interest rates
d) number and value of debt-equity swaps completed
e) % and volume of positive net resource transfers to the economy
5. Efficiency Indicators:
a) total volume of debts

total volume of new debts
b) % and volume of new money pouring in the economy
c) monetary value of old debts renegotiated favorably, e.g., longer
maturity; decreased interest rates
d) number and value of debt-equity swaps completed
e) % and volume of positive net resource transfers to the economy
308
6. Responsiveness Indicators:
% of the budget for debt servicing

a)
% of the budget for productive & welfare activities
b) % of ADA, debt-equity swaps & other proceeds converted to growth
and development activities
c) level of poverty alleviation due to redirected resources for productive
& welfare activities from allocations intended originally for debt
servicing
7. Other Indicators:
a) Morality of the Policies

1. Do we have to honor all the debts of the past regime?
2. Do we have to sacrifice growth and development?
3. Should we let the poor suffer further by “ withholding” benefits
due them?
4. Who are we serving ? Whose interest/s should matter?
b) Politics and Moralities
1. What power positions do we have vis-a-vis our creditors?
2. Are we prepared to confront the issue and pressure for better
deals?
1. Stakeholders (Actors) Involved:
a) The Philippines as a debtor nation

b) President Aquino and her government
c) The International Creditors
d) Local businessmen , Bankers, (Past Regime) Cronies & their Cohorts
e) The Legislature
f) The (Organized) Progressives/Nationalists
g) The (Unorganized) Masses in general
309
2. The Stakes Involved:
a) Positive resource transfers (debt servicing) for the international

creditors
b) Growth (and development) for the Filipinos in general
c) Increased creditworthiness of the Philippines as debtor nation
d) Political/economic/social/professional credibility, legitimacy, career
for the other actors involved
10. Options Available to Resolve the Debt Mess:

a) Continue with the present debt management policies
b) Improve on present policies
1. Strengthening weak or problem policies
2. Integrating new policies
c) Change to/adopt new policies
Of course, it would be difficult to carry out all the intentions of this framework,
especially with the paucity of information on some measures. In addition, there
may be other ways of assessing the efficiency, effectiveness and other dimensions
of the debt management policies. But we have to start somehow, despite these
limitations. Now, the mini-assessment:
A. Effectiveness
1. Have we reduced our external debt because of policies we adopted?
The answer is No. Our debt, on the contrary, steadily grew. This is due to
changes in interest rates, for one thing. In 1984, for example, a 1% in the
interest automatically raised payments by $160 million. Revaluation of the
dollar value of loan is another. Fees and fines is still another. From 1984 to
present, there was a series of cancellation of loans resulting in payment of
commitment fees. Converting accumulated interest into principal is still
another. For example, the reason why our external grew from $26 billion to
$28 billion for 1986-87 is primarily due to revaluation (Op. cit).
2. Have we availed of a significant volume of new money as a result of new

negotiations?
310
The answer seems negative since at the national economy, our government
had adhered to the following net transfer of resources:
Year Inflows Outfolows Net Transfer

1988-92 $3.7 billion $20.0 billion -$16.3 billion
By year, this negative transfer of $16.3 billion would be as follows:
1988 -$2.5 billion

1989 - 2.6 billion
1990 - 3.3 billion
1991 - 4.1 billion
1992 - 3.8 billion (Central Bank
of the Philippines, 1988)
This means that in order to pay back our creditors the required amount of
interest or principal payments due per year, our government would expect
only a little more ($3.7 billion) of inflows from commercial banks and
financial institutions lending under the ODA scheme supervised by the
IMF-WB but at the same time, it would incur very huge outflow amounting
to fivefolds we are expecting to receive ($20 billion). This arrangement has
leaned too far in protecting the interests of our creditors and not far enough
to promote our own growth and development.
3. Have renegotiated for new terms, lower interst rates and longer maturiities
for our old debts?
Yes we had. But I doubt whether we got favorable concessions. Long and
arduous negotiations for a World Bank restructuring loan of over $300
million initiated during the Marcos regime were finally consummated
1987. Another restructuring was finalized in 1989. However, along with
these renegotiations are stiff IMF-WB conditionalities which further
burden our poor but favor foreign creditors and business more. These
include” freeze on workers ‘ wages, removal of government subsidies,
import liberalization, value-added tax, export orientation and lure of
foreign investments” (Freedom from Debt Coalition, 1988). Senator
Tañada (1988) even argues that creditor banks have always imposed
disadvantageous terms, especially in negotiations for debt restructuring.
311
4. Have completed any debt-equity swaps so far?
Yes, we have but I do not have the figures. At this juncture though, it
must be pointed out that selling off Filipino assets and corporations to
our creditors to pay off part of our debt is fraught with pitfalls.
“Ordinarily, an investor who wants to invest P21 million in a Filipino

