Benefits And Role Of Centralized Policy Development In Government Agencies

Types of Policies Developed and Their Roles

Question:

Why do Government agencies typically develop Policies at a Central Head Office Level?  What roles do these Central Policy units play?

Policies are often responses provided to a set of stimulus, which are seen as pertinent problems, in the context of public welfare. Thus over here, a set of reforms are planned and implemented by the government from time to time. The policy development is often triggered by a set of conditions such as economic crisis, changes in regulations brought about by shifting of governments and political goodwill.

The policy development has to pass through a number of stages such as identification of the problem, deciphering the cause behind a particular problem, planning of the alternatives. In this regard, one of the important developments is the planning of other suitable interventions. However, as suggested by Rodan (2016), there is a need to evaluate the policies before proper implementation. The centralization of the policies helps in mitigation of the additional costs encountered in the context of health care. As suggested by Wilensky (2015), a major portion of the expenditures spent in health care in Australia come from the government sources. However, a substantial amount of the amount is directed towards private medical care.

The Australian government pays a reasonable amount of the public funding on health costs. Thus, there is a need to develop a proper framework for the policies. The framework helps in understanding the policy development process and different factors, which have been taken into account. The policies can be further divided into the following types such as – distributive, regulatory, redistributive and self-regulatory. In this respect, the distributive policies cater to specific needs of a sector of people. The regulatory policies, on the other hand, can limit the benefits earned by the private medical practitioners. The self-regulatory policies are imposed by any organization to monitor its own working and practices. The redistributive policies are practices implemented by the government for maintaining of equilibrium within the population. For e.g. the high earners in Singapore have to pay a sufficient amount of subsidiary to the low-income group. Thus, such centralization of policies helps in catering to the individual needs of the population.

There is a need to develop policies at the central head office level owing to the different extremities of response provided. Depending on its type, the policies are redefined and further accepted by the society. Thus, promulgation of a redistributive policy means that higher amount of subsidiaries have to be paid by the high earner groups. Thus, centralization of the policies can help in removing biases from the policy-making framework. As commented by Zuiderwijk & Janssen (2014), designing the policies at the central level helps in removing biases arising out of overlapping of the policies. There are certain common areas within the social, economic and the health policies.  Considerable parts of all the three are directed towards the welfare of the people.

Challenges Faced in Policy Implementation

Thus, there is a need for the standardization of the policies along with centralization of the power. At the state level, the policymaking has to go through a number of structural levels.  As argued by Woo (2015), such distribution of powers often leads to conflict within the powerful interest groups. Moreover, implementation of the policies at the central level helps in bringing out positive changes in the attitude of the community and the government.

There are a number of different roles played by the policies implemented at the central level. The policies help in maintaining equilibrium as far as the costs and expenditures of the health care are concerned. As suggested by Angelidou (2015), the implementation of the policies at the central level helps in maintaining a balance of powers. Thus, implementation of the same could help in the balancing of the additional costs brought about by the healthcare. Thus, such policies make the decision making part related to health care subject to public evaluation. This further helps in maintaining the transparency levels as far as designing of health care policies are concerned. The rightful incorporation of the policies helps in mitigating the costs in the field of development and technology. Additionally, global competitiveness and rising burden of diseases within the population also demands the urgent implementation of the policies.

The incorporation of the policies helps in maintaining a number of pre-defined goals. It helps in meeting the outcomes and objectives of public welfare. The policies help in defining the methods and protocols to which the goals are achievable. It helps in maintaining a common service channel between the state and central governments. This can be done by directing a part of the income of the high earning group for the welfare of the public.

However, there are a number of limitations faced in the implementation of the policies such as policy differentiation. Under this, certain additional benefits are provided to a particular section of people subjected to their social and economic conditions. Additionally, there might be difficulties in gathering clear evidence for the development of the policies.

The Singapore health care system promotes self-financing the medical costs rather than depending on the government resources.  This helps in rightfully preserving the resources of the government from overuse.  For the purpose of which the Singapore government has been seen to take a number of steps to generate more transparency and competitiveness in the medical care structure. In this context, an initiative undertaken by the government requires the hospitals to put in their charges onto the website. I think the increasing cost would help the hospices to improve its services. In my analysis of the paper, I have come across the point that the Singapore government promotes the sharing of confidential information across a number of medical networks. This helps in garnering more funds for providing treatment to the patients.

Initiatives taken by Singapore Government to Promote Transparency and Competitiveness in Healthcare

However, as argued by Lim  et al.(2015), the sharing of information which are privy to a patient may be a violation of the ethics and standards. In my evaluation of the paper, I have come across provision of some of the extra facilities such as medical insurances along with government-funded grants to cover he extra costs.  However, lack of knowledge about such policies and programs could hinder the outcome of the process (Angelidou, 2015).

The policies are formulated by the respective government in order to, achieve long term and short term stable outcomes.  As commented Tan et al. (2014), the policy development has to undergo through an eight step process such as –identification of the major issues, development of proper instruments for analysis of the policies. The implementation of the policies requires sufficient amount of consultation and coordination. However, there are a number of steps, which needs to be followed for the implementation of the policies. In my analysis of the literature, I have come across some of the loopholes of policy designing. These include dependence on large-scale databases.

However, for proper implementation of the policy enough support from government organizations are needed. I support the argument stated in the paper that lack of findings a required infrastructure can possess a huge hindrance. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages of centralized policy making such as enhancing coordination between different state agencies to work together. This helps in maintaining transparency in the policy making process (Woo, 2015). On the contrary Mckenzie & Meissner (2017), the central policies are often not implemented in full potential at the state level

References

Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3-S11.

Bruno, V., & Shin, H. S. (2015). Capital flows and the risk-taking channel of monetary policy. Journal of Monetary Economics, 71, 119-132.

Destler, I. M. (2015). Presidents, bureaucrats and foreign policy: The politics of organizational reform. UK: Princeton University Press.

Lee, C., Ma, L., & Zhou, Y. (2017). The changing dynamics of policy experiment in Singapore: does the 2011 general election make a difference?. Asian Journal of Political Science, 1-20.

Lim, L., Chan, H. N., Chew, P. H., Chua, S. M., Ho, C., Kwek, S. K. D., … & Wan, Y. M. (2015). Ministry of Health clinical practice guidelines: anxiety disorders. Singapore medical journal, 56(6), 310.

Mckenzie, L., & Meissner, K. L. (2017). Human rights conditionality in European Union trade negotiations: The case of the EU–Singapore FTA. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(4), 832-849.

Rodan, G. (2016). The political economy of Singapore’s industrialization: national state and international capital. Berlin: Springer.

Tan, K. B., Tan, W. S., Bilger, M., & Ho, C. W. (2014). Monitoring and evaluating progress towards universal health coverage in Singapore. PLoS medicine, 11(9), e1001695.

Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. Abingdon:Routledge.

Wilensky, H. L. (2015). Organizational Intelligence: Knowledge and policy in government and industry (Vol. 19). London: Quid Pro Books.

Woo, J. J. (2015). Beyond the neoliberal orthodoxy: alternative financial policy regimes in Asia’s financial centres. Critical Policy Studies, 9(3), 297-316.

Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17-29.