0% found this document useful (0 votes)
2 views12 pages

Chapter 9 Policy Implementation Write Ups

Chapter 9 discusses policy implementation as a critical stage in the policy-making process, highlighting its challenges and the various definitions provided by scholars. It outlines three generations of policy implementation, focusing on the evolution of approaches from pessimistic views to more scientific methodologies. Key dimensions influencing successful policy implementation include policy formulation, social and political context, leadership, stakeholder involvement, planning, resource mobilization, and operational services.

Uploaded by

villalude1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
2 views12 pages

Chapter 9 Policy Implementation Write Ups

Chapter 9 discusses policy implementation as a critical stage in the policy-making process, highlighting its challenges and the various definitions provided by scholars. It outlines three generations of policy implementation, focusing on the evolution of approaches from pessimistic views to more scientific methodologies. Key dimensions influencing successful policy implementation include policy formulation, social and political context, leadership, stakeholder involvement, planning, resource mobilization, and operational services.

Uploaded by

villalude1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

Republic of the Philippines

SORSOGON STATE UNIVERSITY


Bulan Campus
Bulan Sorsogon

CHAPTER 9: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

WHAT IS POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

● The policy implementation stage is considered as the next logical step


in the policy making process after the policy adoption phase in the
government. It is seen as one of the most challenging undertakings
where deviations and failures normally occur in the course of
producing an effective public policy.
● In 1999, Clarke E. Cocharan, Lawrence C. Mayer, TR Carr and N.
Joseph Cayer defined the concept of policy implementation as the
process where monies are spent, laws are enforced, employees are
hired, and plans of action are formulated
● There also different scholars who gave their own definition of policy
implementation. They are the following:

POLICY SCHOLAR DEFINITION

JEFFREY PRESSMAN and AARON Policy implementation means to carry


WILDAVSKY out, accomplish, fulfill, produce, and
complete. Such description relates the
concept of policy implementation to an
action-oriented undertaking or activity
in the government.

DONALD VAN METER and CARL Policy Implementation refers to a


VAN HORN process which encompasses the actions
of public or private individuals – or
groups in some instances – that are
directed at the achievement of
objectives set forth in prior policy
decisions.

PAUL SABATIER and DANIEL Policy Implementation refers to the


MAZMANIAN process of carrying out a basic, policy
decision, usually made in a statue
although also possible through
important executive orders or court
decisions.

MERILEE S. GRINDLE Policy implementation is an on-going


process of decision making by a variety
of actors, the ultimate outcome of
which is determined by the content of
the program being pursued and by the
interaction of the decision makers
within a given politico-administrative
context.

WALTER WILLIAMS Policy Implementation refers to the


stage between a decision and
operations. It it the hard next step after
the decision, involving efforts to put in
place what has been decided,

THREE GENERATIONS OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

● After Harold D. Lasswell articulated the discipline of policy science in 1951,


the study of policy implementation started to receive the full complement
and attention of some of the most revered scholars of the field of public
policy 20 years later.

FIRST GENERATION OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

● The first generation of policy implementation started in 1970 and gave the
policy community another interesting subject that is worthy of intellectual
discussion.
● It focuses on the problems that kept on affecting the implementation of
public policies
● Described by Helga Pulzi and Oilver Treib as having some “pessimistic
understones”. It started in the early 70s and dominated the discussion about
the implementation of public policies.
● The “pessimistic undertones” according to Pulzi and Treib were trumpeted
through policies of the prevailing period.

SECOND GENERATION OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

● It emerged in 1980 and continued the initial achievements of the first


generation.
● Its focus, however, was more specific than the first generation as the period
witnessed the opposition between the two approaches to policy
implementation – the proverbial “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches.
● It was made more sophisticated as it was backed up by notable theoretical
precepts – “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches according to Peter de
Leon and Linda de Leon (2002)
● It witnessed the rise of two of the most prominent approaches to policy
implementation which were never synthesized by their respective
proponents during their development.

THIRD GENERATION OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

● Appeared in 1990 and provided the study of policy implementation with a


different dimension compared to other generations.
● Its focus revolved around the initiative of synthesizing the “top down” and
“bottom up” approaches to policy implementation and was regarded by it
proponents as more scientific than others.
● It’s being scientific was manifested through studies that tested a number of
hypotheses according to Helga Pulzi and Oilver Treib (2007)
● Malcolm Goggin described it as being more scientific than the first and
second generations.
● It engaged itself with a number of scientific research concentrating not just
on case studies but testing several hypotheses through sophisticated
research designs.

APPROACHES TO POLICY ADMINISTRATION


Different stakeholders may have divergent perspectives on what constitutes
successful policy implementation (Matland 1995:150). The top-down approach is
also known as the rational or systems model. A top-down approach emphasises the
faithfulness with which implementation adheres to the policymakers’ intentions
(Sabatier 1986:28). This approach is characterised by its hierarchical and control
themes. The aim is to improve performance, thus to achieve the institution’s goals.
The policy is an independent variable, a starting point and a benchmark which can
and should be controlled by sanctions (Jordan 1995:6; Brynard 2007:37).
The bottom-up approach was a critique of the top-down approach. Conversely, a
bottom-up approach argues for local implementers to adapt policy strategies to
meet local needs and concerns (Palumbo, Maynard-Moody & Wright 1984:53;
Elmore 1985:63;
Maynard-Moody, Musheno & Palumbo 1990:837). Implementers of this approach,
also known as street-level bureaucrats (Brodkin 2000:31), sought to achieve
greater allegiance between policy-making and policy delivery. The policy is
dependent upon the interaction among actors in the local sphere. The aim is to
explain what actually happens when policies are implemented. These two
perspectives can result in very different strategies and outcomes (Brynard
2007:38).

DIMENSIONS OF POLICY ADMINISTRATION


Several theories exist on the key components of policy implementation and the
ways in which to judge successful implementation. This article is based on
organized themes, influential factors, and components of policy development and
implementation to assist policymakers, programme managers, and other
stakeholders to translate policies into action.
The article locates the dimensions of policy implementation within the wider policy
literature and describes why each component of the dimension is important for
effective policy implementation. The framework outlines the following seven
dimensions that influence policy implementation (Bhuyan et al. 2010:5):

● The Policy, Its Formulation, And Dissemination

The starting point for a policy implementation assessment is, naturally, the policy
itself. The policy’s content, formulation process, and extent of its dissemination
influence whether the necessary content is in place to support effective
implementation. Policy content should clearly frame the underlying problem area,
the policy’s goals and objectives, and the members of society to be benefited, along
with the broad actions and strategies to address the problem (Nakamura &
Smallwood 1980:45; Walt & Gilson 1994:361; Hardee, Feranil, Boezwinkle & Clark
2004:18). Other crucial elements include time horizons, rationale, and clarity of
purpose. Unclear or confusing policy objectives or actions may be one reason why
some policies are not implemented (Calista 1994:32). The formulation process is
important. Policy formulation is the part of the process during which proposed
actions are articulated, debated, and drafted into language for a law or other
policy statements. Policy formulation includes setting goals and outcomes of the
policy or policies (Isaacs & Irvin 1991:42; Health Canada 2003:11). The goals and
objectives may be general or specific, but should articulate the relevant activities
and indicators by which they will be achieved and measured. The goals of a policy
could include, for example, the creation of more employment opportunities,
improved health status, or increased access to health services. Policy outcomes
could include ensuring access to anti-retroviral treatment (ARV) for HIV in the
workplace or access to emergency obstetric care for pregnant women. Goals and
outcomes can be assessed through a number of lenses, including those of gender
and equity considerations (Bhuyan et al. 2010:5). A policy designed without
meaningful stakeholder engagement may be more difficult to implement because it
neither considers the needs of nor engenders buy-in and ownership from those
who will implement or benefit from the policy (Klein & Knight 2005:245).
Moreover, policies that result in new programmes, services, or operational
guidelines need to be disseminated and understood by those people responsible for
implementing and using it (Brinkerhoff & Crosby 2002:43). If the members of
society are going to access services or benefits from a new policy, they must also
be made aware of any new provisions and programmes. Thus, for a policy to
facilitate effective implementation, it should address the underlying problem
through appropriate policy action; be based on strong stakeholder involvement;
and be followed by dissemination to key audiences (Bhuyan et al. 2010:5).

