Research on policy implementation has been a vital discourse among social scientists since the early 1970s when, according to Paudel (2009), Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) brought the issue of policy implementation to the fore. There is an assumption in most policy studies that once a policy has been formulated, the policy will be implemented (Burke et al. 2012). Which in reality is not the case, as implementation is a complex process.
33
Policy implementation as arguied by Paudel (2009) in most cases takes different shapes and forms in diverse cultures and institutional settings. Birkland (2001) stated that once the policy designers have settled upon a policy design and one or more tools to carry out the goals; the various actors in the policy process turn their attention to its implementation. According to Burke et al. (2012), in a policy implementation setting, a number of activities undertaken by government and its institutions are included in achieving the aim and objectives stated in policy agendas. Implementing a specific policy includes policy design, policy delivery, and policy review; the whole forms the “policy cycle”. However, Burke et al. (2012) argued that in reality, the lines between these stages in the policy cycle can become rather vague.
Moreover, there is a general view that policy implementation is a process that is complicated, as implementing must manage multiple challenges across many levels. These are according to Burke et al. (2012) the transformation of systems, the changing policy service provider behaviour and restructuring settings. Schofield (2001) argued that it is vital to stress policy making and implementation processes are not necessarily “sequential processes” but in many occasions are “parallel processes” where a design or a re-design and revision of a policy can take place even throughout the official implementation steps of a policy.
Policy implementation research according to Brynard (2006) has been too restricted at times. For instance, it has been restricted as it gave more importance on cross-sectional against longitudinal studies, it was very limited in number as an influence on case study against comparative study and it has also been too restricted in policy type in a way that there was more importance on single policy nature against various policies. Moreover, it was also too limited in defining the notion of implementation, restricted to a single assessment method versus multiple methods and it was too limited in its approach, as the process was either top- down or bottom-up approach versus both (Brynard 2005).
According to Brynard (2006), the theory of policy implementation research has been evolving over time. At first, the problem of policy implementation came as something of a surprise to planners and analysts (McLaughlin 1987). In the mid-1960s and early 1970s, fundamental theories of governmental action and administrative behaviour assumed away implementation issues or overlooked them altogether (McLaughlin 1987). The evolution of policy implementation theory research has been divided in to three generations. In the early 1970s, which is known as the first generation; the idea was that policy implementation starts with a
34
hypothesis and implementation would occur automatically once the proposed policies had been confirmed (Brynard 2006).
Brynard added that in the 70s, theorists suggested that a political methodology of a policy implementation process could be labelled as a single-authority, top-down approach and too political. DeLeon (2001) also criticised arguing that implementation studies were generally focused on case analyses. Moreover, Schofield (2001) emphasised that there were some misassumptions that policy formation and implementation was a “rational, linear process. Brynard (2006) citing (Hjern and Hull, 1982) stated that in the 70s administration was subsequently seen as being “scientific, rational, predictable and ultimately machine-like”. In the so called the second generation, Schofield (2001) stated that literature was intentionally more analytical. It aimed to create analytical typologies for predicting policy outcomes, but mainly it focussed on the variables which affected implementation either positively or negatively. Some of the important works which can be classified into the second generation literature were Barrett and Fudge (1981) and Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) of which both dealt with complex public sector areas extensively (Schofield 2001). Matland (1995) stated that criticism of the first and second generation models was their failure to develop testable and explanatory theory.
The second generation model was criticised for being focused on too many case studies, not enough validation and repetition. According to Schofield (2001), both models failed to provide a comprehensive blend or a unifying approach to the policy implementation analysis. Later on, as stated by Brynard (2005) also known as the analytical generation (third generation); compared to the two previous models has been less concerned with particular implementation failure and more with understanding how implementation works in general and how its prospects might be enhanced. The literature, according to Schofield (2001) was very heavily influenced by Goggin et al. (1990) and the justification of the model was based on the principle that the latest research addresses the dynamism of implementation processes.
According to Brynard (2005), the assessment of policy implementation has moved away from the stages of selected case studies and practical knowledge to the design of research so that understanding from research in different policy sectors can be linked. This has emerged in the third (analytical) model. Moreover, Brynard added that what helped in the view of the third generation on implementation was the awareness of the absence of and the need for causal awareness, arranging frameworks, conceptual models, analytic approaches and finally
35
descriptive and predictive theories. Moreover, Schofield (2001) stated that for an effective policy implementation process, a balanced pressure that is strategic, that incorporate the macro and micro world, that involves individuals at each stages and uses a top-down and bottom-up approach is vital. McLaughlin (1987) arguied that policy implementation that is based on local responses and individual motivations and beliefs are critical.
This PhD study have looked at the top-down policy implementation process, starting from the African Union, follwoing it to a country level Ethiopia. Ethiopia has a hierarchical administrative policy implementation system. It startes at the federal level, follwing the regional and zone level, it then goes down to woreda and kebele (village) level. For this reason, the top-down approach was suitable; and I thefore have follwed these steps to assess the policy implmentation process. The thesis has also assesed if there were bottom-up policies emerged and reach the top level policy makers.
2.3.1 The Top-Down Approach
According to Brynard (2005), the important feature of a top-down approach is that it begins with a decision of a policy by governmental, usually central government officials. Often it identifies the degree and the actions of implementing officials and target groups (Sabatier 1986). Matland (1995) argued that the top-down or bottom-up approach should be utilised depending on the type of the policy and the mission it has in which the policy is being implemented. Matland added that a top-down implementation process involves a carrying out of a policy decision by law, executive order, while the commanding decisions are located centrally by actors who seek to create the required effects.
This approach as Schofield (2001) noted also contains clear and steady goals created at the top of the hierarchical system assuming knowledge of cause and effects and it involves hierarchy of authority. On the other hand, Matland (1995) stated that the bottom-up implementation approach starts with the target groups and programme deliverers, since it is found that the target groups are the actual implementers of policy. According to (DeLeon (2001), a bottom-up model is more likely to be reflective of community interests more realistic, practical and democratic, while a top-down approach is more likely to enforce policy targeting specific interest groups. DeLeon added that if policy is supposed to pressure people’s behaviour, subsequently the bottom-up approach may go further telling people about the planned policy action to influence their behaviour. A bottom-up approach may also gather the consent of the target group before
36
their representatives’ vote for the law. Table 2.1 shows the differences between top-down and bottom-up policy implementation approaches.
Table 2.1 Comparison between top-down and bottom-up aproach, Source: Sabatier (1986).
The two intellectual leading characters in the top-down and bottom-up discussion according to Schofield (2001) are Paul Sabatier, as the supporter of top-down explanations, and Benny Hjern for the bottom-up approach. Unifying the top-down and bottom-up approaches illuminated the situations when each would be most useful. Moreover, top-down policy makers use dominant bureaucratic actors who influence policy implementation from the highest level. In addition, usually, these actors are analytical (Matland 1995). Top-down policy implementation structure seeks to minimise actors, minimise change and appoint concerned agencies to implement policy. Schofield (2001) also stated that the top-down approach fails to recognise the role of political effectiveness in policy making and it fails to address the pre-legislative phase of policy creation.
Moreover, the top-down approach may implement policy with standards that citizens do not understand which might also by-pass their rational preferences. On the one hand, the bottom- up approach is concerned with the intentions and actions of actors (Schofield 2001). According to Matland (1995), a bottom-up approach can be characterised in three ways. Firstly, it focuses on the actions of local implementers in contrast to the high-level government. Secondly, no particular attention has been given to the goals of a policy, but the nature of the problem which
37
a policy is designed to address gets more attention. Thirdly, it tends to explain networks of implementation and in doing so, has made a vital methodological contribution to the analysis of policy implementation (Matland, 1995).
However, one of the criticisms of the bottom-up research is that it fails to recognise the factors that are responsible for local situations are central actors and central policy. This is a reversal of the top-down logic. Nevertheless, neither the top-down nor the bottom-up supporters bring up research access and practicalities (Schofield 2001). The top-down perspective starts with a policy decision, while bottom-up starts with an analysis of the multitude of actors who interact at a grass-root local level on a specific issue (Sabatier 1986). In the process, Sabatier added that the common policy stages of formulation, implementation, and reformulation tended to disappear. Birkland (2001) argued that it is very important to understand policy implementation process. This is because it is a key feature of the policy process; and learning from implementation problems can foster learning about better ways to structure policies to ensure that they have the effects that policy makers desire.
According to Brynard 2009a), policy formation and policy implementation process is not a linear process, it is a complex process, and it involves a number of stages, actors and resources for it to be effective. Brynard emphasised that policy implementation experiences should foster policy learning; in that the gradual evolution of policies should have a collective effect on policy learning. Equally, it remains an open question whether policy learning serves as a foundation for improving policy-making and policy implementation and therefore ultimately for improved programme delivery (Brynard 2009a). Birkland (2001) stated that it is therefore vital to assess the success, challenges and learning of the policy introduced to the people on the ground.
A top-down policy delivery through different types of extension systems tend to be strongly hierarchical; where the general population at the ground level is the receiver of knowledge and technology (Bayram 2010). This is the main reason for adopting the top-down approach to discuss policy implementation process of the African Union and the Ethiopian Government food security policy process. The Ethiopian Government implements its food security policy through different types of extension systems using hierarchy for the policy to reach the people on the ground.
38
While I was on the ground assessing policy effectiveness at a village level, I have assessed whether policy emerges from the bottom-up and reaches the policy makers at the high level. The findings are discussed in chapter six and seven in detail