The policy process (I)

1. The policy process (I) Policy formulation/ approval (e.g. legislation) Agenda setting/ problem identification Implementation

2. Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky,Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; or Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work At All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes (University of California Press, 1973).

3. Pressman & Wildavsky, study of Economic Development Administration : findings • Delays in implementation resulted from complex system of planning approval – too many decision points • Delays led to rising costs – further decision points • Partners had received their partnership funding up front – so later had little incentive to help make the project work • Initially project driven by personal enthusiasm of leading personnel. When personnel changed, impetus was lost and established parameters allowed to drift • Ultimately, a programme expected to create 2,000 new jobs ended up creating about 20

4. Pressman & Wildavsky, study of Economic Development Administration : lessons • Implementation cannot be divorced from policy • Reduce number of decision points (simplify) ... • ... But do not try to bypass ‘street level bureaucrats’ • Accept revisions to policy in the light of implementation ... • ... and so revise our view of the policy process?

5. The policy process (II) Agenda setting/ problem identification Policy formulation/ approval (e.g. legislation) Implementation

6. ‘Street-level bureaucrats’ • 1984 Rates Act – gave central government power to cap rates • Intention: make local government more cost effective by imposing restraint on local authorities • Local authorities respond by setting rates higher than necessary, anticipating possible future capping • Result: increase in overall local government expenditure

7. The implementation gap (I) Marsh & Rhodes, ‘The implementation gap: explaining policy change and continuity’, in Marsh & Rhodes (eds), Implementing Thatcherite Policies: Audit of an Era (Open University Press, 1992), pp. 170-187 • During the Thatcher era, ‘a great deal changed in terms of legislation but much less changed in terms of outcomes’ (p. 186) • ‘Much of the previous literature overstimates the degree of change because they concentrate on legislative change rather than policy outcomes; the Conservatives had major implementation problems in areas like local government, industrial relations, privatization and health.’ (p. 187)

8. The implementation gap (II) • Privatizationintended to • create more efficient public sector by introducing competition • Weaken unions and reduce their wage bargaining power • But • improvements in public sector efficiency were negligible … • … and there is little evidence of a reduction in the scale and frequency of wage claims

9. The implementation gap (III) • Local government • abolished the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils • Imposed compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) for services like refuse collection • reduced local government’s responsibility for both housing and education • Transformed local government finance by introducing the Poll Tax • But • local government spending about the same as before • CCT had little effect on accountability • And the poll tax …

10. Lessons for policymakers • Consider the people who are going to be implementing your policy – what will they do? • Your policies may not achieve what you expect them to ... • ... or they may achieve other things in addition to what you were expecting

11. Unintended consequencesSource: http://arium.co.uk/pdfs/AriumReport-TheBestLaidPlans.pdf

12. Coalition problems? • Executive pay • Welfare crackdown • Child benefit • ... etc.

13. The policy process (II) Agenda setting/ problem identification Policy formulation/ approval (e.g. legislation) Implementation

14. Marble Arch (don’t walk through the middle one!)