methodological guide on impact of public policies

8/11/2019 Methodological Guide on Impact of Public Policies

1/81

Government of the Republic of Moldova

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDEon

ex-ante assessment

of the impact of Public Policies

Machinery of Government, 2009


2/81

2

Content

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................3

BASIC NOTIONS AND DEFINITIONS ...................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS....................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER I. EX-ANTE ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICIES....................8

1. STAGES OF PUBLIC POLICIES EX-ANTE EVALUATION 82. TYPES OF EX-ANTE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9

3. PUBLIC POLICY PROPOSAL ERROR!BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

4. PROCESS COORDINATION WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT11

CHAPTER II. EX-ANTE ASSESSMENT FACILITIES...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1. PRELIMINARY STAGE.IMPACT ASSESSMENT PLANNING 141.1. Stage description ..................................... ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.2. Notification of public policy elaboration....... ......................................... .......................................161.3. Data collection ........................................ ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2. STAGE I.PROBLEM DEFINITION192.1. Stage description ..................................... ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. STAGE

II.O

BJECTIVES SETUP

223.1. Stage description ..................................... ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.4. STAGE III.IDENTIFICATION OF OPTIONS26

4.1. Stage description ..................................... ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. STAGE IV.OPTIONS ANALYSIS 305.1. Stage description ..................................... ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2. Distribution of Costs and Benefits to society............................ ....................................... ..............325.3. Fiscal impact analysis ........................................ .............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.4. Administrative impact analysis............................... .............................................. .........................37

5.5. Economic impact analysis ......................................... ........................................... .........................39

5.6. Social and poverty impact analysis ...................................... ........................................... ..............415.7. Strategic environment analysis......................................................................................................43

5.8. Risk analysis ..................................... ........................................... ............................................... ...46

6. STAGE V.COMPARISON OF OPTIONS,AND FORMULATION OF A RECOMMENDATION 486.1. Stage description ..................................... ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.6.2. Formulation of public policy proposal ..................................... ........................................... ..........52

CHAPTER III. CONSULTATION PROCESS .......................................................................................54

1. CONSULTATION FACILITIES FOR EX-ANTE IMPACT ASSESSMENT54

2. CONSULTATION OF EXPERTS 55

3. CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 56

4. PROCEDURE NOTES AND COMMENTS 56

5. DELIBERATIVE FACILITIES 58

6. ANALYSIS OF INTERESTED PARTIES OPINION 58

APPENDIXES.................................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Appendix I. ...................................................................................... An example of Public policy proposal

Error! Bookmark not defined.Appendix II. .Problem tree: The quality of public policy documens and of regulatory acts elaborated byCPA is not adequate ......................................... ........................................... ........................................... ...67

Appendix III.............Objective tree: Elaboration of public policy documents and of regulatory acts is of

adequate quality ................................... ....................................... ................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix IV. ............................................................................................Definition of public policy facilities 71

Appendix V. Evaluation and eligibility criteria for public policy

proposal...................................................77


3/81

3

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................................80

Introduction

The edification of a modern prosperous state, where the Government actions would have a

beneficial impact on the society, implies a coherent functioning of decision-making process within

central public administration (CPA). The improvement of this process efficiency within the

Government implies both the creation of a sustanable system of Government administration and the

introduction of an efficient system of public policies elaboration.

The evolution processes in the economic and social fields which have place in a country require the

intervention of central public authorities for correction of certain transformations, which produce or

will produce in the future an undesirable impact on the society. These interventions are actually

materialized by means of actions fixed in public policy documents and other regulatory acts. At

present, the coppendixion between these documents and methods of their elaboration,

implementation and evaluation, as well as the division of functions among participants involved into

the decision-making process, are not clear and transparent. Over the last years, the public authorities

have made sporadic efforts to improve the quality of public policies elaborated. These efforts made

possible the familiarization with stages and facilities of public policy elaboration, but are still notsufficient for consolidation of durable and directioned skills of public officials, which are required

for public policy analysis. The lack of a common methodological frame to be followed within the

process of public policy elaboration compromises all the efforts of public officials to formulate a

coherent public policy, the implementation of which assures the achievement of objectives

established by the authorities.

The necessity of this methodological guide elaboration derives from the importance of public

policies in the context of decision-making process in general and of strategic planning in particular.

This guide have been elaborated as a methodological guidebook for central public authorities

involved into the process of public policy elaboration, however can also be used by large public. The

guide fixes the basic principles in edification of a durable and efficient system of public policy

elaboration, based on European best practices.

This system is based on public policy analysis prior to its approvement, which is also called ex-ante

evaluation of the impact of public policy. The impact assessment represents the determined tool of

public policy elaboration process, by means of which the problems, objectives and options related to

the policy can be identified and evaluated, by providing of decision-making agents with valuable

empiric data for correct documentation and decision. This guidebooks destination is to supplement

the Methodological guidebook on decision-making process which describes both the stages of

planning within the Government and the stages of public policy cycle, starting with public policy

elaboration the stage permeated by ex-ante evaluation.

The methodilogy guidebook on public policies elaboration introduces into the process of public

policies elaboration two new important changes one procedural, and the other one related to thecontent, as follows:

1. Public policy proposal elaboration (PPP) prior to elaboration of regulatory and legal acts,

public policy documents or other specific actions.

2. Establishment of concrete requirements for content ex-ante evaluation, resumed in public

policy proposal.

The introduction of requirement to elaborate the public policy Proposal prior to decision-making,

will allow to make informed decisions, which would prevent or correct both market failures and

Government failures.


4/81

4

The first project of methodological guidebook has been conceived on the base of the guidebook on

Regulatory Impact Evaluation (RIE) elaborated by the Ministry of Economy and Trade for

regulatory acts analysis, which could have an impact on entrepreneurial activity. In distinction from

guidebook on RIE, the methodological guidebook considers the modality ofpublic policies

elaborationin general, which can take various forms public policy documents, regulatory acts and

even documents which do not obligatorily consider the business sphere. The final version of

guidebook, which was elaborated as a result of consultations realised with public authorities, takesinto account the principles fixed in the gudebook on RIE, in parallel with the extension of set of

tools for realizing the ex-ante evaluation of the impact of public policies. The guidebook determines

the public officials to use their critical thinking in process of impact assessment, by offering with

this view a range of useful questions, the answers to which will lead to a deeper understanding of

Public Policy options.

In addition, the methodological guide does not represent an exhaustive spectrum of facilities and

questions for ex-ante evaluation of public policies impact, but a selection of tools, which are

accessible for and applicable by public officers and analists involved into this process. The selection

of a set of analitical tools, especially those of high quality, derives from a novelty appeared in the

process of ex-ante evaluation of the impact of public policies and, hence, the insufficient capacities

of public authorities to use a facility more sophisticated. The requirements to the analysis, whichaccompanies the process of public policies elaboration will increase as the analitical skills of public

authorities will grow.

The Ghuidebook contains three chapters. The first chapter describes the stages and the types of ex-

ante analysis and explains certain requirements related to the process. The second chapter considers

the analitical facilities for every stage of public policies impact assessment. The third chapter

describes bothe the consulting modalities within the evaluation process, and sets up the cathegories

of participants. Also, the Ghuidebook contains five appendixes. The first Appendix offers an

example of public policy Proposal, which contains the ex-ante evaluation synthesis. The second

Appendix illustrates an example of problem identified by means of problem tree method. The

third Appendix contains an example of objective, determined on the base of objective tree method.

