Public Policy in the Developing Countries in the 21st Century

– Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelley

Discussing Public Policy the International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences (N.Y. the Macmillan Corp Vol. 13 and 14 P. 204) states : as a concept in political science, “policy” has at least two quite distinct meanings. On the one hand, “policies” are often considered to be ways of doing things, decision rules – for example: “It is the policy of this office to handle requests in such-and-such a way.” In this sense policy would answer the questions “How do you do things around here?” and “What are your rules and procedures?” and may be called administrative policy. Alternatively, policies are often regarded as substantive programs, referring specifically to the content of what is being done, and not necessarily to how it is being done. Policy in this sense answers the questions “What do you do around here?” and “What kinds of problems do you handle?”
Studies of public policy – the policies of governments – often employ both meanings. Such studies explore not only what agencies of government are doing but how they are doing it, not only the content of the program and its history but its administration as well. The way a program is administered will certainly affect its content and results. Still, the two meanings should be kept distinct, since they refer to analytically separate things.
Public Policy, in a sense, relates to what the government in a given political society chose to do or not to do. Public policy has to be public in substance. It needs to be formed and implemented in a constitutional framework. It also requires to be guided by institutional norms. It also has to be purposive.
Public Policy can be studied and analysed by various methods; historical, descriptive, legal and normative. The legal approach encompasses the legal character of the policy including legislative, executive and judicial history. It also touches on “other aspects of the political process” such as public opinion and the activities of political parties and interest groups.
Beyond the legal framework, it is necessary to look at “other variables such as the social, economic, and political setting, the personalities of the actors and also organizational factors”.
The normative approach relies on value-judgment and therefore, often “propose reforms which are not feasible because they do not square with political realities”.
As the International Encyclopaedia points out : “it may be more useful, however, for those analyzing public policies to provide as much information as possible on how various aspects of the policy are related to one another, what interests support and oppose the policy, and how the policy is related to the institutions of government and the informal governmental processes, and to leave the activist political role to the decision makers and those whose interests are clearly affected by the policy”.
Policies can be distinguished in terms of their substance : (agriculture, labor, education, foreign policy), the institutions making them (legislative, judicial, administrative), the target of the policy (businessmen lower class), time periods in which policy has taken from ideology (secular, capitalist, liberal, conservative), values (good, bad, dangerous), extent of support (consensus, divisive), and governmental level (national, regional, local, metropolitan).
Policy Making
As Charles. E. Lindblom stated in his work “the Policy Making Process” (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs new Jersey, 1968, P.P. 1-4) : “Most people – even poets and ballet dancers – know a good deal about policy making. They know, for example, that the immediate responsibility for policy making has to be delegated to officials, that interest-group and party leaders greatly influence these officials, and that the rest of us play less active (though not insignificant) roles in the policy-making drama. Yet many aspects of policy making still need explaining, because almost no one is well satisfied with his understanding of how policy is made. All kinds of further questions spring to mind”.
Questions on the underlying processes by which policy is made:
“What are the major sources of power in policy making?
Do ordinary citizens significantly influence the specific policy choices of government?
Are constitutional and other legal rules effective in assigning policy-making responsibilities to various officials, or is there a set of informal rules that counts for more?”
Questions on the intelligence of the policy-making process:
“To what extent do information and analysis really count in the making of policy? Are they only window-dressing?”
Questions on democracy in policy making:
“To what extent, if at all, is the growing technical complexity of government tasks, as in space exploration, transferring the job of policy making from politician to technician?
Is there an Establishment? Does it make policy?”
Questions on possible institutional rigidities and irrationalities:
“Why do we go on and on, decade after decade, dealing with so many of the same problems – farm prices, strikes, old-age insurance, and care of the mentally infirm, for example? Why do we fail to solve these problems?
Does it matter much which party wins and election? Why hawks and doves in each party instead of hawks in one, doves in the other?
Who really makes policy on an issue, like tariffs, that greatly affects economic life?”
Questions on alternative policy-making systems:
“The policy-making process is not one of the standard fields of political science, as are comparative government, international relations, or the history of political thought, nor does it appear on a list of traditional inquiries into politics, like the origins of the state, the conditions of viability of a political system, the rationale for democracy, or the ideal political system. Nevertheless, it now reflects a converging curiosity, on the part of social scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, and psychologists, about decision-making process.” ..........................................“One is tempted to think that policy is made through a sequence of steps (or a set of interlocked moves), such as: (a) preliminary appraisal of or inquiry into the problem; (b) identification of goals, and, (c) choice or decision. This way of looking at policy making is useful for some purposes, but it tends to view policy making as though it were the product of one governing mind, which is clearly not the case. It fails to evoke or suggest the distinctively political aspects of policy making, its apparent disorder, and the consequent strikingly different ways in which policies emerge.” .......................... “Wealthy nations spend more of national income on science and education than do poor nations, and more on highways and on traffic control. And, two governments, with strikingly different policy-making systems-one democratic, the other authoritarian-may follow similar policies with respect to money and credit, industrial development, or education because the two are alike in wealth, complexity of economic and social structure, and technology. Clearly, then, policy is molded by a variety of forces beyond those within the policy-making system itself.”
