Policy implementation

In the final analysis, the success of public administration for development can be measured only
in relation to the implementation of policies. Policy implementation is of critical importance to
the success of government. Good political system, defined goals, sound organizational system
are foundation of PI. It depends on intentions of policy adopters. So, there is need of attention of
policy maker on capacity of implementators and resources as well. It is most important aspect.

PI as the process of putting policy into effect by public and private individuals, is difficult to
define. Implementation can be seen essentially in terms of the nature and degree of control
exercised over the operations of policy/programme/projects.

In its most general form, it is the phase between a decision and operations. Implementation seeks
to determine whether an organization is able to carry out and achieve its stated objectives. It
concerns with minimum of delays, costs and problems through organization strategy and
management.

So an adopted policy carried out by administrative units which mobilize financial and human
resources to comply with the policy. PI Involves the creation of policy delivery system in which
specific mechanisms are designed and pursued to achieve the stated policy goals and objectives.
Monitoring provides policy relevant knowledge on the consequences of implemented policies.

It helps to assess :

i. Degree of compliance

ii. Discover unintended consequence of policies and programs ( C.S. teams field
report of Terai, time bound promotion of civil servants)

iii. Helps determine if resources and services for beneficiaries reached them

iv. Discover implementational obstacles and constraints

For effective policy implementation of Policy.

ELEMENTS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation, as putting policy into action, is a difficult exercise. It involves various elements,
e.g. implementing the national health policy (Health for allby 2000 A.D. in India) required
human and financial resources, time and skills and the creation of necessary health organizations.
From this example the policy implementation is depends on:

1. Knowing what you want to do;

2. the availability of the required resources;
 3. the ability to marshal and control these resources to achieve the desired end; and
4. if others are to carry out the tasks, communicating what is wanted and controlling their
performance.

Putting policy into effect involves not the end of policy-making, but a continuation of policy-
making by other means. At the minimum, implementation includes;

1. adequate personnel and the financial resources to implement the policy;

2. the administrative capability to achieve the desired policy goals; and
3. political and judicial support (from the legislative, executive and judicial wings of the
government) for the successful implementation of policy.

From above we found that the policy implementation is critical to the success of government.
When policies work, the executive is eager to take the credit; when they fail, blame can be
assigned to an administrative process.

Merilee S. Grindle in their book, considers implementation to be a 'general process of

administrative action' which can be evaluated by measuring programme outcomes against goals.
The general process of implementation can begin only when general goals and objectives have
been designed, and when adequate funds have been allocated for the pursuit/search of goals.

The study of policy indicates the complexity of the policy process. It involves an environmental
setting from which demands and needs are generated a political system which first processes and
then makes policy decision and an administrative organization or system which implements
policy decisions. In fact, the implementation of public policies is divided between these three
settings.

Policy Goals Implementing activities Outcomes

Goals achieved? Influenced by:
Action programmes and A. Content of policy a. Impact o society,
individual projects designed 1.Interests affected individuals and groups
and funded 2. type of benefits b. change and its
3. extent of change envisioned acceptance
4. Site of decision making
5. programme implementers
6. resources committed

B. Content of
implementation
1. power, interests, and
strategies of actors involved
2. institution and regime
characteristics
 3. compliance/fulfill and
responsiveness

MEASURING SUCCESS

Figure: Implementation as political and administrative process

Successful implementation is therefore dependent on inputs, output and outcomes. Inputs are
the resources (personnel and finance) mobilized in producing outputs (decisions taken by the
implementators) to achieve the outcomes (what happens to the target groups intended to be
affected by policy). Irrespective of the level of outputs of an implementing organization, if the
intended effect in the target group is not found, something is wrong. Policy does not implement
itself. It has to be translated into action.

Implementation has to be seen from the point of view of the system approach which is a link
between the effort of making a policy and its implementation. The general boundaries, within
which implementation takes place, are set with reference to policy goals and the necessary
mechanisms through which these goals are translated into policy actions. With this view of the
process, the focus of argument is that 'things have to be made to happen' and implementation
must be treated as a positive, purposive effort in itself.

IMPLEMENTERS
The principle function of public administration is the implementation of policies. It has
concentrated on the machinery for the implementation of public policies, as given, rather then
on making them. The administrative organizations and agencies performs day-to-day activities.
The main implementers of policies are:

1. Bureaucracy and other administrative organizations

The bureaucracy is an executive branch of the government as well as administrative

organization consisting of a legal body of non-elected employed officials which is organized
hierarchically into departments in accordance with the rules governing the conditions of their
service. This is an important institution which performs most of the day-to-day work of
government. It is the bureaucracy who controls thepersonnel, money, materials andlegal
powers of government, and it is this institution that receives most of the implementation
directives from the executive, legislative and judicial decision-makers. It is a question of
controversy whether the bureaucracy isstrong enough to dominate the political elite or vice
versa. However, bureaucracy has never been a popular word. It is said to be afflicted with
excesses if red tape, tedious rules and an attitude of unresponsiveness, Despite its
maladies/problems, it is important because implementation is the continuation of policy-
making through other means.

Legislation is never self-implementing but requires delegation to appropriate organizations and

personnel. Placing a programme in perspective is the first task of implementation, and
administering the day-to-day work of an established programme is the second. It is because
delegation and discretion permeate bureaucratic implementation that it plays a crucial role in
the power structure of policy-making and policy action. Technically, the task of all public
organizations and personnel is to implement, execute and enforce law and policy. In doing so,
most personnel do use bureaucratic discretion. It is pointed out theat legislation does not
minimize discretion and more details may even increase personnel discretion. So, the chief
executives must put in efforts to control bureaucratic discretion. If public agencies do not
implement it can be change by legislative. The CEO may also overrule rutine bureaucratic
interpretation of legislation. The way of implementation is transfer responsibility to other
agencies, replace agency head and paring/cutting the agency budget. In this direction the
Legislation can play watch-dog role. Other ways are public hearings, public debate through
media and other forums to pressure the bureaucracy. The pressure group also can play role by
filing case in Court. The legislature can take the concerned bureaucracy to court for
malfeastance in implementing legislation. Other mechanism can apply to successful
implementation.

2. Legislative bodies

Though Legislative bodies roleis not very crucial on implementation, the legislature may affect
the administrative organization in several ways. In law, the power of legislature is virtually
unlimited. It subjects administrative action to examination and criticism. It can lay down limits
to administrative discretion and delegation. The more detailed the legislation passed, the less
discretion does the bureaucracy have. It authorizes taxation and expenditure,and holds the
executive to account for financial decisions. It may specify limits in the legislation over the use
of budgetary funds. Further it may issue statements or suggestions concerning how the
legislation should be implemented. The parliament, the public account committee, the
committee on state affairs and other committees often attempt to influence the actions of
administrative agencies that fail within their purview. Parliamentary approval is required for
many top-level administrative appointments, and this may be used to influence the
implementation process. Not only this, parliamentary approval is sought before some action is
taken against them. Finally, it has been noted that much of the time of several legislators is
devoted to casework which often involves problems that their constituents are having with
administrative organizations. The constituents invariably depend on legislators for securing
favourableactions for themselves. Most of the ruling members of legislature are often chairme
of many public sector undertaking in Nepal. Consequently they can affect implementation iv
variety of ways. However, it may be noted that any control which parliament might be said to
exercise over the executive is largely inderice, inducing self-control and responsibility under the
threat of exposure, tather than control in the sense of actually implementing policies.

3. JUDICIAL BODIES

Judicial bodies including the administrative tribunals have also played a crucial role in their
efforts to implement public policies. In Nepal and many other developing countries, most laws
are enforced through judicial action. The Income Tax Act and others dealing with crimes, are
some examples. Many of the clauses stipulated in the Acts are subjected to judicial
interpretation. Because of this and the power review, the courts are both indirectly as well as
directly involved in policy implementation. The Nepal Constitution entitles the Supreme Court
and others to exercise judicial review of legislation and act of Executive. The implementation of
policies in many fields has been influenced by judicial decisions. The judicial bodies can help,
obstruct or nullify/annul the implementation of particular policies through their interpretations
of statutes and decisions. It is necessary to note that the role of the judiciary in responding to
administrative action has usually been to protect the rights of the citizen faced with growing
state power and is designed to defend the weak and the poor. Judges are more concerned with
the procedural qualities of executive decision-making than with their substantive content.

4. INTEREST GROUP

The exercise of influence on the implementation process through interest groups is a feature of
Nepali Administration. For the ordinary individual the interest group is an important channel of
communication.

Powerful interest groups also affect the policy implementation process. They will seek to
intervene at every stage in the policy implementation chain, basing their strategies on those
parts of the chain which seem most open to influence. In spheres like pollution control, land
and agriculture policy, and in many other social policy areas, the interest groups affect
administration. The cooperation within the social implementation processes is seen as a way of
handling and channeling conflicts of interest.

However, the involvement of the interest groups in the policy implementation suggests that the
policy issues are best settled by bargaining during the implementation process. This may be
seen as the development of discretionary powers in the hands of interest groups. They might
be more inclined to protect their members' interests than those of the general public.

5. COMMUNITY GROUPS
Community groups and agencies have also come to exercise a good deal of influence on the
policy implementation process. In Nepal, for example, the coperative and consumers groups,
have frequently heen used for the administration of central grovernment programmes. The
financial activities occured through coperative and construction works held in involvement of
the consumers groups in local level. So, the implementation of the government policies,
programmes and plans depends on this kind of groups. For e.g. Vitamin A feeding programme
to childrens can not be implement without mobilisation of local women volunteers.

6. INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL STRUCTURES.

Political parties and executive staff agencies also affect the policy implementation process. As
pointed out earlier, civil servants will argue that their policy-related advice to ministers is based
solely upon practical considerations of feasibility in implementation. On the other hand,
politicians will stress that they only concern themselves with implementation when policy goals
are being distorted in day-to-day practice. These comments have shown that the roles of
politicians and civil servants are important in the administration of public policies. Thus, the
study of implementation is closely linked with issues of inter-governmental relations. It may
also be found that the the government plays a core role in setting up the administrative
structure within which this activity occurs and an increasing dominant role in relation to the
provision of financial resources. In Nepal political parties often seen to be exerting their
influence on both the executive and its branch, the bureaucracy, to implement policies which
serve their purposes. They have been considered agents for establishing popular control over
government and policies.

In short, while the bureaucracy, executive staff agencies, commissions are the primary
implementors of public policies, many other actors are involved, and they should not be
neglected in our study of the policy process. Hence, policy analysis should not exclude whoever
has and influence on the administration of a given policy.

Even above implementers of the public policy there should have some techniques to be
adopted for.

CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION

Policy implementation is seen varying along a continuum ranging from successful to aborted.
Successful implementation involves many operations and procedures as well as time and
resources. Howver, successful implementation should not be equated with impact measures as
implementation is not the same thing as impact. For example, Any one policy may be fully
implementated and yet have little if any intended impact.
For effective implementation policy maker pay maor attention ti implementation capacity and
sets out a checklist of questions:

(a) How well articulated is the policy to the implementors?

(b) How capable are the policy-makers of developing meaningful guidelines for and
assistance to implementors?
(c) How capable are the implementors to develop and carry out new policy?
(d) How much ability/power do either have to change (i.e, the policy makers and
implementors) the order?

Sabatier and Mazmanian take an even bolder approach in an article published and identify five
conditions for effective policy implementation. They are:

1. The programme is based on sound theory relating changes in target group behaviour to
the achievements of the desired end-state (objectives).
2. The stature (or other basie policy decision) contains unambiguous policy directives and
structures of the implementation process so as to maximise the likelihood that target
groups will perform as desired.
3. The leaders of the implementation agencies posses substantial managerial and political
skill and are committed to statutory goals.
4. The programme is actively supported by organised constituency groups and by a few
key legislators (or the cheif executive) throughtout the implementation process, with
the courts being neutral or supportive.
5. The relative priority of statutory objectives is not significantly undermined over time by
the emergence of conflicting public policies or by change in relevant socie-economic
conditions that undermine the statute's 'technical' theory or political support.

The argument put forward by these authors is that problems can be avoided by anticipating
complications and difficulties in advance. But this assumes that implementation takes place
in a static environment and in a politics-free world.

But a policy to be implemented, must be given concrete shape. In particular, the

presumptions skate over the whole issue of consensus, either, in a party-political or
ideological sence, or in terms of organisationsl interests affected by policy. Chase says that
it is difficult to obtain compliance whether policy or a programme is to be implemented by
agencies whose intentions do not necessarily coincide with those of the policy formulators.
Solutions to his difficulty are therefore seen in terms of:

(a) Gaining credibility

(b) Reference to higher authority
(c) Financial incentives.
Chase seems to ignore the relationship between interests, politics and the balance of power
among those making, implementing and affected by the policy.

So, setting guidelines and of administrative discretion in implementing the policy is vital. Any
policy must be given clarity and concreteness. As a matter of fact, the further down the
bureaucracy a policy goes, the more clarity is attached to details, requirements, and guidelines.
Any policy in order to be administered needs translation into procedures for compliance.

Finally we found that policy implementation requires a wide variety of actions, including;

(a) Issuing policy directives that are clear and consistent

(b) Creating organisationsl units and sssigning personnel with the information and authority
necessary to administer the policies
(c) Coordinating personnel resources and expenditures to ensure benefit to target groups,
and
(d) Evaluating implemental actions of the personnel.

None of these steps is easy. The implementation of policy thus involves not the end of policy-
making, but a continuation of policy-making by other means.

Approaches to Policy Implementation

Policy-making is a complex and analytical process to which there is no beginning or end. It does
not end once a policy is made. Anderson points out "Policy is being made as it is being
administered and administered as it is being made." Implementation is policy-making carried
out by other means and forces.

There are different approaches to the analysis of how policy is put into action. We discuss here
only two models about policy implementation.

TOP DOWN MODEL

• Top-down model emphasizes on ability of the policy makers (decision makers) to

produce/give unambiguous/ clear policy goals or policies and on controlling the
implementing stages/phases. It assumes that policy implementation starts with decision
made by the policy makers at the central level or central level government. Thers is clear
policy goal determined at the top level and direction for controlling the implementation
of the policy goals. Top-dwon approach basically starts with decision from government
at the top level and examines the extent/level to which the administration carry out or
 failed to carry out these decisions and attempts to find out reasons relating to the
extent of implementation.

• There is hierarchical execution of controlling defined/determined policy goals with clear

direction and control. This is known as top-down approach to policy implementation.

• Several scholar's have contributed to top-down model. Scholars included Pressman and
Wildavasky, Van Meter and Van herm, Bardach, Sabatier and Mazmanian.

• Top Down approach started with assumption that policy goals are set or determined by
central level policy makers and the implementation process (implementation research)
to achieve goal (is concerned with the task to achieve goals).

• Hence, implementation results from the interaction between setting of goals and action
geared/directed to achieve the goals. There is centrally defined policy goals which
follows hierarchical control mechanism/structure. There is linear relationship between
policy goals and their enforcement process. It is basically concerned with the
establishment of administrative procedure to ensure that policy goals are implementaed
as accurately as possible. To achieve this implementing agencies should have sufficient
resources at their disposal. In addition, there need to be a system of clear
responsibilities and hierarchical control.

• Implementation is about getting the people (personnel) to do what they are told and
keeping control over a sequence of steps/stages in implement and the development of
program of responsibilities and control to minimize conflict and deviation from policy
goals set by the central policy makers.

• Implementation is a process that starts form the central level policy goals and
implementation includes centrally controlled hierarchical process which encourage the
action of public and private, group and individuals oriented towards the achievement of
the centrally determined goals. The most important thing in the top down approach is
organizational capacity and hierarchical control.

• Some scholars term top down implementation as political process and successful
implementation depends upon the capacity of policy makers in successfully structuing
the implementation game. Policy implementation is hierarchical execution of centrally
determined policy goals. There are two important aspects-

• 1. Policy sets goals (at the central level)

• 2. And the implementation research/implement process is concerned the actors that are
curcial for the achievement of goals (are the requirements to implement goals).
• Top-down approach highlights the factor that helps to achieve effective
implementation. Top-Down approach is also concerned with requirement to effective
implementation.

• Summary: central determination of goals, implementation following based on central,

directed towards the direction of achieving goals set by control level.

• Several factors requirements (the factors affecting are the requirements presented in
Model.

• A more explicit/open and practice based version (type) of top-down approach was
developed by Hogwood gunn in 1984. The author has mentioned ten preconditions as
requirements for effective implementation.

• 1. The circumstances external to the implementing agency do not impose crippling

(harmful) constraints.

• 2. Adequate time and sufficient resources are made avoidable to policy/programmes.

• 3. At each stage of implementation, the required combination of resources is made

available.

• 4. The policy to be implemented is based on valid (acceptable) theory of cause and

effect (means and ends (measures) based on theory)

• 5. There is relationship between cause and effect (direct) and there should
few/negligible effect of intervening variable.

• 6. The dependency relationships should be minimal. (implementing agency's

dependency relations with others) e.g. fragmentation of authority, lack of co-ordination,
conflict etc.

• 7. There is complete understanding of an agreement upon goals to be achieved (actions

understand and their roles).

• 8. The proper sequencing of steps in the implementation process (phases of

implementation).

• 9. There should be perfect coordination and communication.

• 10. There must be compliance (all agencies work towards a common compliance).
 • These conditions represent the proper example of top-down approach. The purpose is
provision of advice to those working at the top level so as to minimize implementation
deficit norms.

• Policy action

• Control over people

• Process-interaction negotiation

• Implement receipients

• -Top down apporach of policy implementation does no consider the role of other actors
in the policy implementation.

• -The policy action relationship according to top down is only control over people to
achieve policy goals.

• -But the policy action relation of policy implementation is a process of interaction and
negotiation that is going between implementers and the recipients of policy. Recipients
are the important component for (or the part of) the success of the policy.

Assumptions of TOP-DOWN Approach

• Top dwon assume that clear goals and direction to implementers are basic to
implementation. This demands goals consequences among actors (the goals are
determined in central level by the process of bargaining and consensus. This makes the
goals unclear and unambiguous or conflicting). Policy goals are determined at the
central level, which may be the result of bargaining and compromises among the
participants. In such the goals may be vague, unclear and conflicting. Implementing
policy goals becomes difficult because of the lack of goal consensus. Focuses only senior
politicians and senior official who play a marginal role in day to day implementation as
compared to lower level implementers and recipients (i.e. members of public). It
represents a narrow idea/concept in policy implementation.

BOTTOM-UP APPROACH

Bottom up rejects the ideas that policies are determined/set at top level/central level and the
implementation/policy action follows the efforts to achieve goals as nearly as possible.

The focus is what actually happens on recipients level and real causes that influence the policy
actions on the ground level. This needs to be considered for implementation. And this is the
basic idea for bottom up approach.
The Bottom Up approach starts from the bottom by identifying network of actors and involving
actual policy delivery. The proposition/plan discretion at the stages/phase of policy delivery has
been considered as an important factor. Because, the implementers at ground level always
remain very close/near to the actual recipients. They are very much familiar with the real
situation and real problems of ground level than the top level. This is the main essence of
bottom up approach.

The policy implementation should take into account the interaction of implementers with their
customers/clients/recipients on the ground level commonly known as "street level". This
concept of the street level bureaucrats was developed by 'Michael Lipsky' in 1980.

Bottom up approach considers role and interaction of street level interacts at the ground level.
Lepsky analysed the behaviour of street level bureaucrats, public service worker like; teachers,
doctor, lawyers, and other public officials. Street level bureaucrats are also considering having
considerable autonomy form/type their employing organisation. The main source of
autonomous power is from the amount of discretion at their disposal. Hence, street level
bureaucrats exercise influence over how policy is actually carried out.

The street level bureaucrats who actually perform the action that implement the policies and
laws should be considered as part of a policy making community. The street level bureaucrats in
their interaction with their recipients can suggest better policy goals based on the reality than
top level.

Bottom up approach considers implementation as a process that involves negotiations and

agreement which result from the interaction of implementing actors/agencies and the other
actor/interest affected by the policy delivery and upon whom the success of policy depends.

Bottom up approach needs consideration on:

1. The management skill and culture of organization/actors involving implementing policies.

2. The political environment in which they have to work.

3. It emphasizes behavior of street level implementers (bureaucrats) in implementing policies

rather than central direction from top. These implementers have discretion on how they
apply/implement policies. The implementers are professionals and they have the key role in
ensuring the performance of policy. The way in which they act may result in consequences
different from those intended by the top level policy makers. This is bottom up approach and it
is also known as "Backward Mapping."

Bottom up approach or impelemtation is also known as the concept of backward mapping. It

says that implementation and this is started from the bottom with specific problem and
examines the actions of impelenting actors/agencies and their interaction with recipients. The
concept of backward mapping begins at the phase when policy reaches at the end point and
analyses the policy from the pattern of behaviour of implementers to achieve the objectivites.
The basic focus is to see the actors involved in the policy delivery remain very close to the
reality on the ground. The relation between policy makers and policy implementers is curcial.

Conclusion:

• The Bottom up approach begins with the identification of actors/implementers who are
actually involved in policy delivery commonly known as 'street level bureaucrats' and
their actual behavior and interactions with recipients of the public policy. Specifically,
this approach suggests that policy implementation cannot be separated from policy
making. The intention of policy goals determined at the top level may not be same as in
practice.

THE END