Assalamu'alaikum Wr.Wb Public Policy By: Dr. Sarwono, MSi.

Presentasi berjudul: "Assalamu'alaikum Wr.Wb Public Policy By: Dr. Sarwono, MSi."— Transcript presentasi:

1 Assalamu'alaikum Wr.Wb Public Policy By: Dr. Sarwono, MSi

2

3 CURRICULUM VITAE Name : Dr. Sarwono, MSi Job : Kepala Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Sosial Universitas Brawijaya Malang Training : Ellicos Program, Flinders Uni, SA ToT Widyaswara Eselon II LAN, JKT Internship Local Government, WB-UI Intergoverment Relationships,Nuffic- UB HP/

4 Resources and Linkages:
Context: Meaning activities on lecturing include the preparation of student high competence to policy problem solving in generally. They should produce the new alternative are readable and structured in a presentable form. They show also be able to make informed decision about the main problem of policy Resources and Linkages: One student group, one case Presentation about 30’ and discourse Power point program and compeering IT centre and library unit Governmental and social interest group Methodology: Lecture may describe a content overview Lecture may introduce created simple exercise Student centred learning Require student first to open and modify Progress more difficult exercise

5 PHILOSOPHY OF PUBLIC POLICY
Not perfect Post Realist Critical Wisdom Prudential measure Learning by process Paradigm Shift Focus, locus, arena, area

6 Sub-objective to be able to:
Student should be able to use the basic concepts and to utilize its features in contextual problems of policy. They should be able to show competence in using analysis for this real problem: problem situation, quick analysis, advantages, limitations and proposed to design alternative policy Sub-objective to be able to: Use the critical system thinking as a evaluation Utilize argumentative turn for methodology Show alternative policy designed

7 PUBLIC POLICY FUNCTION
Public policy = f (knowledge + advisory) Public policy= f (demand + support) Public policy= f (professional + welfare) Public policy= f (politics + administration) Public policy= f (valuable + improved) Public policy= f (legacy + compliance)

8 STUDI OF PUBLIC POLICY Dewey (1927)
Focused for the public and its problems : How this issue and problem defined How are constructed and placed on agenda Heidenheimer et.al (1990) Study of How, why, and to what effect governments pursue particular courses of action and inaction Dye (1976) What government do, why the do it and what different it makes Nagel (1990) Study of the nature, causes and effects of public policy

9 SO's? ….concerned with problems and relationship of policy to these problems ….concerned with the content of public policies ….interested in the inputs and processes of a policy area ….concerned with what the decision-makers and policy maker to do not to do ….concerned with the consequences of policy

10 POLICY PROCESS Rushefsky, 1990 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AGENDA BUILDING
POLICY FORMULATION BUDGETING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION POLICY EVALUATION POLICY SUCCESSIONATION

11 Adaptation of Perkin’s taxonomy
SOCIAL PROBLEM LEGESLATED OBJECTIVES PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE INTERVENTION PROGRAM OUTCOMES Agenda setting Policy formulation implementation evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6

12 Policy Process (Kelley, 1997 and Meier, 1991)
Advisors’ Predictions & Prescriptions Advisori Prediksi & Preskripsi Policy outcome Policy maker Policy choice Implementation Dampak Program Society-centered Forces Classes Interest Group Parties & Voters State-centered Forces Technocrats Bureaucrats State interests

13 BASIC POLICY ANALYSIS Patton & Sawicky Policy action forecasting
DEFINE THE PROBLEM DETERMINE EVALUATION CRITERIA Policy action forecasting IMPLEMENT THE PREFERRED POLICY IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE POLICIES SELECT THE PREFERRED POLICY recommendation Policy alternatives EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE POLICIES

14 WHAT's? Professional analyst Academic atmosphere Applicative research
Critical thinking Policy paper Recommendation/advocacy

