Contents 14 UNDERSTANDING IMPLEMENTATION 1 Implementation Problems 3 Lack of Attention to Implementation 5 Approaches to Studying Policy Implementation 7 Our Approach to Studying Implementation 9 Notes 15 2 COMMUNICATION 17 ‘Transmission 17 Clarity 26 Consistency 40 Conclusion 43 Notes 46 3 RESOURCES 53 Staff 54 Information 63 Authority 66 Facilities 77 Conclusion 78 Notes 82 xiiiBefore ee Pensa 4 DISPOSITIONS 89 Effects of Dispositions 90 Staffing the Bureaucracy 98 Incentives 107 Conclusion 114 Notes 119 5 BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE 125 Standard Operating Procedures 125 Fragmentation 134 Conclusion 141 Notes 144 6 PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS 147 Interactions Between Factors 147 Policies Apt to Face Implementation Problems 150 Prospects for Improving Implementation 154 A Final Word 164 Notes 165 SUGGESTED READINGS 169 INDEX 173148. Implementing Public Policy Communication reese Siti =a Implementation pil il oe Bureaucratic Structure Figure 6.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts on Implementation A brief review of some of the relationships of these factors to each other will clarify their role in implementation. Directives that are not accurately transmitted, clear, or consistent provide implementors with discretion in responding to them. This | discretion may be exercised directly or through formulating instructions for lower level officials. Once discretion is provided by lapses in commu- nications, it allows dispositions to come into play. They strongly in- fluence how implementors will exercise their discretion. Similarly, | discretion provided by loose communications allows implementors to continue using their established routines. On the other hand, commu- nications that are too detailed may lower the morale and independence of implementors, leading to goal displacement and the waste of valuable resources such as staff skills, creativity, and adaptability. Thus, the impact of communications on implementation is not only direct, but is also felt through its linkages with resources, dispositions, and bu- reaucratic structures. Resources also indirectly influence implementation. They interact with communications in_sever Insufficient staff can hinder the transmission of policy direc as in the case of the courts. Top officials’ lack of information is often the cause of the ambiguityEIGHT - Development in Mexico Figure 8-1. The Context of Policy Implementation National Political Elite National or Regional Bureaucratic Chiefs Implement Programs Solve Problems Local Officials and Party Leaders Jurisdiction of implementor [aumee] [Eee] Organizational context Generalized performance expectations Specific demands for resource allocation 205Figure 1-1, Implementation as a Political and Administrative Process Policy Goals 7 goals Implementing Activities —_——~- Outcomes achieved? Influenced by: a, impact on society, ' 8, Content of Policy individuals, and 1 interests affected groups | Action Programs and 2. type of benefits b, change and its Individual Projects 3, extent of change envisioned acceptance \ Designed and Funded 4, site of decision making | \ 4 . program implementors / \ : 6. resources committed \ \ b. Context of Implementation / \ \ 1. power, interests, and strategies / programs delivered of actors involved \ as designed? - 2, institution and regime 7 \ a characteristics 7 Ne x 3. compliance and responsiveness ~ S 2 a >N aoe 2 MEASURING suCCESs — Ix2]U0D pun yusueD Koy0g - INO32 Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Inird Genertuont Figure 1.1 The Communications Model of Intergovernmental Policy Implementation Independent intervening Dependent Variables Variables: Variables -—-— Federa-Level Feedback <——————— Inducements and ayant . 7 State State Implementation Capacity t State- and Local: Level inducements and Constraints, (Feedback) behaviors of agents charged with execution.” If this decision were the only factor, implementation would vary little from state to state. But states are discrete units, with their own policy agendas. State responses to federal inducements and constraints vary, depending on the nature and intensity of the preferences of key participants (including, impor- tantly, local-evel agents) in the state policy process. Finally, state responses are also influenced by the state's Capacity to act. This synthesizing approach yields the conceptual model displayed in Figure 1.1. Three clusters of variables affect state implementation: