1. POAD8014: PUBLIC POLICY Policy Implementation Lionel Orchard

2. 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

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

4. ‘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

5. ‘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

6. 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