Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 731 views

    Birkland - Intro To Policy Process - Ch. 10 and 11

    Uploaded by

    Zarni Maw Win
    Birkland

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Birkland - Intro To Policy Process - Ch. 10 and 11

    Uploaded by

    Zarni Maw Win
    731 views32 pages
    Birkland

    Original Title

    Birkland - Intro to Policy Process - Ch. 10 and 11

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Birkland

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    731 views32 pages

    Birkland - Intro To Policy Process - Ch. 10 and 11

    Uploaded by

    Zarni Maw Win
    Birkland

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 32
    Fourth Edition AN INTRODUCTION 10 THE Policy Process Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making ar ot Resch, Ace Jain 252015: orate ce Deen 200 Rat flr ep BelTO CHAPTER 10 i Policy Implementation, Failure, and Learning OVERVIEW This chapter focuses on policy implementation, failure, | 9 and Teaming. In reading about implementation, it is | © Thelmplm ‘important to note that it is impossible to separate the | Pallee _ proces of designing polices from thei mplementation— | Aponte the td of such ay all the stage ofthe polcy proces are hard to | MBamematen separate, Design and Implementation are very closely | — fepowerenioe related because the choices made inthe desig of a policy | —ottompApproaes to tril profoundly influence the way @ policy Is implemen: | _ lplamentation fed, which then influences the outcomes ofthese poicies | _ Shes: A Third Generation of Impemereton Raver Infact, pole designers often base ther policy designs on |, fur hac an tea fam caperience with similar policies that have alzady boen | + rycfottcanng Implemented. + ae Sy Poy Flre and Another reason that design and implementation are |" tsmingn Aviation Seay hurt separate fom the ret ofthe ply process x | , 20 Aha the poy design process continues dunng design | Shen and implementation. Congress's enactment of faw does | 7M TE™E ho result ina simple translation from Congress's willto | * Sywrecesh Atul action on the part of government agencies, or actual | + Addons esdng fompilance onthe part ofthe people whose behavior the Policy seeks to change. Agencies must take what Congress has passed and figure out wha It requites oF allows them to do, The process of translating Jague legislative commands into rules and regulations can be among the ost contentious and difficult activities in the entice policy proces. 332 ne poles are implemented expetence witht and with iar poe wal on ngs he ey aes, cen wen he oy aa wee ca apn Tor example, tated era ending arerselar ben problems was once granted bass n ocd federal goss oa emma ees Tas poly caged Beas, #0 4 ecb cen inpementtion was not as succes ha been hoped cn eigee po in which state and local tt poly ws sepa by block ga eee freer to make choices about how the money is spent, serrded travel oad fede goa eet ‘THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC POLICIES ete plicy too, the vaso ce the designers of poles have dsgne thet poly ‘om inthe poll pov tam th attention to he implenentaion public policy. The cerned with what ce pote. The dy of potas Implementation 1 or Sa yor pop ate th se formed” (Yen 199) Ur tee ste wee ew staf ply implementation Fee shar nad sought to tema sty what happens ater eatin ‘Sine eer stement of policy enacted and then put into ete, Some ‘Rute dese the implementation proces, ut Had nt set out to crete 2 thoy of pole implementation : Or cane drcipon af inplmentation i he pe pos i licy design and tool selection o¢eut tinea and simpli eases tat poly esi ton oe strana fam policy implementation I fact, we hnow that both asp ‘import estcse pu pas wean ingush the dong and wos pase and the plementation phase to the exten poly implement sles he Dear of he leet nd he ott Whe tse besa anced inte dese Se never sure how ply wl acta be mpementt once te pa merce withthe vero aspects of the pole environment, with he ae tmplementes, and the pole age a Ts pert stand pcympleentstin ese fete o the poly pre, and ating om the probls ecoante Inimplnentaton can een ter ways to src al to ene that hey hve the eet tht designers ofthese pos ek SSaton paps toa grater extent han othe elemen Fe py PAE implemeraton sts have empasie adc to policy makers a 1 HCY PLEMENTATION FALURE, AND Keanun@ 333 to structure programs to increase the likelihood of implementation success Ths when students of policy Implementation talk about *top-dovn” or bottom-up” implementation design, they are taking bout ways of staying polly design and ways of structuring policy implementation to enhance the likelinood of implementation success. In any case, we do know, and have sat for sme time, that polices are not selexcutng, eles ofthe hopes and belies of