UNIT PUBLIC POLICY: IMPLEMENTATION
SYSTEM AND MODELS'
Structure
12.0 Learning Outcome
12.1
2.2 Policy Implementation:System and Issues
12.2.1 Implementing with a Network
12.2.2 Tasks to
12.2.3 Making Decisions
1 2.3 Implementation
Top-Down Model
Bottom-Up
Model
12.3.3 Policy - Action Model
12.3.4 Inter - Organisational Interaction Approach
12.3.5 A Synthesis of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches
12.4 Conclusion
12.5 Key Concepts
12.6 References and Further Reading
12.7 Activities
12.0 LEARNING OUTCOME
After studyingthis unit,you should be able to:
Discussa synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to policy implementation.
12.1 INTRODUCTION
Until the policy analysis was primarily concerned with policy-makingissues. However,
in the a growinginterest emerged in the post-decisional phases of public policy. It
became evident in the 1970s that many policies had not performed well. As it became
apparent that policy-making in many areas, such as, population, health, education and
agriculture in India had not achieved its desiredgoals, so researchers in public
administration and public policy began to focus on policy implementation. Policy
implementationis of criticalimportance to the success of government. Even in an ideal
political setting no policy can succeed if the implementation process does not adequately
reflect the intentions of the policy makers. In this Unit, an attempt is
to review different approaches to the analysis of how policy is put into action or
practice.
Policy: and Models 167
IMPLEMENTATION:SYSTEM AND ISSUES
The starting point for a discussion of approaches to policy implementation must be to consider
what we mean by the term Implementation is what realises decision or what
outputs? It can be seen essentially terms of the nature and degree of control exercised
over the operations of a policy. Policy-makingdoes not come to an once apolicy is approved
or It is a continuous process. As Anderson points out, "Policy is being as it
is administeredand administered as it is being made."
Yet, is something which is separate from policy-making. Very few decisions are
self-implementing, implying that there is nosepasate stage. and Sabatier
have an influential definition of implementation. their words,
"Implementation is the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in a
statute but which can also take the form of important executive orders or court decisions.
Ideally, that decision identifies the to be addressed, stipulates the
to be pursued, and in a variety of ways, 'structures' the implementation process. The
process runs through a number of stages beginning with passage of the basic
statute, followed by the policy outputs (decisions) of the agencies, the
compliance of target groups with those decisions, the impacts -both intended
and unintended -of those outputs, the perceived impacts of agency decisions, and
finally, important revisions (or attempted revisions) in the basic statute".
and Wildavsky define implementation as"aprocess of interaction between the setting
of goals and actions geared to achieving them." They further note: "Implementation, then, is
the ability to forge subsequent links in the causalchain so as to obtain the desired Their
clefinition embodies assumptions most commonly held about First, they assume
a series logical steps as a progression from intention through decision to action, and clearly see
starting where policystops.Secondly, distinguish two definitesteps in
intentions: policy-making-their 'initial conditions' and the creation of which
the 'inputs' to their implementation process. Thirdly, they see implementation as a process of
putting policy into effect, aprocess which is mainly concerned with coordinatingand managing
the various elements required to achieve the desired ends.
Van Meter and Horn attempt to provide a conceptual framework to the process of
impleinentation by stating, "Policy implementation encompasses those actions by public and
private individuals (or groups) that are directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in
prior policy decisions". Barrett and Fudge describe the implementation process "as a
sequence of events 'triggered' by a policy decision, involving translation of policy
operational tasks, be carried out by a variety
of actors and agencies, and substantial coordinating activity to that are available and that
things happen as intended". According to scholars on public
policy, stage in the policy process is concerned with turning policy intentions into
action. The impleinentation process includeswhat goes on between the of apolicy
. and its actual effects.
It is importantto look at implementation not solely in of putting policy
into effect, but also observing its impact on the target group.
12.2.1 with a Network
Evidently,implementationof policy is merely one more in a logical sequence of policy
management. is the most important phase in the achievement of policy goals. It has the
objective of anticipating from planned pe formance and making proper adjustments. An
important task of the
168 Public Policy and Analysis
policy implementingauthority is to keep track of the range of implementingtasks, their
functional relationships and their scheduling dependencies. The designated person should be
able to resolve conflicts and appropriatedecisions in policy outputs.
For the of a given policy, it is important for the policy implementation authority to
construct a policy-implementing network, which will ensure that policy tasks occur in proper
sequence and on time. It should help to identify, which tasks in the policy are most critical to , .
policy performance. The construction of the network requires composing an
Activities List. list should project activities in such amanner that it identifies
each and every
activity in a sequential manner and make provision for the time required for each activity.
