POAD8014: PUBLIC POLICY Policy Implementation Lionel Orchard

Pressman & Wildavsky on Implementation Case study of local implementation (Oakland, California) of federal economic development programs – late 1960s/early 1970s Problems, barriers & failures of implementation Key problem – ‘complexity of joint action’ – in two senses Too many actors Too many decision and veto points Basically a pessimistic, conservative view about policy implementation through central government Aaron Wildavsky

Key Concepts & Models Top-down Bottom-up Forward Mapping Backward Mapping

‘Top-Down’ Model – Successful Implementation Six conditions for success: 1. Clear and consistent objectives 2. An adequate causal theory built into the policy levers 3. The implementation process is legally structured to enhance compliance by implementing officials and target groups – effective veto points, sanctions and incentives 4. Committed and skilled implementing officials – given unavoidable discretion of these officials, commitment to the policy objectives and skill in using available resources were viewed as critical to successful implementation 5. Support of interest groups and political and bureaucratic agents 6. Changes in socio-economic conditions do not substantially undermine political support of the causal theory informing the policy

‘Bottom-Up’ Model – Lipsky on Street-Level Bureaucracy Not policy decisions, but an analysis of the multitude of actors who interact at the operational (local) level on a particular problem or issue Emphasis on the influence of front-line staff of field workers, and the inability of politicians and managers to control them Lipsky’s focus – human service professionals – teachers, policeman, nurses, doctors, social workers Key Issues Discretion Coping

Forward & Backward Mapping – the key difference The crucial difference – whether one chooses to rely primarily on formal devices of command and control or informal devices of delegation and discretion that disperse authority The importance of ‘reciprocal nature of authority relations’ in implementation formal authority travels from top to bottom of organizations informal authority that derives from expertise, skill and proximity to the essential tasks that an organization performs travels in the opposite direction Richard Elmore