Public Policy (4): Implementation

glosnapgs
4天前
讀畢需時 2 分鐘

Even when policies are not simply symbolic, it is important to recognise that the phenomena upon which action must be based are products of negotiation and compromise. As Barrett and Hill (1981) argue, many policies implementation:

represent compromises between conflicting values;
involve compromises with key interests within the implementation structure;
involve compromises with key interests upon whom implementation will have an impact;
are framed without attention being given to the way in which underlying forces (particularly economic ones) will undermine them (Barrett and Hill, 1981).

Differences between the “Top-down” and “Bottom-up” Visions of Policy Implementation

Implementation Approach	“Top-down” Vision	“Bottom-up” Vision
Starting point of analysis	Decisions taken by political and administrative authorities (laws, regulations, action plans)	Activities of actors participating to the implementation network at local level (actors' network)
Process for identifying the main actors	From the top and public sector down to the bottom and private sector	From the bottom ('street-level') to the top with simultaneous consideration of public and private actors
Criteria for evaluating the quality of policy implementation	• Regularity (conformity, legality) of implementation procedure • Effectiveness: extent of realisation of the formal policy objectives	• No a priori clearly defined evaluation criteria • Level of participation of actors involved • Degree of conflict in implementation
Basic question (for the conduct of public policies)	Which implementation modes (structures and procedures) must be adopted to ensure optimum possible achievement of official objectives?	Which interactions between the public and private actors of a policy network should be considered during implementation so that it will be accepted?

Matland's Analysis of the Impact of Conflict and Ambiguity upon Implementation

It was suggested that the use of “ambiguity” and “conflict” to typify different policy issues is helpful. Ambiguity tends to make the delegation of discretion likely. In the absence of conflicting goals, experimentation will be feasible. Conflict, on the other hand, implies a desire to control. Actors claiming hierarchical rights will seek to assert them, and this will be particularly evident in the absence of consensus. If low ambiguity is involved then rules will be formulated.