A policy is generally useless if it is not implemented.
Implementation battles are also where significant power and debate can occur.
Policies are not self-executing.
Often determines the success or failure of a policy.
Bureaucrats have discretion in how they implement policies.
Bureaucrats are not completely unbiased nor are they free to do whatever they want.
Responsible for translating goals and intent of policy into action.
Theory came from case studies of specific programs.
Derthic’s New Towns in Town (1969)
Pressman and Wildavsky’s Implementation (1973)
Needed commitment in the executive branch.
Consider local needs and preferences in policy design.
Consider and adapt to local conditions.
There is no “one” best way to implement a policy.
Complexity of Joint Action
Simple and straightforward is often complex and convoluted.
Different perspectives and different measures of success.
Diverse implementers: agreement on the means but not always on the ends.
All depends on interorganizational relationships.
Organizations have:
Incompatible goals
Preferences for other policies
Simultaneous commitments to other projects
Dependence on others who are slow to act
Differences of opinion on leadership
Agreement coupled with lack of power.
When a policy or program depends on so many actors, there are numerous possibilities for disagreement and delay.
Theoretical development and empirical testing.
An era of theorizing.
Strength: first attempts at creating some kind of unified theory of implementation.
Weakness: too much emphasis on the rationality of the process.
Policy is a rational process.
Policy is a linear process.
Policy is a hierarchical process.
Clear goals and objectives.
Overhead democracy: accountability to the public through elected officials and appointed bureaucrats.
Clear lines of authority and responsibility:
Policy is not a rational process.
Emphasis on goals at the top and not on workers on the ground.
Intergovernmental cooperation is often more difficult than expected.
Implementers may circumvent the policy-makers’ intent.
The Forest Service is a top-down organization.
Are the goals always clear?
What goal is the most important?
How do you measure success?
How do you measure failure?
Failure to consider the role of the courts.
Doesn’t always account for federalism
Most policies are based on multiple statutes and regulations.
But… federal officials can impose roles on who implements and apply sanctions and rewards to promote a particular implementation design.
Emphasis is placed on where the government meets the people.
Backward mapping: starts with policy targets and works backward to identify which implementers and policy tools might affect behavioral change.
Policy design considers the abilities and motivations of the lowest-level implementers, the street-level bureaucrats or the engaged target population.
Emphasis on the people who actually implement the policy.
Recognizes goals are ambiguous and that there are multiple goals.
Allows for administrative discretion, acknowledging that one size doesn’t fit all.
Policy is likely to reflect community needs and preferences.
Does not require a single statute or “policy.”
Better accommodates a pluralistic society and a network of actors.
Better accommodates federalism.
Overemphasizes the agency of the implementers.
Discretion and differentially designated authority can create ambiguous goals and accomplishments.
Street-level bureaucrats may subvert the intent of the policy and elected officials’ goals.
The NMSL required states to adopt a maximum speed limit of 55 mph.
The NMSL was repealed in 1995.
Realizes implementation is communication between policymakers and implementers
Recognizes the importance of the policy network.
Synthesizes the top-down and bottom-up models.
Implementation is a process of communication between policymakers and implementers.
Success comes from sufficient resources, clear goals, and a supportive political environment.
Strategic delay on the part of the states allows for policy learning and policy diffusion
This can lead to innovation and improvement as states learn from each other.
The fourth Generation is still being developed.
It is a synthesis of the first three eras – particularly an outgrowth of the 3rd Generation.
The general trend is to move away from long-term causal relationships and toward a more dynamic and interactive process.
Move to program implementation focus instead of the policy implementation orientation of previous generations.
Other disciplines have moved away from the linear model of policy implementation to a more dynamic and interactive process of programs
The programmatic focus is less on broad theories and more on what works for a particular program.
Geared toward the practical considerations of making programs more effective.
The core disciplines of political science and public administration are still focused on comprehensive causal frameworks of policy implementation.
Implementation is the process by which policies enacted by the legislative and executive branches are carried out by the bureaucracy and the courts.
Implementation is a critical stage of the policy process.
Implementation studies have gone through four generations of development.