corporation must first exchange $1 million with the Central Bank and
then invest the proceeds. Under the debt-equity swap, he can obtain a
huge discount by buying Philippine debt discount, he will pay only
$0.5 million and acquire the Filipino corporation at half price” (Ibid.).
If we follow the suggestion of some legislatures to convert $5 billion

of debt to equity (Manila Chronicle, 1987), that would be equivalent to
selling P105 billion worth of Filipino corporations to foreigners (Op.
Cit). Conceivably, most of Filipino industry would fall undr foreign
control with that huge amount. Worse yet, we would still have $24
billion to pay back since our outstanding debt would decrease by $5
billion only.
B. Efficiency
1. How much have we paid for our debts vis-à-vis we got as new loans?
Figures on net transfers in A.2 above show negative sign, implying we

have been paying at a very high price.
2. What is the average cost of debt servicing to the Philippine economy?
Data from the Ibon Data Bank and the World Bank “Debt Tales” show
a) an increasing debt burden per Filipino (up from $18.9 in 1965 to
$117.3 in 1975 to $479.9 in 1985 to $493.2 in 1988); b) a very high
ration to our GNP and exports (60.7 of GNP; 330.1 of exports in
1985); c) a very high percent export earnings (36.1% in 1970 to 78.0%
in 1988, both interest and capital); as well as d) a heavy burden to our
annual budget (23.7% in 1985 to 42.0% in 1987 to 47.0% in 1989).
Aggregately, it costs $16.3 billion outflow of hard-earned revenues

from 1988 to 1992 (A.2 above). For a resource-strap economy like
ours, this amount is “hemorrhagic” (Monsod, 1987).
What is the average time and cost per renegotiation/rescheduling, both

in financial and non-financial terms?
I do not have the figures, but I guess the cost is staggering as we pay
for the bill in hotel, food, transportation, allowances and other
312
expenses of our negotiators, their technical staff and also, their foreign
counterparts in the negotiation table.
The cost in non-financial terms, e.g., implications on our sovereignty,

political image, economic leverage, etc., may be diffcult to measure at
the moment. More in-depth studies are needed to address this problem.
3. What is the average time and cost for processing ODA loans, debt-
equity swaps, rescheduling sessions and the like on our economy and
political condition?
Although very important, I do not have information yet on these

measures.
C. Responsiveness
Did debt management contribute to a more advantageous position and satisfaction

