ArticlePDF Available

What is a good public policy?

Authors:
Jacob Junian Endiartia at Lembaga Ketahanan Nasional
Jacob Junian Endiartia
  • Lembaga Ketahanan Nasional
Download full-text PDFDownload full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

Actually, this is a question for my exam in Master of Public Policy.
Figures - uploaded by Jacob Junian Endiartia
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Jacob Junian Endiartia
Content may be subject to copyright.
MPP 801 - Final Exam - 219001
13.pdf
Content uploaded by Jacob Junian Endiartia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jacob Junian Endiartia on Feb 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
MPP 801 - Final Exam - 2190011
3.docx
Content uploaded by Jacob Junian Endiartia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jacob Junian Endiartia on Feb 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
MPP 801/Final Exam/21900113
1
What is a good public policy?
It is quite normative question there, if we ask about, “What is a good public policy?” Before go
further, here I want to quote what Nugroho (2015) believe that, excellence public policy could make
an excellence country as well. Here he is not only mentioned about going ‘good’, rather he is
choosing ‘excellence’. Now, what does he mean by that word? He mentioned that a public policy
would reach ‘excellency’ when government or policymakers pay attention carefully since from the
beginning of the policy process.
As we know that, public policy process (Figure 1) span from the agenda setting through to
policy succession or termination (Anderson, 2003; Dunn, 2018). First time, policymakers
1
should
choose what ‘agenda’ will they choose to be address as a ‘public problem’. In the first year the
House of Representative (DPR RI) appointed, they should enact the National Legislation Program
(Prolegnas) for the next five years. They break it down to yearly target, what legislation that they
should finish. Second step, from that Prolegnas whether from government or the House side should
formulate the proposed or alternative policies. A good proposed policy should have a good public
engagement, even since from the agenda setting stage (de Veyra et al., 2019; Lemke & Harris-Wai,
2015).
Figure 1 Complex cycle of the policy process (Dunn, 2018, p. 46)
Here we should mentioned that, in policy formulation stage, there are so many actors who
want to shape that proposed policy. Halligan (1995) mentioned that as policy advisory system. The
‘system’ mentioned by Halligan means that the policy advisory sphere which try to shape or
1
In case of Indonesia, policymakers consist of both legislative and executive branches.
Agenda Setting
Formulation
Adoption
Impelementation
Assessment
Adaptation
MPP 801/Final Exam/21900113
2
influence the public policy since the formulation stage, should see in multi-actors (Veit, Hustedt, &
Bach, 2017). Those actors based on ‘location’ could be from inside or outside of government itself.
Think tanks, policy consultants, universities, and political analysts are example the actors from
outside of government (Belyaeva, 2019; Craft, 2015; Diamond, 2019; Fraussen & Halpin, 2017;
Howlett, 2015; van den Berg, 2017). From inside of government there are internal ministries,
research institute in central government, and policy advisory bodies (Veit et al., 2017).
Back to the policy stage, the next stage would be policy adoption. In this stage, the policy
proposed by policymakers should get the majority agreement from the House. When they agree
with proposed policy, the government, or in Indonesia case the President, should enact it. Even
though the President not giving enactment to that proposed policy, or in this case the Bill (RUU), it
would applicable after 30 days (Article 73 paragraph 1 and 2 of Law No. 12/2011).
Figure 2 Factors influencing policy implementation (Edwards III, 1980)
The fourth stage is policy implementation. This stage is about implementing or applying
adopted policy by administrative unit or bureaucracy (Anderson, 2003; Dunn, 2018). Here, we could
find dynamics of policy implementation. Edwards III (1980) developed a model to address what
factors influence success in policy implementation (Figure 2). Communication, resources,
dispositions or attitude, and bureaucratic structure are the factors mentioned by Edwards III. There
should be a good communication between policymakers and implementers. There should be enough
resources to carry out the policy. Sometimes, implementers have tendency to not having a good
willing to implement a policy; they tend to complicate policy implementation. The bureaucratic
structure mentioned by Edwards III is about are there any standard operating procedures available
and the degree of fragmentation in structure. One of example that Endiartia (2019) want to take a
look is about how the policy implementation on filling in the Senior Executive Positions (Jabatan
Implementation
Resources
Dispositions
Communication
Bureaucratic
structure
MPP 801/Final Exam/21900113
3
Pimpinan Tinggi, JPT) and appointment in the Administrative Positions (Jabatan Administrasi) in
Lemhannas RI.
