PPA 503

1
PPA 503 The Public Policy-Making Process

• Lecture 8a - Implementation

2
Overview

• Two conclusions.
• No one is clearly in charge of implementation.
• Domestic programs virtually never achieve all
  that is expected of them.
• Eight generalizations.
• No one individual or group is in charge.
• Domestic programs never achieve all that is
  expected of them.
• The first two are true because of the political
  structure and conflicting values of the
  participants.

3
Overview

• Eight generalizations (contd.).
• Bureaucrats are the most influential actors, but
  do not control implementation.
• Patterns of implementation vary depending on the
  different social purposes of policies.
• Decentralization influences implementation.
• The meaning of effective implementation varies
  across situations.
• Effectiveness does not necessarily translate into
  desired impacts.

4
Implementation in the Policy Process

• Definition the set of activities that follow
  statements of intent (laws, court decisions,
  executive orders) about program goals and desired
  results by government officials.
• Implementation encompasses actions (and
  nonactions) by a variety of actors, especially
  bureaucrats, designed to put programs into
  effect, ostensibly in such a way as to achieve
  goals.

5
Implementation in the Policy Process

• Actions
• Acquire resources.
• Interpret statutes, laws, decisions and plan
  activities.
• Organize.
• Extend benefits or restrictions.

6
The Nature of Implementation

• Generalizations.
• There are a very large number of external factors
  that can influence implementation.
• For implementation to proceed without any major
  hitches, all or virtually all of these external
  factors must be supportive or at least neutral.
  Any one or few that are nonsupportive can derail
  the entire implementation process in a variety of
  ways.
• There are also a large number of factors internal
  to implementation processes that inevitably
  provide obstacles to smooth implementation.

7
The Nature of Implementation

• Most important features.
• Implementation processes involve many important
  actors holding diffuse and competing goals and
  expectations who work within a context of an
  increasingly large and complex mix of government
  programs that require participation from numerous
  layers and units of government and who are
  affected by power factors beyond their control.

8
The Nature of Implementation

• Many actors.
• Number and identity.
• The basic point is that executives, legislatures,
  bureaucrats, a variety of private or
  non-governmental groups and individuals, and
  courts at all of the three major territorial
  levels in the U.S. (federal, state, and local)
  can and do get involved in the implementation of
  domestic policies.
• Actors in the implementation process (next slide).

9
The Nature of Implementation
TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process
Level Executive Officials and Organizations Legislative Officials and Organizations Bureaucratic Officials and Organizations Nongovernmental Individuals and Organizations Judicial Officials and Organizations
Federal President Executive Office of the President Staff Congress (committees and individual members) Congressional staff and support agencies Department and agency heads Staff-civil servants (Washington and regional) Corporations Labor unions Interest groups Advisory bodies Nonprofit agencies Media Federal judges Law clerks Marshals Masters, experts US Attorneys
State Governor Governors staff State legislature (Committee and individuals) Staff and support agencies Department and agency heads Staff-civil servants (state capitol and regional (Same as above with state focus and impact) State judges Law clerks Miscellaneous state judicial officials
Local Mayor County commissioners Other local elected officials Staff City councils, board of commissioners, other local elected officials, staff Department and agency heads Staff-civil servants (central and field offices) (Same as above with local focus and impact) Local judges Law clerks Miscellaneous local judicial officials
10
The Nature of Implementation

• Many actors (contd.).
• The role of private actors.
• Interest groups.
• Groups attempt to influence implementation.
  Influence does not stop with formulation and
  legitimation.
• Not only can interests help create policies, but
  policies can create interests.
• Bureaucracies will sometimes take the initiative
  in creating groups around the policies that they
  implement. Both allies and opposing groups.
• The blurring of public and private sectors.
• Advisory groups contribute to this phenomenon.

11
The Nature of Implementation

• Many actors (contd.).
• The role of courts.
• Decisions that limit, channel, mandate
  implementation.
• Program administrators, sometimes.
• Lack of hierarchy.
• Promotes bargaining, competition, and compromise.
• Even in hierarchies, this is true.

12
The Nature of Implementation

• Many actors (contd.).
• Conflict and compromise.
• Policy formulation and legitimation are typically
  characterized by some conflict over both goals
  and means to attain them.
• Conflict reduced or resolved through series of
  compromises that allow legislation to pass.
• Conflict does not end with the passage of the
  legislation. Carries over into implementation.
  Losers attempt to change the outcome winners
  attempt to maintain advantage.
• Multiple opportunities for influence and access.
• No decisions are final.

13
The Nature of Implementation

• Goals and Expectations.
• Goals embedded in programs are diffuse, numerous,
  and usually fuzzy.
• No single clear goal confusion.
• Competition among goals.
• Unexpected costs unintended consequences.
• Growth of government and complexity of programs.
• Increases in budget outlays.
• Increases in government expenditures as a
  percentage of GDP.
• Slow increases in federal employment, rapid
  increases in state and local employment.
• Greater use of nonprofit and private sector.
• Rise of grants-in-aid to 1970.
• External uncontrollable factors.
• Economic changes.
• Social changes.

14
Policy Implementation

• Public policies are not self-executing.
• Since people who formulate and adopt are usually
  not the same as those who implement, much room
  for slippage and distortion.
• Policy implementation is the stage of policy
  making between the establishment of a policy and
  the consequences of the policy for the people it
  affects.

15
Policy Implementation

• Public policies are not self-executing (contd.).
• Implementation activities.
• Issue and enforcing directives.
• Disbursing funds.
• Making loans.
• Awarding grants.
• Signing contracts.
• Collecting data.
• Disseminating information.
• Analyzing problems.
• Assigning and hiring personnel.
• Creating organizational units.
• Proposing alternatives.
• Planning for the future.
• Negotiating with private citizens, businesses,
  interest groups, legislative committees,
  bureaucratic units, and even other countries.

16
Policy Implementation

• What are the conditions that produce effective or
  ineffective implementation?
• Communication.
• Resources.
• Dispositions.
• Bureaucratic structure.

17
Communication.

• First requirement for effective policy
  implementation is that those are to implement a
  decision must know what they are supposed to do.
  Policy decisions and implementation orders must
  be transmitted to the appropriate personnel
  before they can be followed. Naturally, these
  need to be accurate, and they must be accurately
  perceived. They must be clear, they must be
  consistent.

18
Communication.

• Transmission.
• Implementers must be aware that the decision was
  made.
• Obstacles.
• Disagreement.
• Multiple layers of bureaucracy.
• Selective perception.

19
Communication

• Clarity.
• Vague laws.
• Example maximum feasible participation.
• Vagueness allows leeway
• Inhibits change, but can also expand it.
• Finding the true intentions.
• Reducing discretion can provide some remedy.
• Ambiguous court decisions.
• Death penalty.
• Brown vs. Board of Education.
• But, flexibility has some value.
• Reasons for lack of clarity.
• Complexity of policy-making.
• Competing goals and the need for consensus.
• Unfamiliarity of new programs.
• Avoiding accountability.
• Nature of court decisions.

20
Communication

• Consistency.
• Example Economic Development Administration.
• Help jobless by attracting or expanding industry.
• Could not subsidize competitors to existing
  businesses.
• Inconsistency can also lead to discretion.
• Causes.
• Increases as levels and offices increase.
• Many of the conditions affecting clarity also
  affect consistency.
• Desire to appear consistent while making a change
  can lead to inconsistent communication.

21
Resources

• Adequate resources are essential.
• Staff most essential.
• Size.
• Most programs are understaffed.
• 1968 HEW supervise school desegregation with 48
  enforcement officers in 23,000 school districts.
• To avoid, feds have transferred implementation to
  state and local governments, which are also
  understaffed.
• Michigan Staff of 10 to consider funding
  requests of 462 school districts.
• Example environmental protection.
• 62,000 primary sources of water pollution plus
  sewers, irrigation, agriculture. 150 million
  polluting motor vehicles, 2,000 toxic dump sites,
  2,000 to 40,000 sources of industrial air
  pollution, 50,000 pesticides.
• State environmental protection agencies have 15
  to 200 inspectors and can examine 3 to 30
  sources per day.
• Why? Fear of totalitarian monster, allocate
  personnel for direct services. Scarcity of funds
  combined with zeal to create new programs.

22
Resources

• Staff (contd.)
• Skills.
• Lack of skills critical.
• Poorly trained staff can create hazards. Seven
  of ten nuclear power plant operator applicants in
  1978 in Michigan failed licensing exam and were
  hired anyway.
• Implementation by state agencies is also a
  problem.
• Few management people with skills.
• New programs.
• Difficult to hire.

23
Resources

• Information.
• Knowing what to do.
• Especially new or technical like air pollution.
• Consequences.
• Responsibilities not met.
• Not met on time.
• Inefficiency.
• Mistakes.
• Inappropriate.
• Monitor compliance.
• Information on compliance.
• But, lack of staff critical.
• Reliance on information from regulated industry.
• Limited authority.
• Reliance on private sector private citizens.

24
Resources

• Authority.
• Authority to give aid, but less to constrain.
• Limitations.
• Exercising authority many agencies simply do
  not have the authority. Or it exists only on
  paper.
• Withdrawal of funds potential weapon, rarely
  used. Why?
• Embarrassing.
• Antagonizes implementers.
• Alienates members of Congress.
• Intervention by powerful state and local
  authorities.
• May hurt those it is designed to help.
• May injure innocent persons loss of jobs.
• Sanctions can be useful. Gives agency excuse to
  comply.
• Result Service orientation higher level
  officials ask for assistance rather than issue
  orders. Rarely challenge lower level decisions.

25
Resources

• Facilities Physical.
• Building, equipment, supplies.
• Shortage of sophisticated equipment.
• Logistics system on one military base purchased
  from Radio Shack.
• But many people oppose the building of facilities
  in their area (NIMBY).

26
Dispositions (Attitudes)

• Well-disposed to policy, more likely to be
  carried out according to intentions. If not,
  implementation more complicated. Since
  implementers have discretion, their attitudes can
  be obstacles.

27
Dispositions (Attitudes)

• Effects.
• Many policies fall in zone of indifference, will
  be implemented. Others excite opposition, will be
  more difficult.
• Sources of parochialism.
• In-breeding.
• Careerism in one agency.
• Narrow range of responsibility.
• Reward distribution supports status quo.
• Committee and interest group pressure.

28
Dispositions (Attitudes)

• Effects (contd.).
• Dispositions hindering implementation.
• Opposition
• Can prevent consideration of ideas.
• Can defeat immediate goals.
• But, can be beneficial if used to ignore orders
  issued in haste.
• Competing policy interests.
• Selective perception.
• Differences in organizational outlook.
• Between organizations.
• Within organizations, between sections.
• Outlooks that affect implementation.
• Dominant opinion as to function.
• Turf-building.
• Program raids.
• Protection of autonomy.
• Private dispositions.

29
Dispositions (Attitudes)

• If dispositions limit implementation, why not
  hire new personnel?
• Time.
• Politics.
• Interest groups.
• Internal opposition.
• Lack of knowledge of skilled personnel.
• Subcabinet discretion.
• Civil service rules.
• Bureaucratic complexity.

30
Dispositions (Attitudes)

• Incentives.
• Rewards and punishments can work, but generally
  only on individual projects.
• Rewards.
• Merit pay rarely used
• Promotion usually seniority.
• Peer group pressure can mitigate rewards.
• Goal displacement trying to beat system.

31
Bureaucratic Structure

• Standard operating procedures (SOPs).
• Routines to handle everyday situations.
• Reasons.
• Save time.
• Uniformity of application.
• Lack of resources requires simplification.
• Tunnel vision.
• Problems.
• Inhibit change.
• Prevent acceptance of responsibility for new
  programs.
• Delay.
• Waste resources.
• Undesired actions.
• New policies more likely to be hindered.
• But, SOPs can help change.

32
Bureaucratic Structure

• Fragmentation.
• Congress has created multiple programs and
  agencies to improve oversight, maximize
  intervention, and divide turf.
• Agencies possessive of jurisdiction.
• Interest groups favor status quo.
• Consequences.
• Diffusion of responsibility.
• Lack of coordination.

33
Full Model Interactions
34
Problems and Prospects

• Poorly communicated directives in the wrong
  structure can aggravate preexisting dispositions
  against the policy leading to wasted resources
  and ineffective implementation.
• Policies apt to face difficulties in
  implementation.
• New policies.
• Decentralized implementation.
• Controversial.
• Complex.
• Crisis.
• Judicial decisions.
• Combinations of the above factors.