● Social, Political, And Economic Context

Policy formulation and implementation cannot be removed from the context in


which it takes place. Countries have different political systems and forms of
government, in addition to various social, cultural, and economic systems and
levels of development. For example, a democratic and authoritarian government
will apply different methods of policy-making and implementation. The social,
political, and economic contexts influence the policies developed and how those
policies are put into practice (Grindle & Thomas 1991:33; Hardee et al. 2004:18).
Contextual and environmental factors can provide both opportunities and
constraints for effective policy implementation (Calista 1994:119). Policy-making
differs, depending on whether the political situation is stable and the government
is functioning according to business as usual, or whether a crisis is precipitating
rapid policy change (Thomas & Grindle 1994:55). Significantly, Kingdon
(1984:109) defines politics as swings in national mood, vagaries of public opinion,
election results, changes in administration, shifts in partisan or ideological
distributions, and interest group pressure. The international political context is
also important in the national policy process. These forces exist at multiple levels
(for example, international, national and local) and change over time. For example,
policies are often formulated within a multi-year timeframe. Thus, achieving policy
goals means that implementation must proceed through inevitable changes in
political regimes, governmental structures, economic conditions, and social
environments. As the political economy changes, some policy contexts also change,
in turn affecting which actors are involved, which policy decisions are made, and
what processes take place at various levels, including the operational and service
delivery levels (Walt & Gilson 1994:362; Bhuyan et al. 2010:5). Social settings and
cultural practices can vary, not only among countries but also within countries,
affecting all components of the policy process.

● Leadership For Policy Implementation

Leadership is essential for effective policy implementation (Bryson & Crosby


2005:36). High-level actors and influential leaders can communicate about the
policy’s rationale and mechanisms, and champion the policy to ensure
implementation, which requires coordination and co-operation (Bhuyan 2005:27).
The level of consensus among leaders and other policy stakeholders on the content
of a policy and its need for implementation will affect the degree and timing of its
implementation (Thomas & Grindle 1990:1164). However, the individuals or
groups that led policy formulation might not follow up its implementation, or
different groups might be responsible for carrying out policy directives (Nakamura
& Smallwood 1980:58). For example, formulating national policies is in the domain
of national government officials, but implementation will likely be the
responsibility of municipal officials and structures, particularly in the context of
decentralisation (Stover & Johnston 1999:17).

● Stakeholder Involvement in Policy Implementation

Successful policy processes require democratic public participation; where policy


makers and the public continually engage in dialogue, examine the consequences
for fundamental values, as well as sharing burdens and benefits. In the national
sphere, different stakeholders should be involved in order to reduce political
pressures on the government. Policy stakeholders include groups or individuals
responsible for implementation, people who may be positively or negatively
affected by the policy’s implementation (or lack of implementation), and officials
and professionals accountable for achieving policy goals. This approach should
facilitate the creation of sensitive governance infrastructure between governments
and other stakeholders to create an active civil society (Policy Project 1999:25;
Kuye 2004:463; Umar & Kuye 2006:815). Stakeholder participation in policy
implementation is influenced by a range of factors, including the context, the
policy content and stakeholders’ needs and resources, level of knowledge of the
policy, and their relative power and influence (Altman & Petkus 1994; Walt &
Gilson 1994; Thomas 1995; and Bressers 2004). The involvement of stakeholders in
implementation can be challenging because it often requires joint actions in
response to new partnerships that did not exist previously (Calista 1994:119). In
some cases, stakeholder groups and organisations that may be unrelated, or are
not always committed to the same outcomes, must reach agreement to support
implementation. Stakeholders may also enter the fray in ways not planned by the
policy. As policy implementation unfolds, additional stakeholders may find
themselves being affected by the changes and may also seeks to insert themselves
into the process (Bhuyan et al. 2010:5). The successful engagement of different
groups within society, civil society and the private sector is crucial to
implementation, because each sector contributes unique perspectives, skills and
resources (Altman & Petkus 1994:24; Bryson 1988:67). For example, civil society
groups are wellsuited to assist in adapting policy strategies to reach underserved
communities, such as the poor, marginalised groups, and rural populations. They
can also play a role in monitoring implementation and advocating specific
strategies to improve implementation, serving as watchdogs to ensure that funding
is allocated and appropriate activities are carried out. The private sector’s
involvement can catalyse improved quality of care and efficient logistics systems,
as well as complement public sector services (Bhuyan et al. 2010:8).

● Implementation Planning and Resource Mobilisation

Effective implementation requires planning and the mobilisation of sufficient


resources. The difficult decisions that may have been avoided when policies were
drafted must be resolved as plans and guidelines are developed (Stover & Johnston
1999:23). Strong strategic action plans, work plans, budgets, and operational
directives are often the missing links between policy formulation and actual
implementation. International experiences illustrate that guidance for
implementation can range from a precise blueprint to rather vague exhortations
(Nakamura & Smallwood 1980:31). Implementation is a challenging process, even
when written guidelines on goals, strategies, roles and responsibilities, and a
monitoring framework are provided. It is even more challenging in the absence of
written guidance and clear action plans. In the implementation process, political,
financial, managerial and technical resources are needed. Therefore, throughout
the implementation process it is important to guard Volume 5 number 2 •
September 2012 43 against those opposing the policy change and blocking access
to these required resources. The process confirms the fact that sometimes the
policy outcome is very different from what the planners conceived due to the
process of change and conflict occurring in the implementation stage (Brynard
2007:38). Once strategies are determined, implementation organisations need to
estimate and mobilise the financial, human, and material resources required to
implement the policy effectively. Because new policies often involve new
strategies, organisations may be required to modify or even abandon old practices
and undertake new activities. In many cases, this requires implementers to be
trained in the content of the policies and required skills. For example, if a policy
calls for expanding the pool of healthcare providers who can perform family
planning services, such as the insertion of intra-uterine devices, then nurses or
other personnel will need appropriate training if the policy is to achieve its goal.
The degree of change that organisations face and their readiness for change can
vary greatly. Adapting to such change may be challenging for some implementing
organisations, and implementation planning may not take this into account
(Brinkerhoff & Crosby 2002:43; Klein & Knight 2005:245). Longstanding norms
and socio-cultural factors may affect the capacity of governments and
organisations to act; thus, it is crucial to address these factors when planning for
policy implementation (Humanist Committee on Human Rights 2006:11; Bhuyan et
al. 2010:8).

● Operations And Services

The process of implementing a new policy - particularly those policies that require
significant training, learning, and changes within or among organisations, can be
time-consuming and expensive. Delays and costs can affect operations and services
(Calista 1994:120; Klein & Knight 2005:246). Policy implementation at the
operational and service levels also involves co-ordination with other organisations
– including those that may have no previous experience working together, which
may have either positive or a negative effect on service delivery (Calista 1994:120;
Brinkerhoff & Crosby 2002:44). In addition, a one-size fits all approach to
implementation will most likely not meet the varied needs of different target
populations and clients of services in the country. Thus, the degree of flexibility to
adapt policy strategies affects the ability of service providers and other
stakeholders to respond to local needs or specific subgroups of the population
covered by the policy (Altman & Petkus 1994:42). Implementation, therefore,
involves adapting the ideal plan to local conditions, organisational dynamics, and
programmatic uncertainties. This process is often uneven and, in the end, actual
programmes and services often turn out to be different from the original plans
(W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2004:24; Bhuyan et al. 2010:9). Unforeseen operational
barriers arising from implementing a policy may also pose challenges that have to
be overcome before the policy can produce the intended improvements in access
and quality to service delivery (Cross, Hardee & Jewell 2001:17).

