Topic 8 Policy Process Studies: Policy Implementation 2 The Third Generation of Implementation Theor

1
Topic 8Policy Process StudiesPolicy
Implementation 2 The Third Generation of
Implementation Theory
EDM 6209 Policy Studies in Education
2
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)

• Distinction between policy-centered and action
  centered approaches In reviewing the studies of
  policy implementation before the 1980s, Barrett
  and Fudge classify them into two approaches
• Policy-centered approach This approach takes the
  policy mandate as the foundation and crux of the
  implementation process.
• It defines the process of implementation is the
  logic and administrative lock-steps of "putting
  the policy into effect".
• The approach accepts the perspectives of the
  policy makers as the primary concerns and
  implementation is but the act of carrying out the
  policy-makers' prescription to the full.
• Accordingly, implementation is construed as a
  purely administrative task of imposing of control
  and soliciting compliance

3
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)

• Distinction between policy-centered and action
  centered approaches
• Action-centered approach
• It defines policy implementation as series of
  actions, i.e. a project or an agency, through
  which "getting something done" or "making
  something happen" is the primary goal rather than
  simply securing the compliance of the
  "street-level bureaucrats"
• The approach conceived policy implementation as
  performance rather than conformance. The
  performance or action is environment-dependent
  and context-dependent, hence constraints imposed
  by the environment as well as perspectives held
  by interaction partners must be taken into
  consideration as the implementation process
  unfolds in the field
• According, implementation is conceived as both a
  negotiating process as well as responsive process

4
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)

• Policy implementation as process of structuration
• Susan Barrett specifically underlines the
  influence of Giddens' Theory of Structuration on
  her formulation the Policy-Action Model. (2004,
  p. 256-257)

5
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)

• Policy implementation as process of structuration
• Three conceptual constituents in the Theory of
  Structuration (Giddens, 1984)
• The agency and the agent
• Agency is conceived as a flow of intentional
  action, i.e. a project
• Agent is defined as knowledgeable human actor,
  who possesses the capacity of carrying out
  intentional action
• The Structure Structure refers to those rules
  and resources, which "make possible for
  discernibly similar social practices to exist
  across varying spans of time and space.'
  (Giddens, 1984, p.17) In other words, it refers
  to "rules and resources recursively implicated in
  the reproduction of social systems." (Giddens,
  1984, p. 377)

6
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)

• Three conceptual constituents in the Theory of
  Structuration
• Structuration "Analysing the structuration of
  social systems grounded in the knowledgeable
  activities of situated actors who draw upon rules
  and resources in the diversity of action
  contexts, are produced and reproduced in
  interaction. The constitution of agents and
  structures are not two independently given sets
  of phenomena, a dualism, but represent a duality.
  According to the notion duality of structure, the
  structural properties of social systems are both
  medium and outcome of the practices they
  recursively organized. Structure is not
  'external' to individuals as memory traces, and
  as instantiated in social practices, it is in a
  sense more 'internal' than exterior to their
  activities. Structure is not to be equated with
  constraint but is always both constraining and
  enabling." (P.25) For example, the structure of a
  language system both constraints and enable
  agents, who are knowledgeable to that language,
  expressing herself and communicating with other
  agents in daily interactions.

7
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)

• Policy implementation as action-and-response
  process
• By applying the duality of structure and
  theory of structuration to the study of policy
  implementation, policy and its implementation can
  be reformulated as follows
• Policy can be conceived as a structure, i.e.
  rules and resources implicating the recurrence of
  particular sets of social practices. To take EMI
  policy as an example, it implicates that teachers
  and students will recursively adopt English as
  medium of instruction in their lessons.
• The duality of the structure can be illustrated
  by the fact that EMI policy as a structure is
  both the medium and the outcome of implementation
  process.

8
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)

• Policy implementation as action-and-response
  process
• Accordingly, policy implementation can no longer
  be conceptualized as a single linear progression
  of
• but as a recursive and ongoing process of actions
  and responses.

Policy
Action
(Structure)
(Agent)
9
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework

• Sabatier (1986/1993) puts forth the advocacy
  coalition framework as a means to synthesize the
  top-down and bottom-up models in policy
  implementation.
• By advocacy coalition, Sabatier refers to actors
  from various public and private organizations who
  share a set of beliefs and who seek to realize
  their common goals over time in a specific
  policy system (domain). (Sabatier, 1993, p. 284
  and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 120)
  From this definition, four essential features of
  advocacy coalition can be deduced.

10
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework

• From this definition, four essential features of
  advocacy coalition can be deduced.
• The composition of an advocacy coalition is made
  up of a variety of groupings (Sabatier and
  Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 118-119)
• administrative agencies,
• legislative committee,
• interest groups,
• journalists, researchers, and policy analysts,
  and
• actors at all levels of government active in
  policy formulation and implementation.

11
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework

• From this definition, four essential features of
  advocacy coalition can be deduced.
• The unit of analysis of policy implementation is
  neither the top-down officials and their policy
  directives nor the street-level bureaucrats and
  their accommodating strategies, but is the
  advocacy coalitions in a specific policy problem
  or issue, i.e. policy subsystem, such as higher
  education or air pollution control. (Sabatier,
  1993, 284)

12
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework

• From this definition, four essential features of
  advocacy coalition can be deduced.
• The delineative line or the integrative force of
  an advocacy coalition is its belief system, which
  can be differentiated into three levels.
  (Sabatier, 1993, p. 287 and Sabatier, 1999, p.
  133)
• The deep core Fundamental normative and
  ontological axioms
• The policy core Fundamental policy position
  concerning the basic strategies for achieving
  core values within the subsystem
• Instrumental decisions and information searches
  for necessary to implement policy core

13
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework

• From this definition, four essential features of
  advocacy coalition can be deduced.
• A longer time frame, i.e. a decade or more should
  be adopted in policy implementation so as to
  allow the policy process to complete at least
  one formulation/implementation/reformulation
  cycle, to obtain a reasonably accurate portrait
  of success and failure, and to appreciate the
  variety of strategies actors pursue over time.
  (Sabatier, 1993, p. 119)

14
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework

• Based on the conception of advocacy coalition,
  Sabatier constructs a advocacy coalition
  framework for policy implementation into three
  dimensions
• The exogenous factors In connection to the
  top-down approach of policy implementation,
  Sabatier organizes the exogenous factors into two
  sets
• Relative stable parameters
• External (system) events
• The intermediate factors It includes another two
  sets of factors
• Constraints and resources of subsystem actors
  (advocacy coalitions)
• Degree of consensus needed for major policy change

15
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework

• Based on the conception of advocacy coalition,
  Sabatier constructs a advocacy coalition
  framework for policy implementation into three
  dimensions
• The dynamics within the policy subsystem Based
  on the bottom-up approach, the framework put
  strong emphasis on the strategies and conflicts
  played out by different advocacy coalitions found
  in the policy subsystem under study. This part of
  the framework consists of
• Identifying the major advocacy coalitions (about
  3 to 4) at work in the policy subsystem
• Analyzing strategies adopted by advocacy
  coalitions to construct the policy outcome in
  accordance with their own belief systems.
• Analyzing the mediating process, through which
  the conflicts among coalition can be mitigated,
  compromised or even resolved by means of the work
  of the policy brokers.

16

• RELATIVELY STABLE PERAMETERS
• Basic attributes of the problem area (good)
• Basic distribution of natural resources
• Fundamental socio-cultural values and social
  structure
• Basic Constitutional structure (rules)

Degree of consensus needed for major policy change
POLICY SUBSYSTEM Coalition A Policy Coalition
B Brokers
a. Policy beliefs b. Resources
a. Policy beliefs b. Resources
Strategy A1 re guidance instruments
Strategy B1 re guidance instruments
Constraints And Resources Of Subsystem Actors
Decisions by Governmental Authorities

• EXTERNAL (SYSTEM) EVENTS
• Changes in socio-economic conditions
• Changes in public opinion
• Changes in systemic governing coalition
• Policy decisions and impacts from other subsystems

Institutional Rules, Resource Allocations, and
Appointments
Policy Outputs
Policy Impacts
(Sabatier, 1999, Figure 6.4)
17
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The concept of governance
• Governance - whether public or private - has
  been defined simply as the general exercise of
  authority. (Michalski et al, 2001 quoted in
  Hill, et al., 2005, p. 203)
• Common elements in definitions of pubic
  governance can be identified as the emphasis on
  rules and qualities of systems, co-operation to
  enhance legitimacy and effectiveness and the
  attention for new processes and public-private
  arrangement. (Hill et al., 2005, p. 204)
• The study of governance is to enquire the
  question how government continues to be an
  effective mechanism of performing and deciding on
  collective goals, then how to reach those goals.
  (Hill et al., 2005, p. 204)
• In short the concept of governance characterizes
  the a governments ability to govern and the
  efficiency to implement its policies

18
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The changing nature of governance
• In the past two decades, the governments in
  democratic-liberal state in capitalist societies
  have experienced the fundamental changes in their
  ability to govern and the efficiency to implement
  their policies. The changes are caused by the
  various historical, political and socioeconomic
  factors. To take England as an example, these
  factors include the followings.
• The rise of the New Conservative Government and
  the replacement of the post-WWII welfare-state
  policy orientation of the English government. One
  of the most of telling policy rhetoric of the
  change in public policy orientation is To Roll
  Back the State.

19
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The changing nature of governance
• The general policy measures of this policy
  orientation can be summarized with the concept of
  The Public Reform, which summarized a number of
  changes in public policies
• Decentralization of mechanism of policy
  implementation
• Deregulation of the public sector
• Marketization of the public services
• Privatization of the policy-service delivery
  agencies
• Governments role in public policy implementation
  changed from rowing to steering

20
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The changing nature of governance
• The changes in the governance of the
  democratic-capitalist state has further been
  accelerated by the advent of the transnational
  governance agencies, such as the WTO, World Bank,
  European Community, etc. and multinational
  corporations.
• These changes have been characterized by
  political theorists as the emergence of the
  fragmented state, the hollowing out the state,
  the erosion of the sovereignty of state, or
  simply the deterioration of the governance of the
  state.

21
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The emergence of the theory policy network in
  policy implementation
• One of the consequences of the roll-back-the-state
  project is the creation of the
  quasi-governmental agencies or even private and
  profit-making agencies to assume the role of
  implementing public policies and social programs.
  
• As a result, top-down model of policies
  implementation is no long at work, in its
  replacement is the policy network model, which is
  made up of all these quasi-governmental agencies
  and private corporations, which are on equal
  footing in policy implementation instead of in
  hierarchical order.

22
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The emergence of the theory policy network in
  policy implementation
• As a consequence, scholars not only started to
  describe these horizontal forms of governance
  that developed out of a changed distribution of
  power, but also tried to argue normatively why
  these forms of governance were the most effective
  and efficient for certain types of policy and
  organizational problems. The term network was
  claimed to be the new paradigm for the
  architecture of complexity (Simon, Raab and
  Kenis, 2007, 189)

23
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The emergence of the theory policy network in
  policy implementation
• The network logic in Network Society
• The Atom is the past. The symbol of science
  for the next century is the dynamical Net
  Whereas the Atom represents clean simplicity, the
  Net channels the messy power of complexity. The
  only organization capable of nonprejudiced
  growth, or unguided learning is a network. All
  other typologies limited what can happen. A
  network swarm is all edges and therefore open
  ended any way you come at it. Indeed, the network
  is the least structured organization that can be
  said to have any structure at all. In fact a
  plurality of truly divergent components can only
  remain coherent in a network. No other
  arrangement chain, pyramid, tree, circle, hub
  can contain true diversity work as a whole.
  (Kelly, 1995, p.25-27 quoted in Castells, 19976,
  note71, p. 61-62)

24
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The emergence of the theory policy network in
  policy implementation
• The concept of policy network
• By policy network, it is defined by Benson as a
  cluster or complex of organizations connected to
  each other by resource dependencies and
  distinguished from other clusters or complexes by
  breaks in the structure of resource
  dependencies. (Benson, 1982, p. 148)
• Williamson conceives policy network as a form of
  governance that can be located between the
  continuum of Hierarchy and Market. As a form of
  governance, it is characterized by the plurality
  of autonomous actors, as they are found within
  markets, and the capacity to pursue collective
  goals through deliberately coordinated actions,
  which is one of the major elements of hierarchy.
  (Raab and Kennis, 2007, 191)

25
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• The emergence of the theory policy network in
  policy implementation
• The concept of policy network
• In other words, the implementation of public
  policy is no long coordinated by bureaucratic
  hierarchy of the state but by the what Castell
  call the logic of network.

26
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• Policy network model approaches policy
  implementation with the following core
  assumptions
• The unit of analysis of policy implementation is
  neither the top-down directives from the
  bureaucratic hierarchy, nor the interpretations
  and discretions of street-level bureaucrats, but
  the autonomous quasi-governmental agencies and
  private corporations.
• The focus of the study is how these autonomous
  organizations relate or connect to each other
  in a way to attain the policy objectives, to
  carry out the policy measures, and to materialize
  the policy outcome.

27
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance

• Policy network model approaches policy
  implementation with the following core
  assumptions
• The mechanism that integrate the policy network
  together are
• Interdependence Operating in policy network
  agencies must work in a cooperative and yet
  mutual independent way
• Game-like interactions Organizations within the
  network also interact in competitive footings for
  resources hand down by the government in the form
  of tenders and contracts
• Governmental mechanism of steering at a distance,
  such as measures of output accountability, value
  for money, quality assurance, performance
  auditing, etc.

28
Policy Learning in Learning Organizations

• "Since the 1990s, implementation researchers have
  increasingly come to see the problem of
  educational policy implementation as one of
  teacher learning." (Coburn Stein, 2006, p. 25).
  Within the third generation of education-policy
  implementation, researches on policy learning and
  cognition have grown into one of the prominence
  school within the field.

29
Policy Learning in Learning Organizations

• At individual level, researches on teacher
  learning and cognition have revealed that as
  primary implementers of policy, teachers do not
  mechanically comply with policy directives but
  they would interpret and make sense of the
  objectives, measures, outcomes and consequences
  of the policy to be implemented. What researches
  on policy implementation and cognition revealed
  "is not simply that implementing agents choose to
  respond to policy but also what they understand
  themselves to be responding to. The fundamental
  nature of cognition is that new information is
  always interpreted in light of what is already
  understood. An individual's prior knowledge and
  experience, including tacitly held expectations
  and beliefs about how the world work, serve as
  lens influencing what the individual notices in
  the environment and how the stimuli that are
  noticed are processed, encode, organized, and
  subsequently interpreted." (Spillane et al.,
  2006, p. 49)

30
Policy Learning in Learning Organizations

• At community level, recent researches on
  educational policy implementation also revealed
  that "sense-making is not a solo affair an
  individual's situation or social context
  fundamentally shapes how human cognition affects
  policy implementation." Education-policy learning
  by definition as well as by nature takes place in
  institutional sitting, i.e. schools. In other
  words, "social agents' thinking and action is
  situated in institutional sectors that provide
  norms, rules, and definition of the environment
  that both constrain and enable action." (Spillane
  et al, 2006, p. 56) As a result, researches on
  professional community practice and learning
  community formation have become a prominent area
  of study in the field of education-policy
  implementation. (Odden, 1991 Honig, 2006)

31
Learning Organizations Theories

• Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
• Two dimensions of knowledge creation
• Epistemological
• Ontological

32
(No Transcript)
33
Learning Organizations Theories

• Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
• Two dimensions of knowledge creation
• Epistemological
• Ontological
• Two types of knowledge
• Tacit knowledge
• Explicit knowledge

34
(No Transcript)
35
Learning Organizations Theories

• Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
• Two dimensions of knowledge creation
• Epistemological
• Ontological
• Two types of knowledge
• Tacit knowledge
• Explicit knowledge
• Four models of knowledge conversion
• Socialization Sharing and creating tacit
  knowledge through direct experience individual
  to individual
• Externalization Articulating tacit knowledge
  through dialogue and reflection individual to
  group
• Combination Systemizing and applying explicit
  knowledge and information group to organization
• Internalization Learning and acquiring new tacit
  knowledge in practice organization to individual

36
(No Transcript)
37
Learning Organizations Theories

• Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
• Knowledge spiral
• Field building
• Dialogue
• Linking explicit knowledge/networking
• Learning by doing

38
(No Transcript)
39
Learning Organizations Theories

• Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
• Knowledge spiral
• Field building
• Dialogue
• Linking explicit knowledge/networking
• Learning by doing
• Spiral of organizational knowledge creation

40
(No Transcript)
41
Learning Organizations Theories

• Peter Senges The Fifth Discipline of the
  learning organization
• The five learning disciplines
• Personal mastery
• Mental models
• Shared vision
• Team learning
• System thinking
• System thinking - The fifth discipline

42
Personal Mastery
System Thinking
Shared Version
Mental Models
Team Learning
43
Learning Organizations Theories

• Peter Senges The Fifth Discipline of the
  learning organization
• The five learning disciplines
• Personal mastery
• Mental models
• Shared vision
• Team learning
• System thinking
• System thinking - The fifth discipline
• The Framework of learning organization
• Implicate (generative order)
• The Essence of the LO
• The architecture of LO
• The wheel of learning
• Results

44
The Framework of learning organization
45
The wheel of learning
46
Learning Organizations Theories

• Kenneth Leithwoods theory of learning school
• Learning organization is defined as a group of
  people pursuing common purpose (individual
  purposes as well) with a collective commitment to
  regularly weighing the value of those purpose,
  modifying them when makes sense, and continuously
  developing more effective and efficient ways of
  accomplishing those purpose. (Leitrhwood
  Aitken, 1995, p.63)
• Five constituents of the framework of the
  learning organization
• Stimulus for learning
• Organizational-learning process
• Out-of-conditions
• School conditions
• School leadership
• Outcome

47
Synthesizing the Third Generation of Education
Policy Implementation Studies

• Meredith I. Honig synthesis (2006)

48
END
Topic 8Policy Process Studies Policy
Implementation 2 The Third Generation of
Implementation Theory