Component -I Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Subject Coordinator Prof. I. Ramabrahmam University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Manoj Dixit University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Content Writer Prof. B. M. Chitlangi J.N.V. University, Jodhpur
Content Reviewer
Language Editor Prof .[Link] Reddy Kakatiya University,Warangal

Component-II Description of Module

Items Description of Module

Subject Name Public Administration

Paper Name Public Policy

Module Name/ Title 8. Policy Implementation

Module Id

Pre-requisites

Component-III
Module Introduction

Public policies significantly affect the socio-economic life of people. Public policy is expressed
in the body of laws, regulations, decisions and actions of government. Process of public policy
has several stages. Policy Implementation and Evaluation are as important as policy formulation.
This module presents a brief sketch about public policy implementation and evaluation. The
concept, meaning, approaches and process of public policy implementation and evaluation has
been discussed here. The module is divided into three sections. First section attempts to provide
a conceptual understanding of public policy implementation. While doing so, it offers the
concept, consideration, approaches to policy implementation and emphasizes policy
implementation as an administrative process. Second section is central to this module as it
analyzes the policy evaluation by highlighting conceptual issues, policy impact, problems in
policy evaluation and cost benefit analysis of policy evaluation. Third section summarizes the
whole module. After going through this module you will get a broad understanding on policy
implementation and evaluation. It also helps you to know problems involved in policy evaluation
and how to overcome such problems.
Keywords
Public Policy, Public Process, Policy Implementation, Policy Impact, Policy Evaluation, Policy
Outcome, Cost Benefit Analysis.

1
Section1: Introduction

Harold Lasswell broached the concept of policy sciences and its usage for the betterment of the
policy processes. He suggests that policy implementation is one of the key steps or stages in the
policy process. Understanding the process of policy implementation through which policies are
put into operation is basis to understanding the complexion and outcome of public policy making
and public management. The implementation stage in policy process is unique for it represents
the transformation of policy ideas into action.

1.1 Concept of policy implementation.

Policy implementation is an important phase of the policy process during which adopted policies
are put into effect. It reflects a complex change process where government decisions are
transformed into programs, procedures, regulations or practices aimed at social betterment and
welfare services. It can be understood that policy implementation is an iterative process in which
ideas are transformed into social action (Ottoson and Green).
Nicholas Henry defines policy implementation as the execution and delivery of public policies.
Policy implementation represents “the stage where government executes and adopted policy as
specified by the legislation or policy action” (Theodoule and Krofinis 2004).Policy
implementation can succinctly be defined as what happens after a bill becomes a law (James E.
Anderson 2004). Policy implementation may be viewed as a process of interaction between the
setting of goals and actions geared to achieve them (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984). Policy
implementation is called carrying out of a basic policy decision (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983).
It is referred as the connection between the expression of governmental intention and actual
result (O'Toole 1995).
Elmore identified four main ingredients for effective implementation of public policies:
1) Clearly specified tasks and objectives.
2) A management plan
3) An objective means of measuring sub unit performance
4) A system of management controls and social sanctions
Thus, implementation can be conceptualized as a process output and outcome. It is a process of a
series of decisions and actions directed towards another prior authoritative decision into effect.
Finally at the higher level of abstraction, implementation outcome implies that there has been
some measurable change in the larger problem by the program, public law or indicial derisions.
1.2 Consideration for Public Policy Implementation
Policy implementation is a dynamic and evolving change process. Owing to a confluence of
factors including network implementation, structures, socio-political conflicts and administrative
reforms to shape how policy ideas are translated into social betterment programs.
Network governance
Having said this, governance is understood both as a process and a dynamic phenomenon that is
aimed at bringing excellence in various governmental operations within a democratic set up. In
fact, the process of governance is concerned with a complex interactions and interrelations

2
among different actors and institutions, ideas and practices (Zafarullah, 2015).The network
governance may be defined as an alliance among various policy actors, that are linked together
as co-producers and aimed at identifying and sharing comment interests (Junki, 2006, p.22).
Policy theorists recognize that implementation involves coordination action among multiple
organizational actors and implementers. The relationship and interaction among agencies across
the implementation chain are growing more complex when newer networked approaches to
policy implementation are adopted. There are the networked organizational structures that allow
policy ideas to take their shape as real world action. An ideal or an inclusive policy making is the
outcome of the contributions of different actors and players be it public or private. These actors
play a significant role beginning from agenda setting to policy evaluation. Thus, network
governance plays an effective role in successful policy formulation, implementation and
evaluation. For instance, it can be seen through public-private partnership, social investments,
cooperative management, entrepreneurial community ventures and social forestry (Zafarullah,
2015).
Socio-Political Context
Socio-Political factors play out at all levels of the policy implementation process. Implementer’s
decisions about whose needs will be served, how they will be served and which outcomes will be
valued are determined in part by socio-political factors.
1.3. Approaches to policy implementation
Implementation is the process of converting policy into action. However, it is common to
observe a gap between what was planned and what was actually occurred as a result of policy
implementation. There are three different approaches to policy implementation. They are: 1) top-
down approach, 2) bottom-up approach, and 3) the synthetic or hybrid approach as discussed
below.

1.3.1 Top-Down Approach

This approach makes distinction between policy formulation and implementation. Policies are
formulated at higher levels in a political process and are then communicated to subordinate
levels, which are charged with the technical managerial and administrative tasks of
implementing policies. This top down approach requires that following conditions be kept in
place for effective implementation.
a) Clear and logically consistent objectives
b) An implementation process structure.
c) Committed and skilled manpower.
d) Support from legislative and pressure groups.
e) Adequate time and sufficient resources.
f) Good coordination and communication.

1.3.2 Bottom-up approach

Bottom-up-approach begins their implementation strategy formation with the target-groups and
services deliver because they find that target-groups are actual implementers of policy.
Moreover, bottom uppers contend that if local bureaucrats are not allowed discretion in the

3
implementation process with respect to local conditions the policy will likely fails. Accordingly,
goals, strategies and activities must deploy with special attention to the people, whom policy will
directly impact.
1.3.3 Synthesis or Hybrid Approach
This approach is a mixture of both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Synthesis or hybrid
approach is characterized by theoretical orientations of perceiving implementation as a process
of constituting coalition, structure, networking and institutionalization within which various
parties in specific policy domain strive to realise a policy in a context of complexity.
1.3.4 Street Level Bureaucracy
The concept of street level bureaucracy was propounded by Michel Lipsky, who underlines that
policy is not best understood as made in legislatures or top floor suits of high ranking officials,
because it is actually made in the crowded offices and daily encounter in street level workers the
street level workers. The decision of street level bureaucracy, routine they establish and the
devices they invent to cope with uncertainties and work pressures effectively become the public
polices carry out (Lipsky, 1969).
1.3.5 Policy Implementation is an Administrative Process
The vital characteristic of policy implementation is the process by which policies are translated
into administrative action. While administrative agencies are the primary implementers of public
policy many other actors may also be involved. They are the legislature, judiciary, pressure
groups and community organizations. The term administrative process is used to designate the
operation of the administrative system for policy implementation. It includes administrative
organization, administrative policies and administrative decision-making.
1.3.6 Administrative organization
The responsibility for effective policy implementation is assigned either to an existing agency or
to a new agency established for this purpose. The creation of new agency is usually handled
either by legislature or executive. Organizational consideration affects policy implementation but
organizational actions are affected by its political context and political support. The environment
in which an agency works may contain many forces and these forces may exert influence on the
action of implementation. These forces are:
i. Relevant laws, Rules and Regulation
ii. The Chief executive
iii. The Legislative Supervision system
iv. The Courts
v. The Interest Groups
vi. Political Parties
vii. Communication Media.
1.3.7 Administrative Policy Making
Administrative agencies shape policy through implementation of legislation. In administrative
agency's decision-making hierarchy is of central importance. Hierarchy means that those at the
upper level have a large voice in administrative agency’s decision because of their high status;
even through lower level officials may have more substantive expertness. Administrative
agencies constitute a government habitat in which expertise finds a wealth of opportunities to

4
assert itself and to influence the policy. Political consideration, secrecy and bargaining are also
important in administrative decision-making. Though experts and facts are not only important in
administrative decision-making but also in arriving at accommodations and compromises.
Administrative decision may be productive of policy in several ways namely rule making
adjudication, law enforcement and program operation.
1.3.8 Compliance
All public policies are intended to influence or control human behavior in some way, to induce
people act in accordance with governmentally prescribed rules or goals. Policy implementation is
very much associated with the problem of compliance. It is the task of administrative agencies to
secure compliance. The board purpose of administrative enforcement activities, such as
conference, persuasion, inspection and prosecution, is to obtain compliance with policies rather
than merely punish violators.
Compliance with policy may be based on some form of reasoned and conscious acceptance.
Even self-interest conflicts with particular policy may be convinced that it is reasonable
necessary, or just. Another cause of compliance is the belief that governmental decisions or
policy should be obeyed because it is legitimate in the sense that it in constitutional or made by
officials with proper authority to act. Self-interest is also a cause of compliance because
individual and groups may directly benefit from acceptance of policy norms and standard. The
possibility of punishment in form of fine, imprisonment and other sanction also work to secure
compliance.
Section 2: Public Policy Evaluation
The final phase of the policy process is the evaluation of policy. It is as old as policy itself.
Policy makers and administrators have always made judgments concerning the worth or effect of
particular policies. Systematic evaluation is concern of effect of policy in the public problem to
which it is directed. Policy evaluation gives the policy making and general public some notion of
the actual impact of policy and provides policy discussions with some grounding in reality. It is a
key component of the policy circle or the process of conceiving, developing implementing and
modifying public policies. Evaluation helps to determine the success of earlier steps in the policy
development cycle, whether the program had the intended impact and met its objectives, and
whether the things can be done better in future. Policy evaluation is broader and more strategic in
scope and considers the merits and effectiveness of a particular policy. The Policy evaluation
applies evaluation principles and methods to analyze the content, implementation or effects of a
policy. Evaluation is the activity through which we develop an understanding of the impact of a
public policy.
2.1 Definitions and conceptual issues
Evaluation is an activity designed to judge the outcome of government policy. It is systematic
process of determining the merit, value and worth of someone or something (John Risley: Public
Policy Evaluation). It is process of measuring and assessing the impact and merits of government
policies and programs. It is a means of determining and appropriateness, effectiveness and
efficiency of government policies and contributing to policy improvement and innovation (Act
Government: Evaluation Policy and Guidance Australia 2010)

5
Public policy evaluation can be understood as ‘learning about consequences of public policy’
(Dye). Policy evaluation provides an overview of possibilities and limits of public policy
execution.
Policy evaluation can be conceptualized either as an ongoing activity throughout policy making
process or as a separate stage of policy cycle. The purpose of policy evaluation is to assess
whether the policy objectives pursued were met and means employed to achieve these objectives
are appropriate ones (Howleft, Ramesh and Perl 2009, 178)
Generally speaking, public policy evaluation in concerned with estimation, assessment or
appraisal of policy including its content, implantation and effect (Anderson: Public Policy
Making, 1975 P. 132) Anderson conceptualized that,
i. The public policy evaluation is a functional activity that occurs throughout the
policy process and not simply in the last stage alone.
ii. The public policy is centered on the operation of particular policies.
iii. The public policy is a systematic, objective evaluation to measure then societal
impact of public policies and the and extent to which they are achieving their
stated objectives.
Thus, policy evaluation is a key component of the policy cycle or the process of conceiving,
developing, implementing and modifying public policies.

2.2 Policy Impact

In discussing policy impact, it is important to have in mind the distinction between policy
outputs and policy outcomes. Policy outputs are thing government do such as highways
construction, payment of welfare benefits etc. In trying to determine the policy outcome, our
concern is with the changes in the environment or political system caused by policy action.
Policy evaluation is concerned with determining the impact of policy on real life conditions. The
determination of real effects or outcomes of policy is often a very complex and difficult task.
The impact of a policy has following important dimensions, which must be taken into
consideration in the process of evaluation.
I. The impact on the public problem at which it is directed and on the people
involved. Those on whom the policy is intended to an affect must be defined.
II. Policies may have effects on situation or groups other than those at which they are
directed. These can be called either externalities or spillover effects (Larry
Lwade: Element of Public Policy). Many of the outcomes of public policy can be
most meaningfully understood in terms of externalities.
III. Policy may have impact on current as well as on future conditions.
IV. The direct costs of policies are an important element for evaluation.
V. Policies may have indirect costs that are experienced by community or some of its
members. Such costs often have not been considered in policy evaluation, at least
partly because they defy quantification.
The evaluation of policy becomes most complex when explicit consideration is given to the fact
that the effects of policy may be symbolic as well as material. Symbolic outputs include
affirmation of values by elites, displays of flags, troops and military ceremony; visits by royalty
or high official and statements of policy or intent by political leaders. These are highly dependent
6
on tapping popular beliefs, attitudes and aspirations for their effectiveness "(Gabriel Almond and
G. Powel, 1966)". Symbolic policy outputs produce no real change in societal conditions. The
analysis of public policy in usually focused upon what government actually does, why and with
what material effects will it do things.