15 Concerned with the signals, issue and problem
Concerned with the content Concerned with the policy designer & implementer Concerned with the policy consequences Concerned with the people

16 STANDING POSITION ANALYST ASSUMPTIONS INSTRUMENTAL NOT REPRESENTATIVE
ANALYSIS FAILURE STANDING POSITION ANALYST ASSUMPTIONS INSTRUMENTAL NOT REPRESENTATIVE

17 POLICY FAILURE

18 98 99 20 21 22

19 Goal Objective Oriented
Governance Oriented Expertise Oriented Goal Objective Oriented State Oriented

20 Policy Implementation
State oriented Totality government: Agenda Setting Policy Making Policy Implementation Policy Evaluation Public = as object

21 Expertise recommendation Theory assumptions Standardize indicators
Expertise oriented Expertise recommendation Theory assumptions Standardize indicators Techtonomy Universalism Public = as object

22 Government as facilitator:
Tomorrow Governance oriented Government as facilitator: Social equity Human rights Transparency Accountability Citizen oriented Public = subject

23 Sarwono, 2005 Blitar city Program- evaluation Agreement Multi-
. Multi-layers Evaluation Sarwono, 2005 Program- evaluation Agreement Multi- stakeholders meeting Opini Agregation & Compilation of data Polling Cluster/ Beneficieris Blitar city

24 MAIN FRAMES OF ANALYSIS
Dryzek, 1987 Welfare economics Public Choice Social structure Information processing Political philosophy Parsons, 1997 Political process Comparative politics Management

25

26 Proposition Setiap sistem sosial memiliki logika kehidupan sendiri
Awalnya sistem politik-negara dibentuk atas logika sistem sosial Perubahan sistem politik-negara ke arah yang lebih modern dapat menimbulkan hilangnya logika sistem sosial Logika sistem sosial berganti menjadi logika sistem ekonomi kapitalism Dalam pada kondisi ini maka masyarakat-individu akan kehilangan energi kekuasaan sebagai pemilik negara Jika demikian maka sistem politik-negara tidak lagi lekat dengan logika sosial masyarakat Institusi politik-administrasi juga akan kehilangan fungsi utamanya sebagai pengemban kehidupan sosial masyarakat Maka terjadi akumulasi ketidak puasan masyarakat akan cenderung menimbulkan krisis

27 Household Categories Sarwono, 2005 Katagori Pola I ‘No children’, early marriage stage (rumah tangga baru, tanpa anak) II ‘Child-bearing’, young households with children who are all 10 years of age or younger (rumah tangga muda, memiliki anak usia 10 tahun atau lebih muda). III ‘Child-rearing’, middle age households having children younger than 5 years and children 10 years of age and older (rumah tangga dewasa, mempunyai anak antara usia termuda 5 tahun dan tertua 10 tahun atau lebih). IV ‘Child-leaving’, old households that comprise children all above the age of 5 and one or more children who have lelf the household (rumah tangga tua, mempunyai anak usia diatas 5 tahun dan salah satu anak telah meninggalkan rumah). V ‘No-children’, mature households with no dependent children (rumah tangga matang, tanpa ketergantungan anak) VI Non-Categori Chayanov – ChayanovPlus

28 The earth summit Rio de Janeiro (1992)
Resolution No. 50/225 General Assemble UNO (1996) Governance Theory Public Administration Theory Pluralism approach Post Positivism approach

29 COLLABORATIVE Authentic Dialogue Reciprocity Relationships Learning
Diversity of Interests Interdependence of Interests Characteristics of Participants Authentic Dialogue Reciprocity Relationships Learning Creativity Results of Authentic Dialogue Shared Identities Shared meanings New Heuristics Innovation Adaptations Of the System

30 Governing Values Action Strategies Consequences Double-Loop Learning Single-Loop Learning

31 TRIPLE LOOPS ANALYSIS CONTEXT ASSUMPTION ACTION OUTCOMES 4/23/2017
SARWONO 31

32