The Influent of Public policy

Public Policy is all those decisions taken by government authorities, executives, legislatives, and judicial branches. Public Policy is an attempt by government to address a public issue by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, or actions pertain to the problem at hand.

The numerous issues can be addressed by the public policy including crimes, educations, foreign policy, health, and social welfare.

So the influent of public policy is the good and bad policy to the public actors, and also the feedback of good and bad policy of public actors to government. So, what, and how the influent public policy process?

I.                   Government

Normally, while government are driven by election promises, plans, and budgets, government leaders are often responsive to significant changes in the external environment.  For example, they may change course due to public option, international events such as terrorism, or local development that have national repercussions. They can be influenced by factors such as

-          Issues receiving extensive negative media coverage

-          Data, research, and other new evidence

-          Party policies

-          Personal ambitions and goals

-          The advice and action of bureaucracy

-          Their leader, colleagues and staff

-          Community leasers

There are many internal players involved in decision-making often having conflict perspectives and priorities. Information may be in short conflicting, contradictory, and not always shared widely. Decision may need to be taken immediately, await the results of extensive public consultations, or be delayed indefinitely.

            While decision making can appear to be chaotic, governments do follow specific decision-making processes. To have influence, you need to know, respect, and use them

            For example, even when a government wants to move quickly electoral, decision-making and bufgeting cycles may limit it. it’s helpful to know how to identify these decision making “window” or most opportune time to influence public policy.

            Generally, there are four key stages in government decision-making:

1.       agenda setting

2.      Policy design

3.      Cabinet review

4.      Legislative approval

Governments try to garner as much as support or “buy in” each stage. Stages two and four are driven more by bureaucracy while stages one and three rest with the political level.

1.1.Agenda setting

Ideas for the setting of government priorities come from various sources such as party platforms, ministerial statements, public servants, political advisors, party research bureaus, and office of the premier or prime minister. Colleagues, friends, lobby groups, key constituencies, opposition parties, government caucus, the media, academic think tanks, other levels of government, central agencies, consultants, research findings, and task forces also contribute their priorities. Provincial cabinet ministers, with the assistance of such central agencies as the Privy Council Office, would agree on key areas which are then outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Once the Throne Speech is announced in the legislature, ministers then turn to their departmental officials to begin the work of implementation. Officials assess the external demands against priorities, whether resources exist or new resources are needed, legislation is affected or needed, and whether the minister has the authority to act alone.

As planning is in its initial phase here, this is the best opportunity to encourage or prevent policy outcomes.

1.2.Policy design

This stage is primarily driven by bureaucratic staff and is the most significant stage for stakeholder input. Political input at this stage is usually limited to that of an ombudsman function; for example, ensuring citizens have access and are treated fairly. Most policy decisions are made in small steps and in consultation with organized interests. To gain public input, the government may publish a discussion paper, undertake formal or informal consultations, or set up an advisory committee or task force. Governments are usually strongly committed to their goals but flexible on how to achieve them. Even when a government has made political commitments, there’s room to influence the policy design process. Once widespread support is achieved, it will become harder to influence the policy.

1.3.Cabinet review

The heaviest political scrutiny happens at this stage. Politicians assess the implications of a particular policy and ask themselves “will this achieve what we’re here to do”? Political staff usually have limited capacity to evaluate detailed policy which has been formed by public servants and stakeholders, but they will ensure the political ramifications have been considered (e.g. will this allow us to meet our promises, will it receive positive media attention, will our supporters be in agreement, how influential will the opponents be).

1.4.Legislative approvals

As the directions are now set out in a draft legislation or bill, it’s much harder to make changes at this stage except through amendments. To get to this stage, many compromises have usually been made along the way to respond to the varying needs and to get as many different interests “on side” as possible. Consequently, the more support for a government initiative the harder it is to change it. Minor changes are more likely at this stage than major backtracking. As government likes solutions, elected officials don’t want to hear about what they shouldn’t be doing. It’s more useful, therefore, to advise them of the unintended consequences of their planned actions and to offer workable alternatives.

