It is unsurprising that many scholars have not just investigated which policies have failed, but why they failed. Understanding why they fail is critical, as failed policies prevent governments achieving their aims and can prove extremely costly, both in terms of funding and time.
These failures a also cause electoral and reputational damage to governments, and even lead to the downfall of public officials, politicians, go er e ts a d regi es McConnell, Many scholars have hoped that by drawing attention to these failures, a framework for best practice could be developed.
This essay will consider and analyse a range of theories put forward by analysts, parti ularl o e trati g o top-do a d otto -up approaches, as to why successful policy implementation is so difficult to accomplish, and the rise of New Public Management as a perceived solution to these issues. It makes chronological sense to begin with the top-down approach to implementation studies.
As Hudson and Lowe explain, Pressman and Wildavsky Found that the implementation of an urban regeneration project was inhibited by a lack of coordination between the various agencies involved in it. They showed the necessity to establish clear lines of communication, to provide adequate funding and to ensure effective management of the scheme.
Theirs was essentially a top-down analysis based on the idea that the policy process was rational and therefore amenable to intelligent management. The key issue they discussed revolves around coordination and communication.
Both of these are critical for transition from the policy formulation stage to the implementation stage. Proficient management, appropriate resources and correct training are a necessity for this to run smoothly. These ideas are not lost on Weaver , who expands on the issues further. In regards to coordination difficulties, he states that programs which need numerous approvals by agencies with very different objectives may lead to stalemate and inaction.
Poor coordination mechanisms between multiple implementing agencies may lead to breakdowns and delays in programme delivery, ureau rati run-arounds a d other forms of poor service, as well as cost-o erru s Weaver, 4. Policy will struggle to be successfully implemented if agents involved do not co- operate appropriately. It is a reminder that the difficulties of imposing order on a recalcitrant world overwhelm policy makers that are exacerbated by outsourcing, as governments cede operational control and policy responsibility to private players Chal ers a d Da is, One would only need to take a cursory glance, for example, at the Tackling Obesity in England report National Audit Office, 32 where it describes eighteen different public, private and voluntary stakeholders all having key roles in the implementation of the policy.
Obviously it would be wrong to assume that all stakeholders would be actively working against each other, but one would struggle to suggest that coordinating efforts between so many different groups would be an easy task. Thus program implementers often lack the time or the human, organizational, technology or financial resources needed to achieve program objectives.
Although politicians may not hold as much contempt for public servants as Weaver describes, it illustrates how resources do not just include funding but also technological resources and time.
Insufficient levels of these will absolutely hinder the successful implementation of a policy. This as hat happe ed ith the Control of Pollution Act, since it coincided with cutbacks in the public sector which denied local authorities suffi ie t fu ds to appoi t the additio al staff eeded to i ple e t the A t Hogwood and Gunn, Hogwood and Gunn , however, delve deeper into the problem when they discuss resource bottlenecks.
A bottleneck will occur, for example, when a single resource is overdue, in turn pushing the whole project back several months. If this shortage is funds, it may not be as troublesome, e ause additional funding for a programme can be swiftly increased, given political assent, by a tur of the fis al tap , but there can be no guarantee that money can be converted into land, materials, or manpower within the time-s ale of the progra e Hogwood and Gunn, In an ideal world then, all resources would be readily available at all times.
Considering that the policy process does not exist in an ideal world, securing sufficient resources will nearly always be a convoluted process. The top-down approach raises another unfortunate truth for policy makers: it is incredibly difficult to ha ge people s elief s ste s, particularly across different contexts. Gerber , when discussing the EU, suggests that it is easier for it to reform institutions than it is to change e er s eliefs.
As agents are at every level of the policy process, changes will be needed at all levels for a policy to be implemented effectively, rather than at a single stage. The more complex the context, the more complex it is to change beliefs. This leads to McLaughlin s observation that politi al pressure alone cannot effect those changes in attitudes, beliefs, and routine practices typically assumed by reform policies.