Like mentioned in Figure 1, there would be policy assessment for the next stage in policy
process. Dunn (2018) see this stage as, “auditing or accounting units in government determine
whether executive orders, legislative acts, and court decisions are in compliance with statutory
requirements and realizing their objectives.” Anderson (2003) mention this stage as ‘policy
evaluation’. In this stage, there is monitoring and evaluation of the policy: are there any obstacles in
implementing policy; is the policy well-designed since the formulation stage; are there any conflicts
between the policy and the regulation above it. These are some of questions want to address in
policy assessment stage.
Based on the evaluation or assessment, policy which assessed reported to the ministries or
agencies that responsible in formulating, adopting, and implementing. In this part, the policymakers
will see whether the policy should be ‘replaced’ because there are redefinition of the objective, or
‘terminated’ because the policy is no longer needed (Dunn, 2018).
For the final consideration, I want to say add about ‘evidence-based policy’. This term alone
does not make a policy as a good one. There are so many to consider. Like Dreze (2020) mentioning
three further ingredients: understanding, values and deliberation.
Bibliography
Anderson, J. E. (2003). Public Policymaking: An Introduction (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Belyaeva, N. (2019). Revisiting demand, politicization and externalization in authoritarian political
regimes: policy advisory system in Russian practices. Policy Studies, 40(3–4), 392–409.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1581159
Craft, J. (2015). Conceptualizing the policy work of partisan advisers. Policy Sciences, 48(2), 135–158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9212-2
de Veyra, C. M., Dorotan, M. M. C., Feranil, A. B., Dizon, T. S., Geroy, L. S. A., Lopez, J. C. F., & Sales,
R. K. P. (2019). Stakeholders in the Development of the National Unified Health Research
Agenda of the Philippines. Acta Medica Philippina, 53(3), 247–253. Retrieved from
https://www.actamedicaphilippina.org/article/9536-stakeholders-in-the-development-of-the-
national-unified-health-research-agenda-of-the-philippines
Diamond, P. (2019). Externalization and politicization in policy advisory systems: a case study of
contestable policy-making 2010–2015. Public Money & Management, 0(0), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1583890
MPP 801/Final Exam/21900113
4
Drèze, J. (2020). Policy beyond evidence. World Development, 127, 104797.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104797
Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach (6th ed.). New York and Oxon:
Routledge.
Edwards III, G. C. (1980). Implementing Public Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Endiartia, J. J. (2019). Analisis Implementasi Kebijakan Pengisian Jabatan Pimpinan Tinggi dan
Jabatan Administrator di Lembaga Ketahanan Nasional. Civil Service: Jurnal Kebijakan Dan
Manajemen PNS, 13(2), 39–50. Retrieved from
http://jurnal.bkn.go.id/index.php/asn/article/view/222
Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2017). Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think
tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105–124.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9246-0
Halligan, J. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. In Governance in a Changing Environment
(pp. 138–172). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Howlett, M. (2015). Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in
government. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 173–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.002
Lemke, A. A., & Harris-Wai, J. N. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges
and opportunities for human genomics. Genetics in Medicine, 17(12), 949–957.
https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.8
Nugroho, R. (2015). Policy Making: Mengubah Negara Biasa Menjadi Negara Berprestasi. Jakarta: PT
Elex Media Komputindo.
van den Berg, C. F. (2017). Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization,
politicization and the legacy of pillarization. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 63–84.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9257-x
Veit, S., Hustedt, T., & Bach, T. (2017). Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the
hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 85–103.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9266-9
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Analisis Implementasi Kebijakan Pengisian Jabatan Pimpinan Tinggi dan Pengangkatan Dalam Jabatan Administrasi di Lembaga Ketahanan Nasional
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2019
Sejak ditetapkannya Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2014, maka terdapat perubahan mendasar bagi pengisian jabatan pimpinan tinggi di instansi pemerintah. Sesuai mandat oleh undang-undang tersebut, pengisian bagi jabatan pimpinan tinggi dilakukan secara terbuka dan kompetitif. Sementara itu, tata cara pengisian jabatan administrasi yang terdiri dari administrator, pengawas, dan pelaksana diatur dalam Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 11 Tahun 2017 tentang Manajemen Pegawai Negeri Sipil juga mengalami perubahan. Perubahan dalam pengisian jabatan pimpinan tinggi dan administrasi tentu diharapkan dapat memperbaiki kinerja birokrasi. Lemhannas RI termasuk instansi pemerintah hibrida dalam hal asal sumber daya manusia yang terdiri dari PNS, prajurit TNI, dan anggota Polri. Perlu dilakukan analisis atas implementasi kebijakan pengisian jabatan pimpinan tinggi dan pengangkatan dalam jabatan administrasi. Hal ini bertujuan agar dapat diselami kondisi riil pelaksanaan dari kebijakan tersebut, sehingga dapat menjadi masukan kepada pemangku kepentingan terkait. Studi ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Teknik pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan: (1) telaah peraturan perundang-undangan; (2) wawancara; (3) observasi. Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa seluruh faktor yang mempengaruhi implementasi kebijakan ini masih belum optimal. Since the enactment of Law Number 5 of 2014, there have been fundamental changes to the filling of high leadership positions in government agencies. Under the mandate of the law , charging for high-ranking positions is carried out openly and competitively. Meanwhile, the procedure for filling in administrative positions "consisting of administrators, supervisors and implementers" regulated in Government Regulation Number 11 of 2017 concerning Management of Civil Servants has also changed. Changes in filling high leadership and administrative positions are certainly expected to improve bureaucratic performance. The uniqueness of the National Resilience Institution is the origin of its human resources consisting of civil servants, TNI soldiers, and members of the National Police. In this case, it is necessary to analyze the implementation of the policy for filling in high-ranking positions and appointments in administrative positions. This aims to be able to be dived into the real conditions of implementation of the policy so that it can be input to relevant stakeholders. This study method uses a qualitative approach. Data collection techniques are carried out by (1) reviewing legislation; (2) interviews; (3) observation. The author projects that this study will provide an understanding of the implementation of the policy of filling high leadership positions and administration at the Indonesian Lemhannas. The results of the study indicate that all factors that influence the implementation of this policy are still not optimal.
View
Stakeholders in the Development of the National Unified Health Research Agenda of the Philippines
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2019
Objectives. Stakeholders and stakeholder engagement in agenda setting are not well documented despite its increased recognition. This paper aimed to describe stakeholder engagement in the agenda setting. Specifically, it aimed to (1) describe the process of stakeholder engagement in the development of the NUHRA 2017-2022; (2) describe characteristics of stakeholders involved; and (3) identify lessons learned during the engagement. Methods. Documents pertinent to the agenda setting process, which included profile of participants and feedback on the consultation process were reviewed and analyzed. Key informant interviews were also conducted among selected PCHRD officials and members of the Philippine National Health Research System-Research Agenda Committee. Stakeholder mapping was conducted prior to the engagement to identify potential stakeholders. Consultations were conducted in each region involving different stakeholders. Stakeholders in the consultation process were national government agencies, local government units, academe, public and private health facilities, and non-government organizations (NGOs). Results. The stakeholder with the highest representation was the national government (n=110), while the lowest were public and private health facilities (n=14 each). Interactive discussion of stakeholders with diverse background, is the top item that went well during the consultation and should be retained in the future, and; brainstorming session and presentation were identified item that needs improvement. Conclusion. A diverse and well-represented set of stakeholders is important in an agenda setting to appropriately identify priorities and to improve uptake of the agenda. Stakeholder engagement, however, should not be limited to agenda setting, collaborative work must be sustained in all aspects of the research cycle.
View
Dynamics of change in internal policy advisory systems: the hybridization of advisory capacities in Germany
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2017
  • POLICY SCI
Recent scholarship on advisory systems has focussed on the externalization of advisory capacities and sectoral dynamics of change, whereas changes of internal policy advisory systems have not yet been approached systematically. This article proposes an analytical concept for exploring change dynamics in internal policy advisory systems by means of three logics for assessing policy advice (political salience, credibility and representativeness). The approach is illustrated by analysing changes within the internal policy advisory system of the German federal government (1990–2015). The analysis relies on three original datasets on ministerial departments, research agencies and governmental advisory bodies. We find that the internal advisory system of the German federal government is characterized by a differentiated hybridization of advisory logics, which has changed the nature of policy advice.
View
Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2017
  • POLICY SCI
Although the literature on policy advisory systems has experienced a revival in recent years, its empirical focus has mainly been on Anglophone countries (Craft and Halligan 2016). This paper applies the policy advisory systems approach to the Netherlands, which can serve as an example of the dynamics in the policy advisory systems of consensus-driven, neo-corporatist polities Lijphart in Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 21, 235–266 1999). Using a historical-institutionalist perspective, the dynamics of the Dutch policy advisory system from the mid-1960s to the present day are examined. Based on original cross-time survey data and an analysis of secondary sources, the impact of depillarization (mid-1960s–mid-1990s), new public management (mid-1980s onwards) and an increased pressure on the executive have had for the Dutch policy advisory system (from the late 1990s): fragmentation, externalization and a non-partisan brand of politicization are shown. More specifically, the use of the institutionalized system of permanent advisory councils has lost part of its significance in favour of both external consultants and ad hoc advisory committees. The Dutch case, with its accumulative institutional design based on Weberianism, neo-corporatism and new public management elements, has thus experienced markedly different dynamics in its policy advice system than the Anglophone countries.
View
Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2017
  • POLICY SCI
Think tanks have proliferated in most Western democracies over the past three decades and are often considered to be increasingly important actors in public policy. Still, their precise contribution to public policy remains contested. This paper takes the existing literature in a new direction by focusing on the capacity of think tanks to contribute to strategic policy-making and assessing their particular role within policy advisory systems. We propose that strategic policy-making capacity requires three critical features: high levels of research capacity, substantial organizational autonomy and a long-term policy horizon. Subsequently, we assess the potential of think tanks to play this particular role in policy-making, using empirical evidence from structured interviews with a set of prominent Australian think tanks.
View
Policy beyond evidence
Article
  • Mar 2020
  • WORLD DEV
The road from evidence to policy is longer than the telescopic expression ‘evidence-based policy’ tends to convey. Evidence is a scientific matter, policy is a political decision. Evidence can certainly inform policy, but sound policy requires at least three further ingredients: understanding, values and deliberation. Understanding can build not only on evidence (including RCTs) but also on other sources of enlightenment. Value judgements are essential to assess alternative policy options. And deliberation may be required to resolve possible differences in understanding and values among the concerned actors. Ideally, the quest for evidence should be part a larger effort to bring about sound policies through democratic processes. Economists have a role in this collective effort, but so do many others.
View
Externalization and politicization in policy advisory systems: a case study of contestable policy-making 2010–2015
Article
  • May 2019
This paper contends that since 2010 in the UK, there has been an unprecedented attempt to disrupt the traditional civil service ‘monopoly’ over policy advice, outsourcing policy-making to actors beyond the central state. The author argues that the policy-making processes of Whitehall and Westminster governance are being radically overhauled. In many Anglophone countries, ministers have sought to reduce their structural dependence on the permanent civil service. In so doing, ministers sought to gain political control over the machinery of policy-making. These efforts to restructure the permanent bureaucracy have had unintended consequences, however. The policy process in the UK state has become more fragmented, as policy-making and implementation have increasingly diverged.
View
Revisiting demand, politicization and externalization in authoritarian political regimes: policy advisory system in Russian practices, Policy Studies
Article
  • Feb 2019
This study contributes to debate on three related questions in Policy Advisory System research. Is the Policy Advisory System concept applicable in countries other than developed democracies? How does it function in a state-centred authoritarian regime? How does the authoritarian environment affect tendencies such as “politicization” and “externalization”? These questions are addressed using materials on the current Russian governance structure and advisory practices, focusing on two broadly defined “governance subsystems” in the Presidential Administration of Russia, “Political Bloc” and “Economic Bloc”, both acting as regular customers for advisory communities. One finding is the phenomenon of “Dual Demand” from the same centre of power—“stability” for “Political Bloc” and “innovation” for “Economic Bloc”—which contributed to creation of two different clusters of policy advisory agencies with different statuses. Other findings include transformation of “politicization” to policy control mechanisms and attempted “externalization” turning into the reverse—“internalization”—bringing independent advisory organizations under the supervision of government structures.
View
View
Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government
Article
  • Oct 2015
"Policy analytical capacity" is an important component of overall policy capacity, bringing together individual level analytical skills (competencies) and resources (capabilities) needed for the systematic evaluation of policy alternatives and practices. Despite the existence of a large body of literature on policy analysis, a more complete picture of the roles played by policy analysts in policy appraisal is needed if the nature of contemporary policy work and formulation activities and the impact and influence of higher and lower levels of capacity of governments in this area are to be better understood.
View