of our people?
No, for from 1988-92 (at most when President Aquino’s term ends), our
government would operate on an austerity budget whose productive portion is
barely 50%, i.e., “in 1986, P43.2 billion or 37.7% of the total annual budget went
to debt service; in 1987, P77.3 billion or 49.7%; in 1988, P86.9 billion or 45.6%”
(Romulo, 1988).
This means that for the same periods, the allocations for economic and social
servioces were as measly as only “42.9%, 33.7% and 37.5%, respectively, for
1986, 1987 and 1988” (Ibid.). This further means that the money that could have
been spent to double the salaries of government employees, multiply fourfold the
budget of the Department of Education, construct more than a million classrooms,
health centers, skills training centers and the like, or even increase the budget of
the Department of Health and other welfare institutions of the government, could
not be used because debt servicing has primacy over these social or productive
and redistribtive goals. Debt management policies are in conflict with
redistributive, welfare goals.
D. Morality
1. Do we really have to honor all the debts of the past regime? Does our
government have to repay the debts that were not hers?
Most of the debts of the past regimes were believed to have not been spent for
development projects as they were planned to. Most were pocketed, stashed away
to safe havens offshore, fraught with fraud, greed and corruption of Marcos and
313
his cronies. Senator Saguisag has even documented the corruption and illegalities
of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and has filed a case with the International
Court of Justice against the Westinghouse Corporation. Mendoza (1988) even
documented several projects believed to be cases of fraud, bribery, and the like
based on Inquirer, Freedom from Debt Coalition data and other sources.
Our government need not pay all these debts, especially if we can prove they were
“bad” debts. We need not cling to our “palabra de honor” (word of honor) if our
debts were of dishonor. However, I agree that it wil take a long time, arduous
paper chase, network disentangling and research to prove and disprove the
legality or development morality of fraudulent or “bad” loans.
Whose interests are we serving?
For the moment, it is the interest of our foreign creditors, foreign business,
Marcos and his cronies who benefited from previous transactions, and their
cohorts, which we are serving. We are not reducing our debts, we are transferring
our revenues to our creditors, we are depriving our people of the benefits due
them because we have been sacrificing growth and development.
V. What To Do Next? – Options Available
If our debt management policies does not appear efficient, effective or responsive
at all based on the negative responses and implications of the measures we have
discussed above, why then are we still implementing them? What options do we
have at present? How can we make our debt management policies more effective,
responsive (to Philippine needs and priorities) or efficient?
Intuitively, we have three options: 1) continue with the present policies;

2) improve/increment/reform past policies; or 3) change to or opt new policies.
Ordinarily, based on the assessment above and our experience for the past
policies, we can better resolve our debt problem by making incremental
improvements than by continuing with the present policies or attempting
comprehensive reforms. Thus, what we do is to “merely” improve on areas that
are problematic and inefficient in resolving the debt problem.
On the other hand, we may opt to be radical or innovative and choose approaches
which could achieve our growth and equity goals and objectives and reach an
ideal situation wherein we have gotten out of the debt trap, we are growing and
developing. However, because of the complexity of the problem, competition
among development and debt management policy goals and objectives, and
conflicting interests among at least the creditors, our people’s welfare, our
conservative and progressive ideologues and other political forces and factions,
ideal solution to our debt mess may be difficult to state and often are impossible
to effect.
314
However, the desirable direction of change may become fairly clear by looking at
some possible approaches to resolving our debt problem. Most of these were
proposed by our legislators, organized blocs like businesmen, academics and
other intellectuals, here and abroad. And even the laborers and other members of
the Freedom from Debt Coalition, for example. Each has a grain of wisdom that is
worth considering.
1. Renegotiation for terms similar to those of Mexico and Argentina. The

Philippines reopens negotiations and demands terms similar to those granted
to Mexico and Argentina. It must be pointed out that the bargaining position
of the Philippines is not as strong as the two in the sense that the latter are big
borrowers whose defaults could rock the international financial community.
This implies the need to strengthen the bargaining positions of our

negotiating teams; support of our agencies and instrumentalities; as well as
the people themselves. The importance of unity cannot be overemphasized.
2. Refinancing of external financing gap for official development assistance.

The projected financing gap from 1987-92 amounts to $6.8 billion. To
finance this from ODA (soft loan and grants) would require a 150% increase
in the rate of annual official disbursements. Financing this from the market
loans and facilities would exacerbate the foreign exchange problem or BOP
problem and create more serious debt servicing levels.
3. Limitation of debt service to fixed ceiling, e.g., 10% of export earnings. This
was initiated by Peru which has forbidden all private and state corporations
to pay external debts with foreign currency or transfer profits abroad during
the next two years. This was also adopted by Nigeria which put a debt cap of
30% of its total foreign exchange earnings (Sachs, 1986). The IMF retaliated
by declaring the credit unworthiness of Peru and Nigeria. If the Philippines
will consider this option, it should consider possible alternative in case it
would be declared credit-unworthy.
In addition, Espinoza (1986) studying Latin American situation, calculated

that debt service ceilings in his region would not reduce their debts. He
calculates that “ if Latin America were to abstain from borrowing any further
money and would pay these 10% of export earnings for twenty years – at
stable market prices – toward foreign exchange charges of 6%, these interest
payments would amount to almost $430 billion by the year 2005 while the
total debt would increase to about $445 billion” (Ibid., p.9).
4. A debtors’ forum (with possible group negotiation). A forum among debtors

