An Australian Policy Cycle
Abstract
There are eight steps in the Australian policy cycle. It is a useful tool for decision makers to make a new policy, or for people to analyse the policy. A good policy process is the vital underpinning of good policy development. Of course, good process does not necessarily guarantee a good policy outcome, but the risks of bad process leading to a bad outcome are very much higher. This essay is about analysing the case- "the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)". It first identified eights steps in this case, and then analyse whether it is a good policy. Some theories are applied in this process. And it finds that, although HECS missed some steps of the Australian policy cycle, generally it did a good policy. Finally, it finds out the Australian policy cycle can be explain how the public policy made. After that, the reform of Chinese Education System is applied. And it finds that both Australia and China do the same thing, they lower the threshold of the higher education, so that let more people enter the universities and colleges. This action does have some advantages, but it still gets some problem. And in China, because of the huge population, the shortcoming is shown up recently. Australia should make another policy to overcome this problem to prevent such problems attack Australia too. The material contained in this essay is mainly from the textbook, some from the internet (some of them from Chinese Website), and some of them is personal experience.
Policy cycle is the idea that policy proceeds in distinct stages from policy formulation to implementation (John, 2000, P204). Policy cycle can be used to understand and structure policy development. It breaks the policy process into clear and identifiable steps (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P22). Policy cycle is a useful organising device, with a range of strengths: 1. The policy cycle approach stresses that government is a process, and not just a collection of venerable institutions. 2. It disaggregates complex phenomena into manageable steps, allowing us to focus on the different issues and needs of each phase in the cycle. 3. A policy cycle allows some synthesis of existing knowledge about public policy. 4. It serves as a description of policy making, to assist in making sense of policy development, past and present. 5. It is normative, suggesting a particular sequence as an appropriate way to approach the policy task (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P23). The good policy should include the basic elements of the policy cycle. That is, a policy process that does not include everything from problem identification to implementation to evaluation has less chance of success. In the rest of this essay, it will use policy cycle model to analyse the case-"The Higher Education Contribution Scheme", and find out whether the policy makers follow all the steps of policy cycle model in that case. And at the end of this essay, the comment will be give about whether this is a good policy. After that, the education system of China will be applied to compare with Australian.
Identify issues
Much policy begins with identifying issues. A new problem emerges in private discussions with interest groups, or in the media, with demands for government action. Sometimes an existing policy proves to be no longer effective and requires an overhaul- there is never a shortage of people telling government what it should be doing (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P26). This stage is really about marshalling arguments to convince others of the need for policy change.
In the HESC case, the problem is that the higher education sector under intense pressure to expand. There were large waiting lists for places at universities, but the sectors could not afford to enrol additional students. The 1970s and 1980s were a time of rapid growth in enrolments in the Australian higher education sector. In 1975 there were 270,000 students enrolled. By 1987 the total had increased almost 50 percent to 394,000. The sector's 65 universities and colleges were graduating about 78,000 a year. Despite the growth of the sector, Australia was not matching the performance of other OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries in delivering tertiary education. Between 10 and 11 percent of Australians aged 18-24 were enrolled in higher education institutions in 1987, compared with 13 to 15 percent of Americans and Canadians of this age. Australian's universities were also not meeting the increasing demand for places. This problem caused by three reasons, first one is from people. For several seasons such as earn more in future, more and more people want to go to university or college. The second reason is from university or college, these school could not accept more students because of shortage in finance. The last reason, but the most important reason was the policy, the Labor party had abolished university fees under Gough Whitlam in 1974. It indicated that the cost of higher education was highly dependent on the commonwealth funding. But the fact was Commonwealth funding to the higher education sector was around $2.5 billion in 1987. Since 1975, Federal funding to the sector as a proportion of GDP had fallen from 1.4 percent to 1 percent. The rise in total enrolments meant that funding per student had fallen by 23 percent in that time. All these factors indicate that an existing policy proves to be no longer effective and requires an overhaul. Based on these factors, in December 1987, Dawkins, the Australia's Federal Minister for Education, established a committee, to find a solutions the higher education sector's financial challenges.
