, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
Introduction to the Portfolio
Public policy is never static. It emerges from conflict and compromise, is codified in law and
regulation, and then—inevitably—confronts new conditions, unexpected consequences, and shifting
social priorities. As Anderson (2015, p. 6) defines it, public policy is “a relatively stable, purposive
course of action or inaction followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter
of concern.” The key qualifier is relatively stable. No policy, however well-designed, can remain
perfectly suited to its environment indefinitely. Changes in technology, economics, political
leadership, public opinion, and environmental conditions all exert pressure on existing policy
frameworks, demanding adaptation, reform, or even termination.
This portfolio examines two fundamental dimensions of public policymaking: first, the various
factors that necessitate policy change, and second, the sequential stages through which such change
typically proceeds. Both dimensions are essential for understanding how governments respond—or
fail to respond—to pressing societal problems.
The first question addresses the drivers of policy change. Using South Africa’s energy policy as a
central case study, it explores how socioeconomic shifts, focusing events (such as the intensification
of load shedding), technological advances (falling renewable energy costs), political and institutional
changes, policy feedback and unintended consequences, the breakdown of agenda denial, and
economic and fiscal pressures can converge to force government action. These drivers do not operate
in isolation; rather, they interact, often creating a window of opportunity for reform where previously
none existed.
The second question turns to the process of policy change, outlining the stages of the policy cycle as
conceptualized by Anderson (2015): problem identification and agenda setting, formulation,
adoption, implementation, and evaluation/feedback. Again, South Africa’s energy policy
transformation—from coal dependency toward renewable energy, private generation, and grid
restructuring—serves as the primary illustration. This case demonstrates that policy change is rarely
linear; stages overlap, feedback loops operate, and political bargaining shapes outcomes at every
step.
Together, these two questions provide a comprehensive analytical framework. Understanding why
policy must change (the drivers) and how that change unfolds (the stages) equips students, analysts,
and practitioners with the tools to diagnose policy failure, anticipate resistance, and design more
effective interventions. The South African energy crisis, while specific in its national context, offers
lessons applicable to any setting where an aging, unsustainable policy regime confronts mounting
evidence of its inadequacy.
, 1. Within this context, discuss the various factors that can necessitate a change in public policy
and illustrate with the use of suitable public sector examples.
Introduction
Public policy is not a static phenomenon; it evolves in response to shifting pressures, problems, and
priorities within a society. As Anderson (2015, p. 6) defines it, policy is “a relatively stable,
purposive course of action or inaction followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem
or matter of concern.” The key term here is relatively stable—implying that while policies endure,
they are not immutable. Change becomes necessary when existing policies fail to address emerging
challenges, when environmental or socioeconomic conditions shift, when new problems gain agenda
status, or when policy evaluations reveal ineffectiveness or unintended consequences.
The case of South Africa’s energy policy—historically reliant on coal but now beset by load
shedding, aging infrastructure, and environmental degradation—offers a vivid illustration of multiple
forces converging to demand policy reform. This essay discusses several factors that necessitate
policy change, including socioeconomic shifts, technological and environmental pressures, focusing
events, political and institutional changes, policy feedback and evaluation, and agenda denial
breakdowns. Each factor is illustrated with South African and other public sector examples.
1. Socioeconomic and Environmental Changes
One of the most powerful drivers of policy change is a transformation in the underlying
socioeconomic or environmental conditions that a policy was designed to address. Anderson (2015, p.
44) notes that “public policies often arise out of conflicts among groups of people, private and
official, with differing interests and desires,” and that “rapid industrialization and the growth of big
business” historically produced new economic conditions demanding government action. Similarly,
when the environment changes, existing policies may become obsolete or harmful.
In South Africa, the energy policy framework developed during the apartheid and early
post-apartheid eras assumed abundant, cheap coal and centralized, state-owned electricity generation
via Eskom. However, by the late 2010s and early 2020s, several socioeconomic and environmental
shifts necessitated change. First, the coal-dependent system contributed heavily to carbon emissions,
exacerbating climate change—a problem barely acknowledged when the policy was designed.
Second, the depletion of easily accessible coal reserves and the aging of power stations led to
frequent load shedding, crippling economic growth and public services. Third, international pressure
for a just energy transition, including climate finance conditional on reducing coal reliance, altered
the cost-benefit calculus of remaining on the coal path.
Anderson (2015, p. 45) observes that “a society’s level of economic development will impose limits
on what government can do.” In South Africa, the economic costs of load shedding—estimated at
billions of rand in lost GDP—demonstrated that the existing policy could no longer deliver the
foundational public good of reliable electricity. Thus, socioeconomic decline and environmental
degradation forced a reconsideration of the energy mix, leading to the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
2019 and subsequent moves toward renewable energy, despite resistance from entrenched coal
interests.
Another example is the shift in U.S. energy policy away from petroleum price regulation. Anderson
(2015, p. 303) notes that “regulation of petroleum prices (1980)” was terminated because it became
difficult to administer and was opposed by industry, while the energy crisis that spawned it had
ebbed. Socioeconomic conditions—specifically, the end of acute shortages—made continued
regulation unnecessary.
Introduction to the Portfolio
Public policy is never static. It emerges from conflict and compromise, is codified in law and
regulation, and then—inevitably—confronts new conditions, unexpected consequences, and shifting
social priorities. As Anderson (2015, p. 6) defines it, public policy is “a relatively stable, purposive
course of action or inaction followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter
of concern.” The key qualifier is relatively stable. No policy, however well-designed, can remain
perfectly suited to its environment indefinitely. Changes in technology, economics, political
leadership, public opinion, and environmental conditions all exert pressure on existing policy
frameworks, demanding adaptation, reform, or even termination.
This portfolio examines two fundamental dimensions of public policymaking: first, the various
factors that necessitate policy change, and second, the sequential stages through which such change
typically proceeds. Both dimensions are essential for understanding how governments respond—or
fail to respond—to pressing societal problems.
The first question addresses the drivers of policy change. Using South Africa’s energy policy as a
central case study, it explores how socioeconomic shifts, focusing events (such as the intensification
of load shedding), technological advances (falling renewable energy costs), political and institutional
changes, policy feedback and unintended consequences, the breakdown of agenda denial, and
economic and fiscal pressures can converge to force government action. These drivers do not operate
in isolation; rather, they interact, often creating a window of opportunity for reform where previously
none existed.
The second question turns to the process of policy change, outlining the stages of the policy cycle as
conceptualized by Anderson (2015): problem identification and agenda setting, formulation,
adoption, implementation, and evaluation/feedback. Again, South Africa’s energy policy
transformation—from coal dependency toward renewable energy, private generation, and grid
restructuring—serves as the primary illustration. This case demonstrates that policy change is rarely
linear; stages overlap, feedback loops operate, and political bargaining shapes outcomes at every
step.
Together, these two questions provide a comprehensive analytical framework. Understanding why
policy must change (the drivers) and how that change unfolds (the stages) equips students, analysts,
and practitioners with the tools to diagnose policy failure, anticipate resistance, and design more
effective interventions. The South African energy crisis, while specific in its national context, offers
lessons applicable to any setting where an aging, unsustainable policy regime confronts mounting
evidence of its inadequacy.
, 1. Within this context, discuss the various factors that can necessitate a change in public policy
and illustrate with the use of suitable public sector examples.
Introduction
Public policy is not a static phenomenon; it evolves in response to shifting pressures, problems, and
priorities within a society. As Anderson (2015, p. 6) defines it, policy is “a relatively stable,
purposive course of action or inaction followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem
or matter of concern.” The key term here is relatively stable—implying that while policies endure,
they are not immutable. Change becomes necessary when existing policies fail to address emerging
challenges, when environmental or socioeconomic conditions shift, when new problems gain agenda
status, or when policy evaluations reveal ineffectiveness or unintended consequences.
The case of South Africa’s energy policy—historically reliant on coal but now beset by load
shedding, aging infrastructure, and environmental degradation—offers a vivid illustration of multiple
forces converging to demand policy reform. This essay discusses several factors that necessitate
policy change, including socioeconomic shifts, technological and environmental pressures, focusing
events, political and institutional changes, policy feedback and evaluation, and agenda denial
breakdowns. Each factor is illustrated with South African and other public sector examples.
1. Socioeconomic and Environmental Changes
One of the most powerful drivers of policy change is a transformation in the underlying
socioeconomic or environmental conditions that a policy was designed to address. Anderson (2015, p.
44) notes that “public policies often arise out of conflicts among groups of people, private and
official, with differing interests and desires,” and that “rapid industrialization and the growth of big
business” historically produced new economic conditions demanding government action. Similarly,
when the environment changes, existing policies may become obsolete or harmful.
In South Africa, the energy policy framework developed during the apartheid and early
post-apartheid eras assumed abundant, cheap coal and centralized, state-owned electricity generation
via Eskom. However, by the late 2010s and early 2020s, several socioeconomic and environmental
shifts necessitated change. First, the coal-dependent system contributed heavily to carbon emissions,
exacerbating climate change—a problem barely acknowledged when the policy was designed.
Second, the depletion of easily accessible coal reserves and the aging of power stations led to
frequent load shedding, crippling economic growth and public services. Third, international pressure
for a just energy transition, including climate finance conditional on reducing coal reliance, altered
the cost-benefit calculus of remaining on the coal path.
Anderson (2015, p. 45) observes that “a society’s level of economic development will impose limits
on what government can do.” In South Africa, the economic costs of load shedding—estimated at
billions of rand in lost GDP—demonstrated that the existing policy could no longer deliver the
foundational public good of reliable electricity. Thus, socioeconomic decline and environmental
degradation forced a reconsideration of the energy mix, leading to the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
2019 and subsequent moves toward renewable energy, despite resistance from entrenched coal
interests.
Another example is the shift in U.S. energy policy away from petroleum price regulation. Anderson
(2015, p. 303) notes that “regulation of petroleum prices (1980)” was terminated because it became
difficult to administer and was opposed by industry, while the energy crisis that spawned it had
ebbed. Socioeconomic conditions—specifically, the end of acute shortages—made continued
regulation unnecessary.
