Top-down Theory

Scholars such as Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), Mazmanian and Sabatiers (1918, 1983, 1989), Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) and Bardach (1977) and Hill (2005) note that the success of policy implementation depends on whether actors follow the decisions of the central authority. Matland defines policy implementation as “the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in a statute but which can also take the form of important executive orders or court decision…” (1995, p.146). Policy decisions normally flow from the central government in form of orders to be implemented as desired. However, these decisions cannot be realised and achieved if certain determining factors are not taken into consideration. These factors include tractability of the problem, ability of the statute to structure implementation and non-statutory variables affecting implementation.

Top-down theory is inclined to identify the role of the central government in decisions of policy implementation. Pursuant to this model the following questions are of relevance in assessing the success of a policy (Sabatire, 1986, pp.22-23):

(i) To what extent are the actions of implementation officials and target groups consistent with policy decisions?

(ii) To what extent are the objectives attained over time, i.e. to what extent are the impacts consistent with the objectives?

(iii)What are the principal factors affecting policy outputs and impacts, both those relevant to the official policy as well as other politically significant ones?

(iv)How is the policy reformulated over time on the basis of experience? These guidelines are adhered to in deciding whether there is success according to the top-down model. Further, Sabatier (Op. cit., pp.23-25) mentions six necessary conditions that will enable successful policy implementation in the top-down policy process:

(i) Clear and consistent objectives – these provide a clear understanding

and help implementers interpret the intentions.

(ii) Adequate causal theory – refers to how much the policy implementers

have freedom to implement policy within official legitimacy and adopt with social change.

(iii) Implementation process legally structured to enhance compliance by implementing officials and target groups – it is a mechanism to

CHAPTER 4: THEORIES OF POLICY FLOWS: IMPLEMENTATION AND DECENTRALIZATION

enforce the policy by legal backup and also put sanctions and incentives for those who are resistant to policy. This also gives responsibilities to the implementing agencies to prioritize their programs.

(iv) Committed and skilful implementing officials – giving utmost

responsibility and discrete power to the implementing officers with the available resources so that they can implement policy skilfully.

(v) Support of interest groups and sovereigns – since policy

implementation is a long process, it is necessary to have support from political personnel, interest groups, legislature and executives.

(vi) Changes in socio-economic conditions which do not substantially undermine political support or causal theory – the changes in socio-

economic conditions may also impact policy implementation which may in turn also affect political stability. Policy should be implemented on non-partisan basis.

This model suggests distinct roles in policy formulation and policy implementation along with a clear feedback system (Hill & Hupe, 2002). However, the model has been criticized for being too idealistic because the theory has not taken into consideration the role of policy implementers or actors and ignores the view of the target population. The model assumes that clear objectives from senior officials will lead to successful implementation. It ignores political influences over policy implementation and views it as a purely administrative process (Matland, 1995). Further criticism claims that this framework is structured unrealistically without considering the limitations of policy-makers at the formulation stage.

Top-down policy may be difficult to apply in the absence of a dominant policy or agency since several departments or agencies are superior to others horizontal (inter-sectoral or inter-ministerial competition). The top-down model is also criticised since it ignores or underestimates the way policies are implemented by the street level bureaucracts as well as the fact that policy may be diverted to different target groups to suit certain exigencies. The top-down model seems to ignore the target groups and implementing officers and the arguments about lack of synergy between policy formulation and policy implementation in order to realize the goals (Sabatier, 1986). The policy outcomes can only be realised under the conditions of effective interaction/involvement of different components such as policymakers, implementers and stakeholders.

Further Van Meter and Van Horn’s model provides details about how the analysis of public policy is done. It also explains the inconsistency between the adoption of policies and actual delivery of services to the target groups. It comprises six components (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975):

(i) an environment that stimulates government officials and appreciates the products of their work;

(ii) demands and resources that carry stimuli from the environment to policy makers;

(iii)a conversion process, including the formal structures and procedures of government, that transforms (converts) demands and resources into public policies;

(iv)the policies that represent the formal goals, intentions, or statements of government officials;

(v) the performance of the policy as it is actually delivered to clients; and (vi)the feedback of policies and performances to the environment.

This theory is composed of three perspectives (i) organization theory – and more specifically, the work in the general area of organizational change (innovation) and control, (ii) the impact of public policy, particularly judicial decisions and (iii) selected studies of inter-governmental relations (Op. cit., p.453).