The fourth Appendix describes the public policies facilities, which should be considered while

analysing the options of public policies. The fifth Appendix describes the evaluation and eligibility

criteria for public policy Proposal. A separate compartment following the introduction is dedicated

to the basic notions and definitions used in this guidebook.

Basic notions and definitions

Introducing a number of innovative stages and proceeds into the functioning of decision-making

process involves the use of certain new notions and terms. These are the basic notions to be learned

for better familiarisation with decision-making process and with public policies ex-ante evaluation.

In addition, through this guidebook there will persist a number of important notions, which will bedefined in the respective chapter, thus allowing to not separate these notions from the context. Thus,

within the context of this guide, the following notions will be used:

Public policy ex-ante analysisrepresents the process of identification of problem or objective,

eventual options of problem solving or achievement of objective, and analysis of the effects or

consequences of these options pending decision;

Public policy documentrepresents a tool of reflexion of public policy planification results. In

function of proportions, the public policy documents are divided into three types: national,


5/81

5

intersectorial and sectorial. As regards the form, the public policy documents can be of five types:

public policy conception, strategy, program, plan and proposal;

Public policy facilitiesrepresent a mechanism used for public policy implementation. There are four

types of public policy tools informative, financial, administrative and regulatory.

Public policyregards the actions or lack of actions planified by the Government, which influence or

change in some way the society or the economy and contribute to the realization of Governmentagenda.

Decision-making processrepresents the deliberative process implemented by public authorities,

which leads to the identification of certain political decisions from a series of options available. The

decision-making process is relevant to the whole cycle of public policy: from impact elaboration to

its evaluation.

Public policy proposalrepresents a public policy document containing the results of ex-ante

evaluation of the impact of public policy.

Decision-making process

Before understanding the facilities of ex-ante evaluation of the impact of public policy, it is

important to perceive the essention of decision-making process or of public policy cycle. This

process is largely described inMetodological Ghudebook on decision-making process.The

Decision-making process is composed of five basic stages (Diagram 1):

1. Elaboration

2. Approvement

3. Implementation

4. Monitoring

5. Evaluation

The systematic implication of public authorities is important for all five interdependent stages of

decision-making process, though the Public Policy ex-ante evaluation has place at the first stage

only Public Policy elaboration. The Public Policy elaboration cycle is not terminated once the

decision is made, but continues through Policy implementation. The consecutive traversion of all

stages of decision-making process allows to evaluate the Public Policy and to get involved, if

necessary, into the process of implementation for eventual correction of this, in order to avoid any

eventual failure or harmful effect. The consultation is specific for every stage of decision-making

process (excepting the stage of approval) and should start as soon as possible at the stage of Public

Policy elaboration. Thus, for bothe Public Policy documents and regulatory acts, the CPA authorities

should consider the following requirements set up for basic stages of decision-making process:


6/81

6

a)

Public Policy elaboration

The Public Policy elaboration reprezents the formulation by public authorities of effective and

acceptable principles and objectives for implementing of priorities established in Government

agenda. The Public Policy elaboration accompanied by ex-ante impact assessmentreprezents an

analitical process involving five interdependent stages: problem identification, objective

establishment, options set up for problem solving and objective achievement, options analysis,

options comparison and formulation of recommended option.

b)

Public Policy approval

The Public Policy approval represents the obtaining of formal consent of public authorities for the

necessary implementation of actions foreseen by Public Policy identified.The approval of Public

Policy documents and of regulatory acts should be made if the respective documents comply with

all requirements exposed for elaboration stage only.

c) Public Policy implementation

The Public Policy implementation represents the process, where the selected option of Public Policy

is implemented toghether with the approval of this option by a regulatory act. The implementation of

Public Policy should be made on the base of actions fixed by an action plan, in which should be

indicated the responsible persons for execution.

d)

Public Policy monitoring

The Public Policy monitoring represents the process, when the authorities of central public

administration collect qualitative and quantitative data denoting the degree of realization of the

actions established, in the aspect of Public Policy proposals.The monitoring should persist through

the whole implementation process of Public Policy. The monitoring is realized by the institution,

which has iniciated the Public Policy, including with informational support of other public

Public Policy

elaboration

(ex-ante

analysis)

Public Policyapproval

(by a respective

official document)

Public Policy

implementation

(on the base of an

action plan or anofficial document)

Public Policy

monitoring

(intermediate

analysis ofimplementation)

Public Policyevaluation

(ex post analysis ) Consultation

Dia ram 1. Sta es of decision-makin rocess


7/81

7

authorities and organizations outside the Government. The monitoring is an intermediary evaluation,

in medias res, which establishes the modality of actions execution.

e)

Public Policy evaluation

The Public Policy evaluation represents the process of analysing data collected while monitoring,

accompanied with recommendations useful for the following cycle of Public Policy. The evaluation

is a stage which, as the matter of principle, succeeds the monitoring process, although these stagesare often regarded as to be a complete unit. A monitoring process without an evaluation process has

no sense. Though, the evaluation indicates whether the objective of the public policy has been

achieved, as opposed to the monitoring, which is based on the processes and actions rather then on

the results and impact. The results of the evaluation or of ex post analyseare correlated with the

results of ex-ante evaluation to determine the precision degree of the inicial prognosis and to

understand the factors determining the success/failure of Public Policies implemented. In the event

that after public policy implementation the anticipated objective has not been achieved, it might be

possible that the problem consists not only in the error commited at elaboration of ex-ante analysis,

but also in the problems afferent to the process of implementation.

In order to edify a coherent system of Public Policies elaboration, it is necessary to sfecify the types

of Public Policies, the coppendixtions existent between the documents of Public Policies, bothhorizontally and vertically, and the relation of these with regulatory acts. It is essential to make

transition from system to planning, when the Public Policy and the regulatory acts moves from

sporadic initiatives to a strategic system, where the regulatory acts will explicitly derive from policy

documents. In decision-making process, the public authorities should be sensible of the fact, that the

ex-ante evaluation of the impact of Public Policy involves an analysis of Public Policy to be

included in the policy, before the analysis of existent facilities for this policy implementation, which

are often regulatory acts and legal documents. The proposed system, where the regulatory acts will

represent a mechanism of Public Policy documents realization only, will be assigned to change the

paradigm of decision-making process and of strategic planning. This system is largely described in

Methodological Guidebook on decision-making process.


8/81

8

CHAPTER I. PUBLIC POLICY EX-ANTE EVALUATION

1. Stages of public policy ex-ante evaluation

The first stage of decision-making process, and especially the Public Policy elaboration, is

accompanied with Public Policy multidimensional analysis ex-ante evaluation of the impact of

Public Policy. This type of evaluation is used in elaboration of coherent public policies, the

implementation of which will allow to achieve the objectives established by the initiating authorities

or at the national level. This process supposes the data collection and the analysis of other

alternative modalities of problem solution or objective achievement, and of the effects or

consequences of this Public Policy options. This type of evaluation will include in it the evaluation

of budgetary, administrative, economical, social and environmental implications of various

modalities of this problem solution. The process of ex-ante evaluation of the impact of Public

Policies is composed of five interconnected stages: 1. Problem identification. 2. Establishment of an

objective. 3. Identification of options for problem solution and objective achievement. 4. Options

analysis. 5. Options comparison and selection (see Diagram 2.). These are the steps in the ex-ante

evaluation of the impact, which are also purposes to be realized.

