CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.2 CONCEPTUALISING RURAL DEVELOPMENT
2.3.6 Approaches to Public Policy Implementation
47 In addition, Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002) point out that various countries’ public administration systems put restrictions on the use of public resources or demand authorisation prior to utilisation of funds. In most cases, the approval for the use of funds takes place after long delays. These requirements limit the ability of organisations or department units to cooperate flexibly with other actors. Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002) add that the situation is exacerbated by the diversity of actors some of whom may resist coordination if it diverts resources from the activities they want to maintain. Despite the challenges, coordination can be the solution to implementation problems. It can improve the implementation of rural development policies that involve the participation of various actors and are cross-sectoral. The approach adopted for policy implementation has a direct impact on its coordination.
Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:118) assert that, a multi-actor policy implementation process “is not a question of command and control”. This indicates that the approach adopted in public policy implementation should be flexible enough to accommodate the various actors with different interests. Hence, the approach should promote public participation in policy implementation, especially when implementing policies aimed at developing grass-root communities.
48 understanding the factors of policy implementation. In this regard, the researchers were able to identify factors in the policy environment such as size, intra-organisational relationships, commitment, capacity and institutional complexities and ascertain how such factors influence policy responses (Paudel, 2009).
The second generation of implementation researchers focused on analysing and describing the relationships between policy and practice (Paudel, 2009). These researchers identified the significance of time periods as a key factor in policy implementation (Paudel, 2009; Goggin, et al., 1990; Van Horn, 1987). The second-generation researchers emphasised the significance of considering both the historical period and duration of the time that the policy was implemented. Part of the achievements of the second-generation implementation researchers was the development of two analytical frameworks and these are: the top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Both distinct frameworks have dominated implementation studies to the extent that they form the basis for the subsequent implementation theories that have been mooted.
Finally, the third generation of researchers were less concerned with implementation failure (Brynard, Cloete and De Coning, 2011). Instead, they focused on understanding how implementation works in general and what could be done to improve it. The major contribution of the third-generation researchers is their explanation of the factors that impact public policy implementation.
A survey of the vast literature on public policy implementation studies reveals that the debate is centred on the top-down and the bottom-up perspectives which have distinct characteristics as summarised in the table below.
Table 2: Differences Between Top-Down and Bottom-up Perspectives
Variables Top-down perspective Bottom-up perspective
Policy decision-maker Policy makers Street-level bureaucrats
Starting point Statutory language Social problems
Structure Formal Both formal and informal
Process Purely administrative Networking, including administrative
Authority Centralised Decentralised
Output/Outcomes Prescriptive Descriptive
Discretion Top-level bureaucrats Bottom-level bureaucrats
Source: Raj Paudel, 2009:40
49 The basic argument advanced by the proponents of the top-down perspective (Dunsire, 1990;
Linder and Peters, 1987; Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1981; Edwards, 1980; Gunn, 1978; Van Meter and Van Horn, 1974) is that the policy process is rational and therefore amenable to intelligent management. In addition, it requires suitable conditions and mechanisms to be effective. The suitable conditions would include effective coordination between various stakeholders, adequate resources, clear lines of communication, effective management of the system and a single implementing authority (Hudson and Lowe, 2011; Palumbo and Calista, 1990). The assumption is that suitable conditions in the policy environment would guarantee implementation success. According to their line of thought, implementation failure can only occur as a result of human frailty. Hudson and Lowe (2011:247) note further that policy implementation fails because “the personnel involved did not do what they were told or managers made mistakes in designing the programme”. The top-down approach is essentially prescriptive in nature and demands strict compliance to the rules of procedure. It also requires a watertight management and administrative system to ensure that policy goals and positive outcomes are achieved. However, the top-down perspective ignores the role and influence of the multiple actors involved in policy implementation at the grass-root level. It also underestimates the impact of various local factors on policy implementation. The approach creates the impression that local problems are solved when bureaucrats and public officials act on them unilaterally.
