Book Review: Questioning Public Policy Instruments

If politics is the brain, then policy instruments are the muscles. This illustration shows how fundamental the role of policy instruments is in politics. Every public policy that is formulated is basically a political process, and vice versa, any political decision always ends in the formulation of public policy. This book tries to read how public policy instruments are used and their consequences. Today, studies related to public policy end in two major paradigms, although they are currently a little outdated, the two paradigms are: government and governance.

These two perspectives have fundamental differences. Paradigm government seeing that the state is the most determining actor in the process of making public policy, on the other hand the paradigm governanceemphasizes the working of the network (multi actor) in the policy-making process. Although both are slightly different, both stand on the understanding that policy instruments are needed. This book provides a new picture. If the issue of public policy is often attached to how the policy structure is in Etzioni's classification which divides policies into three large categories, namely coercive, remunerative, And normative. So the classification of policies in this book is modified by looking at the dimension of legitimacy (popular support for the government that is formed/implements the policy).

Classification of public policy is divided into the form of regulation (Stick), economic subsidies/incentives (Carrot), and information (Sermons). These three policy instruments influence legitimacy, especially regarding the relationship between the government and its people. This related discussion concerns whether the government needs to intervene in a policy or even hand it over to the market mechanism (Vedung, 1998:24). These three forms of public policy classification have their own consequences.

First, regulatory instruments, these instruments emphasize the application of rules and sanctions (Lemaire, 1998:59). In its application, the implementation of this policy is highly dependent on the institutional capacity of the government to be able to enforce the rule of law. The weakness of this instrument lies in the issue of legitimacy considering its emphasis on the government's capacity to enforce the rules and disregard consensus with the community.

Second, the economic subsidy/incentive instrument. This instrument is a popular instrumentation considering that the government gains direct influence through the economic subsidy/incentive given to its people. The weakness of this policy instrument lies in the sustainability and clarity of the beneficiaries of the policy. Direct Cash Assistance (BLT) during the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) administration can be a real example. The SBY administration was able to maintain the support (legitimacy) of the community with the BLT policy, but on the other hand, there was the problem of unfairness of the recipients of the BLT program. The dilemma regarding the database of aid recipients is the main weakness of this instrument.

Third, information instruments. In this instrument, the government exercises control over society by building understanding and influencing behavior from a moral perspective (Vedung & Doelen, 1998: 103). The government plays a role in assessing what is good and what is bad. Through this instrument, the government can easily build consensus with society, but at the same time, this policy instrument is considered ineffective because it does not have coercive power. However, compared to other instruments, this instrument is the cheapest instrument (ibid: 125). The Family Planning (KB) Program can be the most obvious example. This policy was successful during the New Order (Orba) when it was followed by strict rules (regulations), currently the KB program cannot be said to be successful considering the number of families who have more than two children.

Going back a little, the classification of policy instruments in this book is based on the view that organizational capacity still plays an important role in implementing policies. In the approach governance, the state is assumed to intervene as little as possible in policy. The classification of instruments in this book emphasizes the importance of the role of the state with its policy instruments (paradigm government). In order for policies to be implemented and at the same time form a strong basis of legitimacy, Vedung explains the importance of combining one policy instrument with another policy instrument (ibid: 53). The combination can revolve around a combination of regulatory-subsidy/economic incentive instruments, regulatory-information instruments, and subsidy/economic incentive-information instruments.

In terms of its implementation, the three instruments are not used statically, but rather dynamically. In addition to questioning institutional capacity in implementing policies, policy instruments require an implementation pattern that is highly adapted to the conditions of the community. Therefore, a strategy to change the combination of policy instruments is very important so that the objectives of the formulated policy are achieved (Doelen, 1998, in Vedung 1998:129). In a different way, the implementation of the policy instrument model also needs to pay attention to the context in which the policy is implemented. This context includes issues of political characteristics, ideology and how to identify policy problems. Inconsistency in defining policy problems will have an impact on the use of policy instruments and identifying policy targets (Rist, 1998, in Vedung, 1998). Another thing that needs to be considered is the dimension of policy content. The effectiveness of a policy does not depend solely on the use of policy instruments, but rather on the content of the policy instruments taken (Arentsen, 1998, in Vedung, 1998).

Governance Paradigm

The policy classification in this book provides a lot of input, especially related to how a government implements public policy. Furthermore, criticism of this book can be predicted, the classification of policy instruments contained in this book is considered outdated, especially to see the development of today's government. The categorization of the instruments is still quite relevant, but its application in a modern context is no longer relevant, especially considering that the policy-making process involves many actors, such as in the paradigm governance.

Some critics come from scientists who are based on the paradigm governance, among others, there is a study by Kall (2010) which tries to revise the policy instrument classification model. In Kall's view, information instruments fall into the category soft steering policy instrument, economic subsidy/incentive instruments as medium steering policy instrument, and regulatory instruments as hard steering policy instrument (Kall, 2010:109). In his view, organizational culture and political preferences are the main factors that determine steering policy instrument (Kall, 2010:225). In contrast to Vedung's approach, the policy instruments formulated by Kall emphasize the tendency to use one instrument, without using it with full power. Kall's logical thinking fully emphasizes the pattern of how networks work in producing public policy.

In the same way of looking at it, policy implementation should emphasize the context of policy implementation and the limitations of the use of instrumentation (Linders & Peters, 1989:49). This means that the ideological or political context of a country, in some cases, has limited the use of policy instruments that have been considered to be taken. In a different perspective, Barret (2004) criticized the perspective that emphasizes how political and ideological dimensions need to be considered. Still in the perspective governance, he argued that with the implementation of several modern management concepts such as New Public Management (NPM) which has become a global norm in implementing network-based policies, then basically it is no longer too relevant to see the political and ideological context of a country. In the end, countries are encouraged to use the same instrumentation and approach in managing their countries.

Contributions and Limitations

Although at first glance it seems different, scientists from the paradigm side governmentand also governance agreeing that organizational capacity is important in implementing policies. In a view that emphasizes the importance of networks, organizational capacity is still needed so that a policy can be implemented properly. After all, the state is an institution that protects citizens. Especially in a perspective that places the state or government as the dominant actor in policy making.

If it can be summarized, this book provides readers with an overview of the nature of a public policy and the consequences that surround it. This book was written in 1998, when the paradigm governance with his magic motto good governance has not been dominantly campaigned by the World Bank. Although it seems outdated, this discussion remains important because it goes to the heart of the discussion in social sciences, namely concerning public policy.

The limitation of this book lies in the weakness to read how public policy is formulated in the modern era. In this context, the study of policy instruments from Kall (2010) becomes more relevant. In his view, the government cannot fully regulate a policy-making, however, the government's capacity is limited in executing policies, both in terms of organizational capacity and budget. The government has a greater role in directing the choice of policy instruments without fully controlling them.

However, the state cannot play a full role in all aspects of its citizens' lives. Space needs to be given to actors from civil society and the market in responding to public issues. Cooperation between the government and the private sector regarding public issues is nothing new. For example, how the cooperation between the DKI Jakarta government during the leadership of Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (BTP) and companies in the Semanggi area in building the Semanggi ring road. The cooperation between these two different actors is known as public private partnership. This development shows that the private sector can also be involved in managing public issues.

Bibliography

Barrett, Susan M. (2004). Implementation studies: Time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of Implementation studies, in Public Administration 82(2) pp. 249–262
Bemelmans-Videc, Marie-Louise, Rist, Ray C. & Vedung, Evert (eds.) (1998), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ
Linder, SH, & Peters BG (1989), Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts, Journal of Public Policy, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 35–58.
Maycraft Kall, Wendy (2010), The Gove rnance Gap: Central–Local Steering & Mental Health Reform in Britain and Sweden. Skrifter utgivna av Statsvetenskapliga föreningen i Uppsala, 178. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis