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
