Theoretical And Practical Gaps In Policy Making Process In Five Organizations

Nor Ashikin Mohamed Yusof, Sri Widias Asnam, Aini Suzila Anas, Nur Suraya Mustapha, Natrah Emran, Nor Azalina Azman

Abstract


Policy making is an integral part of policy studies. Theoretically the process of developing a policy document is neither easy nor simple. Far from merely copying the policy provisions of other countries, the process of developing a policy document must go through specific steps and procedures commonly known as policy cycle with each cycle serves specific functions. Although bench-making study is highly encouraged, it is also preferable for policymakers to align the policy making exercise in accordance to proven theory, model, method and process. Not many know about all these processes and steps. Some very senior and seasoned policymakers even think that there is no need for them to learn and pursue knowledge in policymaking simply because they have long years of practical experiences in developing, formulating, implementing, enforcing and subsequently analyzing and evaluating policies. This article reports case studies involving five national policy documents and internal policies at several key governmental department and organizations. The findings from the study enables the researchers to make a comparison between the theory of policy making and the practice of policy making in Malaysia. The findings show that there is still a huge gap between theory and practice in policymaking and policy studies in Malaysia. There are instances where few policy makers or top management personnel choose not to follow or ignorant about the steps of policy cycles. Although policy studies might have a very bright future in Malaysia but the journey in educating relevant parties would be a long one beginning with a correct perception and willingness to change attitudes.   

 

Keywords; policy studies, policy cycle, policy making process

Full Text:

PDF

References


Althaus, Bridgman and Glyn (2017). Australian Policy Making Handbook, 7th Ed. Sydney: S. M. E Publication

Ansori, S., (2013). Policy formulation processes in Malaysia and Australia: Cultural differences do matter. Unpublished. PhD thesis. Australian National University.

Ariffin, R. N. R., and N. Mansor (2009). "The Cabinet: Highest Decision Maker in the Land." In Governing Malaysia, edited by A. R. Baginda tittled "The Cabinet: Highest Decision Maker of the Land." pp. 113-40. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, 2009.

Ascher, W., (2017). Understanding policymaking process in developing countries. London; Oxford University Press

Atory,H.,(2008).Pembentukan polisi awam. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka

Bari, A.A (2009). "The Monarchy and State Governing." In Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, edited by A. R. Baginda, 75-90. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Strategic Research Centre.

Binger D., & Fellbinger,C. L., ( 1989). Evaluation in practice methodological approach. New York: Longman

Cascio,W.,(1989).Human Resource Management. New York: Mcgraw Hill.

Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1991). Marketing research methodological foundations, 5th ed., Orlando, Florida, Dryden Press.

Esterberg, K.G. (2002). Qualitative Methods in Social Research. United States of America: McGraw Hill.

Friedman., L., (2002) Microeconomic. Policy analysis. Priceton, New Jersey ; Priceton University Press

Harvman, R., (1987). Policy evaluation research after 20 years. Policy Studies Journal pg 191-218

Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M., 1995, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Oxford University Press, Toronto.

Gerston., L., (2010) Public policy making. 3rd Ed. London; M.E Sharpe

Gicks, R., (2000). Practice issues for the beginning trainer Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Leong, H.K., (1992) Dynamics of Policy-Making in Malaysia: The Formulation of the New Economic Policy and the National Development Policy. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 14:2, 204-227, DOI: 10.1080/02598272.1992.10800269

MyFEPS Drafting Team. Malaysian Framework on Evaluation Policy and Standards. Centre for Development and Research in Evaluation (CeDRE) International, Definitions of concepts and terms under Integrated Results-based Management (IRBM) System www.cedre.org.my

McCool, D., (1995).Public policy models and concepts: an anthology, New York: Prentice Hall

Miles, M.B and Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, London: Sage Publications.

Muslihah Hasbullah (2010). Policy making in Malaysia.

www.vodppl.upm.edu.my/uploads/docs/FEM3106%20TOPIC%202.ppt

Parsons, W. 1995, Public Policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis, Edward Elgar, London, Part Four: Delivery Analysis, Section 4.4, ‘Delivery Mixes’, pp. 491-542.

Poon, S.W ( 1994). Pengurusan sumber manusia, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka

Rahmah,Y., (2004) Peningkatan Kualiti Pengajaran Polisi . Prosiding Persidangan Antarabangsa Pembangunan Acheh. UKM Bangi. 16-17 Disember 2004.

Ricks, Betty R., Ginn, Mary L., & Daughtrey, Anne Scott. (1995). Contemporary Supervision (2nd ed.).Mcgraw Hill, Inc.

Sabatier, P., (1986). Top down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy 6 pg 21-48

Truelove, S., (1995). The Handbook of Training and Development (2nd ed.). Blackwell Bussiness.

Van Meter & Van Horn (1975). The policy implementation process. Journal of Administration and Society, pg 445-488

Whoky,J.S., (1970). Federal evaluation policy. WashingtonD.C.: The Urban Institute

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research—Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14203/STIPM.2019.157

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 STI Policy and Management Journal

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright of Journal of STI (Science Technology Innovation) Policy and Management Journal (e-ISSN 2502-5996 p-ISSN 1907-9753). Powered by OJS.