Chapter 10: Conclusion and Recommendations
3.6 POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
transferred or retrenched, unions must be consulted (Ismail, Bayat & Meyer, 1997:
155).
(c) Legal Implications
Policies adopted should comply or fall within the legal framework of both the government and administrative law. This is because should a public institution apply an illegal and unlawful policy, it can be held responsible if citizens sustain harm in any way (Botes et al, 1996: 307 and Ismail, Bayat & Meyer, 1997: 155).
(d) Political Feasibility
Public institutions are created to achieve political aims, and therefore policies should be informed by the policies of the ruling party. This implies that what is politically unacceptable today may be politically acceptable tomorrow through new developments (such as changes in the ruling party after an election), and this will definitely affect policies (Ismail, Bayat & Meyer, 1997: 153).
Overall, as the municipality develops or revises its policy for managing informal businesses, such a policy (the end-product) will be influenced by both external and internal factors as highlighted above. It is also important for the municipality to understand its external and internal environment before making and adopting any recommendations. Failure to do so might result in the municipality adopting irrelevant policies and ultimately ineffective interventions. Even worse, it might result in the adoption of a good policy that cannot be implemented due to financial or human resource constraints and challenges.
Agenda Setting
Policy
Formulation Policy
Implementation
Policy Evaluation
Policy Change or
Termination
public policy process can be divided into five steps. What is interesting though, is the fact that various authors take different views on what each phase or stage encompasses. For example, according to Anderson (2000: 31), the third phase in the policy process is policy adoption, while according to Greene (2005: 276) and Dye (1995: 298), it is policy evaluation and policy formulation respectively. Irrespective of how one decides to cluster the phases, the sequencing would still generally be as per the diagram below:
Figure 3-2: Policy making process
(Source: Adapted from Anderson, 2000: 31; Greene, 2005: 276; Hanekom, 1987: 52 and Ismail, Bayat & Meyer, 1997: 151-153).
An understanding of the various stages in the policy making process is critical, irrespective of the type of policy that would be developed. In relation to the study, it would therefore be critical for Polokwane Municipality to use the phases as a guideline as it develops its policy for managing street vendors. This section looks briefly at each stage, examining what each entails and implications for the study.
3.6.1 Agenda Setting
This is the first stage in the policy making process. This stage mainly entails identification of the problem that requires intervention (Hughes, 1994: 152). This stage is critical in that it is at this point where a decision should be made whether the
problem as identified requires the development of a course of action. It is therefore important that the problem is firstly clearly identified and specified.
3.6.2 Policy Formulation
There are normally various options available to address a specific problem. This stage entails the development of different and acceptable courses of action to be pursued, as well as the identification of role players. During this stage, alternatives are identified and the evaluation criteria are set (Hughes, 1994: 154).
3.6.3 Policy Adoption
At this stage, the most preferred course of action is adopted for implementation. It is also at this stage that a decision can be taken not to take any action.
3.6.4 Policy Implementation
Policies are developed to address societal or institutional needs. A policy therefore specifies the basic principles to be pursued in attaining specific goals, interprets the values of society and usually embodies these in the management of pertinent projects and programmes (De Coning in Cloete & Wissink, 2000: 3). This means that for a policy to be developed there must be a gap that is identified, where the intervention will assist in closing the gap.
At an operational level, policy is made to indicate how specific actions will be performed in order to achieve expected outcomes (Craythorne, 2003: 253). Policy implementation refers to the execution and steering of policy actions over time (Fox
& Meyer, 1995: 97).
Upon adoption, a policy must be implemented in order to change the undesired situation that prompted the development of the policy. For a policy to be
implementable, and ultimately produce the desired effects, affordability and sustainability of the options should inform any decision taken.
The fact that a policy has been adopted does not necessarily mean that it can be effectively implemented to produce the desired results. Edwards (1980, cited in Denhardt, 1993: 163) identifies communications, resources, and attitude of implementers and bureaucratic structures as preconditions for the successful implementation of a policy. With regard to communication, for example, Edwards maintains that the orders must always be clear and accurate.
All these factors would ultimately determine the success or failure of the policy. If, for example, Polokwane Municipality adopts a policy that recognizes street trading as an important economic activity, but still leaves the management under traffic control, this might create problems. The focus might still be on regulation as opposed to supporting the sector. This means that the entire organisational structure will need to be revisited in order to ensure that the systems and processes support the policy decision. A fragmented organisation will restrict effective implementation (Denhardt, 1993: 163). Another challenge is normally faced where good policies are adopted but the resource requirements are not properly quantified and provided for. In this instance, the policy remains good on paper, yet the problem remain unsolved.
3.6.5 Policy Evaluation
Whenever an action has been undertaken, it is critical to determine whether the action has produced the expected results. As indicated earlier, a policy is developed to address a certain need. It is therefore important to assess whether the policy has produced the intended consequences.
Policy evaluation therefore refers to a process undertaken to determine the value or effectiveness of the various activities undertaken during the implementation process (Cloete in Cloete & Wissink, 2000: 211). Accordingly, Cloete (in Cloete & Wissink, 2000: 212) indicates that a policy is evaluated for the following reasons:
To learn lessons from the project/programme for future policy review, redesign or implementation strategy.
To test the feasibility of an assumption, principle, model, theory, proposal or strategy.
To provide political or financial accountability.
The implication is that in developing a policy, provision should be made for how the policy will be evaluated. The evaluation method should among other things indicate the frequency of evaluation, the instruments of evaluation and the indicators to be assessed.
At times, the evaluation may bring to the fore some unintended consequences. It is therefore important to also indicate how the findings of the assessment will be processed further.