For schedulingpolicy implementation activities, helps process by depicting the
activities
more important for optimising the outcomes.
12.2.2 Allocating Tasks to Personnel
Implementationis seeingto it that the activities happen on time and within the given budget.
Requisite personnel be also put in place for policy implementation. Regardless of their
status, specialised knowledge, experience and qualifications,all personnel need to work as
acohesive for the of achievingdesired results.
For effective policy implementation, a manpower plan is, therefore, needed to allocate
specific tasks. Further, for the purpose of assigning roles and it is necessary
to develop position classification with detailed job description. The position classification
usually includes:
a) status, and duties of the staff, b) reporting relationships,and c) accountability criteria.
12.2.3 ' Making ,
Decision making is the most job for apolicy implementing authority. Even with best
planning, there will always be a need to make good decisionsin theface of unanticipated events
in . policy management. Major decisions that affect resource
requirements and technical outputs,
I-equire support of several constituents beneficiaries,sponsors, politicians,planning
agencies, other segments of the government.In this context, the following three
mechanisms have been
suggested.
involve or unprecedented problems that have broader implicationsfor the
policy implementation should be reserved for senior staff at higher levels in the
organisation
ii) Delegation of Authority
The above exception principledoes not operate unless thereexists degree of delegation
authority. Authority is needed at each level for assigning responsibilities to the staff
to
their duties and tasks.
Consensus Building
Consensus in this context refers to an agreement to support decision.
Consensus building in a participative management strategy ensures that good ideas are
not ignored. It also builds a strong group among all those constituents, are
involved in the implementation process. For effective implementation of a policy,it is
advisable to form a steering committee. The purpose of this committee is to ensure
that a programmeis being within the budget and time schedule.
Policy: Models
--
12.3 IMPLEMENTATION
---
In the 1970s various studieson policy implementation have indicated that policy-making in
many areas had not achieved its stated goals. It was evident that government
interventions,especially those relating to social problems were often ineffective.This has
generated academic interest i n designing studies to evaluate policy. Such studies important
contributions to the which will be discussed in the subsequent section.
+ * -
Top-Down Model
Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky: Policy Relationship
Two scholars Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky, are the founding fathers of
studies.For them,implementation is clearly related to pol icy.They
"policies
y contain both goals and the means for achieving them". Much of the analysis in their
book (AStudy of a Federally Mandated Programr e of Economic Developmentin
California) is concerned with the extent to which depends the linkages between
different organisations and departments at the local An effective requires,
they argue, a top-down of control and communications, and resources to do the job.
ii) Donald Van Meter and Carl Van Horn: System Building
Donald Van Meter and Carl Van I-Iorn offer a model for the analysisofimplementation
process. approach starts with a consideration of need to classify policies
in that throw
light upon difficulties.According to implementation will be most
successful
, where only marginal change is goal consensus is high. They suggest in which
six variables linked dynamically to the production of an outcome These
six
variables are:
'disposition' or 'response' of the involving three 'their cognition
Clearly,the model of Meter to direct the attention those who study
implementation than provide prescriptions for makers.
i ii) Eugene Bardach: ImplementationGame
There are scholars who regard public policy as a political game.
The advocated by Bardach in 1977. According to implementationis a game
of
and manoeuvring under conditions of uncertainty."In model, is seen
as a structure composed of groups and individuals, all seeking to maximise their power and
influence.From implementation is about self-interestkd who are playing
policy games. Policy attempt to win as much control as possible and make moves in
the
170 Policy Analysis
so as to their objectives.This model suggests that policies extend beyond the
political institutions. Implementationis, therefore,seen as apoliticalgame, which play
for the purpose of their power. Bardach's work presents the view that
implementation is a political process, and successful from a 'top-down'
approach should have understanding of the politicalprocesses involved down the line.
Brian and Lewis Gunn : Recommendations for Policy-Makers
and Lewis Gunn also contributeto implementation approach in their publication
for the Real World. They advocate a 'top-down' view and defend it on the
ground that those who make policies democratically elected. They offer ten
recommendations to policy makers. The latter should ensure that:
external do not impose crippling constraints;
adequate time and sufficient resources are available to the programme;
at each stage in the implementationprocess, the required combination of resourcesis
available;
v) Christopher Hood: Styles of Public Management
Hood argues that variation in ideas about how to organisepublicservices is a
central and' recurrent theme in public management. He suggests the application of
cultural theory. Here, 'grid' refers to alternatives that public organisationsshould be constrained
or, by contrast, managers should be 'free to manage'. 'Group', on the other hand, refers to
debates about who should provide Hence, Hood arrives at four 'styles of public management'
as
below:
High 'group' - 'the fatalist way' where rule-boundsystems are developed
and low levels of co-operation are the pattern;
High 'group' -'the way' involving socially cohesive rule-bound
Low 'group' - 'the e
participation.
es represent choices, each with built in strengths and
od mostly in the realm as they highlight
the public services.