Once an issue has caught the eye of government, policy analysis becomes important, for without information it will difficult to frame options. It is designed to provide decision makers with sufficient information about the policy problem to make an informed judgment, and typically takes the form of briefing papers for senior officials and minsters (Bridgman and Davis, 2004，P27).
The policy analysis stage involved setting up of committees to gather information and negotiate the details of the policy. There were multiple steps in the policy analysis phase, with each step mirroring in part the policy cycle (AES, 2006).
In the HECS case, Dawkins established a committee to examine new funding options. Former NSW Premier, Neville Wran, was chosen as chair of the Committee. The other members were: Mike Gallagher, a senior public servant who had worked previously on higher education funding issues; Professor Bob Gregory, a respected economist from the Australian National University; and Meredith Edwards, an executive from the Department of Social Security with a strong social science academic background and whose experience in the welfare system meant she was well placed to assess the impact of any changes on lower income students.
A small group of public servants from the Department of Education was seconded to serve as a secretariat to the Committee. The Committee met once every couple of weeks, with the secretariat completing research and drafting reports during the intervening periods. Several members of the Minister's staff, including consultant Bruce Chapman and private secretary David Phillips, regularly sat in on meetings.
Only few numbers of people involved in the committee, but they did considered widely. In the first weeks of its deliberations, the Wran Committee focused on understanding the major beneficiaries of higher education and determining how to fairly apportion funding responsibility. Three major categories of beneficiary were identified: the students, society at large, and the business sector which employed graduates. The Committee also considered several proposals for compulsory and voluntary contributions from business to higher education. One option assessed was a universal surcharge on company tax, which would be paid into a special trust fund for higher education purposes. However, the committee concluded this would extract payments from the many firms that did not hire graduates. Other options involving voluntary contributions to the higher education sector from employers were examined. These included tax incentives for collaborative arrangements for research projects, sponsorships and endowments. Assistance from firms for employees to take tertiary courses was also considered. The Committee concluded that the government had limited capacity to influence outcomes in these areas, and that they did not offer the prospect of significant revenue gains for the sector.
The difficulties with determining a fair contribution from industry meant that the Committee focused its analysis on students. Although the data indicated that there were strong private returns from going to university, this was not widely understood in the community. The Committee could not assume that students and their parents would view university fees as a worthwhile investment.
The Wran Committee asked the secretariat to review the different types of student funding schemes in operation around the world and to look at any new models being proposed in the academic literature.
Policy instruments
Policy analysis leads to identification of appropriate policy instruments. Some problems require legislation, others adjustment of the internal operations of government agencies.
In the HECS case, there was no policy instrument applied. But in 1986, before Dawkins had taken on the education portfolio, there had been a proposal to Cabinet from the Finance Minister, Peter Walsh, to introduce fees at universities. This had been rejected on the grounds that it would discourage people from lower income households undertaking tertiary education. Walsh was able to get through Cabinet a $250 per year upfront fee on students called the Higher Education Administration Charge (HEAC). It was set at a level roughly equivalent to the administrative costs per student borne by universities.
One important method to test the strength of the analysis, and the feasibility of the proposed response, is consultation. The architecture of government tends to duplication ad overlap, since many problems draw in a wide range of players (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, p28).
In HECS case, few people have been consulted. Dawkins set the committee a tight timeframe. It was to report back in only four months, by March 1988.
But in the Policy analysis step, the committee did a lot of work, and they got a lot of information to help them to make the final decision.
Some people argue that the Committee should consult more people for decision making. But there were some problems to do that. First reason which is the most important is that Dawkins set the Committee a tight timeframe. It was to report back in only four months, by March 1988. In such limit time, it was not impossible to consult every interested group. Another reason is the cost of this process, if the Committee consult much wider interested groups, the cost would be a problem.
To sum up, although the Committee did not consult wide groups, it did good job.
Once a policy proposal is ready for consideration by the government, issues of coordination arise. This typically requires discussions with treasury about available funding for a policy, and with other central agencies over the relation between a new proposal and over the relation between a new proposal and overall government direction.
