Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
Policy making is both a process and a product, the continuum between the two ends depending on the nature, scope and time frame of policy. The beginning of the process and the finalisation of the product belong to the bailiwick of politicians. It is political will that decides about the initiation of a policy. The approval and acceptance of the product also depend on politicians in power mandated to adopt policies in pursuance of election manifesto and felt needs. Both involves exercises of political authority and require a degree of general knowledge about the problem that is the subject of a policy.
The process starting from the conception of the policy and ending with the outcome i.e. the formulation of the policy is technical in nature calling for inputs, participation and involvement of specialists and technocrat-bureaucrats. Just as the politicians have to make it clear what is required in the policy to address a particular problem, the experts and technocrats involved in the process should have the required background and knowledge about the problem. In proposing a policy the politicians do not have to delve into details; laying out the bare bones of the problems to be fleshed out should suffice. But while accepting and approving the policy formulated by experts they have to know the content of the policy in details along with the political (popular reaction), financial (cost and benefit) and environmental (climate change, etc.) implications. The experts and technocrats have to explain the details of the policy including the above aspects and convince the politicians about its effectiveness (viability and in some cases, sustainability) and feasibility in terms of implementation. Policy making as a process is a complex and difficult exercise of intellectual and analytical power on the part of those entrusted with its fulfilment.
Having heard from the policy makers i.e. the politicians about the problem regarding which a policy has to be formulated the experts and technocrats have to delineate the parameters on the basis of their knowledge and existing information and reports. If such information and reports are not available or are outdated, new surveys/studies have to be carried out. The information gathered and data collected through these have to be collated and analysed in depth. The data and information will not only provide a clear picture of and idea about the problem but also at the same time provide the building blocks of the process of policy formulation. Before getting down to drafting the policy, consultation and exchange of views with stakeholders, including of politicians, will prove useful. From such interaction more than one option for a policy may emerge and the experts have to consider these on the basis of feasibility (cost) and viability (implementation) taking the politicians on board to find out their reaction. Socio-economic problems are usually poorly understood by generalists like politicians owing to their exceeding their complexity, indeterminate scope, highly dynamic nature and unstructured character, besides a plurality of segmented perspectives. Fact finding and data collection through surveys/studies and interactions with stakeholders can mitigate the complexity, if not completely remove them. The process/act of understanding, diagnosis, prognosis and predictive inferences and solution of a problem constitute the methodology of analysis. Analysis of a problem sought to be resolved through a policy is not only the starting point of the process based on information and data but is at the very heart of policy making. When the policy is drafted threadbare analysis is again brought to bear on the product i.e. the draft policy. The importance of analysis in the process of policy making can hardly be overemphasised.
Various approaches and methods have been used for analysis of policy ex ante i.e. before formulation and it may be useful to revisit them briefly before making a choice in this regard. First, there is the cybernetic methodology for analysing complex and unstructured socio-economic problems. The method has evolved over a period of three decades and has been applied to a wide variety of problematic situations. It unifies the themes of explanations, predictive inferences, policy identification and problem solving within a conceptual framework of analysis. It avoids ad-hoc decisions, disjointed measures, preset conceptual assumptions and exclusive reliance on statistical data. The cybernetic methodology of analysis for policy formulation uses cybernetic concepts of feedback cycles. More specifically, the methodology addresses the following questions as the starting point for analysis: 1) how may a complex problem be understood and explained using the modern science and art of communications (cybernetics)? How may its dynamic and time-varying nature be brought to bear on analysis? 2) What constitutes unambiguous goals of problem solving? 3) How can the nature and direction of policies to be adopted in this context identified? How can the effectiveness of policies formulated be assessed? 4) Can verifiable predictive inferences or prognosis about complex problems be obtained? 5) Are there short and long-term policy measures for problem solving?
The answers to the above questions that lead to cybernetic methodology for analysis involve positive and negative feedback system germane to cybernetic communication. The basic assumption behind the cyber methodology is that socio-economic problems are dynamic in nature. Cybernetics, the science of communications and control, captures this dynamism through its concepts of feedback cycles which are circular in nature. The circularity of the system means starting from any point, the sequence of relationship reverts to the original point.
Feedback cycles are basic regulatory or control process and are of two types: a) positive feedback and (b) negative feedback cycle. A positive feedback cycle is oriented toward producing increasing and cumulative change in a given state. The change- enhancing process may be directed towards positive growth. When a circular chain of dynamic relationship is oriented toward reaching or maintaining a goal, it constitutes a negative feedback cycle. It is narrowly concerned with achieving or maintaining stability around a norm.
The dynamic nature of complex socio-economic phenomena may be conceptualised and analysed in terms of a set of interactive positive and negative feedback cycles. When this cycle operates in accordance with their intended regulatory roles of maintaining stability and effecting change, a socio-economic problem maintains its normal character. That is, growth-enhancing positive cycles overpower the merely stabilising negative cycles. However, when these cycles begin to malfunction i.e. fail to perform their regulatory function problems arise and neither stability is maintained nor takes effect growth-enhancing process. When the malfunctioning of feedback cycles result from their internal forces these may be brought under control. But when exogenous factors cause the malfuntioning it becomes difficult to make necessary correction. The cybernetic methodology does not indicate how the latter event can be obviated. This makes the cybernetic methodology a less than satisfactory or practical method of analysis of the policy making process.
Analysis is important as it is the starting point of the policy process and also the instrument by which the draft policy or the policy finalised is examined from both within and without. While the experts and technocrats are involved with analysis at the start of the process of policy making, almost everyone including, politicians interested in and concerned with policy, is engaged with analysis. The tools used for this purpose may not be the same and therein lies the rub. What makes this exercise difficult is the different perspectives that prevail at the beginning of the process and with the formulation of the policy as the end game. This difference in approach and intent makes analysis so important in policy making, both as a process and a product.