Policy Process
2.4 Top-Down Approach and Bottom-Up Approach
Figure 2.3 Iron Triangles Model
Third, policy assignment to the actors would need the appropriate regulation for fulfilling the policy objectives, by assuming that the bureaucrats and the related group should be limited in power to prioritize by themselves. And policy implementation must also receive support from the legislative environment accepted by the policy actors.
Fourth, although the policy actors must have high skills and commitment, they might focus on the personal benefit.
Fifth, motivation from the executive or the law enforcer is required for coordination from the policy actor. Meanwhile, receiving cooperation from the interest group would ensure that policy implementation would be more effective
Sixth, prioritize the review and change according to the changing situation (Calista, 1994, as cited in Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, 2003, p. 426).
Meanwhile, Sombat Thamrongthanyawong (2003, as cited in Chuchart Passayanavin, 2012, p. 18) explained that the core of the Top-Down Approach is highly related to the power exercising by the policy formulator within the context in which the policy was formulated, under the policy implementation and the scope of policy change by the policy actor. No matter if it is appropriate or not, the policy formulator would exercise the power to authorize all of the related matters. Matland (1995, as cited in Liedl, 2011, p. 7) added that the concept of Top-Down policy implementation originated from the power decision, which the central actors are the most important part to create the desired consequence. The Top-Down policy implementation can increase the efficiency through the clear policy objective, reduction of the related actors to as few person as possible, limiting the scope of change, as well as finding the supporting institution to advocate the policy formulator’s idea. According to the aforementioned definition, we could conclude that the Top-Down Approach prioritize the policy formulator as the center, as it is believed that the policy formulator has more importance to the success of policy implementation rather than the policy actors at the lower level, for the policy formulator would exercise the authority to direct all related matters.
Nevertheless, the Top-Down Approach was criticized from various perspectives since it was developed (Imamura, 2015, p. 16). Some criticisms were about the number of factors, the specification of the major factor affecting the policy implementation.
And the hardest criticism was about the priority of policy formulator as the only major actor of the policy implementation process while ignoring the importance of opinion
from private sector, bureaucratic officers, or the local officers (Sabatier, 1986, as cited in Imamura, 2015, p. 16). The Top-Down Approach was also criticized that it only focused on the formulated regulations and ignore the process of discussion before reaching the consensus of solution. In other words, this approach made it seems like there is no other opinion or option in solving problem, which could result in dissatisfaction in the policy actors who have proposed other alternatives (Liedl, 2011, p. 7).
In contrast with the Top-Down Approach is the Bottom-Up Approach. Both approaches (Bottom-up) have been debated within the world of political sciences for several decades. At first, it was the study of policy implementation method and attempt to find the key factor of success for policy implementation (Liedl, 2011, p. 4). As for the concept of Bottom-Up Approach, this approach prioritize the policy actors based on the paradigm that they could decide and use their judgement to formulate the action guideline within the area, where they are closer to the problem than those at the top.
Furthermore, each problem differs in its cause and context, which could result in the different outcome from the policy formulator’s goal. Whether the policy objectives would be fulfilled or not would depend on the negotiation between the policy formulator and policy actors (Chuchart Passayanavin, 2012, p. 18)
Pulze and Treib (2007, as cited in Reungrit Ketsuwan, 2008, pp. 55-57) proposed the difference analysis of the Top-Down Approach and Bottom-Up Approach in the 5 major issues as following.
Table 2.1 Difference Analysis of the Top-Down Approach and Bottom-Up Approach
Issue for Comparing Top-Down Approach Bottom-Up Approach Research Strategy From the political decision
towards policy management
From officers towards the executive network
Objective of Analysis Giving predictive suggestion or policy suggestion
Descriptive or explanation
Model of Policy Process Step by step Merged together The characteristic of policy
implementation process
Follow the hierarchical order
Solve problem according to the distribution of power principle
The basis model related to democracy
Leadership Model Participation Model
According to Matland’s (1995, as cited in Liedl, 2011, p. 4) explanation that the study of Top-Down and Bottom-Up policy implementation approach did not limited only within the government sector. According to the literature review, it was found that both approaches were applied with the policies of many sectors, including political, economic, society, and international policies. Various studies also proved that both approaches have strength and weakness in practice. Politically, Bozzini (2013) proposed the lesson of success and limitation of Top-Down approach within the governing system through the case study of Rawanda’s anti-corruption campaign. It was found that the Rawanda government used the Top-Down approach in the political, economic, and social sectors of the nation. Such approach which included the enactment of Anti-Corruption Act, 2003, the founding of anti-corruption organization, serious law enforcement with those who commited the corruption, and the campaign of the negative consequence of corruption by the government organization had a good result towards the control of corruption, while also weaken the internal auditing
organizations and did not encourage the transparency principle and the citizen’s participation.
