Topic 8 Policy Process Studies: Policy Implementation 2 The Third Generation of Implementation Theor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Topic 8 Policy Process Studies: Policy Implementation 2 The Third Generation of Implementation Theor PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1544cf-NTgzZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Topic 8 Policy Process Studies: Policy Implementation 2 The Third Generation of Implementation Theor

Description:

Susan Barrett specifically underlines the influence of Giddens' Theory of ... model of policies implementation is no long at work, in its replacement is the ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:782
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 49
Provided by: CUHK8
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Topic 8 Policy Process Studies: Policy Implementation 2 The Third Generation of Implementation Theor


1
Topic 8Policy Process StudiesPolicy
Implementation 2 The Third Generation of
Implementation Theory
EDM 6209 Policy Studies in Education
2
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)
  • Distinction between policy-centered and action
    centered approaches In reviewing the studies of
    policy implementation before the 1980s, Barrett
    and Fudge classify them into two approaches
  • Policy-centered approach This approach takes the
    policy mandate as the foundation and crux of the
    implementation process.
  • It defines the process of implementation is the
    logic and administrative lock-steps of "putting
    the policy into effect".
  • The approach accepts the perspectives of the
    policy makers as the primary concerns and
    implementation is but the act of carrying out the
    policy-makers' prescription to the full.
  • Accordingly, implementation is construed as a
    purely administrative task of imposing of control
    and soliciting compliance

3
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)
  • Distinction between policy-centered and action
    centered approaches
  • Action-centered approach
  • It defines policy implementation as series of
    actions, i.e. a project or an agency, through
    which "getting something done" or "making
    something happen" is the primary goal rather than
    simply securing the compliance of the
    "street-level bureaucrats"
  • The approach conceived policy implementation as
    performance rather than conformance. The
    performance or action is environment-dependent
    and context-dependent, hence constraints imposed
    by the environment as well as perspectives held
    by interaction partners must be taken into
    consideration as the implementation process
    unfolds in the field
  • According, implementation is conceived as both a
    negotiating process as well as responsive process

4
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)
  • Policy implementation as process of structuration
  • Susan Barrett specifically underlines the
    influence of Giddens' Theory of Structuration on
    her formulation the Policy-Action Model. (2004,
    p. 256-257)

5
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)
  • Policy implementation as process of structuration
  • Three conceptual constituents in the Theory of
    Structuration (Giddens, 1984)
  • The agency and the agent
  • Agency is conceived as a flow of intentional
    action, i.e. a project
  • Agent is defined as knowledgeable human actor,
    who possesses the capacity of carrying out
    intentional action
  • The Structure Structure refers to those rules
    and resources, which "make possible for
    discernibly similar social practices to exist
    across varying spans of time and space.'
    (Giddens, 1984, p.17) In other words, it refers
    to "rules and resources recursively implicated in
    the reproduction of social systems." (Giddens,
    1984, p. 377)

6
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)
  • Three conceptual constituents in the Theory of
    Structuration
  • Structuration "Analysing the structuration of
    social systems grounded in the knowledgeable
    activities of situated actors who draw upon rules
    and resources in the diversity of action
    contexts, are produced and reproduced in
    interaction. The constitution of agents and
    structures are not two independently given sets
    of phenomena, a dualism, but represent a duality.
    According to the notion duality of structure, the
    structural properties of social systems are both
    medium and outcome of the practices they
    recursively organized. Structure is not
    'external' to individuals as memory traces, and
    as instantiated in social practices, it is in a
    sense more 'internal' than exterior to their
    activities. Structure is not to be equated with
    constraint but is always both constraining and
    enabling." (P.25) For example, the structure of a
    language system both constraints and enable
    agents, who are knowledgeable to that language,
    expressing herself and communicating with other
    agents in daily interactions.

