The Impact of Social Movements on Policy Development Social change and, ultimately, policy development often

14 Sep The Impact of Social Movements on Policy Development Social change and, ultimately, policy development often

Posted at 10:51h in Uncategorized by Paperwriter

The Impact of Social Movements on Policy Development

Social change and, ultimately, policy development often emerge from social movements in areas such as civil rights, gender equality, labor, religious rights, family planning, ecology and climate change, and community services.

Chapter 7 of your Simons Public Policy text discusses movements and social upheavals growing out of discontent or demands for change. In this discussion, analyze how two of these movements may affect the field of human services.

Policy Implementation

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Public policy implementation is where the rubber meets the road—where public policy becomes a reality. Policy studies regularly document the successes and failures associated with implementation. Inability to choose an optimum policy solution is a common challenge facing implementation. While implementation successes or failures are often case specific, it is possible to draw general conclusions about the process.

The specific goals for the chapter are:

• Discuss four major types of policy implementation. • Discuss the major participants in implementation. • Use policy theories to explain policy formulation.

A THEORETICAL MODEL OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Richard Matland (1995) developed a synthesized model of policy implementation, identifying six factors shaping implementation success:

• Statutory compliance. Statutes often encapsulate policy goals and implementation should be orien- tated toward goal accomplishment. Statutory compliance alone may overlook issues of efficiency or effectiveness of policy implementation. Also, it does not mean that the statute or compliance with the statute is consistent with con- stitutional principles, generally accepted ethical standards or democratic governance. Narrowly defined, compliance is a managerial function; regard- less, it is one important dimension of implementation.

• Bureaucratic accountability. Public policies are implemented by bureaucrats working in agencies. In theory, bureaucrats are hired on the basis of knowledge, skills, and abilities,

131

Simon, C. A. (2017). Public policy : Preferences and outcomes. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from capella on 2021-05-17 07:59:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and implement public policy in a politically neutral manner. As Matland and many others have noted, bureaucrats are not politically neutral. Elected officials use oversight to check bureaucracy and guide it toward compliance with political intent. Implementation might indicate that bureaucrats are doing what they are told to do, rather than what they would prefer to do or perhaps what they know would work.

• Statutory goals accomplished. Statutory goal accomplishment means that a desired output was produced. For example, a statute might state that police officers cannot racially profile and might get into trouble if they arrest too many persons of color. What if officers then began to have unofficial quotas on the number of people of color he or she could stop or arrest? Would that lead to “statutory com- pliance?” Of course not. Racial profiling laws were never intended to stop law enforcement officers from preventing crime. The goal of racial profil- ing law was to prevent intentionally discriminatory law enforcement practices.

• “Local goals” accomplished. Policy made at the national level tends to focus on very generic policy goals. However, policy is implemented in states and local communities. It is important that public policy fits local needs as well as meeting national policy goals. Implementation of a policy at the local level is often judged in terms of its ability to meet local needs because local governments and citizens are primarily interested in how policy helps them. Elected officials, particularly legislators seeking reelection, view implementation in terms of how constituents are benefited by policy.

• Political climate improvement. Matland views politics in terms of values allocation. Values often explain the level of joy or displeasure in the policy environment and within implement- ing agencies. Successful implementation means that something has improved as a result of public policy. Improvement might entail improved support for the political process; in essence, successful implementation might give individuals renewed hope that demands can be made of govern- ment, policy enacted, and positive outcomes produced.

• Learning. Matland contends that one of the most important things to emerge from successful implementation is learning. While statutory compliance and the meeting of goals are obviously of great interest, learning is central to making things even better. Learning means that policy improves over time and more complicated goals can be pursued and likely achieved.

