Public Policy Introduction PDF

introduction to public policy lectureI What is public policy ? a process as well as a product process of decision-making , product of that process instrument of governance ,...

introduction to public policy lectureI What is public policy ? a process as well as a product process of decision-making , product of that process instrument of governance , direct public resources the policy cycle. 1 > a tool to help us think about the various steps/. 2 activities involved in policy- making. 5 main focus : what ? * a rule of thumb / heurist 4. 3 is for helping to navigate the many activities + decision points that arise during policy making the policy actor model > - helps us to think about how government actors can undertake activities outlined in the the policy cycle main focus : now ? * heuristic for under- standing the variables at play at each step of the policy cycle  structure us agency public policy must balance : 1. Structure pre-existing governance organisations , institutions and policies in which any new decision must be situated. 2. agency the capacity of any given actor/group to take a decision in accordance with their ideals , priorities , responsibilities, constraints and wishes. no actor in policy-making is unconstrained by pre-existing policies , norms , structures etc. at every stage of the policy process, tensions between structure and agency arise for policy actors each step of the cycle must consider common variables : * governance Struct umes * institutional capa- city * engagement with problems + publics * a need for analy- rical , operational and political know- ledge  Lecture 2 Westphalian States * established the international political order we know : * recognized the sovereignty of nation states * Sovereign states hold a monopoly on legitimate viol- ence within their borders important definitions 1. polity > various institutional structures that constitute a political system 2. institutions the formal or informal Rules that structure how a society is governed bureaucracy a government institution that makes decisions on behalf of democratic representatives canonymous traditional) orientations of democratic republics 1.. 2. 3 1. unitary central government retains all power can change constituent parts can impose policy central government provincial > citizens local government e.. g MI , UK , nz , Japan 2. federal central government significant government-state gov. State gov. al powers are divid- ed + shared between local gov. local gov the central gov. + small citizens subnational units division of power defined by constitution e. g Canada , us , germany , australia. 3 confederal 2/ distinct political units coordinating keep their separate identity institutions but transfer specified powers state , country state , country to a higher authority for or municipality or municipality reasons of convenience , mu- tual security , or efficiency citizens citizens constituent parts join together for common purposes While retaining ultimate authority over other matters constituent parts can veto confederation actions. central gov. tends to be weak e.. g Mali , niger come close : Switzerland, belgium , canada, el p O key ideas of the enlightenment 1. Thomas Hobbes autocratic government is needed to control humanity's worst excesses life without government is bad canarchy 2. John Locke monarchs have are not chosen by god , they don't divine rights government should be a republic , organized to preserve life, liberty and property 3. Voltaire the Church-state should be separated - life is better with liberty-freedom of speech and religion conceptualizing liberal democracy government should be a social contract between people and their Rulers : * freedom-dualistic indiv. freedom to pursue happiness pursuit of general will of the people to ensure the well-being of society A government should represent the people if this fails people should revolute - , * government should contain 3 branches : 1. parliament legislative , make the law 2. high court judiciary , interpret the law 3. cabinet executive , enforce the law  trias politica fundamental humanmights summary : liberal democracy is a system of government designed to maximize the freedom of citizens , while avoiding the acquisition of excessive power by any individual or group * citizens are granted fundamental human rights to avoid their loss of negative liberties at the hands of government or other citizens * governmental power is granted under a consti- tution , and wielded by the trias politica that monitor each other but , governance structures are changing increasing prevalence of transboundary problems increasing influence of IGO's loss of territorial synchrony between the state. its government , the people and society's problems.  