Figure 6 A Model of the Policy Implementation Process

Source: Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975, p.453.

This model is a top-down approach of policy implementation whose end result depends on the performance of the organization. It is explained based on the

CHAPTER 4: THEORIES OF POLICY FLOWS: IMPLEMENTATION AND DECENTRALIZATION

following six determining variables in the implementation process (Op. cit., pp.466- 472):

(i) Policy standards and objectives

The policy standards and objectives are the determining indicators for the overall policy goals. They are self-evident and can be easily measured in some cases. However, in most cases they are difficult to measure and identify. This happens when programs are too complicated and have far- reaching goals. This may also cause ambiguity and contradiction to its statement of standards and objectives. Whether implementation is a success or failure or its objectives can be measured or not, the setting of goals and objectives are essential procedures for the policy implementation.

(ii) Policy resources

Resources are vital for facilitating the smooth administration of policy implementation. Resources can be funds or other incentives which enable the programmes to be carried out effectively. However, usually funds are often inadequate which deters successful policy implementation.

(iii) Inter-organizational Communication and Enforcement

Effective policy implementation also requires that the standards and objectives are understood clearly by those who are responsible for implementation. Moreover, it is imperative to ensure that those standards and objectives are accurately communicated so that polices are implemented uniformly and consistently. Clear flows of information are vital within and between organisations particularly when it involves complex set-ups and processes. When information flows downward from one organization to another, the messages get diluted either intentionally or unintentionally. It is important to note that, “successful implementation often requires institutional mechanisms and procedures whereby higher authorities (superiors) may increase the likelihood that implementers (subordinates) will act in a manner consistent with a policy’s standards and objectives” (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975, p.466). Within the single organization, policy may also be successfully implemented if certain standards are maintained and implementers are empowered with authority to recruit and select, assign and re-locate, advance and promote, and ultimately dismiss.

(iv) Characteristics of the implementing agencies

The characteristics and set up of implementing agencies are one of the determining factors which consist of both the formal structure of organizations and also informal attributes of their personnel. However, the

following are the characteristics that may hamper policy implementation in an organization (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975, p.471):

a) the competence and size of an agency’s staff;

b) the degree of hierarchical control of sub-unit decisions and processes within the implementing agencies;

c) an agency’s political resources – support from legislators and executives;

d) the vitality of an organization;

e) the degree of “open” communication (i.e., networks of communication with free horizontal and vertical communication, and a relatively high degree of freedom in communications with persons outside the organization) within an organization;

f) the agency’s formal and informal linkages with the “policy- making” and “policy-enforcing” body.

(v) Economic, social and political change

The economic, social and political cleavages have been least considered in the past. However, they might have significant impact on the performance of policy implementing agencies. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the following conditions are present for the smooth implementation of policy (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975, p.472):

a) Are the economic resources available within the implementing organization sufficient to support successful implementation? b) To what extent (and how) will the prevailing economic and social

conditions be affected by the implementation of the policy in question?

c) What is the nature of public opinion; how salient is the related policy issue?

d) Do elites favour or oppose implementation of the policy?

e) What is the partisan character of the implementing organization; is there partisan opposition or support for the policy?

CHAPTER 4: THEORIES OF POLICY FLOWS: IMPLEMENTATION AND DECENTRALIZATION

f) To what extent are private interest groups mobilized in support or opposition to the policy?

(vi) Disposition of the implementation

Above all, the extent to which the policy implemented successfully in an organization is dependent on the perceptions and attitudes of the implementers. Therefore, the ability and willingness to carry out the task may also depend on three features: “their cognition (comprehension, understanding) of the policy, the direction of their response toward it (acceptance, neutrality, rejection), and the intensity of that response”. The implementers’ general intention towards standards and objectives is very critical for successful implementation. The negative intent may lead program objectives towards different outcomes.

Without considering these factors it is impossible to implement policy successfully because each factor plays a crucial role in policy implementation process. However, most developing countries lack or do not adhere to these factors leading to failure in or ineffective implementation of policy. The most common problems they face are meagre funds and incentives, lack of poor inter-communication within the organization or with others, weak implementing agencies within subsystems, unstable economies, social and hostile political conditions and more so the complacent attitude of implementers and their poor understanding about the policy goals and objectives which hinders success in implementation. Observing these factors in the analysis of policy implementation processes in organizations is therefore paramount.