KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

SCHOOL : EDUCATION

UNIT CODE : AHT-317

UNIT TITLE : ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT: HISTORY ARCHEOLOGY AND POLITICAL STUDIES

REG NO : E35S/16093/2012

NAME : DENNIS OLUDHE

LECTURER : PROF. WASONGA

TASK : discuss ecological factors that influence policy making process and

outcome

Date of submission: 8TH February 2016

Introduction

Policy making has been defined as the process of transformation which turns political inputs into

political outputs. It is the mechanism through which society's collective demands are monitored

by the political system for conversion into action. As envisioned here, the role of policy making

is not so much the resolution of particular decisions as it is the creation of a decision

environment a set of rules, roles and procedures which guide behavior and shape expectations in

which a variety of connected or related decisions can be made. This decision environment is

probably a crucial concept but its definition and comprehension remain elusive. Students of

decision making' are increasingly unhappy about visualizing decisions as discrete, observable

steps in some sort of rational, incremental process. It appears more realistic to think of decision-

making as a series of gradually narrowing choices in which participants at any one step, either

knowingly or unwittingly, restrict the options available at the next.

The Policy Process: Formulation, Legislation and Implementation

Environmental policy is a broad issue, mostly because of the socio-political dimensions of the

issue. In order to first start a policy process, the problem for which a policy is to be created must

be identified and the policy holding a solution to the problem. Researchers and stakeholders will

investigate the problem to identify if the policy will reach the policy making agenda. Policies

must be to improve society’s health and wellbeing. In the United States for instance (U.S.)

public health related issues that require a formulation of a new policy and come from local, state,

or federal legislations which ruling govern the provision of health care services and regulations.

Objective of Policy

The objective of the regulations is to protect human health and the environment. The effective

enforcement of the water quality regulations will lead to a marked reduction of water-borne

diseases and hence a reduction in the health budget the regulations also provide guidelines and

standards for the discharge of poisons, toxins, noxious, radioactive waste or other pollutants into

the aquatic environment in line with the Third Schedule of the regulations. The regulations have

standards for discharge of effluent into the sewer and aquatic environment.

Formulation

The first step in creating this a new policy is the idea on how to address the current problem.

During this first step, brainstorming is often encouraged during the formulation process so that

there is more than one potential solution to the problem Another consideration for policy

formulation is determining if the policy will need to involve local, state, and/or federal

government involvement to be put on their agenda. There are many ways to approach any given

problem, and during policy formation, relevant individuals (such as stakeholders and

researchers) and groups will determine the different ideas to approach the proposed policy. An

agenda is a set of problems that government wants to solve. Usually there are so many of them

that they must be prioritized, with some problems getting earlier and more attention than others

any sort of crisis that involves the direct safety of staff and patients will take priority over other

issues. Since this policy is not a crisis, there is not a pressing issue on the policy makers’ agenda.

Legislative Phase

During the legislative phase, conflicting plans on formulating the policy is ideal for a better

scope of possible solutions to the issue. The proposed policy must be able to be translated into

comprehensible rules and guidelines. There are many that might takes part in the formulation of

the policy such as agency officials, interest groups or stakeholders, legislators, and research

organizations. One version of the policy is eventually decided upon, but the implementation of

the policy is only enacted when legislation is passed, or regulations are finalized or a decision

has been passed by the Supreme Court the direction of the policy must be concise so that

agencies involved with the new policy can comply with the new legislation.

Different people approach decision making in different ways. Individuals are unique in terms of

their personalities, abilities, beliefs and values. They also each have traditions of understanding

out of which they think and act. Even when the same data is apparently available to all, people

will interpret and assimilate the data in different ways and at different speeds. Some people are

very confident about weighing up a situation and making decisions, others less so. Some like to

take more risks than others. Competences, such as the ability to listen to other people, also vary.

Social pressures affect everyone to varying degrees and the approval or disapproval of friends

and colleagues may be more important to the decision maker than being ‘right’ every time.

Political beliefs also vary and people will rank differently, for example, individual and social

gains from a situation. Each individual develops personal beliefs and values, including those

relating to their environment, through different life experiences, and hence brings a different

perspective to a decision situation. Some people will also have more at stake in a decision

outcome than others. There are therefore many issues around who is involved in decision-making

processes and how they participate.

The garbage-can approach to decision making showed that the decision situation is often messy

and complex and that apparently unrelated events can affect decision outcomes, depending on

what else is going on at the time the decision is taken. Elements of change, risk and uncertainty

are common in decision situations and recognizing and making sense of these elements are two

of the main challenges that decision makers face. Risk implies that we know what the possible

outcomes of a decision may be and that we know, or can work out, the probability of each

outcome. Specific criteria can help to identify areas where there is agreement and disagreement.

Criteria for the new housing site might include, for example, how existing land use is valued and

by whom, services and housing provision available in the vicinity, likely disturbance or

enhancement of the area and implications for road safety. There will be different views on what

is acceptable for each of these aspects and often a need for negotiation. Criteria such as these are

frequently worked out at different levels, as part of the regional as well as more local planning

processes.

A decision is made at a particular time in a particular set of circumstances. The decision situation

can change very rapidly so what appeared to be a rational decision at one time might later appear

to be anything but that. One aspect of the time dimension that is particularly apparent in the

‘garbage-can’ decision-making approach is that the outcome of a decision may be affected by

concurrent, but otherwise only marginally related, events. One example of this might be the

unexpected availability of additional resources or a reduction in resources because of another

project going on at the same time elsewhere. Another example might be the way that strong

opposition to, or support for, a new development may unexpectedly surface because of events

elsewhere. Time is also a factor that can affect the nature of people’s participation in decision

making. Skills are needed to be able to judge the urgency of decision-making processes, who

needs to be involved in which stages of decision making within a particular time and resource

frame and to what extent timing can be negotiated and with whom.

Conclusion

There are many interest groups involved in a policy making process. Many policy proposals are

turned down for various reasons to include unnecessary policies, uncompressible proposals, and

much more. Many policies are proposed for the interest and safety of the public and staff. Policy,

as understood by the respondents in this study, has a number of functions. These include setting

standards and ensuring a minimum level of uniformity in implementation; providing a

framework for action and for dealing with potentially sensitive issues; and promoting the

transparency and accountability of service providers. In general, respondents appeared to have

high expectations of the ability of ‘policy’ to influence the actions of environment and health

departments. Environment and health departments at the local government level are engaged in a

number of policy development and implementation processes. Public participation in, and

awareness of, policies is also seen to be a method of enforcing the accountability of councilors

and officials by reducing their discretion to take arbitrary decisions. A number of constraints to

policy development include inadequate environmental and health data; lack of co-ordination and

consistency between policies under development; inadequate attention to implementation

mechanisms and lack of capacity amongst officials.

Reference

Ahluwalia, S. K. (2010). International environment policy. Jaipur, India: ABD Publishers.

Colebatch, H. K. (2012). Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gerston, L. N. (2012). Public policy making: Process and principles. Armonk, N.Y: M.E.

Sharpe.

Sillars, M. O. (2013). Argumentation and the decision making process. New York: Wiley.

Zito, A. R. (2010). Learning and governance in the EU policy making process. London:

Routledge.