According to Matland, policy implementation studies can be divided into two general categories: top-down approaches and bottom-up approaches. Top- down approaches assume:

1. Statutory language is complete, concise, and applicable. 2. Implementation is an administrative function.

132 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Anything that impedes compliance is viewed as a barrier. The statute is not seen as a barrier, so environmental factors are often identified as problematic. The goal is to remove barriers to compliance, essentially clearing the ground in front of policy implementation rather than working with existing conditions. Historical considerations are ignored; top-down implementation is about setting conditions and creating compliance. The second assumption (above) means that top-down implementation is not viewed as a political process—simply the enforcement of agreed-upon standards, rules, and processes. Local-level complaints about policy implementation are seen as barriers that must be overcome rather than recognized and considered.

In the bottom-up approach, policy is implemented by local level adminis- trators and elected officials; people working closest to policy clientele. Bottom-up implementation generally assumes that statutes are not complete and concise. Through policy networks known as advocacy coalitions–comprised of inter- ested citizens and pressure groups, and administrators–policy is formulated and implemented. Specific goals for policy are defined in the implementation phase and strategies to accomplish those goals are agreed upon. For the bottom-up approach, the recognition of current and historic context is central to good implementation. Accountability is a function of the democratic process, which includes elected officials as well as sovereign citizens. The rules defining bottom- up policy are created and legitimized through a wide array of advocacy coalition participants.

Matland brings the two aforementioned disparate approaches together in his ambiguity-conflict model. He identifies cross-cutting dimensions in policy implementation: policy ambiguity and policy conflict. According to Matland, policy ambiguity emerges in two major forms:

• Ambiguity of goals. Statutory conciseness and clarity are important ways of clarifying goals. Top- down implementation is particularly concerned with reducing ambiguity in goal formation, while bottom-up implementation finds that ambiguity pro- vides greater opportunity to reduce conflict through compromise at the local level.

• Ambiguity of means. There are two important dimensions to consider: (1) technological where- withal for effective implementation and (2) financial resources needed to pay for implementation efforts. For example, fire control on public lands is a public policy, but implementation would be difficult if there were neither fire fighting equipment (technology) nor funds to pay for firefighters (resources). As Matland succinctly states: “The degree of ambiguity inherent in a policy directly affects the implementation process in significant ways. It influences the ability of superiors to monitor activities, the likelihood that the policy is uniformly understood across the many implementation sites, the probability that local contextual factors play a significant role, and the degree to which relevant factors vary sharply across implementation sites” (Matland 1995, 159).

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 133

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Policy conflict comes into play when individual decision-makers do not agree on the basic premise for policy, let alone implementation of it. Policy conflict is best seen in inter- and intra-institutional bargaining activities. Policy conflict usually means that policy is a product of significant compro- mise, likely reducing statutory conciseness and clarity. Typically, “bargaining mechanisms such as side payments, log rolling, and oversight . . . [and] coercive [methods of compliance]” are visible in cases of policy conflict (Matland 1995, 156). Also, jurisdictional friction and methods of implementa- tion may serve as sources of policy conflict. Conflict is a clash of values (Matland 1995, 157).

Matland identifies and discusses four conditional relationships associated with the ambiguity-conflict model: see below.

Administrative Implementation (Low Policy Ambiguity, Low Policy Conflict)

Policies with low levels of ambiguity and conflict are generally very concise and clear policies. Low levels of ambiguity mean that a policy is clearly defined in terms of process and goals. Low levels of conflict decrease the likelihood that policies are vaguely written as the basis of compromise.

Concise statutes mean that implementation is built around rational “pro- grammed” administrative decisions. “The central principle in administrative implementation is outcomes are determined by resource. The desired outcome is virtually assured, given that sufficient resources are appropriated for the pro- gram” (Matland 1995, 160). In “Administrative Implementation,” resources are fairly stable. Technology is clear and exists prior to the establishment of policy. Administrative personnel are stable. “Implementation failure occurs because of technical problems: the machine sputters” (Matland 1995, 161). Compliance in implementation is further assured through normative mechanisms (e.g., mutual agreement); coercive mechanisms (e.g., statutes and rules); and renumerative mechanisms (e.g., salary and benefits).

