Policy design – implementation and pluralism
 Implementation revolves around taking a policy design – e.g.,
distributing a benefit; regulating some activity – and putting it into
practice through a policy instrument or strategy.
 Effective implementation requires:
 Sound problem analysis and diagnosis (is the problem well-defined; do we
know what it is we’re trying to address?)
 Good, useful, up-to-date information on the issue (do we have adequate data
to understand how different audiences will be affected by the policy?)
 Insight regarding the policy’s feasibility (i.e., what are the challenges faced by
those responsible for carrying it out?)
Defining the
problem – wetland
loss
Is the problem well-defined?
 Clean Water Act (as amended) requires Congress to instruct EPA to reduce loss of
natural wetlands by: discouraging further wetland destruction and or filling.
 Urban development, rural development, silviculture, and conversion to
deepwater (e.g., the disappearance of coastal wetlands or flooding to create
reservoirs) all contributed to wetland loss.
 Under President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) EPA was instructed to develop “no
net loss” rule – essentially, balance unavoidable losses of habitat with their
replacement on a project-by-project basis.
 Problem? Different methods used in past to classify wetland types. Methods have
improved, and acreage data have been adjusted, resulting in changes in overall
wetland base. However, we cannot be certain that the trends reported in this data
are accurate – according to Dahl – nor that a wetland can be “replaced.”
Adequacy of data – audience impacts*
SNAP = Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance
program/USDA
Adequacy of data and audiences affected - issues
 In large part exacerbated by current recession, participation rate in federal food
stamp program has dramatically increased.
 Eligibility – household monthly income no more than 160% of federal poverty
level – for average household of four approx. $1500/month. Benefits can be as
high as $200/per person/per month.
 Unanticipated consequences:
 Families needing SNAP have needs that cannot be met by food stamps alone –“food
pantries” and local food ministries have been overwhelmed by demand (not recorded
in SNAP data).
 In 2009, Congress funded Child Nutrition Act; which expands school lunch program in
poorer school districts; to pay for program, they reduced food stamp funding by $4
billion starting 2014
 Challenges? Unless recession lessens by 2014, per family food stamp benefits
may have to be reduced.
What makes policy design “pluralistic?”
 To be effective, a policy has to meet several criteria during the
implementation phase. Most of all, it has to:
 Find a way to bring about a change by compelling or convincing people to do
things a different way : we call these inducements.
 It has to provide the policy-maker with sufficient information or feedback to
allow critical “re-adjustments” or reforms (e.g., school testing programs).
 It has to allow sufficient discretion among those who apply or implement the
policy to permit flexibility, avoid frustration among those charged with
carrying out the policy, and gain the public’s confidence.
 These complex factors make implementation a multi-stakeholder process.
Inducements – general implementation strategies
Strategy
Flexibility in achieving goals Clarity/transparency
Centrally imposed rules – what
we usually think of as
“regulation”
Inflexible/provides little
discretion for either “street
level” bureaucrats or the
audiences affected by policy
(true for much law enforcement
policy)
Market Incentives or economic Flexible for the street-level
inducements (e.g., tradable
official and affected policy
pollution rights, “cap and trade” audiences – much discretion is
programs
permitted.
Voluntary partnerships
between state and non-state
entities (e.g., EPA performance
partnership agreements, Federal
Facility Compliance Agreements.
Highly flexible/negotiable for
both sets of actors – the
agreement has the force of law
once negotiated
Education/information., e.g., air
quality alerts; drains-to-stream
signs, labeling of consumer
product contents.
Highly flexible in that
instruments can be tailored to
variety of audiences and
contexts.
Being formal, rules tend to be
clear and unambiguous – and
thus, conditions for compliance
are well-known (e.g., traffic
laws)
Evaluation
To determine effectiveness - it
is easy to evaluate compliance
but much more difficult to
measure if the policy outcome is
effective (i.e., solving the
problem)
Strategy sometimes unclear –
How does one assess
e.g., at what price level should compliance? Is progress
charges/fees be set? How does measured by rate of
one assess compliance?
participation, or by achieving a
level of change – or both? How
much gain is genuine, and how
much is a “pecuniary effect?”
Critics charge such agreements Oftentimes, policy analysts want
tend to be negotiated in secret; to evaluate process of
out of public view – candor is an agreement – pay less attention
advantage in agreement, but a to results agreements bring
problem in enforcement
about (partly a function of
time).
Can be clear or unclear – must
Because it can be ignored, or
be careful in crafting message
misunderstood, hard to assess
for the affected audience – and effectiveness – we know it
ensure you prescribe a solution works when the information is
– audiences can choose to
relevant (e.g., saving money
ignore warnings!
Some “inducement” challenges - feasibility
 For a policy to be implementable, one has to have resources sufficient to
carry out a strategy.
 Acquiring resources is a three-fold problem:
 Collect revenues (taxes/fees, permits) – this is a challenge in many developing
nations, but is also an issue where a policy strategy requires “self-funding” as
in many developed polities(e.g., Social Security, highway trust funds).
 Hiring, training, equipping personnel to regulate, bestow benefits.
 Gather information to carry out policy, monitor effectiveness, e.g.:



Is long-term trend data available?
Are presumed relationships compatible; can causality be firmly established?
Are the data and conclusions publically trustworthy and high in confidence?
• Obama Administration is proposing –
to alter funding mechanism for highways
and other transit (FY 2012 DOT budget).
• Wants to replace current highway trust
fund with "transportation trust fund"
that will have separate accounts for
highways, transit, high-speed rail,
“national infrastructure bank.”
• In near term highways would see only
a slightly smaller share of overall national
transportation funds that also go to
intercity transit and passenger rail.
• Longer term, move away from
dedicated highway trust fund signals
administration's desire to wean the
country away from the automobile.
• Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
wants to streamline disparate pots of
money into a larger pool that will make
DOT more nimble in funding good
projects.
Federal Highway Trust Fund (1956 origins)
Feedback and policy re-adjustment

Principal-agent theory – top & street-level officials (and the public) define
problems differently – partly a function of “local” vs. “expert” knowledge (e.g.,
anti-poverty, community development programs).
 According to PAT, feedback is affected by what “subordinates” think principals
want to hear – and the degree to which “principals” rely on subordinates for
information about what’s really occurring “on the ground.” Examples?
 Law enforcement: “Three strikes policy” – cop on the beat, prosecuting
attorneys, penal officials.
 Education: “No-child left behind” – classroom teachers, administrators.
 Disaster preparedness – emergency responders, health care workers.
 Effective feedback occurs when street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) and upper-level
officials (ULOs) freely communicate; SLBs feel they can share information with
ULOs honestly, without penalty or retribution.