Inhoudsopgave
Week 1, Beleid II............................................................................................................................................ 2
Matland: Synthezing the Implemetation Literature............................................................................................2
Sabatier: Top-down and Bottom-up approaches to implementation research.................................................17
Howlett & Migone: Charles Lindblom is alive and well and living in punctuated equilibrium land...................30
Hoorcollege 1.....................................................................................................................................................34
Week 2, Beleid II.......................................................................................................................................... 45
Brian & Head: Wicked Problems; Implications for Public Policy and Management..........................................45
Robert & Merton: Bureaucratic structure and personality, Social forces..........................................................56
Hupe & Hill: And the rest is implementation......................................................................................................62
Hoorcollege 2.....................................................................................................................................................72
Week 3, Beleid II.......................................................................................................................................... 82
Maynard-Moody & Musheno: State agent or Citizen Agent; two narratives of discretion...............................82
Vinzant & Crothers: Street-level leadership; Rethinking the role of public servants in contemporary
governance.........................................................................................................................................................91
Hoorcollege 3...................................................................................................................................................101
Week 4, Beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 114
Kaim-Caudle: The unintended effects of social policy measures.....................................................................114
Van Twist & Verheul: Onvoorziene opbrengsten.............................................................................................118
Hoorcollege 4...................................................................................................................................................126
Week 5, beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 138
Stoker, G: Governance as theory; five propositions.........................................................................................138
Stoker: Public Value Management...................................................................................................................146
Klijn & Steijn & Edelenbos: The Impact of Network Management on Outcomes in Governance Networks. . .160
Hoorcollege 5...................................................................................................................................................168
Week 6, beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 180
Bovens & Zouridis: From Street-level tot System-level bureaucracies: How information and communication
technology is transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control.........................................180
Giest: Big data for policymaking: fad or fasttrack?.........................................................................................192
Howlett: Moving policy implementation theory forward; A multiple streams/critical juncture approach.....202
Hoorcollege 6...................................................................................................................................................215
Week 7, Beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 230
,Week 1, Beleid II
Wat is beleidsimplementatie en waarom is het van belang?
Voorbereidend
Matland: Synthezing the Implemetation Literature
Reviews 2 major implementation schools (top-down & bottom-up) and previous
attempts to synthesize the literature. It ends with presenting the ambiguity-conflict model as
an alternative model for reconciling the existing findings on implementation.
Review of policy implementation literature finds that the field splits into 2 major
schools
i. Top-down
- Policy designers are central actors
- Concentrate attention on factors than can be manipulated at
central level
ii. Bottom-up
- Emphasize target groups + service deliverers
- Argues that policy is really made at the local level
A number of factors crucial to the implementation process are identified as varyingly
dependent on a policy’s ambiguity + conflict level
4 implementation paradigms
I. Low conflict-low ambiguity; administrative implementation
II. High conflict-low ambiguity; political implementation
III. High conflict-high ambiguity; symbolic implementation
IV. Low conflict-high ambiguity; experimental implementation
Introduction
In the policy implementation literature, most authors paint a similar picture of past
work + suggest similar paths for the future
Emphasize need for closure + coherence
So, 2 schools of thought developed as the most effective method for studying +
describing implementation: top-down & bottom-up
Macrolevel variables of the top-down
Microlevel variables of bottom-uppers
, Top-Down Models
Top-down models (TD) view implementation as concern with degree to which the
actions of implementation officials + target groups coincide with the goals embodied
in an authorative decision
Implementation = the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in
a statue but which can also take the form of important executive orders or court
decisions (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983)
Starting point is authorative decision; centrally located actors are seen as the most
relevant to producing the desired effects
Mazmanian & Sabatier (1983) present 3 general factors which determine the
probability of successful implementation
i. Tractability of the problem
ii. Ability of statue to structure implementation
iii. Non-statutory variables affecting implementation
Developed into set of 16 independent variables
Complex models
Top-downers have a strong desire to develop generalizable policy advice
That requires finding recognizable patterns in behavior across different policy
areas
This believe has led to a concentration on variables that can be manipulated
at central level
Common top-down advice:
Make policy goals clear + consistent
Minimize number of actors
Limit the extent of change necessary
Place implementation responsibility in an agent sympathetic with the policy’s
goals
Criticisms
TD-models take the statutory language as their starting point, which fails to
