Introduction:
The final stage of the policy process in the sequential pattern of activities is the evaluation of the policy. Evaluation is concerned with what happens, once a policy has been put into effect. It is concern with the assessment or appraisal of policy.
Definition of Policy Evaluation:
Evaluation is not monitoring. Evaluation is retrospective and occurs after actions have been taken. It is concerned with trying to determine the impact of policy on real-life condition. In the words of whole, policy evaluation is the assessment of the overall effectiveness of a national programme in meeting its objectives or assessment of the relative effectiveness of two or more program in meeting common objectives.
Above the discussion, we can say as following-
1. Policy evaluation is final stage of the policy process.
2. Evaluation is concerned with what happens one’s policy has put into effect.
3. Concerned with assessment or appraisal.
4. Evaluation is retrospective and occurs return after have been taken.
Criteria for policy evaluation: Analysts use different types of criteria to evaluation policy outcomes.
1. Effectiveness: By effectiveness is meant the degree of objective achievement. It refers to whether a given course of action results in the attainment of an objective. It is often measured in terms of units of products or services or their monetary costs.
2. Efficiency: Efficiency is of critical importance in evaluating public policies. The term efficiency we use to denote the output/ input ratio of a public administration system or an organisational unit. By efficiency is meant the amount of effort required to produce a given level of effectiveness.
3. Adequacy: Adequacy refers to sufficiency for a specific requirement. Adequacy refers to whether a given level of effectiveness results in the satisfaction of needs or values. While the policy effectiveness criterion by the relationship between this two.
4. Equity: Equity refers to the distribution of effects and effort among different groups in society. For example, the criterion of equity implies the question, “Are costs and benefits distributed equitably among the different groups?” The criterion of equity is closely related to fair or just distribution of effects (monetary benefits) and effort (monetary costs).
5. Responsiveness: By the responsiveness is meant that a policy satisfies the needs or values of particular groups. Policies designed to promote educational opportunity or health status of the basis of the criterion of responsiveness.
6. Appropriateness: Finally the criterion of appropriateness is also used to evaluate policies. The criterion of opportunities is closely related to rationality. Appropriateness refers to the worth of the objectives of a programme. This dimension is concerned with judgement about a policy’s fitness and suitability.
Forms of policy evaluation: Policy evaluation is a difficult exercise. It is carried on in a variety of ways by a variety of evaluators.
1. Evaluation by operating staff: Evaluation by those delivering the programme has important implications. A big advantage is that an inside will have little problems regarding access to information. He has detailed knowledge of just what is involved.
2. Evaluation by specialized staff: Evaluation can be carried out by a specialized staff concerned with evaluation and analysis rather than policy delivery. A big advantage of evaluation by specialized staff is that do not have any vested interest in the continuation of any given programme.
3. Evaluation by parliamentary committees: Parliament and executive bodies which gave legal authority to policy are likely to be concerned with assessing success. Such evaluation may be directly conducted by the staff of the parliament or executive bodies or by commissioning outside consultants.
4. Evaluation by office of the comptroller and auditor general: the office of the comptroller and auditor general which is regarded as an arm of the parliament has broad statutory authority to ensure the accountability of the executive parliament or the state legislature. It assists the legislature in the effective exercise of their financial control.
5. Evaluation by Public Inquiry commissions: Inquiry commissions constituted under the central vigilance commission, the law commission, planning commission, etc. can also be used as a means of policy evaluation. They are commissioned to ensure greater public confidence in the evaluation results either for reasons of expertise or because a report from the commissions might appear to be objective.
Issues of the Acceptability of Evaluation Results:
After the submission on the findings, the policy evaluator assumes that it will immediately be taken up the policy makers, especially if the evaluation had been commissioned by the government. Latter he finds that the evaluation results have not been utilized in most cases. In certain cases, if the policy implications of evaluation are not clear. If evaluation results are to be utilized they have to be in a communicable language comprehensible to decision makers. Such communication should include an indication of the limitation of the research measurement problems and the quality of information collected or the method of analysis.
Problems in Policy Evaluation: The evaluation of public programme is confounded by many factors. Some of these as following-
1. Unclear Policy Goals: If policy goals are unclear or are not specified in any measurable form, determining the extent to which they have been achieved becomes a complex and cumbersome task.
2. Problem of Measurement: even when the goals have been expressed in clear and concrete language. There is the difficulty of measuring the extent to which these goals have been achieved. In the public sector, measuring results is still more difficult. It is difficult to measure the performance of the public sector programmes in the absence of any ready means of judging the performance.
3. Problem of Targets: Related to the problem of determination and achievement goals, is the problem of target population. Data necessary to evaluate the programme may not be available or may be available on an unsuitable form. The information gathered in the ensure of delivery of policy may highlight much about the characteristics of the people actually receiving the benefit but little regarding the target population.
Conclusion:
The final stage of the policy process is the assessment of what has happened regarding the implementation of the policy. Policy evaluation is a major political process. Evaluating a public programme involves in the listing of the goals of the programme, measuring the degree to which these goals have been achieved and finally suggesting changes that might bring the performance of the organisation more in line with the intended purpose of the programme
Policy Implementation
Policy implementation is the last stage to all of activities of policy regarding process. There are many model develop for policy implementation process that purpose is specific way identify by which policy implementation process become easy without face any critical barriers. For that Van Horn and Van Meter represent a model which is significant model of policy implementation process.
Definition of policy implementation:
Policy implementation as the process of putting actions into effect by public and private individuals. In its most general form it is the phase between a decisions and operations.
According to Williams, “In its most general form an inquiry about implementation … seeks to determine whether an organization can bring together men and material in a cohesive organizational unit and motivate them in such a way as to carry out the organizations stated objectives.”
According to Donald S. Van Meter and Carl E. Van Horn, “Policy implementation encompasses those actions by public and private individuals (or group) that are directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in the prior of policy decisions.”
So we can simply say that the implementation process includes what goes on between the pronouncement of a policy and its actual effect. It is important to look at implementation not only in terms of putting policy into effect, but also in terms of observing what actually happens.
Policy implementation process model of Van Meter and Van Horn:
Donald S. Van Meter and Carl E. Van Horn have given a significant model for implementation process. Its have great utility in third world countries like Bangladesh. This model consists of several factors which shape the linkage between independent variables and the dependent variables of interest. It also makes explicitly the relationship among the independent variables. Furthermore it aids in the description of the policy implementation process and serve as a guide in research by generating suggestive hypothesis.
Hypothesis of the Model: we will classify policies according to two distinguishing characteristics-
The amount of change involved and the extent to which there is goal consensus among the participants in the implementation process.
The element of change is important in at least two respects.
1) Implementation will be affected by the extent to which the policy deviates from previous policy.
2) The implementation process will be influenced by the amount of organizational change that is required.
Policies which mandate change in the relationship among participants involved in the implementation process will be more difficult to carry out than will policies which require only marginal change in established relationship.
Variables/ Factors of the Model: There are 6 variables in this model which shape the linkage between policy and performance. These variables are-
1) Policy standards and objectives
2) Policy resources
3) Organisational communication and enforcement activities.
4) Economic, Social and Political conditions
5) The characteristics of the implementing agencies
6) The disposition of implementers
1) Policy standards and objectives: The subordinate’s participation in decision making will necessarily result in goal consensus: nor can it be concluded that the problems of implementation will be removed once goal consensus has been achieved.
The combination of these two features produces a typology of public policies as show in below-
Figure: Dimension of policy affecting implementation.
We are hypothesizing that implementation will be most successful where only marginal change is required and goal consensus is high, conversely where major change is mandated and goal consensus is low.
In determining standards and objectives one could use the statements of policy makes as reflected in numerous documents such as program regulation and guidelines which spell out the criteria for an evaluation of policy performance.
2) Policy Resources: policies furnish more than the standards and objectives against which to judge implementation: they also make available resources which facilitate their administration. The resources may include funds on other incentives in the program that might encourage on facilitate effective implementation.
3) Interorganizational communication and enforcement activities: communication within and between organisation is a complex and difficult process. In transmitting messages downward in an organisation or from one organisation to another. In the context of interorganisational (or inter governmental) relations two types of enforcement or follow up activities are-
a. Technical advice and assistance can be provided.
b. Superiors (or federal officials) can rely on a wide variety of sanctions both positive and negative.
4) Economic, Social and Political condition: The impact of economic, social and political conditions on public policy has been the comparative state politics and public policies have been particularly interested in identifying the influence of these environmental variables on policy outputs. Although the impact of these factors on the implementation of policy decisions has received little attention, they may have a profound effect on the performance of implementing agencies.
5) The characteristics of implementing agencies: Students of bureaucratic politics have identified many characteristics of administrative agencies that affect their policy performance. The following characteristics that may impose on an organizations capacity to implement policy.
a. The competence and size of an agency’s staff.
b. The degree of hierarchical control of sub-unit decisions and processes within the implementing agencies.
c. An agency’s political resources
d. The validity of organization
e. The degree of “open” communications within an organization
f. The agencies formal and informal linkages with the policy making or policy enforcing body.
6) The disposition of implementation: Each of the components of the model discussed above must be filtered through the perceptions of the implementers within the jurisdiction where the policy is delivered.
Three elements of the implementer’s response may affect their ability and willingness to carry out the policy,
a. Their cognition (comprehension understanding) of the policy.
b. The direction of their response toward it (acceptance, neutrality, rejection)
c. The intensity of that response.
Final comment: This model is relatively complex. However it is our contention that an examination of its several linkage will lead to more systematic explanations of policy performance. It aids in the description of policy implementation process and serves.
No comments:
Post a Comment