Implementing Public Policy

Public_Policy_Preferences_and_Outcomes_----_Part_II_Dimensions_of_Public_Policy1.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Implementing Public Policy

Experimental Implementation (High Policy Ambiguity, Low Policy Conflict)

Matland (1995) used the early years of Head Start as an example of experimental implementation. The goal of Head Start was generally agreed upon, but the policy implementation was unclear largely because it was something that had not really been tried before. As Matland states, “outcomes will depend largely on which actors are active and most involved” (Matland 1995, 165). Early Head Start implementation techniques were largely innovations tried in program offices across the nation. Circumstances of clientele and the general environment will shape the degree of policy ambiguity and implementation choices. Policy tech- nologies may not exist prior to implementation; therefore technologies will be developed on a needs-oriented basis. Statutory compliance will be unclear because statutes will likely be vague due to limited understanding of policy problems and solutions. Statutory goals might or might not be met; local goals were more likely to be met because the policy implementation was shaped by environmental conditions. At times, heavy influence from environmental factors can result in “capture,” meaning that the implementation process is significantly shaped by individual and group interests at the local level. Administrative accountability may be limited, but it is likely that policy-learning opportunities will be substantial.

Symbolic Implementation (High Policy Ambiguity, High Policy Conflict)

Symbolic policies are strongly rooted in normative positions regarding govern- ment and society. Symbolic policies are intended to reaffirm values and associated policy goals. Values tend to vary depending on locality and local goal fulfillment is of particular importance. Conflict is high and groups compete to symbolically enshrine their value set. According to Matland, “Competition ensues over correct ‘vision.’ Actors see their interests tied to a specific policy definition and therefore similar competing coalitions are likely to form at differing rates” (Matland 1995, 169). Micro-level interests shape symbolic policy and policy implementation. Resource control is centered in the policy environment, used to shape policy implementation choices, goals, and application.

Accountability is not assured. Statutory compliance is less relevant in this model. Local policy goals are paramount and shape value impacts on outcomes. Symbolic implementation tends to work well in top-down as well as bottom-up policy. (See Figure 7.1.)

ISSUES SURROUNDING IMPLEMENTATION

Policymakers wish to control and steer public policy. Control by elected offi- cials and by senior bureaucrats helps maintain statutory objectives and pro- motes agency accountability. Control increases the ability to link statutory goals with outcomes. If outcomes are not consistent with goals, then adjust- ments can be made.

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 135

Simon, C. A. (2017). Public policy : Preferences and outcomes. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from capella on 2020-11-17 09:23:13.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Steerage

Steerage keeps policy focused on intended goals. Policy implementation may not reflect policy goals and adjustments must be made. Steerage exists on two levels: the political and the administrative. Political steerage is often referred to as “over- sight.” Administrative steerage is shaped by rational-comprehensive and incre- mental choices, but is often influenced by pressure and clientele groups.

Tractability

Successful policy implementation requires tractability (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 1), the ability of public policy to control, influence, or reshape phenomenon in order to achieve a policy goal. Tractability requires policymakers to describe, explain, and predict phenomena associated with a policy problem. Predictive power allows us to understand how policy will impact problems. Tractability is important in establishing accountability for implementing agencies, highlighting significant accomplishments.

In many cases it is difficult to provide solid evidence that a problem is tractable and that policy will lead to particular outcomes. If there is no single explanation for why a problem exists, then it is very difficult for policymakers and policy implementers to identify solutions. (See Box 7.1 Litter: An Intractable Problem with Many Potential Causes and Box 7.2 Speeding though Crosswalks: A Much More Tractable Problem).

Target Group Identification

Target groups are the individuals or organizations whose behavior is directly impacted by public policy. Target groups are often described in terms of (1) size, and (2) behavioral aspects associated with policy implementation.

Administrative Implementation

Example: Smallpox erradication

Low CONFLICT

A M

B IG

U IT

Y H

ig h

L ow

Resources

Contextual Conditions Coalition Strength

Power

Example: Busing

High

Experimental Implementation

Symbolic Implementation

Political Implementation

Example: Headstart Example: Community action agencies

FIGURE 7.1 Typology of implementation Source: Matland (1995).

136 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Mazmanian and Sabatier conclude that the size of the target group must be manageable, otherwise implementers will face many difficulties: “In general, the smaller and more definable the target group whose behavior needs to be changed . . . the more probable that the statutory objectives can be achieved” (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 8–9). Smaller target groups are usually less diverse and narrowly tailored policies can be formulated and effectively implemented. Unfortunately, target populations are often ill defined and misunderstood, leading to unintended policy outcomes.

Federalism

Many nationally formulated public policies are implemented at the local and state level. Some policies are unfunded mandates, requiring local and state govern- ments to implement national policies using their own financial resources

BOX 7.1

Litter: An Intractable Problem with Many Potential Causes

Policymakers can identify public lit- ter as a problem with wide-ranging impacts. First, litter is a health hazard. Second, litter gives the impression of public apathy and can be the first step in elevated crime levels in a neighborhood. Once it has been decided that public litter is a problem that must be solved, policy formula- tors must identify reasons why peo- ple litter and how to best control this

behavior. One reason might be a lack of trash receptacles. Individuals get tired of carrying garbage and simply drop it on the ground. A second reason might be that “litterbugs” do not expect to be punished for their behavior. Getting rid of the trash appears to be a pure “benefit” to them. A third reason might be a lack of pride in one’s surroundings or perhaps a lack of awareness of the needs of others. While getting rid of the trash is a benefit to the person littering, it ends up becoming a “cost” to other individuals who have to pay to have it picked up or who have to wade through it. Litter becomes a cost for reasons related to health and crime, as addressed previously. A final reason for litter might be related to socioeconomic depravation in a community. Perhaps the city does not provide adequate trash collection. Additionally, litter may not be the cause of public apathy, but it may be a symptom of apathy related to socioeconomic and even racial disparity issues that are not being addressed by policymakers.

After identifying the nature of a problem and the potential causes for it, policymakers must identify solutions. Clearly, the problem of litter is related to any one of a number of causes. Simply regulating behavior and sending police officers out into the streets to issue citations will not solve the other problems identified with the issue of litter. In fact, it is doubtful that approaching this problem with any single policy solution would prove to be fruitful and might exacerbate other policy problems.

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 137

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

BOX 7.2

Speeding through Crosswalks: A Much More Tractable Problem

An advertisement for pedestrian safety.

Policy problems that are related to a narrow spectrum of potential causes are much more tractable and easily solved; therefore, implementation proves to be much more straightfor- ward. Speeding through school cross- walks is one example of a fairly narrow policy area and one that can be much more easily solved. Speeding through a crosswalk poses a serious hazard to children on their way to and from school. There are at least two reasons individuals might speed through a crosswalk: (1) they are in a hurry and see the “benefit” of speeding to be greater than the “cost” of getting a traffic fine; and, (2) they are unaware of the existence of the crosswalk. The policy solutions are fairly obvious. First, the public could be made more aware of the costs of speeding through public information campaigns and through the presence of police officers issuing tickets. Second, the use of crosswalk moni-

tors, lights, and signage would make motorists more aware of the presence of the crosswalk.

“The City of Bellevue’s School Crosswalk Enhancement Project provides an example of how engineering improvements can change driver behaviors. In a two-year project, the city worked with schools to identify traffic concerns. The first year of the project focused on changing driver behaviors through education programs, enforcement activity, signing, and pavement marking. In the second year, physical engineering improvements were installed if the problem behaviors had not improved. At Somerset Elementary and Bennett Elementary the city installed raised crosswalks, curb extensions, and bollards. At both schools there was a history of drivers speeding through the school zone and parking on or near the crosswalks. The raised crosswalk acts like a gentle, smooth speed bump to reduce vehicle speeds and to make students more visible as they cross. Curb extensions, or curb bulbs, bring a semicircle of sidewalk out into the crosswalk. This shortens the pedestrians’ crossing distance and eliminates parking on or near the crosswalk providing an unobstructed view for the pedestrians. The bollards (three foot posts) are positioned back from the edge of the curb extensions to keep pedestrians a safe distance back from

138 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

and personnel. Conversely, funded mandates are implemented with financial support—grants-in-aid—from the national government. Grants-in-aid often imply a long-term commitment to the implementation of a particular public policy. In times of budgetary crisis, resource streams may disappear, constraining the implementation process.

Veto Points

Veto points are places within the policy process where policy can be changed or eliminated. Policy implementation is fraught with veto points, particularly within implementing agencies.

Agency structure impacts implementation. Most agency structures mimic the bureaucratic model, which reduces the number of veto points. In bureaucracies, decision-making authority is controlled by a small group of senior agency admin- istrators. Administrative implementation works well in the hands of bureaucracy.

Vague statutory directives require agencies to have active managers, delegating decision-making authority but cognizant of the need for accountabil- ity. Active managers must also deal with policy input from pressure groups, concerned citizens, clientele, and other policy stakeholders. When decision-mak- ing authority is delegated, the number of veto points increases substantially, as more policy actors shape implementation choices.

The organizational culture, or implementing agency’s organizational norms, shared values, and informal processes, may act as a veto point. Agency personnel are usually career civil servants who have seen any number of statutes implemented. Often, they can sense the potential for a statute to bolster or detract from existing agency goals, priorities, and culture. When a statute detracts from the agency’s culture, personnel will likely resist change.

The legal standing of pressure groups and clientele is another veto point. Legal standing means that those individuals or groups who are directly impacted by a statute have the right to take legal action regarding the decisions of the implementing agency. Policies that deny an individual their constitutional rights are particularly contentious.

Well-heeled interests often use their legal standing to shape implementation for their personal benefit. Powerful corporations impacted by regulatory imple- mentation have the financial and legal resources necessary to fight implementa- tion decisions. Heavily regulated, corporations have little difficulty demonstrating direct interest and legal standing. However, many individuals lack the resources necessary to turn their legal standing to their advantage. Bias creeps into agency

the road. Plaques were installed on the bollards with tips on how to safely cross the street. These physical engineering improvements reduced aver- age speed through the school zone and eliminated parking near the crosswalks.”

Source: www.wtsc.wa.gov/school_safety_programs.html (accessed January 30, 2005).

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 139

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/school_safety_programs.html