consider the significance of actions taken earlier in the policy-making process
- Many implementation barriers are found in initial stages (Winter, 1985
and 1986)
- By concentrating on the statutory language, top-downers may fail to
consider broader public objectives
Top-downers have been accused of seeing implementation as purely
administrative process, and ignore/eliminate political aspects
- The top-down emphasis on clarity + rule + promulgation + monitoring
makes us thing of the Weberian Bureaucrat making independent
decision based on merit + technical criteria, free from political influence
, - It is nearly impossible to separate politics from administration
- The attempts lead to apolitical actions
- That can lead to policy failure
TD-models have exclusively emphasis on the statute framers as key actors
- 2 primary variants
i. Normative perspective: Local service deliverers have expertise +
knowledge of the true problems, and are thus better to propose
good policy
ii. Positive perspective: Discretion for street-level bureaucrats is
inevitably so great that it is just unrealistic to expect policy
designers to be able to control the actions of these agents
Bottom-Up Models
Bottom-uppers argue that a more realistic understanding of implementation can be
achieved by looking at policy from the view of the target population + service
deliverers
Policy implementation occurs on 2 levels:
I. Macro-implementation level
- Centrally located actors devise a government program
II. Micro-implementation level
- Local organizations react to macro-level plans, develop their
own programs, and implement them
Berman argues that most implementation problems stem from the interaction of a
policy with micro-level institutional setting
There is wide variation in how the same national policy is implemented at local level
Because central planners only have indirect influence at microlevel factors
Contextual factors within implementing environment can dominate rules
created at the top of “implementation pyramid”
According to bottom-uppers, if local level implementers are not given freedom to
adapt the program to local conditions, it is likely to fail
Goals + strategies + activities + contacts of actors involved in micro-implementation
process must be understood to understand implementation
Micro-level policy directly affects people
Implementation arises from interaction of policy + setting, it is thus unrealistic
to expect the development of a simple/single theory of implementation that
is context free Critic of top-down
Most extensive empirical work of Benny Hjern (1982): Study a policy problem,
asking micro-level actors about their goals + activities + problems + contacts
Week 1, Beleid II............................................................................................................................................ 2
Matland: Synthezing the Implemetation Literature............................................................................................2
Sabatier: Top-down and Bottom-up approaches to implementation research.................................................17
Howlett & Migone: Charles Lindblom is alive and well and living in punctuated equilibrium land...................30
Hoorcollege 1.....................................................................................................................................................34
Week 2, Beleid II.......................................................................................................................................... 45
Brian & Head: Wicked Problems; Implications for Public Policy and Management..........................................45
Robert & Merton: Bureaucratic structure and personality, Social forces..........................................................56
Hupe & Hill: And the rest is implementation......................................................................................................62
Hoorcollege 2.....................................................................................................................................................72
Week 3, Beleid II.......................................................................................................................................... 82
Maynard-Moody & Musheno: State agent or Citizen Agent; two narratives of discretion...............................82
Vinzant & Crothers: Street-level leadership; Rethinking the role of public servants in contemporary
governance.........................................................................................................................................................91
Hoorcollege 3...................................................................................................................................................101
Week 4, Beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 114
Kaim-Caudle: The unintended effects of social policy measures.....................................................................114
Van Twist & Verheul: Onvoorziene opbrengsten.............................................................................................118
Hoorcollege 4...................................................................................................................................................126
Week 5, beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 138
Stoker, G: Governance as theory; five propositions.........................................................................................138
Stoker: Public Value Management...................................................................................................................146
Klijn & Steijn & Edelenbos: The Impact of Network Management on Outcomes in Governance Networks. . .160
Hoorcollege 5...................................................................................................................................................168
Week 6, beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 180
Bovens & Zouridis: From Street-level tot System-level bureaucracies: How information and communication
technology is transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control.........................................180
Giest: Big data for policymaking: fad or fasttrack?.........................................................................................192
Howlett: Moving policy implementation theory forward; A multiple streams/critical juncture approach.....202
Hoorcollege 6...................................................................................................................................................215
Week 7, Beleid II........................................................................................................................................ 230
,Week 1, Beleid II
Wat is beleidsimplementatie en waarom is het van belang?
Voorbereidend
Matland: Synthezing the Implemetation Literature
Reviews 2 major implementation schools (top-down & bottom-up) and previous
attempts to synthesize the literature. It ends with presenting the ambiguity-conflict model as
an alternative model for reconciling the existing findings on implementation.
Review of policy implementation literature finds that the field splits into 2 major
schools
i. Top-down
- Policy designers are central actors
- Concentrate attention on factors than can be manipulated at
central level
ii. Bottom-up
- Emphasize target groups + service deliverers
- Argues that policy is really made at the local level
A number of factors crucial to the implementation process are identified as varyingly
dependent on a policy’s ambiguity + conflict level
4 implementation paradigms
I. Low conflict-low ambiguity; administrative implementation
II. High conflict-low ambiguity; political implementation
III. High conflict-high ambiguity; symbolic implementation
IV. Low conflict-high ambiguity; experimental implementation
Introduction
In the policy implementation literature, most authors paint a similar picture of past
work + suggest similar paths for the future
Emphasize need for closure + coherence
So, 2 schools of thought developed as the most effective method for studying +
describing implementation: top-down & bottom-up
Macrolevel variables of the top-down
Microlevel variables of bottom-uppers
, Top-Down Models
Top-down models (TD) view implementation as concern with degree to which the
actions of implementation officials + target groups coincide with the goals embodied
in an authorative decision
Implementation = the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in
a statue but which can also take the form of important executive orders or court
decisions (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983)
Starting point is authorative decision; centrally located actors are seen as the most
relevant to producing the desired effects
Mazmanian & Sabatier (1983) present 3 general factors which determine the
probability of successful implementation
i. Tractability of the problem
ii. Ability of statue to structure implementation
iii. Non-statutory variables affecting implementation
Developed into set of 16 independent variables
Complex models
Top-downers have a strong desire to develop generalizable policy advice
That requires finding recognizable patterns in behavior across different policy
areas
This believe has led to a concentration on variables that can be manipulated
at central level
Common top-down advice:
Make policy goals clear + consistent
Minimize number of actors
Limit the extent of change necessary
Place implementation responsibility in an agent sympathetic with the policy’s
goals
Criticisms
TD-models take the statutory language as their starting point, which fails to
consider the significance of actions taken earlier in the policy-making process
- Many implementation barriers are found in initial stages (Winter, 1985
and 1986)
- By concentrating on the statutory language, top-downers may fail to
consider broader public objectives
Top-downers have been accused of seeing implementation as purely
administrative process, and ignore/eliminate political aspects
- The top-down emphasis on clarity + rule + promulgation + monitoring
makes us thing of the Weberian Bureaucrat making independent
decision based on merit + technical criteria, free from political influence
, - It is nearly impossible to separate politics from administration
- The attempts lead to apolitical actions
- That can lead to policy failure
TD-models have exclusively emphasis on the statute framers as key actors
- 2 primary variants
i. Normative perspective: Local service deliverers have expertise +
knowledge of the true problems, and are thus better to propose
good policy
ii. Positive perspective: Discretion for street-level bureaucrats is
inevitably so great that it is just unrealistic to expect policy
designers to be able to control the actions of these agents
Bottom-Up Models
Bottom-uppers argue that a more realistic understanding of implementation can be
achieved by looking at policy from the view of the target population + service
deliverers
Policy implementation occurs on 2 levels:
I. Macro-implementation level
- Centrally located actors devise a government program
II. Micro-implementation level
- Local organizations react to macro-level plans, develop their
own programs, and implement them
Berman argues that most implementation problems stem from the interaction of a
policy with micro-level institutional setting
There is wide variation in how the same national policy is implemented at local level
Because central planners only have indirect influence at microlevel factors
Contextual factors within implementing environment can dominate rules
created at the top of “implementation pyramid”
According to bottom-uppers, if local level implementers are not given freedom to
adapt the program to local conditions, it is likely to fail
Goals + strategies + activities + contacts of actors involved in micro-implementation
process must be understood to understand implementation
Micro-level policy directly affects people
Implementation arises from interaction of policy + setting, it is thus unrealistic
to expect the development of a simple/single theory of implementation that
is context free Critic of top-down
Most extensive empirical work of Benny Hjern (1982): Study a policy problem,
asking micro-level actors about their goals + activities + problems + contacts