Opportunities for co-optation, symbolic response, or non- compliance are multiple in the loosely structured, multi-layered world of schools and education policy, for e a ple. If this level of mutual understanding is attained, implementation may be a lot easier. It is, as Elmore writes, the local effect of federal policy depends, in some critical sense, o the for atio of lo al oalitio s of i di iduals affe ted the poli.
The ru of El ore s statement highlights that there is a need for those affected by the policy to participate in the implementation process, too. This observation is echoed by Weaver 7 , in what he describes as target o plia e issues , those ho fail to behave in ways that were anticipated by the designers of that policy and that are necessary if the policy is to achieve its objective. Perhaps the public ask too much for a policy to be successfully implemented without playing their part.
There is a theory that analyses the difficulties of implementation through the failure of agents to adhere to Rationalist assumptions see Clinton, and Satz and Ferejohn This theory acts as a useful introduction to another approach to implementation analysis. It was found that policy implementers Did not always do as told as proponents of scientific management would have it.
Nor did they always act to maximize policy objectives as many economists would have it. Instead those responsible for implementation at various levels of the policy system responded in what often seemed quite idiosyncratic, frustratingly unpredictable, if not downright resistant ways. M Laughli s observation explains why policy implementation is so difficult, but also why actually studying it is complicated.
Theoretical models, such as those adapted from economics and business management, may be not be the best fit for policy implantation, due to the complex nature of the implementation process as a whole. The e tral thesis of M Laughli s : argument states that su essful poli i ple e tatio depe ds o t o fa tors: lo al apa it a d ill. The former can be addressed more easily, training can be offered.
Dollars can be provided. Consultants can be engaged to furnish missing expertise. But will, or the attitudes, motivation, and beliefs that underlie an implementor's [sic] response to a policy's goals or strategies, is less amenable to policy i ter e tio. One can see that McLaughli is usi g a otto s-up approa h see Lipsk , and Sabatier, , where statements like Lee a d Faulker s : that time and again, however, one finds that having a set of good policies does not in itself guarantee that good practice is happe i g o the grou d is given more importance.
Historically, those agents on the ground have had significantly more autonomy than those at the top believed. This is still true today. Simply put, some front-level age t s do not effectively implement polices because they do not fit with their own agendas and ideas.
It is due to the er ature of their ork that age ts are a le to ig ore poli ies, partly because, e. It ould ake se se the that individuals responsible for carrying out a policy act not only from institutional incentives, but also from professional and personal motivation McLaughlin, I ple e ter s are ot the ratio al age ts that so many traditional Rationalists desire.
Obviously they are acting with some autonomy, but only so much. After all, as Brehm and Gates in Spillane et al.
It would be unfair to blame all implementation failure on that. Although some may be diverging from the aims of the policy due to ideological reasons, it can also be because the policy itself is the problem. As Hogwood and Gunn note, poli o je ti es a e difficult to identify or couched in vague and evasive terms. E e offi ial o je ti es, where they exist, may not be compatible with one another and the possibility of conflict or confusion is increased when professional or other groups proliferate their o u offi ial goals ithi a progra e.
A theory proposed by Spillane et al. If implementing agents respond to standards, they act on the ideas about instruction that they construct from and about these standards. If implementing agents construct ideas that misconstrue policymakers' intent, then implementation failure is likely.
Implementation failure in this case results not because implementing agents reject the reform ideas advanced via standards-based reform but because they understand them differently my emphasis. How different agents understand the same policy will inevitably lead to different ways of it being implemented. With that, comes the possibility of failure. As agents are not a monolithic group, differences in cognition are expected. The former is useful to analyse the way the policy and the messages within it are presented with the intent of them being understood, or not understood, in a particular way.
There is however, a much simpler theory — a policy is implemented poorly at the frontline because the policy itself is bad. As Hogwood and Gunn explain, poor understanding of the problem itself, the cause and effects of it, the solutio s; or of an opportunity, its nature, and what is needed to exploit it Bottom-up theories such as this explain that if the policy is bad, then implementation will be, too.