The Context of developing and less developed countries, including Bangladesh
These observations hold true in the context of developing and less developed countries including Bangladesh. Public policy making in these societies is at once, a complex process which may not always be systematic coherent and even fully rational or realistic.
The situation in the context of a developing country such as Bangladesh is further complicated by inadequacy of resources in terms of a large population, still far from empowerment, that would turn it into assets instead of burden, political instability, institutional weakness, inadequate governance worsened by insufficiency of elite commitment. It has to be noted that the elite in Bangladesh as in many developing and less developed countries, is relatively new. These countries are featured by the weakness issuing from the absence of a class long accustomed to rule. Public policies in such situations are often non integrated as the framers lack holistic vision and frequently face the heavy pressures of uncertainty and instability in political and economic life, nationally, regionally and in the post 11th September, 2001 World also, globally.
Formulation of Public Policy in Developing Countries. The Role of Ministries, Cabinet, Planning Commission
How is public policy formulated in uncertain democracies that exist in many developing countries including Bangladesh?
It is a process undertaken and completed by the government, apparently through its formal structures. In these countries, as in economically and technologically developed nations, policies are initially formulated by Governments Ministries e.g. : Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Education, Industry, Agriculture, Local Government, Communication, Health, Justice, Home etc.
Generally, the Cabinet of Ministers is regarded as the highest policy making and approving body. In developing countries including Bangladesh, national economic policies are formulated by the Planning Commission which works with the Ministry of Planning. In many cases, there is a National Economic Council (NEC) presided by the Chief Executive of the Government, usually the Prime Minister in a Cabinet System of Government. The NEC works as the top approving entity for economic policies and plans for development.
The Role of Bureaucracy
In these countries, as in more developed ones, the bureaucracy plays a quiet but vital role in public policy formulation. The role it plays is both general and specific. As the professional Institution of the Government, it supplies the technical inputs of policy. It helps bring institutional memory into the process of policy framing and assist its by research and analysis. In Bangladesh, as in many other developing post-colonial countries, the top civil-servant in each ministry is the permanent Secretary. S/he is assisted by additional, joint, Deputy Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries. It is generally the strata from deputy Secretary and above who are directly involved in policy formulation at the level of the ministry. The skill, training, experience and the professional competence of the members of bureaucracy help the political leaders (Prime Minister and Ministers) in government to frame sound, realistic and effective public policies. However, on account of inadequacy of knowledge and experience of the political leaders who often come from the ranks of the new elite and the new rich, the bureaucracy may often, tend to play a more dominant role. These may, in some cases, lead to distortions and pitfalls the result of which is frequently adverse for the political leadership.
The Role of the Parliament
In post-colonial societies continuing or resurrected fledgling democracies are featured by grave weakness of political institutions including the political parties and parliament. Charismatic and populist leadership, nurtured and strengthened by weak and substantively undemocratic political parties, often lead to the weakening of the national legislature. Majority of the ruling party and inescapable whip together strengthen the tendency to establish and run personal role by the Chief Executive. This leads to the promotion and expansion of the power of the executive branch at the cost of the parliament. Besides the members of the parliament, majority of whom are drawn from the new elite, lacks parliamentary experience and skill. The dominance of the executive and the weakness of the members of parliament themselves prevent hinder the efficient functioning of the oversight mechanism of the legislature, such as, the subject-committees. In consequence, the parliament can not play its constitutionally prescribed role in discussing, debating, changing or improving public policy. In Bangladesh, as in other post-colonial states, such as Pakistan, the repeated direct inclusion of the military into politics through take-over of the government has resulted in gravely reducing the parliaments role in public affairs. The tendency to keep the parliament as a “fifth wheel of the carriage” of the government has continued in many instances, in the post-military democracies ruled by strong leaders imposing personal rules through a executive-dominant politico-administrative system. There is no wonder that in such situations parliament remains a minor partner in public policy.
Implementation
Policy is as good as its implementation. While Public Policy in Bangladesh as the some other developing countries, in many instance is theoretically good and sound, it is poor and inadequate in implementation. The syndrome they suffer from is the predicament “of soft states”. In these countries, policies while delayed and complicated in making, are even slower and more inadequate in implementation. What is decided at the top is distorted and often negated by the time it reaches the bottom.
The indecisiveness of ruling political leaders and brueacrts in developing societies riddled by all-pervasive uncertainty, is manifest in the procedural delay in both policy-making and implementation. A study of the Civil Officers Training Academy (COTA), Bangladesh conducted in 1984 revealed that the average period elapsed for national policy-making was 289 days; for policy-implementation the figure was 311 days. It needed 27 signatures for national policy-making and 19 for policy implementation.
The situation, instead of improving, has become worse because of lack of skill of political managers and degeneration of civil service and judicial institutions.