Introduction:

According to Dinica (2004), it is widely accepted that it is difficult and tiresome to sketch a conceptual distinction between policy formulation and policy implementation. This is because policy formulation basically takes place throughout the entire policy process. As Hill and Hupe (2003) care to frame it, “what is needed is a way of combining the analytical benefits offered by the ‘stages’ model with the recognition of the interaction between the stages.” They think that use of the term ‘policy-making’ for the entire process, ‘policy formation’ for the initial part of policy-making, and ‘policy implementation’ for the latter part of the policy-making process would be more suitable.

Components of Policy Formulation and Implementation:

The first and foremost step in the process of policy-making, or implementation of policy is deciding whether a new policy or policy reform is required in the first place. As is obvious, this is a vital step and the first in a series of methodical procedures.

Once it has been decided that a new policy has to be promoted, or an existing one reformed, a comprehensive journey of analyses and diagnoses is embarked upon. This is the process of identifying the policy down to its very core. The step of formulation adds more detail to the earlier policy analysis. These details are including a statement of the problem, the goals and objectives of the policy, a framework that sketches programs in support of those targets, and a statement of the resources needed for this policy. All these elements need to be sketched and analyzed in elaborate detail so that effective action and implementation can be carried out (Burke, 1990; Starling, 1988).

At this point, the policy-makers have the option to make the process more participatory by engaging civil society in policy analysis and formulation. Their options could be anything from simple information sharing to outright collaboration. In Ireland, there is an innovative method of going about this process: there exist social partnerships which aid negotiation between the government, the private sector and civil society on monetary, fiscal and public policies. In the course of the past five years, the country has effectively made use of these social partnerships to formulate and develop a national social contract which has led to a significant improvement in its economic performance. The benefits which can be derived from using such a participatory and negotiated process to arrive at consensus on principal elements of fiscal and monetary policy are many. As in Ireland’s case, this social partnership helped in negotiations for budget deficits, wage rates, social sector spending and safety nets. Also, it created opportunity for the many partners to fulfill their part of the pledge and made them accountable for it (Dinica, 2004; Starling, 1988).

Policy adoption is the next step, but this is a step which is often merged with the actual implementation stage. There can be little external participation in this stage since formal adoption often warrants a legal or administrative requirement of referendum, a parliamentary vote, a cabinet memorandum, or other formal measures. Hence, participation in policy adoption is mostly just simple information sharing (Matland, 1995; Dinica, 2004).

Finally, the policy is implemented. Dinica (2004) finds it useful to conceive of implementation as ‘a mixture of activities’ because implementation activities are often e very complex in terms of their types, the aim or effect in mind relating to them and the actors involved. She further pointed out two distinct types of policy implementation activities that are often taking place side by side or one after the other. These are policy-making and policy operationalisation.

Policies are not completely designed once the formulation process is over. As mentioned earlier, formulation often continues happening throughout the entire process. Policy formulators may distribute the job either explicitly or implicitly and ask other actors to complete the task of policy specification. Such actors could be politically elected at EU/national/regional/local standards or could even originate from the public administration component of the government or from the judicial system. But then, these actors could be other entities as well – for example, mixed public-private agents and private actors such as companies, households, NGOs, who can make their own decisions or involve public participation in the process. Hence, the policy formulation process might very well continue in the policy implementation stage if the earlier design of policy had not been completed in a way that implementing actors are able to work with (Dinica, 2004).

Policy operationalisation is the other activity which might be taking place in the implementation stage. This is performed when the policy goals, means and schemes are completed and specified such that implementing actors find it possible to work with them either directly, or via applying them in the local contexts in which they have to operate, or for the different types of target groups, or the various types of industrial / social / economic activities, as put forward by the policy program initially (Dinica, 2004).

This stage can also be carried out with the help of external participation. Depending on the type of policy, there usually exist various means for involving public participation in the process. For example, according to Dinica (2004), if it is a sectoral policy, “opportunities for collaboration, shared decision-making, and empowerment through partnerships” are rampant. Public administration policies, for example the administrative reform policies have introduced methods for external consultation, like decentralized public personnel policies that warrant input and feedback from local citizens on performance. But public participation has not been adopted as a measure in macroeconomic policy implementation other than simple information sharing and dissemination (Starling, 1988).

When it comes to social and poverty issues, a lot more attention is paid to public participation and citizen consultation when opting for adjustment and reform policy. For example, a process of extensive consultations was carried out in the Andhra Pradesh (AP), India program of reform for the irrigation sector (Starling, 2001, 150 – 200). This was highly crucial owing to the high priority given to agriculture in the country. The government wanted to understand and consider the viewpoints of all the involved parties. Hence, in this case, it did not restrict participation in the public consultations to only farmers, but also included politicians, political parties, researchers, and the press. This was a well thought-out step on the government’s part as these consultations helped the government to manage the entire scenario’s happenings in a transparent manner (Dinica, 2004).

After implementation, policies must be monitored and evaluated. These are the final stages. There are new and better ways evolving to perform these tasks and external participation in these areas is also becoming popular. For example, an external actor like the general affected public provides information to policy monitors and evaluators, or the policy monitors contact the public for their opinions, reactions and analyses. Monitoring and evaluation can be carried out by joint collaboration, or independent assessments and evaluations can be compared, contrasted and worked upon for new policies or policy reform (Starling, 1988).

Traditional policy formulation and implementation very rarely involved external participation. However, as is evident from the above paragraphs, now external participation can be included in different forms at many different places in the entire process.

Example:

When the World Bank wants to implement policy relating to rural transport, its policy formulation process is as follows. This step must first and foremost determine which rural transport issues to find a solution to and in which order of priority. If resulting policies are to be impelmentable and made in a way so that they last, an approach which is structured and iterative in nature is required. It should be coordinated with suitable top-down and bottom-up processes so that the entire process is smooth. The entire approach towards seeking a solution should be one which combines the rural transport policy into the broad framework of other general policies relating to this area, such as the ones for the road sub-sector, and the transport sector and the overall rural development. In this stage, the instruments available for policy implementation must also be considered.

For the policy implementation process, two things are extremely necessary: a strategy and an action plan. For this particular case, a steering committee with a secretariat is organized and it is their job to formulate a strategy and action plan for policy implementation. The strategy which this committee comes up with should very clearly define and draw a distinction between the measures which are suitable for immediate implementation and those which still need more time on the drawing board. This is where the difference between a strategy and an action plan comes in. A strategy might be put down in general and broad terms at even a high level, an action plan is much more comprehensive. The latter has to be extremely detailed and specific about the activities which are to be undertaken, the individuals who are responsible for each different part of the strategy, when the implementation is to be carried out and the resources required for each component of the process. Aside from this, performance indicators should also be contained so that the implementation process can be monitored and implemented as is the final step in the entire process. In the World Bank’s case, the strategy and action plan are usually publicly available documents and they have within them a framework document, a corporate plan and business plan