CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Policy Implementation
2.1.5 Policy Implementation Failure
Forming a correct policy and knowing the strategy to implement (top-down, bottom-up) it, as well as identifying the appropriate model of the implementation process, are only a part of successful implementation. Actual implementation plays an important factor in policy success or failure. During implementation, one mistake can lead to policy failure if that mistake is extremely sensitive. Failure to implement a policy can result in a waste of budget, human capital, and time, as well as dissatisfaction of the public. Many researchers have identified some of the reasons why a policy is unsuccessfully implemented, including policy ambiguity, policy conflict, incapable personnel, lack of budget or needed resources, institutional complexity (hierarchical authority and bureaucracy), leadership and organizational commitment, organizational capacity, etc. (Matland, 1995; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1979).
Bardach (1977) argues that one of the most important factors that leads to the failure to implement a policy is personal or organization interest. Regardless of how rational a policy sounds, an organization usually chooses to pursue its own interest through its implementation process. Whether it is for money, power, or control, these differences are a major cause of implementation failure. According to Bardach
(1977), there are four aspects that policymakers need to be aware of during the implementation process: the diversion of resource, the deflection of goals, the dilemma of administration, and dissipation of energy.
1) The Diversion of Resources
The implementation process depends on the government officials and their “games,” such as the concept of easy money, where the money or budget that the government receives is from the taxpayer does not belong to anybody. These government officials are therefore earning “easy money” and are not obligated to fulfill its value.
2) The Deflection of Goals
Each policy has its own goal; however, as Bardach explains, they usually get lost during the implementation process. Some examples of deflecting goals include the concepts of piling on, being up for grabs, and keeping the peace. For example, up for grabs happens when the policy is incomplete, unclear, or too complex, which makes it possible for politicians to shape policy programs according to their own interests. Piling on is when there are unexpected objects or factors that keep adding up to the policy, which creates more burdens for the implementer.
3) The Dilemmas of Administration
Many policy programs and policy implementations are formed and conducted by administrations that are usually partially successful. Bardach (1977) provides us with the example of issue that arise from administration such as tokenism, monopoly power, massive resistance, and massive resistance, and social entropy.
Tokenism is when a policy attempts to contribute too many things but in fact it can only contribute little due to conflicts of interest. An organization that is a monopoly also can influence policymakers, which will prevent policy from being carry out successfully. A massive resistance is the attempt to avoid responsibility to create obstruction to policy goals and implementations. As a result, a policy can never find success.
4) The Dissipation of Energy
Tenacity is the ability and the will to stymie the completion of a program until one’s terms are satisfied, while territory is the competition among different bureaucrats to gain their “territory” in overlapping jurisdictions. “Not our
problem” happens when the program is unattractive, and therefore the administration usually refuses the work or pushes it to another organization. Lastly, the idea of the
“odd man out” happens when none of the administration wants to make the first move.
Not only do the above problems cause policy to fail, but a delay in policy implementation will project the same effect as well. According to Bardach, pathology is the main reason that causes delay during implementation. These pathologies can be both purposive and non-purposive delays. A purposive delay can exist through an implementation “game” such as the tenacity game, the idea of the odd man out, the reputation game, and so on. A non-purposive delay consists of program assembly delay and collective decision delay.
5) Delayed Program Assembly
The principal delays in the program assembly process are associated with (1) the efforts undertaken by solicitors in searching out suitable providers; (2) the time it takes potential providers to decide whether to commit program elements under their control and on what terms; (3) the sheer number of necessary transactions.
The program assembly process is comprised of all time-consuming activities, both physical and intellectually. Bardach provides us with some examples of activities that require lengthy time, which result in implementation delay. Some of the activities include searching for vendors and suppliers, conducting feasibility study, merging different ideas, making sensitive decisions, following routine work, changing positions, and entering the end of a fiscal year.
6) Collective Decision Process
The collective decision process is a process where two or more different parties each decide whether through negotiations or through a sequence of maneuvers and counter maneuvers to make certain contributions to a collective enterprise. The decision will decide the success or failure of the ultimate enterprise. Some of the problems that cause delays in this process are autonomy, such as who is the boss, who takes over what, who has the authority, and who is responsible for certain activities.
Some other delays Bardach provides us with are broken contracts by each party, changes in one’s party policy, and budget cuts.