1

1The elements of ex-ante evaluation of the impact correspond to OCDE and EU recommendations - Mandelkern Group

Report on a better reglementation for European Commission, 2001, available at

Problem

determination

Establishment

of an objective

Identification of

options for problem

solution and/orobjective achievement

Options

analysis

Fiscal impact Economicimpact

Poverty andSocial Impact

Impact on theenvironment

Riscs andincertitudes

Options comparison

and selection

Administrative impact

Dia ram 2. Sta es of Public Polic ex-ante evaluation


9/81

9

All stages of ex-ante evaluation have equal importance, and omitting one stage or changing their

order could result in elaboration of a Public Policy lacking premises for implementation or which

will not contribute to the realization of the intended impact. Therewith, the stage needing maximum

efforts to be applied by public officials, is the 4th

stage Options analysis, which implies the

evaluation of five types of impact, as well as of risk and incertitude related to the analysed options.

These stages will be described further in the guide, while covering the material, in order to facilitate

the understanding of the essense of these stages by public officials involved in the process of Public

Policy impact assessment.

2. Types of ex-ante evaluation of the impact

The amplitude of Public Policy evaluation depends on the complexity of the problem, on the

estimated impact of this, and on the time, ressources and competencies available for the authorities

having iniciated the Public Policy. If the cost of analysis exceeds the amplitude of the impact

generated by Public Policy, it is not recommended to realize a complex evaluation of such policy.

Despite of the fact that the theory on Public Policy recommends the application of a number of

quantitative approaches such as analysis cost-benefit, analysis cost-efficiency, risks analysis, etc., in

practice the use of such approaches in their classical limits is very difficult, and sometimes is not

necassary. It is preferably that public authorities use the quantitative approaches, because the

fugures offer a good foundation to the recommendations made by public authorities, although to be

going on with, it is recommended to realise combined approaches, where the qualitative analysis

and theparticipative analysis are used in combination with statistic data and simple evaluation of

costs and benefits of Public Policy promoted.

There are different modalities of determining the complexity degree of the impact assessment. This

guide uses the terms of general and extended evaluation of the impact. These terms describe the

degree of evaluation specificity and are not mutually exclusive. A general analysis is required for

evaluation of all planned Public Policy proposals, whereas an extended analysis should be realized

for a limited number of Public Policies, which after general evaluation appear to be more complex,

imply considerable expenses or may generate disputable impacts. The content of general evaluationand of extended evaluation of the impact do not differ considerably, by reason of the same

consecutive stages to be followed, which are described in this guidebook. The essential difference

consists in analitical aproaches used, as well as in depth and amplitude of eventual options analysis.

The extended analysis is often realized with support of a company specializing in the field. The

Public Policies involving necessity of an extensive evaluation of the impact are generally referred to

the following categories:

1. Ample and expensive Public Policy.There could be mentioned as an instance the

Supportive Public Policy for certain social categories such as poor, unemployed and disabled

people, etc., which implies major bugetary costs.

2. Government intervention into the business sphere.We refer to this category the fiscal

Public Policy oriented on tax quota reduction or increase, the Subvention Policy, etc.3.

Durable projects and investments.Rehabilitation and construction of roads, creation of

stations for renewable energy production, etc. are projects specific to this category.

4. State property privatization.The decision to expose certain property to privatization

should be thoroughly analysed, in view of such decision irrevocability. It particularly

concerns the privatization of companies which are natural monopolies or bring profits.

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/mandelkern.pdf. See alsothe Guidelines concerning the Impact assessment European Commision (2005).


10/81

10

On the assumption that the evaluation of the impact respresents an exercise requiring time and

resources, it is important to insure the proportionality in the work2, so that the evaluation does not

become burdensome. In Chapter II. Section 1.Planification of impact assessment, there are proposed

a number of tests, which would help to decide which type of evaluation is needed for every concrete

problem. If the problem is not complex, the realization of evaluation of the impact which requires

special knowledges and great efforts can be contraproductive. In this case the evaluation of the

impact becomes a check mark exercise or an administrative burden for public service, it does not

represent any real or informative value for decision-making factors and does not improve anywaythe quality of public policy analysis.

The major part of issues daily considered by public officials do not need any extended evaluation of

the impact. The stages which should pass to the general evaluation of the imact are sufficient to

decide on the opportunity of approval or implementation of any option of Public Policy. Thus,

within general evaluation of the impact there will persist both aspects implying heavy workload and

aspects needing less efforts to be applied.

This guidebook describes the facilities applicable in general evaluation of the impact of Public

Policy. The spectrum of these tools will be extended in accordance with the development of skills of

public authorities in application of elementary facilities in Public Policy evaluation.

3. Public Policy proposal

The results of ex-ante evaluation of Public Policy will be transposed into a Public Policy proposal, a

model of which is described in section 6.2 of the Chapter II. The Public Polices materialized in

Public Policy documents, regulatory and legal acts will be often preceedes by a public policy

proposal, which will include in it a synthesised analysis of several options of problem solution

and/or achievement of objective in the aspect of their impact on certain fields and categories of

people. The Public Policy proposal could imply the necessity of elaboration of one of above-

mentioned documents, specifyed in the action plan performed for Public Policy options

implementation. The public policy proposal should be elaborated by the subdivision-author, and

after consultations with central public authorities and interested parties, and ulteriorly with

subdivision of analysis, assessment and monitoring of public policies, should be presented forexamination to the chief of authority and after final approval the proposal will go to the

Government.

After approval in principle of public policy proposal by the Government, there will be initiated the

elaboration of properly public policy, which can take the form of a regulatory act, of a public policy

document or of other separate actions. The drafts of these documents will be elaborated on the base

of a recommended option and have to be approved by the authority, which has iniciated the Public

Policy or by the Government (depending on their importance and complexity). The drafts will be

accompanied by a brief summary (according to the legislation in power), which will contain a

resumed analysis of public policy proposal.

The public policy proposals can have different volumes depending on problem complexity andanalysis of this. A very brief analysis could omit useful details which might contribute to decision-

making, and a very expended analysis could generate confusions and lose readers attention.

The Public Policy proposal should be elaborated for execution of certain actions fixed in Action plan

for implementation of national public policy documents (for example National Development

Strategy). At the same time, the PPP is optional for other public policy documents (conceptions,

strategies, programs), because a major part of these should properly follow the structure and the

2European Principles of Proportionality and Significance, European Commision (2004).


11/81

11

logic of public policy proposal. An important part of regulatory and legal acts elaborated by the

Government should be obligatorily supposed to the process of ex-ante evaluation of the impact of

options proposed.

At the same time, in order to avoid the overloading of central public authorities activity by

introducing of obligatory impact evaluation of all public policies elaborated, a range of questions

will not be supposed to the ex-ante assessment. While determining questions to be supposed to ex-

ante analysis, it is important to not omit major questions involving reforms in certain fields and tonot include other questions of minor importance administrative (purchase of equipment, office

change, etc.), questions related to the appointments/designations or other policies, the cost of the

analyse of which is more significant than the anticipatet impact.

4. Process coordination within the Government

An efficient intra- and interministrial communication is indispensable for a successfull decision-

making process. The interaction between all participants within the process should start up as soon

as possible, even at the stage of problem analysis and identification of possible options of this

problem solution. In this context, it is important to edify an institutional framework to clearly

determine the functions and the roles of all parcicipants to the decision-making process (see

Diagram 3.). The interministrial coordination principles and facilities are largely described in the

Methodological guidebook on decision-making process.