Lecture 3 when do policymakers make decisions ? policy cycle , see lecture 1 at all points in the cycle , multiple decisions have to be made. e.. g at agenda setting includes many decisions made. how do we get it on the agenda , who needs to be talked to etc. public policy decision making * objectives * accountability follow due process * decision criteria might be masked for public * decision-making process not always best for public * resources and constraints also depends on capacity * Stakeholder involvement * measuring success budgets , cost-effectiveness there are expectations on public consultations Public vs private sectors leadership in decision making factors influencing leader's decisions policy priorities ? personally pursue for others to pursue ? who else has power ? over policy formulation , implementation , evaluation ? compromise to ensure success ? do the have constitutional remitt institutional support to make an executive decision ? Politically motivated decisions ? in practice , even a mational actor must negotiate politics  it is a constant battle/interdep- endent machine between policy. politics and polity * goals + possible solutions often benefit from ambiguity - allows freedom for decisions to be changed * anaousforeasier consensuslegitimaaerenced by the ideals , values and priorities etc. Of polititians and bureaucratic actors * is options-listing a form of issue framing ? Hobson's choice nationality : 4 Requirements. 1 a decision making principle decision-making principles consequentialism/utilitarianism * an action is morally Right if the results of the action are for the greater good deontology anactionis morallyrighwrongin andf is a * 2. good evidence to enhance our understanding of problems, objectives and potential solutions 3. a coherent objective of logic 4. Some form deduction , induction , abduction expertise in decision-making how much influence should experts have ? Singapore france china en germany usa UK netherlands australia  3 decision models 1. comprehensive Rationality assumes clarification of values + objectives , seeks means-end analyses and a comprehensive review of every relevant fact. or to every decision. Call steps in policy cycles limits : - must consider compatibility with existing policies so ch is not always possible. is made policy rarely by just1 rational actor clarity of problems , goals and solutions ? uncertainty and complexity institutional capacity ? - is the comprehensively rational model consequent ialist ? "bounded Rationality * limits to the capabilities of political actors : analytical knowledge ; problem-solving capacity operational knowledge ; inst. feasibility of policies political knowledge ; legitimacy problems solutions. uncertainty means optimal solutions may Often be unattainable + unrealistic. 2. the incremental model policy is the result of interaction between various actors , each possessing different types of information. there will often be conflict as a result of time+ info constraints and a need for bargaining and compro- mise. * Successive limited comparisons between options that are easily adjusted resulting in incremental change 1 "toenemend  incremental decisions are : politically achievable technically/institutionally easier to implement - incrementalism limitations : * preferences the status quo * Inadequate for addressing problems caused by the status quo , or needing a "paradigm Shift" > 3 reading : orders of policy change : Hall. 1 incremental adjustments to policy settings C. change of policy instruments 3. Systemic change. 3 the garbage can model < most used ( assumptions : * high problem complexity + uncertainty * many actors with influence * no consensus on problems/objectives/solutions * decisions reflect desires of those with most influence "satisficing" (satisfy + Sufficient * solutions only need to satisfy temporary standards or objectives in a way that is acceptable , but not op- timal * alternatives aren't fully explored , if a satisfying solution is available. challenges/limitations ambiguity : lack of clarity over policy solutions and objectives or solutions cause problems multiple irreconcilable ways of think ing about a problem implies that organizations act as political coalitions information may not be helpful windows of opportunity when politics , problem and policy align there is enough political will , to solve a certain problem , with a policy ? need political entrepreneurs  summary * Rational decision-making is a valuable ideal , but is often not possible in practice uncertainties , complexities , institutional norms and politics get in the way all national judgements demand some form of subjective choice. e.. g in relation to decision-making principles * expert judgement is important for policymaking but, over-reliance on experts ci. e technocracys may hide political judgements behind a facade of objectivity over-reliance on polititians" judgement cie. dec- isionism , may allow politicians to ignore im portant evidence * policy studies generally envisage 3 types of policy decision-making :. 1 comprehensive rationality. 2 incrementalism. 3 the garbage can  Lecture y knowledge for policy making. 1 technical canalytical expert advice/consultancy. 1 Research evidence policy analysis indexternally ( 2. 2. Institutional operational ( bureaucratic norms + practices 3. existing policies policy implementation challenges or opportunities Dureaucratic relations. 3 political cabinet politics legislative politics - executive disposition/preferences/priorities commonly used types of analytical knowledge 1. cost-benefit analysis 2. cost-effectiveness analysis do the perceived net benefits outweigh the costs. 3 misk analysis and assessment · Risk-likelihood+ consequence · risk-based decision-making/misk-based Regul- ation 4. Randomized control trials how effective is it in practice ? e. g plastic Recycle. 5 Systematic literature Review uncertainty in policymaking in terms of: Risk , vulnerability , opportunities + threats do uncertainties constrain our ability to act ? known knowns known unknowns we for sure know some we know that we don't know things some things * operational knowledge : A analytical knowledge constitutionally defined we don't know what will limits+ what actions need happen in the future approval by the congress * political knowledge * political knowledge we don't know whether the president and its the un security council party seek certain pro- will approve blem definitions , goals , politics * analytical knowledge unknown knows unknown unknowns we don't always know there are some things we do what we know not even realize we don't know e. g uncertainty in healthcare policy * analytical uncertainty lack of conclusive understanding to support policy design and implementation * operational uncertainty fluidity of governance structures , laws and institutional norms * political uncertainty uncertainty about the behavior/responses of others  managing uncertainty reduce uncertainty : gather evidence Scenario planning : anticipate futures Risk management : understand likelihood + consequences focus on highest risks to reduce administrative burdens political uncertainty decision-making under uncertainty is easier when con- sensus exists on problem definition and character * consensus * easier to agree on decision criteria > * likely to be informed by preferred evidence * easier to attain institutional cooperation what counts as decision-making failure ? 1. hesitation/paralysis 2. Cognitive bias over confidence , confirmation bias , groupthink etc. 3. Short-termism/ clientelism decision-making driven by electoral cycles , lobbying or partisan short-term agendas leading to post long-term outcomes poor stakeholder engagement : failure to consult key actors , leading to misinformed or illegitimate decisions policy complexity and lack of coordination fragmentation of governance Responsibilities leading to ineffective policy design or implementation  why network governance ? logs of territorial Synchrony : many policy issues seem to demand collaborative gov- ernance between networks of policy actors society has become fragmented , complex , dynamic problems transcend jurisdictional borders and must be addressed collaboratively policy formulation demands governing processes + jurisdictions that can't be fully controlled by a single central government Coordination through hierarchal governmentStruc tures/the use of markets has proven to be < insufficient governance networks a somewhat stable horizontal articulation of interdependent actors. They interact through negotiations which take place within a framework that is self-regula- ting ; and which contributes to the production of public purpose types of network 1. formal group of 3/1 autonomous organizations that esta- blish a formal agreement to collaborate to achieve their own + collective goal C. informal groups of individuals that work together within + be- tween non-government organizations for mutual benefit  how are they coordinated 3 models 1. participant governed 2. lead organization governed 3. a "network administrative organization" external , independent multi-level governance a. type I non-intersecting , multi-level government arrange- ments within conventional hierarchical structures "The Russian doll" model supra-national (national regional "local limited number of non-overlapping jurisdictions jurisdictional structure is similar at each level b. +ype 2 functionally - specific policy regimes that work at various territorial scales transcend traditional national and local jukis- dictions functional + overlapping jurisdictions designed for flexibility , depending on problems + public preferences : can be discontinued When no longer needed potentially very many jurisdictions , each ful- filling specific functions that may compete Citizens aren't served by the government' but by a variety of public service industries + semi-state organizations type 2 often embedded in type 1 gov. Structures e.. g transboundary governance limitations : often miss formal/adequate codification of responsibilities , that can lead to post Coordina - tion + collaboration networks may lack democratic legitimacy governance responsibilities passed to policy actors from another jurisdiction who are not directly answerable to the public network may lack willing/motivated participants especially where free-riding is possible implications many centers of independent decision ma- king flexibility of scale potentially increasing costs of coordina tion an increasing need for collaboration between jurisdictions on transboundary issues at a local level , it can be hard to see the bigger picture at strategic levels national international it can be hard to understand local contexts summary * uncertainty is a key characteristic of decision- making * the "rationality project" that is ongoing across mature liberal democracies has sought to uncertainty , but will likely  will always be limited to its success * what may be important is the degree to which political consensus on a given problem exists , and whether governance organizations can collaborate effectively together * as a result of new public management Reforms and the loss of territorial synchrony , public policy making + implementation is being under- taken in governance networks , and often though multi-level governance * gn face challenges of coordination + effect i've collaboration * migh may operate within traditional hier- archical bureaucracies , by , are also developing through horizontally structured arrangements between non-land gov. actors in functionally-oriented jurisdictions  Lecture 6 concepts + definitions problem definition / issue articulation - important because : the way in which a problem is cre-defined dic- tates how it is treated in subsequent policy activities policy makers struggle to understand public problems understanding the is important problem but a major challenge : separating the symptoms and the causes is hard poor understanding framing of a problem often leads to ineffective solutions what is a public problem ? no problem is intrinsically public there is no measure to show when a matter becomes a collective concern ( constructivism ( Realization that a situation is not normal and could be improved/ acted upon problemazation : condition problem Role of social actors : defining the problem condition us a problem " "public problem ? not a private matter , but a public concern "the private is political" ( not a fatality or act of providence , but a mat ter of collective responsibility Requires public intervention , political action - publicisation : fate privateI public  what is the problem ? 5 Stages : 1. labelling 2. Victims cidentification ( 3. responsibility 4. drama dramatize the Situation ( 5. action I labelling, naming seeks to : Raise awareness about a problem linking an event to similar event associate a situation to a broader problem = a normative practice, it refers to a social norm Or an ideal to highlight the gap with the current situation e.. g coupling/associating problems easier to place an issue of the agenda if it can be ass- ociated to problems already on the agenda. policy entrepreneurs often seek to discursively associate problems. 2. identifying a public of victims = a collective autonomous actor , not just the Sum of victims * 2-way Street : groups seek to influence policy making , but pm also constructs groups , comm A policy implementation also could point to fut use targets/benefiaries of policy , services etc.  Social construction of target population Stereotyping of deserving 3. blaming : designating causes and attributing Re- & sponsibility 2 dimensions :. 1 identifying the guilty party , causing the problem 2. designating those responsible for solving the problem legitimacy + capability demonstrating causality is complex and gives way to contestion mobilization of evidence attributing responsibility strengthen the legitimacy of designed institutions essential step in problem definition as the design- nation of causes and attribution of responsibility shape policy solutions  causal framework > only following I used to avoid blame designating causes Orders Stone 2012 processes of polita- lization and de- politalization linked to design- ation of causes to discourse neg. knowledge + will harmful side effects of good framing positive + neg. intentions. deflect responsibility avoidable ignorance framing 4. building a narrative and dramatizing the future identification of the future consequences of a problem , through discourse + narrative , to emphasize unacceptability. 1 dramatization of the future through the pre- sentation of projections which appear as the logical continuation of past decisions C. narratives about the future serve to : demonstrate the intensity of the problem or undermine it create a sense of urgency or undermine it claiming calling for action 3 important dimensions * temporality  * responsibility * specific course of action globalizing public problems interdependences characteristics - issues that cross national boundaries * "effect a s number of indiv. Over the world e.. g domestic violence * "are managed at the inter-transnational level X "are carried by transnational networks even when policy solutions remain mostly national e.. g Corruption defining a problem as global portrays it as beyond the control of national politicians 3 flows of problem globalization 1. material flow 2. claims-makers flow e.. g experts , activists etc.. 3 Symbolic flow e.. g media , narratives etc. complexibility + problem tractability wicked problems complexity + challenges in admessing social problems up , lack clarity in their solutions/definition / " We don't agree on what the problem is normative : due to , actors + different interests influence value judgements + would views  > not technical disagreement many about what the actors invol- problem is red , with different - I hard to learn interests from other problems no space > or of each to be wrong Other , Strong no experim interrelation enting with solutions , responsibility , Reliability stone identifies 3 types of complex causal types : * complex systems e.. g Social systems such as technological syst. * institutional problems are explained by large organizational institutions/webs incentive structures , behavioral patterns * historical path dependency of policy choices hard to change the Roots degrees of complexity/structuration agree on Hoppe , 2016 > wp problem+ We all agree it [ is a problem causes + 501. but the causes but normative are debated E disagreement  understand the "type' of your problem problem provideRelevant Structuring knowledge on problem causes + policy alter- natives bring Stake holders together administra tiveimplem- accomoda- te views / entation + Sol. prof Routine. summary * no situation is a global s public problem by nature "the mobilization of actors + their de- finitional struggles turn conditions into problem in need of public intervention * the social construction of a problem is linked to existing social , political , ideological structures A it's a deeply political process as new problem def. can challenge status quo , empower actors + create new alliances * the social world= complex : Sol. Should be found by mobilization of knowledge , involvement of Relevant pub- lics by politically neutral actors  lecture 7 policy formation the process of generating a set of plausible policy Choices capable of adressing problems identified during agenda setting. contains its own extra cycle : policy design a deliberate , system- atic approach to policy formation generally occurs when there is clarity / consensus on : problem definition policy goals usable evidence politically legitimate solutions institutional capacity for analysis + design activities institutional + political limitations arising from ex- isting priorities , ideals + policy regimes knowledge for policymaking 1. technical canalytical * expert advice + consultancy * Research evidence * policy analysis C. institutional operational * bureaucratic norms + practices * existing policies * policy implementation challenges/opportunities A bureaucratic relations 3. political * cabinet politics * legislative politics * executive disposition/preferences/priorities policy analysis for policy design problem analysis needs analysis policy process analysis is it likely to be effective ? policy theory analysis what 'theory of change should underpin design policy options analysis what are the strenghts/weak- nesses of the options multi-criteria decision analysis which option is best ? Research , evidence , policy analysis differences : Research seeks to provide facts but facts take time to emerge andRarely speak for themselves Research almost always needs some political inter- pretation evidence + analysis does so 1st order knowledge : Research produced via the scientific method and order knowledge : evidence + policy analysis  3 orientations to policy analysis 1. Scientific develops/applies a theory that relates policy actions to effects tests hypothesis + theories using the scientific method 2. professional analyses policy alternatives + their ability to solve public problems synthesizes research + theory to understand potential outcomes evaluates current programs+ their effectiveness in their political/institutional contexts. 3 political advocates for preferred policies apply legal , economic and political arguments to Support a preferred option use Research findings + data to the extent they Support preferred policy social construction of populations through policy analysis political power in fluences the social con- Struction of populations  design capacity for any problem , the government has 4 basic capa- bilities : 1. modality government is at the center of social informat ional networks. 2. authority government has legitimate legal power to command or prohibit action.. 3 Treasure government has financial resources to design + implement problem solutions. 4. organization government possesses a stock of people , skills , land buildings + technology instruments for policy design * incentives/decentives < carrots Sticks , A information/communication A decision-steering through behavioral cues I nudging policy design instruments 1 substantive instruments : aimed at delivery of certain goods + services to society  effecting instruments policies that seek to effect direct change detecting instruments policies that garner information to help direct change 2. procedural instruments : techniques aimed at ad- justing institutional procedures to enhance support for and participation of government networks positive : incentivizing/promoting negative : dis-incentivizing/inhibiting summary * if policy problems are socially constructed , then so too are policy analyses used to understand those problems ; before , after , during agenda setting processes. * 3 policy analysis categories : 1. Scientific 2. professional 3. political all types require politically significant value judge ments + contribute to social construction of pub- lics + problems. * gov. Possess y types of policy design capacity : 1. modality  2. authority 3. treasure 4. Organization * policy design is a comprehensively Rational form of policy formulation that can deploy 2 types of instruments :. 1 procedural 2. Substantive  lecture o limitations to policy design 1 power dynamics policymakers must compromise/ follow ideological priorities instead of seeking comprehensive design. 2. complexity + emergent outcomes lead to emergent, unplanned outcomes for which problem definitions + policy options may be diffi- cult to derive , or solutions may be challenging to evaluate in an evidence-based way in time to allow for adequate response.. 