1.

Cross-cutting policies

The first is the challenge of tackling cross-cutting issues and breaking down boundaries between
different disciplines and policy areas. This is not new. Social or business problems are rarely confined to
a single research discipline – or a single government department.

2.Lack of emphasis on prevention

There is ample evidence to show the scarring effects of life events such as adverse childhood
experiences, persistent low income, family break-down or mental ill health. Policy interventions can feel
like ‘whack-a-mole’, where a problem addressed in one area pops up elsewhere in a different guise at a
later date.

3.Short-termism in decision making

Then, there is the related but distinct issue of short-termism in policymaking. Policymakers usually make
decisions in a complex environment with limited time for reflection.

Top-down approach
Top-down theorists see policy designers as the central actors and concentrate their attention on
factors that can be manipulated at the central level (Matland 1995). The most detailed top-down
approach was presented by Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979), who identified a number of legal and
political variables and then synthesised them into six conditions needed for effective
implementation ranging from clear objectives, causal theory, legal structure of the implementation
process, committed officials, supportive interests groups to no undermining of changing socio-
economic conditions (for more detail on these conditions, see Sabatier 2005: 19). In terms of policy
areas, ‘top-downers’ usually prioritise clear policies (Matland 1995: 155).

The bottom-up approach, developed by Hanf, Hjern and Porter (1978), identifies the networks of actors
who are involved in service delivery in one or more local areas and asks them about their goals,
strategies, activities and contacts. It then uses the contacts in order to develop a networking technique
to identify the local, regional and national actors involved in the planning, financing and execution of
relevant governmental and non-governmental programmes. This provides a mechanism for moving from
local actors and decision-makers such as teachers or doctors up to the top policy-makers in both the
public and private sectors (Sabatier 2005: 23

Combining the two approaches might thus draw on their main strengths while minimising their
weaknesses. Policy implementation often takes place because a wide range of stakeholders interact
between different levels – thus both central policy-makers and local actors on the ground are important
for successful implementation.

Game theory
One example of a rational choice approach is game theory which is ‘a mathematical treatment of how
rational individuals will act in conflict situations to achieve their preferred objectives’ (Firestone 1989:
18). It is in particular helpful for theories that seek to clarify how coalitions build and pass legislation.
Agency theory studies the problems and solutions linked to
delegation of tasks from principals to agents in the context of
conflicting interests between the parties. Beginning from clear
assumptions about rationality, contracting, and informational
conditions, the theory addresses problems of ex ante (‘hidden
characteristics’) as well as ex post information asymmetry (‘hidden
action’), and examines conditions under which various kinds of
incentive instruments and monitoring arrangements can be deployed
to minimize the welfare loss.