LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 Concepts of Policy Implementation
2.2.6 Synthesis of Related Researches: Research Gap
The results of analyzing educational issues that were proposed the previous topics are consistent with Ruengwit Ketsuwan (2 0 0 8 ) that found the attributes of policy implementation’s research in Thailand and it resulted in three main points. For the first point, the objectives of most research were to evaluate the effectiveness of policy implementation and the study about factors that influence on those effectiveness. For the second point, most researches and tools that appeared in the studies of Thailand were the quantitative method. However, some studies used the qualitative method and mixed methods. For the third point, most theories of policy implementation that were utilized by Thai researches were the theory of policy implementation as a top-down theory and had some outstanding attributes that are similar with international contexts. In addition, DeLeon (1999) mentioned about the directions of research in the United States and Europe that it was adhered to the framework of top-down theory, bottom-up theory and mixed theory that emphasized on finding the causes of failure. On the other hands, it was believed that there was the best factor for the achievement and the efforts to seek a new conceptual framework.
So, the studies in Thailand also believed that there was the best factor or the effects on achievement or efficient policies. However, most theories that is being studied still use the framework of top-down theory and do not discover the efforts to seek a new conceptual framework. This would mean that new directions do not appear yet in Thailand (Mayuree Anumanrajadhon, 2013; Ruengwit Ketsuwan, 2008).
As a consequence, there were the minority of occurred studies in Thailand to study and develop the behavioral models or the performances about the policy implementation deeply that what it consists of and how the structure of conceptual framework about driving behavioral policy implementation of target group based on the expectation of policy should be. It is true to say that the studies of policy implementation in Thailand lacked the study of driven behavioral policy implementation process and the behavioral causations of drive policy implementation process as expected. According to studying the framework of bottom-up theory, this would mean that the studies in Thailand did not pay attention to the explanation of determining new policies while driving the policy implementation of individuals.
Furthermore, it means that using the consideration of implementors who determined policies appeared while driving the policies based on the concepts that were proposed in the studies of Lipsky (2010); Sorg (1983); Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) and Tummers (2011). Additionally, the studies in Thailand have still been influenced by top-down theory only as Ruengwit Ketsuwan analyzed.
For example, the study of Lipsky (2010) about “Street-level bureaucracy:
Dilemmas of the individual in public service analysed the behaviours of implementors such as instructors, almoners, polices and physicians as well as proposed that the studies based on top-down theory cannot guarantee that the policy implementation will succeed because it needs to analyse the discretion of implementors. The study of Tummers (2011) about “Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework studied the causes of willingness that was conducted by the officials of healthcare centre in the operational level. In 2014, the study about “Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy and the importance of discretion” based on the concept of Lipsky which studied about the street-level bureaucrats analysed the factors that affect on decision-making and willingness in the operation of street-level bureaucrats (Tummers & Bekkers, 2014) and so on.
According to sample studies in overseas, it can be seen that the direction of studying the policy implementation at present has paid attention in minds and actions of implementors increasingly. On the other hands, the concepts of each model in most studies of Thailand found out that the problems of policy implementation were derived from poor management system, problem-solving or controlling among the implementors of operational level to perform based on the policy. Then, the models are used without considering the concepts or minds which are the origin of performance. Otherwise, these models are viewed systematically and emphasized on the analysis as a system or process. As a consequence, the factors that drive the process of policy implementation in previous topics have still suffered the overlapping and unclearness to determine for measuring each factor as well as the lacks of analysing in the lower-level for clearly illustrating the behaviours of implementor such as the analysis in personal-level, between individuals, groups and between group as suggested by Yanow (1990).
