Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T05:28:32.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Working Paper : Teaching Program Implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

Robert A. Heineman
Robert A. Heineman*
Affiliation:
Alfred University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The emergence within the past two decades of implementation as a distinct subject for analysis has been an important development in both public administration and policy studies. Since the Pressman and Wildavsky study of the activities of the Economic Development Administration in Oakland, there has been a steady stream of books and articles presenting case studies of implementation or suggesting methodological approaches for understanding the process or for improving it. Despite this growth in the literature, the teacher of implementation continues to be without broad conceptual frameworks for presenting the available material. The teaching of implementation remains an eclectic endeavor because of the lack of viable theory. Indeed a major writer in the area has urged scholars to focus on providing policy relevant data because he can not foresee at this time the development of generally applicable theory. I shall argue here that the conceptual failings of the study of implementation can be traced to its origins as a separate area for study and that an understanding of these limitations may point the way toward better theoretical structures.

Type
Research Article
Information
News for Teachers of Political Science , Volume 48 , Winter 1986 , pp. 10 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 In Pressman, Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron, Implementation (Second edition; Berkeley: University of California, 1979), p. xvGoogle Scholar, Wildavsky comments that at the time of their first (1973) edition there was very little literature on implementation. Yet by the second edition, he describes the newly included four-page bibliography as only “suggestive” not comprehensive. Extensive bibliographies are also to be found in Nakamura, Robert T. and Smallwood, Frank, The Politics of Policy Implementation (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980), pp. 183–189Google Scholar, and in Beyer, Janice M. and Trice, Harrison M., Implementing Change (New York: Free Press, 1978), pp. 321–336Google Scholar.

2 Williams, Walter, et. al., Studying Implementation (Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers, 1982), p. 16Google Scholar.

3 For a discussion of the origins of policy studies, see Ricci, David M., The Tragedy of Political Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 202–205Google Scholar.

4 Mazmanian, Daniel A. and Sabatier, Paul A., Implementation and Public Policy (Dallas, Texas: Scott, Foresman, 1983), p. 5Google Scholar, make this point specifically, others may have the same general point. See Bullock III, Charles S. and Lamb, Charles M. (eds.). Implementation of Civil Rights Policy (Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1984), pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Nakamura, and Smallwood, , op. cit., p. 11; Walter Williams and Richard F. Elmore (eds.), Social Program Implementation (New York: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 4–5Google Scholar. Bardach, Eugene, The Implementation Game (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1977), pp. 3-4, 37Google Scholar, also remarks on the program failures of the 1960s and on the lack of implementation studies previous to 1970.

5 Edwards III, George C., Implementing Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1980), p. 1Google Scholar; Mazmanian, and Sabatier, , op. cit.. pp. 20–21Google Scholar.

6 Williams, discusses this view in Williams, , et. al.,op. cit., p. 15Google Scholar.

7 Peter asserts, ”… To a great extent the ‘real’ policy of government is that policy which is implemented, rather than that policy which is adopted by the legislature or the upper echelons of the bureaucracy. …” Peters, B. Guy, “The Problem of Bureaucratic Government,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 43 (February, 1981), pp. 77–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Edwards, , op. cit., p. 1Google Scholar.

8 Bardach, , op. cit., p. 85Google Scholar.

9 Those disagreeing with this view include Nakamura, and Smallwood, , op. cit., p. viiiGoogle Scholar; Mazmanian, and Sabatier, , op. cit., pp. 9–11Google Scholar.

10 Edwards, , op. cit., pp. 8–9Google Scholar.

11 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Bullock and Lamb, op. cit., discuss the implementation difficulties in civil rights in terms of both judicial and legislative mandates.

12 Banfield, Edward C., “Making a New Federal Program: Model Cities, 1964-68,” in Sindler, Allan P. (ed.), Policy and Politics in America (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973), p. 130Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., pp. 125-134; Frieden, Bernard J. and Marshall Kaplan, , The Politics of Neglect (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1975), p. 6Google Scholar; Nakamura, and Smallwood, , op. cit., p. 26Google Scholar.

14 Van Horn, Carl E., Policy Implementation in the Federal System (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1979), p.3Google Scholar.

15 Sundquist, James L. and Davis, David W., Making Federalism Work (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1968, p. 47Google Scholar).

