Policy Implementation Flashcards
3 Generations of policy implementation
- first generation (1970s), 2. Second generation (1970s-1980s), 3. Third Generation (Late 1980s onward)
Second generation (1970s-1980s)
o Scholars tried to develop theories about how implementation works.
o Two main views emerged:
1. Top-down approach: Focus on central authorities, laws, rules, and hierarchies. Policy is viewed as something created at the top and rolled out down the chain of command.
2. Bottom-up approach: Looks at local officials and street-level bureaucrats (like social workers, police officers, teachers). These everyday actors interpret policies in their own contexts, which can shape or even change the policy on the ground
Third Generation (Late 1980s onward)
o Researchers tried to combine the top-down and bottom-up ideas, believing both are important for successful implementation.
o They aimed to be more “scientific” by setting clear hypotheses about how and why certain policies do or do not work, and then testing these with data.
o While this was the goal, relatively few studies have actually followed through with rigorous testing.
3 main approaches to policy implementation
Top-down models, bottom-up models, hybrid theories
Top-down model
o Assume that central decision-makers (like governments or top agencies) clearly define policy goals.
o Emphasize hierarchical control: once the policy is made “at the top,” it is passed “down” to implementers (local bureaucrats, agencies) who should follow it as closely as possible.
Bottom-up models
o Argue that street-level bureaucrats (e.g., teachers, social workers, police) and local agencies are the key to policy delivery.
o Claim that actual implementation occurs in networks of people on the ground who negotiate, adapt, and interpret policies in their everyday work.
hybrid theories
o Attempt to bridge the differences between top-down and bottom-up perspectives.
o Combine elements of both approaches and often include other factors (like different policy types, or broader social and economic conditions).
Well-known top-down studies
o Pressman and Wildavsky (1973):
Viewed policy as a rational process—goals set at the top, carried out at the bottom.
Showed how multiple “clearance points” (i.e., many involved agencies) make smooth implementation difficult.
o Van Meter and Van Horn (1975):
Outlined six variables (like organizational capacity and consensus on goals) that affect whether outcomes match central objectives.
o Bardach (1977):
Called implementation “the Implementation Game.” Believed policy makers can improve results by planning how the “game” will be played among implementers.
o Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979, 1980; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983):
Proposed six conditions for “effective implementation,” focusing on things like clear goals, valid causal theory, and committed officials.
examples of top-down approach
National Action plan, Motorway and national highway projects, Higher education commission policies, BISP, Polio eradication drives (federal strategy mandate)
Key bottom up scholars
o Lipsky (1971, 1980):
Coined the term “street-level bureaucrats.”
Showed how local officials have discretion (freedom to decide on the spot) which shapes final outcomes.
o Elmore (1980):
Proposed “backward mapping”: Instead of starting with central goals, start with a problem at the ground level and see how local agencies handle it.
o Hjern (1982) and colleagues:
Developed a network approach, showing that multiple agencies and actors collaborate in implementation.
Recommended identifying all local players first (the “bottom”), then mapping how they solve problems.
Examples of bottom-up approach
Patwari system, street-level policing and thana culture, primary school teaching (teacher discretion), community level dispute resolution jigras
scholars of hybrid approach
o Elmore (1985) combined “forward mapping” (start at top-level goals and resources) and “backward mapping” (start at the problem in the field).
o Sabatier (1986a) shifted from a strict top-down approach to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, which sees long-term policy change through coalitions of actors who learn and adapt over time.
o Majone and Wildavsky (1978) emphasized incremental learning and constant policy reshaping during implementation.
o Goggin et al. (1990) developed a communicative model that recognizes both top-level decisions and negotiations with state or local implementers.
o Scharpf (1978) introduced policy networks, showing that policy typically involves many interdependent actors (ministries, private groups, local agencies).
o Ripley and Franklin (1982), Windhoff-Héritier (1980) noted that policy type matters (distributive vs. redistributive vs. regulatory) for how it’s carried out.