has been proposed wherein they explore the common position on terms to be
negotiated with creditors. It will be recalled that during the Marcos
administration, the Philippines was invited by Latin American countries to
315
join them in their efforts to unite debtor countries. At that time, the country
refused on the grounds that we would pay all our debts.
5. Moratorium on debt service payments. This means putting a stop in paying

this amount. This was what the country resorted to immediately after the
balance of payment crisis in 1982. However, the country was pressured into
paying part of the accumulated interest. Early in 1987, Brazil shocked the
international financial community by announcing a moratorium of interest
payments on $78 billion owed to commercial banks. It is believed that
Brazil’s posture influenced the more considerate terms offered to Mexico and
Argentina.
6. Selective repudiation of debts. This option has earlier been proposed by a

significant number of international scholars. The assumption is that, creditors
are equally at fault as the debtors. A further assumption is that, it will be
virtually impossible for debtor countries to fully pay their debts en toto
without resorting to cancellation.
Potential areas for cancellation of interest and amortization payments are bad
debts/fraudulent debts; accumulated penalties, interests, fees imposed in the
course of the series of negotiations and restructuring from 1984-87 which
were unfair/detrimental to the Philippines; selected private sector debt
assumed publicly by the government (especially in sugar, mining, shipping
and industrial sectors).
7. Debt Relief (partial or selective) or “forgiveness” of portions of our debt

based on our efficiency in debt servicing or other criteria.
8. Total repudiation or “debtors’ strike”. This was proposed by Cuba’s Fidel

Castro during the fourth convention of Felap, an association of Latin
American countries. Cuba is one of the few countries which elected to
repudiate its external debt, arguing that the debts upon his assumption were
not his, but of the previous regime (Batista’s) and that these debts were more
than fully paid in terms of debt service, interests and profit remittances by
creditor banks covering decades of profitable operations in Cuba.
An ultimate solution like Castro’s necessitates the support of the populace

who must be prepared to deal with the impact of such radical solution. Castro
likewise turned to socialist countries for assistance. Thus, he was able to
withstand the harsh repercussions of total repudiation with total impunity
because his people rallied to his support and the socialist countries rendered
assistance.
316
9 Joint legislative-executive commission on public debt and external debt.
Since the former enacts policy and the executive implements it, duplication
of efforts can be avoided if both branches of government put their acts
together. Likewise, it will facilitate pooling of data and consultation with
concerned sectors.
10. Consulting the People on what should be done since in the final analysis, it is
the Filipino people who will bear the brunt or full impact of the debt service
and the interest burdens. The mystique and aura of intellectuality surrounding
the debt issue must be demolished for the debt problem is not a technical,
intellectual field of specialization to be understood only by the mandarins of
finance. It is primarily a public issue affecting the lives of all Filipinos.
VI. Valuation of “Best” Option/s
Political factors are important in developing approaches towards resolving our

debt problem. “First best” policies may not always be achievable because of
political constraints. “Second best” policies will prove more successful if they
respond better to political reality and thus are sustainable in the long term. A
stakeholder analysis on the three options available to us was thus carried out to
guide our evaluation of the political and social feasibility of these options (Table
3). Stakeholders are “individuals, groups or organizations who are likely to be
affected favorably, adversely or not at all by the policy changes and their possible
reactions” (Dunn, 1971).
There are different approaches for doing stakeholder analysis, but for this
memorandum, I will be adopting a simple format you earlier proposed in 1989.
Before going through the analysis though, it would be useful to gauge the power
positions of these various actors vis-a-vis the debt problem. A preliminary and
indicative assessment is presented below (Table 2).
It appears that in valuing the best option, we have to contend with the anticipated
reaction of the international financial community because they have the aces in
their shoulders. However, we should not sell our sovereignty and neglect the
equity and poverty alleviation goals our government (I trust not only
symbolically) proposed and planned for our people.
317
Table 2. Indicative Power Positions of Various Stakeholders to the Debt Issue
Stakeholder Proponent/ Class, Status, Power Position

Relation to Power
Representative
Holders
Philippines Government as a Third World; moderate

Debtor Nation; resurging
President Aquino Democracy
International IMF-WB, The Power Holders high