It would be unfair to expect implementing agents at the front line to successfully carry out the needs of a policy that is essentially unworkable or inadequately designed and resourced. Charles and Davis blame incidents like this on the way many public sector contracts are now outsourced to the private sector, insights yielded from their study of Australian welfare provision during the Howard Government.
For pitfalls su h as o fli ti g o je ti es , it may lead to governments a d e ter al a tors assig i g differe t priorities to goals su h as o u it service, effi ie a d ost sa i gs. Or he age ies la k e pertise or a i appropriate age is sele ted , then the process sometimes fails to identify the best possible service provider, thus granting contracts to orga isatio s less tha ideal for the task Charles a d Da is, The latter example is particularly important; it is the responsibility of those at the top to assign the appropriate group at the bottom to implement the policy on the front line.
Choosing the wrong group would make it highly unlikely that a policy is successfully implemented. It is incidents like this where policy learning see May, and Bennett and Howlett, is crucial for the success of future policies. It is perhaps because of the failures observed in bottom-up, and to an extent top-down, studies that public services across much of the Anglosphere have seen the rise of New Public Management NPM techniques.
The ideas held by NPM are numerous, so the following is by no means exhaustive. One of its most common doctrines is the eed for pu li ser i es to ha e ore o tra t ased o petiti e pro isio , with i ter al arkets a d ter o tra ts , t pi all justified suggesti g ri alr as the ke to lo er costs and better standards; contracts as the key to explicating performan e sta dards Hood, What can be learned here is the perception that policy can be better implemented through establishing competitive quasi-markets within public services, while simultaneously lowering the cost of resources.
If this is considered the solution, then there must be an idea that public servants are wasteful and not value for money, thereby hindering the implementation process. Doctrines that stress o pri ate-se tor st les of a age e t pra ti e a d o dis ipli e a d frugalit i resource use are justified ith the eed to ut dire t costs, raise labour discipline, do ore ith less a d appl pro e pri ate-se tor a age e t tools i the pu li se tor Hood, These factors did not just impact as single factors, but also worked in combination and impacted on each other in complex ways.
The authors conclude that national policy recommendations about changes in patient care are useful but not enough. Practitioners must also use the growing body of knowledge on health service change to select and tailor appropriate strategies at each organisational level, recognising that the combination of factors that enable development and adoption of new working practices in one setting may not apply in exactly that form elsewhere.
Skip to main content. Create new account Request new password. You are here 4c - Equality, Equity and Policy. Equality, Equity and Policy: Problems of Policy Implementation Theoretical framework Implementation is the process of turning policy into practice.
Problems of the bottom-up approach: Evaluating the effects of a policy becomes difficult Difficult to separate the influence of individuals and different levels of government on policy decisions and consequences.
Important for bureaucratic accountability Principal-agent theory: In each situation there will be a relationship between principals those who define policy and agents those who implement policy , which may include contracts or agreements that enable the principal to specify what is provided and check that this has been accomplished.
The amount of discretion given to the agents and the complexity of the principal-agent relationship are affected by: The nature of the policy problem- including scale of change required, size of affected group, simple vs.
The context or circumstances surrounding the problem- political and economic climate, technological change The organisation of the machinery required to implement the policy- number of formal and informal agencies, amount of skills and resources required. In practice Interpretation of policy directives requires the translation of knowledge on interventions into the particular local context. Lack of agreement that improvement was necessary Lack of clarity about the nature of the change and how the proposed new services fitted with existing and related services Issues around the context of the change: the idiosyncrasies of the local environment Poor fit with local organisational priorities Poor fit with local organisational structures e.
Source: Powell et al Our most popular content Public Health Textbook. Identifying and managing internal and external stakeholder interests. Management models and theories associated with motivation, leadership and change management, and their application to practical situations and problems. Dietary Reference Values DRVs , current dietary goals, recommendations, guidelines and the evidence for them.
Section 1: The theoretical perspectives and methods of enquiry of the sciences concerned with human behaviour. Inequalities in health e. The impact of political, economic, socio-cultural, environmental and other external influences.
0コメント