AfghanistanPublicPolicyResearchOrganization

July2017TrainingManual

PolicyandInstitutionalAnalysis:AHandbook

www.appro.orga.af 2

AcknowledgementsThefundingforthepreparationofthismanualhasbeenprovidedbytheRoyalNetherlandsEmbassy–AfghanistanthroughagrantfortheAfghanistanRightsMonitor(ARM)project,andSwedishInternationalDevelopmentCooperationAgency(Sida)throughagrantfortheNAP1325Monitorproject.AbouttheAuthorsThismanualwascompiledbySaeedParto.AboutAPPROAfghanistanPublicPolicyResearchOrganization(APPRO)isanindependentsocialresearchorganizationwithamandatetopromotesocialandpolicylearningtobenefitdevelopmentandreconstructioneffortsinAfghanistanandotherlessdevelopedcountriesthroughconductingsocialscientificresearch,monitoringandevaluation,andtrainingandmentoring.APPROisregisteredwiththeMinistryofEconomyinAfghanistanasanon-profitnon-governmentorganizationandheadquarteredinKabul,AfghanistanwithofficesinMazar-eSharif(north),Herat(west),Kandahar(south),Jalalabad(east),andBamyan(center).APPROisalsothefoundingorganizationofAPPRO-Europe,anon-profitassociationregisteredinBelgium,andactsastheSecretariatfortheNationalAdvocacyCommitteeforPublicPolicy(NAC-PP).FormoreinformationonAPPRO,see:www.appro.org.afFormoreinformationonAPPRO-Europe,see:www.appro-europe.netFormoreinformationonNAC-PP,see:www.nac-pp.netContact:mail@appro.org.afandmail@appro-europe.netAPPROtakesfullresponsibilityforallomissionsanderrors.©2017.AfghanistanPublicPolicyResearchOrganization.Somerightsreserved.Thispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystemortransmittedfornon-commercialpurposesonlyandwithwrittencredittoAPPRO.Wherethispublicationisreproduced,storedortransmittedelectronically,alinktoAPPRO’swebsiteatwww.appro.org.afshouldbeprovided.Anyotheruseofthispublicationrequirespriorwrittenpermission,whichmaybeobtainedbywritingto:mail@appro.org.af

www.appro.orga.af 3

TableofContents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4

WhatisPolicyAnalysis?.......................................................................................................... 5

PolicyAnalysisModels............................................................................................................ 7MultipleStreamsApproach ............................................................................................................. 7AdvocacyCoalitionFramework........................................................................................................ 8InstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopmentFramework ........................................................................ 9KeyElementsofACF,MSA,andIAD............................................................................................... 10

AdvocacyCoalitionFramework(ACF) ................................................................................................10MultipleStreamsApproach(MSA) ....................................................................................................10InstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopmentFramework(IAD) ................................................................11

InstitutionalPolicyAnalysis:AFramework ........................................................................... 11Application .................................................................................................................................... 13

PoliticsofPolicyMaking ....................................................................................................... 15AdministrativeRationalism............................................................................................................ 16DemocraticPragmatism................................................................................................................. 16EconomicRationalism.................................................................................................................... 17Kleptocracy.................................................................................................................................... 17

AdvocacyandPolicyMaking................................................................................................. 18PolicyMonitoringandPublicAccountability .................................................................................. 18MonitoringandEvaluations........................................................................................................... 18PolicyChange ................................................................................................................................ 18

www.appro.orga.af 4

Introduction

ThismanualisdevelopedasaresultofAPPRO’scollaborationandinteractionwithnumerousgovernmentagenciesandcivilsocietyorganizationsthroughoutAfghanistansince2007.Themanualisintendedtoserveasaresourceforpolicyanalysistrainersandcivilsocietyindividualsandorganizationsthatwishtopursuepositivesocietalchangethroughpolicyreformandconsistentwiththeprinciplesof“goodgovernance”(seebelow).Indemocracies,therightofcitizensandtheirrepresentativeorganizationstoexpressopinionsanddemanddemocraticchangeareenshrinedintheConstitutionandspecifiedinnumerousrelatedlawsandregulations.Thepre-conditionsofpolicyreforminademocracyarefreedomofassemblyandspeechandaccesstoinformationandcorridorsofpower,allnecessaryelementsofthedemocraticprocess,andpracticalinstrumentsthatfacilitatepolicyreformthroughadvocacy.Thismanualprovidesanoverviewofthepolicyprocessundergoodgovernanceandtheplaceofconstructiveengagementinthatprocess.Theprinciplesofgoodgovernanceareparticipation,ruleoflaw,transparency,responsiveness,consensus,equity,effectivenessandefficiency,accountability,andastrategicvision(Box1).Box1:PrinciplesofGoodGovernanceParticipation:Allmenandwomenshouldhaveavoiceindecision-making,eitherdirectlyorthroughlegitimateintermediateinstitutionsthatrepresenttheirinterests.Suchbroadparticipationisbuiltonfreedomofassociationandspeech,aswellascapacitiestoparticipateconstructively.Ruleoflaw:Legalframeworksshouldbefairandenforcedimpartially,particularlythelawsonhumanrights.Transparency:Transparencyisbuiltonthefreeflowofinformation.Processes,institutionsandinformationaredirectlyaccessibletothoseconcernedwiththem,andenoughinformationisprovidedtounderstandandmonitorthemResponsiveness:Institutionsandprocessestrytoserveallstakeholders.Consensusorientation:Goodgovernancemediatesdifferingintereststoreachabroadconsensusonwhatisinthebestinterestsofthegroupand,wherepossible,onpoliciesandprocedures.Equity:Allmenandwomenhaveopportunitiestoimproveormaintaintheirwellbeing.Effectivenessandefficiency:Processesandinstitutionsproduceresultsthatmeetneedswhilemakingthebestuseofresources.Accountability:Decision-makersingovernment,theprivatesectorandcivilsocietyorganizationsareaccountabletothepublic,aswellastoinstitutionalstakeholders.Thisaccountabilitydiffersdependingontheorganizationsandwhetherthedecisionisinternalorexternaltoanorganization.Strategicvision:Leadersandthepublichaveabroadandlong-termperspectiveongoodgovernanceandhumandevelopment,alongwithasenseofwhatisneededforsuchdevelopment.Thereisalsoanunderstandingofthehistorical,culturalandsocialcomplexitiesinwhichthatperspectiveisgrounded.

Source:UNDP(1997)1

1UNDP(1997),GovernanceforSustainableHumanDevelopment.UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme,citedon:http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/g-attributes.html

www.appro.orga.af 5

WhatisPolicyAnalysis?

Policyanalysisasaspecificdisciplinebegantoemergeastheproblemsbeinganalyzedbecamebroader,policygoalsmoreambitious,andpolicycontextsmorecomplextoincludewholesectorssuchaspublichealth,housing,education,environment,transportation,andeventhewholeeconomyfocusingonsuchissuesasunemploymentorinflation.2Thesectoralandsocietalapproachtopolicymakingnecessitatedmorein-depthunderstandingofchoicemakingwithrespecttotradeoffsamongmultipleandconflictingpriorities.Asadiscipline,policyanalysiswastoprovidebetterunderstandingofthepolicymakingprocessandsupplyreliablepolicy-relevantknowledgeoneconomicandsocialproblems.Inthissense,publicpolicymaybedefinedasaformallyexpressed,anddocumented,intentioncomprisinganumberofspecificdecisionstoeffectsocial,economicandsometimespoliticalchangeortomaintainthestatusquo.Assuch,aconsciousanddocumentedcourseofinactioncanalsobeconstruedasapolicy.Apolicymaybeexpressedasoneormorelaws,rules,statutes,edicts,regulations,order,oracombinationoftheseelements.Theinitialarticulationofpublicpolicyinthe1950s,itsprocesses,anditsanalysiscontainedattributesofmultidisciplinarity,guidancetothepolicymakersformakingpoliticaldecisions,knowledgeofthepolicyprocessamongtherelevantactors,andamodeofgovernanceakintoademocracy.Publicpolicywasthereforeenvisionedasbeinginformedbycollectiveinputofpoliticalscientists,economists,sociologists,anthropologists,psychologists,andstatisticiansandmathematicians.Theidealforminpublicpolicywas,therefore,toutilizequantitativeandqualitativemethods.Policyanalysisalsohasrootsinoperationsresearchandsystematicdecisionmakingofthe1940sandearly1950s,systemsanalysisofthelate1950sandearly1960s,andpolicyanalysisofpublicpoliciesfromthelate1960stothepresent.Asaresult,policyanalysissincethe1990shasbecomemorecloselyassociatedwithmanagerialpractices,duetoitsempirical(andquantitative)orientation,thantothefacilitationofademocraticmodeofgovernance.Thateconomistsbeganandcontinuetoholdswayoverallotherdisciplinesinpublicpolicyspeakstotheabilityofeconomiststoexpresssocial,economic,andpoliticalissuesinanoversimplified,andseeminglymuchmoreprecise,mannerthanotherdisciplinesinsocialsciences.3 “PolicySciences”,aphrasecoinedintheearly1950s,wastostriveforthreeprincipalattributes:• Contextuality:decisionsarepartofalargersocialprocess• ProblemOrientation:Policyscientistsareathomewiththeintellectualactivitiesinvolvedin

clarifyinggoals,trends,conditions,projection,andalternatives.• Diversity:Themethodsemployedarenotlimitedtoanarrowrange.4

2Basedon:Walker,W.E.(2000),PolicyAnalysis:ASystematicApproachtoSupportingPolicymakinginthePublicSector,JournalofMulti-criteriaDecisionAnalysis(9),11–27.

3Basedon:Fischer,F.,G.J.Miller,M.S.Sidney(2007)eds.,HandbookofPublicPolicyAnalysisTheory,Politics,andMethods,(BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress),pagexix.

4Lasswell,H.D.(1971),APreviewofPolicySciences,(NY:ElsevierPublishing).

www.appro.orga.af 6

Policysciencesemphasizedtheneedtomapthepolicyprocess,frominceptiontoimplementationandclosure,withfull,multi-dimensionaldetails.5Thematurationofthepublicpolicyprocessandtheexpansionofitsscopealsomeantthatacceptabilityofpolicysolutionsbythepublicbegantomattermorethanpolicyoptimality.6Sincethe1950spublicpolicymakinghasincreasinglyreliedoninputgatheredthroughpublicopinionsurveys,focusgroups,andtownhallmeetingstoengagethepublicinthepublicpolicyprocess.Tovaryingdegrees,theactorsofthepublicpolicyprocessaretypicallypoliticians,technocrats,naturalscientists,socialscientistswitheconomistsinthelead,interestandlobbyinggroups,andthegeneralpublic.Navigatingaprocessthroughtheoftencollidingintentionsoftheseactorsmakespolicymakinganditsanalysisanartratherthanaprecisescience,thougharguablyalotofbothsocialandnaturalsciencesandpoliticsgoesintothepublicpolicyprocess.7Modernpolicyanalysisisoftencharacterizedasbeingscientifically,objectively,andempiricallybased.Thereisincreasingempiricalevidence,however,thatmajorpolicydecisionsatthehighestlevelssincetheearly1990shavebeenmadebasedmoreonthewhimsofpoliticiansthantheneedsofthepublic,witheconomistsprovidingthe“empirical”justificationsguidedbyneoliberalismastheoverarchingideology,prioritizingprivateeconomicinterestsasthedriversofprogressaboveallothersocietalneeds.Sincethe1990stheassistingroleassignedtopolicyanalystshasbeenincreasinglyconditionalonbeingbasedontangibleeconomicrationalizationandreasoning,preferablyconsistentwiththedominantneoliberalvalues.Thepoliticsofpublicpolicymakingandanappreciationoftheinherentcomplexitiesofthepublicpolicyprocesssincethe1980shaveresultedintheemergenceofacircularviewofthepolicyprocessshapedbythevaluesofandpowerrelationsamongstakeholder,ratherthanaseeminglylinearviewfirstespousedinthe1950s.(Figure2).Modernpolicyanalysissincethe1980shasattemptedtotakeaccountofthecircularityandbidirectionalfeedbacksbetweenthevariouselementsofthepolicyprocess.Atthesametime,amoreexplicitroleisassignedtothepoliticsofthepolicymakingprocess,oftenresultinginpoliciesthatarenotproductsofcomprehensiveandobjectiveevaluationsorlearningfrompastexperience.Thedisjointedtrajectoryofmostpolicies,relationsofanygivenpolicytoanumberofotherpoliciesatdifferentscales,andthebidirectionalfeedbackbetweenthedifferentelementsofapolicydomainforceustoconcludethatintherealworld“policyprocessesrarelyfeatureclear-cutbeginningsandendings…[andthat]policiesareperpetuallyreformulated,implemented,evaluated,andadapted.….Instead,newpolicies(only)modify,change,orsupplementolderpolicies,or–morelikely–competewiththemorcontradicteachother.”8Policymakingandsettingpolicyobjectivesarefarfromrationalandthuscan,ifbadlydesigned,aggravatesocialorsocietalproblemsratherthansolvethem.

