The implementation of public
policy
• Implementation Research
• A study of implementation is a study of change;
how change accurse, possibly, how it may be
induced. It is also a study of micro structure of
political life; how organizations outside and inside
the political system conduct their affairs and
interact with on another; what motivates them to
act differently (Jenkins, 1978:203). Policy making
doesn't come to and end once a policy is set our or
appeared.
Hence implementation:
• Is a process of putting policy into affect by public or private individuals.
• Is concerned with coordinating and managing the various elements, required to
achieve the desired goals.
• Determines the organizations ability to bring outputs in he context of stated
objectives.
• Emphasizes the organizations ability to carry out and achieve the stated objectives
with minimum of delays, costs, and problems.
• Is the achievement of goal and objectives set forth in prior policy.
• Involves process the situation and between the pronouncement of a policy and its
actual effect.
• Involves processes that involve operational flexibility, objective realization, an
objective realization continuum.
• In short, implementation should not be observed only in terms of putting policy
into effect, but also in terms of seeing what actually happens.
Element of Implementation
• Putting policy into action is a difficult exercise. Implementation
requires human and financial resources; time and skills and the
creation of necessary organization for achieving the desired effects.
Elements
• Barret S. and C. Fudge (policy and Action, 1981)
• Knowing what you want to know.
• The availability of the required resources;
• The ability to marshal and control the resources to achieve the
desired end, and
• If others are to carry out the tasks, communicating what is wanted
and controlling the performance.
• Implementation is not and ends of policy making but
continuation policy making by other means.
• Implementation involves (Sapru, R.K., 2004:151)
– Adequate personal and the financial resources to implement the
policy;
– The administrative capability to achieve the desired policy goal;
– Political and judicial support (from the legislative, executive and
judicial wings of the government;
• When policies give the intended results, executive is eager to
take the credit; when they fail, blame can be assigned to an
administrative process. So implementation is directly related
with the success/failure of government.
• Implementers
• After policy decision is made it is the action side of
the government that creates the operational areal
of function. As most the policies are not self-
executing, for implementation, it is necessary to
combine man, machine material and the agencies.
Policy implementation should bring positive
perspectives to its constitution and people. Various
actors are engaged in the implementation of public
policy whose roles are discussed below.
• Governmental Actors
• Legislature
• It is the highest body of peoples' representative for fulfilling the
responsibility in both framing and implementing policies. It has both
direct and indirect role. The direct role is assigned by giving the
members of legislature as head and ministers and indirect role is
managed by obliging own managerial and administrative function. It
subjects administrative action to examination and criticism and
authorizes taxation and expenditure and holds the executive to account
for its decisions. The main defect if this process is that the legislatures
are layman, emotional and busy and the body is temporary, divisive,
disunited and the machinery is fault finding. However correcting steps
can be taken by the appointment of experts, objectivity on the parts of
legislature.
• Judiciary
• Most laws are enforced through judicial actions. Judiciary
provides guidance to the execution of public policy and clears
up ambiguities by interpretation. Judiciary is more concerned
with the procedural qualities of executive. The major defects
of judiciary are delays, high costs, inability to intervene except
when writes are filed, limited jurisdiction over jurisdiction
over administration. The remedy can be achieved by prompt
attention to cases, ability to intervene and protect citizen's
right, avoidance of emotions and partiality, complete
objectivity and greater power of legal adjudication over the
administration.
• Executive
• There are tow types of executives; political and
administrative. Political executive carry out managerial
functions of the public policy namely planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting,
budgeting. On the other hand administrative executive
have permanent nature in the organizations and they
carry out operations, day to day job. It has to play a very
important role as perhaps a nine tenths of injustice in
our system flows from discretion and perhaps ten
percent from rules. (Davis cited in Sapru 1995)
Non State Actors
Political Parties
• They influence implementation through debates, discussions, appraisals,
education, and suggestion on socio economic reforms by participative efforts.
Pressure Group
• They devote for protecting, fostering, and advancing the group interest of their
members. They contribute facilitate of hinder the implementation. There are
basically four ways to influence the administration: petition, propaganda,
lobbying, judicial action and personal contacts. Powerful interest groups can
play very crucial role on pollution control, land and agricultural policy social
policy etc.
Citizens
• They are organized or unorganized people or the core material of the society.
They demonstrate their influence through election, political parties,
referendum, pressure group and mass media. Community Groups
Requirements of effective implementation
• Things have to be made to happen. If intended result is not seen with the target
group, It is to be understood that something wrong has happened. (George C.
Edwards III and Sharkansky, pp: 192-221):
Communication
• The first requirement of effective implementation is that responsible implementers
for carrying out a decision must know what they are supposed to do. Policy orders
for implementation must be delivered to appropriate personnel and they must be
clear consistent and accurate in materializing the aims of the decision makers.
Proper Transmission of decision
• Orders and decisions are to be carried out with proper communication system.
Ignorance of decisions and orders may result from the blockage of information.
