The Impact of social movements on policy development

Chapter7.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >The Impact of social movements on policy development

Policy Implementation

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Public policy implementation is where the rubber meets the road—where public policy becomes a reality. Policy studies regularly document the successes and failures associated with implementation. Inability to choose an optimum policy solution is a common challenge facing implementation. While implementation successes or failures are often case specific, it is possible to draw general conclusions about the process.

The specific goals for the chapter are:

• Discuss four major types of policy implementation. • Discuss the major participants in implementation. • Use policy theories to explain policy formulation.

A THEORETICAL MODEL OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Richard Matland (1995) developed a synthesized model of policy implementation, identifying six factors shaping implementation success:

• Statutory compliance. Statutes often encapsulate policy goals and implementation should be orien- tated toward goal accomplishment. Statutory compliance alone may overlook issues of efficiency or effectiveness of policy implementation. Also, it does not mean that the statute or compliance with the statute is consistent with con- stitutional principles, generally accepted ethical standards or democratic governance. Narrowly defined, compliance is a managerial function; regard- less, it is one important dimension of implementation.

• Bureaucratic accountability. Public policies are implemented by bureaucrats working in agencies. In theory, bureaucrats are hired on the basis of knowledge, skills, and abilities,

131

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 2021-05-17 07:59:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and implement public policy in a politically neutral manner. As Matland and many others have noted, bureaucrats are not politically neutral. Elected officials use oversight to check bureaucracy and guide it toward compliance with political intent. Implementation might indicate that bureaucrats are doing what they are told to do, rather than what they would prefer to do or perhaps what they know would work.

• Statutory goals accomplished. Statutory goal accomplishment means that a desired output was produced. For example, a statute might state that police officers cannot racially profile and might get into trouble if they arrest too many persons of color. What if officers then began to have unofficial quotas on the number of people of color he or she could stop or arrest? Would that lead to “statutory com- pliance?” Of course not. Racial profiling laws were never intended to stop law enforcement officers from preventing crime. The goal of racial profil- ing law was to prevent intentionally discriminatory law enforcement practices.

• “Local goals” accomplished. Policy made at the national level tends to focus on very generic policy goals. However, policy is implemented in states and local communities. It is important that public policy fits local needs as well as meeting national policy goals. Implementation of a policy at the local level is often judged in terms of its ability to meet local needs because local governments and citizens are primarily interested in how policy helps them. Elected officials, particularly legislators seeking reelection, view implementation in terms of how constituents are benefited by policy.

• Political climate improvement. Matland views politics in terms of values allocation. Values often explain the level of joy or displeasure in the policy environment and within implement- ing agencies. Successful implementation means that something has improved as a result of public policy. Improvement might entail improved support for the political process; in essence, successful implementation might give individuals renewed hope that demands can be made of govern- ment, policy enacted, and positive outcomes produced.

• Learning. Matland contends that one of the most important things to emerge from successful implementation is learning. While statutory compliance and the meeting of goals are obviously of great interest, learning is central to making things even better. Learning means that policy improves over time and more complicated goals can be pursued and likely achieved.

According to Matland, policy implementation studies can be divided into two general categories: top-down approaches and bottom-up approaches. Top- down approaches assume:

1. Statutory language is complete, concise, and applicable. 2. Implementation is an administrative function.

132 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Anything that impedes compliance is viewed as a barrier. The statute is not seen as a barrier, so environmental factors are often identified as problematic. The goal is to remove barriers to compliance, essentially clearing the ground in front of policy implementation rather than working with existing conditions. Historical considerations are ignored; top-down implementation is about setting conditions and creating compliance. The second assumption (above) means that top-down implementation is not viewed as a political process—simply the enforcement of agreed-upon standards, rules, and processes. Local-level complaints about policy implementation are seen as barriers that must be overcome rather than recognized and considered.

In the bottom-up approach, policy is implemented by local level adminis- trators and elected officials; people working closest to policy clientele. Bottom-up implementation generally assumes that statutes are not complete and concise. Through policy networks known as advocacy coalitions–comprised of inter- ested citizens and pressure groups, and administrators–policy is formulated and implemented. Specific goals for policy are defined in the implementation phase and strategies to accomplish those goals are agreed upon. For the bottom-up approach, the recognition of current and historic context is central to good implementation. Accountability is a function of the democratic process, which includes elected officials as well as sovereign citizens. The rules defining bottom- up policy are created and legitimized through a wide array of advocacy coalition participants.

