75 6.4 – APPROACHES TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
APPROACHES TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
The two primary methods for achieving successful implementation of a policy are the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses and should be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, more recent scholarship has proposed a third-generation approach which we will discuss in the following section.The top-down approach uses forward mapping and moves policy from the top, that is, from policy makers to implementation. The process requires policy makers to make predictions about the survival and success of the policy at various stages. As mentioned before, policy making is a complex process that often includes horizontal and vertical coordination. A policy maker using the top-down approach will try to predict the outcomes at each level to include the interactions between agencies and organizations. The bottom-up approach, on the other hand, utilizes backward mapping which focuses on the behavior the policy maker wishes to change at the street-level and works from the bottom to achieve that change.
As stated above, top-down and bottom-up approaches are not without weaknesses. The top-down approach relies on clear and precise objectives, which can be problematic for reasons stated earlier. Furthermore, the top-down approach relies on policy makers and analysts to predict mid-level and street-level bureaucratic behavior, which is not an exact science and is further complicated when considering vertical and horizontal coordination issues. Similarly, the bottom- up approach cannot fully predict human behavior, particularly that of street- level bureaucrats. However, street-level bureaucrats can be motivated through various incentives, such as funding for policy implementation or repercussions for noncompliance, so achieving the policy outcomes is just a matter of correctly predicting the level and type of coercion necessary.
Even considering their weaknesses, both approaches can still be useful in specific situations. The top-down model is best suited for single policy issues with little coordination, while bottom-up methods are better when the policy is broad and multiple agencies utilize street-level bureaucrats to implement the policy. Nevertheless, Richard Elmore (1985, cited in Birkland, 2019) combined the two approaches. Goggin et al. (1990, cited in Birkland, 2019) further extended the work started by Elmore to develop a theory on the premise that “implementation is as much a matter of negotiation and communication as it is a matter of command,” providing two additional propositions (Birkland, 2019): Clear messages sent by credible officials that are received by open- minded implementers, who have or are given sufficient resources, and can enact policies supported by affected groups create implementation success.
Strategic delay on the part of states, while delaying the implementation of policies, can actually lead to improved implementation of policies through innovation, policy learning, bargaining, and the like.In sum, these propositions indicate that implementation success relies on the following factors: clear and credible messages sent by the policy maker, sufficient resources provided to implementers, and a willingness to negotiate by all parties. In other words, policy making, especially implementation, is a complex process that deserves careful consideration by the analyst. As such, analysts should not treat every issue as a nail and a single technique as a hammer. Instead, they should diversify their toolbox to ensure the analysis is performed in a manner that increases the chance of policy success.
