See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360827267

PUBLIC POLICY PROCESSES IN NIGERIA

Article · May 2022

CITATIONS READS
0 2,231

2 authors, including:

Canice Esidene Erunke

Nasarawa State University
38 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Article View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Canice Esidene Erunke on 31 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PUBLIC POLICY PROCESSES IN NIGERIA

BY
Abdullahi Mohammed Abdul Ph.D
&
Erunke Canice Esidene Ph.D
Depatrment of Political Science
Nasarawa State University
Keffi
Tel:+2348065595472
Corressponding Author:Email:erunke@gmail.com
Introduction
Public discourses the world over have been over flogged with issues bothering on policies
whether public or private. The former takes its bearing from the mainstream cross-
culturalepicenter and finds expression in what largely effects the general interests of society.The
latter (private) is rather restrictive in disposition and affects an insignificant minority as sub-set
of the larger society. At whatever level of analysis, it can be said that in each of the societies
under review (public or private), there are unarguably relevant benchmarks with which such
entities adopts as a way of setting group agenda for itself to achieve, either in short or long-term
basis. The overall successes or failure or both in the scheme of operational mechanisms of
organizations, be they government (public) or private depends largely on the degree of will and
commitment to the tenets of policy goals and/or targets.

In most societies, it is common place to hear of policies as educational policies, agricultural

policies, foreign policies, policies of the environment; gender policies, etc. In the views of
Ikelegbe (1994), opine that in most cases one hears of policy statements, enactment of policies,
declaration of policy intentions, etc. All of these follows with greater or less consequences
depending on the genuineness and applicability of the policy objects. The context of public
policy as it is been used in most cases by government agencies, private entrepreneurs and groups
appear rather confusing and ambiguous. Ikelegbe (1994) lamented that apart from government
institutions, individuals, families, clubs, cultural groups, communities, small business
organizations, all talk about their policies. The high level of conceptual maladies such as the one
portrayed above makes the general public to believe that policies are things that organizations or
groups necessarily say and do. To put this notion in proper context, we shall consider what
policy and public policy means. This is the focus of the next section.

The Concept of Policy

The concept of policy has no unilinear definition. As there are many scholars in the field with
diverse connotations to the concept, so is the definition. Some scholars may want to see policy as
taking action about a situation. Others may want to see the concept as a way of making choices
from several available alternatives (because it is not possible to do everything at the same time);
yet others see policy concepts as the extent to which different choices are made in relation to

1
multiple challenges facing man kind. In all of these definitions, the views of Rebert Presthus as
well as Jacob and Flink seem to stand out very succinctly about the actual meaning of a policy.
According to Presthus, define policy as:
A defined course of action or method of action selection from among
alternatives, and in the light of a given condition to guide and usually
determine present and future decisions (1975:14).

This definition means that any course action in relation to policy making is futuristic, time bound
and the condition for successes in policy decisions must be guided by relevant policy options or
alternatives bearing in mind the best choices out of the alternatives. To further buttress the above
postulations made by Presthus about what policy is, Jacob and Flinks tend to agree with the
notion that for anyone to embark on any policy, be it at individual, group or governmental levels,
such actions must be backed up by such individual or group intents as a driving force. Hence, the
duo clearly define policy further as:
An integrated programme of actions which an actor (the person who wants
to undertake the policy) or group of actors, is occasioned to or intends to
undertake in response to a given situation or problems with which he is
confronted (Jacob and Flink, cited in Ikelegbe, 1994:20).

The foregoing conceptualization about policy further goes to show that societal problems to a
more or lesser extent, define the ways and manner in which policies are formed. From the
proceeding analysis, we can unarguably insinuate that policies are defined by certain definite
characteristic features. First, any kind of policy measure embarked upon in society must follow a
course or programnme of action which is chosen from amongst several alternatives. Second,
policy choices are propelled by societal problems. In Nigeria, for example, government is pushed
to embark on certain policies, most times to tackle issues of poverty reduction, agricultural
productivity, child mortality, gender discrimination and gender bias, illiteracy, terrorism, food
security, environmental and/or ecological problems, disease outbreak, e.g, HIV/AIDS, Ebola
virus, malaria and typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis, etc. These policiesare guided by specific course
of action and government’s specific target geared towards improving the lots of society in
Nigeria. It can be said that the desire of government to ensure the greatest happiness for the

2
greatest number is what lies at the heart of most public policies. In this sense, the purpose of
public policy traverses the individual or group needs to the needs of the entire society. In
Nigeria, for example, any policy framework so adopted by government is supposed to impact on
the lives of over 170 million people comprising the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja. The overarching importance of public policy making and implementation in any given
state therefore becomes the bed-rock upon which all other sub-elements of the society rests. This
is the focus of the next section on public policy.