1.5.Evaluation

After the approval to the public, first it just the draft, so the executive branch start their obligation to implement the new law, and take note the value of this new policy, do it impact seriously or not to their people, and also awaiting the outcome does it good or not if good they would like to approve it faster. But if the result is bad mean that they use good policy but bad political, it mean that the impact of that policy is large so they need to correct it. All of feedbacks are used to be from the public sectors such as demonstration, post media, or any public interest.

1.6. Corrective actions

If the government get the feedback, they shall be re-draft or issue the new decision to reform the old one, which is effective than before and keep the benefit of public actors too. Here we call good influent of public policy or good policy and good political which have small impact, it means that the conflict is nearly become null. So it is the useful one to government and also the public actors.

2.      Influent

There are ten top reasons to influent public policy

1.      Governments may be planning changes that can negatively affect public organization’s ability to fulfill its mission

2.      Government has many resources at its disposal that can be beneficial to your mission. These include information, contacts, funding, and regulatory levers. Governments also have ability to influent public option as well as change the conditions affecting charitable donations.

3.      If public actors don’t share their view, some else will. There’s been a dramatic increase in the number of charities in the last twenty years. Most causes have their own advocate competing for a place on the government’s agenda.

4.      Government wants to hear from public organization. They are looking for knowledgeable and reliable partners who are close to the real problems of people and willing to work on solutions.

5.      The public actors can advance their case and build trust. They are what they speak out about. Speaking out on public policy issues can increase the profile of your organization and people understand charities, the more supportive they are.

6.      The public organization has valuable experience and insights that can improve the effectiveness of government decisions and action.

7.      Government may be interested in partnering with you to achieve common goals

8.      Governments do not have the answers; a healthy democracy depends on the full participation of all sectors of society in its public affairs. Citizens, especially those who are marginalized, need a vehicle to participate in discussions about the future of their communities, the type of society they want, and the role of government.

9.      The Public donors may be wondering if the public actors are tacking the root cause of problems by looking at how systems and structures affect the issues they are concerned about. In some case, until the root causes are addressed, there may never be enough volunteers, staff, or resources to resolve the issue.

10.  Effective public policy advocacy can result in public organization advancing its mission far beyond the number of people being served directly by their programs.

And finally, being archive on the public policy front is like building up a saving account. Public actors never know when they might need to draw on their balance. For example, it’s often easier to get people’s attention about issues that may negatively affect your clients or services if your organization has already created a positive impression in the community and with decision-makers.

II.                Public Actors

 Public  tactics could include using the media to raise public awareness and concern, pursuing legal channels or influencing the political system. In developing your strategy and the specific tactics, it’s helpful to ask if it’s best to use a low, medium or high profile approach. Here are some considerations:

1.1.Low Profile

For example, a private or low key approach could involve letter writing3, phone calls, face to face meetings with middle level public servants, sending written briefs, or inviting officials to special events. This approach is best when you need to:

• Do fact finding. Find out about the priorities, concerns, and interests of decision-makers and who has decision-making power.

• Explore options and partnership possibilities.

• Build new relationships, create a positive image, raise profile, build ongoing support and new allies.

• Offer solutions, explore options, partnership opportunities.

1.2.Medium Profile

This approach could involve meeting more senior level officials, appearing before a legislative committee, meeting with members of parliament, aligning with other groups, sending letters to politicians or the media. Increasing your profile may be useful when you want to:

• Offer solutions

• Raise concerns, for example, point out the negative consequences of existing or planned actions

• Sway decision-makers’ thinking

• Let other opinion leaders know where you stand.

1.3.High Profile

Activities that would be considered high profile include meeting with opposition members, publicly criticizing the government, releasing information that could be damaging to the government, launching an ad campaign, or undertaking some political action such as a rally or demonstration. A high profile or more public approach can be riskier in that you can alienate those you are trying to influence or illicit criticism from unexpected sources. However, you may wish to use this approach when you want to:

• Exert power by showing how you can rally others to your cause or make the government look bad.

• Raise public awareness and concern.

• Build wider spread support for your cause.

• Have exhausted all other avenues and there’s urgency. While there are no set prescriptions about how to advocate, a list of possible public policy tactics and the benefits of each are outlined in Appendix J. Keep in mind a few common sense principles: be brief, clear, accurate, persuasive, timely, persistent and grateful