Creditors international banks (financially)
multinational/big cohorts of the moderate to high
Foreign/Local
local industries creditors
Business
Cronies Marcos & his cohorts of both moderate

associates; new creditors &
breed of cronies; business groups
conservatives
Nationalists/ Senators; professors; interest/pressure low

intellectuals; cabinet group
Progressives members; members
of FFDC
Unorganized Filipino people in poor, uninformed, very low

Masses general apathetic, reluctant
unorganized
very low
318
Table 3. Stakeholder Analysis of the Options Available to
Resolve our Debt Problem
Option at Stake Actors/Stake Option Resources Anticipated

Holders Relevance Reactions
Continue with Philippines high moderate depends

present policies
Creditors very high very high support
Business Cronies very high high support
Progressives high low oppose
Masses low low neutral
Increment/ Philippines very high moderate support

Revise/Reform
present policies Creditors very high very high oppose/depends
Business Cronies high high oppose/depends
Progressives high moderate support
Masses low low depends
Change Adopt Philippines high moderate depends

new policies
Creditors very high very high depends/oppose
Business Cronies high high depends/oppose
Progressives very high moderate support
Masses low low depends
Theoretically, what needs to be watched is combination of very high relevance,

availability of very high resources, strong positive or negative orientation to
policy change and skills in using resources by the actors/stakeholders (Moharir,
1989). In this table, it appears that the international creditors are the ones we have
to contend with indeed.
319
VII. Choosing the “Best” Alternative
To reduce our debt burden and move towards growth and development and later
to equity and redistribution, I would not propose that you propose to your
Committee option 1 above. I would rather propose option 2 and more specifically
suggest that our government proceed in two stages, in an attempt to establish an
alternative debt management package consistent with minimum growth and
development. it is important that this package is spelled out not purely in financial
terms but as a pre-condition and part of clearly defined development plans of the
country.
A first step would be for the Philippine government to put a limit on debt service
as a percentage of exports (or alternatively a limit on negative net resource
transfers) for a fixed period, e.g., two years, or until a new package is agreed or
put in place.
There seems to be a support for a limit of 10% ceiling on debt service as a

proportion of total exports. This could be a first approximation only of what a
desirable ceiling should be. The precise figure of the limit could be modified by
the government, legislature and people, according to what debt service is
estimated to be consistent with a minimum acceptable growth target for the two
year period, and with the sustainment of a minimum acceptable foreign exchange
reserves.
The second stage would imply the negotiation of more long-term alternative
package for debt. The fact that negotiations would be carried out while debt
service payments were being limited, in a unilateral but conciliatory manner,
should significantly strengthen the bargaining position of the Philippine
negotiators, as it would be showing to the international financial community that
the Philippine government was unwilling, but more importantly, unable to raise
the debt according to existing arrangements, if it was not willing to sacrifice
growth. it is important that the unilateral debt service limitation strategy and the
negotiations are not presented by our government as confrontational.
In this context, it is important to stress that a number of fairly small countries in

Latin America, e.g., Costa Rica, and Africa, have limited debts service payment,
without confrontational rhetoric (Griffith-Jones, 1989). This has allowed the
banks to continue negotiations with them in a fairly and friendly basis, has on the
whole allowed sustainment of short-term credit lines and even in the case of Costa
Rica – allowed renewal of an upper credit tranch agreement with the IMF (Ibid.).
Such a package would be impossible if the same action were taken without
maintaining dialogue with the creditors and if an aggressive rhetoric against the
banks and international financial institutions had been used.
320
At the same time, we have to do more things: 1) consult our people and demolish
the mystique and aura of intellectuality surrounding the debt issue; 2) dialogue
more frequently with our legislators and progressive members of the polity to get
fresher views and different perspectives on national problems; 3) strengthen the
bargaining positions and capability of our negotiators and teach them not to
“internalize the interest of the foreign creditors” (Montes, 1988); and 4) capture
the high moral ground of the foreign debt issue. Surely, creditors would be human
enough to agree that we have the right to grow and resist impoverishment as well.
321
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE OF STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
To Stop Land Conversion of All Agricultural Areas

+ - to stop land conversion
- - continue land conversion
Stakeholders Motivations/Values and Beliefs Sources of Power Position/

