LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Public Policy
2.1.3 Policy Implementation
Policy Implementation is one of the important part of the comparative analysis in this study. There are many definition of policy implementation by the scholars as described below.
Voradej Chandarasorn (1984, p. 535) wrote that policy implementation is not only the operation to fulfil the policy objectives but also the description of related processes for the development or improvement of a successful policy implementation.
Jumpol Nimpanich (2004, pp. 8-9) stated that policy implementation means the management of policy as well as the various environment, organizational behavior analysis, relations and coordination of the participants, which could influence the success of policy implementation.
Surasit Vajirakachorn (2006, pp. 74-75) noted that policy implementation is the realization of the approved policy towards the implementation stage, which there must be the clear policy objectives and guideline for practice including disbursement,
sourcing additional budget, data collection, data analysis, problem analysis, organization formulation, human resource management, formulation of alternative practices, planning, as well as the negotiation with the related sectors.
Mayuree Anumanrajadhon (2010, p. 218) wrote that policy implementation is the operation to fulfil the formulated policy objectives, in which the policy could be the order from the state authority or the enacted law. The related person must raise the various resources as well as design the organization and operate in order to fulfil the objectives.
Williams (1971, p. 144) stated that policy implementation involves the ability to raise all resources in order to operate and fulfil the goal or objectives designated under the preparation to follow the policy during the particular period.
Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) stated that policy implementation is the various action to pressure all related sectors to coordinate in order to fulfill the objectives by acting until the policy outcome is reached.
Van Horn and Donald (1976, p. 103) said that policy implementation is the action or activity by the state or the private sector. The state must realize the abstract policy decision with the understanding of the policy objective and act to fulfil it. For the part of private sector, following the law which is the formulated policy by the state can be viewed as policy implementation as well.
Edwards and Sharkansky (1978, p. 293) wrote that policy implementation means giving order as well as direction to fulfil the order and the related activities such as signing agreement contract, founding the organization, hiring officers, and assigning missions.
Bardach (1980) wrote that policy implementation is the political process which has the authority to select the policy to implement, which must pass the negotiation and benefit exchanging then develop towards the announcement of policy. Afterwards there would be the policitical condition among the organizations who compete among each other in order to implement the policy. Hence, policy implementation is what must be done by the state to solve various problems according to the formulated goal.
Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989, pp. 20-21) wrote that policy implementation is the action to fulfil the Executive’s order or the laws. Such policy implementation is the
mission to fulfil the policy objectives under the consent by the participants or the target group, in parallel with the consideration of consequences following the action.
In conclusion, policy implementation menas the negotiation and benefit exchanging, which developed towards the policy announcement under the Executive’s order, which can be in the form of hierarchical order or laws. The order or policy must include the clear objectives and action guidelines, which the related partners must raise the various resources as well as designing the organization and manage the policy, with the consideration of various environment, organizational behavior analysis, and the relationship and coordination from the related sectors. During the process of policy implementation, there are usually the questions of who would gain or lose the benefits from the government policy and how to integrate the benefits of the interest groups, so that the formulated policy objectives could be fulfilled.
2.1.3.1 The Mechanism of Policy Implementation
Lester and Stewart (2000, pp. 104-108) saw that the mechanism of policy implementation involves various sectors including the political, legislative, bureaucratic system, lobbyist group, the interest groups, as well as the related civil sectors. The political sector has the role to decide and direct the policy implementation by the related organizations. Nevertheless, the political sector would have lesser role than the bureaucratic sector, which include the bureaucratic system and the bureaucrats.
The bureaucratic system and the bureaucrats is counted as the most important part of policy implementation because the bureaucratic system must collect and analyse information for the politician. Furthermore, the bureaucrats might be able to twist or conceal the information from the citizen and the Executives. Therefore, the bureaucratic could dominate the politician. And both the political and the bureaucratic sectors would be negotiated and integrate the benefit by the stakeholders such as persons, juridistic person, civil sector organization, and the interest groups, etc. (Mayuree Anumanrajadhon, 2010, pp. 229-231).
As for the policy implementation, Voradej Chandarasorn (1999, pp. 35- 47) wrote that there are 2 levels of policy implementation; macro level and micro level.
The macro level involve 2 steps.
The first step is the transformation of policy into the plan, action plan, project, activity, and finally the task. The politician who act as the executive would
formulate policy invarious forms, such as policy, the cabinet’s resolution, or laws.
Afterwards, there would be the designation of organizations who would implement the policy. Such policy must include the clear objectives and goals. Meanwhile, the assigned organizations must understand the policy goals and objectives, and cooperate with the policy implementation, then the policy would be transformed into plan, action plan, project, activity, and task.
The second step is the acceptance of plan, action plan or project to implement, which is the guideline assigned by the central government towards the regional or local organization to fulfill. There must also be the approach which encourage acceptance by the regional or local organization as well as the related civil sectors.