In the HECS case, the committee did not coordinate with Treasury, but another department was involved- Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Professor Bob Gregory suggested that a surcharge over and above the basic income tax rate could be charged to all who received a degree from an Australian university. A proportion of the graduate's annual income- perhaps 1 or 2 percent- could be added to their taxable income and would continue to be payable throughout their working lifetime. The unemployed and those who did not enter the workforce would not pay. Initially there was some scepticism from the ATO when it was approached to confirm the feasibility of the plan. However, there was some precedent for the ATO's involvement in debt collection. At the Department of Social Security, Meredit Edwards had previously been instrumental in bringing the ATO into the process of collecting child- support payments from non- custodial parents. Under that scheme, payees had their child support payments withheld from their wage and salary payments along with their income tax. When this example was raised, the Tax Office's initial caution about being involved in collecting repayments from higher education graduates gave way.
Decision
As the cycle proceeds, a policy issue is identified, analysed, matched with appropriate instruments, discussed with relevant interests, and tested against central policy and financial considerations. The time for a decision has arrived. In the Australian setting, this means consideration by cabinet.
In the HECS case, the decision is made by Dawkins. And HECS was launched.
Implementation
The cycle does not conclude with a cabinet decision. Implementation must follow, in which e policy is given expression through legislation or a program, in pursuit of the goals agreed by ministers.
In HECS case, the Hawke Labor Government set up the Higher Education Contributions Scheme (HECS) in 1989.
Evaluation
Since policies in practice often drift from the objectives of the original submission or are imperfect in realising their goals, evaluation is essential so government can gauge the effects of a policy and adjust or rethink policy design as appropriate. Such evaluation, of course, stats the cycle afresh, with a new look at the problem, and a reconsideration of the recommended instruments.
In HECS case, once the Committee's report was made public, it attracted heavy criticism from students and from academics. Most critics focused on the equity implications of the recommended funding scheme. Some argued that any tuition- fee- based scheme would discourage poorer students. Others suggested that the baby boomer generation, which had enjoyed free university education, were now condemning the next generation of students to a working life weighed down by indebtedness.
Good Policy or Not/ Conclusion
Any approach has limitations. The policy cycle model is a valuable description and guide to action but is does not provide causal explanations for why a policy has developed in particular ways. As a normative model, there is a risk the policy cycle may impose too great a neatness on policy making, renowned for complexity and discontinuity rather than the relentlessly logical unfolding implied in the diagram (Bridgman and Gavis, 2004, p25). The policy cycle model begs the question: "Does good process lead to good policy?" Experience shows that good process is integral to consistently good policy. While some very poor policies have grown out of the most rigorous process, it is rarer for good policy to grow from a haphazard approach. According to Keating (1996), a good policy process is the vital underpinning of good policy development. Of course, good process does not necessarily guarantee a good policy outcome, but the risks of bad process leading to a bad outcome are very much higher.
Overall, HECS was a good policy. It contained all steps in the Australian Policy Cycle despite a little work had done in some steps. It did solved funds shortage in education system. And now more and more people can enter the universities to accept the higher education.
It also finds that by using Australian Policy Cycle does can explain how a public policy made.
China Situation[1]
As Australia, China has proceeded several times Education Reform since 1977.
In 1949, the new Chinese Government set up in Beijing, but then the higher education was only open for few people. There were some famous university then, but normal people can not get the chance to enter the university. Another reason is the new government was just set up, and its main objective was rebuilt the country (China was under war condition since 1937). Education was not the main factor the government concerned. Because of Culture Revolution, the higher education was ceased. In 1955, Higher Education Entrance Examination was set up. But Because of Culture Revolution, the Examination was ceased, and the whole education system was almost crashed. But in 1977, Deng Xiaoping made the decision of resuming the National Higher Education Entrance Examination having profound impact on Chinese higher education in history. From the 1980s on, Chinese higher education has undergone a series of reforms that have slowly brought improvement. The reforms aim to provide higher education institutions more autonomy and the ability to better meet the needs of students. Instead of micromanagement, the state aims to provide general planning.