The top-down perspective assumes that the behaviour of bureaucrats and public officials can be controlled through rules and procedures designed to enforce compliance. This position is challenged by Lipsky (1980) and Goggin et al (1990) in their argument that, on the contrary, bureaucrats and public officials have enormous power and freedom to exercise their discretion in the policy environment. The researchers demonstrate that the behaviours of those who implement public policy at the grass-root level cannot be controlled entirely as the top-down model assumes. In addition, the role of independent stakeholders in the local environment and their behaviours and activities cannot be prescribed from top-down. Thus, the top-down perspective fails to recognise and integrate the local context, especially the agency of the poor in public policy implementation processes.
Other researchers, such as Mazmanian and Sabatier, made an attempt to refine the top-down model to accommodate the local context (Matland, 1995). They argue that policy implementation should consider the “degree to which the actions of implementing officials and
50 target groups coincide with the goals embodied in an authoritative decision” (Matland, 1995:146). The implementation of the authoritative decisions (ie. Policy) is done by centrally located actors who are seen as the most appropriate to deliver the policy goals. But still they failed to recognise the roles of various local actors and agency of the poor in the implementation process. Despite Mazmanian and Sabatier’s efforts, the top-down approach remained fundamentally prescriptive and disregarded the multi-actor nature of public policy implementation.
The limitations of the top-down approach were exposed by other researchers who argued that the approach is too centred on policy and only represents the views of policy makers (Paudel, 2009; Younis and Davidson, 1990). These critics also pointed out that the top-down approach prioritises the use of statutory language that is reflected in Mazmanian and Sabatier’s (1989) definition of implementation. In their definition of policy implementation, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) outline three sets of factors that can be used to determine implementation success.4Another critic of the top-down approach is Matland (1995) who identified and defined three basic sets of criticisms against the approach. The first criticism is that the model takes the statutory language as its starting point and ignores the initial actions taken in the policy-making process. This point is reinforced by Winter (1985 and 1986) who argues that most of the implementation barriers can be traced back to the initial stages of the policy-making process.
This indicates the need to understand the whole gamut of the policy-making processes and factors in the local environment, which impact policy implementation.
The second criticism of the top-down approach is that it views implementation strictly as an administrative process. The approach does not consider the political and personal interests that impact it. To this end, Matland (1995) argues that it is almost impossible to separate politics from administration, and any attempt to do so may lead to policy failure. This indicates that implementation cannot be viewed purely as an administrative issue but one that involves the political and personal interests of different actors on the ground. As such, it cannot be adequately addressed by the top-down approach alone.
4 Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) defined implementation as ‘The carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in a statute but which can also take the form of important executive orders or court decisions’. The emphasis is put on the authoritative nature of the decision whose implementation must be coordinated from a central level, which indicates that there must be a clear chain of command to be followed. Mazmanian and Sabatier present three sets of factors and these are: ( i) tractability of the problem, (ii) ability of statute to structure implementation, and (iii) non-statutory variables affecting implementation.
51 The third criticism addresses the emphasis that the model puts on statute framers as key actors of the implementation process. Local actors are viewed as obstacles to implementation and their conduct needs to be strictly controlled. But as already noted, it is the exclusion of local service delivers’ expertise and knowledge of the local stakeholders that leads to implementation failure. Matland (1995) and Lipsky (1980) argue that the discretion of street- level bureaucrats and actions of local actors are too complex to be controlled by policy-makers.
This indicates that the behaviours of various independent actors in the policy environment can only be ignored to the detriment of the implementation process. The top-down model presents the policy process in a hierarchical fashion, and gives minimal concern to what transpires at grass-roots level. Although it has its strengths, it is inadequate to implement rural development policies that seek to transform local communities and empower people at grass-root levels. The top-down approach represents a centralised system in which power is vested at the top and key decisions are made by public officials without the meaningful participation of the grass-root actors. It portrays the implementation of public policies as a process primarily concerned with getting people to do what they are told and keeping control over a sequence of stages in a system (Parson, 1995). In addition, the top-down perspective suggests that, implementation failure can only occur when those in the frontline fail to obey the prescribed rules and procedures of implementation.
