CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.2 CONCEPTUALISING RURAL DEVELOPMENT
2.3.4 The Imperative of Managing Public Policy Implementation
Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002) argue that, public policy implementation largely fails as a result of poor management. The complex nature of public policy implementation can become a barrier to its success if it is not managed efficiently. Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:6) state that:
“The policy implementation process is at least as political as technical, and is complex and highly interactive. Besides technical and institutional analysis, it calls for consensus-building, participation of key stakeholders, conflict resolution, compromise, contingency planning, and adaptation”.
The existence of the numerous stakeholders compels, Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:6) to posit that “successful policy outcomes depend not simply on designing good policies but upon
40 managing their implementation”. It is conspicuous from Brinkerhoff and Crosby’s argument that public policy implementation is highly problematic and that good policy outcomes depend on a proper management of the implementation process. Logically, this indicates that failure to manage the implementation process well subsequently results in poor policy outcomes. For this reason Fox and Bayat (2006) argue that public policy implementation requires a planned and perceptive management effort.
Although Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002) emphasise the importance of managing the implementation process, they also caution on the difficulties involved. Both scholars argue that the difficulties emerge when managing public policy implementation is contrasted with project management. Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:23)explain the many differences that they identified thus:
“Policy implementation is hardly a linear and coherent process. In contrast, programmes and projects have a beginning and an end; they have specific time-lines;
targets and objectives are clearly specified for each phase; and plans and actions are defined to reach those targets. In policy implementation, change is rarely straightforward because the process of policy implementation can often be multidirectional, fragmented, frequently interrupted, unpredictable, and very long term”.
Although it is important to highlight these distinctions between managing policy implementation and managing projects and programmes, Van Baalen and De Coning (2011) point out that in reality, public policies are implemented through programmes and projects.
Programmes consist of various activities of the government that need to be formally coordinated in order to deliver intended outcomes. Each government programme must have a programme head to manage and monitor the on-going activities to ensure that activities are carried out according to the plan and that resources are put to good use. Projects are designed to deliver the policy objectives within the given timeframe and budget allocation. Each project has a project manager who manages and integrates all aspects of the project to ensure that the project is completed on schedule and that the results are satisfactory (Burke, 2007; Portny, 2007). According to Van Baalen and De Coning (2011:171), “[A] policy is a relatively detailed statement of government objectives in a sector and a general statement of the methods to be used in achieving those objectives”. Programmes and projects are used to bring policy objectives into reality via the implementation process. As a result, the implementation of public policies is managed through programme and project management processes. These processes
41 require competent programme heads and project managers to manage the various programme activities and projects to deliver the specific policy goals.
Despite the challenges of managing policy implementation, Brinkerhoff and Crosby(2002) delineate a set of tasks that need to be performed to help manage the implementation process better. These tasks include, policy legitimisation, constituency building, resource accumulation, organisational design and modification, mobilising resources and actions, and monitoring the progress (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002:25). The task of lobbying for policy legitimacy is paramount and has to be carried out by public officials and policy makers who need to gain wider support for the particular policy. According to Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:25), for policy legitimacy to be achieved:
“Some individual, group, or organisation must assert that the proposed policy is necessary and vital, even though it will present serious costs. This step involves the emergence or designation of a policy champion, some individual or group with credibility, political resources, and the willingness to risk that political capital in support of the policy”.
The above articulation indicates that a public policy achieves its legitimacy when key stakeholders are convinced that the proposed policy is worth pursuing and when it gains grassroots support. This suggests that public policies must be marketed to relevant stakeholders and the public to establish strong constituencies that support it and participate in its implementation. Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:26) assert in concurrence that:
“Policy managers or reformers should not assume that because a policy is sound or correct, support will automatically be forthcoming or that stakeholders will clearly and immediately see that it is in their interest to support the change. Development of strong constituencies requires that policy managers market the reform in language that makes the change both understandable and appealing to potential supporters”.
It is clear that failure to establish strong constituencies that support a public policy is one of the factors that can lead to poor policy outcomes. It is essential that a public policy is supported by key stakeholders and those whose lives will be affected by the said policy, especially at grass-root level. It is easy for key stakeholders and the general public to support a policy or programme in which they contributed their input. Policies that are relevant to the local context stand a chance of being accepted and supported. Furthermore, strong constituencies allow policy managers, where feasible, to form public policy implementation partnerships with relevant government departments and other local organisations. This helps to avoid competing for scarce resources and the duplication of programmes in the policy environment.
42 2.3.5. Coordination of Public Policy Implementation
The imperative of coordinating the implementation of public policies was first highlighted by Pressman and Wildavsky (1984:133) in their statement that, “[N]o phrase expresses as frequent a complaint about the federal government as does ‘lack of coordination’. No suggestion for reform is more common than ‘what we need is more coordination”. Similar sentiments were later expressed by Sproule-Jones (2000) as noted in his argument that all governments, government departments and public-private relations require coordination to deliver the desired outcomes. Furthermore, Leite and Buainain (2013) and Cohen (2003) underscore the significance of coordination necessitated the changes and reforms that have made the operations of the public-sector more complex. These changes have created a context in which the State is no longer the only actor in public policy management. The cross-cutting nature of social problems that governments have to deal with today require that governments to be more flexible and inclusive in managing public policies ( Leite and Buainain, 2013; Kenis and Provan, 2006; Bakvis and Juillet, 2004; Bueren et al, 2003; Sproule-Jones, 2000).
According to Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002), the multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral nature of public policy implementation has created a situation where nobody is really in charge in the traditional sense. Instead, linkages are established between stakeholders with varying degrees of interdependence. The actions of interdependent stakeholders create a complex system, which requires coordination to eliminate fragmentation and increase cooperation for the purpose of delivering satisfactory outcomes. In addition, coordination addresses the problem of gaps in service delivery and helps to eschew unnecessary duplication of services (Gillespie, 1991). For Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002), coordination involves information-sharing, resource-sharing, and joint action. Information-sharing takes place when one stakeholder or subunit, within the same organisation, informs the others involved in implementation about what would be going on. This could be done through the distribution of written reports, public hearings, or holding joint-meetings. Resource-sharing occurs when resources under the control of one actor or group are allocated to one or more organisations involved in the implementation of a particular policy.
Joint action occurs when two or more organisations undertake an activity collaboratively, meaning that they act together, either sequentially, reciprocally or simultaneously (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002; Alter and Hage, 1993). For example, joint action is manifested when different stakeholders plan and deliver services together in partnership and monitor implementation of programmes together.
43 Leite and Buainain (2013) identify two dimensions of coordination in the process of public policy implementation. The first dimension occurs at the interpersonal level and the second dimension is manifested at the organisational level. The first dimension reveals that individuals and their interactions are of paramount significance in the coordination process. The second dimension is concerned with the incentives and constraints that organisations present for coordination. These dimensions require further elaboration to understand the central role of coordination in public policy implementation.
The interpersonal dimension of coordination is built on the sociological understanding that individuals construct social reality through their actions (Chanlat, 1994). This construction takes place within the existing framework in which individuals interact with their environment.
According to Leite and Buainain (2013:139), it is imperative to understand the context of interaction between individuals and their environment because:
“…the characteristics of individuals such as their rationality, their symbolic universe and their interests and choices are all aspects that are especially relevant to a discussion on the coordination of policy implementation”.
To this end, Simon (1947), argued that an individual’s cognitive structure makes it impossible to achieve objective rationality because real human behaviour is characterised by many points of disconnectedness and is never congruent to the ideal form of rationality. Consequently, the decisions and choices that individuals make “are necessarily limited, as are the information and knowledge they can obtain and the extent to which they can assimilate the environment” (Leite and Buainain, 2013:139). The situation of the individual’s limitation and behaviour was described by Simon (1982) as bounded rationality.
For public policy, this means that no policy maker can formulate a policy decision that covers all aspects and policy alternatives. This indicates that, there will always be gaps that allow
“individuals or groups responsible for implementation to determine many elements of a public policy that are merely outlined during the formulation stage” (Leite and Buainain, 2013:140).
In this respect, Lipsky (1980) and Goggin et al. (1990) argued that individuals in the local policy environment wield enormous power during public policy implementation, and in this way they determine public policy. It is essential that the interactions of the various actors involved in the implementation of public policies be coordinated although coordination can be difficult in situations where bad relationships exist between individuals or groups. However, interactions where good relationships exist between individuals or groups can increase chances
44 of implementation success. This indicates that hostility between individuals or groups involved in public policy implementation is another factor that could lead to poor policy outcomes. Leite and Buainain (2013:142) assert that “rivalry and the existence of cliques in an implementation team intensify information asymmetry and erode trust”. Therefore, the interpersonal dimension of coordination is critical in the implementation of public policies.
Although it is important to coordinate individuals and their interactions, it is equally important to recognise that individual’s actions and interactions can be restricted by the organisational structure to which they belong. The organisational environment consists of formal and informal rules which influence and shape individual’s actions and interactions. Both the formal and informal rules can serve as incentives or constraints to the behaviour of the individual or group.3 In this regard, Leite and Buainain (2013:141) argue that, “…the rule structure present in a particular environment significantly influences individual behaviour, social interaction and efforts to achieve goals”. Goggin at el (1990) also note that incentives and constraints play an important role in influencing the behaviour and efforts of implementing agents who act within the formal and informal organisational framework. As a result, coordination takes place through formal and informal mechanisms (Leite and Buainain, 2013). Formal mechanisms include organisational design and hierarchical systems which are characterised by various relationships between superiors and subordinates at different levels. These formal relationships are guided by written rules and procedures. But this does not make the coordination of public policy implementation easier because problems of control and subordination will always emerge during the implementation process.
The formal mechanism of coordination involves the development of an action plan and communicating that plan to all the people and organisations involved in the execution of that plan. It involves getting all the parties involved to accept the plan before implementing it. But the real challenge of coordination lies with the actual implementation of the action plan. For the implementation of public policies to be effective, coordination must be done at the vertical and horizontal levels among the involved organisations and within them. According to Peters (2005), cross-sectoral coordination is essential during policy creation and implementation
3According to Milgram & Roberts (1992), organisational incentives and constraints include the presence of a career plan and projection, presence of financial incentives for performance, and punishments for poor performance.
45 because it improves efficiency and effectiveness of policies. It also helps to avoid policy contradiction and redundancy, and can maximize budgetary resources. However, Schout and Jordan (2005) caution that coordination can be difficult when different policy sectors and implementing agents have separate goals, which can cause conflict among the actors.
Coordination can help to achieve cooperation between individuals and implementing organisations. The interdependence between various implementing agencies and individuals requires more elaborate forms of coordination. According to Chisholm (1989), interdependence in the context of policy implementation establishes the common purpose for joint action. However, interdependent relations can be complex, which calls for the need for coordination to build the necessary convergence among different stakeholders ( Leite and Buainain, 2013). As a result, O’Toole and Montjoy (1984) present three categories of interdependent relationships that exist in the intra-organisational context and these are: pooled, sequential and reciprocal interdependence.
Here, pooled interdependence occurs when the organisations involved in the policy implementation provide their own contributions without having to deal with each other in the process. Sequential interdependence occurs when the output of one implementing organisation or unit becomes the input of the other. O’Toole and Montjoy (1984) note that, organisations in a sequential interdependent relationship “are arranged in assembly-line fashion”. Reciprocal interdependence creates opportunities for the other to act in a mutual manner to achieve the policy goals. These categories are helpful for illustrating the basic nature of inter-organisational relationships, but do not explain the various ties and connections between units or individuals.
They also do not explain whether agents may act with a certain level of autonomy or not.
Nonetheless, as Leite and Buainain (2013) explain, the different types of interdependence demonstrate the complexity of interactions that exist between various actors during policy implementation.
The literature reveals that coordination is not easily achieved, even where formal mechanisms exist. There are three problematic areas that need to be addressed for inter-organisational coordination to be effective. These are: threats to autonomy, lack of task consensus, and conflicting requirements from vertical and horizontal linkages (Brinkerhoff, 1991; Briknerhoff and Crosby, 2002).
46 Interdependence can easily become a threat to the autonomy of individual organisations who want to maintain their control over resources, inputs and outputs, as well as their operations (Leite and Buainain, 2013). Interdependence means that organisations cease to become entirely autonomous entities and become invariably dependent on other organisations to which they are linked. According to Lindblom (1965), interdependence means that actors become capable of influencing each other’s choices and interests in a variety of ways. In addition, Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002) argue that organisations become reluctant to engage in coordination should they believe that the coordination requirements impinge upon their independence. The threats to autonomy are increased by diverse interests of stakeholders, different operational procedures of cooperating agencies, scarcity of resources and complicated linkages between organisations.
These threats can be alleviated and minimised through bargaining and negotiation. In addition, rules and regulations to safeguard the independence of actors can be formulated and agreed upon.
The lack of consensus among implementing agents regarding the task to be performed is another factor that makes coordination so important. For Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:120), lack of task consensus can be due to disagreement on “the client groups to be targeted, the actions to be undertaken, the services to be provided, the methodologies to be employed, and so on”. Cooperation between implementing organisations is difficult to achieve when there is lack of task consensus. Nonetheless, lack of task consensus can be resolved through bargaining and negotiation until a workable consensus is reached.
Coordination is essential in order to achieve an effective public policy implementation. It is also evident from the surveyed literature that coordination of public policy implementation can be a mammoth task due to multiple actors. The factors that make coordination difficult to achieve are summarised by Brinkerhoff and Crosby (2002:121) in their statement that:
“Most implementation actors belong to a variety of networks, some formal hierarchies in the case of sectoral ministry units, or more informal and lateral systems, for example, in the case of civil society groups or community associations.
Frequently, coordination places actors whose actions are to be coordinated in a situation in which they are subject to conflicting demands. The most common conflict is between the requirements for participating in lateral coordinated activities at the field level and in vertical sectoral hierarchies. Some of the difficulties here arise from legal constraints imposed by enabling legislation and administrative statutes that place limits on an agency’s margin for maneouver”.
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.