LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 Concepts of Policy Implementation
2.2.3 Main Issues of Policy Implementation
To clarify the policy implementation besides of the definitions that mentioned above, this study considers additionally in the attributes of policy implementation that what special attributes are. According to Ripley and Franklin, they divided into five main issues. Firstly, it was any related people that are important. Secondly, there are various and different objectives. Thirdly, the policy and scheme of the government
always expand in every period. Fourthly, there are many sectors in various levels from many ministries, government departments and bureaus that participate in the operations. Fifthly, there are many factors beyond the control (Supachai Yavaprabhas, 2014). Additionally, it was consistent with Bardach (1977) who proposed earlier that policy implementation must be viewed as assembly process. This would mean that policy was similar to giant machine for implementing. Then, policy implementation is comparable that what kind of machine can be utilized. The problems of policy implementation were depended on the controls that need to acknowledge which parts of activity generate problems. Thereby, main problem of policy implementation was resources of various individuals and departments that most of them are independent.
According to the methods for gaining resources, there are just motivations and negotiations. Then, some considered it as politics. Additionally, the politics contain specific attributes because political styles of policy have already been defined. As a consequence, the policy implementation combined various assemble parts together through political authority or characteristics of the game.
According to occurred studies, many academicians viewed the policy implementation into six dimensions. Firstly, it was the dimension of political pressure.
Secondly, it was the dimension of agreement from a huge number of population. Thirdly, it was the dimension of administrative control. Fourthly, it was the dimension of bargaining between the central government and local. Fifthly, it was the dimension of complicated collaboration. Lastly, it was the dimension of game system which processes contain negotiation, persuasion and planning under uncertain conditions (Bardach, 1977;
Barki & Pinsonneault, 2005; Blair, 1996; Ruengwit Ketsuwan, 2008). Furthermore, the procedures are divided into five parts. For the first part, it was the results of policy implementation and the evaluation of policy implementation was separated into three main stages including procedure, productivity and outcomes or impacts. Obviously, it can be evaluated through behaviors and occurred results that achieve objectives of policy or not. For the second part, it was about forming policy or sometimes it was specifically called as formulating policy or designing policy. For the third part, it was organizational behaviors and among organizations that conduct the policy implementation. For the fourth part, the behaviors of implementor in areas can influence on policy implementation significantly that cannot ignore. This is due to the fact that the policy might be changed
depended on the implementation results from implementors in areas. This means that the implementors must operate and directly involve with target group of policy. For the last part, it was the behaviors of target group, social conditions and economy (Lipsky, 2010 ; Ruengwit Ketsuwan, 2008; Winter, 1990, 2006).
As mentioned about issues and procedures earlier, it was obvious in the attributes of working, operations that need to depend on population or various parts of organization and the cooperation from several levels in order to reach the achievement based on objectives and purposes. Then, coordination between organizations cannot appear completely if it lacks of relationship in terms of the political organization and the behavior of individuals or related organizations.
Organizations and policy implementation have a relation because when the policy is defined, the next stage must organize a new sector or assign the existing sectors to implement the policy. After that, the intention and purposes must be conveyed into the implementation in order to develop the direction for implementors.
Next, it is necessary to coordinate and divide the responsibility in the sector and between sectors as well as administer and allocate resources for policies successfully (Gerston, 1983; Lineberry, 1977). Then, when the policy has already been determined, the organizations need to support that policy towards implementation or operation.
Besides of defined policy, designing policy and implementation have often utilized the conceptual frameworks of organizations for analyzing because most viewed that the procedure of policy implementation was organizational problems (Stoker, 1991 ). As a result, the policy implementation utilized organizations as analytic framework initially and there are additional elements about organizations. Therefore, it can be considered by the concepts about organizations that occurred in the theory of policy implementation. There are four main concepts (Friedman, 2006) as follows;
1) Top-Down concept: the analysis of policy implementation is considered as the first theorical system and utilized organizational theory as important analyzed tools. So, it begins in determining policy that top-level sends the policy into organizations in operational level. Then, it is obvious that this concept starts from the top. The organizations based on this concept are respective that attempts to determine factors which can reach the achievement of policy implementation and emphasize on communication channels and mechanism of organizational controls.
2) Bottom-Up concept: it is obvious that the policy implementation is the concept about capabilities and resources of implementors. This would mean that the implementors in areas set a crucial policy-determination by consideration of implementors in areas that provide services to populations because the implementors have to suffer with important obstacles such as unstable and inequal resources. As a consequence, the outcomes are depended on the implementors’ decisions in selecting and utilizing limited resources for gaining the highest benefits.
3) Mixed concept: Top-Down and Bottom-Up concept are derived from synthesizing theories of Top-Down and Bottom-Up together. This would mean that many academicians of this concept believed that each concept contains different advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, they viewed that the policy implementation is a duty and defined conditions to the implementors from central government or locals depended on the tendency of public sectors in operation and potentials of the government. However, it might depend on the political bargaining between various internal and external groups as well.
4) Network concept: it is a work that focuses on the relationships between organizations. So, it is viewed that the policy of public sectors is operated through several organizations. Each organization has their own duties and responsibilities, and some parts of policy implementation are different. Then, it is possible that there are conflicted benefits. As a consequence, it is necessary to have the mechanisms for addressing the conflicts such as the concepts of communication, collaboration, politics and others.
Therefore, it is true to say that organizational theories were utilized for analyzing the policy implementation for a long time. It begins with the considerations based on the orders from the top. Later, it was challenged by the concept of analyzing capabilities of implementors in down-level followed by the combination of advantages to eliminate occurred disadvantages. Additionally, it must emphasize on the relations between individuals, group and organizations in network concept. When all of four theories were considered, it found that it depended on behaviors or performances of implementors to transmit all factors of policy implementation.
However, the minority in the past studies about occurred performances or behaviors after the implementors received the factors that how to show the implementation into
achievement or failure of those policies. Next, it is about the analysis of previous studies in order to find multi-causal factors of policy implementation and educational gap of policy implementation.
Figure 2.7
Four Concepts of the Organization That Appears in the Theory of Policy Implementation
2.2.4 Analysis of Related Researches: Education Issues and Causal