Political Implementation (Low Policy Ambiguity, High Policy Conflict)

Policy goals are clear, but policy complexity produces goals conflict. Administrative solutions are less feasible due to a lack of agreement and norma- tive considerations shape policy implementation choices. Politics becomes the basis for articulating choices and power becomes the definitive factor in shaping prioritization and choice adoption. Purpose becomes less relevant in political implementation and agreement on process (or “actions”) “is sufficient” (Matland 1995, 164). Policy ambiguity is low, but resources are controlled by policy actors outside of the implementing organization; resource allocations cannot be assumed. Allocation decisions are based on power relationships rather than administrative rationality or the compliance mechanisms of administrative implementation.

134 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Experimental Implementation (High Policy Ambiguity, Low Policy Conflict)

Matland (1995) used the early years of Head Start as an example of experimental implementation. The goal of Head Start was generally agreed upon, but the policy implementation was unclear largely because it was something that had not really been tried before. As Matland states, “outcomes will depend largely on which actors are active and most involved” (Matland 1995, 165). Early Head Start implementation techniques were largely innovations tried in program offices across the nation. Circumstances of clientele and the general environment will shape the degree of policy ambiguity and implementation choices. Policy tech- nologies may not exist prior to implementation; therefore technologies will be developed on a needs-oriented basis. Statutory compliance will be unclear because statutes will likely be vague due to limited understanding of policy problems and solutions. Statutory goals might or might not be met; local goals were more likely to be met because the policy implementation was shaped by environmental conditions. At times, heavy influence from environmental factors can result in “capture,” meaning that the implementation process is significantly shaped by individual and group interests at the local level. Administrative accountability may be limited, but it is likely that policy-learning opportunities will be substantial.

Symbolic Implementation (High Policy Ambiguity, High Policy Conflict)

Symbolic policies are strongly rooted in normative positions regarding govern- ment and society. Symbolic policies are intended to reaffirm values and associated policy goals. Values tend to vary depending on locality and local goal fulfillment is of particular importance. Conflict is high and groups compete to symbolically enshrine their value set. According to Matland, “Competition ensues over correct ‘vision.’ Actors see their interests tied to a specific policy definition and therefore similar competing coalitions are likely to form at differing rates” (Matland 1995, 169). Micro-level interests shape symbolic policy and policy implementation. Resource control is centered in the policy environment, used to shape policy implementation choices, goals, and application.

Accountability is not assured. Statutory compliance is less relevant in this model. Local policy goals are paramount and shape value impacts on outcomes. Symbolic implementation tends to work well in top-down as well as bottom-up policy. (See Figure 7.1.)

ISSUES SURROUNDING IMPLEMENTATION

Policymakers wish to control and steer public policy. Control by elected offi- cials and by senior bureaucrats helps maintain statutory objectives and pro- motes agency accountability. Control increases the ability to link statutory goals with outcomes. If outcomes are not consistent with goals, then adjust- ments can be made.

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 135

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Steerage

Steerage keeps policy focused on intended goals. Policy implementation may not reflect policy goals and adjustments must be made. Steerage exists on two levels: the political and the administrative. Political steerage is often referred to as “over- sight.” Administrative steerage is shaped by rational-comprehensive and incre- mental choices, but is often influenced by pressure and clientele groups.

Tractability

Successful policy implementation requires tractability (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 1), the ability of public policy to control, influence, or reshape phenomenon in order to achieve a policy goal. Tractability requires policymakers to describe, explain, and predict phenomena associated with a policy problem. Predictive power allows us to understand how policy will impact problems. Tractability is important in establishing accountability for implementing agencies, highlighting significant accomplishments.

In many cases it is difficult to provide solid evidence that a problem is tractable and that policy will lead to particular outcomes. If there is no single explanation for why a problem exists, then it is very difficult for policymakers and policy implementers to identify solutions. (See Box 7.1 Litter: An Intractable Problem with Many Potential Causes and Box 7.2 Speeding though Crosswalks: A Much More Tractable Problem).