policy designers ifthe bureaucracy nasa sc nel nsttution tht as Woodiow ikon once argued, simply ld what elected ofc ordered it to doth all re problems people have cited about bureaicagin patil, the problems of discretion and aecountbility—mould never ener io the scion ot Implementation. Because implement policies, this section reviews some ways of looking at pulley ‘plementation tat ee bureaucratic acretion aa problem te overcome by sound choices in potey design. But to complete the pure aya, ven the simplest policy with the most wing burenucces vole ig Splementation contont implementing agencies with two big suerong ' ot does the eisai ranch want don, and hw do we do lf Dbcrsing intent, and then figuring aut how to meet the implied goals is extents etalenging, Thus, a5 Smith and Taner noe, the implementation proce splices, in many ways, ll the challenges of the poly pts sande th peoblesin this case, discerning intent~theough desgning tol he 4 way that those farther doen the implementation thange wil wig, ‘ngage in te desi behavior (Sith and Larimer 201), Approaches to the Study of Implementation As Smith and Larimer @013) note, there are three main eras of policy Implementation research, The frst era, which emerged in the late 19603 hroush the early 1970s, 1s charactered by works such as fmplementation (Pressman and Wildaysky 1984) and New Towns in Town (Derthick 1972), The furhors undertook these studies to understand why particular policies, such § the Economic Development Administration’ efors 10 relieve poverty in DBaklond or the Johnson administration's *New Towns in Town” efforts, Jeemec to fall short of thelr goals. These studes focused on individual case Audis and did not create more generalizable theory that could be applied Jp and tested with other cases, Indeed, many studies of administration and Srsnization discussed matters of policy implementation, even it that term 1384 POUCY MMLEMENTANION,FALURE, AN LEARN ro oe oe was ot wl deetop ofthat aspect was at te center serch roe ea of implementation ses, wich ego inthe mid 1970 ot eens toes of the poy proess tat wee se ny cases ae tan foe on on 8 0 SES AS eh progr one old dice vo ep sech aprox Thiol eps hss odin” pee om Py reenter cam ta ene ah endestand oly setaton by tig the ons and states ope in he aie aya sacs Hy the ements of oly. These te le cee the gs set By pe er ad the aa asc oft oy Teed ro BT Pe pete, which suggests tot mpm is be ras sg ete lone levels ofthe plementation tem of aso upward to se here implementation more oe soccer sor een teens tenet = 3 + Mee for an implementing organization to carry aut its tasks, including monetary and human resources, legal authority and autonomy, and the ‘knowledge needed to effectively implement poliey. Commitment includes the desire of the implementers to carry out the goals of the top-level policy designers; @ high level of commitment means that the lower-level implementers, particularly those at the “street level,” such as teachers, police officers, or social workers, share the values and goals of the policy designers Ina top-down mode! of polly design, the implementer assumes that these features are present or that any problems suggested hy these assumptions can be overcome. The focus then is on creating the prope stactures and controls to encourage or compel compliance with the goals set atthe top. But there are some substantial weaknesses with this approach that you may recognize ‘om earlier chaptes in this book Pethaps the most problematic feature of top-down models isthe emphasis fon clear objectives or goals. Without a consensus on what program goals are, fs hard to set a benchmark for program success and fallue. For example, in 1973, Congres established the 5S-mile-per-hout (mph) speed limit on the nation’s freeways as a method for promoting energy conservation, because, in most cases, driving one's car at SS mph is more fuslfficient than diving at 70 mph. Yet most gains In fuel economy between 1973 and the early 1990s were result of federal policies requiring that a manufacturer's vehicles schiove an average fae! economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 20.7 niles per gallon for light trucks. Most manufactures comply with this standard. However, the $5 mph speed limit had aside beneit—i substantially reduced highway fatalities in the early years of Its enforcement (On what accomplishment, then, should the $5 mph limit be assessed? In terms of motorist’ compliance and state enforcement, the $8 mph speed limit was generally unsuccessful, and its widespread unpopularity led to Its "repeal Ip terms of fuel economy, the results were inconclusive, but the safety benefits were substantial, Highway safety advocates fought hard to keep the 5 mp limit in place and were successful in this fight until the late 1980, ‘This is an example of how advocates