EXAMINATION
PREPARATION PLC2602.
,PROBLEMS IN POLICY EVALUATION
Policy evaluation is neither easy nor simple and therefore the following complicating factors should be kept
in mind when one is engaged in evaluating policy (Anderson 1984:139–143):
(1) Uncertainty over policy goals.
Anderson (1984:139–143), defines public policy as a programme with goals. Anderson
(1984:139–143) notes that there is no way to assess the success or failure of a policy if the
goals have not been defined clearly, especially if the policy has not been articulated in a
comprehensive, systematic document. According to Anderson (1984:139–143), a policy defined
primarily by actions and inactions of government and not articulated makes evaluating its
initial intent almost impossible.
(2) Causality.
According to Anderson (1984:139–143), interrelationships between cause and effect are always
difficult to confirm. It is impossible to isolate and control the policy environment when
implementing policies, Anderson (1984:139-143). Anderson goes on to explain that external
factors can affect the target groups of a given policy and result in progress towards the defined
policy goals. Despite the positive results of a policy, Anderson (1984:139-143), asserts that the
policy cannot be credited for those results. In view of this, Anderson (1984:139–143) argues
there needs to be an objective causal relationship between policy implementation and the
results.
(3) Diffuse policy impacts.
Consequently, Anderson (1984:139-143) suggests that policy actions may affect the targets
identified in the policy goals but may also affect unintentionally other groups not targeted for
that purpose. As Anderson (1984:139–143) emphasizes, governments are not always aware of
the side effects of policies because the focus is on the target areas, especially if there are
negative side effects that go unnoticed. For this reason, policy assessment is incomplete and
unreliable. Therefore, any analyst has to accept that the impacts of any policy are likely to
diffuse and that it is, therefore, necessary to identify how such impacts may manifest
themselves, Anderson (1984:139-143).
(4) Difficulties in data acquisition.
According to Anderson (1984:139-143), reliable empirical data are critical to any policy, but
especially to one which focuses on socio-economic factors. Anderson (1984:139-143)
emphasizes the need for such reliable data as a prerequisite for policy evaluations relying on
quantitative analyses. Moreover, Anderson (1984:139-143) says that valid policy evaluations
will not be possible in societies with limited access to such data, such as in developing nations,
and in cases where data collection is extremely difficult owing to the nature of the policy issue.
Among the doubtful data that Anderson (1984:139-143) lists are official inflation figures
compared to what is believed they should be, fluctuations in unemployment figures depending
on how the informal economy is handled, and population census statistics in states such as
Nigeria and South Africa. Anderson (1984:139-143) argues that the census is one of the most
important tools for designing development policies, and if the census is unreliable, it can lead
to unrealistic policy targets.
, (5) Official resistance.
Based on Anderson (1984:139-143), resistance can occur as a result of both methods of policy
analysis. Andersson (1984:139-143) emphasizes that programme officials worry about the
political consequences of a negatively evaluated policy if it is evaluated by a researcher.
Anderson (1984:139-143) points out that this may affect their policy programmes, influence, or
careers. So, Anderson (1984:139-143) outlined several conditions that will determine their
participation in the evaluation. It is also possible to resist policy evaluation from within the
policy-making process if results can cause division in the unit tasked with implementing the
policy, Anderson (1984:139-143). Anderson (1984:139-143), also states that the evaluation may
allow policy changes to be made since the inertia of the organization tends to resist change.
(6) Unrealistic time perspective.
According to Anderson (1984:139-143), policy evaluators can run the risk of concluding too
soon what the results of a policy’s impact are. Anderson (1984:139-143), accentuates those
policies in the public sector should be given rather a longer period to show results. Examples of
a premature declaration of a policy’s failure are the Reconstruction and Development
Programme in South Africa and the New Deal’s resettlement programme in the 1930s in the
USA to provide land ownership opportunities for black sharecroppers, Anderson (1984:139-
143).
THE PUBLIC POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
WHY A PROCESS?
A process suggests a continuous movement and not only a state of affairs. Public policy can be
viewed as a state of affairs if it is treated as merely a statement of goals or objects, or as the
outcome of policy formulation and decision-making. The development or formation of policy,
on the other hand, is more dynamic and ongoing, and therefore can be viewed as a process. A
process can be cyclical or linear. History as a discipline very often uses these two views as a
means of analysing the history of humankind.
In this instance, the emphasis is on the development of public policy and how it can be studied
or analysed. The idea of a process is used extensively in the discussion. Prominent scholars of
politics, such as David Easton, view politics and public policy as a system and therefore also as a
process. Change characterises the public policy domain such as the evaluation of existing
policies with the view to improve on them, identification of loopholes in policy that need to be
closed, accommodating exceptions for which the policy has not been designed.
it is important to view public policy in terms of a process and not as a static phenomenon, you
should not understand it as a process consisting of neatly demarcated and chronological
stages. The stages may appear to constitute a chronological evolution of policy-making. In
reality those stages are not so neatly defined and the sequence of stages may even change or
be repeated in the same policy-making cycle.
Policy Making Process stages are as follows:
identification of policy problems stage 1
agenda setting stage 2
policy formulation and decision-making stage 3
PREPARATION PLC2602.
,PROBLEMS IN POLICY EVALUATION
Policy evaluation is neither easy nor simple and therefore the following complicating factors should be kept
in mind when one is engaged in evaluating policy (Anderson 1984:139–143):
(1) Uncertainty over policy goals.
Anderson (1984:139–143), defines public policy as a programme with goals. Anderson
(1984:139–143) notes that there is no way to assess the success or failure of a policy if the
goals have not been defined clearly, especially if the policy has not been articulated in a
comprehensive, systematic document. According to Anderson (1984:139–143), a policy defined
primarily by actions and inactions of government and not articulated makes evaluating its
initial intent almost impossible.
(2) Causality.
According to Anderson (1984:139–143), interrelationships between cause and effect are always
difficult to confirm. It is impossible to isolate and control the policy environment when
implementing policies, Anderson (1984:139-143). Anderson goes on to explain that external
factors can affect the target groups of a given policy and result in progress towards the defined
policy goals. Despite the positive results of a policy, Anderson (1984:139-143), asserts that the
policy cannot be credited for those results. In view of this, Anderson (1984:139–143) argues
there needs to be an objective causal relationship between policy implementation and the
results.
(3) Diffuse policy impacts.
Consequently, Anderson (1984:139-143) suggests that policy actions may affect the targets
identified in the policy goals but may also affect unintentionally other groups not targeted for
that purpose. As Anderson (1984:139–143) emphasizes, governments are not always aware of
the side effects of policies because the focus is on the target areas, especially if there are
negative side effects that go unnoticed. For this reason, policy assessment is incomplete and
unreliable. Therefore, any analyst has to accept that the impacts of any policy are likely to
diffuse and that it is, therefore, necessary to identify how such impacts may manifest
themselves, Anderson (1984:139-143).
(4) Difficulties in data acquisition.
According to Anderson (1984:139-143), reliable empirical data are critical to any policy, but
especially to one which focuses on socio-economic factors. Anderson (1984:139-143)
emphasizes the need for such reliable data as a prerequisite for policy evaluations relying on
quantitative analyses. Moreover, Anderson (1984:139-143) says that valid policy evaluations
will not be possible in societies with limited access to such data, such as in developing nations,
and in cases where data collection is extremely difficult owing to the nature of the policy issue.
Among the doubtful data that Anderson (1984:139-143) lists are official inflation figures
compared to what is believed they should be, fluctuations in unemployment figures depending
on how the informal economy is handled, and population census statistics in states such as
Nigeria and South Africa. Anderson (1984:139-143) argues that the census is one of the most
important tools for designing development policies, and if the census is unreliable, it can lead
to unrealistic policy targets.
, (5) Official resistance.
Based on Anderson (1984:139-143), resistance can occur as a result of both methods of policy
analysis. Andersson (1984:139-143) emphasizes that programme officials worry about the
political consequences of a negatively evaluated policy if it is evaluated by a researcher.
Anderson (1984:139-143) points out that this may affect their policy programmes, influence, or
careers. So, Anderson (1984:139-143) outlined several conditions that will determine their
participation in the evaluation. It is also possible to resist policy evaluation from within the
policy-making process if results can cause division in the unit tasked with implementing the
policy, Anderson (1984:139-143). Anderson (1984:139-143), also states that the evaluation may
allow policy changes to be made since the inertia of the organization tends to resist change.
(6) Unrealistic time perspective.
According to Anderson (1984:139-143), policy evaluators can run the risk of concluding too
soon what the results of a policy’s impact are. Anderson (1984:139-143), accentuates those
policies in the public sector should be given rather a longer period to show results. Examples of
a premature declaration of a policy’s failure are the Reconstruction and Development
Programme in South Africa and the New Deal’s resettlement programme in the 1930s in the
USA to provide land ownership opportunities for black sharecroppers, Anderson (1984:139-
143).
THE PUBLIC POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
WHY A PROCESS?
A process suggests a continuous movement and not only a state of affairs. Public policy can be
viewed as a state of affairs if it is treated as merely a statement of goals or objects, or as the
outcome of policy formulation and decision-making. The development or formation of policy,
on the other hand, is more dynamic and ongoing, and therefore can be viewed as a process. A
process can be cyclical or linear. History as a discipline very often uses these two views as a
means of analysing the history of humankind.
In this instance, the emphasis is on the development of public policy and how it can be studied
or analysed. The idea of a process is used extensively in the discussion. Prominent scholars of
politics, such as David Easton, view politics and public policy as a system and therefore also as a
process. Change characterises the public policy domain such as the evaluation of existing
policies with the view to improve on them, identification of loopholes in policy that need to be
closed, accommodating exceptions for which the policy has not been designed.
it is important to view public policy in terms of a process and not as a static phenomenon, you
should not understand it as a process consisting of neatly demarcated and chronological
stages. The stages may appear to constitute a chronological evolution of policy-making. In
reality those stages are not so neatly defined and the sequence of stages may even change or
be repeated in the same policy-making cycle.
Policy Making Process stages are as follows:
identification of policy problems stage 1
agenda setting stage 2
policy formulation and decision-making stage 3