Stand on
the Issue
1. farmes • ownership of land none +
• increased agricultural -
productivity
• economic value and emotional
attachment with the land
• selling their land would be a fast
and quick opportunity to change
their lives
• no choice or alternative
(especially if they are threatened)
• farming is no longer lucrative
2. DAR • strict and fair implementation of the authority and +
CARP approval to convert
• provision of support services for comes from DAR
agrarian beneficiaries
3. DA • provide support services to attain DA issues certificate +
food security (irrigation, credit, if the land is -
technology, etc) productive or not
• some areas that are not
productive should be converted
4. Mayor • efficient land use they have the -
• increase taxation authority to reclassify
• politics lands
5. Sangguniang • efficient land use approve land use -

Pambayan • municipality’s increased income plans of the
• politics municipality
6. Governor • efficient land use formulate physical -

• increase income of the province framework plan of
• politics the province
7. Sangguniang • efficient land use approval of the -

Panlalawigan • increase income of the province physical framework
• politics plan
322
8. Other Local • concern for the community and if the community is +
Residents environment, peace and order organized
• security over their residence
• sources of income and other
livelihood opportunities
9. DENR • protection of the environment decides on cases of +
public lands
10. Investors/ • more value for their investment can influence -
Developers • more lands to convert at lesser policymakers/
cost decision-makers
11. NGOs • supports community development lobbying/pressure -
• supports farmers and other politics
marginalized groups
12. Legislators • staying in power create or legislate -
• biased on industrial development laws in their favor
13. Office of the • sincerity in implementing can reverse the -
President government programs decision made by the
• near the center of power DAR
323

PM 241 - 1 - 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PM 241 - 1 - 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PM 241 - 1 - 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Public

Policy and Program

University of the Philippines

Copyright  1998 by Maria Fe Villamejor-Mendoza

Published in the Philippines by the UP Open University

First Printing, 1998

Printed in the Philippines

Module 1 Public Policy Defined: With Some Inspiration

Author Romeo C. Quieta

Reader Dr. Editha V. Maslang

Instructional Designer Prof. Fe Josefa G. Nava

Editors Dr. Nemah Hermosa

Course Manager Bernadette S. Pablo

Encoder Ms. Rosita S. Zamora

Page Layout Carlos J. Domingo

Production Team Myrth V. Soriano

© UP Open University Final Version 2000-B

• comment on and criticize the meanings and implications of various

Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy 1

Consulting Course Manual/

2 Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy

28. ‘Araw ng Maynila Tragedy’, Parachuter dies in 2,000-feet dive

30. El Shaddai fund row worries bishops

You may make a matrix like this to simplify your work:

Topic Head Classification Explanation

What is public policy?

4 Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy

PUBLIC POLICY DEFINED: WITH SOME INSPIRATION FROM

An elephant is usually defined as a mammal. It is also a big eared, long-tusked

Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy 5

Let me explain my concept of public policy as an output:

A number of examples of public policies as courses of action are found in the

As earlier noted, public policies also include intentional withdrawal of

For example, the current government’s policy of global competitiveness to achieve

standard-setting, steering, facilitating types. This trend continues up to the present

Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy 7

namely, the “elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators,

8 Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy

The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997, meanwhile, is supposed to respond

In my earlier example above, the policy of global competitiveness and NIChood

This expanded meaning of the concept of public policy connotes outputs of

Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy 9

10 Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy

Table 2. Public Policy as Defined by Various Authors

1. “the relationship of a government unit to its environment” -Eyestone, 1971

2. “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” -Dye, 1972

4. “a proposed course of action of a person, group or government within a given environment

5. “a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a

6. “also a purposive or goal-oriented than random or chance behavior; consists of courses

7. “a rule for action, manifesting or clarifying specific organizational goals, objectives,

8. “ a multi-dimensional entity of the organizational world; has pluralistic purpose, character,

9. “guidance for action”- UN, 1975

Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy 11

Eyestone (1971) perceives it as the “totality of government relationship with its

Meanwhile, move on.

12 Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy

Shutting down lotto stations is an act emanating from the Local

The Commission on Higher Education is the policy-making body for

Module 1: The Concept of Public Policy 13

a label for a field of government activity