7
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)
  • Policy implementation as action-and-response
    process
  • By applying the duality of structure and
    theory of structuration to the study of policy
    implementation, policy and its implementation can
    be reformulated as follows
  • Policy can be conceived as a structure, i.e.
    rules and resources implicating the recurrence of
    particular sets of social practices. To take EMI
    policy as an example, it implicates that teachers
    and students will recursively adopt English as
    medium of instruction in their lessons.
  • The duality of the structure can be illustrated
    by the fact that EMI policy as a structure is
    both the medium and the outcome of implementation
    process.

8
Barrett and Fudge's Action-Centered Approach
(1981)
  • Policy implementation as action-and-response
    process
  • Accordingly, policy implementation can no longer
    be conceptualized as a single linear progression
    of
  • but as a recursive and ongoing process of actions
    and responses.

Policy
Action
(Structure)
(Agent)
9
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework
  • Sabatier (1986/1993) puts forth the advocacy
    coalition framework as a means to synthesize the
    top-down and bottom-up models in policy
    implementation.
  • By advocacy coalition, Sabatier refers to actors
    from various public and private organizations who
    share a set of beliefs and who seek to realize
    their common goals over time in a specific
    policy system (domain). (Sabatier, 1993, p. 284
    and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 120)
    From this definition, four essential features of
    advocacy coalition can be deduced.

10
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework
  • From this definition, four essential features of
    advocacy coalition can be deduced.
  • The composition of an advocacy coalition is made
    up of a variety of groupings (Sabatier and
    Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 118-119)
  • administrative agencies,
  • legislative committee,
  • interest groups,
  • journalists, researchers, and policy analysts,
    and
  • actors at all levels of government active in
    policy formulation and implementation.

11
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework
  • From this definition, four essential features of
    advocacy coalition can be deduced.
  • The unit of analysis of policy implementation is
    neither the top-down officials and their policy
    directives nor the street-level bureaucrats and
    their accommodating strategies, but is the
    advocacy coalitions in a specific policy problem
    or issue, i.e. policy subsystem, such as higher
    education or air pollution control. (Sabatier,
    1993, 284)

12
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework
  • From this definition, four essential features of
    advocacy coalition can be deduced.
  • The delineative line or the integrative force of
    an advocacy coalition is its belief system, which
    can be differentiated into three levels.
    (Sabatier, 1993, p. 287 and Sabatier, 1999, p.
    133)
  • The deep core Fundamental normative and
    ontological axioms
  • The policy core Fundamental policy position
    concerning the basic strategies for achieving
    core values within the subsystem
  • Instrumental decisions and information searches
    for necessary to implement policy core

13
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework
  • From this definition, four essential features of
    advocacy coalition can be deduced.
  • A longer time frame, i.e. a decade or more should
    be adopted in policy implementation so as to
    allow the policy process to complete at least
    one formulation/implementation/reformulation
    cycle, to obtain a reasonably accurate portrait
    of success and failure, and to appreciate the
    variety of strategies actors pursue over time.
    (Sabatier, 1993, p. 119)

14
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework
  • Based on the conception of advocacy coalition,
    Sabatier constructs a advocacy coalition
    framework for policy implementation into three
    dimensions
  • The exogenous factors In connection to the
    top-down approach of policy implementation,
    Sabatier organizes the exogenous factors into two
    sets
  • Relative stable parameters
  • External (system) events
  • The intermediate factors It includes another two
    sets of factors
  • Constraints and resources of subsystem actors
    (advocacy coalitions)
  • Degree of consensus needed for major policy change

15
Paul A. Sabatiers Advocacy Coalition Framework
  • Based on the conception of advocacy coalition,
    Sabatier constructs a advocacy coalition
    framework for policy implementation into three
    dimensions
  • The dynamics within the policy subsystem Based
    on the bottom-up approach, the framework put
    strong emphasis on the strategies and conflicts
    played out by different advocacy coalitions found
    in the policy subsystem under study. This part of
    the framework consists of
  • Identifying the major advocacy coalitions (about
    3 to 4) at work in the policy subsystem
  • Analyzing strategies adopted by advocacy
    coalitions to construct the policy outcome in
    accordance with their own belief systems.
  • Analyzing the mediating process, through which
    the conflicts among coalition can be mitigated,
    compromised or even resolved by means of the work
    of the policy brokers.