Matland brings the two aforementioned disparate approaches together in his ambiguity-conflict model. He identifies cross-cutting dimensions in policy implementation: policy ambiguity and policy conflict. According to Matland, policy ambiguity emerges in two major forms:

• Ambiguity of goals. Statutory conciseness and clarity are important ways of clarifying goals. Top- down implementation is particularly concerned with reducing ambiguity in goal formation, while bottom-up implementation finds that ambiguity pro- vides greater opportunity to reduce conflict through compromise at the local level.

• Ambiguity of means. There are two important dimensions to consider: (1) technological where- withal for effective implementation and (2) financial resources needed to pay for implementation efforts. For example, fire control on public lands is a public policy, but implementation would be difficult if there were neither fire fighting equipment (technology) nor funds to pay for firefighters (resources). As Matland succinctly states: “The degree of ambiguity inherent in a policy directly affects the implementation process in significant ways. It influences the ability of superiors to monitor activities, the likelihood that the policy is uniformly understood across the many implementation sites, the probability that local contextual factors play a significant role, and the degree to which relevant factors vary sharply across implementation sites” (Matland 1995, 159).

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 133

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Policy conflict comes into play when individual decision-makers do not agree on the basic premise for policy, let alone implementation of it. Policy conflict is best seen in inter- and intra-institutional bargaining activities. Policy conflict usually means that policy is a product of significant compro- mise, likely reducing statutory conciseness and clarity. Typically, “bargaining mechanisms such as side payments, log rolling, and oversight . . . [and] coercive [methods of compliance]” are visible in cases of policy conflict (Matland 1995, 156). Also, jurisdictional friction and methods of implementa- tion may serve as sources of policy conflict. Conflict is a clash of values (Matland 1995, 157).

Matland identifies and discusses four conditional relationships associated with the ambiguity-conflict model: see below.

Administrative Implementation (Low Policy Ambiguity, Low Policy Conflict)

Policies with low levels of ambiguity and conflict are generally very concise and clear policies. Low levels of ambiguity mean that a policy is clearly defined in terms of process and goals. Low levels of conflict decrease the likelihood that policies are vaguely written as the basis of compromise.

Concise statutes mean that implementation is built around rational “pro- grammed” administrative decisions. “The central principle in administrative implementation is outcomes are determined by resource. The desired outcome is virtually assured, given that sufficient resources are appropriated for the pro- gram” (Matland 1995, 160). In “Administrative Implementation,” resources are fairly stable. Technology is clear and exists prior to the establishment of policy. Administrative personnel are stable. “Implementation failure occurs because of technical problems: the machine sputters” (Matland 1995, 161). Compliance in implementation is further assured through normative mechanisms (e.g., mutual agreement); coercive mechanisms (e.g., statutes and rules); and renumerative mechanisms (e.g., salary and benefits).

Political Implementation (Low Policy Ambiguity, High Policy Conflict)

Policy goals are clear, but policy complexity produces goals conflict. Administrative solutions are less feasible due to a lack of agreement and norma- tive considerations shape policy implementation choices. Politics becomes the basis for articulating choices and power becomes the definitive factor in shaping prioritization and choice adoption. Purpose becomes less relevant in political implementation and agreement on process (or “actions”) “is sufficient” (Matland 1995, 164). Policy ambiguity is low, but resources are controlled by policy actors outside of the implementing organization; resource allocations cannot be assumed. Allocation decisions are based on power relationships rather than administrative rationality or the compliance mechanisms of administrative implementation.

134 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

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

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

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 op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

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 op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

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 op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

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 op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

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

implementation choices when they are motivated by attempts to reduce the potential for serious legal challenges from the powerful corporate interest, while ignoring the unexercised legal standing of less powerful individuals and groups (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 13).

A Changing Policy Environment

Policy implementation is a long-term and dynamic process. A few environmental factors that must be considered:

• Target group change—The ever-changing nature of target groups and resources available to meet their needs must be a continual consideration for policy implementers.

• Technology—Advances in technology may reduce the cost of policy imple- mentation. Technologically backward agencies are often inefficient and ineffective.

• Public attention—Public attention is often directly related to media cover- age. The media play a role in all aspects of the policy process. Initially, the media is interested in the “hot topic,” but if media awareness wanes, then all too often public attention declines. Policy implementation may suffer from a lack of public attention, lower prioritization, reductions in funding, and reduced effectiveness (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 16–17).