The communication lines of the executive branch are more highly developed than
those of the judiciary since press coverage of court decision is not really of much
help in transmitting decisions and it very limited and non-expert. Lank of proper
transmission may result in inaction.
Clarity
• Instruction for implementation of decision should be explicit not vague. They
should be clearly stated when and how implementation is to be carried out.
While vagueness of policy can make changes in policy difficult, it can also
result in changes far greater than those anticipated. Vague decisions can
adversely affect implementation orders and that are too specific can also
hinder it. They may be relevant to at for fear of breaking the rules.
Consistency
• The problem of inconsistency arises when many authorities issue orders.
When there is more than one order, it is natural to be in consistent. It
becomes inconsistent when interested parties influence decisions itself.
Inconsistency and vagueness of order increases when directives are multiply
throughout different branches and levels of government. It happens, if there
are contradictory decisions in court cases.
Staff
• It is the most critical resources in implementing policy. A frequent problem
is the lack of staff adequate to the task in both numbers and training.
Limited manpower hinders implementation. There may be staffing
problem in new program or venture, which are designed to regulate
widely disposed or highly technical staff. There is rarely staff ready to
begin the implementation of a policy. It must be assembled. Sometimes
lack of fund also creates inadequate staff.
Information
• The staff must have a proper access to information about the issue at
hand. It is crucial for polities dealing with technical issues such as pollution
abatement. Uninformed staff cannot guarantee the designed results by
the decision makers. So while implementing policy, the staff also needs
information on the favor of the relevant organization.
Approaches of policy implementation
• Top-down Model or rational approach proponents- Derthick,
Pressman and Wildavasky.
• The proponents of top-down model view that implementation
requires a top-down system of control and communication and
resources to do so. The moral is that the decision maker should
not promise what they can not deliver. According to Majone and
Wildvasky, effective implementation requires a good chain of
command and the capacity to co-ordinate and control. This top-
down system of rational model was later developed by Andrew
Dan Shine & Christopher Hood. In his book 'Limits to
Administration' Christopher Hood sets out five conditions for
successful implementation.
• Ideal implementation is a product of unitary (army like)
organization with clear lines of authority (proper chain of
command).
• Norms would be enforced and objectives would be given.
• People would do what they are told to do.
• There should be perfect communication in and between units of
organization but the communication usually flows from the top.
• There would be no pressure of time.
• Further more top-down model emphasizes on keeping control
over the activities in the implementation process and
development of program control system minimizes conflict and
deviation from the goals set by the initial hypothesis.
• Limitations
• It focuses more on the definition of goals by the top
rather than the workers.
• It has favor of Taylorism and scientific management.
• It does not take to account the interaction of factors
and level in the implementation process.
• It tries to create a casual relationship between input
—process—output but implementation is not a
process in which 'X' follows 'Y' in a chain of
causation.
• Bottom-up model or approach
• R. Whetherly & M. Lipsky viewed the top-down model
lacked effective practice. If there has to be effective
implementation there should be the interaction between
the bureaucrats at the top and bureaucrats at the bottom
(street level). Bottom-up approach denies the focus of
control in implementation but emphasizes negotiation
and conscious building in implementation. In other words
there should be the close relationship between the policy
makers and implementers. There are two contexts or
environment in this process.
• The management skill and culture of organization involve in
implementation or public policy.
• The political environment in which they have to work.
• In short, bottom-up approach emphasizes on the discretionary
power of street level bureaucrats in decision making. Such
power can facilitate the implementation process as they can
make adjustment and changes as required by the situation.
• For example, teachers may use or develop technique of
teaching which actually can bring the intended outcomes
which may be different from what the government intended
or desired.
• Synthesis of top-down and bottom up model
• Sabatier and Mazmanian view that implementation and policy making are the one and the same
process. In other words policy implementation is the continuation of the policy making process.
Their work has synthesized both top-down and bottom-up approaches into a set of six conditions
which are essential for effective policy implementation.
• Clear and consistent objectives are needed for providing a standard of legal evaluation and
resources.
• Adequate causal theory is needed to ensure that policy has an accurate theory of how to bring about
change.
• Legally structured (legitimate) implementation structure.
• It is to ensure compliance from both implementers and for whom it is implemented committed and
skillful implementers who can apply discretion to realize or fulfill the policy objectives.
• Support from interest groups and legislature and executive.
• Make sure that change in the socio-economic conditions do not affect or undermine the support of
group.
• This modified model has the distinctive feature of combining the bottom-up approach by taking into
account the network which structures (give shape) implementation and top-down approach which
takes into account consideration within the system that includes the belief of policy elites and
external factors.
• Policy Action Model
• Policy action model is a behavioral model which assumes that policy implementation is
constrained by the world outside their organization and their own institutional context. Lewis
and Flynn in an examination urban and regional policy opine that implementation by individuals
is constrained by two conditions.
• By the world outside their organization
• And the institutional context within which they try to act.
• Lewis and Flynn model of implementation
• The world
• outside the
• organization
• The individuals
• within an
• organizatio
• The
• institutional
• context