16
  • RELATIVELY STABLE PERAMETERS
  • Basic attributes of the problem area (good)
  • Basic distribution of natural resources
  • Fundamental socio-cultural values and social
    structure
  • Basic Constitutional structure (rules)

Degree of consensus needed for major policy change
POLICY SUBSYSTEM Coalition A Policy Coalition
B Brokers
a. Policy beliefs b. Resources
a. Policy beliefs b. Resources
Strategy A1 re guidance instruments
Strategy B1 re guidance instruments
Constraints And Resources Of Subsystem Actors
Decisions by Governmental Authorities
  • EXTERNAL (SYSTEM) EVENTS
  • Changes in socio-economic conditions
  • Changes in public opinion
  • Changes in systemic governing coalition
  • Policy decisions and impacts from other subsystems

Institutional Rules, Resource Allocations, and
Appointments
Policy Outputs
Policy Impacts
(Sabatier, 1999, Figure 6.4)
17
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The concept of governance
  • Governance - whether public or private - has
    been defined simply as the general exercise of
    authority. (Michalski et al, 2001 quoted in
    Hill, et al., 2005, p. 203)
  • Common elements in definitions of pubic
    governance can be identified as the emphasis on
    rules and qualities of systems, co-operation to
    enhance legitimacy and effectiveness and the
    attention for new processes and public-private
    arrangement. (Hill et al., 2005, p. 204)
  • The study of governance is to enquire the
    question how government continues to be an
    effective mechanism of performing and deciding on
    collective goals, then how to reach those goals.
    (Hill et al., 2005, p. 204)
  • In short the concept of governance characterizes
    the a governments ability to govern and the
    efficiency to implement its policies

18
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The changing nature of governance
  • In the past two decades, the governments in
    democratic-liberal state in capitalist societies
    have experienced the fundamental changes in their
    ability to govern and the efficiency to implement
    their policies. The changes are caused by the
    various historical, political and socioeconomic
    factors. To take England as an example, these
    factors include the followings.
  • The rise of the New Conservative Government and
    the replacement of the post-WWII welfare-state
    policy orientation of the English government. One
    of the most of telling policy rhetoric of the
    change in public policy orientation is To Roll
    Back the State.

19
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The changing nature of governance
  • The general policy measures of this policy
    orientation can be summarized with the concept of
    The Public Reform, which summarized a number of
    changes in public policies
  • Decentralization of mechanism of policy
    implementation
  • Deregulation of the public sector
  • Marketization of the public services
  • Privatization of the policy-service delivery
    agencies
  • Governments role in public policy implementation
    changed from rowing to steering

20
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The changing nature of governance
  • The changes in the governance of the
    democratic-capitalist state has further been
    accelerated by the advent of the transnational
    governance agencies, such as the WTO, World Bank,
    European Community, etc. and multinational
    corporations.
  • These changes have been characterized by
    political theorists as the emergence of the
    fragmented state, the hollowing out the state,
    the erosion of the sovereignty of state, or
    simply the deterioration of the governance of the
    state.

21
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The emergence of the theory policy network in
    policy implementation
  • One of the consequences of the roll-back-the-state
    project is the creation of the
    quasi-governmental agencies or even private and
    profit-making agencies to assume the role of
    implementing public policies and social programs.
  • As a result, top-down model of policies
    implementation is no long at work, in its
    replacement is the policy network model, which is
    made up of all these quasi-governmental agencies
    and private corporations, which are on equal
    footing in policy implementation instead of in
    hierarchical order.