• Public opinion—as registered through elections—results in changes in the policymaking and oversight process. Elected officials lose reelection bids or retire from office. New officials often have different priorities, which may negatively impact implementation of existing policy.

When You Can’t Steer, You Slip

Policy implementation faces “a unique kind of politics” (Bardach 1977, 37). Once formulated, policy faces continued scrutiny and constraint by a dynamic and changing cohort of elected policymakers operating at the national, state, and local level. Individually or collectively, these factors have the potential to cause slippage in the policy implementation process—a reduced ability to produce outputs consistent with policy goals. Mazmanian and Sabatier discuss a series of factors related to slippage, as noted in the picture (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 21–22). (See Box 7.3 Issues in Policy Implementation: Out to Sea.)

MAJOR PARTICIPANTS IN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy establishes administrative rules guiding the implementation process. The rules made by bureaucrats, administrative law, require public hearings and, in many instances, legislative and/or executive oversight. Once established, fed- eral administrative rules are published in the Federal Register. At the state level, administrative law is usually published in the individual state’s administrative

140 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

code manuals. Administrative judges and magistrates are the first line of judicial enforcement in administrative law cases. Administrative laws also guide the day- to-day implementation of statutes.

When statutory implementation leads to the creation of new agencies and new personnel positions, new personnel-related rules may be needed. Personnel structures must be reorganized to fulfill statutory requirements. Position descrip- tions for personnel must be rewritten and offices and administrative staff must establish new goals, priorities, and standard operating procedures.

BOX 7.3

Issues in Policy Implementation: Out to Sea

The easiest way for me to think about all of this is to consider sailing. As a kid, I used to crew on sailboats like the one in the picture. Most of what happens to a sailboat is similar to what happens in policy implementation; in fact, sailing is a form of implementation, to include sea-sickness. I’m sure that policy implementers can testify to occasional nausea.

Wind and (policy) currents are moving in

this direction.

Note: Your family is here . . . worrying. Policy

implementers

Your target (marker buoy). Moving in the right direction or slipping away?

The Boat (your policy type). Built for the seas, the race, but will it stay afloat?

Tractability, or “Can you stay afloat, make the wind work for you, and brave the seas of public opinion, lawsuits, and changing conditions?”

Steerage

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 141

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Pressure Groups

Public hearings for administrative rulemaking are an excellent venue for pressure group influence on the implementation process; an opportunity to shape inter- pretations of statutory intent, which guides bureaucratic decision-making. Pressure groups able to establish legal standing may challenge administrative rules through the court system.

Pressure groups can also act as an important source of support for bureau- crats in the implementation process through information campaigns, legislative lobbying activities, and testimony at oversight hearings. Pressure group informa- tion campaigns may maintain public awareness of a policy issue. Legislative lobbying is another important method by which pressure groups might help bureaucrats during the implementation process, using contributions as a tool for gaining access to legislators and shaping choices. Finally, pressure groups may provide expert testimony during oversight hearings, an opportunity to hail the success of implementation or influence policy changes.

In the policy process, relationships can develop between pressure groups, administrative agencies, and legislative committees, referred to as the iron triangle or subgovernment model. The pressure groups, agencies, and committees develop a symbiotic relationship that advances policy agendas. While this relation- ship was discussed previously in terms of the agenda-setting process, it continues on throughout the policy process. In the implementation process, the exclusivity of iron triangles can have a tremendous impact on policy priorities and outcomes.

Clientele

Policy clientele have varying degrees of influence on policy implementation. Societal values play a significant role in who is listened to in the implementation process. Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram found that some clientele groups are seen as being more “deserving” than others. Convicted criminals, users of illegal drugs, and chronically indigent—are often viewed by policymakers and agency implementers as being undeserving recipients of public policy. Their voices and concerns are frequently overlooked in the implementation process. Racial-, gen- der- , and age-based discrimination systematically excludes large segments of the population from voicing their interests and concerns at all stages of the policy process. Age-based discrimination frequently impacts both younger and the older individuals.

The Clinton administration paid greater attention to policy issues concern- ing young adults. Clinton placed special emphasis on listening to the concerns of young women and racial and ethnic minorities. The increased emphasis in this area of public policy may turn out to have been symbolic—only time will fully inform us of its lasting impact in equalizing clientele input in the policy process. (See Photo 7.1.)

Judicial System

The court system becomes particularly involved with policy implementation when individuals or groups claim that their constitutional rights are violated

142 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

by either a statute or administrative rules governing the implementation process. These groups or individuals must demonstrate legal standing. Not all public policies offer pressure groups or clientele equal access to legal recourse. Litigation costs also limit access to the judiciary. Litigation is not always the best solution to problems in policy implementation. Alternative dispute reso- lution (ADR) in an attempt to solve conflicts prior to a full legal hearing before a judge.

EXPLAINING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD)

Implementation is one of the most challenging subjects in public policy. Should policy implementation occur in a top-down or bottom-up process? Top-down implies that a policy can be clearly and neatly designed at the highest levels of government bureaucracy and then simply implemented in a uniform manner. A bottom-up approach implies that policy implementation requires local-level administrators and stakeholders to identify the unique issues facing local clientele and implementing policy that best fits their needs. Successful policy implementa- tion could then guide higher levels of policy implementers, offering an

PHOTO 7.1 Sometimes, meetings can keep you in stitches . . .

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 143

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

understanding of the unique characteristics of clientele. A third way involves a combination of both top-down and bottom-up. This is where the IAD model explanation fits in quite well.

IAD recognizes that statutes, common law, and administrative codes often constrain access to marketable public goods. In other cases, laws and codes seek to regulate externalities and limit marginal social costs associated with economic choice. For example, laws and codes define property rights associated with marketable public goods such as access to water, and laws and codes regulate the practice of dumping industrial effluent and exhausts into streams, rivers, and into the air.

Laws and codes are an important prerequisite to protecting common pool resources, but regulation requires the regular watchful eye of bureaucratic enfor- cers; and, violators might very well fight the process of regulation through litiga- tion. IAD offers a different way of regulating—self-regulation guided by legal standards and collective self-interest in protecting a common pool resource. IAD has the potential to significantly improve resource management outcomes and simultaneously to reduce conflict and costs associated with individual over-con- sumption of resources, regulation, and litigation. IAD encourages cooperative resource use and management.

In focusing on local-level stakeholders or clientele, IAD places strong emphasis on bottom-up implementation. Policies that protect common pool resources, it is claimed, are best managed in the context unique to a particular resource and the resource needs at the local level. As resource availability changes, local level stakeholders are likely to possess a good understanding of how to adjust their needs to changing conditions, and promote resource-sustain- able management practices.

IAD is particularly useful in understanding implementation practices related to the management of common pool resources such as clean water and air, but IAD has been used as a policymaking and implementation tool in the protection of other resources such as wetlands, rangelands, and native wildlife that serve as an important function for food, tourism, and ecological sustain- ability. The value of IAD is that it incorporates both bottom-up and top-down policy implementation and is a useful tool in overcoming issues related to policy ambiguity and the potential for high levels of policy conflict, eliminating through open dialogue and agreement, veto points while improving steerage toward policy goals.

Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)

The ACF model focuses our attention on the subgovernment aspects of policy implementation. While policy is often discussed in terms of broad areas of con- cern (e.g., health policy, education policy), most policy involves a series of narrow foci that draws the interest and attention of pressure groups, administrative agencies and offices, technical experts from industry and academia, and a host of other policy entrepreneurs and citizen stakeholders.

144 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Recall the analysis of ACF in chapter 2 of the book. Coalitions composed of different policy visions seek to influence policy at multiple stages of the policy process—agenda setting, formulation, implementation, evaluation, and at the termination/change stage. The process is recurring, and stages often blend together or overlap, as we will discover in the substantive policy chapters and in the budgeting chapter.

Competing policy visions means increases in the likelihood for conflict in implementation. This is particularly true for policy areas where policy goals and implementation processes are ambiguous. ACF may help us understand the dynamics of the policy process, but may also present a rather frustrating tale about the challenges of implementation.

ACF draws our attention to and helps explain the politics and adminis- trative processes that shape policy implementation from the very highest levels of decision-making to the so-called street level. Rules play a large role in shaping policy implementation, but so to does the feedback of policy advo- cates and policy administrators involved in operationalizing governing statutes related to a policy and constructing the rules and procedures for implementing policy.

Learning occurs within policy subsystems. Advocacy groups use informa- tion to make their case. Bureaucrats and elected officials also bring information into their decision-making process. Shared knowledge is the basis of feedback that shapes current and future policy implementation, top-down and bottom-up. If knowledge is unbiased and useful in understanding policy goals and imple- mentation, the ACF model offers us some understanding of how a policy moved from a position of high ambiguity to a position of lower ambiguity. It is also possible that information and improved policy implementation leads to lower levels of conflict.