5Thismappingisfullyarticulatedinsevenstagesofintelligence,promotion,prescription,invocation,application,termination,andappraisal.SeeLasswellH.D.(1956),TheDecisionProcess:SevenCategoriesofFunctionalAnalysis,(CollegePark,Maryland:UniversityofMarylandPress).

6Simon,H.A.(1969:64-65),TheSciencesoftheArtificial(Cambridge,MA:MITPress).7Bardach,E.(1996),TheEight-StepPathofPolicyAnalysis,(Berkeley,CA:BerkeleyAcademicPress).8Werner,J.andK.Wegrich(2007),“TheoriesofthePolicyCycle”,inFischer,F.,G.J.Miller,M.S.Sidney(eds.),HandbookofPublicPolicyAnalysisTheory,Politics,andMethods,(BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress),Chapter4,pages44-45.

www.appro.orga.af 7

Actorsandfactors,andmechanismsthroughwhichtheyinteractareallfunctionsoftheircontextsdefinedbyafullrangeofinstitutionsthroughwhichactorsincontextsorganizethemselves,orareorganized.Whileitisdifficulttovisualizecontextcomplexity,foranalysisitisnecessarytoattemptvisualizationto,intheleast,attempttounderstandthedifferentelements,theirrelationships,andtheirroleingivingcharactertothecontext.Thismannerofunderstandingcontextshas,ofcourse,beenthedomainofinterestforinstitutionalistssinceearly20thCentury.Contextualizingthepolicyprocessalsonecessitates,duetothepoliticalelementoftheprocess,anappreciationofandanattempttounderstandthemodeofgovernanceofthecontextandthecontext’sinstitutionsthroughwhichthatmodeofgovernanceismaintained.Framingpolicyprocessanditsanalysisshould,therefore,bedoneinconjunctionwithgovernanceanditsinstitutions.Thebestknownpolicyanalysismodelsthatsimultaneouslyincorporateelementsofcircularity,complexity,contextspecificity,andpoliticsareJohnKingdon’s“MultipleStreamsApproach”,SabatierandJenkins-Smith’s“AdvocacyCoalitionFramework”,andOstrom’s“InstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopmentFramework.”Eachofthesemodelsissummarizedinthenextsection.

PolicyAnalysisModels

MultipleStreamsApproach

TheMultipleStreamsApproach(MSA)modelofpolicyanalysisbuildsonthe“garbagecantheory”,firstphrasedinthe1970sbyorganizationalchoicescholars,andarticulatesthreemainstreamswhoseintersectionresultsinpolicies.Thesearethepolicystream(solutions),thepoliticsstream(publicsentiments,changeingovernments),andtheproblemstream(problemperception).9TheMSAmodelalsomakesreferenceto“windowsofopportunity”forthepointsduringtheprocesswhenapolicysolutionorpackageofsolutionsmay“stick”,and“policyentrepreneurs”whosejobistocontinuouslygeneratepolicysolutionsforpoliticianslookingforapolicychoicemostsuitedtotheirneedsorpoliticalpriorities.ThemainelementsoftheMSAframeworkareasfollows:Problemstream:Inallsocietiesthereisalwaysaplethoraofproblemsandissuesthatrequiretheattentionofpolicymakers.Theperceptionsofwhichproblemsneedtobeprioritizedoverallotherschangeovertimeandoftenonshortnoticeasafunctionofmajorphysical,social,orpoliticalevents.Problemsareaddressedthroughpolicybasedonhowtheyarepresentedorframed,bylobbyists,coalitiongroups,orpoliticians.Keyinallcasesisthatnotallproblemscouldbeaddressedbypolicymakersatthesametimeandwiththesamedegreeofurgencyorpriority.Policystream:Therearealwaysanumberofavailablesolutionstoaddressproblemsorissues.Widelyacceptedsolutionsarecontinuallydevelopedbypolicyentrepreneurs(includingtechnocrats,politicalactivistsandacademics)inanticipationoffutureproblemsandinthehopeofattractingtheattentionofpolicymakersinneedofnewsolutions.Politicsstream:Changesinthedominantpoliticalideologyorpersonalitiesinchargeofpolicymakingoftenresultsomeproblemsorissuesacquiringprominenceoverothers,i.e.,achangeinwhatpolicy

9Cohen,M.D.,J.G.March,andJ.P.Olsen.AdministrativeScienceQuarterlyVol17(1),pp.1-25.

www.appro.orga.af 8

issuesshouldbepursuedbypolicymakersasopposedtoothers.Achangeofgovernmentduetoelections,amilitarycoupd’étatoraninvasionoftenresultsinmajorrealignmentsofpolicypriorities.AccordingtotheMSAframework,inanygivenpolicydomainthereisambiguity,competingprioritiesamongpolicyissuesneedingtobeaddressed,scarcityoffullandreliableinformationandtheriskofavailableinformationbeingmanipulated,limitedtimeinwhichtomakeapolicydecision,andaninherentinabilitytoactrationallyduetovariouspressurescombinedwith“boundedrationality.”10TheunitofanalysisinMSAisthepoliticaleconomy,appliedatthenation-statescalebutalsosometimesatlowerorhigherscales.

