The Formulation of National
Biotechnology Policy
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
2.0 NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY POLICY 4
2.1 Evaluation on the role played by the
main stakeholders
in the
formulation and implementation of
National
Biotechnology Policy 5
3.0 THE RATIONALE FOR A BOTTOM UP APPROACH IN
THE PUBLIC
POLICY PROCESS 8
4.0 CHALLENGES IN BOTTOM UP APPROACH 13
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 16
REFERENCES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Malaysia is a
country that is unique because it is a country that is derived from two regions
of Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysia is a country of
different races, ethnicity, religion and culture that reflects the diversity of
the country. Malaysia also does not deal with natural disasters that continue
to produce and delegated much like petroleum, tin, and so forth. Therefore,
Malaysia should have a policy not only to mobilize resources, but can reduce
the gap between people and the region will further enhance the relationship
between race and religion.
Public policy
refers to the act by government to address certain problems affecting members
of the public. Various governmental organizations formulate and implement
public policy so as to address issues affecting the public. Besides, public
administration defines the process of implementing public policy. Therefore,
public policy fits quite well in the field of public administration; the study
of public administration enables one to acquire knowledge on how to manage
organizations, public policy analysis and solving public problems. Public
administration involves professional experts for the development of sound
public policies that can help in solving, easing or preventing the problems.
Public
administration requires skills like budgeting, research and management, which
are important in the implementation of government policy. A public
administrator oversees the design and execution of government policies. Public
policy is just one among the various pillars of public administration. Other
pillars include human resource, statistics and ethics. The public
administrators are legislators, mayors, public servants among others. This fits
well in the agenda of public policy. For instance, a mayor seeks legislation on
public policy and undertakes its implementation for the benefit of the general
public.
This paper seeks
to examine the policymaking process of National Biotechnology Policy, which is
aimed to provide a structured guideline in developing the industry. This paper
will also discuss the rationale of bottom up approach in the public policy
process and the main challenges behind the bottom up approach.
2.0 NATIONAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY POLICY
The emergence of
new technologies such as the Information and Communication Technology (ICT),
biotechnology and new material sciences have successfully altered the dynamics,
composition and production patterns in the industrialized as well as developing
nations (Chaturvedi & Rao, 2004). Biotechnology, in particular, will
undoubtedly be the major technology of the twenty-first century. In fact,
biotechnology is one of the fastest growing sectors in the world and is seen as
a major area of investment and target for support by government worldwide
(MOSTI, 2006). Over the past 55 years, biotechnology has supported many
scientific discoveries and has become an integral component of the economies of
many industrialized countries (Glassman & Sun, 2004). There are significant
potential benefits to the nations committed to participating in the
biotechnology industry, for instance, in term of higher crop yields, better
healthcare and better economic returns (Daar et al., 2007).
Recognizing the
potential contribution of biotechnology to the economy, many Asian countries,
including Malaysia have begun to invest in the biotechnology industry. Although
biotechnology can be considered as relatively a new industry in Malaysia, yet
it has been identified as a potential engine of economic growth for the nation.
Following the lead given by the development of Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC)
which represents a successful investment in the ICT industry, biotechnology is
considered as the next growth area in the industrial development for Malaysia
(MOSTI, 2006). Hence, with the necessary motivations and great opportunities,
biotechnology becomes the subject of public policy aspiration in Malaysia.
However, a structured policy is vital as it becomes the key for the
implementation of activities in this sector. With a clear direction and
indication, the progress and growth of this sector is not only immeasurable but
the success will then be proven relative. The Malaysian cabinet then entrusted
the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) to lead the drafting
of an effective policy for this industry.
2.1 Evaluation on the role played by the main
stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of National Biotechnology
Policy
In general, the
formulation of the National Biotechnology Policy can be divided into six phases
– Problem Recognition; Appointment of Policy Agent; The Emergence of Policy
Network; Interaction; Evaluation and Policy Outcome.
2.1.1 Problem recognition
The
policy initiation phase in the policy process can be extremely a complex one.
It includes perceiving that a policy problem exists, identifying the problem
context, determining the policy objectives and generating suitable policy
agendas. According to Evans and Davies (1999), policy process begins with the
recognition by policymakers of the existence problem which requires, due to
contextual factors, pressing attention. The policy problems can be in the form
of political interest, economic competition, or social need.
2.1.2 Appointment
of policy agent
During
the search process, an organization may come across a potential policy agent or
policy consultant with specialist skills to develop the necessary political and
knowledge resources to satisfy successful policy development (Khairiah, 2008).
As MOSTI was entrusted to lead the drafting of the biotechnology policy, MOSTI
engaged the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT) as
the principle consultant to accomplish the given task in the best possible
manner.
MIGHT
is an independent and non-profit governmental organization that is responsible
to enable consensus building and coordination for industry-government
partnership in high technology such as biotechnology. It is a prominent
organization and has strong international links.
2.1.3 The
emergence of policy network
This
stage in the process of policy making identifies the emergence of an
information feeder network which is developed by the appointed policy
consultant (Khairiah, 2008). In this case, it was MIGHT. The curiosity of the
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) as a client was
increased through preliminary processes of contact. Thereafter, it is crucial
for MIGHT to increase the volume and the detail of information for MOSTI by
demonstrating the quality of their access to communication and knowledge
network in order to facilitate the formulation of National Biotechnology Policy
proposal.
2.1.4 Interaction
In
this stage, policy consultants will often be expected to organize forums for
exchange of ideas between the client and knowledge elites as well as relevant
policy stakeholders (Evans, 1999). This may take a form of representatives of
relevant stakeholders who have similar professional beliefs and standards of
judgment as well as share common policy concerns (Khairiah, 2008).
Various
contexts of interaction can be identified in this case study through which
MIGHT, MOSTI and representatives from academia, non-governmental organizations
and industrial players discussed issues of central importance in the
formulation of National Biotechnology Policy. At least nine important meetings
were held starting from the appointment of MIGHT as the official consultant
until the official launch of the National Biotechnology Policy.
Figure 1: Chronology of Meetings
between MIGHT, MOSTI, and Policy Stakeholders
Source: Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (2009)
Source: Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (2009)
2.1.5 Evaluation
Once
the client is satisfied with the degree of intelligence gathering that the
consultants have engaged in, the process of evaluation will commence (Khairiah,
2008). The evaluation process is critical in determining that the elements such
as policy objectives, structure, contents, and concepts are designed
appropriately according to the needs of Malaysian setting.
2.1.6 Outcome
After
the National Biotechnology Policy draft has been evaluated by MOSTI and the
various government agencies and non-governmental organizations, Jamaludin
Jarjis, the former Minister of MOSTI presented the policy draft to the
Malaysian Cabinet. According to the Principal Assistant Secretary, Finance and
Corporate Section, BIOTEK, the cabinet approved the policy draft in the first
presentation itself without any amendment since the proposal has been reviewed
several times earlier by the various government agencies and was deemed
complete.
3.0 THE RATIONALE FOR A BOTTOM UP APPROACH IN
THE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS
The bottom-up
theories emerged in the late seventies and early eighties as a major approach
to policy implementation. Several studies showed that the top-down approach was
not able to achieve their original objectives and policy statements. For
example, although the New Economic Policy introduced in 1970 assumed that
poverty would decrease by providing various tools such as subsidies to farmers
and fisherman, many of them were still in poverty. In other words, if providing
subsidies would lead to a decrease in poverty, then why did it not happen?
This could be
because the policy was developed from a top-down approach and disregarded the
complexity of putting policies into action. The top-down approach ignored the
behavioral aspects of implementation and, more importantly, the key role played
by implementers at the local level such as teachers in schools and local
village heads in districts. Moreover, the bottom-up approach contends that if
local bureaucrats are not allowed discretion in the implementations process
with respect to local conditions, then the policy will likely fail (Matland,
1995).
Bottom-up
theorists emphasize target groups and service deliverers, arguing that policy
is made at the local level (Matland 1995). These scholars (e.g. Hjern and Hull
1982, Hanf 1982, Barrett and Fudge 1981, Elmore 1979) thus criticize top-down
theorists for only taking into consideration the central decision-makers and
neglecting other actors. The bottom-up approach, developed by Hanf, Hjern and
Porter (1978), identifies the networks of actors who are involved in service
delivery in one or more local areas and asks them about their goals,
strategies, activities and contacts. It then uses the contacts in order to
develop a networking technique to identify the local, regional and national
actors involved in the planning, financing and execution of relevant
governmental and non-governmental programs. This provides a mechanism for
moving from local actors and decision-makers such as teachers or doctors up to
the top policy-makers in both the public and private sectors (Sabatier 2005).
In terms of policy areas, bottom-uppers examine policies with greater
uncertainty in the policy (Matland 1995).
Bottom-up
designers begin their implementation strategy formation with the target groups
and service deliverers, because they find that the target groups are the actual
implementers of policy (Matland, 1995). Moreover, bottom-uppers contend that if
local bureaucrats [implementers] are not allowed discretion in the
implementation process with respect to local conditions, then the policy will
“likely fail” (Matland, 1995). Accordingly, goals, strategies, and activities
must be deployed with special attention to the people the policy will directly
impact. Thus, evaluation based upon the street-level bureaucrat would be the
best practice (Matland, 1995). For example, Matland discussed Hjern’s findings
that central initiatives poorly adapted to local conditions failed, and, that
success depended greatly on the local implementer’s ability to adapt to local
conditions.
Discretion by
agents is the underlying premise of the bottom-up approach (Elder, Lecture,
2011). Discretion may be a very good thing, especially when it uses expertise
of people impacted by the policy to increase the likelihood of success and
approbation. In bottom-up, one size doesn’t fit all cases, and so discretion
may enable implementers to activate more useful practices or to ignore policy
that will hamper the goal of the program. For example, the safe water drinking
act became prohibitively expensive for smaller water systems. Of the 350,000
municipal water systems in Malaysia., only the conglomerates had the financial
resources to quickly live up to the law without federal / state aid. However,
the size of the water systems meant that a visit from a regulator was unlikely,
so the great financial burden that would have occurred with a visit from a
regulator was ignored. On the other hand, a regulator using the bottom-up
approach in Chicago may overlook minor code violations for a bribe—since the
mom and pop shop is out of code but is not a real threat to safety. The
bottom-up model is thus a challenge to administration due to the reality of
delegated authority, to the discretion allowed to different agents, which
invariably causes a measurable variance of goal achievement. The bottom-up
approach thus creates ambiguous goals.
Bottom-uppers
are at times guilty of two criticisms. First, street-level bureaucrats are
usually not accountable to the people. In this case, the local agents may
intentionally subvert the elected officials’ policy goals and engage personal
sub goals (Matland, 1995). Second, bottom-uppers ignore the fact that many
policies are created in a top-down manner, and likely in a manner which
reinforces top-down authority. For example, Matland describes Sabatier’s
analysis of environmental regulation in the United States, whereas the federal
designers of the federal act integrated the necessary clauses to allow for
class and individual lawsuits (150). Overtime, it was these lawsuits that
adjusted the rule-of-law, not the local implementers.
DeLeon and
DeLeon (2001) find that bottom-uppers are more likely to be reflective of
community interests, while top-downers are more likely to impose policy
narrowly upon focused interest groups. They conclude that bottom-up
implementation is “more realistic and practical” and much more “democratic”
than the top-down approach. Further, if the policy is indeed meant to coerce
people’s behavior, then the bottom-up approach may go beyond informing people
of the proposed legislative action to manipulate behavior. In fact,
bottom-uppers may garner the consent of the target group before their
representatives’ vote for the law.
Citizen
e-participating is one of good example of bottom-up approach in public policy
process in Malaysia. Figure 2 shows the general overview of public policy
formulation in Malaysia and figure 3 shows how the bottom-up approach through
e-participating works in formulating public policy.
Figure 2: General overview of public
policy formulation process in Malaysia
Figure 3: E-participation framework
for public policy formulation
4.0 CHALLENGES
IN BOTTOM UP APPROACH
The bottom up-up
approach is not free from challenges. Among the main challenges faced by public
administrators in the policy formulation and implementation by using bottom-up
approach is as follows:
Ego dimension of politicians: The ego
of most politicians in Malaysia leads to the twist and turns of policies
usually for political survival and perpetuation of party interest. There is
needless policy change if not abandonment. New governments come into office and
fail to continue with the policies started by the previous opposition
government. In rare cases, the best they can do is to change the name of the
policy or enlarge it to cover other extraneous societal issues.
On the other
hand, politicians in their effort to quickly satisfy the demands of the people
formulate policies that provide short-lived solutions and fail to address the
actual problem in the long run. The winning of elections is held as more
important than the sustainability of policies and the attainment of their core
goals (Makinde, 2005).
Bribery and corruption: Bribery and
corruption sometimes become problem in bottom-up approach. In the policy
setting, it accounts for most of the difficulties faced at the implementation
stage. Policy actors both at the top level and at the field syphon financial
resources to satisfy themselves. Agents and institutions put in place to ensure
accountability are also bribed to falsify their reports and massage their
probing. In the end, the system is weakened and the formulated policies are
unable to achieve their stated goals (Makinde, 2005).
Narrow View in Policy Formulation:
Policy formulators using the bottom-up approach focus on very few variables
that influence the problem identified. In most cases, they focus on only the
political and economic variables failing to include the social, administrative
and external environmental variables. Hence, right from the start, the policy
is formulated with deficiencies (Makinde, 2005).
Lack of participation by the target group:
participation is when the target group which the policy is meant for is given
much room to contribute in policy formulation and implementation. However, in
Malaysia the target group is usually left out at the policy formulation stage.
Only high officials of government and policy actors are made to participate.
The policy so defined therefore fails to be client-oriented and gets out of
touch from the local people. Ownership of the policy becomes difficult
(Makinde, 2005).
Time Required. One of the main problems
encountered to the bottom-up process is the amount of time it consumes. In case
of financial policy, first of all, individual managers have to create their own
budgets, taking into consideration past budgets and spending during the
integration of cost projections for the next year. Then, upper-level managers
and executives have to review all the budgets submitted by the managers, and
also to sum them in order to find out totals. The next phase is the approval or
feedback that requires recalculations, meaning that the whole process can
repeat itself several times before a final form of a budget is approved.
Lack of Expertise. In this form of
policy making, the responsible for policy is likely to have enough experience in
policy domain and some confidence working with financial resource allocation.
However, a bottom-up approach required managers, who detain professional
positions based on their specialized skills in specific fields, to perform the
same administrative tasks as those that deals with this kind of skills. Even
though there are managers who excellent motivate their teams and specialized in
one particular field of business, they could not find cost savings and also
estimate expenditures as well as someone else who work all day long with these
figures or is higher in the organization.
Lack of Context. Bottom-up process ask
stakeholders to elaborate policy without the benefit of context within the
issues. stakeholders could have some information about other policy activities
but a bit amount of knowledge about main strategic goals and financial
objectives for the policy overall. Instead, stakeholders elaborate their main
issues in separation or without guidelines from their top order, working to
ensure for own structures needs but missing out on what's best for the country
as an entity.
In general, the
disadvantages of bottom-up approach can be identified as:
a)
The main fault of the approach is that it gives too
much autonomy and power to lower-level bureaucrats. This might lead to the
lower-level officials misusing their power and deviations in policy
implementation or even complete overhaul of policies at the local level.
b)
The street-level bureaucrats are not politicians and
therefore do not have to be accountable to the people, should the policies the
implement go wrong. They may also thwart the elected officials’ policy
intentions and have their own agendas to pursue at the local level.
c)
Policies can be made by local bureaucrats with total
disregard to the fact that policies should be made by elected representatives.
d)
The lower level bureaucrats may actually not have much
discretion with respect to policy implementation because the way that some
policies are structured.
e)
Finally, it is impossible to control lower-level
bureaucratic behavior by providing or withholding resources necessary for
implementation by top-level policy makers.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This paper
generates insights that may help develop better understanding of public policy
making in Malaysia, in particular the National Biotechnology Policy. Two
observations that can be made from the National Biotechnology Policy formulation
process in Malaysia are highlighted here. Firstly, policymakers in developing
countries like Malaysia often assume central roles in initiating, shaping and
pursuing public policies. They are frequently the most important actors in
propelling issues and problems into agenda for government action. Secondly, a
well mobilized policy consultants and policy network may make a critical difference
in ensuring a successful adoption and implementation of the policy proposal in
a multiracial country like Malaysia.
Selecting an
appropriate approach to use as the most appropriate approach to formulate and
implement a public policy should be determined by reference to the need and
suitability issues to be assessed.
Bottom-up
approach recognizes that individuals at subordinate levels are likely to play
an active part in implementation and may have some discretion to reshape
objectives of the policy and change the way it is implemented. The bottom-up approach sees policy
implementation is an interactive process involving policy makers, implementers
from various levels of government, and other actors. Policy may change during
implementation.
There is no
conclusion as to whether the top-down or bottom-up approach to implementation
is better. What can be concluded is that both approaches provide valuable
information to the implementation process and have their individual strength
and weakness.
ATTACHMENT
REFERENCES
Chaturvedi, S. and
Rao, S.R. (2004). Biotechnology and
Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Asia. New Delhi: Academic
Foundation.
Daar, A.S.,
Berndtson, K., Persad, D.L. & Singer, P.A. (2007). How can developing countries harness biotechnology to improve health?
BMC Public Health.
deLeon and deLeon, “What Ever Happened to Policy
Implementation? An Alternative Approach,” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 12, 4 (2002), pp. 467-492.
Evans, M. &
Davies, J. (1999). Understanding Policy
Transfer: A Multi-level, Multi-Disciplinary Perceptive. Public
Administration.
Glassman, R.H. &
Sun, A.Y. (2004). Biotechnology:
Identifying advances from the hype. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.
Hanf, K., Hjern, B.
and Porter, D. (1978), ‘Local networks of
manpower training in the Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden’, in K.
Hanf and F. Scharpf (eds), Interorganisational Policy Making: Limits to
Coordination and Central Control, London: Sage.
Matland, R. E.
(1995). Synthesizing the implementation
literature: The Ambiguity Conflict model of Policy Implementation. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Makinde, T. (2005). “Problems of Policy Implementation in
Developing Nations: The Nigerian Experience”. Department of Public
Administration, ObafemiAwolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
MOSTI. (2006). National Biotechnology Policy: Biotechnology
for Wealth Creation and Social Well-being. Malaysia: Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation.
Sabatier, P. (2005),
‘From policy implementation to policy
change: a personal odyssey’, in A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan and A. Amaral (eds),
Reform and change in higher education: analyzing policy implementation,
Dordrecht: Springer.
