CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.4 Implementation of Policies Using the Top - down and Bottom - up Approach
Implementing a policy is one of the more significant steps in the process of public policy because it enables the initiated policy to bring about concrete results, and part of the success or failure of public policy lies in the implementation.
Policies are implemented based on two approaches that are widely used: a top- down approach and a bottom-up approach. Each approach is unique for explaining different implementations. The top-down approach emphasizes those involving policies at the top level, namely the government or people authorized to implement policy, while the bottom-up approach focuses on practitioners and those concerning bottom policies, e.g. civil servants, people comprising benefiting groups or driving groups. Each approach has its own strengths and limitations, as detailed in the following:
2.4.1 Top-down Approach
In general, public policies are created by government decisions (Huwlett, Ramesh, & Anthony, 2009; Sabatier, 1986). As a result, policy goals follow government expectations (Smith, as cited in Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975) in order to solve problems or abide by policies proposed prior to taking office. Based on this
approach, to consider the success of policy implementation, the policy and control of policy implementation by policy makers must be more stressed than with bottom- level practitioners (Voradej Chandarasorn, 2009). The presupposition (Calista, as cited in Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, 2006) is the following:
1) Institutions or organizations determine the effectiveness of structures of policy implementation.
2) Appropriate legislation and adequate promotion of practitioners are required.
3) Suitable legal regulations are required to implement policies in accordance with the objectives.
4) Despite high skills and commitments, practitioners may aim for their own benefit.
5) Incentives must be provided to make practitioners cooperate in implementing policies.
6) A review and changes should be emphasized in line with changing situations.
Concerning the top-down approach, government is the policymaker who creates policies and supervises their implementation to achieve the set goals (Gun, as cited in Elmore, 1979; Ham & Hill, 1984, p. 99). It seems as if public policies are the government’s property (Ham & Hill, 1984). Practitioners must follow the direction determined by the government. The government and policymakers can also intervene in the implementation at any time. They use the budget as a tool to intervene and control implementation. For example, if practitioners do not follow the government’s direction, the government may cut the budget or change from one agency (Ham &
Hill, 1984) to another agency that can be more controlled by the government. This shows that the government is on the top level of policy implementation and has a great deal of power in implementing policy.
To implement policies by following this approach, the following essentials are needed (Hood, as cited in Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, 2006):
1) The administration system must be united.
2) Traditions/regulations must have the same patterns and their objectives must be clear.
3) Administration must be obeyed or completely controlled.
4) Communication and coordination between agencies must be complete.
5) There is no time pressure to successfully implement policies.
Sabatier (1986) described the following steps of top-down policy implementation:
1) Make a decision by officials.
2) Designate policy practitioners and target groups.
3) Determine policy objectives or goals, including their achievement.
4) Identify key factors affecting the policy outcomes.
5) Specify the models of policy evaluation.
It can be concluded that the top-down approach places importance on the government and higher position officials. According to this approach, the government who involves the implementation of policy, plays a very large role. Sabatier (1986, p. 34) mentioned that over-emphasizing becomes a restriction because they can focus too much on the government and top-level actors. In fact, the success of policy implementation does not rely on the arrangement or supervision, but on cooperation from practitioners. The role of bottom-level practitioners is therefore ignored, although they are key players because they have experience in implementing policies and often make decisions if such policies face any problems. Thus, negligence of practitioners is another limitation of this approach. In addition, other non- governmental actors may be regarded as obstacles to implementing policies (Hjern &
Hull; Elmore, as cited in Sabatier, 1986, p. 30). However, top-down policies are formulated and guided by the center of power, which means the government helps the policy to be practiced lawfully and implemented quickly. Overall, most public policies in Thailand are top-down policies where the major players in formulating said policies are the government.
Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) summarized the following obstacles to implementing policies using the top-down approach.
1) Policy and objective standard: policies must be complete and objectives must be clear. In reality, policies may not be complete from the beginning and policy objectives can be difficult to be made clear.
2) Policy resources: sufficient resources must be made available to implement policies, in terms of personnel, budget, time, technology, etc. In practice, there may be limitations which could obstruct the implementation.
3) Organizational communication and regulation enforcement must be unique and distinctive. As policy implementation usually involves a large number of agencies, organizational communication may be difficult, lack unity and be an obstacle to implementation.
4) The agencies that implement policies must be ready and understand those policies, because if they do not have readiness or misunderstand them, the implementation may be inefficient.
5) Economic, political and social conditions and limitations pose a major threat to the implementation, because if one or more of these three factors do not contribute to the practice, which is sometimes beyond their control, this may lead to inefficient implementation.
6) The design and determination of policy practitioners: if the design of policies is not consistent with a top-down approach, or those involved at the top cannot control operational units, this may obstruct the implementation.
As a result of the above restrictions of the top-down approach, certain scholars have switched to pay more attention to a bottom-up approach. Elmore (1979, pp. 603- 604) stated that neither success nor failure in implementing polices can be explained by the intention or the formulation of directions of policy makers, because there are other groups influencing the success or failure of policies, especially civil servants as the practitioners at the bottom level, etc.
2.4.2 Bottom-up Approach
The bottom-up approach pays attention to bottom-level practitioners, e.g. civil servants who adopt policies to implement and achieve specified goals, and may include target groups of policies that must follow policies that are specified by the State. Thus, according to this approach, bottom-level practitioners and target groups of policies play as important a role as policymakers or top-level practitioners. It may be stated that whether policies can meet the goals or not depends on how the practitioners make the practice successful. It is also an approach that provides an
opportunity to bottom-level personnel to have a role in making decisions and judging policy implementation. Elmore (1979) is of the view that neither success nor failure of policy implementation can be described by the intention or the formulation of directions, because there are still other groups of people who influence the success or failure of policies, in particular civil servants as the adopters of policy implementation at the bottom level. Based on this approach, the government is merely a broad policymaker.
It may be stated that this approach is opposite to the top-down approach, i.e.
the bottom-up approach stresses street-level bureaucrats as policy practitioners and
“those who influence the success in implementing policies rather than the control from the top” (Voradej Chandarasorn, 2009, p. 76). Lipsky (1980, p. 14) pointed out that street-level bureaucrats are professionals, as they can make decisions for their own work. This implies that street-level bureaucrats are regarded as those having knowledge of policy implementation because policies are functions that need to be regularly performed.
To understand the actual implementation of policy, target groups and policy practitioners should also be taken into consideration (Matland, 1995, p. 148). Policies are implemented at two levels: the macro-implementation level or the government, and the micro-implementation level or agencies that respond to the macro- implementation level (Berman, as cited in Matland, 1995, p. 148). It is obvious that the government only formulates broad policies which will be developed and performed by bottom-level practitioners. Thus, we should not ignore the roles of bottom-level practitioners. In case policies are formulated by the government, even if they are meticulously defined, if bottom-level practitioners do not pay attention to or accept those policies, such policies are likely to fail. Therefore, following this approach, the success or failure of policy implementation will be affected depending on bottom-level practitioners in addition to top policymakers or the top practitioners.
As for public policies, other issues concerned include policy-based tools, which are key factors for implementing the policies to either success or failure.
The driving or implementation of policies based on the bottom-up approach can occur partly due to government decentralization, which provides an opportunity to the bottom structure or local areas to initiate policies that respond to their own needs.
In case of sufficient State decentralization, it can lead to efficient local operation. On the other hand, if the government is not actually decentralized, it is difficult to formulate local policies. Therefore, authority is necessary to make the bottom-up approach really take place.