AdvocacyCoalitionFramework

TheAdvocacyCoalitionFramework(ACF)identifiesvaluesystemsastheprimarybasisonwhichindividualsmakedecisions,includingpolicydecisions.Therearethreeinterdependentlayersofvalues.TheseareDeepCoreValues,PolicyCoreValues,andSecondaryValues.11DeepCoreValues:arefundamentalandnormativeandarelargelyproductsofupbringingandsocialization,whilebeing(usually)contextrelated.Deepcorevaluesareverydifficulttochange.Examplesincludereligiousbeliefsandrigidethnicorideologicalconvictions.Deepcorevaluesrarelychange.PolicyCoreValues:formthefoundationonwhichalliancesorcoalitionsmaybemade.Thebestexampleofapolicycorevalueispoliticalpartyaffiliationbasedonasetofbeliefsaccordingtowhichsocietyshouldfunction.Policycorevaluesareeasiertochangethandeepcorevalues,dependingonthenatureofsocietalchangebeingsoughtthroughpolicy.SecondaryValues:arenarrowerinscopecomparedtodeepcoreandpolicycorevaluesandaremoreempiricallyandpragmaticallybased.Assuch,secondaryvaluescanchangerelativelyeasilyinlightofnewinformationorlearning.Examplesofsecondaryvaluesincludedetailsofpolicyoptionsforthetypesofschoolsbeingbuiltratherthanwhetherornotschoolsshouldbebuilt,thelatterbeingmoreafunctionofdeepcoreandpolicycorevalues.Policiesaretranslationsandoperationalizationsofbeliefsystems,influencedbyorganizedinterestgroups,lobbyists,ethnicandreligiousgroups,politicalpartiesoperatinginmultipledecisionmakingvenues,degreeofconsensusneededforpolicychange,andopennessofthepoliticalsystemmeasuredbasedonthenumberofdecisionmakingvenuesandtheaccessibilityofthosevenuestostakeholdersincludingthoseaffectedbypolicy.TheunitofanalysisinACFisthepolicysubsystem,e.g.,theeducationsector,thoughwiththerecognitionthatallpolicysubsystemsareinfluencedbychangesinthebroaderpoliticalenvironmentandbyothersubsystems.10Boundedrationalityindecisionmakinginvolvesnon-optimizingchoicesandprocedures.See,forexample,Selten,R.(1999),“WhatisBoundedRationality?”SFBDiscussionPaperB-454fortheDahlemConference(Bonn:LaboratoriumfürexperimentelleWirtschaftsforschung:BonnUniversity).

11ThissectionisbasedonSabatier,P.A.andH.C.Jenkins-Smith(1999),“FrameworksFocusingonPolicyChangeoverFairlyLongPeriods”,inSabatier,P.A.(ed.),TheoriesofthePolicyProcess.(BoulderCO:WestviewPress).

www.appro.orga.af 9

InstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopmentFramework

TheInstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopment(IAD)frameworkforpolicyanalysisemphasizesthecollectiveroleofinstitutionsingovernanceandpolicymakingprocesses.Broadlydefined,institutionsgovernhumanactivityandinteractionsineconomic,social,andpoliticalspheres.Inthisbroadview,institutionsincludehighlyabstractandfrequentlyinvisiblestructuresaswellashighlyformalandtangibleartifactsandstructuresthroughwhichinterdependentactorsorganizethemselves,orareorganized.12Figure1.ATypologyofInstitutions

BehaviouralInstitutions:Institutionsasstandardized(recognizable)socialhabits–manifestindeeplyingrainedmodesofbehaviorinindividualsandgroupsasreflectionsofsocialnormsCognitiveInstitutions:Institutionsasmentalmodelsandconstructsordefinitions,basedonvaluesandembeddedinculture–(tobe)aspiredtobyindividualsandgroupsAssociativeInstitutions:Institutionsasmechanismsfacilitatingprescribedorprivilegedinteractionamongdifferentprivateandpublicinterests–manifestinactivitiesofgroupsofindividualsRegulativeInstitutions:Institutionsasprescriptionsandproscriptions–manifestastheimmediateboundariesofactionbyindividualsandgroupsConstitutiveInstitutions:Institutionsasprescriptionsandproscriptionssettingtheboundsofsocialrelations–manifestastheultimateboundariesofactionbyindividualsandgroups

Source:Parto(2008)13

12Parto,S.(2015),“PolicyAnalysisandInstitutionsofGovernance:Analyzing….What?”availablefrom:www.appro-europe.net

13Parto,S.(2008).“InnovationandEconomicActivity:AnInstitutionalAnalysisoftheRoleofClustersinIndustrializingEconomies”.JournalofEconomicIssues42(4):1005-1030.

www.appro.orga.af 10

Institutionsmaybedefinedasrules,norms,habitsorstrategiesthatcreateincentivesanddisincentivestoshapebehaviorinrepetitive/predictablesituations.Institutionsmayalsobephysicalentitiesandartifactssuchasministriesoracademicentities,laws,policies,orproceduresthatactasmechanismsforadjustingbehaviorinasituationthatrequirescoordinationamongtwoormoreindividualsorgroupsofindividuals.Institutionalistanalysisofthepolicyprocessmust,therefore,bebasedonin-depthknowledgeofhowtherelevantactorsbehaveandwhy.14Giventhecentralroleofinstitutionsinthepolicyprocess,itisnecessarytohaveapracticalworkingdefinitionforeachcategoryofinstitution,applicabletotheanalysisofpolicyatdifferentstagesofthepolicymakingprocessandatdifferentscalesofgovernance.Figure1isanattempttomeetthisneed.Inadditiontothenecessityofhavingworkingdefinitionsforthedifferenttypesofinstitution,therichhistoryofinstitutionalthoughtineconomics,politicalscience,sociology,andanthropologypointstothehighlycomplexcontextofpolicymakingasasocialactivityand,thus,callsforinputandreflectionfrommultipledisciplinesandanalysesatmultiplelevelsofactivityandatdifferentscalesandtypesofgovernance.15TheunitofanalysisintheIADframeworkforpolicyanalysisisthearena,quitesimilarincharacteristicstoACF’s“policysubsystem”(seeabove).

KeyElementsofACF,MSA,andIAD

AdvocacyCoalitionFramework(ACF)

• Beliefsystemsaremoreimportantthaninstitutionalaffiliation• “Subsystem”istheunitofanalysis• Actors“learn”andperiodicallychangetheirbeliefsystemsandrevisestrategies• Actorsmaybepursuingavarietyofobjectives• Researchersandjournalists(inadditiontopoliticians,bureaucrats,andcitizensgroups)are

potentiallysignificantpolicyactors• Changesinthecoreaspectsofapolicyareusuallytheresultsofchangesinnon-cognitivefactors

externaltothepolicysubsystem,e.g.,themacro-economicorpoliticalconditions• Thepolicyprocesshastobestudiedoveraperiodofadecadeorlonger

MultipleStreamsApproach(MSA)

• “Messiness”ofthepolicyprocessistakenasthebaseline• “Policyformation”andchangeareproductsofacomingtogetherofproblems,policies,politics,and

randomeventscreatingwindowsopportunitiesfornewideas• “Policies”areproposedandlobbiedforby“policyentrepreneurs”,e.g.,politicians,bureaucrats,

analysts,consultants,journalists,andacademics.• “Politics”arepoliticalprocessessuchaselectionsandtheiraftermathsortheroleof“regulatory”

factors,e.g.,pressuregroups,inagendaformation,awarenessraising,andlearning

14Ibid.15FormoreinformationonIAD,see:Ostrom,E.(1999),“InstitutionalRationalChoice:AnAssessmentoftheInstitutionalAnalysis”,inSabatier,P.A.andH.C.Jenkins-Smith(eds.)TheoriesofthePolicyProcess(BoulderCO:WestviewPress),pp.35-73.

www.appro.orga.af 11

InstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopmentFramework(IAD)

• “Physical/materialconditions”,“AttributesofCommunity”,and“Rules-in-Use”constitutethestartingpointintheanalysis

• “ActionArena”istheunitofanalysis,consistingof“actionsituations”,e.g.,anenvironmentalproblem,and“actors”(individualsandorganizations)

• Individualsare“falliblelearners”capableofmakingmistakesandlearning• Learningdependsontheavailabilityofincentivesandopportunitiesin“institutionalarrangements”• “PatternsofInteractions”amongactorsofanactionsituationgenerate“outcomes”whose

evaluationagainstpredeterminedsocietalcriteriaprovidesfeedbackforthevariousstagesofthepolicyprocess

InstitutionalPolicyAnalysis:AFramework

Inlightofthediscussionintheprecedingsections,wecanrevisitthenotionsofgovernanceandinstitutionstomakethefollowingstatementsasworkingdefinitionsandguidepostsforconductinginstitutionalpolicyanalysis:• Themodeofgovernanceisthemannerinwhichacommunityofinterdependentactorsorganizes

itselfatthelowestscaleandisorganizedfromthehighestscale.• Governanceisintimatelyrelatedtoamultiplicityofinstitutions,asdepictedinFigure1,through

whichitisexercised.• Governanceforeffectingsocietalchangehastopayparticularattentiontoformalandinformaland

tangibleandintangibleinstitutions(Figure1)andtheirfunctionsinfacilitatingandcurtailingchange• Tofullyaccountfortheroleofinstitutionsinpolicyanalysisweneedto:

• Identifytheproblems,events,actors,andotherfactorsthatcollectivelyactascatalystsforprocessesthatprecedetheemergenceofinstitutionsandpolicyproblemsintheircurrentforms,16

• Establishthecontrollabilityofthesecatalystsandusetheinformationinselectingpolicymeasuresthatutilizethecatalysts,

• Setinmotioninstitutionalizationprocessesthatneutralizeundesirable/unsustainableinstitutionsandreinforcedesirable/sustainableinstitutionsalreadypresent,and

• Identifywhatcomplementarycatalystsmaybeinitiatedthroughpolicyorotherinterventiontosteerchange.

Institutionalchangethroughpolicyinterventionismorelikelytooccurifintroducedthroughweakerentrypointsonthebehavioral-constitutivecontinuumdepictedinFigure1.AmajorpolicyimplicationofthisperspectiveoninstitutionsofgovernanceisthatmanagingsocietalchangerequiresGovernmentinterventionthroughpolicymeasuresasamaincatalystforinstitutingchange.Sincegovernmentinterventiondoesnotoccurinavacuumandisoften,inrelativedemocracies,shapedbycivilsociety,in-depthunderstandingisalsoneededonthenatureandcharacteristicsofstate-civilsocietyinterfaceandtheinstitutions,i.e.,therules,norms,andprotocols,thatgovernthatinterface.

16Ostrom,E.(1999),SabatierandJenkins-Smith(1993,1999),andKingdon,J.(1984[1995]),Agendas,Alternatives,andPublicPolicies(Boston:Little,Brown).

www.appro.orga.af 12

Thesuggestedmethodologycanbeusedtoidentifythevariables(decisions,situations,andotherfactors)thatmayhaveplayedkeyrolesineffectingatransitionfromone“stable”statetoanotherinthesubsystemunderstudy.Byweightingandrankingtheidentifiedvariableswecanidentifythemostimportantvariablesofthepolicysubsystemorarena,trackchangesinthepropertiesofthesevariablesovertime,andassessthemforcontrollability.Thenextstepistomakeeducatedguessesaboutthemixofvariableslikelytofacilitateatransitionfromthecurrentstateofaffairstoamoredesirablestablestate,e.g.,fromaweakeducationsystemtoastronger,higherqualityone.AschematictosummarizetheaboveconsiderationsforpolicyanalysisispresentedinFigure2.Figure2:DynamicsofthePolicyProcess

Source:AdaptedfromParto(2015)Theinstitutionalistperspectiveviewsinstitutionsasthebindingagentinhumaninteractionsandmanifestatalllevelsofinter-relation,scalesofgovernance,andthroughdifferentspheresofhumanactivityinagivensituation.Viewedinthismanner,Figure1canbeusedtoinventoryandcategorizethefullrangeofinstitutionsinagivenpolicyarena.Thefinalstepinthisproposedapproachistodevelopandplayoutpolicyscenarioswhilemakingallowancesthatsomeofthehistoricalcausalitiesmaynotholdduetochangedconditions.Also,cautionhastobetakentodealwiththepotentialconsequencesofpolicyexperimentationfailures.Itiscrucialtoapplytheproposedmethodologyconcretelyandspecificallytoanarenaorsubsystemmanageableinsizeandclearlydelineatedforitsboundaries.Examplesincludepoliciesonmunicipalwastemanagement,genderequalityintheworkplace,orpublictransportationratherthanlargeall-encompassingquestionssuchas“sustainabledevelopment”or“goodgovernance.”Atthesametime,thedelineationmustbeappliedwithoutlosingsightofthelargerpictureandtheever-presentinfluenceoffactorsexternaltothedelineatedarena.Asaprofession,policyanalysisexamineswhatactionswouldbestservethepublicinterestinagivensituation,andhowthoseactionscanbesuccessfullyelaboratedasformalpolicyandimplementedby

www.appro.orga.af 13

stateactorswithsupportfromtheircivilsocietyconstituents.Toincreasethelikelihoodofsuccessandsustainabilityofpolicyoutcomes,modernpolicyanalysisfocusesonconflictresolution,partnership,consultation,participationandengagingabroadspectrumofstakeholdersinthedecision-makingprocesstogaintheirsupportandreflecttheinterestsofawiderangeofcommunityofactorsinpolicydecisions.Aninformedandpragmaticpolicyanalystcanrelativelyeasilyidentifytherelevantactors,relevantfactors,andthemechanismsthatfacilitateorcurtaildiscourseonpolicyformationandimplementationwithoutbecomingentrenchedinnormativedisputeswithcompetingfactionsinapolicyarena.Theguidingquestionsforpolicyanalysisalongthelinesdescribedaboveare:• Howarepolicydecisionsmade?Or,whatisthemodeofgovernance?• Whoaretheactors?• Whatarethefactors?• Howinvolvedarenon-policymakersinpolicydecisionmakingprocesses?• Whatspecificmechanismsaretherefornon-policymakers’involvementinpolicydecisionmaking

processes?• Whataretheformalpolicydiscoursemechanisms?• Mostimportantly,whyareweinterestedinthepolicyprocess?Modernpolicyanalysisplaceslessemphasisonadministrative/technocraticaspectsofpolicymakingandstressestheunderstandingoftheprocessitselfandlearningfromhowtheprocessunfoldsthroughoutthepolicycycle.Itencouragesdemocraticpragmatismandeconomicrationalisminrecognitionoftheneedforaninclusivedecision-makingprocessbasedoneconomicrealities.Itfurtherhighlightstheroleofinformal,intangibleinstitutionsininfluencingthepolicyprocessatitsvariousstages.

Application

ThedescriptionsfortherelationshipssummarizedinFigure2areasfollows:PhysicalandMaterialConditions:consistofgeography,resourcescarcity/availabilityanddistribution.Policiesarealmostalwaysaffectedbyphysicalandmaterialconditionsoftheplace.Decisionsabouthealth,education,oragricultureinonecountry,bynature,differfromthoseinanothercountrywithadifferentgeography,climate,andavailablehumanandfinancialresources,forinstance.Analyzingsuchdecisionsdemandsin-depthunderstandingoftheseconditionsandhowtheyinfluencepolicyoutcomes.AttributesoftheCommunity:suchasvalues,beliefs,customs,andtraditionshavedeeprootsinacommunity’shistoryandhowithasevolvedovercenturies.Theyhaveasignificantbearingontheimplementationofpolicy.Apracticalpolicymakeroragoodpolicyanalystrecognizesthenearimpossibilityofchangingfundamentalvaluesandbeliefsintheshortandmediumterms.DecisionMakingSystem:isthemannerinwhichdecisionsaremadeatthecommunitylevel.Typically,thesystemconsistsoftacitrules,regulations,andagreementsandfunctionsaccordingtoclearlyunderstood,thoughoftenundocumented,hierarchieswithrootswithinthecommunity.

www.appro.orga.af 14

Theabovethreeelementsaretheprimaryingredientsoftheinformal/intangible/socialinstitutionsasillustratedinFigure1.Thesethreeelementsfullydefinebehavioralinstitutions,largelyinformcognitiveinstitutions,andformthebeginningsofassociativeinstitutions(Figure1).FormalInstitutionalContext:referstotheverytangible,structuringentitiessuchasgovernmentministriesandagencies,semi-governmentagencies,academicorganizations,andformalreligiousorganizationsestablishedby,orworkinginclosecoordinationwith,thestatetomeetspecificneedswithinthecommunity.Formalinstitutionalcontextalsoincludesthedocumentedregulatoryframework.PatternsofInteractionsBetweenFormalandInformalInstitutions:Inanygivencontext,therearenumerousinterfacesbetweenlessformal/intangibleinstitutionsandformal/tangibleinstitutions.Themannerinwhichtheseinterfacesoccurshapesthediscourseonpolicyissuesandsetstheparametersofthepolicyprocess.Policy:Formalpolicyisoftentheproductoftheconfluenceofinterestsofactorsoperatingthroughformalandinformal,tangibleandintangibleinstitutions.Problem(s):Implementingpoliciesoftenresultsinidentificationofnewproblems,and/orcreatingnewproblemsparticularlywhenthepolicyisilldesigned.Itisalsopossiblethatunforeseenanduncontrollableevents,suchviolentconflictornaturaldisasters,createnewproblemswithinthepolicyarena.Policiesaredevelopedtoeffectchangeandaddressproblems.Notallpoliciessucceedinachievingtheirintendedresultsandeveniftheydoso,theyarelikelytoidentifynewproblems.Thefullexerciseofpolicy-makingasdescribedhereattemptstopreventandminimizethelikelihoodoffutureproblems.However,giventhecomplexityoftheprocessandthemultitudeofactorsandfactors,itisextremelydifficulttoavoidunintendedconsequences.Thismakespolicy-makingacyclicalprocessinwhichnewproblemsandtheirimpactswillbefactoredinaswerevise/redefineotherinputsintheprocesssuchasphysicalandmaterialresources,communityattributes,andsoon.Theproblems,identifiedorcreated,attheendofthepolicycyclenecessitateareturntothebeginningoftheprocessasillustratedinFigure2.ScopeandScaleofPolicy:Policyarenasvaryinscopeandscale.Thescopemaybetheentireeducationsubsystem,forexample,oracomponentofthesubsystemsuchasprimaryeducation.Thescalemaybe:

• Organizational–forinstance,tochangeexternalstrategyorchangeformsandstructureswithinanorganization,beitsmallorlarge

• National–forinstance,specificactionorgroupsofactivitiestoaddressgenderequality,regional/internationaltrade,anti-corruption,orenvironmentalprotection.

