2. Topic
2.3. Top-down school o f Implementation
Top-down implementation can be described as the ability o f Policy Makers to control the implementation of policy. This perspective is usually strong in giving prescriptive advice
to Policy Makers (Matland, 1995). It is also viewed as the influence o f central government policy on implementation or as a pyramid with the Policy Makers at the top of the pyramid and the street-level bureaucrats at the bottom (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989; Caimey, 2009). The relationships could be as simple as a waste agency telling its collection staff how to collect waste and it could be as complex as state legislators trying to implement a waste policy which requires the input of the environmental ministry, the waste agency, the ministry for commerce and the ministry for roads and transport (for an example). In countries like America, some policies have been sent to institutions for implementation from the Federal appellate courts (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989).
Top-down implementation sets out preconditions which are applied in Chapters 8 and 9 of empirical study for this thesis. While no process is given on how to accomplish implementation, these preconditions from Mazmanian and Sabatier, (1986) are suggested as necessary for implementation to meet policy aims and objectives. Caimey, (2004) and Marsh and Rhodes (1992) list these as skilled and committed official, clear and consistent objectives, support form sovereigns and key actors, adequate causal theory, strong legal backing, stable economy which are further discussed below;
2.3.1. Skilful and committed officials:
The policy to be implemented usually has an implementing arm selected by the Policy Makers. The selected implementing agency needs to be committed to the policy objectives (Hill and Hupe, 2002; Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973). They must have the skills required to implement the policy and a desire, personal or otherwise to see that implementation of the policy gets the required resources within their level of authorization (Sabatier, 1986). These
consist o f two parts, first, the importance of the policy to the implementer and second the ability of the street-level bureaucrat to go beyond his/her mandate to realize the objectives of the policy (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983). The level of discretion afforded to the street- level bureaucrats from the policy also affects how the policy is implemented. The attitude of the street-level bureaucrats to the policy can also be affected by personal values, religious beliefs, normal working parameters, and external support from politicians and interest groups (Lipsky, 1971; Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989). The continued support for the policy will depend on how inclusive the Policy Makers are able to make the street-level bureaucrats, and interest groups feel in the attainment of policy objectives.
2.3.2. Clear and Consistent objectives
The stipulation of objectives and its clarity is viewed as an important aspect o f policy implementation. This is because policy states what is expected of the implementers and provides the implementers with the tools to achieve policy goals (Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975). These objectives are usually stipulated within statute or law. The stipulation of objectives within law or statute gives the policy the legal backing required by implementers to carry out their work (Sabatier, 1986). Thus allowing Policy Makers have the tools required to monitor and evaluate implementation. This also gives the implementers the basic standards for which their work will be judged.
2.3.3. Support from sovereigns and key actors
The sovereigns here are the creators of the policy to be implemented and the politicians. They include the executive arm of government, legislative arm and heads of institution (Sabatier, 1986). They control the resources and legislation which are allocated to policy after they have been created. They are also usually the instigators of policy.
Sovereigns support policy objectives through four avenues; The first is the amount of micro managing provided to the street-level bureaucrats, the second being provision of adequate resources, the third being ability to handle dissent within the ranks and lastly, the amount of conflict which arises between new policy and ongoing policy (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1986; Caimey, 2009). The sovereigns also need to be politically astute in order to generate political support from other sovereigns who could have an interest (positive or negative).
They must also be able to convince the targeted End Users of the policy that it is in their best interest and acquire their support (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1979; Kendal, 2006).
Some agencies can sometimes find themselves in a situation where they have more than one sovereign to whom they are answerable too and who are pursuing different policies.
The street-level bureaucrats in these instances will usually engage with the Policy Maker with the most resources (Caimey, 2009). Sovereigns can however, affect the change they require through legal and financial oversight as well as inserting themselves into the implementation process.
Desire for the implementation of policy isn’t sufficient for policy implementation to meet policy objectives. The sovereigns must also be willing to provide the necessary resources for the policy to be implemented and if it is necessary, take a personal role in the
implementation of the policy and monitor the policy closely (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989;
Bardach, 1977; Sabatier, 1975).
The implementers and Policy Makers must also make the effort to continuously generate public support for the policy from both sovereigns and the major actors involved or affected by the policy (Sabatier, 1986). This will go some way in ensuring that the policy gets the resources it needs to achieve its objectives.
2.3.4. Adequate causal theory
In the creation o f policy, the causal linkages and principal factors which will affect the policy must be identified (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973; 1984; Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1983). During the creation of the policy, an adequate assessment of target groups should be made in order to judge how they will respond to the policy. This gives the Policy Makers a fair idea of the type of legislation that will be required for the implementation of the policy. The Policy Makers need to incorporate a theory of how they intend to achieve the social change that the policy is aimed at introducing or correcting within the target groups. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1989) believe that if the implementers are given adequate authority and instruments to carry out their mandate, they could be able to establish or disprove the causal theory (Sabatier, 1986). Gunn (1978) specifies that the policy to be implemented must be structured around sufficiently centred action and consequence in order to try to achieve policy goals (Kendal, 2006). Technical competence and support from the target End Users are essential for causal theory to have a practical effect on implemented policy (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1979; Bardach, 1977).
2.3.5. Changes in socioeconomic conditions
The socioeconomic conditions of any society can have a direct or indirect impact on the implementation of policy. Stability of the society’s socioeconomic condition will usually mean that the policy can be implemented without much trouble. For instance, resources will not be diverted from the policy to meet other more pressing societal needs (Sabatier, 2002;
Hill and Hupe, 2002). However, a change for the worse in the socioeconomic fabric can mean that some policies will lose or not attain the resources which they require for implementation.
It could also mean that the policy could find itself shelved or discontinued completely especially where a loss of political support has resulted from the socioeconomic problem (Sabatier, 1986).
Over time, conflicting policies could be created, which could undermine implementation. The social need which required the creation of the policy could change or not exist anymore, which would undermine the need the need for the policy. The political rhetoric which led to the creation of the policy could have shifted to another policy or political bias could arise against the policy (Kendal, 2006).
2.3.6. Implementation p rocess legally structured to enhance compliance
The legal structure which backs the policy can enhance or retard the implementation of the policy. The legislation can include veto powers, sanctions and incentives to remove implementation obstacles. It can also assign a policy to its choice o f implementing agency and give the policy priority over other policies (Sabatier, 2002; Pressman and Wildavsky,
1973; Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1986 and 1993). The strength of the legal backing of the policy grounds the policy into the state or federal statute (depending on the society) making the policy stronger and more effective. This is mainly because the implementers are given more legal powers and it is easier to prosecute offenders making implementation more efficient. The statue or policy must be unambiguous in its directives, and the policy must be formed in such a manner as to maximize compliance within the target groups (Bardach, 1977;
Kendal, 2006). The importance of statue within policy implementation cannot be overestimated especially within the top-down models of implementation as the Policy Makers have the greatest control over this aspect of implementation (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989).