examples of hybrid models
Covid-19 response. 18th amendment and devolution of powers, ehsaas program, environmental smog control in punjab
Key challenges in policy implementation
Unclear or Conflicting Policy Objectives
Resource Constraints
Bureaucratic Fragmentation and Inertia
Corruption and Patronage Networks
Political Instability and Frequent Leadership Changes
Socio-Cultural and Religious Resistance
Weak Coordination Among Implementing Agencies
Capacity Gaps and Skill Deficits
. Overambitious Timelines and Unrealistic Targets
Lack of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Mechanisms
Key Functions of Public Administration in Policy Implementation
Policy execution, service delivery, regulatory enforcement, resource allocation and management, advisory role
Importance of bureacracy in pakistan
Administrative continuity, socioeconomic development, conflicts and crisis management, institutional reforms,
Negative influence of bureaucrats on policy implementation
Corruption and rent seeking, execessive red tape, politicization and favouritism, resistance to change, capacity deficits
Implications of the negative influence of bureacrats on policy implementation
Weakened public trust, wasted resources, policy failure
Strategies for mitigating negative influences
Transparent and merit-based recruitment, accountability mechanisms, capacity building and professional training, digital governance and automation, decentralization and empowering local bodies
Strategies for effective implementation of policies
Clear policy goals and coherent designs, strong institutional mechanisms, innovative use of technology and e-governance, capacity building and human resource development, robust monitoring, evaluation, and feedback, community engagement and local ownership, securing long-term sustainability
What is policy evaluation?
In public policy, evaluation is a systematic way to find out how well a policy or program is working (looking at its processes and its results).
different types of evaluation
Ex-ante evaluation, Ongoing (or accompanying) evaluation, Monitoring, Ex-post evaluation, Meta-evaluation,
What is ex-ante evaluation?
Ex-ante evaluation: Done before a decision or policy is finalized to anticipate potential outcomes and compare policy alternatives.
What is ongoing (or accompanying) evaluation?
Ongoing (or accompanying) evaluation: Done while a policy is being implemented. Its job is to provide feedback in time to make mid-course corrections.
what is monitoring?
A continuous, more descriptive approach using indicators (like performance indicators in New Public Management) to track progress.
What is ex-post evaluation?
The classical approach; done after a policy has been completed to see if it met its goals, understand any unintended results, and figure out if the policy itself was the real cause of those changes.
What is Meta-evaluation?
Looks at an existing evaluation’s methods or findings (a “study of a study”) to check whether it meets standards or to synthesize multiple evaluation results.
What is quasi-evaluation?
A simpler form of evaluation that concentrates on gathering and describing data, rather than deeply explaining or proving causes. This can build trust between evaluators and policymakers.
What is internal evaluation?
Internal: An organization evaluates itself (self-evaluation), sometimes using formal tools like performance indicators.
What is external evaluation?
Outsiders—like parliament, courts of audit, or prime minister’s offices—initiate and fund the evaluation. Often, they hire independent research institutes because in-depth evaluation requires social science skills
First wave of policy evaluation
Many governments were building advanced welfare states, and they believed planning, information, and evaluation would help them govern more effectively.
Evaluation was seen as part of a policy cycle (making policy, implementing it, then using evaluation results to adjust or even end policies).
Social experiments were big, especially in the U.S. with programs like the “War on Poverty.” In Europe, countries like Sweden, Germany, and the UK were at the forefront.
Evaluators generally supported reform and aimed to improve policy results—so they were working closely with government in a positive, “we’re all reformers” spirit.
Second wave of policy evaluation
After the 1973 oil crisis, economies slowed, and governments faced financial problems.
Policy emphasis shifted from expanding welfare programs to reducing costs and tightening budgets.
Evaluations focused on whether programs were worth the money and how to cut expenses.
More countries (like the Netherlands) expanded their evaluation systems to look at cost-efficiency.
What is third-wave of evaluation?
The spread of New Public Management (NPM) made evaluation an internal management tool, using performance indicators, cost-accounting, etc.
Large-scale evaluations also gained prominence. For example, the EU’s big “PISA” study on education systems brought public and political attention to the power of evaluation.
In the European Union, structural fund spending must be evaluated in every five-year cycle, spurring many countries (like Italy) to adopt or improve evaluation practices.
Now, across many countries, policy evaluation has become widely accepted as a key method for learning what works, what doesn’t, and how to improve governance.
What is formative evaluation?
Improve and refine the program as it proceeds. Provide immediate feedback for adjustments.
What is summative policy evaluation?
Judge overall success or effectiveness of the program. Determine if outcomes/impacts meet objectives.
What are feedback loops?
Feedback loops are mechanisms through which information about policy outcomes is collected and transmitted back to decision-makers, allowing them to adjust, refine, or terminate policies. A feedback loop involves continuous data collection, analysis, and reporting on how effectively a policy or program meets its objectives. This information is then used to improve or redesign the original policy intervention.
What is Closed-loop systems?
Closed-loop systems are highly responsive: feedback is systematically incorporated into policy revisions at regular intervals
What is open-loop systems?
Open-loop systems may collect information but do not necessarily use it to make structured changes, often resulting in policy inertia or missed opportunities for improvement.
The importance of
feedback loops in
policy-making
Adaptive Governance, Resource Optimization, Evidence-Based Policy, Conflict and Risk Management.