Similarly, Jacko (2012) proposed the case study which compared the success of Top-Down approach and Bottom-Up approach in the anti-corruption by the 2 local governments in Slovakia. The local government of Martin and Sala was acclaimed nationally and internationally due to their success in anti-corruption. However, both governments had different policy implementation approach, as the Martin government used the Top-Down Approach in the project “Transparent City” initiated by the governor. The project led to the swift change and positive result. But it was noted that the governor’s leadership and personal skill had major role in all process of the projects.
While the Sala government used the Bottom-Up approach which was highly successful.
But if the widespread consequence is desired, the support from the executive and the local council would be required.
For Nuclear policy, Aldrich (2012) studied the public opinion and the civil society activity in terms of nuclear energy since the World War II until the event of earthquake and tsunami in Tohoku on March 11th, 2011. It was found that Japan override the objections and anxiety of the public which were the consequences from the nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasagi. The government continued the project of nuclear development for commercial purpose and decreased the energy dependency through the Top-Down approach and financial injection until succeed. However, the major earthquake in 2011 changed the political and social landscape about nuclear both nationally and internationally. After the disaster, the citizen and civil society roganizations attempted to move with the bottom-up approach, such as monitoring the radioactivity leakage, challenging the government organization, and the major protest.
Economically, Crescenzi and Pose (2011) proposed the combination of Top- Down approach and Bottom-Up approach in the economic development policy. As a result of the globalization trend in economy, the Top-Down approach, which was widely used by deciding to inject the financial resources and labors within the deprived area, was questioned for its ability to cope with the current challenges. The bottom-up approach was then brought in to help coping with the situation, by giving power to the local actors and focus on the economic resource management within the local area.
Such approach became the efficient alternative for economic development. However,
the bottom-up approach still lack the clear framework of local factor consideration, the specification of appropriate approach to solve problem, as well as the consequence evaluation. Therefore, the combination of both approaches under the framework at the intermediate level could help encouraging the policy of bottom-up development as well as merging between both approaches.
In the same direction, Russell (2015) presented the Neo-Syntheis approach in public policy implementation, by emphasis on the serious participation of the affected communities, the reformation, and the policy implementation, as the various approaches of policy implementation all have their strength and weakness. The Top- Down approach was very beneficial, as the goal and objective is clear, and the policy according to this approach would be designed inclusively. However, the Bottom-Up approach would be more practical in some countries, if there is no problem of distrust and corruption. Meanwhile, the Synthesis approach which is the foundation of the Neo- Synthesis approach, would emphasis the combination of the Top-Down and Bottom- Up approaches by allowing the local level to express their opinion, together with the bottom-up governance, control, and activities. Nevertheless, the effect of these approaches towards the primary stage of policy formulation would be minimal. It was found that the strength of Neo-Synthesis approach is that it could establish the interaction and communication among the actors in all level, through the power distribution to the local and the operational actors together with the Top-Down governance and administration by the policy administrative organizations.
Other study related to social issue was the study of housing security policy implementation. Liedl (2011) questioned whether the Top-Down approach has more advantage than the Bottom-Up approach for the implementation of anti-theft in the residential housing project. This research studied Netherland’s Veilig Wonen project which has the top-down approach as it received financial support from the Ministry of Interior from the start, and Germany’s Zuhause Sicher project which has the Bottom- Up approach as it was initiated by a police officer within his own responsible area and convinced his colleagues within the same area to join the project. Afterwards, he convinced the police officers from other district. It was found that the Top-Down approach has the disadvantage in coping with the different and complex levels of management while also dealing with the related allies and organizations. The project of
Bottom-Up approach would be much simple in terms of management structure.
However, the advantage of the Top-Down approach is the clear capacity and ability, while the Bottom-Up approach would have disadvantage in this issue. Other advantage of the Top-Down approach is the speed of operation, which can be done swiftly. The findings also revealed that there is no perfect approach for the implementation of housing security project. Both the Top-Down and Bottom-Up approach could not completely cope with various influences. But there is the tendency that the Top-Down project would operate more quickly and broadly, while the Bottom-Up project would be more sustainable and last longer, according to the following Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 Top-Down Approach and Bottom-Up Approach