Diagram 3. Coordination of Public Policy proposal

Interministerial Committee for Strategic Planning

Presentation of PPP forapproval after the advice of

Machinery of Government

Direction for policies coordinationand external assistance of

Machinery of Government

Methodological andconsultative

assistance

Presentation of PPP for

examination after

consultations with AAPC

Final public policy proposal

Advice

Returning

Advice

Returning

Subdivision of analysis,

monitoring and evaluationPublic authority

Chief of authority

Public policy proposal

Initiating subdivision

Advice

MET

MF

MJ

MLSPF

MENR

Other AAPC


12/81

12

At the level of initiating public authority, both vertical and horizontal communication is crucial.The

public policy proposal is elaborated by the subdivision which has initiated the public policy within

central public authority. This is often a department responsible for a specific field rather then an unit

of public policy analysis, monitoring and evaluation, whose destination is to assist the subdivision

initiating the policy in understanding and application of impact assessment principles. The

subdivision of public policies analysis, monitoring and evaluation assures the communication

between the subdivision/working group which has initiated the proposal with and other units of this

authority, with respective units of other public authorities, as well as with Machinery ofGovernment. The subdivisions for public policies analysis, monitoring and evaluation will assure the

elaboration of proposals according to a common format and the complience with the requirements

vis-a-vis these documents. These units will have as mission to consult the subdivision-author, to

offer assistance within the process of impact assessment and will rave the right to disapprove

incoherent public policy proposals, regulatory acts and public policy documents. The evaluation and

eligibility criteria of public policy porposals, which will be used by the subdivisions of public

policies analysis, monitoring and evaluation for PPP quality control are provided in the Appendix

Anexa V. To assure the complience with these principles, it is important to exclude the implication

of subdivisions responsible for public policies analysis, monitoring and evaluation in any

nonspecific activities, otherwise these hsould not take part in the cycle of public policies elaboration.

Within the process of ex-ante assessment, a number of public authorities will have a special role,with obligatory expression on certain aspects of impact analysis.The Ministry of Finances will

support the public authorities in the fiscal impact assessment and will present an advice concerning

the performed analysis. The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Ressources will support the public

authorities in strategic environmental assessment and will present an advice concerning the

performed analysis. The Center of Legislation harmonization of the Ministry of Justice will analyse

the public policy proposal in the aspect of conformity with european standards and complience with

signed agreements. At the same time, the Ministry of Justice will examine the public polici proposal

in the aspect of conformity with active legislation. The Ministry of Economy and Trade and the

Ministry of Social Protection, Family and Children will offer assistance to public authorities in the

process of economic impact assessment and respectively of social impact assessment, and wil

present an advice concerning the performed analysis. The Center of Fighting against Economic

Crimes and Corruption will analyse the anticorruptional aspects of PPP. The initiating authority will

assure that the assessment results at different stages of process be consulted with other public

authorities, which will be affected or involved into the process of public policy implementation.

At central level,the process of strategic planning will be coordinated by Machinery of Government.

The initiating authorities will present the proposal to the Government for advice. The proposal will

be returned by the Machinery of Government to public authorities if its content is irrelevant or,

otherwise, remited to relevant directions of Machinery of Government for verification of conformity

with regulations concerning the elaboration and coordination processes. The evaluation and

eligibility criteria of public policy proposal, which will be applyed by Machinery of Government for

PPP quality control are presented in the Appendix V. The Machinery of Government, by means of

relevant subdivisions, will operate as a filtre processing the proposals recieved from publicauthorities and will make decisions concerning the admission or rejection of these for ulterior

improvement, analysing the proposals relevance and being final destination of their remittal. More

specifically, the Machinery of Government should examine all documents recieved to assure:

The analysis of all opinions exposed in the process of consultations

The conformity of proposals recieved from public authorities with Government strategic

priorities

The compatibility of analyses and analytical materials (fiscal, economic, social,

environmental, administrative impact) with the standards fixed in the guide


13/81

13

The examination and consideration of sectoral and intersectoral problems

The solution or minimization of divergences between the authorities.

Within the process of examination of public policies proposals, other public policy documents and

regulatory acts, the Machinery of Government will not have the goal to rewrite these documents or

modify the recommendations of the authority-author. To the extent that the Government officials

have opinions different from those exposed in the public policy proposal and in other documents

remitted, there will be initiated a dialogue with public authorities involved in elaboration ofrespective public policy. In the event that the participants to the process of impact evaluation will

fail to come to an arrangement concerning the public policy elaboration, the Machinery of

Government should intervene to settle the case, if however the outstanding problem is too

complicated and implies significant costs, the Governmet Community should present a demarche to

the Interministerial Committee for Strategic Planning,which will determine conclusively.

Finally, after examination of public policy proposal by Machinery of Government, the proposal is

remitted for examination and approval toInterministerial Committee for Strategic Planning, which

approves the PPP, giving the go-ahead for one of the options proposed by the initiating authority,

and it can be not necessarily the option recommended by public authority. In this case, the

authorities weel proceed to transpose the options approved to the obligatory implementing facilities.

To the extent that noone of proposed option is considered to be adequate, the public policy proposalis returned to the authority for finalization or rejected (if it interferes with a recent public policy).

These cases should not however take place, because at every stage the PPP will be extensively

consulted both within the Government and with interested parties and affected from outside, and

thus the risk of inadequacy of proposed options will be minimized. The documents which will

succede the PPP (regulatory acts, legal documents, public policy documents) will be approved

according to the procedures described in legislation.


14/81

14

CHAPTER I. EX-ANTE EVALUATION FACILITIES

1. Preliminary stage. Planificarea evalurii impactului

1.1. Stage description

The ex-ante analysis of the impact of Public Policy, the stages of which are described in this

guidebook, imply a systematic consideration of a number of analitical questions and formulation of

coherent answers to these. A good familiarizaiton with situation characterizing the outstanding

question would allow to maximise the positive impact of public policy and to prevent the eventual

risks.

The best time to determine the questions which are subject to ex-ante evaluation, as well as this

evaluation amplitude is the period of yarly activity planning which is carried out in all public

authorities. To determine questions is not the same thing as to define a problem. The last activity

constitute the first stage of public policy impact ex-ante analysis. The question can be considered a

rough problem signalizing the imperfection of a system or process, the dissatisfaction of certain

categories of people, etc. The question will be formulated as problem in conformity with allobligatory rules, at the first stage of ex-ante analysis only.

The planning of activities to be realized in the coming year is exactly the time for questions analysis.

In the course of the year, the central public authorities are involved into the process of strategic

planning, which should normally proceed as it follows: The authority action plan is initially

elaborated on the base of provisions stipulated in the Institutional Development Plan. The yearly

authority action plan is ulteriorly used as base for NDS action plan, the latest being used to

formulate the Medium Term Budgetary Framework and ulteriorly the state budget. This progression

of strategic planning should be observed to assure the financial asset of coherent public policies. The

public policies which are subject to ex-ante evaluation should be determined and refined by public

authorities within these stages and coordinated with Machinery of Government (by notification

system) to determine conclusively whether the analysis is necessary and which would be the type of

this analysis.