The bottom-up approach to public policy implementation recognises the local context and the behaviours of independent local stakeholders with their diverse personal and political interests.
The primary concern of the proponents of the bottom-up approach is the local terrain with its enormous energy and various local possibilities that it presents for implementation success.
The bottom-up approach recognises that target groups in the local context and those tasked with delivering services have a role to play in the implementation of public policies (Matland, 1995). In this regard, the mechanisms used by frontline workers and other policy groups to get around policy or divert it to their own purposes determine the outcome of the implementation process. A host of the bottom-up exponents (Hanf, 1982; Barret and Fudge, 1981; Hjern and Porter, 1981; Nakamura and Smallwood, 1980; Elmore, 1979; Bernard, 1978; Lipsky, 1978;
Scharpf, 1978) concur that both the informal and formal relationships of various policy actors are essential for successful policy implementation. According to Hudson and Lowe (2011:249)
“the best known works that put a formidable challenge to the top-down perspective was that of Lipsky (1979). Lipsky’s formidable argument is that public policy is not the product of policy
52 makers but the outcome of the activities of street-level bureaucrats, who operate at the front line of service delivery. Lipsky’ study (1979) analyses the behaviour of front line workers who are responsible for delivering services directly to the public. These are largely government workers who are tasked with implementing policies in various situations on the ground. He argues that street-level bureaucrats interact directly with citizens and the general public experience policy as it is presented to them by these front line workers. Contrary to the top- down approach’s sentiments, it is impossible for any central authority to have full control over the behaviour of the frontline workers nor over the independent stakeholders in the policy environment. Therefore, the outcomes of any public policy are determined not by the central authority but by those in the frontline of service delivery.
Lipsky’s argument is taken up by other exponents of the bottom-up approach who prioritise the local context as the starting point for understanding the implementation of public policies (Hull and Hjern, 1987; 1982; Hjern and Porter, 1981; Berman, 1980). The bottom-up approach takes into account the perspectives of the target population, service deliverers and independent actors and how they impact the policy implementation process. Berman (1978) identifies two levels at which public policy implementation occurs: the macro-implementation level and the micro-implementation level. The macro-implementation level is where centrally located officials design government programmes, and it marks the beginning of policy implementation.
In contrast, the micro-implementation level takes place at the bottom where service deliverers and local actors respond to the macro-level programmes by modifying them to suit their local context. The bottom-up approach represents a decentralised system that devolves power and recognises that public policy implementation is context bound. Unlike the top-down approach, it recognises the significance of factors in the local context and considers them as part of the key determinants of the implementation process. Thus, Matland (1995) posits that the problems of public policy implementation emerge when the policy encounters a local institutional setting that is not directly controlled by centrally located officials. Matland (1995:148) also posits that,
“[C]ontextual factors within the implementing environment can completely dominate rules created at the top of the implementing pyramid, and policy designers will be unable to control the process”. This indicates that, implementation is set to fail unless street-level bureaucrats and other local stakeholders are given the freedom to adapt policy to the local context, which is the observation that Palumbo, Maynard-Moody, and Wright (1984) also note.
53 There is a consensus amongst the proponents of the bottom-up approach that public policy implementation is largely influenced by various factors in the local context rather than adherence to the prescription of a central authority. It arises when policy interacts with the local setting and as such it is context bound (Matland, 1995; Maynard-Moody, Musheno, and Palumbo 1990). Hjern’s study (quoted in Matland, 1995:149) on the micro-level of implementation reveals that, “central initiatives are poorly adapted to local conditions.
