The Policy Implementation - Essay Example

Theories Paper THEORIES PAPER/ 303 Implementation embodies different meanings and forms in different cultures and institutional frameworks. This point is of special importance in an era in which the policies and processes of “government” have inevitably converted into those of “governance”. The literal meaning of implementation is executing, accomplishing, and completing a given task. According to the founding fathers of implementation, Pressman, and Wildavsky, policy implementation is the interaction between the establishment of goals and aims and the sheer actions committed to achieving them which may be in the form of statutes, court decisions, and even executive orders.

Their theory identifies high-level bureaucrats and politicians as the central actors in the process of policy implementation. The success of a policy is dependent on 2 factors: will and local capacity. Therefore, implementation can be vaguely broken into its constituent parts: problem, input, process, output, and outcome. It is that process in which decisions are made and actions are executed to put an authoritative ruling into effect (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1981). Research on policy implementation has been observed to have evolved through three different generations.

The research of the first generation was aimed at discerning how a single statute or decision was carried out either at multiple or single locations. Pressman and Wildavsy’s work is the quintessential example of the first generation of research. Their analysis distinguished and determined the problems that beset policy implementation. The first generation research was systematic research into the heart of policy implementation to understand primitive factors that facilitated and hindered policy implementation.

The second-generation research focused on describing and analyzing the connection between policy and practice. The second generation was also the time when “implementation models” were developed, which then lead to debates on the respective perspectives of policy implementation between the top-down and bottom-up models and the likes of such. There are many types of approaches for policy implementation: Synthesis Approach, Structural Approach, Procedural Approach, Behavioral Approach, Political Approach, and many more.

A Synthesis Approach is broken into 2 parts: the top-down and bottom-up approaches. Top-down and bottom-up are procedures of information processing. A top-down approach is the breaking down or dissection of a system to gain knowledge of constituent sub-systems. In a top-down approach, an overview of the system is designed detailing all the sub-systems until the entire mechanism is broken down into elements. In the bottom-up approach, the base elements are first elaborated in great detail, which is then linked together producing a complete system that is emergent of its constituent elements.

A top-down approach is useful when the stated or envisioned goals and objectives are clearer and the relevant policies are designed comprehensively in a single domain. Whereas, the bottom-up approach is useful when the objectives are not clearly known and policies are in a non-singular domain. After the weakness and strengths of these two approaches were compared, a new model emerged, the “synthesis approach”. An application of the Synthesis approach is depicted well in the advocacy coalition framework.

Advocacy coalition framework is coordination between multiple actors from different institutions laying down the groundwork for designing a policy with a common set of beliefs and purposes. A structural approach is more hierarchical than any other policy implementation approach; therefore it is used in representing bureaucratic organizations. For its external operations, the processes are similar to a vertical organization. However, for policy implementation, less emphasis is focused on hierarchy and more on flexibility and adjustment to changing situations and problems.

In order to have more information processed and decisions executed simultaneously using the structural approach less vertical organizational behavior is demanded. In a Procedural Approach, the necessary procedures and processes are well defined as they are immensely important in an organizational structure and the implementation process is heavily dependent on managerial and technical skills. These procedures are controlled, assigned a timeline, managed, coordinated, and monitored. These procedures define boundaries, control, logical limitations, and allocation of resources enhancing the probability of success with the right outcome and anticipating and minimizing risks.

(Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. 1981) Perhaps the most efficient implementation approach is the Synthesis approach with Top-down and Bottom-up approaches as its constituent elements. The advantages of the Top-down approach are the following: 1. there is early awareness of the end product and benefits are realized in the early phases. 2. Many manual processes can be replaced with early automation. 3. The organization has a broadened set of identity management skills and understanding during the early phase. 4. The development of custom adapters is not required in the early phases.

The advantages of the Bottom-down approach are the following: 1. Operation and maintenance resources are not as severely impacted should a policy fail to produce high-end products. 2. The organization utilizes a focused use of resources for the relevant policymaking. 3. The first implementation becomes an example for the other policies developed and implemented. This showcases the upper-hand Synthesis approach has over other policy implementation approaches.