Public Policy: Models
Bottom-Up
Exponents of bottom-up model are of the view that top-down model lacks effective
implementation in practice. They argue that studentsof public administration and public policy
have to take account of the interaction of implementers with their clients. The exponents of
the bottom-up approach therefore, suggest that implementation process involves 'policy-
making' by those who are
in into effect.
Michael Street-level Bureaucracy
Michael is the foundingfather of the bottom-up perspective.His analysis of the
behavior of front-linestaff in policy delivery agencies-whom he calls 'street level
bureaucrats' some
on studies.The implication of this study is thatcontrol over people is not
the mechanism for effective implementation. He argues that the decisions of street-level
bureaucrats, the they establish,and the devices they invent to cope with
uncertaintiesand effectively become the public policies they carry out. To cope
with the pressures brought on them, street-level bureaucrats often develop methods of
processing people in a relatively routine stereotyped way. According to develop
conceptions of their work, and of their clients that narrow the gap between their and
work limitations, and the service ideal. Such workers see themselvesas cogs in a system, as
oppressed by the bureaucracy within which work. Yet, they to have a great amount of
freedom and autonomy.Therefore,
to control them hierarchically simply their tendency to stereotype and
disregard needs of their clients.This means diverse approaches are needed to secure
the accountability
of implementers.These approaches should provide aframework that feeds the expectatiosnof
the clientele into the implementation.
The bottom-up model also sees the implementation process as involving negotiationand
consensus building. These take place in two environments: the administrative capability and
cultures of organisationsinvolved in administering policy; and the political
environmentin which have to carry out the policies.
In the great stress is laid on the fact that 'street-level' implementershave
discretion in how they apply policy. Professionals, viz. doctors,teachers,engineers, social
workers-shape policy and have an important role in ensuring the performance of a policy.
In other words, as Dunleavy notes, the policy-making process may be skewed by policy
implementation, which is dominated by the professionals. Doctors,for instance, may
ways of implementing health policies, which actually result in outcomes that
differentto the intentionsof policy makers.This is possible because policy implementation
involves a high margin of discretion. As Davis observes,"A public officer has discretion
wherever theeffective limits on his power leave free to a choice among possible courses
of action and inaction". In the discharge of policy delivery functions,implementers have
varying bands of discretion over how they choose to
apply the rules.
Policy-Action Relationship Model
Lewis developed a behaviouralmodel, which as action by
actors, that is, by the world outside their organisations. Emphasis on interaction with
the outside world, and the organisation's institutional context imply that goals are not
the only
to action. This theme of analysis has also been developed by Barrett and Fudge. They
argue that implementation may be best understoodin of a
which an interactive and bargaining process takes place over between those who are
responsible for policy and those who have controlover resources. In this model,
more emphasis is
172 Public Policy
placed on issues of power and dependence, and pursuits of interests, than in either the top-
down the bottom-up approaches. The policy-action model shows that policy is something that
evolves.
As Majone and note, . will always be evolutionary;it will inevitably
as well as carry out policy."
Interaction Approach
is also described as a process that involves interactionswithin a multiplicity of
organisations, In this context, there are two approaches, which are mentioned below.
i) Power-Dependency Approach
According to approach takes placein the context of interactionof
organisations. Such interaction produces power relationships in which organisationscan induce
other less organisations to interact with them. Those which depend for
their sustenance on other more resourceful organisations, have to work in such a way to secure
and protect their interests and maintain their relative autonomy,so that implementation does not
suffer.
Organisational Exchange Approach
This view holds that organisations collaborate with their counterpartsfor mutual benefit.
Whereas in the power-dependency approach; the organisational relations are based on
dominance and dependence, interaction in the organisationalexchange approach is based on
exchangefor mutual benefit.
Adapting a bottom-up approach Hjern and Porter argue that implementationshould be analysed
in termsof institutional which comprise of actors and organisations.A
programme is implemented by a single organisation,but through aset of organisational pools.
They observe thatfailure to identify implementation structures as
administrativeentitiesdistinctfrom organisations has led to severe difficulties in administering the
implementation of programmes.
of programmes, which requires a matrix or of organisations,gives
rise to a complex pattern of interactions that top-down frameworksfail to recognise.
Consequently, these approaches do not satisfactorilyexplain implementation, and in practice
programmes based on their application yield little success.
12.3.5 A Synthesis of .Bottom-up and Top-Down Approaches
The policy implementation is the continuation of the policy-making process. To and
implementation and policy-makingare one and the same process. They attempt a
synthesis of the ideas of both top-down and bottom-up approaches into a set of six
conditionsfor the effective implementationof policy objectives. These conditions are:
i) clear and consistent objectives to provide a standard of legal evaluation and resource;
adequate causal theory, thus ensuring that the policy has an accurate of how to bring
change;
implementation structures that are structuredso as to enhance the complianceof those
charged with implementing the policy and of those groups that are the target of the policy;
committed and skilful who apply themselves to using their discretion so as
to realise policy objectives .
support of interest groups and sovereigns in the legislatureand executive; and
vi) changes socio-economic conditions that do not undermine the support of groups and
sovereigns or subvert the causal theory policy.
Policy: and Models .
on the insightsof and Porter into the of
its network, Sabatier has suggested subsequently (1 986) that the top-down approach
on how and social and economic conditionslimit behaviouc He notes that
implementation lakes place within the context of apolicy subsystetn,and is bound by 'relatively
stable parameters'
'events external to the subsystem'.
This modified model advocated by Sabatier has the distinctivefeature of combining the bottom-
up approach (to take into account the network that structures implementation)and the top-
down (to take into account considerations within the system including the beliefs of policy
tes and the impact of external events). in this be thought of as a
learning process. Policy learning, for Sabatier, is something which essentially occurs within the
and its policy The framework is designed to analyse institutional conditions
to produce aconsensus which is not there in the original model. But the 1986 model
Sabatier is regarded by a few scholars as inappropriate, as an explanatory of the policy
process. For instance, argues a variety of frameworks need to be deployed in the
of including "backward-mapping"(bottom-up)and
(top-down);and that to be effective in implementation adopt
He also suggests four implementation models: systems management, bureaucratic
process, development, and conflictand bargaining. Further, he argues that
of implementation not be as rival hypotheses,which could be
proved, but as ambiguous and conflictingframes of assumptions.
Recognising the of inconsistencies incompleteness associated with
various Gareth Morgan maintains that if we want to understand complexity, it is
important to and creative approach to thinking in tenns of models or metaphors. For him there
be no single metaphor which leads to a general theory. Each approach has comparative
advantages and provides some into a particular dimension of the reality of policy
implementation. Mapping the context of problemsoffers the possibility of understandingthe
of knowledge, beliefs, power and values, which frame policy-making and policy
As a student of public policy, the aim is to become capablein understanding
the
that are applied in the theory and of policy implementation in the
in take place.
12.4 CONCLUSION
5
the various elements analysis, policy implementation is the most and yet
the least developed. In this Unit, an effort has been to discuss to the
The debate between the top-down and bottom-up
perspectives was highlighted, as also the efforts to synthesise these two approaches by picking
key ideas from each. It should be noted that scholars in favour of adapting multiple
approaches, upon the policy arena.
12.5 KEY CONCEPTS
172 Public Policy
placed on issues of power and dependence, and pursuits of interests,than in either the top-down
or the bottom-upapproaches. The policy-action model shows that policy is somethingthat
evolves.
As Majone and note, ...implementation will always be evolutionary;it will inevitably
as well as carry out policy."
Inter-Organisational Interaction Approach
is also described as a process that involves interactions within a multiplicity
In this context, there are two approaches, which are mentioned below.
i) Power-Dependency Approach
According to this approach takes place in the context of interaction of
organisations. Such interaction produces power relationshipsin which organisationscan induce
other less to interact with them. Those which depend for their
sustenance on other more resourceful organisations, have to work in such a way to secure and
protect their interests and maintain their relative autonomy, so that implementationdoes not
suffer.
ii) OrganisationalExchange Approach
This view holds that organisations collaborate with their counterpartsfor benefit. Whereas
in the power-dependency approach., the organisational relations are based on dominance and
dependence, interaction in the organisationalexchange approach is based on exchangefor
mutual benefit.
Adapting a bottom-up approach and argue that implementation should be
analysed in terms of which compriseclustersof actors and organisations.A
programme is implemented by asingle organisation,but through a set of organisational pools.
They observe thatfailure to identify implementationstructures as administrativeentities
distinctfrom organisations has led to severe difficulties in administering the implementationof
programmes.
of programmes, which requires a matrix or multiplicityof organisations,
givesrise to a complex pattern of interactions that top-down frameworks to recognise.
Consequently, . these approaches do not satisfactorilyexplain implementation, and in practice
programmesbased on their application little success.