22
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The emergence of the theory policy network in
    policy implementation
  • As a consequence, scholars not only started to
    describe these horizontal forms of governance
    that developed out of a changed distribution of
    power, but also tried to argue normatively why
    these forms of governance were the most effective
    and efficient for certain types of policy and
    organizational problems. The term network was
    claimed to be the new paradigm for the
    architecture of complexity (Simon, Raab and
    Kenis, 2007, 189)

23
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The emergence of the theory policy network in
    policy implementation
  • The network logic in Network Society
  • The Atom is the past. The symbol of science
    for the next century is the dynamical Net
    Whereas the Atom represents clean simplicity, the
    Net channels the messy power of complexity. The
    only organization capable of nonprejudiced
    growth, or unguided learning is a network. All
    other typologies limited what can happen. A
    network swarm is all edges and therefore open
    ended any way you come at it. Indeed, the network
    is the least structured organization that can be
    said to have any structure at all. In fact a
    plurality of truly divergent components can only
    remain coherent in a network. No other
    arrangement chain, pyramid, tree, circle, hub
    can contain true diversity work as a whole.
    (Kelly, 1995, p.25-27 quoted in Castells, 19976,
    note71, p. 61-62)

24
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The emergence of the theory policy network in
    policy implementation
  • The concept of policy network
  • By policy network, it is defined by Benson as a
    cluster or complex of organizations connected to
    each other by resource dependencies and
    distinguished from other clusters or complexes by
    breaks in the structure of resource
    dependencies. (Benson, 1982, p. 148)
  • Williamson conceives policy network as a form of
    governance that can be located between the
    continuum of Hierarchy and Market. As a form of
    governance, it is characterized by the plurality
    of autonomous actors, as they are found within
    markets, and the capacity to pursue collective
    goals through deliberately coordinated actions,
    which is one of the major elements of hierarchy.
    (Raab and Kennis, 2007, 191)

25
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • The emergence of the theory policy network in
    policy implementation
  • The concept of policy network
  • In other words, the implementation of public
    policy is no long coordinated by bureaucratic
    hierarchy of the state but by the what Castell
    call the logic of network.

26
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • Policy network model approaches policy
    implementation with the following core
    assumptions
  • The unit of analysis of policy implementation is
    neither the top-down directives from the
    bureaucratic hierarchy, nor the interpretations
    and discretions of street-level bureaucrats, but
    the autonomous quasi-governmental agencies and
    private corporations.
  • The focus of the study is how these autonomous
    organizations relate or connect to each other
    in a way to attain the policy objectives, to
    carry out the policy measures, and to materialize
    the policy outcome.

27
The Policy Network Model and the Theory of
Governance
  • Policy network model approaches policy
    implementation with the following core
    assumptions
  • The mechanism that integrate the policy network
    together are
  • Interdependence Operating in policy network
    agencies must work in a cooperative and yet
    mutual independent way
  • Game-like interactions Organizations within the
    network also interact in competitive footings for
    resources hand down by the government in the form
    of tenders and contracts
  • Governmental mechanism of steering at a distance,
    such as measures of output accountability, value
    for money, quality assurance, performance
    auditing, etc.

28
Policy Learning in Learning Organizations
  • "Since the 1990s, implementation researchers have
    increasingly come to see the problem of
    educational policy implementation as one of
    teacher learning." (Coburn Stein, 2006, p. 25).
    Within the third generation of education-policy
    implementation, researches on policy learning and
    cognition have grown into one of the prominence
    school within the field.

29
Policy Learning in Learning Organizations
  • At individual level, researches on teacher
    learning and cognition have revealed that as
    primary implementers of policy, teachers do not
    mechanically comply with policy directives but
    they would interpret and make sense of the
    objectives, measures, outcomes and consequences
    of the policy to be implemented. What researches
    on policy implementation and cognition revealed
    "is not simply that implementing agents choose to
    respond to policy but also what they understand
    themselves to be responding to. The fundamental
    nature of cognition is that new information is
    always interpreted in light of what is already
    understood. An individual's prior knowledge and
    experience, including tacitly held expectations
    and beliefs about how the world work, serve as
    lens influencing what the individual notices in
    the environment and how the stimuli that are
    noticed are processed, encode, organized, and
    subsequently interpreted." (Spillane et al.,
    2006, p. 49)

30
Policy Learning in Learning Organizations
  • At community level, recent researches on
    educational policy implementation also revealed
    that "sense-making is not a solo affair an
    individual's situation or social context
    fundamentally shapes how human cognition affects
    policy implementation." Education-policy learning
    by definition as well as by nature takes place in
    institutional sitting, i.e. schools. In other
    words, "social agents' thinking and action is
    situated in institutional sectors that provide
    norms, rules, and definition of the environment
    that both constrain and enable action." (Spillane
    et al, 2006, p. 56) As a result, researches on
    professional community practice and learning
    community formation have become a prominent area
    of study in the field of education-policy
    implementation. (Odden, 1991 Honig, 2006)

31
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
  • Two dimensions of knowledge creation
  • Epistemological
  • Ontological

32
(No Transcript)
33
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
  • Two dimensions of knowledge creation
  • Epistemological
  • Ontological
  • Two types of knowledge
  • Tacit knowledge
  • Explicit knowledge

34
(No Transcript)
35
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
  • Two dimensions of knowledge creation
  • Epistemological
  • Ontological
  • Two types of knowledge
  • Tacit knowledge
  • Explicit knowledge
  • Four models of knowledge conversion
  • Socialization Sharing and creating tacit
    knowledge through direct experience individual
    to individual
  • Externalization Articulating tacit knowledge
    through dialogue and reflection individual to
    group
  • Combination Systemizing and applying explicit
    knowledge and information group to organization
  • Internalization Learning and acquiring new tacit
    knowledge in practice organization to individual

36
(No Transcript)
37
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
  • Knowledge spiral
  • Field building
  • Dialogue
  • Linking explicit knowledge/networking
  • Learning by doing

38
(No Transcript)
39
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Ikujiro Nonakas Knowledge-Creation Organization
  • Knowledge spiral
  • Field building
  • Dialogue
  • Linking explicit knowledge/networking
  • Learning by doing
  • Spiral of organizational knowledge creation

40
(No Transcript)
41
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Peter Senges The Fifth Discipline of the
    learning organization
  • The five learning disciplines
  • Personal mastery
  • Mental models
  • Shared vision
  • Team learning
  • System thinking
  • System thinking - The fifth discipline

42
Personal Mastery
System Thinking
Shared Version
Mental Models
Team Learning
43
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Peter Senges The Fifth Discipline of the
    learning organization
  • The five learning disciplines
  • Personal mastery
  • Mental models
  • Shared vision
  • Team learning
  • System thinking
  • System thinking - The fifth discipline
  • The Framework of learning organization
  • Implicate (generative order)
  • The Essence of the LO
  • The architecture of LO
  • The wheel of learning
  • Results

44
The Framework of learning organization
45
The wheel of learning
46
Learning Organizations Theories
  • Kenneth Leithwoods theory of learning school
  • Learning organization is defined as a group of
    people pursuing common purpose (individual
    purposes as well) with a collective commitment to
    regularly weighing the value of those purpose,
    modifying them when makes sense, and continuously
    developing more effective and efficient ways of
    accomplishing those purpose. (Leitrhwood
    Aitken, 1995, p.63)
  • Five constituents of the framework of the
    learning organization
  • Stimulus for learning
  • Organizational-learning process
  • Out-of-conditions
  • School conditions
  • School leadership
  • Outcome

47
Synthesizing the Third Generation of Education
Policy Implementation Studies
  • Meredith I. Honig synthesis (2006)

48
END
Topic 8Policy Process Studies Policy
Implementation 2 The Third Generation of
Implementation Theory
About PowerShow.com