The researches of policy implementation in Thailand neglected the other frameworks such as psycho-behavioural science which is the study to find psychological causes of occurred human behaviours, human relations that focused on systematically frameworks only. The results of synthesizing the studies and reviewing previous literatures found out that the factor of implementors is a factor that was analysed with a statistical significance of 97. However, there is the minority that concerned about the concepts of psycho-behaviour science to find the causal factors of implementors’ behaviours in the policy implementation in Thailand. For example, the study of Praedau Foopanichpruk (2018) about “A Study of Policy Implementation under the National Tourism Development Plan, 2012-2016, by the Active Beach Tourism Cluster” studied the concordance and connection of strategies that related with the tourism development of the active beach tourism cluster. According to the development plan of provincial groups, provincial development plan and the development plan of local management organization that is responsible to take care in tourist attractions and the first national tourism development plan (2012-2016), it studied about the problems and obstacles in implementing the tourism policy based on the first national tourism development plan (2012-2016) among the active beach tourism cluster as well as studied about the participation of community and private sectors in the tourism development of the active beach tourism cluster by using qualitative research. This qualitative research was conducted by related documentary research, in-depth interview and group discussion. As a result, it found that the operations between public sectors are holistic and have very low rate in integrated project, coordination and cooperation between sectors. In addition, there is a little participation of community and private sectors. Then, it can be seen that Thailand has still suffered the problems in using old forms of policy implementation because the proposals of problem-solving still involve in controlling top-down factors. For example, the content of plan or policy was distributed to sectors and related people in low-level to understand and participate or provide knowledge and create the cooperation. These proposals are precise and match the results of study, but it just lacks of understanding in minds and behaviours of those actual implementors what affect on consciousness or attitudes to conduct the expected policy implementation.
When viewing in the past, it found that the majority of policy implementation since the past until the present have often paid attention in the data collection about policy or project at places of implementation. Moreover, the studies have a wide scope by looking at the factors of politics, economics, society, bureaucratic system and other technical factors. With these reasons, gathering knowledge in the past did not emphasize on intensive educational methods or quantitative analysis. As a consequence, there is not clear theoretical frameworks or models that are complete enough in creating the understanding of occurred problems in the process of policy implementation (Voradej Chandarasorn, 2011).
The most weaknesses of researching the policy implementation in Thailand were not detailed, deep or based on the hypothesis that contains clear objectives, understanding and can be able to control the policy implementation process as well.
So, it was the concept based on systematical vision procedure that viewed the policy implementation process sequentially, could control the performances and conducted the centralization. As a result, the evaluation measured the objectives. Sharp (1981) explained this attribute that it was the connection between classic implementation models and classic model of evaluation. At present, the vision procedure has been changed and the policy implementation was viewed as a co-adaptation between government system and using the consideration of implementors in areas. This is due to the fact that the actual implementation had the adaptation of implementors with policies and the policies were operated and adapted to be consistent with the reality by focusing on the study of behavior and dynamic attributes in the policy implementation (Lipsky, 2010). In this regard, the aforementioned content can be explained in the figure as shown in the figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10 Academic Gap of Policy Implementation Derived from Synthesis of Study
To close academic gaps or weaknesses of studying in previous policy implementation in Thailand as well as to describe and manage the integrated operation between sectors to drive the plan or tourism policy into the implementation as close as the most completeness. Thereby, this study applies the previous concept and system theory with the process of educational vision in the present era that emphasize more on anthropological or psychological frameworks by studying and reviewing additional literatures of behavioural science in the next section and then analysing the information by using quantitative research intensively in order to gain a model which is sufficiently complete. According to the proposal of Prof. Dr. Voradej Chandarasorn, it studied the theories of policy implementation depended on the integration of study derived from deductive theory and inductive theory. Then, the research findings found that most did not pay attention in quantitative research in high-level. Therefore, the conceptual frameworks or theories are not clear or sufficient complete to describe and create the understanding of occurred problems in the process of policy implementation (Voradej Chandarasorn, 2011, 2016).
Policy Formulation
Policy
Implementation Policy
Evaluation
Causal factors Policy Implementation
Policy Implementor Behavior
Behavior of policy implementation expected bring about to
123 Study 126 Study
Academic gap
130 Study
bring about to
bring about to
2.3 Concepts, Causes and Policies in the Study of Psycho-behavioral