Policy Analysis and Policy Formulation
What the exam tests
This domain tests whether you can move from a contested problem to a defensible, costed and implementable option. Expect scenarios that ask you to challenge a ministerial 'solution', set objectives, appraise options and design the evaluation before money is spent.
Core rules
- Define the problem before the solution: who is affected, scale, trend, causes, and the counterfactual (what happens if government does nothing).
- Objectives must be outcome-based and measurable, with baselines and targets - not restatements of the intervention.
- Appraise at least three genuine options, including a non-regulatory option and a 'do minimum', against explicit criteria: effectiveness, cost, distributional impact, feasibility, legal risk and time.
- Use a logic model: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, impacts - with assumptions stated.
- Impact assessment and consultation belong to formulation, not to the announcement; record rejected options and the reasons.
- Design process, impact and value-for-money evaluation at the same time as the policy.
Worked example
A ministry proposes a 20m bonus to fill rural teacher vacancies. Reasoning: first test the problem definition - are vacancies driven by pay, housing, isolation or qualification rules? Options: (A) recruitment bonus, (B) relocation and housing support, (C) expand rural training placements, (D) do minimum. Score each on cost per filled post, retention beyond year two, equity, speed and administrative burden. If the evidence shows retention, not recruitment, is the binding constraint, (B) and (C) may outperform (A). Recommend a mixed option, piloted, with a vacancy baseline and an evaluation using comparison regions.
Traps
Confusing outputs (bonuses paid) with outcomes (posts filled and retained); defining the problem as the absence of your preferred programme; ignoring delivery capacity; double-counting benefits; and writing objectives no available data source can measure.