● Feedback On Progress and Results

Policies typically include monitoring and reporting requirements, which vary in


terms of clarity and quality. Some policies also designate an entity to be
responsible for monitoring often a government agency or an official body
comprising government and/or non-governmental representatives. Other groups
from civil society, the private sector, media or public sector may also be involved,
either officially or due to their own initiative, in monitoring the policy
implementation process. Monitoring and evaluation should ensure accountability,
improved performance and encouragement to do more. It is important that the
different stakeholders involved in the process should be streamlined and a
successful communication effort should be launched. In addition, an agreed–upon
set of indicators and feedback system to track progress towards the achievement
of results facilitates a comprehensive and measurable process. It is also important
to consider the perspectives of beneficiaries or clients of services covered by the
policy. By receiving feedback and using information on how policy implementation
progresses, policymakers and implementers will be in a better position to assess
interim achievements, make necessary course corrections, and consider
themselves as part of a larger effort (W.K. Kellogg 2004:33; USAID 2001:13;
Bhuyan et al. 2010; Kuye 2010:279, Brynard 2011:157). Table 1 below provides a
summary of the seven dimensions of policy implementation.

WHO IMPLEMENTS THE POLICY?


Policy implementation is dominated by the executive department where
administrative agencies.
These administrative agencies according to William G. Howell and David E. Lewis
(2002) are designed by Congress to help the government in the implementation of
the different public policies.
The executive of public policies according to Goodnow is performed officially by
the different government agencies which can be decided into three (3) distinct
authorities
1. Judicial authority
2. Public policy
3. Administrative authority

KEY ACTOR

● Member of Congress

● Judicial Department

● Pressure groups

● Community Organization

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
Administrative organization is one of the guiding processes for organizing
resources at work efficiently, aiming directly at directing the human element to
carry out administrative tasks in order to achieve the desired results and goals in
the least time and the least possible efforts, and at low costs.
The different administrative agencies of the government being the primary
institution that leads the implementation of the most public policies. These
administrative agencies although related in some respect actually differ in many
ways when subjected to a deeper analysis.

FOURTH BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT


1. Cabinet department
2. Independent executive agencies
3. Independent regulatory agencies
4. Government corporations

WHAT IS IMPLEMENTATION?
- Enactment alone doesn’t ensure that a policy will be successful. Additional steps
may be needed to implement the policy in a way that can increase the likelihood
the policy will achieve its intended outcomes.

WHAT IS IMPLEMENTATION?
The implementing organization and stakeholders may:
• Educate the people or organizations affected by the new policy
• Change pre-existing administrative operations and systems (or create new
ones)
• Monitor and/or enforce the policy as needed

ISSUES IN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION


Gunn (1978 in Hunter 2003) has identified ten common barriers to effective health
policy
implementation:
• The circumstances external to the implementing agency impose crippling
constraints
• Lack of adequate time and sufficient resources
• The required combination of resources is not available
• The policy to be implemented is not based on a valid theory of cause and
effect
• The relationship between cause and effect is indirect and there are multiple
intervening links
• Dependency relationships are multiple
• There is a poor understanding of, and disagreement on, objectives
• Tasks are not fully specified in correct sequence
• There is imperfect communication and coordination
• Those in authority are unable to demand or obtain perfect compliance

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PHILIPPINES


• The process of policy implementation in the Philippines is amply describe by
Paul Sabatier and Daniel Mazmanian (1980) in their seminal paper
• The process of policy implementation commences when the difference policy
makers reached the essential policy decision
• The practice of policy implementation in the Philippines-both at the national
and local levels-is imbued with the long-standing principle of participatory
democracy in the government
• Policy implementation in the Philippines is the principal responsibility of the
executive department through its several administrative

GROUP MEMBERS

● Maria Monica Gaton

● Arlette Gepiga
● Diana Rose Olaso

● Chastine Louise Canete

● Alfie Bueno

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy