Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Policy Implementation in Intergovernmental Organizations
Policy formulated and implemented by intergovernmental public administration organizations, such as the UN, has increased immensely in the past few decades due to increased global collaborations in business and socio-economic development. An organization, such as the UN, encompasses in its work a widerange of member nations interests. Its main role is to determine the many policies that will serve the interests of all its member states. According to Dimitrakopoulos and Passas (2003:440), the UN is an intergovernmental organization which is characterized by an increasing delegation of powers by member states to its various agencies, whose output penetrates into national policies and legal frameworks and domestic administration. The United Nations serves as a multilateral diplomatic forum tasked with addressing a range of international political, economic and social issues, and the preservation of law and social order (Unknown, 2005). According to the UN Secretary General Report of 1996, the organization poses a functional framework for institutional strengthening, and support for capacity building in governance, and also effective administration of socio-economic systems, thus serving as the principal organ of international public administration (United Nations, 1996).
International public administration has the same process and principles as national public administration by state organs, including policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation by its various organs (United Nations, 2005). The initiation and formulation of policy in Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) like the UN is influenced by public policy proposals of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and public as well as private organizations, the international public interest and the media response on emerging issues, the constitutional provisions in its founding charter, the provisions of international law and court decisions and directives (Unknown, 2005). Starling (2002:21) points out that after submissions of policy proposals by the various interest groups, the UN embarks on a series of steps in its policy formulation process: statement of the issue and the objective of the proposed policy; analysis of the stated options to resolve the identified problem; choice of the best available and feasible policy options; prioritization of the actions that need to be undertaken to attain the proposed policy objectives; development of programmes and projects based on the prioritised actions; and sourcing of funds and other resources for the implementation of programmes or projects. The policy formulation process at the UN also includes: obtaining support from national and international stakeholders for the proposed policy; obtaining the political legitimacy of the proposed policy from its member states; ensuring that there is legal framework within which the policy will be implemented; and the establishment of the capacity required for implementation (United Nations, 2005).
According to Starling (2002:21), policy implementation in international public administration organizations, such as the UN, is very complex and challenging because of a diverse number of role players, settings, cultures, and so on. that must be accommodated for successful implementation. Starling (2002:21-22) argues that policy implementation in the context of the UN includes the following phases: requesting and obtaining the permission of the target member country as well as other member countries for the implementation of the policy; allocation of funds and other resources that are required for implementation; development of projects which will be informed by strategic analysis, and prioritisation of the policy. Gulick (1937: 191-5) points out that the above implementation phase as proposed by Starling (2002) will be followed by the second phase of implementation which is based on the establishment of functions of public administration, such as planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, operating, budgeting and reporting. During implementation, UN administrators will also monitor and evaluate to determine whether the intended policy objectives are realised, and where remedial measures are needed, action is taken for effective and successful implementation of the policy (Starling, 2002:22).
Public Policy Monitoring and Evaluation
During policy implementation, monitoring and evaluation activities are undertaken to ensure that the policy intentions are realized and where shortcomings are identified, corrective measures are implemented. Both monitoring and evaluation are generally defined as having four main objectives: first, to monitor and evaluate results and impacts of programmes; secondly, to provide the basis for decision making on whether programme implemented need amendments or improvements; thirdly, to promote accountability for the resources used; and fourthly, to disseminate the results and lessons learned (GEF,2002:6). May (2003:230) points out that different governments use different institutions to monitor progress in the implementation of policy including: ad hoc committees; commissions; parliamentary offices; and other monitoring and evaluation agencies.
There are five monitoring and evaluation criteria used in public administration: first, impact, which refers to measuring the positive or negative outcomes on the society targeted; second, effectiveness, which refers to measuring the extent to which the desired outcomes are realized; third, efficiency, which refers to measuring the outputs versus inputs as a means to establish the cost effectiveness of the programme; fourth, relevance, which assesses the continuous need for such a programme against new developments locally or internationally; and fifth, sustainability, which gauges whether the outcomes or success of the programme will be maintained over a long period (GEF, 2001:8).
Monitoring is defined as the systematic collection, and analysis of information for the purpose of internal and external accountability, learning from experience, and making future decisions (PSO, 2004: 11-12). Tools that are used in monitoring may include project or programme annual reports, medium-term review reports and final implementation reports (PSO, 2004: 11-12). In comparing the
information in these reports against expectation, public administrators will review inputs, activities and outputs (PSO, 2004:11-12). Inputs include expertise and financial costs. Activities refer to reviewing of tasks assigned. Outputs refer to the results from activities.
In order for projects or programmes to be assessed, public administrators must ensure an appropriate balance of the following steps: obtaining and studying of reports from the projects such as annual project reports, progress reports, workplans, and other detailed documentation from the projects; thoroughly checking and validating gathered information from reports to determine whether the reported progress is accurate or not; and field visits to gather comments from stakeholders and the targeted groups on progress and proposed action (IFAD, 2005:157).
Evaluation is undertaken in public administration to establish the success of the projects or programmes on the life and well-being of the beneficiaries (PSO, 2004:12). The purpose of evaluating a project may be to stop certain activities that are harming or add certain activities that will contribute to the desired social or economic impact, or to establish external factors that are positively or negatively impacting on project outcomes (IFAD, 2005:155). Normally performance measures or indicators are used to evaluate public administration programmes. It is therefore essential that when performance indicators are developed, as indicated in the earlier sections, such measures are simple for evaluation purposes. Beneficiaries must also be involved in the determination of indicators so that all stakeholders are actively contributing in defining what is to be evaluated, and how and when to evaluate (IFAD, 2005:157). Indicators or measures used may be either qualitative or quantitative, or both, depending on their reliability and the nature of the programme (IFAD, 2005:157).
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.3 PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION
1.5 SCOPE AND DELIMITATIONS
1.6 CHAPTER OUTLINE
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DATA GATHERING
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS
2.4 INTERPRETATION OF DATA
2.5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE ROLE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN GOVERNING
3.3 THE ORGANIZATION OF FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTER-GOVERNMNETAL COOPERATION
3.4 SOUTH AFRICA IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
3.5 DIPLOMATIC AFFAIRS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SA MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL RELATIONS
3.6 OTHER CHALLENGES IN THE IMPLEMETATION OF SOUTH AFRICA’S FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES
3.7 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND HUMAN RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT SOUTH AFRICA’S FOREIGN POLICY
3.8 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR: PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH: A CURRICULUM OVERVIEW
4.1 REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS FOR DIPLOMATS
4.2 STRENGTHENING CAPACITY IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN PUBLIC SERVICE
4.3 THE DFA’S POLICY ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
4.4 CASE STUDY ONE
4.5 CASE STUDY TWO
4.6 CASE STUDY THREE
4.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
5.1 QUALITATIVE NARRATIVE
5.2 SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
5.3 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
5.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SUMMARY
6.3 CONCLUSION
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.5 SUMMARY
REFERENCES