Programme success depends in large part on the skills of individuals in the local implementation structure who can adapt policy to local conditions; it depends only to a limited degree on central activities”. Hjern’s findings clearly indicate the significant role that local people and the various local organisations can play in the implementation of public policies and in particular those that affect their lives. The findings reveal the need to devolve power to the grass-roots level in contrast to the top-down approach which favours a central system.
However, the bottom-up approach is also inadequate when considered alone. A situation in which both the top-down and the bottom-up approaches are employed in a collaborative manner is more realistic and increases the chances of reaching the stated goals.
Attempts to make a synthesis of both the top-down and the bottom-up approaches were made by various researchers (Matland, 1995; Sabatier, 1991; 1988 and 1986; Elmore, 1985and 1982). A review of literature reveals an acknowledgement amongst researchers from both perspectives that combining both approaches could produces better policy outcomes. For example, Elmore (1985 and 1982) developed the concept of forward and backward mapping.
Forward mapping is a top-down view that focuses on a detailed and clear description of policy objectives. It also defines the criteria by which each of the stages of the policy should be judged.
In contrast, backward mapping represents the bottom-up perspective. It describes the behaviours to be changed at micro- level, and the actions to be taken in order to produce the desired change. Backward mapping can help to ensure that the concerns of micro-implementers and target groups are considered. Both the forward mapping and backward mapping are significant in that they encourage policy makers and implementers to use a combination of both approaches when designing and implementing public policies.
Sabatier (1986) engages in a critical analysis of both the top-down and the bottom-up approaches and attempts at developing a synthesis. His synthesis combined the best features of both models. According to Sabatier (1986), time is of essence in the policy process. He argues that a time-span of ten to fifteen years should be factored into the policy process to allow for a
54 fair amount of improvement on the part of both policy implementers and target groups (Sabatier, 1986:39). He notes further that a period of a decade or more would be necessary for policy objectives to be clarified and to engage in more research on casual theories. In addition, a period of a decade or more would provide opportunities for “policy learning by programme proponents, as they discover deficiencies in the existing programme and then develop strategies to deal with them” (Sabatier, 1986:39).
The top-down perspective is useful for identifying parameters within which policies operate over a period of time. Parameters that include socio-economic conditions, legal instruments, and government structures tend to remain relatively stable over a period of time. Sabatier (1986) recognises that the policy context consists of diverse policy actions involving various actors at the local level. He argues that the policy learning process is dominated by programme proponents while opponents of the programme are afforded minimal opportunity. The deficiencies of the top-down approaches are identified in the synthesised version of both approaches and addressed by incorporating techniques from the bottom-up approaches.
Sabatier suggests an advocacy coalition framework model for analysing and studying the actions of various groups that get involved in the policy process.5The coalition framework can be used as a tool to identify various partners from both the public and private sectors involved in the policy process, and establish the core beliefs that bring them together. It can also be used to analyse the strategies that various actors employ to deal with the issues consistent with their objectives. The feedback received from the various coalition partners can be used to enhance public policies and improve their implementation. Despite its positive elements, Sabatier’s advocacy coalition model is criticised by Matland (1995) who views it as incongruent with his own definition of implementation.6
A more recent attempt at synthesising the implementation literature and reconciling the top- down and bottom-up approaches is done by Matland (1995). Matland’s work focuses on what he terms ‘the theoretical significance of ambiguity and conflict for policy implementation’. The thrust of Matland’s argument is that some factors that are identified as crucial to public policy implementation are determined by varying degrees of ‘a policy’s ambiguity and conflict level’.
5Advocacy coalitions are various policy advocates from both the public and private sector organisations who share certain policy goals and objectives. These groups have the capacity to influence and shape policy direction by lobbying for their interests, views and solutions to be accepted.
6 Matland adds that Sabatier himself did not see his advocacy coalition model as an implementation model but rather, as an approach to the study of public policy (Matland, 1995:152).