16 See Lamb, Chris, “Belief Systems and Decision Making in the Mayaguez Crisis,” Political Science QuarterlyVol. 99 (Winter 1984-85), pp. 681–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peters, , op. cit., pp. 56–82Google Scholar.

17 See Ripley, Randall B. and Franklin, Grace A., Bureaucracy and Policy Implementation (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1982), pp. 42–49Google Scholar.

18 Lipsky, Michael, Street-level Bureaucracy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980Google Scholar); Elmore, >Richard F., “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions,“ Political Science Quarterly Vol. 94 (Winter, 1979-80), pp. 609–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 See Mazmanian, and Sabatier, , op. cit., pp. 32-33, 41Google Scholar. Bullock, and Lamb, , op. cit., p. 17Google Scholar chart the important variables of implementation as seen by five works in the field and the subgovernment system is not included. The exception to this point about subgovernments is, of course, the work by Ripley and Franklin, op. cit., who appear to be perceived as students of the policy process generally not specialists in implementation.

20 In his introduction to the paperback edition of Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, Moynihan notes his earlier failure to pay due heed to the politics of the bureaucracy. Moynihan, Daniel P., Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding (New York: Free Press, 1970), pp. xviii–xxGoogle Scholar.

21 Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism (Second edition; New York: W.W. Norton, 1979Google Scholar).

22 Ripley, and Franklin, , op. cit., p. 207Google Scholar, agree on this point.

23 Nakamura, and Smallwood, , op. cit., p. 164Google Scholar.

24 Murphy, Jerome T., “The Education Bureaucracies Implement Novel Policy: The Politics of Title I of ESEA, 1965-72,” in Sindler, op. cit., pp. 164–165Google Scholar; Williams, , et. al., op. cit., p. 4Google Scholar.

25 Thomas, Robert D., “Implementing Federal Programs at the Local Level,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol 94 (Fall, 1979), pp. 419–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Howitt, Arnold M., Managing Federalism (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984). See especially chapters, 5, 6, and 7Google Scholar.

27 See Nakamura, and Smallwood, , op. cit., p. 100Google Scholar; Ferleger, D. and Boyd, PA., “Antiinstitutionalization - the Promise of the Pennhurst Case” in Flynn, R.J. (ed.), Normalization, Social Integration, and Community Services (Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980Google Scholar); Mary Sue Rose, “Implementation of the Pennhurst Decision.” Unpublished graduate paper, Alfred University, December, 1984.

28 Yarbrough, Tinsley E., “The Judge as Manager: The Case of Judge Frank Johnson,“ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 1 (Spring, 1982), pp. 389–395Google Scholar.

29 See Howitt, , op. cit., pp. 172-301; Karen Orren, , “Standing to Sue: Interest Group Conflict in the Federal Courts,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 70 (September, 1976), pp. 723–741Google Scholar.

30 See Peters, B. Guy, American Public Policy (New York: Franklin Watts, 1982), pp. 133- 136, 143–144Google Scholar.

31 Hogwood, Brian and Peters, B. Guy, Policy Dynamics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), p. 1Google Scholar.

32 Lindblom, Charles E., The Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968), pp. 105–106Google Scholar.

33 Elmore, Richard, “Organizational Models of Social Program Implementation,” Public Policy, Vol. 26 (Spring, 1978), pp. 185–228Google ScholarPubMed; Aaronson, David E.Dienes, C. ThomasMusheno, Michael C., Public Policy and Police Discretion (New York: Clark Boardman, 1984), pp. 383–404Google Scholar.

34 Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr., and Robert S. Montjoy, “The Implementation of Legislative Mandates.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, November 4, 1977. A shorter version of this paper appears in Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr., and Montjoy, Robert S., “Toward a Theory of Policy Implementation: An Organizational Perspective,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 39 (September/October, 1979), pp. 465–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Hamilton, Charles V., “The Patron-Recipient Relationship and Minority Politics in New York City,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 95 (Summer, 1979), pp. 211-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Piven, Francis Fox and Cloward, Richard A., Poor People's Movement [New York: Vintage Books, 1979Google Scholar); Banfield, Edward C., The Unheavenly City Revisited (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974Google Scholar).