12.3.5 A Synthesis of .Bottom-up and Top-Down Approaches
The policy implementation is the continuation of the policy-making process. To Sabatier and
Mazmanian, implementation and policy-making are one and the same process. They attempt a
synthesisof the ideas of both top-down and bottom-up approachesinto a set of six conditionsfor
the effective implementation of policy objectives. These conditions are:
i) clear and consistent objectives to provide a standard of legal evaluation and resource;
adequate causal theory, thus ensuring that the policy has an accurate theory of how to bring
change;
iii) structures that are legally structured so as to enhance the compliance of
those charged with implementing the policy and of those groups that are the target of the
policy;
committed and skilful implementers who apply themselves to using their discretion so as to
realise policy objectives ;
support of interest groups and sovereigns in the legislatureand executive; and
changes in socio-economic conditions that do not undermine the support of groups and
sovereigns or subvert the causal theory underpinning-thepolicy.
Policy:
Drawing on the insightsof Hjem and into the inter-organisationaldynamics
its network, Sabatier has suggested subsequently 986) that the top-down approach
on and social and economic conditions limit behaviour. that
lakes place within of apolicy subsystem, and is bound by 'relatively stable
parameters' and 'events to the
. This modified advocated by Sabatier has thedistinctivefeature of combining the bottom-
up approach (to take into account the that structures implementation) and the
(to take into account considerations within system including the beliefs of policy
and the impact of external events). Implementation in this be thought of as a
process. Policy learning, Tor Sabatier, is something which essentially occurs within
the and its policy framework is designed to analyse institutional conditions
to produce a consensus which is not there in the model. But the 1986 model of
is regarded by a few scholars as inappropriate, as an explanatory model of the policy
For instance, argues that a variety of need to be deployed in the
ysis of implementation including "backward-mapping"(bottom-up)
(top-down);and that policy-making, to be effective in implementation must adopt
multiple
He also implementation models: systems management,
process, and conflict and bargaining. Further, he argues
that
should not be regarded as rival hypotheses, which could be
proved, as and conflicting assumptions.
Recognising the problems arising of inconsistencies and associated with various
Morgan maintains that if we want to complexity, it is important
to
adopt a critical and creative approach to thinking in of models or metaphors. For him there
can be no single metaphor which leads to a general theory. Each approach has comparative
and provides some a particular of the reality of policy
Mapping the context of problemsoffers the possibility of understanding the
of knowledge, beliefs, power and values, which frame policy-making policy
As a student of public policy, the aim to become capable understanding the
that are applied in the theory and practice of policy implementation the contexts in
which take place.
3 2.4 CONCLUSION
the variouselementsaf policy analysis, policy is and yet
least developed. In this Unit, an effort has been made to discuss variouscontributions to the
implementation and models. debate between the top-down and bottom-up
perspectives was highlighted, as also efforts to synthesise these two approaches by picking
each. It should be noted that generally in favour . key ideas from
proaches,
of upon the policy arena.
12.5 KEY CONCEPTS
172 Public Policy and Analysis
12.6 REFERENCES AND
Anderson, James E., 1984, Public Policy-making, CBS College Publishing, New
E, 1977, Game, MIT Press, Cambridge.
S. and C. Fudge (Eds.), 198 Policy London.
Dunleavy, 198 1, "Professions and policy change : Some notes towards of
Ideological Corporatism",
Administration Bulletin, Vol. 36.
R., and backward mapping", and (Eds.), 1985,
Policy in and Unitary Holland.
and D.O. Porter, Ires: a new unit of administrative analysis",
Stuclies, Vol. 2.
Politics, 979.
M, 1980, Bureaucracy: of the Individual Public Services,
Russell Sage, New York.
G. and A. Wildavsky,"Implementation as evolution in Policy Studies",H. Freeman (Ed.),
1978, Policy Studies Review, Annual, Sage, California.
Mazmanian,D.A. and P.A. 1983, and Public Policy,Scott, Foresman,
Glenview.
Pressman, J. and A. Wildavsky, University of California, Berkeley, 1984.
Sabatier, P.A. and D. Mazmanian, "The conditionsof effective implementation",Policy
Analysis,
1979.
Sabatier, P.A., "Top-down and Bottom-upApproaches to Implementation Research: A
Critical Analysis and Suggestive Synthesis", Policy,
Meter, Donald S. and Carl Van Horn, "The Policy ImplementationProcess: A
Framework", Vol. 6, February, 1975.
ACTIVITIES - -
amine the bottom-upand top-down approachesto policy implementation.
2)
Explain
briefly the attempts at synthesisof the bottom-up and top-down approaches to policy
.
implementation.
3) Justify the need for following multiple approaches in the study of policy implementation.