Concept of Public Policy

Just like policy, public policy has no universally accepted definition. Many scholars have
attempted to look at the concept differently depending on their individual ideological leanings.
Ascribing a simple unilinear definition to what public policy stands for is rather controversial. To
Obo, Eteng and Coker (2014)s corroborated the controversial state of etymological problems as
above when they averred that it is difficult to sometimes define the boundaries of public policy –
whether the concept should be limited to the level of decision-making intention or action of
government. Conversely, Egonmwam (1991) buttressed the notion of public policy being the
prerogative of those decisions carried out at the level of government circles devoid of any
external forces or group interests.

In another development, Lathan (cited in Dye, 1987) in his group thesis as a theoretical guide
positioned that what constitutes public policy is actually the agreement or equilibrium reached in
a group struggle at a given point in time and it is largely a representation or demonstration of
what the contending forces or groups constantly strive to achieve, thereby converting such
opportunities to their favour. To Lathan, posited that in the case of legislative enactments, the
legislative body references the group struggle, ratifies the victory of the successful coalitions,
and records the terms of surrenders, compromises and conquests in the form of legislative
statutes. Consequently, Griddle and Thomas (cited in Jega, 2003) supported the position of
Lathan on the relevance of legislative enactments in public policy making when they
unequivocally asserted that public policy results from the conflict bargaining and coalition
formation among a potentially large number of social groups organized to protect or advance
particular interests common to their members.

3
However, Abdulsalami (cited in Ezeani, 2006) has viewed the concept of public policy
differently. His opinion about what public policy portends is akin to how resources of society are
allocated to various contending forces. Accordingly, Abdulsalami opined that public policy
refers to hard patterns of resources allocation represented by projects and programmes designed
to respond to perceived public problems or challenges requiring governmental action for their
solution. The implication of this view rests on the fact that public policy stands for what
government actually involves itself in doing and not what it intends doing. His criticism is
coming in the heels of the fact that government mere declaration of intentions, wishes, principles
or expression of desires do not necessarily translate to public policy (Ezeani, 2006).

Nonetheless, Anderson (1997) on his part, sees public policy as something that has a regular
outlook with a defined purpose and course of action outlined by government with the sole aim of
dealing with prevailing societal problems. Few points can be deduced here. First, policy is
inextricably linked to issues of goal setting and free from circumstances of occurrences by
chance. In other words, policy goals are natural and pre-conceived rather than happening under
probability. Second, public policies are patternalized as they are conceived over a long period f
time by government. Policies are therefore time-bound and must so accomplished within the
parameters of set target time. Moreso, public policies, at whatever level of analysis are
contingent on the wider views, aspirations and inputs of the citizenry. This goes to say that
citizens inputs into the system (government circles) must be well articulated, aggregated and
above all, integrated into the mainstream socio-political terrain to generate outputs or policies.
This means that the outcome of policies must emerge in response to policy demands. Again, at
some level, public policies may be favourable or unfavourable. It can be favourable to the extent
that government, at circumstances where there occur public outcry, the latter could act in
accordance to the prevailing environmental conditions to salvage the situation. On the contrary,
however, public policies could become unfavourable when government decides to be adamant to
the citizens quest for better living conditions. In this state of affairs, government may be
unwilling or reluctant about certain public needs, or may not act at all.

4
Obviously, from the scenarios captured above, public policy cannot be equated with other forms
of policies. There is therefore a clear-cut distinction between private and public policy. However,
each of the policy types in their distinct forms originates from a proposed course of action which
could be used as a launch-pad to achieve goals and objectives by the actors.

Public Policy Process: Towards Understanding

Every planned action or policy whether at the level of government or the individual has a route it
must follow if such policies must succeed. This is what has come to be regarded variously as
policy processes. It begins from the origin of the policy action, traverses through a trajectory and
wind up at the terminus (the policy end).

Jega, Anderson and Egonmwan depicted the above viz:

Policy Agenda

Policy Formulation
Policy Adoption

Policy Implementation
Policy Evaluation

Fig. 1: A Model of Logically Sequenced Phases of Rational/Scientific Public Policy Making

Process
Source: G.V.D Waldt (Jega, 2003:27).

(re) Formulation

Feedback
and
Evaluation Policy
Implementation
5
Fig. 2: The Policy Making Process
Source: Egonmwan (1991:4).

Table 1: The Policy Process

Policy Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
terminology Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy
agenda formulation adoption implementation evaluation
Those Development of Development Application of the Efforts by the
problems pertinent and of support for policy by the government to
Definition among acceptable a specific government’s determine
many that proposed courses proposal so administrative whether the
receive the of action for that a policy machinery. policy was
serious dealing with a can be effective and
attention of public problem. legitimized or why or why
public authorized. not.
officials
Common Getting the What is Getting the Applying the Did the policy
sense government proposed to be government government’s work?
to consider done about the to accept a policy to the
action on problem particular problem.
the problem solution to the
problem.
Source: Anderson, Brady, and Bullock III (Anderson, 1997:40,cited in Obo,et al,2014).

In the light of the foregoing, Ikelegbe (1994) mentioned that policy process refers to the
methods, conditions, procedures, activities, interactions and stages by which policies are
conceptualized, executed and concluded. In other words, policy process involves how policies
are made or how they come about and the basic elements involved in the processing of policies

6
from the level of problem identification to the final stage which is policy outcome. In another
dimension, policy processes connotes all that goes on from the time the need and desire for a
policy was articulated to the formation of policies through the period the same was enacted,
implemented and the consequence or impact the policy has on the well-being of the target group.
To a very large extent, policy process can be said to be a very complex and technical amalgam of
activities, interactions and strategies involving several persons, groups, interests and so on. By
implication, policy process could be quite hectic and tortuous. The trend showcases several
complex process of bargaining, negotiations, compromises and choice making in the midst of
diverse alternatives. It is goal-oriented and hence laddened with critical alternative paradigms
and has the tendency to dissolve into winner-takes-all phenomena. It could be, in most cases, be
a more or less political exercise, with each group contesting to win over other to serve its own
pecuniary gains. In Nigeria, debates at the National Assembly over resource allocation are a
salient example. The on-going 2014 Constitutional CONFAB where several contentious issues
bothering on the national question have been debated is another clear example.

Obo et al (2014) wrote that policy process is a short hand way of designating various processes
and practices by which public policies are formed. However, it should be noted that there can be
no unilinear or single procedure for which public policies are formulated and realized. Policy
making process is not done like any other production process in an assembly line –
manufacturing and production of automobiles like cars, assorted air crafts, biscuits and toiletries,
pharmaceutical products, utensils, etc. Rather, the process varies and subject to changes
depending on the kind of pressure that is fed into the policy conversion processes. It is in the
light of the aforegoing arguments about the possibility of policy alternatives that Anderson
(1997) argued that variation or fundamental changes in subjects of policies could eventually
produce variations in the paradigm of policy making (1997:38:39).

As complex as public policy making may appear, five (5) stages have clearly been singled out as
outstanding methods with which a policy outcome could satisfactorily emerge. They have
therefore been identified by various scholars in different ways than one. For example, Jones
(cited in Ezeani, 2006) singled out the five strategies as:
(1) Problem identification

7
(2) Policy formulation
(3) Policy application
(4) Policy implementation, and
(5) Policy evaluation.
Let us consider these variables in turn.

The beginning of policy formulation is to adequately identify societal problems. This will then
lead to subsequent formulation of policies in line with the needs of such policies. This
explanation shows that problems of society is a function of policy and vise versa. In the Nigerian
society, just like in any other society, critical infrastructural supplies, e.g, education, health,
water, good road network, telecommunications, etc, constitutes those subjects that may attract
the attention of government. The availability of these facilities in society or the lack of it clearly
defines the tempo of public hues and cries. In a democratic setting, the onus is on electoral
representatives – president, governors, legislators at various capacities and levels, etc, to
adequately respond and cater for their people depending on the enormity of the resources
available. It is therefore incumbent on the political leadership to be vigilant in terms of
identifying those aspects of social infrastructures which tend to have direct bearing on the
generality of the people and act accordingly. This process guarantees the efficacy of democratic
dividends, and therefore ushers in more supports for such leaders when next they opt for future
elective offices.