fora policy will redefine policy goals to jusify the continuance ofa program and how new groups can enter the ‘bate to highlight nev goals and benefits of programs—or to argue that 2 Program has outlived is value. Inthe case ofthe 5S mph speed limit, bythe id 1980s the sfety an fuel efficiency benefits, sme argued, were less than they had been because of the aforementioned increase In automobile fuel 335 336 economy Guns that had been Tost to some extent inthe late 1990s with he sere af SUVs, but regained in the 2000 with new federal fuel economy avlards) and the increased safety of most newer CAS. saaa por enamnple of multiple objectives is found in the management ofthe nator forests by the US. Forest Service (USES), which must administe the aaa acre “multiple uses,” ranging from recreation t0 logging. BY what ro ul the Forest Sere’ efforts measured? Tiss constant rare ae ae forthe agency, as environmentalsts and recreational users Date Togging interests and thie Local alles over which aspect of forest Po ar apply ox resource conservation and recreation—should De emphasis wane URES. When policy makers fail o provide one goal era coherent mutually compatible set of goal, i ‘pencies and people charged with puting policies in souls “another problem with top-down sue atonal government that can successfully structure poi Ime Hea rd provide for direct delivery of services. But most policies made By coeeregral government requice considerable tae and 18 Tay cast lod recommen eoopertion. The SO sate govemments have consis sect ght and responsibilities, so they are often reluctant to sends seek pawerand prerogatives to distant agencies headquartered n Washington eae ot say then, thatthe federal government can mandate any PON oe ti atempts to do so, tay endanger state and local cooperation tease erate neiference or oueghtconflc with the stats. Even via a gal government isl thisassumption of song central governs aes itary metiod of decision making that ignores Compe ares ping agencies and hele tafs, and the ners groups tha aye aoe prhese agencies’ work, While te focus of Implementation may 98 sere acy, averl other actors wll have a sfiuence on implementa eee ae. Given this distal account one might assume that he feet reanment—thetop"—cainot structure implementation tal. Hower Bercy et gldetine fr implementation, not hard apa fest ules OTE Hc veer 1986), provided government actors ct carefully end WOME ‘Ritmbortiely acres agencies and with the states and local actors a tes eat mandates from the federal government? Mak iain ind is congue have ced Instances of satiety 9) der to develop 5 peetevel where states seek to slow implementation 18 aecsee te program to local needs, o fo ince the fea gover implementation Js likely toe eificalt as o effect pursue ciferent models i the assumption that there {52 POUCY MILEMENTANION,FALURE AND LEARNING 337 bureaucrats may refuse t ; and sanctions to impose for noncompliance and can Inf the tations and needs of t sinnce soul be Sncementalst nature of pole ming In the United States means that policy implementation. ee eeenil Bettom-Up Approaches to Implementation Jn s reaction t0 the overly st the overly structured top-down research approach—in particular, to dissatisfaction with its abity to explain many unsuccessful butcomes, and in reaction tothe flaws of top-dow : of top-down policy design—researchers begen to view implementation from the perspective of “street-level Dorsocats ipsy 171) char chard moe the ey proponent the baton- Mesppench cl ths "ard mapping” nich te nplemeraton tore crane 338 process and the relevant relationships are mapped backward, from the This Tigmte opener tothe topmost poly dagen 137 Tims sumptons of ores mapping” or top-down aprocies Ta vooneap approach regis tt as av gues et nung a may cone na nly mah he gol the sae poly Aiken orn (196) note, "The complance problem ati when ee Tapdonn ms aremestconered wth compliance while boomy approaches value understanding how cont canbe llevated by bargaining ersten: comprome te maximize the lhood of ache te Meonds the bottom-p approach does not require that there be a single a ee tle ot sate one om ate, Dy Pay erin procedure” that shape the way in hich governet Ths nglemenation can fe nd lnerest groups address these proble viewed a6 a continuation of the conflicts and con throughout the polley process, not just before it begins and at the point of enactment, This makes for a more realistic depiction of the implementation process and clatiy accommodates the typeof policy tool bundling described Je Chapter 8 ‘this bottom-up approach has a number of features to commend t: In paticular, the lack of @ focus on a particular program and on a fxed, top fodbottom implementation chain means that the bottom-up approach can ‘ew implementation as working through a network of actors—muh lke a ssue