At the stage of analysis planning should be used two tests. Table 1 and Table 2 provide a testfor

problem impact evaluationand the second onefor problem priority evaluation. At this stage it is not

necessary to exactly formulate the problem (as it is required at the first stage of impact assessment),

but to be familiarized in general terms with the question requiring a more serious consideration and

an obligatory analysis.

0. Evaluation planning1. Problem definiiton2. Objectives setup

3. Identification of Options4. Options analysis5. Comparison of options andselection of recommended option


15/81

15

Table 2: Test for priority degree evaluation

Question or issue characteristicsHigh priority High Government engagement; in case of non-

performance significant political, fiscal or juridic

repercussions

Medium

priority

Government engagement with medium fiscal or juridic

repercussions

Reduced

priority

Public authority priority; administrative of tehnical; in

case of non-performance minimal consequences

After both tests performed, the obtained results should be put toghether (included) in a table. The 3d

table represents a summary of interaction between impact and high-priority measures and specifies

the cases when a general impact evaluation is required and when an extended evaluation is

recommended. This table represents the single method of public policy impact evaluaiton. The final

decision for type of analysis to be performed should be made by the authority author as consequenceof discussions with memebers of the working group created for public policy elaboration. The

combined table will take the following form:

Table 3: Analysis of the impact and of priority degree of question or of isue

Major impact Medium impact Reduced impact

High priority Extended impact assessment


General impact assessment




Medium

priority

General impact assessmentPublic policy proposal

General impact assessmentPublic policy proposal



Reduced

priority





Lack of formal analytical

requirements;The Ministry of Finances can

require the fiscal impact

evaluation

This approach suggests that the general impact evaluation is the most is the best variant in a major

part of situations.Just the important public policies generating major impact (of type described in

Chapter I. Section 2.) will be subject to an extensive impact evaluation. The analytical approach and

general method of impact assessment are the same for all public policy, excepting administrative

and technical problems with reduced priority or impact. The last-mentioned do not need elaboration

of a public policy The Ministry of Finances could require the fiscal impact evaluation only. For

example public policy in the field of youth employment facilitation is of high priority, but in the

same time a medium impact, because the Government will hold negotiations with economic agentsconcerning the youth employment by offering them obligatory fiscal stimulants, as contrasted with

pensionary reform (freeze of retirement age, pension valorization, etc.). In case of pensionary

system reform, which is both of high priority and generating major impact, there is necessary an

extensive impact analysis, as opposed to public policy in the field og youth employment a public

policy whicn could be examined in the aspect of general impact assessment.

Table 1: Test for impact level evaluation

Question or issue characteristics

High priority Very complicated, disputable from a policy perspective or very expensive

Medium priority A little complicated, disputable from a policy perspective or expensive

Reduced priority Direct, technical or administrative, minimal cost


16/81

16

It is possible that, at first stage, the public officials might aspire to assess the major part of public

policies as to be of reduced priority. Such a situation should be avoided, because the

underevaluation of elaborated public policies will eventually explode the authoritys reputation.

After deciding on the number of public policies to be evaluated and their type (general or extended),

it is important to produce a detailed plan of ulterior activities. It implies a decision to be made on

terms of activity execution, people/institutions involved, schedule of evaluation and applicable

methods. While drafting the plan, take into account the currently available ressources. The plan willserve as ground for public authorities notification on public policy initiation (section 1.2). The

following are useful questions for impact evaluation planning:

Before proceeding to de factoevaluation of public policy, it should be mentioned that the

elaboration of public policies is often a repeated process. More specifically, the discussions held or

data collected at a certain stage will determine the return to the anterior stages and generate the

analysis modification. For example, it is possible the problem might be better understood at the

stage of policy options setup, thus implying the necessity of problem redefinition and of analysis

adjustment; or within the process of consultations there will be unfolded some new objects which

will allow to improve the options already determined by the working group involved in the processof analysis.

1.2. Notification of Public Policy elaboration

The quality of ex-ante evaluation is determined by the amplitude of consultations organized by

initiating authority. The consultation basic types and techniques are described in the Chapter III of

this guide. To assure an effective process of consultation, just from the stage of impact evaluation

planning the initiating authority should inform the interested parties about the launching of this

process, to assure the implication of interested parties at the initial stages of evaluation. A simple

method to identify these interests is to establish within public authorities asystem of notificationby

official letters (and optionnaly by e-mail), which suppose that when the public authority intends to

initiate the work upon an aspect of public policy, it sends a note by the internal network to relevant

public authorities selected at the discretion of first authority, and obligatorily to the Government.

The notification structure is illustrated in an appendix to this Methodological Guide concerning the

decision-making process.

This brief note will include, among others:

name of public policy in question

Boxa 1. Key topics for evaluation planning

1. What is the question at hand?

2. What is the objective?3. What result is to be obtained? How do you imagine a better situation?

4. What are the restrictions?

5. Who are the interested parties?6. What are the basic effects or results the principal interested parties are aspiring to?

7. What is the connection with Governments priorities?

8.

What is possible or impossible to realize?9. What are the gaps? How to fill up these gapes?

10. Who should take part at proposal elaboration? What is the sequence of events?11. What ressources are avilable for impact analysis execution?

12. What are the risks and barriers on the highway to success and how can these be reduced?


17/81

17

brief description of pending question, preferably no longer than one page

description of methods and consulting modalities

As an answer to this notification, the Machinery of Government will write a reference by offering

obligatory arguments in favour or disfavour of respective public policy elaboration. In case of

acceptance, this notification can serve a ground for public authorities and other interested parties

which will allow to take part in the impact evaluation of public policy initiated, according to the

shedule established.

The notification system can be made accessible for large public by publishing on the Web page of

the authority (and/or official page of the Government) the list of problems currently considered by

public authority. In this way, the interested parties and the external experts will be familiarized with

the activities of public authority and could be prepared for implication in the process of public

policy consultations.

1.3. Data collection

The data collection is an important requirement for impact evaluation. All five stages of public

policies impact evaluation need support of solid information base, which would make possible the

foundation of all decisions and recommendations made as a result of evaluation. As in the case of

analitical work, the data collection requires time and financial ressources, thus the same principle of

proportionality should be respected in this case too. The public officials or the subdivisions involved

in public policy elaboration are encouraged to useprimaty data, i.e. the data produced especially for

the impact evaluation of public policy in question. At the same time, taking into consideration the

financial implication of special studies, thesecondary data use is also admitted, i.e. data and

information existent at the moment of evaluation. Irrespective of type of information materials, the

most important continues to be the quality of data analysis, interpretation, critical evaluation and

generalization.

All informations, Data and ideas are generated by documents and people, thus being accessible both

orally and in writing. The documents can include various types of information: Web pages,

Government reports, statistic archives, results of communication between public authorities,

information circulars, newspapers, books, etc. The Internet is a high-value source of information for

public policy analists, because a lot of countries publish on the Web their public policies, laws and

rigorous procedures. For international organizations such as World Bank, IMF, OECD, FAO, OMS

etc. the Web pages are sources of information and detailed technical studies. The persons

individuals of groups to be consulted are a high-value source of information too (see Chapter III.

concerning the consultation). Both types of sources of information are used in the process of impact

evaluation, although the references to studies and reports are sometimes more credible as references

to discussions with individuals or with groups.

All data can be also divided into quantitativeand qualitative. The quantitative data generated by

questionaries, polls and statistic releases are concrete and measurable. The number of beneficiaries,

the cost of public policy, the number of kilometers of rehabilitated roads constitute quantitative

data. Without this data the analysis is not successfull at all. Although, these data do not obligatorily

represent the general table of the intervention. The qualitative data generated by studies of case,

pilot studies, focus groups, interviews, reflect the opinions and the attitudes of individuals and of

organizations. An evaluation should have an equilibrated content, where quantitative data are put

together with qualitative data in a compatible manner. An evaluation prevailingly qualitative, rises


18/81

18

doubds concerning the credibility of given proofs, while an evaluation prevailingly quantitative risks

to omit certain realities characteristic to the sphere/issue in question.

As in the case of data types, the modalities of their collectionare different too. These can be

unformal conversations with collegues, meetings with experts, target groups or other groups

concerned, to the extent of use of Government official statistics and reports, public policy

documents and scientific reports, or reports elaborated by other research institutes and non-

governmental organizations, as well as informations obtained from mass-media, or other sources.

In general terms, the subdivisions involved into the policy impact assessment should consider the

following aspects while formulating any informed evaluation, based on credible data:

1.

It is necessary to identify the existent data sources and to use these in the analysis.

2.

All data collected in accessible forms should be kept in order to be available for all persons

involved in the impact evaluation and in all ulterior stages, for example, at the stage of

monitoring and of ex post evaluation.

3.

In case of lack of information or data incompleteness, the public officials should make

recourse to their proper estimations (primary data), to apply proxy measures or

argumented assumptions, which allow to analyse the respective problem by using the

appropiate information. These data might be substituted when other more preciseinformation will be available. The public officials often hesitate to make recourse to such

argumented assumptions because they do not want to be accused for lack of exactitude or are

not ready to assume the responsibility for recommendations offered by them. When a public

policy does not implies any significant costs or any considerable impact, the use of proxy

measures or of argumented assumptions in the absence of primary data is extremly

recommended.

4. When the lack of information is very sensitive, the officials are encouraged to organize a

study or a poll concerning the problem in order to clearly define the problem dimensions and

characteristics. For this type of studies it is important to clearly identify the necessity of

additional data and of all possible sources of information or of a sample. These excercises

could be realized with sponsorship support.


19/81


20/81

20

Beside these there are a lot of schematic methods of problem identification which would be useful topublic officials at this stage. The most common qualitative techniques are problem tree, the

diagram fishbone and SWOT analysis. Also, the secondary data analysis constitute a quantitative

technique largely used for problem identification. An example of problem analysis realized with

application of problem tree technique is illustrated in the Appendix II. This method allows to

separate the problem from causes which provoked it and effects generated by this. At the same time,

noone schematic tool does not replace the analytical thinking process. The reflections on the

problem imply a range of questions, answers to which can be indicated by the problem itself, its

magnitude, and to uncover certain possibilities of its solution.

The problem formulation is less important as its identification. A problem formulated ambiguously

could undermine the ulterior actions of the Government. The problem should be briefly formulated

and to not offer a variant of its solution. Box 3. illustrates an example of clear formulation andanother example of ambiguous problem statement. The initially formulated problem can be

reconsidered through the process of impact evaluation together with new information elucidation.

The modality of problem definition will influence the considered options of public policy. The

precision in problem explication usually leads to improved performancies of its solution.

Boxa 2: Key subjects for problem identification

What is the question or the problem?

Is the question under consideration an engagement assumed by the Government vis-a-vis the society orinternational bodies, or if it constitute an opportunity to promote the public policy? It is an appearing/continuous

problem? If any angagement is assumed, what problem does it treat?

Symptoms identification

What are the symptoms of the problem?

What is the sphere of covering, magnitude and measure of this question/ problem?

Does this problem affect certain regions of country more than other regions?

What is the tendency? Does this problem progress? Do we know why? Do we have any figures?

Understanding who is affected

Who is affected by this problem? Who is beneficiary and who disadvantaged? Do we have any figures?

Understanding of active public policy and of its contextWhat is the current public policy? What laws are currently applicable?

Why do the problem exist? Should we differenciate the problem and the symptoms.

What is the history of this problem? What is the history of the proposal? What is the context of the question or of

the proposal? Are there any other questions, more important or connected we should be conscious of?What is currently doing for problem consideration? What is functioning and what is not functioning? Why?

What is the public policy capacity in this field?What is the reason of the problem? Is the question about current public policy or modality of its implementation (or

not)?

Understanding of values and of engagementsWhy the interventions of Government is required? What is the importance of his problem?

Other useful informationHow could our experience be compared to foreign experiences?

What additional data do we need for problem/engagement understanding?


21/81

21

Box 3: Clear formulation of the problem

Problem: According to a study realized by the Ministry of Economy and Trade, 18% of employers

breach labour laws and regulations. Problea: It is known that the employers breach labour laws.

This example denotes, that a problem is better formulated when it makes reference to the source of

information, the field and the target group, and gives a basic figure indicating the target groupdimensions. These data are extremely useful for objectives formulation, which is the second stage of

ex-ante policy evaluation.

A clear formulation of the problem is indispensable to assure a similar perception and understanding

of the problem by all persons involved in the process of impact evaluation. The 4thtable presents a

schematic method of problem sumarizing which could be useful to public officials involved in the

process of problem formulation.

Table 4: Problem summary

1. Problem: (name)

2. Description:Problem brief description, field, importance, trends

3. History:Brief description of what has be done to this moment

4. Actual public policy:Responsible persons for implementation, active legislation in the field concerned;

reasons of problem

5. Who is affected:Principle categories of interested parties (companies, local authorities, NGO) and

country regions affected; categories of people

6. Why the intervention is important?


22/81

22

3. Stage II. Objectives setup


Within the process of impact evaluation it is important to identify the results which a public policy

aspires to achieve. The objectives are the anticipated beneficial effects of public policy, without

which it is very difficult to solve the problem or establish concrete actions. The objectives setupallows to establish a bridge between the problem identified and the ulterior actions oriented to this

problem solution. The objectives are setup as a reaction to the problemor a dezideratumof the

authority in a certain field of activity.

The art of objectives setup is similar to the art of problems identification. The objectives should be

clear and explicit or in other words to be SMART(Simple, Measurable, Acceptable, Realizable and

fixed in Time). The Government intentions should be transposed into a time framework with

indication of action sphere and intervention measure. An example of objective correctly formulated

and another of ambiguous objective is offered in the 4thBox.

Box 4: Correct formulation of the objective

Objective:Reducing polution by chemical wastes with 15% by 2015.

Objective:Significant reduction of chemical polution.

The first objective is a specifical one (chimical polution) being measurable (15 per cent) and fixed in

time (by 2015). The second objective is a general one, thus creating difficulties during the period of

implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

At the same time, the objective should not be confounded with the target of public policy.The target

is the desideratum followed by the authority through public policy realization. The target is not

necessary SMART. The objectives are the specific and measurable targets of a public policy. The

objectives indicate concretely the achievements expected from public policy. The consequence of

stages at this phase of policy impact evaluation is usually the following:target setup identification

of objectives actions formulation identification of monitoring indices.

For example3, competitive growth of agricultural products at the EU markets is a target. The

objective for this target achievement is the increase of export volume of agricultural products to the

EU market from 24% of total amount of exporting goods in 2008, up to 40% by 2011. The actions

are even more certain than the objectives are and are setup for shorter periodes of time. To achieve

an established objective, the following actions should be realised: (i) VAT reduction for agricultural

3The example is an illustrative one and does not pretend to use any real data.

0. Evaluation planning1. Problem definiiton

2. Objectives setup3. Identification of Options4. Options analysis5. Comparison of options andselection of recommended option


23/81

23

products from 20% in 2008 down to 10% in the year 2009; (ii) increase of subsidies for agricultural

products from 15% of total amount of agricultural expences, up to 30% in the year 2009; (iii)

creation by 2010 of 5 laboratoaries for control of agricultural production quality.

Within the process of objectives setup it is necessary to take account of the fact that the monitoring

of these objectives implementation will be realised by means of monitoring indicatorswhich will

measure the ressources(input), the results of public policy activities(output), the results of public

policy(outcome) and the impact.

Indicators of ressources are sources which make part from a program or service within the

Government. These are people, money and time needed to obtain the products planned. Any public

policy should specify the ressources necessary for its objectives achievements.

Indicators of public policy activities results are measures of an activity. These can be number of

manuals elaborated and distributed, or number of kilometers of rehabilitated roads, or number of

abolished restrictive regulations on enterpreneurship.

Indicators of public policy resultmeasure the direct and immediate results of actions on the target

established people, economic agents, institutions, etc. These are reflexed by changes in behaviour,

competencies, abilities or performance. The examples of this type of effects can be trains or buseswhich running on sheduled time, a reduced number of road accidents or increased rate of school

gratuation.

Impact indicatorsevaluates the effect or the consequence of public policy or of its facilities on a

part of society. As examples of the impact we can cite the increase or reduction of literacy rate, of

competitiveness, of longevity,

of water and air quality, etc.

Although it seems to be

complicated to setup the

targets, the objectives and the

actions, which could be

monitored and evaluated with

help of these indicators, using

simple principles this activity

could become less

embarrassing. In this aspect it

is important to understand the

following relation. The impact

indicators will show if the

targets have been achieved, the indicators measuring the public policy results will illustrate the

objectives realization, and the indicators measuring the results of public policy action and the

ressources will show the realisations degree of planned actions. At the same time, the monitoring ofobjectives realization can be also carried out by means of indicators measuring the results of public

policy action. It comes from the fact, that in order to achieve a target, there can be setup several

objectives differing in level of disaggregating. An example illustrating the relations between

objectives and indicators is presented in the Box 5.

The difference between indicators measuring the result of public policy actions and the result of

public policy, consists in the fact that the first show what has been done by the authorities and their

partners to achieve the target, while the second type of inidcators illustrates the degree of

Box 5. Relation between monitoring indicators

Indicator of ressources

Investments for construction of schools

Indicators of public policy activities resultsConstruction of schools

Indicator of public policy result

Increase of schooling degree

Indicator of the impact

Increase of literacy rate and education of population


24/81

24

contribution of perofmed activities to the change of target group attitude.The table 5 illustrates an

example of relation among problem, target, objective, actions and indicators.

Table 5: Examples of objectives and of indicators

Problem:According to a study realized by the Ministty of Home Affairs, about 17% of total ammount of child abusecases do not come to trial

Target:Growth in number of child abuse cases came totrial

Indicator of the impact:Number of child abusecases came to trial

Objectives and actions IndicatorsObjectives

Assuring by the year 2010 the detection by authorities of

40% cases of suspected child abuse

The adjudication by the year 2010 of 100% of personsinvolved in child abuse

Public policy results

Number/percent of target group contacted by relevant

authorities after recognition of the symptoms of child

abuse

Number/percent of child abuse cases that have been

adjudecated

ActionsTraining of 500 interrogators by the end of the year 2008

Vesting police officers with greater powers, which would

allow to make perquisition of reported houses

The growth in number of inspections in families suspectedof child abuse from 1500 families in 2008 up to 4000 in

2010

Ressources and results of public policy activitiesNumber of trainings; Number of participants at these

trainings

Per cent of policemen specialized in child abuse cases

Number of investigations of the families suspected of

child abuse

Because the entire period of public policy elaboration depends on a more precise understanding of

the process of its implementation, it is important to include a multitude of parameters characterisin

this public policy, and namely the actions, the monitoring indicators, the period of implementation

and the institutions responsible in a logical framework which would allow an easy delegation of

roles and an effective public policy monitoring (table 6). This table should be part of public policy

proposal.

Table.6. Logical framework for description of implementation processTarget

Objectives

Actions Implementing period Responsible institutions Monitoring indicators

As at the stage of problem definition, there are several techniques which can be used by public

officials in the process of objectives setup. The most common is the objective tree analysis. After

the identification of problem, of its causes and effects by means of problem tree method, the

results of analysis could serve as base of objectives identification, including the facilities and the

targets of public policy. An example of objective tree analysis is provided in the Appendix III. At

the same time, as well as in the process of problem identification, the most effective method of

objectives setup is the reflection on the modality of intervention. In this context, the questions

contained in the Box 6 will contrubute to the implementation of an analytic process in formulation

of measurable objectives.


25/81

25

At this stage, if not realized at previous stage, it is importqnt to identify thepublic policy

beneficiaries, thus individuals of groups of individuals who will benefit from the respective public

policy. The policy beneficiaries can be entrepreneurs, professors, students, children, poor people,

veterans, disabled persons and other cathegories of people and professions. At the same time, the

policy should not disregard the other persons or groups of persons who could be negatively affected

by the respective public policy taxpayers in case of tax quota growth, households in the

neighbourhood of industrial parks, factories, the activity of which could endamage the environment

and the health of people, etc.

Within the process of objectives identification the following aspects should be taken into

consideration:

It is important to consider several objectives. A single objective can rarely describe

adequately the desired effects of public policy and to fully measure its impact.

It is important to select the objectoves in terms of their relevance for the Republic of

Moldova. Even when the basic imperative determining the proposal is harmonization

with European standards or discharge of internaitional commitments, it is important to

setup a target and objectives which would be relevant for autochthonous political

environment.

It is also important to analyse the final and intermediary objectives for a short,medium and long period.

The summary analysis of the objectives should be realized on the model provided in the Table 7.

Table 7: Objectives summary

Target: Brief description of the target and of relation with Govermnent priorities

Objectives:

First objective

Second objectiveThe third objective

Actions:

Performance measures, result and impact: How to realize the monitoring of implementation? How to know ifthe aspired result is being obtained? How to appreciate the impact?

Box 6: Key subjects for objectives formulation1. What is the target of proposed intervention? What effects are planned to be obtained?

Is the objective a relevant one in the context of national public policy document?

Which is the relation between the objective and the Government priorities?

2. What are the objectives to be achieved?

Are the target and the objectives clearly separated?

Which measures will determine the public policy results? How to know if the results are being

obtained or not?

Which measures will identify the actions results? How to know if the behaviour has beenmodified or not?

Which measures will identify the public policy impact? How to measure the degree of final

target realization?


26/81

26

4. Etapa III. Identification of options


This is one of the most important stages of impact evaluation. Within this stage we identify the

eventual solutions or options and describe eventual facilities of their implementation. The option

constitutes a modality of problem solution or achievement of the established objective.

For a problem solution there are at least two opportunities: state intervention andstatus quo, the last

implies the noninterference in the existent situation. The intervention, in its turn, can have a different

character and thus can be: major creation of new system, abrogation of existent Legislation and

elaboration of a new Legislation, moderate formation of new components within the existent

system, significant modification of existent Legislation, and minor current situation improvement

by development of certain elements within the existent system, unsignificant modification of

Legislation.

The setup of options for problem solution allows to assure the foundation of final decision

concerning the policy on the analysis of all exestent facilities.

The tools selection is an important process too. The modality of Governmet intervention is of the

same importance as the answer to the question if the Government should intervene. The Government

authorities traditionally consider the legislation as basic solution in the context of public policy. It is

customary for Central and Eastern European Countries where, traditionally the legislation was

accentuated as basic tool of public policy. Thus, the legislation is neither a single nor necessarily the

best way for problems solution. The elaboration of this tool can take a lot of time and ressources,

and its implementation more financial ressources. The regulatory acts and the legal documents

require most commonly a number of mechanisms of application and sanctions to assure the

complience with these regulations. The excess of laws can in return be counterproductive: the

citizens will not manage to know all their obligations, and if the charge of regulations will become

too significant, the people will voluntarily cease to comply with these. The alternative approaches

for example use of market mechanisms or public information could be sometimes more effectivein accomplishment of objectives setup at precedent stage.

In this context it is important to consider several solutions or options, as a part of impact evaluation

and to consider the alternatives of traditional modalities of reglementation. The Governmetn can

select among a variety of juridical, economic, informational and organizational tools, from

restrictive to motivational and from tools which require a high degree of implication to those

requiring a reduced degree of state implication. There are four types of public policy tools which

should be taken into account by the authorities (Appendix IV. provides more detailed information

concerning the available public policy tools):

0. Evaluation planning1. Problem definiiton2. Objectives setup

3. Identification of Options4. Options analysis5. Comparison of options andselection of recommended option


27/81

27

1. Information tools (information campaigns, educational campaigns).

2. Financial tools(grants, subventions, guarantees, taxes, budgetary allocations).

3. Administrative tools(direct performing by the state, external contraction, implication of family

and community, voluntaty bodies).

4. Regulatory tools (traditional prescriptive legislation, EU regular directives, mechanisms of

autoregulation, reglementation on the base of performance).

Even if the major part of decisions made by decision-making bodies require the issue of a legal act,

not all these acts contain a reglementation. In this context the administrative tools should not be

confused with, for example, regulatory tools. The administrative tools, although are materialized

similarly to those of regulation by a legal act, do not contain any rules or regulations which are

contained in regulatory tools. Thus, the Government decision to authorise a non-governmental

organization to manage a project (administrative tool) is not the same thing as the Government

decision to modify the regulations in the field of concurrency protection (regulatory tool) even

though both are approved by legal acts.

An option can imply not only a public policy facility but also other tools such as education and

information at the first stage and reglementation at the ulterior stage. The combination of severalpublic policy facilities could be more efficient than a single regulatory solution. The 4

thDiagram

illustrates an example of an objective having three distinctive options everyone including one, two

or more tools of implementation.

Thus, to accomplish the objective of decreasing youth tobacco use, there could be launched a

publicity campaign by means of which the population and especially the youth will be informed on

smoking damage. At the same time, there could be considered the option of taxes growth forsmocables and adopted a legislation introducing smoking ban in public places. There could also be

proposed another option regarding the cancellation of subsidies for tobacco cultivation and approval

of a legislation banning smokable sales to young people. Thus, to get better results, there can be use

both a separate public policy tool or a combination of several tools the application of which can be

done both in a staged manner or realized simultaneously.

While the tools are different by nature, there are also differencies in modality of their application.

All four types of tools can be restrictive, voluntaryor mixed, depending on situation (Table 8). The

Diagrama 4. Types of public policy options

Objective:Decreasing Youth Tobacco Use

as regularity from 32,7% in 2006 down to

20% by the year 2010

Option 1.Populationwarning on smoking

damages for health

Option 2.Increase oftobacco taxes

Smoking ban in public

places

Option 3.Cancellation of

subsidies for tobaccocultivation

Approval of a

legislation banning

smokables sales


28/81

28

public authorities can consider different options implying both high or low degree of Government

implication (from those restrictive to those voluntary, topdown by table).

The options should flow from problem and established objectives and to not aspire to cover other

question as those fixed at first two stages of analysis. Also, the formulation of options which set

aside the moment of problem solution should be evited. For example, to solve the problem of lack of

teachers in rural areas there are fixed two alternatives, and notably: (i) elaboration of strategy of

teaching staff attraction in rural areas and (ii) creation of a consultative body for coordination of

aspects concerning the teaching staff attraction in rural areas. These solutions do not seem to solve

the problem, because it implies concrete options such as: (i) teachers salary increase; (ii) granting

teachers tax exemptions; (iii) decent housing for teachers in rural areas.

In the field of public policy analysis, at all its stages and especially at the stage of options

identification, there are prescribed a range of useful qualitative methods. The most common

methods are brainstorming, analogy method, benchmarkingand experts methods. These techniqueswill be considered in detail in Chapter III. The brainstorming can be realized in combination with

other mentioned methods being in substance a debate on the options. The analogy method is useful

because it concerns certain options applied in the past in other sectors or countries. At the same

time, before emulating a borrowed solution, it is important to evaluate the degree of its success or

failure al acesteia in the respective sector or country. For this purpose should be used the

benchmarking method which is also an analogy method. The benchmarking practices are often

available in accessible publications. The expert methods are useful too, because the implication of

external persons could contribute to an increased degree of objectivity in problem treatment and

identification of options for this problem solution.

From a practical perspective, it is necessary to limit the number of options to be analysed to five or

six, but not less than three, among which one opiton must obligatory bestatus quoor no

intervention of public authorities. The status quo option, even if it is not the preferred policy

option, constitutes an useful reference which could be applied while comparing with other options

identified. The Box 7 provides the key subjects for this stage of ex ante evaluation.

Table 8: Public policy tools

Tools Regulatory Financial Information Administrative

Restrictive

Rules,

interdictions,dispositions

Control of price,quantity, production,

business joining andleaving, taxes anddeductions

Assuring customerprotection by

informing populationon damages caused bythe product

Direct provision ofservices

Infrastructuredevelopment andcapacities increase

Mixed

Secondarylegislation

(decisions),

Methodological

directional lines,internal rules

Grants, guarantee

certificates,subventions, loans,

credits, assuring loyalcompetition

Information supply,mediation campaigns

Participation and

consultationmechanisms

Indirect provision ofservices (contracting

external sources)

VoluntaryCode of ethics

and of conduct

Quality quatations,

competitions

Implication of non-

governmental

organizations,

families and

community


29/81

29

The basic options and their characteristics should be described in a summary-table which would

facilitate the discussion and lead to the next stage evaluation of options. The Table 9 provided

below is an example of options generation, with brief presentation of outstanding characteristics of

everyone of these. This should include in it the information concerning the public policy tools to be

applied, the categories affected and implied in implementation process, as well as information

regarding the time and costs of implementation.

Table 9: Summary of options

Basic characteristics

No

intervention Alternative no.1

Alternative

no.2

Alternative

no.3

The main features of the option

Target population/ sectors/ regions

Public policy facilities, for example:

Information tools

Financial tools

Administrative tools

Regulatory tools

Characteristics of implementation who is

responsible any Governmental institution, privatesector, c

methodological guide on impact of public policies

Documents