Conversely, policy application stands for those deliberate and ambitious efforts by government
represented by elected representatives (as in the case of democratic governments) to involve
itself in agenda setting in relation to societal problems. Agenda setting is defined in terms of
targets of achievement over a long period of time. In most cases however, it could be short-term
depending on the magnitude of the problems. In Nigeria, previous governments have had such
policy agenda as vision 2010 (in the Abacha era), vision 2015 (as in the case of the Obasanjo
administration); vision 20-20-20 (as in the case of Yar’Adua’s government). These visions are
nonetheless deliberate moves to enhance the reduction of socio-economic problems of the
Nigerian state. Unfortunately however, experience shows that it has been relatively difficult to
realize such visions in Nigeria as variously earmarked by the political leadership. This shortfall

8
has continued to repeat itself in the series of the very many lithmus tests embarked upon by
government in Nigeria from both past and present in order to commander the Nigerian economy
back on track. However, the experience of the Jonathan administration shows that the application
of policies such as agricultural transformation agenda, Petroleum Subsidy Reinvestment
Programme (SURE-P); the you-win programme, etc, have at various times yielded fruitful results
even though there are microscopic challenges here and there.

The policy formulation stage refers to the conception of relevant polity in relation to relevant
societal problems. This is generally the stage that involves the proposition, consideration and
enactment of policies that has direct consequences on the citizens. Usually, the process goes
through the vigours of legislative procedures and debates until a consensus is reached. The end
of such debates give rise to policy formulation.

However, the formulation of public policy in most cases are being carried out by career civil
service depending on the nature of the problems. Yet in some circumstances, the formation of
public policy derives from bills sent into the National Assembly by either private individuals or
members of the House or even the Executive himself. To Ikelegbe (1994) averred that in the case
of civil service, they constitute the key actors in policy development and recommendation.
Ikelegbe further stressed the increasing importance of the civil service in policy formulation in
Nigeria when he stated inter alia that:
By their strategic location, awareness and functions, the civil service
recommended functions are often invaluable, expected and constitute the
base for consideration and modifications by higher authorities and policy
makers (1994:76).

It can therefore be said that in nearly all the regime types, the civil service as an important
institution in the policy formulation process. Thus, the formulated and enacted policy consist of
main the objectives or goals and the means and method of its implementation. The objective
therefore becomes the core value which the policy is intended to achieve. To a large extent, the
objectives inform the implementation and forms the basis for the evaluation of the performance
or otherwise of the policy.

9
Policy Implementation
After the policy formulation stage is concluded, the next level is policy implementation. The
policy goals and objectives which are mere set of prescriptions, standards, directions and hopes
cannot be complete unless such policies are duely implemented by relevant government
agencies. Policy implementation therefore refers to the process of translating policy mandates
into action, transposing prescriptions into results as well as transforming policy goals into reality.
Policy implementation stands for those activities and processes involved in the application and
administration of policies. It is simply the action taken to accomplish and fulfil the initial intents,
objectives and outcomes or consequences of public policies.

However, what must be understood here is that policy implementation process should basically
consist of (1) the implementing structure or organization, the environment within which its
implementation takes place, those that constitute the policy target groups as well as the
availability of resources at any given time. These elements are essential ingredients in the policy
implementation process.

Policy Evaluation/Policy Impact

Policy evaluation or policy impact means the actual consequences of public policy in the context
of the environment with which such policies are applied.Policy environment could be general or
specific. In Nigeria, for example, policy environment could mean the application of policies in
the general interest of over 170 million Nigerians at a given time. In another way, it could be
restricted to local councils, wards or regions depending on the prevailing environmental
circumstances.

By any standard, however, policy evaluation as contingent on the measurable changes in the
social or physical environment that the policy programme is designed to produce. The problem
with this statement is that it is largely unscientific. This is so because most policies may not
necessarily produce intended consequences on the target groups. The reverses could be the case
in most policies as has been experienced in less developed countries of the world. Impacts of a
policy may be primary or secondary, direct or indirect, internal or external, immediate or

10
futuristic, etc. In a nutshell, which ever way it appears, the expectation is that a large majority of
the citizenry must, and should able to feel the impact of public policies in the overall socio-
economic scheme of things in the society.