Constructivist Approach

Recall from chapter 2: constructivism concludes that clientele or policy target groups are socially constructed. Through social construction, clientele or target groups are viewed through the lens of values rather than empirically described in terms of their social economic status relative to the status of the median individual in society. Some clientele groups may be viewed as “deserving” of the policy benefits offered, while others may be viewed as “undeserving.”

In terms of policy implementation, constructivism portends to have tremen- dous power to explain why some policy clientele receive a form of blue chip treatment, while others are offered very little in the way of benefit. The latter are among the most deserving of public social and health care policy benefit—the most likely candidates for the social justice largesse proffered by Rawls’ perspec- tive of a socially just society—but from the constructivist perspective, they are the least well served.

While policy formation is certainly a policy stage where policy may fail to offer just outcomes, policy implementation is just as critical, if not more so. As less

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 145

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

than deserving recipients of public policy, it is too often the case that these undervalued clientele groups often lack voice in the implementation process. From a bottom-up policy perspective and from the perspective of policy areas that might possess ambiguity in core mission, there is potential for high levels of conflict in the policy implementation process. A good example would be a policy initiative to build community-centered halfway houses in upper-middle-class neighborhoods.

If studies are unbiased, constructivist approaches have the potential to help policy implementers develop a better understanding of a policy’s target popula- tion or clientele. From a research perspective, constructivist approaches offer the greatest possibility of understanding, in a rich context, the people and groups served by public policy. Constructivist approaches often expose areas of persis- tent inequality and policy bias that may, at best, contribute to a perpetuation of inequality, and at worst contribute to increased levels of inequality. Policy imple- mentation designed with deep understanding of a clientele group is more likely to succeed.

Lessons Learned from Chapter 7

SPECIFICS

• Implementation involves a great deal more than simply putting policy into effect—in many cases, policy has to be created because original formula- tions produced in the statute-making process are too vague or are incomplete.

• Policy implementation is categorized on the basis of the level of policy ambiguity and conflict.

• There are four types of policy implementation: administrative, political, experimental, and symbolic.

• Implementing agencies, pressure groups, and political and social elites can exercise tremendous power over policy implementation, impacting the implementation by helping to decide what government ought or ought not do, and what government does or does not do.

THE BIG PICTURE

This chapter offers a general model of policy implementation, discussing implementation types as a function of statutory completeness, oversight, and organization theory. The implementation literature offers a general under- standing of how policy moves from formation to outcomes. Knowledge of implementation is imperfect, but the academic literature does confirm a few principles related to policy implementation success: (1) clear understanding of a policy problem, (2) demonstrable solutions to the problem, (3) well-defined target groups, and (4) strong and sustainable support for the public policy being implemented.

146 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Key terms

active managers information campaigns administrative law iron triangle advocacy coalition legal standing alternative dispute resolution

(ADR) lobbying

ambiguity-conflict model organizational culture

barrier slippage

bureaucratic model steerage

capture sub-government model

expert testimony target group

funded mandates tractability

grants-in-aid unfunded mandates veto points

Questions for Study

1. Discuss three major institutional/individual actors in the policy implementa- tion process.

2. According to Richard Matland, what are four major types of policy implemen- tation? Identify and discuss.

3. Identify three policy models and demonstrate how the models could be used to explain policy implementation. Provide examples.

Bibliography

Bardach, E. 1977. The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bacharach, S. 1977. Introduction to Reward systems and power distribution in organizations: Searching for solutions. Edited by T. Hammer and S. Bacharach. Ithaca: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Bayrakal, S. 2006. The U.S. Pollution Prevention Act: A policy implementation analysis. Social Science Journal 43: 127–45.

Bowman, A. 1984. Intergovernmental and intersectoral tensions in environmental policy implementation: the case of hazardous waste. Policy Studies Review 4(2): 230–44.

Bustamante, A. V., and J. Chen. 2015. The great recession and health spending among uninsured U.S. immigrants: Implications for the Affordable Care Act implementation. HSR: Health Services Research 49(6): 1900–24.

Coburn, C. 2016. What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education 122: 465–75.

Congressional Digest. 2016. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act: Effective dates of Obamacare provisions. www.congressionaldigest.com (accessed November 1, 2016).

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 147

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.congressionaldigest.com

Dolor, R. and L. J. Fagnan. 2016. Dissemination and implementation research in primary care practice-based research networks. Annals of Family Medicine 14: 481–2.