3 path dependence institutional structures , networks and practices may limit the ability to design clear , coherent policies comprehensive/compromised design ? * patching only increasing changes to existing policy regimes are desirable , necessary or possible. * drift past failures to update/revise policies leave a le- gacy that must be accommodated to meet new politi- cal/institutional / societal realities. * stretching some policies in a policy mix get extended to cover issues , publics/geograpic areas they were not originally designed to cover. A layering new policies are added to a policy mix , without removing/adjusting older policies  influences on formulation to non-design. legislative bargaining compromises between legislators that may be sub Optimal/ineffective. clientism policies developed to benefit special interest groups in exchange for political support. promotion for partisan electoral advantage policies developed with the specific intent of winning electoral advantage - bureaucratic policies policies developed to maximize a department/or- ganization's budget allocation leader experiences/preferences personal experiences , preferences/ideologies of political leaders. non-design Brexit * lack of foresight * fragmented + non-strategic A legislative + internal party bargaining public participation : the direct involvement of citizens and civil society in the formulation , decision-making , and implementations of public policy matters because : enhances legitimacy, accountability + responsiveness provides decision-makers with diverse perspectives and expertise empowers citizens + fosters democratic engagement  benefits of public participation. 1 improved policy outcomes : a informed that better reflect needs + preferences. b access to local knowledge + expertise 2. increased legitimacy + trust a. engaging the public trust in government institutions + their decisions. 3. democratic empowerment a. Citizens feel empowered when they can actively contribute to policy decisions limitations + challenges participation inequality leading to unequal influence Risk of tokenism - PD. can be symbolic , with little actual influence. complexity of policy issues some may be too technical l' complex to engage useful. time + resource constraints pp. can slow down the process + require significant resources for implementation. Amstein's ladder of citizen participation 1. non-participation · participation in "advisory com- mitees" with no influence : a public relations muse therapy · participation as a means to treat the perceived mental illness of a group  2. degrees of tokenism · informing one way of communication · consultation -way of com. but no mech- anism to effect change. 3 degrees of citizen power partnership · plactation · participation in a powerful forum , but no real power contemporary models of public participation. 1 deliberative democracy structured dialogue deliberate on policy issues seek · to , consensus/compromise , and advise policy makers e. g focus groups , citizen assemblies 2. policy co-production/ participatory democracy : · active collaboration between government + citizens in policy design + implementation e.. g participatory budgeting , citizen juries. 3 digital democracy · using technology + online social media to facilitate public engagement + democratic decision-making for policymaking e.. g Vote trading  policy transfer the process by which knowledge about policies , and ministrative arrangements , institutions , or ideas in 1 political system is used in the development of policies in another system. may be voluntary / coerced is often deliberate even if involuntary is often promoted by transnational governance organizations causes of policy transfer * globalization governments have less capacity to frame + design their own agendas , due to international organizations etc. A loss of territorial Synchrony policy problems + publics increasingly extend beyond the bounds of any 1 jurisdiction. Governments must cooperates with each other. * digital communication the speed of exchange of ideas+ knowledge is increasing. cultural influence of stronger nations is impactful influences on policy transfer policy t institutional similarities between the borrowing + lending country external pressure international agreements , foreign aid conditionally domestic factors political will , civil society pressure , public opinion networks the role of think tanks , transnational networks, global knowledge sharing. mechanisms of transfer 1. copying/emulation direct copying/ imitating models 2. learning/adaptation borrowing policy elements seen as successful and/or modifying a borrowed policy to fit local context. 3 imposition 160's / powerful states force policies on to weak er States voluntary / coerced ? · summary * policy design is important for policy formulation but in practice is frequently hindered by practical mealities institutional + political pressure problem complexity  existing legacies * policy non-design is a s likely outcome of the policy formulation process * public participation is considered a vital component of policy formulation processes , but in practice gov. Conduct participatory processes in ways that are unsatisfactory. * policy transfer is also a vital component of policy formulation processes. the importance has become important in a globalized world.  Lecture g : policy implementation > the activity in the policy process in which actors attempt to convert policy intentions + resources into actions resulting in specific policy outputs , achievement intended and ultimately in the of policy outcomes. intentions resources actions Why so complex ? many actors are involved deficiencies in design become clear : vague goals layering/ overlap of policies it is not is clear what being implementedd... failure to anticipate implementation problems and/or lack of understanding of the implementation process implements ? who policy. 1 tribunals commission. 2 private companies 3. arm's length bodies 4. Civil Society ngo's structural transformations that impact policy  governanceReforms 1. public administration · bureaucratic , traditional administration measured process respect of hierarchy · : +. cnews 2 public management · non-governmental agencies for efficiency · privatization contracting out , howling out the government by moving responsibilities to the private sector. · work practices the transfer of powers , responsibilities , and resour Ces from the central government to authorities at the subnational level CoEd types : territoriall / functional Fruitoattrar to unctional from public to non public political theses distribution of power between level of governance to should promote democracy. be inter- administrative connected distribution of tasks to improve effectiveness + efficiency fiscal taxation at local level trend towards decentralization , but the degrees of public sector decentralization varies greatly. digitalization mainstream of governance Reform high expectations of efficiency + effectiveness , interact ions with stakeholders + quality of public services. difficult to tackle related complexity < requires Skills + capacity. easy for gov. to monitor policies + evaluate. gov. Still Struggle to integrate digital tools + to tackle related complexity.  democratic backsliding and populism populist governments generally undermine administra tive institutions. through negative narratives + bashing administra- tive institutions as elitist + ineffective Restructuring governance to match goals through capturing , reforming , dismantling or sabotaging state bureaucracy Recruitment based on loyalty to leader en policy implementation - politics becoming >transnational - policy implementation in eu refers to the putting into practice of the diverse policies coming out of the el legislative process : directly + indirectly applicable , binding Regulations + directives , as well as voluntary "soft policies" , targets , and economic instruments different bindings - 1. directive transposed into national law. 2 Regulation universal immediately applicable  failures for member states to comply * infringement procedure * withhold funds compliance and differentiated implementation 3 theoretical approaches to understand non-comp- liance : 1. management app. lack of capacity + resources 2. enforcement app. intentional non-compliance as result of gov · Preference. 3 normative app. importance of bottom-up pressure , socialization and learning differentiated policy implementation ; member states may choose different , yet equally el law-abiding policies with different procedural mules / informal practices  top-down approach , a way of studying implementation that considers the goals of the highest-level policy-makers and traces the design + implementation of the policy through the lowest level implementers. main assumptions * clear articulation of the intended policy A there is an "implementation chain" that starts at the top * failures come from difficulty in communication or poor performance of implementers "implementation gaps" can be corrected through better control mechanisms. bottom-up approach a way of studying implementation that considers Abilities + motivations of policy implementers and tracks implementation from that level up. main assumptions : * implementers face an impossible task and "make do" as best as they can. * policy ambiguity , limited resources , time pressure no single statute , vague goals this approach looks at challenges that arise from resource gaps , institutional environments , self-percep- tion of implementers. challenges to policy implementation 1. political  slow authorization , weak political support , bureau- cratic Opposition , poor incentives 2. analytical vague goals , changing priorities , poor design , uneven feasibility 3. Operational limited funds , weak management + coordination , unclear operational plans. 4 contextual factors affect implementer's activities : administrative traditions + governance transformation degree of political stability degree of environmental turbulence openness of the policy process summary * the outcomes of a policy can't be mechanically de- ducted from the way it was formulated. * it is not always clear what is implemented * number of actors involved with different ideas. * problems + solutions are continuously reformulated to adapt to changing circumstances. concerns for implementation : * have to be build into all phases of policy process. * policy actors need to understand the political + administrative contexts in which policy is made  Lecture 10 : the inside story of policy implementation 1. the role of street-level bureaucrats + front line workers in policymaking * competing perspectives top-down bottom-up Mismatch between objective policy intention) and Outcome. What * / who is street-level bureaucrat where government meets people. - SLbs are employees of government who: interact with public regularly have independence + authority in decision making carry out tasks for which they are trained SLbS work is affected by : scarcity of resources ambiguous role expect a