• Regional–forinstance,specificactionorgroupsofactivitiestoaddressgenderequality,regional/internationaltrade,anti-corruption,environmentalprotection,anti-smuggling,orbordersecurity.

• Global–forinstance,subscribingtoandabidingbytherulesoftheWorldTradeOrganization,internationalsecurityorclimatechangeagreements,andinternationalconventionsonhumanrights.

PolicyHierarchy:Apolicyisusuallymadeupofasetofdecisionsandrelatedactivitiestoaddressaproblemoranissue.Also,apolicyisusuallyacomponentofabroaderstrategy.Policiesaremadetostayontrackinimplementingastrategywithmultiple,longertermobjectives.

www.appro.orga.af 15

Figure3:PolicyHierarchy

Astrategymaybespecifictoanorganization,amunicipality,anationstate,oramultiplicityofnationstatessharingthesameprioritiesinaddressinganissueorsetsofissues.Forexample,anationstatemayhaveastrategytobecomemorecompetitiveortobalanceitsbudget.Thestrategicintentionistranslatedintopoliciesindifferentsectors,usuallyrepresentedbytheformalinstitutionsofstatesuchasministriesornationaldepartments.Eachministryornationaldepartmentmaydefineitsownsub-strategytomeetthepolicyobjectivessetforitssectoratthenationallevel.Regardlessofthelevelofthestrategy,i.e.,nationalorministerial/departmental,policiesneedtobedevelopedtoarticulateandspecifyhowthestrategyistobeimplementedandthroughwhatchanges.Eachpolicyisthenbrokendownintoaseriesofplanswhileeachplanconsistsofaseriesofprograms.Eachprogramcanbebrokendownintoaseriesofrelatedprojectswhileeachprojectsetsaseriesofspecificactivitiestomeettheproject’sobjectives(Figure3).

PoliticsofPolicyMaking

Thepolicyprocesshasbeencalledmessybecauseitisbothcomplexandcomplicated.Theprocessis“complex”becauseithumanlynotpossibletoknoweverythingaboutthemultitudeofinternalandexternalactorsandfactorsthatdonotalwaysactorbehaveinpredictableoridentifiableways.Acomplexsystemcannotbedesigned.Rather,itadaptsandevolves.Thepolicyprocessisalso“complicated”becausetherearemanyactors,factors,andmechanismswithmanyinter-relationsandinteractionsamongthemthatneedtobetakenintoaccount,rankedforimportance,andmonitored.Thepolicyprocesscontainsmanyactors,formingtemporaryorlongertermcoalitions,thatattempttoinfluencepolicymakersatdifferentlevelsofgovernment.Policymakingbureaucraciesandpolicyactivists/lobbyistshaveasharedvocabularyandoperatingproceduresthatfavorparticularsourcesof

www.appro.orga.af 16

evidenceoverothersandparticularframingandphrasingofissues,suchas“valueformoney”,“makingeconomicsense”,“consensusbased”,“politicallyprudent”,“communityoriented”,or“demanddriven”thatoftenimplythepoliticalorideologicalstanceoftheproponent.Thepoliticalmoodofthemomenthasasignificantbearingonwhichpolicysolutionsareacceptable/palatabletothepolicymakingbureaucratsandwhicharenot.Thepoliticalmood,however,isnotaconstantinthepolicyprocessbutavariable.Regardlessofthepoliticalmood,itisalmostalwayspossibletoadvocateorlobbyforspecificpolicyprioritiesaslongastheproposedprioritiesresonatewithatleastsomeofthekeyprinciplepremisesofthedominantpoliticalmood.Thesharedvocabulary,andthemannersinwhichpolicypreferencesareframedandphrased,maybecategorizedasfollows.

AdministrativeRationalism

Administrativerationalismistheproductofeffortstodevelopthestateasapracticalandfunctionalentitytoorganizetheincreasinglycomplexsocial,economic,andpoliticalaffairsofindustrializedsocieties.Formany,theattemptatfunctionalizingthestateandthepolicyprocessthroughadministrativerationalismhasbecomeaninstrumentforpromotingliberalcapitalism,particularlythevarietythatcallsforaminimalrolebythestateandanalmostcompleterelianceonthefreeandunregulatedmarketforcesforresolvingthemulti-faceted,complex,complicated,andongoingpolicychallengesofmodernindustrialsocieties.Administrativerationalismreliesheavilyonscientificandtechnicalexpertiseandbureaucratichierarchies.Giventheisolationofthescientists,technicians,andbureaucratsfromtheconstituents,theyarevulnerabletobeing“captured”byspecialinterestsoflobbyistsandpoliticalparties.17Alsobecauseoftheirisolationfromtheirconstituents,policymakersfunctioningaccordingtotheprinciplesofadministrativerationalismareoftenfocusedonaddressingacuteproblemswithnospaceortimetodevelopdifferentsolutions,experiment,orlearnfromsuccessandfailures.

DemocraticPragmatism

Democraticpragmatismasanapproachinpolicymakingemergedinresponsetothecrisesofadministrativerationalismanditsinabilitytoaddressdiscontentaroundenvironmentalissues.18Toovercomethisinability,democraticpragmatismcallsforincreasedengagementofthepublicinenvironmentaldecisionmakingandthusdrawingandengagingwithmoreactorsfromthepublicthanunderadministrativerationalism.Themovefromadministrativerationalismcoincidedwiththemovefromgovernmenttogovernance,withgovernancebeingaconstellationofactorsratherthanonlyonemainactorasinthecaseofgovernment.Democraticpragmatismreliesoninformalmodesofengagementwithamultiplicityofactorswithcompetinginterests.However,thetendencytoincludepolicyconstituentsdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthepolicymakersareimmunetobeingcapturedbytherichandthepowerful.Regardlessofthe

17“Regulationis…aprocess,bywhichinterestgroupsseektopromotetheirprivateinterest...Overtime,regulatoryagenciescometobedominatedbythe[entities]regulated.”RichardPosner(1972,1974,1998).

18Dryzek,J.S.(2005),PartIII(SolvingEnvironmentalProblems)

www.appro.orga.af 17

vulnerabilitytobeingcaptured,democraticpragmatismhasassociatedanumbercrucialtermsandphrasestothevocabularyofthepolicyprocess,including“publicconsultation”,“alternativedisputeresolution”,“policydialogue”,”laycitizendeliberation”,“townhallmeetings”,“publicenquiries”,and“right-to-knowenquiries”.