The micro level is the step which the regional or local organization accept the plan, action plan, or project to implement under various context within the area. In this micro level, there are 3 steps of policy implementation. The first step is the mobilization. The second step is the action. And the third step is the continuation.
The first step of mobilization begins when the organization receive the plan, action plan, or project from the central government and must mobilize the support from the internal officers as well as all sectors within the area, including the civil sectors and the interest groups, in order to formulate the action plan, project, activity, and task within the area.
The second step of action is the actual policy implementation, by adjusting the action plan according to the context and the local needs. Meanwhile, the organization must also adjust the officers’ behavior according to the action plan, project, activity, and task.
For the third step of continuation, the central policy formulator must depend on the skill of the local executives, who must use their capacity to empower the officers and motivate them to accept the policy, until they are willing to implement the policy until succeed.
2.1.3.2 Problems and Obstruction of Policy Implementation
Surasit Vajirakachorn (2006, pp. 105-108) stated that there are 6 types of problems and obstruction in the policy implementation as described below.
1) Problems about capacity of the organization who implement the policy. This type of problem involve human resource factor, as the government organization usually lack enough officers to match the task they must responsible for, and the budget factor which it is often found that the policy formulator would assign more work without providing additional budget to cover the increased mission. There is also the factor of material, equipment, and technology.
2) Problems about direction. The efficiency of policy implementation must depend on the policy direction, as the problem in policy implementation would increase when the policy actor lack the capacity to direct and evaluate the outcome of the action, whether the capacity to transform the policy towards the implementation in accordance to the policy objectives or how the activity or mission response to the policy goals and objectives.
3) Problems about cooperation and resistance to the change.
Such problems might emerge when the assigned policy did not originate from the officers’ need, or when the officers did not prioritize such policy, or even because of the authority within the organization did not support the policy enough, or the policy might cause the change in the officers’ action or influence the organization’s budget or human resource. The executives might not understand the actuality of the officer’s practice in action, or the officers might not agree with the content or approach of the policy. Or the officers might not coordinate due to the lack of understanding of how to follow the policy.
4) Problems about authority and relationship with other related organizations. Such problems could emerge from the level of communication and relationship with other organization which direct the particular policy. Or in the level which the organization is required to coordinate with other organization as well as the level of officers’ possibility to coordinate.
5) Problems about support and relationship between organizations or important person. Whether the policy would succeed or not depend on the coordination and relationship with important persons and organizations related, such as the lobbyist, the civil society, the interest group, the politicians, the influential persons, the bureaucrats, and the mass media, etc.
6) Problems about policy redundancy and the responsible person in policy implementation. Sometimes the policy for solving the particular problem might involve many organizations assigned to implement it, which result in the competition among them. In terms of policy redundancy, it would be the result from the conflict between the new policy and the previous policy in use. (Surasit Vajirakachorn, 2006, pp. 105-108)
When considering the model to analyze the policy implementation, this research would use the Top-Down approach and the Bottom-Up approach.
1) The Top-Down Approach. This approach was suggested by Hood (1976, pp. 6-8), who call it as the model of perfect administration which focus on giving order, directing, and monitoring of action according to the policy objectives. However, it depends on the unity of bureaucratic system, the united hierarchical order, the conformity to the order without any resistance, the single formal rule and tradition of organization management. Furtheremore, there must be the complete communication and coordination, without any pressure by the condition of time to fulfil the operation.
In other words, the Top-Down approach essentially requires the authority of the policy formulator, who must possess the authoritative power in directing the policy implementation to fulfil the designated objectives. Therefore, if the policy formulator lacks the authority according to this model, it would result in the negotiation with the implemented policy.
2) The Bottom-Up Approach. As there is the limitation of the Top- Down Approach which lack the negotiation during the policy implementation, as described by Elmore (1978, pp. 185-230) that the previous policy implementation focus on the policy formulator within the structure and hierarchical order, but overlook the actors and those who would be influenced by the policy implementation. Therefore, the Bottom-Up Approach or the Bottom-Up Perspective emerged. This model focus on the analysis of the policy implementation, especially with the participants at the bottom level. In other words, although the policy formulation might be done by the authority, but it might lack clarity in the objective which requires further discussion of the objectives during policy implementation between the policy authority and policy actor.
The policy formulator would provide various resources such as budget or support, so that the policy actor could utilize their skills, understanding in the context, and the
proximity to the problems within the area for the policy implementation. Or it can be said that the bottom-up approach of policy implementation lack the serious hiehrarchical direction as the top-down approach.
According to the above literature, the related policy process in this research would be divided into 4 steps as described below.
1) Problem Identification and Definition 2) Agenda Setting
3) Policy Formulation
4) Policy Implementation, according to these models
Figure 2.1 Policy Process