My Definition of Each Stage of Policy Cycle

Agenda setting: Agenda setting can be regarded as the first stage of policy cycle. Agenda setting will explain how issues/concerns/problems/social demands/alternatives appear on the government agenda for action or, in simple words, how we can let government recognize the issue we are concerned. The demands for government action can come from both society and government. In pluralist sense, agenda setting is the process that various groups compete with each other in order to have their demands come in the light of the government attention. The factors that cause the government to pay attention to the problems come not only from industrialization and economic modernization factors but also from political and social factors. The process of agenda setting involves discussion, debate and persuasion among those interested in policy, each presenting a variety of evidence and argument in support of their position. Once the government has agreed to give serious attention, we can say that policy process dealing with the problem in question is started. For problems that have a wild-ranging impact on society, the demands for resolution tend to be initiated by the public. Others that are of signification only to specific details may be undertaken by particular groups depending on the closeness of their relations with the government. In view of the government, if the public support is low or the matter is urgent and important, the government itself is inclined to dictate its agenda. In this regard, the level of public support guides how the government set the agendas.

Policy formulation: When issues or problems are acknowledged and in the attention of the government, a set of action will be decided, which means policies will be formulated. Policy formulation is a process that various options available for addressing and resolving the problem are explored and narrowed down to what the policy- makers can accept. The options to solve the problems must be defined and considered. Unlike agenda setting, the actors within the scope of policy formulation are restricted to those who have some knowledge in the subject/issue/problem area, being able to comment on the possibility of options that are to be put forward to resolve policy problems. These actors comprise of various departments of government and private organizations, playing their interaction role in formulating policy.

Policy decision-making: Policy decision-making is set to function after policy options/alternatives had been considered and focused and, consequently, many potential solutions came up for selection. Policy decision-making is the process of deciding the choice among selected policy alternatives to resolve a public problem. It, involving fewer actors than policy formulation, is also a process of thought in deciding or not deciding the policy menu. Decision-makers vary greatly in term of background knowledge and predilections that affect how they interpret a problem and the solutions to it. It is common that different decision-makers operating in similar institutional set-ups respond differently when dealing the same problem. The concrete scope of policy decision-making process is normally restricted by rules and regulations. The rules set out describing how decision can be made, which ministers or agencies decide the policy and which kind of decision can be made. For example, some countries have the executive and the bureaucracy conduct policy decision making, while others have the legislature and judiciary conduct policy decision-making.

Policy implementation: Policy implementation is the process of putting the decision into practice or the process whereby programs/policies are carried out. A good policy is no use if there is no implementation or bad implementation. At the same time, if the policy is not practical or not appropriate to the issue, good implementation will not be effective. Policy implementation comprised of procedures for action, information compilation, personnel recruitment, institute-setting, future planning and necessary instrument prepared for tackling the problems. Policy implementation can face its difficulties if it confronts with complicated problems involving with many actors and demanding complex methods to solve the issue. Policy implementation can be done easier if policy makers lay down such a clear objectives and procedures with based on theories or principles. Apart from appropriate budget, policy implementation can be done smoothly if professional agencies conduct the implementation. Implementation can be done through top-down process or bottom-up process. Top-down starts with government decision laying down objectives, whereas bottom-up starts with local communities and authorities who propose their policy to the government for its final approval.

Policy evaluation: Policy evaluation is an assessment of how the policy is working and what the effects of the policy are. The conclusion is to evaluate whether that policy should be supported, changed or terminated. Policy evaluation can be involved with both public and private sectors dealing with policy in question. After evaluation, issues/solutions may or may not be changed and will return to one of policy cycle (agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making or implementation). In the sense of rationalist, policy is evaluated by whether a public policy is achieving its stated objectives. The problem is that with such a complex issue, objectives are hard to detest and it also depend on value to judge which policy is accomplished. Evaluation can be a political activity, if it is used to conceal or avert the reality of policy in question. The benefit of policy evaluation is not only the finding result and understanding of its conclusion for such a better policy in future but also the process of policy learning that lead to modify policy actors’ positions.

Roles that the Policy Analyst Performs

It is common that a policy analyst prefer a policy maker who s willing to listen to him. I may present here three roles of policy analysts that perform their same function differently.

The policy expert role is one in which the analyst provides the policymaker with information and furnished guidance. Trying to solve problems and find solutions, policy analyst may generate options and outline the consequences of each option. The more ambiguous and amorphous the problem, the more difficult it becomes to delineate the probable consequences of alternative courses of action. This kind of roles is inclined to avoid politics.

The policy advocate role is the role that policy analyst has a goal or plan. Such an analyst seeks to map out and implement a strategy for gaining acceptance of his/her agenda. Seeking opportunities to shape policy in the direction he wants, the advocate possesses a flame of how things should be. Unlike the policy expert, the policy advocate has an intense desire to be an active participant in politics. Information is arranged to fit his position. If the facts are not in his favor, then a more ambiguous situation is preferred.

The policy trobleshooter role is to make the political process run smoothly for the decision-maker. The role tends to focus on the process aspects rather than the substance of problems. The troubleshooter perceives himself as an integral part of the decision-making group who is concerned with finding a reasonable compromise in dealing with conflicted issue. The role is as a mediator to ease policymakers’ problems, trying to evaluate best alternatives/solutions that do not harm anybody.

To know the differences of each role will give us more understandable to one of many reasons of why policy analysts or advisers introduce such kind of solutions or alternatives. This is to remind us that policy analysts are not always neutral and there are differences among them. We must judge ourselves what is to or not to believe.