Target Group Identification

Target groups are the individuals or organizations whose behavior is directly impacted by public policy. Target groups are often described in terms of (1) size, and (2) behavioral aspects associated with policy implementation.

Administrative Implementation

Example: Smallpox erradication

Low CONFLICT

A M

B IG

U IT

Y H

ig h

L ow

Resources

Contextual Conditions Coalition Strength

Power

Example: Busing

High

Experimental Implementation

Symbolic Implementation

Political Implementation

Example: Headstart Example: Community action agencies

FIGURE 7.1 Typology of implementation Source: Matland (1995).

136 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Mazmanian and Sabatier conclude that the size of the target group must be manageable, otherwise implementers will face many difficulties: “In general, the smaller and more definable the target group whose behavior needs to be changed . . . the more probable that the statutory objectives can be achieved” (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 8–9). Smaller target groups are usually less diverse and narrowly tailored policies can be formulated and effectively implemented. Unfortunately, target populations are often ill defined and misunderstood, leading to unintended policy outcomes.

Federalism

Many nationally formulated public policies are implemented at the local and state level. Some policies are unfunded mandates, requiring local and state govern- ments to implement national policies using their own financial resources

BOX 7.1

Litter: An Intractable Problem with Many Potential Causes

Policymakers can identify public lit- ter as a problem with wide-ranging impacts. First, litter is a health hazard. Second, litter gives the impression of public apathy and can be the first step in elevated crime levels in a neighborhood. Once it has been decided that public litter is a problem that must be solved, policy formula- tors must identify reasons why peo- ple litter and how to best control this

behavior. One reason might be a lack of trash receptacles. Individuals get tired of carrying garbage and simply drop it on the ground. A second reason might be that “litterbugs” do not expect to be punished for their behavior. Getting rid of the trash appears to be a pure “benefit” to them. A third reason might be a lack of pride in one’s surroundings or perhaps a lack of awareness of the needs of others. While getting rid of the trash is a benefit to the person littering, it ends up becoming a “cost” to other individuals who have to pay to have it picked up or who have to wade through it. Litter becomes a cost for reasons related to health and crime, as addressed previously. A final reason for litter might be related to socioeconomic depravation in a community. Perhaps the city does not provide adequate trash collection. Additionally, litter may not be the cause of public apathy, but it may be a symptom of apathy related to socioeconomic and even racial disparity issues that are not being addressed by policymakers.

After identifying the nature of a problem and the potential causes for it, policymakers must identify solutions. Clearly, the problem of litter is related to any one of a number of causes. Simply regulating behavior and sending police officers out into the streets to issue citations will not solve the other problems identified with the issue of litter. In fact, it is doubtful that approaching this problem with any single policy solution would prove to be fruitful and might exacerbate other policy problems.

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 137

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

BOX 7.2

Speeding through Crosswalks: A Much More Tractable Problem

An advertisement for pedestrian safety.

Policy problems that are related to a narrow spectrum of potential causes are much more tractable and easily solved; therefore, implementation proves to be much more straightfor- ward. Speeding through school cross- walks is one example of a fairly narrow policy area and one that can be much more easily solved. Speeding through a crosswalk poses a serious hazard to children on their way to and from school. There are at least two reasons individuals might speed through a crosswalk: (1) they are in a hurry and see the “benefit” of speeding to be greater than the “cost” of getting a traffic fine; and, (2) they are unaware of the existence of the crosswalk. The policy solutions are fairly obvious. First, the public could be made more aware of the costs of speeding through public information campaigns and through the presence of police officers issuing tickets. Second, the use of crosswalk moni-

tors, lights, and signage would make motorists more aware of the presence of the crosswalk.

“The City of Bellevue’s School Crosswalk Enhancement Project provides an example of how engineering improvements can change driver behaviors. In a two-year project, the city worked with schools to identify traffic concerns. The first year of the project focused on changing driver behaviors through education programs, enforcement activity, signing, and pavement marking. In the second year, physical engineering improvements were installed if the problem behaviors had not improved. At Somerset Elementary and Bennett Elementary the city installed raised crosswalks, curb extensions, and bollards. At both schools there was a history of drivers speeding through the school zone and parking on or near the crosswalks. The raised crosswalk acts like a gentle, smooth speed bump to reduce vehicle speeds and to make students more visible as they cross. Curb extensions, or curb bulbs, bring a semicircle of sidewalk out into the crosswalk. This shortens the pedestrians’ crossing distance and eliminates parking on or near the crosswalk providing an unobstructed view for the pedestrians. The bollards (three foot posts) are positioned back from the edge of the curb extensions to keep pedestrians a safe distance back from

138 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and personnel. Conversely, funded mandates are implemented with financial support—grants-in-aid—from the national government. Grants-in-aid often imply a long-term commitment to the implementation of a particular public policy. In times of budgetary crisis, resource streams may disappear, constraining the implementation process.

Veto Points

Veto points are places within the policy process where policy can be changed or eliminated. Policy implementation is fraught with veto points, particularly within implementing agencies.

Agency structure impacts implementation. Most agency structures mimic the bureaucratic model, which reduces the number of veto points. In bureaucracies, decision-making authority is controlled by a small group of senior agency admin- istrators. Administrative implementation works well in the hands of bureaucracy.

Vague statutory directives require agencies to have active managers, delegating decision-making authority but cognizant of the need for accountabil- ity. Active managers must also deal with policy input from pressure groups, concerned citizens, clientele, and other policy stakeholders. When decision-mak- ing authority is delegated, the number of veto points increases substantially, as more policy actors shape implementation choices.

The organizational culture, or implementing agency’s organizational norms, shared values, and informal processes, may act as a veto point. Agency personnel are usually career civil servants who have seen any number of statutes implemented. Often, they can sense the potential for a statute to bolster or detract from existing agency goals, priorities, and culture. When a statute detracts from the agency’s culture, personnel will likely resist change.

The legal standing of pressure groups and clientele is another veto point. Legal standing means that those individuals or groups who are directly impacted by a statute have the right to take legal action regarding the decisions of the implementing agency. Policies that deny an individual their constitutional rights are particularly contentious.

Well-heeled interests often use their legal standing to shape implementation for their personal benefit. Powerful corporations impacted by regulatory imple- mentation have the financial and legal resources necessary to fight implementa- tion decisions. Heavily regulated, corporations have little difficulty demonstrating direct interest and legal standing. However, many individuals lack the resources necessary to turn their legal standing to their advantage. Bias creeps into agency

the road. Plaques were installed on the bollards with tips on how to safely cross the street. These physical engineering improvements reduced aver- age speed through the school zone and eliminated parking near the crosswalks.”

Source: www.wtsc.wa.gov/school_safety_programs.html (accessed January 30, 2005).

Chapter 7 • Policy Implementation 139

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. T

ay lo

r &

F ra

nc is

G ro

up . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.wtsc.wa.gov/school_safety_programs.html

implementation choices when they are motivated by attempts to reduce the potential for serious legal challenges from the powerful corporate interest, while ignoring the unexercised legal standing of less powerful individuals and groups (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1981, 13).

A Changing Policy Environment

Policy implementation is a long-term and dynamic process. A few environmental factors that must be considered:

• Target group change—The ever-changing nature of target groups and resources available to meet their needs must be a continual consideration for policy implementers.

• Technology—Advances in technology may reduce the cost of policy imple- mentation. Technologically backward agencies are often inefficient and ineffective.

• Public attention—Public attention is often directly related to media cover- age. The media play a role in all aspects of the policy process. Initially, the media is interested in the “hot topic,” but if media awareness wanes, then all too often public attention declines. Policy implementation may suffer from a lack of public …

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

14 Sep The Impact of Social Movements on Policy Development Social change and, ultimately, policy development often