Doonan, M. 2013. American federalism in practice: The formulation and implemen- tation of contemporary health policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Downs, A. 1967. Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown. Edelman, M. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Fisk, J. 2015. Whose lawn it is anyway? Redefining problems and the implementa-

tion of municipal stormwater policies. Local Environment 20(1): 62–80. Gottschamer, L. and Q. Zhang. 2016. Interactions of factors impacting implemen-

tation and sustainability of renewable energy sources electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 65: 164–74.

Hanf, K., and T. Toonen. 1985. Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Hill, M. 2002. Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and practice. London: Sage.

Honig, M. 2006. New directions in education policy implementation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Hornbeek, J., E. Hansen, E. Ringquist, and R. Carlson. 2013. Implementing water pollution policy in the United States: Total maximum daily loads and collabora- tive watershed management. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 26(4): 420–36.

Iyengar, S., and D. Kinder. 1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jochim, A., and L. Lavery. 2015. The evolving politics of the common core: Policy implementation and conflict expansion. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 45(3): 380–404.

Keyes, L., D. Phillips, E. Sterling, T Manegdeg, M. Kelly, G. Trimble, and C. Mayerik. 2014. Transforming the way we live together: A model to move communities from policy to implementation. Journal of Aging and Social Policy 26(1–2): 117–30.

Koontz, T. M., and J. Newig. 2014. From planning to implementation: Top-down and bottom-up approaches to collaborative watershed management. Policy Studies Journal 42(3): 416–42.

Koslowski, R. 2014. Selective migration policy models and changing realities of implementation. International Migration 52(3): 26–39.

Krause, R. M. 2012. An assessment of the impact that participation in local climate networks has on cities’ implementation of climate, energy, and transportation policies. Review of Policy Research 29(5): 585–604.

Lanford, D., and J. Quadagno. 2016. Implementing ObamaCare: The politics of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Sociological Perspectives 59(3): 619–39.

Lowi, T. 1969. End of liberalism. New York: Norton. Matland, Richard E. 1995. Synthesizing the implementation literature: The

ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 5(2): 145–74.

148 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mazmanian, D., and P. Sabatier. 1981. Effective policy implementation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCormick, S. 2016. New tools for emergency managers: An assessment of obstacles to use and implementation. Disasters 40(2): 207–25.

Najam, A. 1995. Learning from the literature on policy implementation: A synth- esis perspective. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.

Nakamura, R., and F. Smallwood. 1980. The politics of policy implementation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Nicholson-Crotty, S., and S. Carley. 2015. Effectiveness, implementation, and policy diffusion: or “can we make that work for us?” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 16(1): 78–97.

Palumbo, D., and D. Calista, eds. 1990. Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box. New York: Greenwood.

Pierce, J., and N. Lovrich. 1986. Water resources, democracy, and the technical information quandary. New York: Associated Faculty Press.

Renzulli, L. A., and V. J. Roscigno. 2005. Charter school policy, implementation, and diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education 78(October): 344–66.

Rigby, E. and J. Haselswerdt. 2013. Hybrid federalism, partisan politics, and early implementation of state health insurance exchanges. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43(3): 368–91.

Rigby, J. G., S. L. Woulfin, and V. Marz. 2016. Understanding how structure and agency influence education policy implementation and organizational change. American Journal of Education 122: 295–302.

Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 1997. Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Stern, M. J. 2010. From the office to the field: Areas of tension and consensus in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act within the US Forest Service. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 1350–6.

Swain-Bradway, J., C. Pinkney, and K. B. Flannery. 2015. Implementing school- wide positive behavior interventions and supports in high schools: Contextual factors and stages of implementation. Teaching Exceptional Children 2015 (May/June): 245–55.

Taylor, D., and Balloch, S. 2005. The politics of evaluation: Participation and policy implementation. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, University of Bristol.

Valente, T. W., L. A. Palinkas, S. Czaja, K. Chu, and C. H. Brown. 2015. Social network analysis for program implementation. PLOS ONE 10(6): 1–18.

Washington Traffic Safety Commission. 2005. Programs: The city of Bellevue’s school crosswalk enhancement project. www.wtsc.wa.gov/school_safety_pro grams.html (January 30, 2005).

Weiss, D., M. Lillefjell, and E. Magnus. 2016. Facilitators for the development and implementation of health promoting policy and programs: A scoping review at the local community level. BMC Public Health 16: 140–55.

Whitford, A. 2007. Decentralized policy implementation. Political Research Quarterly 60(1): 17–30.

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 149

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

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