EconomicRationalism

Economicrationalismhasbeenpopularamongpoliticalleaderssincetheearly1980s.Thecornerstonesofeconomicrationalismareprivatizationofallproperty,minimalornoregulation,eliminationofprotectiveassociationssuchastradeunions,andusingthemarket’ssupplyanddemandfunctionstoputtherightpriceonasmanythingsasapossible.Criticsofeconomicrationalismworrythatcomplyingwiththeseprincipleswithoutquestioningtheirpotentiallydevastatingdistributionalimpactsplaysdirectlyintothehandsoftheproponentsofapoliticalideologythatstronglyfavorsthewealthyattheexpenseofthepoorandvulnerableandresultsinwideningtwogaps,onebetweentherichandthepoorwithinthenationsandtheotherbetweenthewealthynationsandpoornations.Amorenuancedformofeconomicrationalismhasbeenpracticed,somewhatsuccessfully,innorthwesternEuropeancountrieswherethestatecontinuestoplayamajorroleinregulatingthemarket.

Kleptocracy

Kleptocracymeans“rulebystealing”andischaracterizedbynepotismandcroneyism.Structuredkleptocracyfunctionsbasedonaverticalintegrationofnetworks,characterizedbyanelitethattakesinthelionshareofextortedorstolenfunds,andtheadditionalleviesfrombribescollectedbypettycriminalsinextortivegovernmentpositions.Thepettybribetakerspurchasetheirpositions,oftenatstaggeringprices,basedonthebribe-takingutilityofthepositionsandthecertaintyoftheprospectofpayingbackthedebtincurredtobuytheposition,throughcollectionofbribesextortedfromahaplessandincreasinglydiscontentedpublic.19Inkleptocraticmodesofgovernance,moneyandpowerareconcentratedinthehandsoftheeliteandthereareweakornonexistentruleoflaw,widespreadandmulti-levelimpunity,systemic(white)corruption,andadysfunctionalbureaucracy.Thenetresultoftheconfluenceoffactorsisasystemicinabilitytoeffectpositivechangethroughpolicyintervention,sincethepowerfulstrivetomaintainthestatusquoevenifthereispoliticalwillatthehighestlevelforchange,therearenosanctionsagainstcriminalandanti-societalbehavior,andstatecoffersconstantlyhaveinsufficientfundstofinancesystematicpolicyimplementation.Dependingonthecontext,themodeofgovernancehas,tovaryingdegrees,elementsofadministrativerationalism,democraticpragmatism,economicrationalism,andkelptocracy.Thechallengeforthepragmaticpolicyanalystistounderstandthemodeofgovernanceandthedriversthatsustainitandtodevisepoliciesthatcanbeimplementeddespitetheseeminglyinsurmountablesystemicbarriers.

19SeeAPPRO(2017),ReconceptualizationofCorruptioninAfghanistan,availablefrom:http://appro.org.af/?publication=re-conceptualizing-corruption-in-afghanistan-an-institution-of-bad-governance

www.appro.orga.af 18

AdvocacyandPolicyMaking

PolicyMonitoringandPublicAccountability

Almostalleffortsbycivilsocietytoreformpolicycommencewithobservationandmonitoringoftheimplementationandeffectivenessofpoliciesalreadyinplace.20Thesemightinclude,forexample,commitmentstointernationalconventionsonfundamentalrightssuchasfoodsecurity,genderequality,andenvironmentalprotectionorcommitmentsthroughnationalpoliciesonvariousissuessuchaseducation,nutrition,health,orcorruption.21Highprofilepolicymonitoringbycivilsocietyorganizationscancontributetoimprovedpolicyimplementationandpolicyeffectivenessbyraisingawarenessonpublicpolicyobjectivesanddrawingpublicattentiontounderperformanceortopolicyfailure.Policymonitoringbycivilsocietyorganizationsmaybeinone-offinvestigationsintoparticularareasofinterest,conductingbaselineassessmentsofsituationsaboutwhichreliableorup-to-dateinformationislacking,orfollow-upresearchafterthepolicyhasbeenrolledouttoestablishwhatresultswereachieved.Policymonitoringmayalsobeperiodicmonitoringreportsatsetintervalstotrackprogresstoward,orawayfrom,policyobjectives.Inthissense,monitoringforeffectivenessorforadvocacypurposesmirrorsappliedpolicyanalysis.22Righttoinformationlaws,wheretheyexist,areindispensibleinstrumentsforcivilsocietyinacquiringpolicy-relevantinformationfromotherwiseuncooperativeofficials.23

MonitoringandEvaluations

Involvingcitizensandcivilsocietyorganizationsintheprocessofpolicymonitoringandevaluationandgatheringdatausingsuchinstrumentsascitizensurveys,socialaudits,andparticipatorypolicyreviewstrengthenadvocacyeffortsandeventualimpact.24

PolicyChange

Gainingentryandexertinginfluenceattheearlystagesofpolicydesigninthepolicymakingprocesscanbeveryeffectiveinshapingpolicyoutcomes.Activeparticipationinthepolicyprocessrequiresengagementwithbureaucratsandpoliticians,notallofwhommaybesupportiveofcivilsocietyhavingasayinthepolicydesign.25Campaignsforpolicychangeutilizeawiderangeoftoolsandtacticsincludingpublicdemonstrations,protests,letterwriting,petitions,lobbying,usingconventionalandsocialmedia,andlegalaction.Campaigningforpolicychangecanbeconfrontationalinnature.20FromAPPRO(2017),“Evidence-based,ConstructiveAdvocacy:AHandbook”,availablefrom:http://appro.org.af/publication/evidence-based-constructive-advocacy-a-handbook/,basedonAssociationforProgressiveCommunications–APC(2014),availablefrom:https://www.apc.org/en/node/9456.

21FromAPC(2014)22See,forexample,Parto,S.(2015),“PolicyAnalysisandInstitutionsofGovernance–Analyzing….What?,availablefrom:http://appro-europe.net/publication/

23FromAPC(2014)24FromAPC(2014)25FromAPC(2014)

www.appro.orga.af 19