KAY 386 LECTURE 5 Policy Implementation Source: Parsons, 1995: 461-473. 473-483 not included in...
-
date post
18-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of KAY 386 LECTURE 5 Policy Implementation Source: Parsons, 1995: 461-473. 473-483 not included in...
KAY 386 LECTURE 5
Policy ImplementationSource: Parsons, 1995: 461-473. 473-483 not included in exams.
Course Outline The course slides will be up on the website today.
http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~myildiz/ The e-mail list is still incomplete.
Please send a blank e-mail to [email protected] as soon as possible (topic: 386)
The list that I have (8 out of 15): Melek Arda Vehbiye Dilek Eduard Guzel Murat Elda
Implementation: Definitions
Studying implementation is studying change How does change occur? Study of the political system inside and
outside the organization What motivates implementors?
Policy implementation ..a process of interaction between setting of
goals and actions for achieving them (Pressman and Wildavsky)
..encompasses those actions that are directed at the achievement of objectives of policy decisions (van Meter and van Horn)
Source: Davis, “Influencing PP through Research”
Implementation An important stage in the policy process Task of translating policy intentions into
outcomes Involves participation by a number of
stakeholders Reflects intention of governments to act
Examples of policy implementationPolicy Possible implementation scenarios
Electricity available to all citizens
1. Creation of a public enterprise (direct provision)
2. State regulation of private companies
Cleaner water 1. Ban of using certain products (regulation)
2. Possibility to buy the “right” to pollute (market creation)
Prevention of heart disease
1. Advertising in the media
2. More hours for physical activities in schools (standard-setting)
Implementation: Definitions
Policy-making does not come to an end once a policy is set out or approved. Policy is being made as it is being administered and
administered as it is being made. Black-Box Model
What is happening between input and output? Problems of implementation were rarely analyzed.
Bureaucrats are not just neutral public servants
Development of Implementation Studies
The analysis of failure (Early 1970s) Rational (top-down models) Bottom-up critiques of the top-down model Hybrid Theories: Implementation as:
Evolution Mutual adaptation Learning, exploration Inter-organizational analysis, etc.
Perfect implementationPreconditions (Gunn)
no constraint from external environment availability of adequate time and sufficient
resources direct relationship between cause and effect
Perfect implementationPreconditions (Gunn) single implementation agency, not dependent
upon other agencies complete understanding of, and agreement
upon, objectives specified tasks to be performed by each
participant
Perfect implementationPreconditions (Gunn)
perfect communication among, and coordination of, various elements in the program
perfect obedience demanded and obtained by those in authority
Example: Village Towns (Köykent) in Turkey (Marın, 2005)
Objective The establishment of towns with industrial and
agricultural functions across rural Turkey. A policy intervention that facilitates changes
in the socioeconomic structure and cultural values of the rural population. Agents in this transformation
Politicians have similarly been obsessed with the idea of rural socioeconomic development emphasizing the role of small urban centers in this
process
Evaluating Failure in Village Towns
None of the Village Town projects produced desired outcomes. There are a number of factors that caused this outcome: an unstable political environment of some 20 years, ignorance of the socioeconomic structures in project
areas, impractical program design failures to accurately evaluate the importance of local
citizen participation for the success. As a result most of the projects failed as soon as
they began.
Rational (Top-down model) Effective implementation is required
Getting people to do what they are told Deliberately excluding all emotions and motivations
A good chain of command A healthy system of control and communications A system of resources to do the job Minimizing conflict and degeneration
But “everything degenerates in the hands of men” When do things go right?
Criticisms to the Rational Model Implementation is not a perfect line of causation
(x causes y) There is too much emphasis on the definition of
goals from the top (rather than role of workers on the line)
This model excludes any consideration of how real people actually behave
Implementers make policy as well (discreation) The interaction of bureaucrats with their “clients” at
street level Is it right for teachers and police to make policy?
Interpretation of rules
Lipsky’s book entitled Street-level Bureaucrats (1980) has been viewed as the leading challenge to the top-down model of policy implementation models and the starting point of bottom-up model.
Michael Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy model
Lipsky “argue(s) that public policy is not best understood as made in legislatures or top-floor suites of high ranking administrators, because in important ways it is actually made in the crowded offices and daily encounters in street-level workers.”
And “the street-level bureaucrats, the routines they establish, and the devices they invent to cope with uncertainties and work pressures, effectively become the public policies they carry out.” (Lipsky, 1993, p. 382)
Michael Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy model
Lipsky underlines that in implementing policy at street level, front-line workers are confronted with conflict and ambiguities. These may include
Inadequate resource and unsatisfactory working condition, e.g. large classes for teachers, huge caseloads for social workers, dangerous and hostile neighborhood for police officers.
Unpredictable, uncooperative, skeptical clients Unclear and ambiguous job specification and
guidelines.
Michael Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy model
Confronted with these inadequacies and uncertainties, street-level bureaucrats derive coping strategies or even survival strategies to deal with the unaccommodating working situations.
Lipsky point out that in daily “client-processing” routines, street-level bureaucrats in fact have considerable amount of powers and discretions at their disposal, which may lead to substantial deviations from, if not complete alterations of, official and top-down policy specifications.
Michael Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy model
Alternative Models (Elmore) Forward Mapping (top-down)
Control over people and resources are not enough for successful implementation
is only a myth Not the nature of the implementation process
Backward Mapping (bottom-up) What really important is the relationship between policy
makers and policy deliverers Begin at the phase when the policy reaches its end-point Then analyze and organize policy by taking into account
organizational and political environments
Policy-action continuumProblems
conflicts over values, issues, and preferences
network of activities and actors negotiations, bargaining, and compromise
Policy-action continuumProblems
values and belief systems as well as professionalism of actors
policies may deliberately be made ambiguous
Implementation failureCauses
different values, perspectives and priority of organizations
policies altered through process of delivery best bargainers (negotiators) get what they
want
Implementation failureCauses
hierarchical control difficult to obtain lack of capacity to mobilize target population powerlessness of government underestimation of complexity and difficulty
of coordination
Implementation failureCauses
resistance from bureaucrats and officials gap or breakdown between tasks and agencies changes in the environment beyond the direct
control of policy makers
The top-down and bottom-up synthesis approach: It characterizes theoretical orientations perceiving implementation as process of constituting coalition, structuration, networking, learning or institutionalization, within which various parties in a specific policy domain/area strive to realize a policy, program or project.
Synthesis
Implementation as a Political Game
Conflict is not dysfunctional On the contrary, it is essential in acquiring and maintaining
power Deal-making is acceptable
Bargaining and persuasion under conditions of uncertainty Actors are trying to win as much control as possible
Groups and individuals seek to maximize their power and influence during implementation
Self-interested people playing games Bardach, “The Implementation Game” Book (1977)
Blurring of boundaries between politics and bureaucracy
Implementation as Evolution
Top-down and bottom-up models oversimplify complexity
Implementation is constrained by the institutional context and the world around the institution
It is an iterative bargaining process between policy enacters and resource controllers
Emphasis on power and dependence, interests, motivations and behavior
Policy is something which evolves and unfolds over time
"you can't take politics out of
analysis.“ (Deborah Stone)
“Policy implementation is the social construction of reality: it is a process of
meaning making through interpretation.” ( Dvora
Yanow)
„What works…is about what works when, where, how, and from whom.“ (Wayne Parsons)
Source: H. Gottweis - SoSe 2oo8