Public Policy and Democratic Consolidation

The concept of democracy and public policy are inextricably linked, with the latter reinforcing
the former and vise versa. The survival of democracy and all the principles it proclaims depends
largely on the kind of policy output produced and the consequences of such policies on the
citizenry. It goes without saying therefore that a stable democracy begets efficient and viable
policy output in a system. Similarly, an unstable democratic project gives rise to unviable policy
outcomes which in most cases, could be detrimental to the overall survival and sustenance of the
system. The aforementioned on the increasing relevance of democracy and public policy has
compelled Erunke (2012) to note that:
The culture of democracy in any political setting reinforces itself in the
overall benefits of the teaming populace from the system so much so that
contrary practices that are devoid of the tenets and philosophies of
democracy are counterproductive, and hence, seriously antithetical to
group interests in its general terms (2012:67).

What the foregoing portends is that policy actions or targets of the managers of state must be
seen to be a reflection of the intents and aspirations of the majority in a democratic fashion. In
Nigeria, just like most Third world countries, and indeed, the Global South generally, there
appears to be a seeming danger on the path of democratic trajectory as most policies have been
literally carried out in the interest of a few comprador bourgeoisie class. This is evident in
several policy issues which have been found to be anti-people, bias and fraught within
consistencies, rhetorics and propaganda in the socio-economic scheme of things.

Empirical evidence from various sources reveals that with the emergence of Nigeria’s Fourth
Republic in 1999, after several decades of military autocracy, expectations of persons and groups
on the delivery of democratic welfares was on the increase. Vast majority of Nigerians looked
with great hopes of better things to come along with the processes of democratic governance.

11
They looked forward to the freeing of national structures and institutions. The rising expectations
therefore were tied to the extent of which government and its agencies were expected to apply
appropriate policy measures to facilitate the release of critical infrastructures namely, education,
health, roads network, agricultural development and poverty reduction, disease control,
unemployment reduction, security issues, etc. This elements constitutes the crux of human
existence and decent living without which government will be considered as grossly ineffective.
Experience has shown in recent Nigerian times that Nigeria and indeed, Nigerians have not
faired any better in terms of trickledown effects of government policies to the people. There is
abject poverty, especially in rural communities and remote villages. The level of unemployment
is pathetically very high as millions of graduates throng the major streets scampering for few
available jobs. There are high rate of diseases – malaria and typhoid, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS,
child and women mortality, etc.

The conditions of the roads in Nigeria are mere death-traps, corruption in both low and high
places stand tall and practically unperturbed because the necessary punitive measures by way of
strict legislation or policies to curb the menace are not in place. Developments such as the ones
portrayed above and several others not so captured have been of very serious burden on
Nigeria’s democratic survival and consolidation. Consolidation of Nigerian democracy must
transcend beyond paying lip service. It means those values and democratic institutions and
structures must be adequately catered for and strengthened, including those paraphernalia of
policy making bodies. Consolidating the Nigerian democracy means that public policies must
emanate from the peoples. It is the people or citizenry who will be able to properly mobilize and
direct the course of public policies because policies are not made for the elites. The people
reserve the ultimate decision making powers and sovereignty. It is pertinent therefore that if the
Nigerian state must move forward in the global scheme of things, those who are stakeholders in
the management of policies must begin to consider integrating the idea processes, ideological
leanings, concepts and the entire wishes and aspirations of the citizenry in the formulation and
implementation of public policies. This will go a long way in deepening and strengthening the
already chequered Nigerian state system thereby allowing it to thrive in line with global policy
best practices.

12
13
 References

Anderson, J.E. 1997. Public Policy Making: An Introduction. Boston: Mifflin Company.

Dye, T.R. 1989. Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall.

Egonmwan, J.A. 1991. Public Policy Analysis: Concepts and Applications. Benin City: S.M.O.
Aka & Brothers.

Erunke, C.E. 2012. “Consolidating Democratic Governance in Nigeria: Analysis and

Suggestions “A publication ofAfrican Journal of Social Sciences 2(2). London, United
Kingdom.

Ezeani, E.O. 2006. Fundamentals of Public Administration. Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd.

Ikelegbe, A.O. 1994. Public Policy Making and Analysis. Benin City: Uri Publishing Ltd.

Jega, A.M. 2003. Public Policy and Democratization in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Policy and
Strategy, 13 (1&2).

Obo, U.B., Eteng, F.O., Coker, M.A. 2014. “Public Opinion and the Public Making Process in
Nigeria: A Critical Assessment,” Canadian Social Science, 10(5).

14

View publication stats