Reforms picked up the pace in 2000, with the state aiming to complete the reform of 200 universities operating under China's ministries and start 15 university-based scientific technology parks.
In 2002, there were slightly over 2000 higher education institutions in PRC. Close to 1400 were regular higher education institutions (HEIs). A little more than 600 were higher education institutions for adults. Combined enrolment in 2002 was 11,256,800. Of this close to 40 percent were new recruits. Total graduate student enrolment was 501,000.
In 2005, there were about 4,000 Chinese institutions. Student enrolment increased to 15 million, with rapid growth that is expected to peak in 2008. However, the higher education system does not meet the needs of 85 percent of the college-aged population.
In Spring 2007 China will conduct a national evaluation of its universities. The results of this evaluation will be used to support the next major planned policy initiative. The last substantial national evaluation of universities was in 1994. This evaluation resulted in the 'massification' of higher education as well as a renewed emphasis on elite institutions
As Australia, the threshold of higher education in China is much lower than before. As other policy, this policy has two sides. In the bright side, it does solve some problems in the social. First, let more people enter the universities or colleges can improve the overall education level of the country. That is good for the future development of the country. Second, it creates some jobs positions. As more people accept the higher education, there must need more teachers and professors. In 2009, there are totally 1,272,369 full-time teachers works for the higher education institutions. Also there are 389,341 invited teachers (similar as part-time teachers in Australia). Third, in the short run, recruiting more people to enter the universities can ease employment pressure. Every year, there are millions of students graduate from high school (similar as year 12 in Australia), in 2008 this number reaches 45,761,000 students graduated from high school (includes secondary vocational schools which a little similar as TAFE in Australia), this number almost double the total population of Australia. It can be imaged that if all these students enter the social, and there were not that much position for these graduates. There must raise many social problems, the crime rate may increase. But let some these high school graduates enter the higher education institutions, at least it can partly ease employment pressure in short run. (In China, generally students need spend four years in universities, this is longer than Australia. In Australia, most students spend three years in universities. And for post graduation level or master degree, it needs three years for coursework. But in Australia, if people want get a master degree, it needs less than two years for coursework students. And in China, for some particular major, students need spend more than four years such as medical which needs five years to study. Also there are some courses need less than four years for studying, such as art.) But lower the threshold of higher education in China also has some signification shortcoming. The most important one is still about the employment pressure. As mentioned above, let more people accept higher education can ease the employment pressure for short run, but in the long run, this pressure still has. As Zheng Yongnian, professor in Chinese policy field, stated that millions of college graduates — including lots with master's degrees and PhDs — become unemployed, the bubble of China's higher education is bursting. It's not news that college students can't find jobs. This happens in all countries, but not on as large a scale as in China. China's educational system has made great strides, but at the same time has created problems that will be hard to solve in the foreseeable future. The problem isn't simply unemployment among college students. The crisis behind this phenomenon is what's more disconcerting.
Through several education reforms, Australia now lowers the threshold of high education, especially welcome international students. The decision makers of Australia should aware what happen in China now, and prevent such attack Australia. However, Australia is lucky than China. China has 50 times population than Australia. And according to International Monetary Funds, Australia is much richer than Australia in GDP per person aspect. So higher education problem may be easier to solve in Australia than China.
Reference
John, P (2000) Analysing public policy, York House Typographic,
Bridgman, P. and Davis, G., (2004) Australian policy handbook, 3rd edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney
Zheng Y. (2009), China's education reform bubble bursts, Global Times,
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/top-photo/2009-06/439611.html
Chinese Website:
Ministry of Education of PRC:
http://www.moe.edu.cn/edoas/website18/73/info1261560280324173.htm
http://www.moe.edu.cn/edoas/website18/01/info1261475057200801.htm
Introduction of China's Education
http://baike.baidu.com/view/82314.htm?fr=ala0_1
[1] The information contained in this part is summarised from several Chinese website and personal experience.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment