Introduction
Policy implementation entails the conversion of the goals and objectives of a policy into action. Policy implementation should be deliberated as a fundamental feature of the policy development process. It has been asserted that policy implementation is among the most challenging phase of the process (Seraw and Lu 2020). Often, there is a gap between what is to be implemented and what is implemented. The main activity in implementation is the provision of organizational resources to put the program into effect or process under a given organization. Policy implementation pertains to the mechanisms, resources, and relationships that connect to program action. Numerous factors may influence the effective implementation of the policy. Barriers to policy implementation include political factors, analytical competence, and operational capacity. Enabling factors of policy implementation include microeconomic factors and macroeconomic factors. This paper addresses these barriers and enablers under top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Policy Implementation Concept
Policy implementation is a sophisticated area. Numerous contextual factors can facilitate or disrupt else ultimate implementation practice (Seraw and Lu 2020). Considering the nature of the field, controlled tests are unlikely representations of real-world implementation situations. Implementation research is typically done under labels beyond ‘implementation’ such as PPP, street-level bureaucracy, management, compliance, outsourcing, and legislative enforcement (Seraw and Lu 2020). Policy implementation is sophisticated enough to be accounted for by a single concept.
Policy implementation pertains to the mechanisms, relationships, and resources that connect policies to projects or programs. It is about carrying out, achieving, realizing, generating, or implementing a specific task. It is hence imperative to understand the nature of policy implementation, considering that they may be implemented as envisioned but fail to realize the intended outcomes. Implementation of the policy is a lengthy process, from the design of content to realizing the outcomes. There are several critical dimensions and important preconditions for successful policy implementation. The effective implementation determines the failure or success of a policy. Further, the successful implementation of a policy draws numerous dimensions of policy implementation and identifies some of the most important conditions. Until the 1970s, policy experts paid little attention to policy implementation perspectives.
The implementation of policy is sophisticated. Numerous contextual factors can disrupt otherwise perfect implementation practices. Considering the nature of the field, controlled empirical tests are not likely representations of real-world implementation situations. Efforts to comprehend policy implementation through isolation-specific variables have been characterized by failure. Other researchers have tried to develop policy implementation theories. Irrespective of decades of implementation investigation, experts have acknowledged that implementation is far too sophisticated to be accounted for by a single theory.
Further, policy implementation is intimately connected to other parts of the policy process. In essence, implementation research is typically conducted under labels other than implementation. These include new governance, policy design, and instruments. Others are outsourcing, network studies, and public-private partnerships. There is also street-level bureaucracy, new public management, and performance. Finally, there is compliance, principal-agent studies, and regulatory enforcement (Winter 2011).
Before the 1980s, scholars sought to develop systematic theories of the policy process that could be generalized to most cases instead of focusing on one or few scenarios. The efforts bore fruits when two different research approaches were developed. These are ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ models. The top-down model focuses on the gaps between the objectives set by the policy’s developer and the actual outcomes. The bottom-up model proposes that implementation is best learned by beginning at the lowest implementation system levels and moving upward to establish where performance is more or less successful (Birkland 2015).
Some factors are unique to each model. These factors are addressed either under a top-down or bottom-up approach. The factors that affect the two approaches similarly are then addressed.
Top-Down Approach
The top-down theory begins with the supposition that policy implementation starts with a decision made by the central government. Also known as forward mapping, the concept is an avenue of learning policy design and implementation that regards the highest-level policy designers’ objectives and tracks the policy’s design and implementation via the lowest-level implements (Seraw and Lu 2020). The approach utilizes the decision of authority as a launching point. This involves the identification of the tractability of the problem and the capacity to structure implementation. The concept also recognizes non-statutory variables influencing implementation. Most top-down models recommend that governments have vivid and consistent objectives (Signé 2017). According to the concept, they should limit the scope of requisite change and place accountability for implementation with an agency to the policy’s aims.
The approach is a clear-cut control and command system – from the government to the project, which pertains to personnel. The approach indicates (A) vivid and reliable objectives. These are contemplated at the top of the hierarchical environment. (B) the approach expresses knowledge of relevant cause and effect, (C) vivid hierarchy of power, (D) regulations established at the top and policy and policy is aligned with the regulations, (E) capacity and resources to execute commands from the top. The approach is considered a coherent, comprehensive model of planning. The approach aligns with overhead democracy, whereas elected individuals assign implementation powers to non-elected public servants (de Jong et al. 2016). The public servants are accountable to the democratically elected officials. Nevertheless, supporters of the approach may implement policy with standards that residents do not comprehend. As such, the residents’ rational preferences may be circumvented. When this occurs, the approach becomes a ‘tactic’ instead of a policy implementation strategy.
The top-down approach affects policy implementation due to its inherent assumptions. The first assumption is that the designers of the policy have the requisite knowledge of the dedication and ability of the implementers. This factor influences whether the implementation will be effective, considering that some policies require significant knowledge to effect. With the due technical knowledge, the policy is bound to succeed. The capacity of implementers pertains to the availability of resources for the implementer to execute the tasks (Seraw and Lu 2020). Policy implementation will be effective when human and financial resources are adequately allocated.
The second factor that influences the top-down policy implementation is the assumption that there is only one statute or authoritative statement of policy characterizing the policy. The implementation chain begins with a message at the top of the organization. If there is communication, with the implementer understanding the message, the implementation will be effective. Miscommunication or ineffective communication breaks the implementation chain; thereby, the implementation is unsuccessful.
The third factor is political influence. The top-down approach assumes that a single national government will successfully structure policy implementation and provide direct delivery of services (Seraw and Lu 2020). However, most central government policies require substantial state and, in most cases, local governmental collaboration (Eaton and Kostka 2014). The approach depicts that cascading of policies from the national government to the municipal through numerous departments. In this model, communication emanates from the top to the actual implementers of the policy. The top-down approach is the first generation thinking. It is in accordance with how academic policies are implemented even in learning institutions (Signé 2017).
The top-down approach often needs to consider previous context and political aspects of policy. It is as if the implementation were an issue of administration. It is only determined by the resources available. In such situations, the implementation will only be effective if the resources are sufficient. The policy implementation approach is not favored since it presumes that policymakers can manage the policy implementation environment (Signé 2017).
Bottom-Up Approach
The approach contends that policy implementation is inseparable from policy formulation. Scholars of the approach focus on the entire process of how policies are defined. They also look at how it is shaped and implemented. At some point, they consider redefinition. Also known as backward mapping or action-centered, the approach is a structure of learning policy design and implementation that focuses on the capabilities and inspirations of the lowest-level implementers and ways policy design from that level to the highest level of government.
The most notable difference between bottom-up and top-down models is the metrics chosen for assessment. Top-down approaches view evaluation as a determinant of objective achievement. Bottom-up models also utilize legislative purposes to evaluate policy failure or success (Seraw and Lu, 2020). The model elaborates that the gap between top-down aims and resources influences the nature of implementation. A bottom-up approach in policy implementation significantly influences the program and its outcomes.
The bottom-up model was founded by Lipsky (1980), as indicated by (Signé 2017). The model sees policy from the aspect of the target population and the service deliverers. The approach depends on the decision of the implementers, taken as a critical factor in successful implementation. The model is grounded on the concept that control over individuals is not the means to implement effective policy. Lipsky contends that the decisions of ‘street-level bureaucrats, the processes they develop, and the tools they invent to deal with doubts and work pressures successfully culminate in the public policies they carry out. The model implies that further than the issue of suitable formulation of the policy content, there are veracities to argue with which the street-level bureaucrats are conscious of practicing to shape policies and play a crucial role in ensuring a policy’s performance and success.
Rational Factors
The factor affects both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Here, the assumption is that policy implementation necessitates the clarification of goals, missions, aims, detailed planning, practical job allocation, efficient monitoring, and assessment. Whereas the top management may issue the policy guidelines, it is upon the implementers to devise the requisite comprehensive and effective operating processes and techniques to facilitate the definition of the scope of the responsibilities of each player in accordance with the objectives of the policy.
Management Factors
The factor is based on the premise that the performance of policy implementation relies on multiple factors. These include personnel, human resources, implementers, level of skills, effective interaction and cooperation, equipment, corporate structure, and location as implementation infrastructure. The model seeks to identify problems or hurdles to policy implementation occasioned by inadequacies in resources or delays in acquiring resources.
Organizational Factors
Under both approaches, the assumption is that policy implementation’s performance exposes the capacity of organizational leadership, team building, the involvement of the numerous players involved, participation, motivation, collaboration, and dedication.
Bureaucratic Factors
The model contemplates the responsibilities of front-line personnel in the implementation of policy. The concept is that successful policy implementation robustly depends on the responsibility of staff who directly come into contact with individuals and other players (Edin 2003). The model is envisioned to determine social reality regarding the discretionary power of front-line implementers. The model is based on the bottom-up concept of policy implementation.
Political Factors
The model postulates that policy implementation’s performance relies on the outcome of relationships between agent capacity. This can be representative or institutional. It is also determined by the bargaining power, conflict resolution, and external environmental factors from an economic, social, and political perspective (Brinkerhoff 1999). The performance of policy implementation results from conflict and conflict management effectiveness in society. The interplay among actors, agencies, and interest groups determines the model’s inference for policy implementation.
Top-Down Barriers to Effective Policy Implementation
There are three criticisms associated with implementers of a top-down approach. First, top-downers regularly initiate policy analysis with the statutory language. The language ignores the importance of actions taken earlier in the policy-making process (Crosby 1996). As such, implementers engage cues from numerous sources or groups, which vary in history and intensity. None of these aspects may be reflected in the statutory language. For instance, Matland (1995) described O’Toole’s analysis of water treatment plants. The top-down approach shows that privately-owned treatment facilities outdid public treatment facilities. Nevertheless, when bigger issues of affirmative action, Davis-Bacon labor laws, and technology were incorporated into the analysis, then public treatment facilities outdid private facilities.
Second, top-down implementers disregard or remove the political perspective of implementation. For example, they set clear goals for a policy (while the legislation typically demands unclear language and contradictory objectives) to acquire sufficient votes for passage (Matland 1995). Therefore, a Weberian approach may be appropriate in theory (Barrett 2004). However, its practice may culminate in policy failure. Third, top-downers view the statute framers as key players. In essence, local officials and individuals affected by the policy could more reasonably be regarded as the key independent variable of analysis. These factors affect policy implementation in different ways.
Bottom-Up Barriers to Effective Policy Implementation
The implementers of this approach face two criticisms that are blamed for the failure of policy implementation. First, street-level bureaucrats are regularly unaccountable to the public (Bardach 1977). Here, the local agents may deliberately undermine the elected officials’ policy objectives and engage in personal sub-goals. Second, the implementers of this approach disregard the fact that most policies are developed in a top-down approach and in a manner that supports top-down authority.
Examples of Top-Down Implementation
Top-down management is the most common type of management. The approach is also known as autocratic since the instructions to implement a policy are derived from the top management to the implementer. The approach is hierarchical, with the chief executive officer (CEO) setting the course for the whole company. The instructions are passed down the chain of command in succession from executives to middle managers and to the lowest rank in the company in an elaborate chain of command (Malsam 2019). Once a policy decision has been made, there is no room for criticizing or commenting. Some middle-level managers may contribute during the design stage of the policy. However, ultimately the final decision is the responsibility of the CEO.
The majority of organizations utilize top-down team management. Any organization with executive leadership (particularly with a CEO on top, middle managers, team leaders, and team members) is structured in a top-down manner. An example of such organizations is the Trump Organization and Helmsley Hotels. The individuals who lead these organizations have strong personalities. They eventually become the face of their respective organizations.
Examples of Bottom-Up Implementation
The concept that “two heads are better than one” informs some companies to utilize the bottom-up approach when implementing policies. Supporters of the approach acknowledge that there could be immense talent in the ranks. Such talents would go to waste in a top-down environment. The leadership may lack the requisite skills and knowledge; hence bottom-up would help fill the gap by involving others in designing and implementing policies (Hill 2017). In organizations where the bottom-up approach is applied in management, the members participate in the process of leading the organization. The collaborative approach presents members with the opportunity to contribute how to achieve the overall goals and objectives of the organization.
Although in the minority, some companies are adopting the bottom-up management style. They allow the lowest-rank members to contribute when developing policies through to implementation. The approach is observed in how some organizations are approaching projects, if not in the general administrative process. The New York Times, IBM, and Ernst & Young are among the modern companies that have embraced the bottom-up management style. The companies have implemented the approach at the team level. Every member is required to be part of the decision-making process. They are encouraged to contribute to the subsets of the company.
References
Bardach, E 1977, The implementation game. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Barrett, S 2004, ‘Implementation Studies: A time for revival?’ Public Administration, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 249-262.
Birkland, TA 2015, ‘An introduction to the policy process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. (3rd ed.). M.E. Sharpe.
Birkland, TA 2020, An Introduction to the Policy Process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making, 5th edition, New York: Routledge. Chapter 10.
Brinkerhoff, DW 1999, ‘State‐civil society networks for policy implementation in developing countries’, Review of Policy Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 123-147.
Crosby, BL 1996, ‘Policy implementation: The organizational challenge,’ World Development, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1403-1415.
de Jong, M et al. 2016, ‚Eco city development in China: addressing the policy implementation challenge’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134, pp. 31-41.
Eaton, S & Kostka, G 2014, ‘Authoritarian environmentalism undermined? Local leaders’ time horizons and environmental policy implementation in China, The China Quarterly, vol. 218, 359-380.
Edin, M 2003, ‘State capacity and local agent control in China: CCP cadre management from a township perspective,’ The China Quarterly, vol. 173, pp. 35-52.
Exworthy, M & Powell, M 2004, ‘Big windows and little windows: Implementation in the congested state, Public Administration, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 263-281.
Grindle, MS & Thomas, JW 1991, Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.
Hill, M & Varone, F 2017, The Public Policy Process, 7th edn., London: Routledge. Chapter 11: Implementation: an overview; Chapter 13: The policy process at the street level.
Howlett, M, Ramesh, M & Perl, A 2009, Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, 3rd edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malsam, W 2019, Top down vs. bottom up management: What’s the difference. Leadership, viewed 2 May 2, 2023 <https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/top-down-vs-bottom-up-management>
Maitland, RE 1995, ‘Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation,’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 5, pp. 145-174
Seraw, W & Lu, X 2020, ‘Review on concepts and theoretical approaches of policy implementation,’ International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research (IJAMR), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 113-118.
Signé, L 2017, Policy implementation – A synthesis of the study of policy implementation and the cause of policy failure. OCP Policy Center, PP-17/03 (March), 9-22. http://www.ocppc.ma/sites/default/files/OCPPCPP1703.pdf
Winter, SC 2012, ‘Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration. London: Sage
write