network or policy community—father than through some rigidly 0 account for the ichness of the policymaking so important shortcomings to consider in the spsctied process that fails foxy ope er Sate anaes dat the botom-up approach overpass te any otto suet lve! Durem sate tego tp ale ‘Sto, by the ror sv ocho, aby eg snc a car besppc os noncomptane Pl firs for tame who we 8 ‘ot evidence can lose tele jobs or face criminal changes; teachers who violate professional norms can be demoted of lose theit jobs. States that fall to implement key features of federal policy put themselves at risk of losing substantial amounts of federal money, 50 states and local governments ae undee pressure to bring their agencies into compliance; the No Child Left Behind Act is a good example. Nor do stcet-evel bureaucrats necessarlly hhave the resources to thwart poliey designers; they may be able to delay, but not entirely subvert, implementation. Finally, the tension between bottom Up and top-down approaches may overstate the extent to which local Implementes will resist policies handed dovin from above. In some cases, the steet-level bureaucrat may also wa to follow the lead of the toplevel Sesigners, supporting the goals handed daven from higher up, and working a8 best they can to implement national goals Bottom-up models of implementation also assume that groups are active Participants in the implementation proces, Tis i not always tue, howeve Poter May argues that some p olcies can be categorized as “polices without publics," whch are developed and implemented with relatively litle public aput, particularly when those policy areas are highly technical (May 1990), Along these lines, Sabatier also argues thatthe bottom-up approach fils to lake into account the power differences of the targe sroups. As Anne Schneider and Hefen Ingram note, some target populations are more positively constructed than others, with the result that those with greater power can have a greater influence on the impact of policies that affect them ‘han can othee groups Schnelder and Ingram 1993), Cleary, busines interests ae going to be treated differentiy in implementation design than aze the oor or prisoners, and these treatments are reflected he choie of policy tools. The choice of tosis made atthe top, based on the desired behavioral change and the nature ofthe target population itsel. While these ap roaches to implementation have shortcomings, it is Worthwhile to consider how these two approaches to implementation contribute to our knowledge of this essential element of public policy: The top-down approach is much moze useful when there is a single, dominant Program that is being studied. Several tines in this book, Ihave mentioned spss leglslative enactments that made important policy changes. It would be appropriate to study the implementation of legislation such as No Child ltt Behind or the Homeland Security Act feom the top down. Much of the Doliy elated to these acts was designed in Congress and the federal executive branch and, regardless of the complexity and spat of issues raised In each a9 from the outset to be promoted, managed, and law, they were strctured also argues that top-down evaluated by top government offical. Sabati Spproschiss ae appropriate when one has imited resources to "backward map the implementation of a particular issn. Iti considerably easier to look up Statutes and othee pronouncements issued by top-level policy designers than itis to map all the various interests, agencies, and street-level officals that Tf you are reading this book for a course, you may tation, its mach more wa cay tot 2 oy tot, whee he es ible ples ae me a : ts regarcling the nature and severity of crimes) and when many policy statemen tone smote interested inthe local dynamies of implementation than in the ffl to consider the local factors, from Bott broad sweep of design. It is us practical and academic perspectives, since local experience with implemen- Taston success of face can yield Important lessons for policy Implements Synthesis: A Third Generation of implementation Research ngtis and weaknesses ofthe top-down and bottom combine the benefits of these Because ofthe relative tr up approaches, researchers have sought to ci we eeetpes into one model or synthesis that can address the stcturing of Policy rom the gop as ell 2 the tiklthood of ts subversion or atleast iteration atthe point of kmplementation "Rcharc Emote has sought to combine his Kles of “backward mapping? with forward mapping element” (more 1985). By looking both forward Sd backward, we can understand that top policy makers can make choles Of policy instruments or tols to structure implementation, while reaiing hat the motivations and needs of lower-level implementers roust be take Paul Sabatier (1986) als oped that combines the best of the top-lown ang botom: ‘ame tne that Sabatier was writing, Laurent Into account ‘argues that a conceptual framework should be deveh ‘up approaches Indeed, atthe Ortovle (1386) argued that beter thinking on implementation was nese) anc! designers with useful advice. The 10% pevsely to provide policy makers 8 ch is be Taw) that ‘own approach is best where there isa dominant program (.é veel stetaved and here the researcher's resources for studying Implesie tation are limited, as when a student is researching the implementation of & program for @ term paper or an implementer needs a quick analysis to investigate how to structure a progzam, By contrast, the bottom-up approach is best where one is interested in the dynamics of local implementation and ‘where there is no siagle dominant progzamn. One begins by analyzing difase street-level behavior rather than focused, topdown activity, Because ofthis ifuse behavior, gathering the needed dat to tell the implementation story ‘an be challenging, as multiple sourees must be consulted and analyzed Sabatiet’s synthesis relies on a framework for studying public policy know as the Advocacy Coalition Framework, or ACE, which Is dlacussed at greater length in Chapter 10. In this application of the ACE to implementation, Sabatier’s synthesis starts by adopting the bottom-up perspective, which involves looking at “a whole variety of public and private actors involved with a policy problem—s well as perspectives and strategies of et concerns with understanding the | major categories of actors (not simply rogram proponents)" (Sabatier 1986: 39) This contrasts with the top-down (oes on the topmost designers of poliies. But Sabatier also adopts the top: davin perspective By providing a stmpliied, abstract mode! of a complex system and by recognizing the importance of the stuctural features of policy emphasized by the top-down theorists, The primacy reason Sabatier uses the (CF to think about implementation i tat it reflects the growing sense that Jinpfementation does not take place in one-to-one relationship between the designe, implementers, i targets, blather contained within poly subsjstem the ACF sone way to think about the organization of subst ReGning and reconciling th opr tl bottmipapproatis, Gogg and his colleagues have devised a theory of policy implementation that relies onthe sending of messages between poly make jementes (Gong 431 1990). This stay takes into account an important entre of most pol design: that ° rand implementation is as much a matter of negotiation and cation ast sa matter of command, Even commands are sometimes resisted because they ate unclear of inconsistent ith va y sistent with the receiver's expe fatlons. Goggin and bis eolleagues sum up their argument In two key propositions + Clear messages sent by credible ofcals and received by receptive imple fected groups lead to implementation Succes. Suategie delay on the part of states, while delaying the implementation Of policies, can actually lead to improved implementation of policies bough innovation, policy learning, bargaining, and the like 3a summary of what has ben aie "eto we poston ia sr may of wht haben aed tha fa inthe sty of implementation anal, Dut packs ‘etmmunleaton between various actor In acta experience, Mego ate Grenada ease kd, ane pees ae fe srepe they edo not ese et rues OF te Oe Spite acetate ond proponent oon ha ha ti rund many polly Hpi Si, Cogan a scsi eran py aes tt ste tht steal Uap plementation=in ore fo sok clstion of ply se mo Sn enesuport oft oy an se on ten ha eter Ime ya et edt nents coms ha It would ehoove the analyst to take onieerm rete c ply sl nce what may tts ok edly on ean of stat ot tc! fovemment may infact Be peso a kate fraitoning and adaptation of poly tha actually inpoves the qual the serie elog tered under the poly, at wel as enhancing the Ietod of any plementation oe al tate continues in ple stds ver he Bes oP TMlementton an even whether ne sould onde staying ingle Soni fc ‘our attention on other, supposedly more fruitful reine of meanty te to fail, Implementation. teenues of ese, As kong a polos al or apeat STs wil emai important to poly makers and to student ofthe polity ewe POLICY FAILURE AND LEARNING FROM IT fsa eo, th joi doy ce oo ad as swe he ovement as oak Da saa dence tore nance when he goverment hes ed Oey ough mest of apvation, A thesane iss so 3 implement are probably simple reasons ton dese poly fase. There a P noite - ‘The old saying, “If it ain’t broke, fe our concentration on poly fal. i ‘hat we fatlures, Indeed, after the 2001 terorist attacks, a prominent politcal scientist, Paul Light, wrote a very useful book on governmental achievements and suceesses—sucesses Wwe should celebrate as our own because, as Americans, {1s our government and the effots of thousands and millions of our felony

    You might also like