2.3 Problems in policy evaluation

The most useful policy evaluation is systemic evaluation that tries to determine the cause and
effect relationships and rigorously measure the impact of policy. It is of course, impossible to
measures quantitatively the impact of public policies with any real precision. For rigorous
measurement it is required to assess carefully and objectively the impact of policy. There are
number of barriers, or obstacles that may create problem for the evaluation of policy. These are:

2.4 Uncertainty over policy goals

When the goals of a policy are unclear, diffuse or diverse as indeed they frequently are,
determining the extent to which they have been attained to become a difficult and a frustrating
task (Carol H. Weiss, 1997). This situation often is a product of the policy adoption process
which is based on support of multiple actors:
2.4.1 Causality: Systematic evaluation needs their change in real life conditions that must
demonstrably be caused by policy actions. But in many cases cause and effect
relationship does not exist. The determination of causality between actions, especially in
complex social and economic matters, is a difficult task.
2.4.2 Diffuse Policy Action
Policy action also affects groups other than whom they are directed at. For example, an
action of welfare policy may affect not only targeted ones but also others such as tax
payers, public official and excluded low income people.
2.4.3 Official Resistance
The officials who are involved in policy processes have fear of exposure of failure by the
policy evaluation. They are concerned about possible political consequences of
evaluation. Therefore officials are reluctant for evaluations. Organization tends to resist
change, while evaluation implies change. It creates an obstacle to evaluation, along with
more overt forms of resistance.
2.4.4 Difficulties in data acquisition
A shortage of accurate and relevant statistical data and other information may handicap
policy evaluation.

2.5 Policy Evaluation process and obstacles

The evaluation of policy is made by variety of ways. Sometimes it is highly systemic other times
rather haphazard or sporadic. In some cases it has become institutionalized while in others it is
quite informal and unstructured. A few of the forms of policy evaluation are legislative
oversight, audit organizations, executive commissions and agency action etc. Beside this,
evaluation is also made outside government. The media, university scholars, private research

7
organizations, civil society, pressure-groups and public interest organization all make evaluation
of policy that have greater or lesser effects on public official. They also provide the public with
information, publicize policy action or inaction and sometimes advocate unpopular causes. It is
often indicated in policy evaluation that intended policy goals or impact is not achieved due to
following factors:
i. Inadequate resources.
ii. Limited policy areas.
iii. Conflicting goals.
iv. Irresponsive people
v. Cost overruns.
vi. The changing of policy problem.
vii. New problem may arise after implementation.

2.6 Cost-benefit analysis of policy evaluation

Cost benefit analysis is the implicit and explicit assessment of the benefits and costs (e.g. pros
and cons, advantages and disadvantages) associated with a particular policy. It is a technique of
comparing all the costs, both visible and invisible, included in a particular policy action with all
the benefits expected. The costs and benefits can be either material or symbolic. Following are
the policy categories that are based on the allocation of costs and benefits.
2.6.1Broad Benefits and Broad Costs
Policies that involve a broad distribution of costs and benefits, such as social security, high way
construction, public education, defense, health, tend to becomes readily accepted, institutional
sized and beyond major challenge.
2.6.2 Board Benefits and Narrow Costs
Some policies provide benefits for larger population while their costs fall primarily upon faintly
distract identifiable group in society. The policies related to environment pollution control,
public utility, regulations, mine safety etc. are example of it.
2.6.3 Narrow Benefits and Broad Costs
Policies are of benefit to indentified groups while their costs do not appeal to fall upon any
particular groups. Aquiculture subsidies, construction of hospital and educational institutions,
cleaning of rivers etc. are the examples of it. The costs of policies related with above are in form
of higher taxes or prices that effect people generally. Those who benefit from their policies have
a clear incentive to organize and act to maintain them.
2.6.4 Narrow Benefit and Narrow Costs
Policies which are benefited to a targeted group but their cost fall on another distinct group tend
to generate organization conflicts among the groups and their partisans.
The above classification is useful in gaining insight into responding to various policies. This
categorization is also helpful in analyzing the struggles that attend the adoption of policy as to
some extent the kind of policy proposed will help to shape the enhancement process.

8
Section3: Summing up

From this module, it is understood that public policy evaluation is a complex task. It is a
potentially powerful mechanism that compares goals with their achievement. Since it is an
important step in policy process, it must be objective, systematic and fact oriented. To
summarize this module, it is understood that public policy primarily attempts to address various
socio-economic needs of the society. Public policy has several important stages, in which policy
formulation, implementation and evaluation are essential. With reference to policy
implementation, the government decisions are transformed into action for the social betterment.
Evaluation of the policy is considered to be the final phase of the policy process. This phase is
especially important as it assesses the policy objectives and its effects with regard to the social
betterment. In fact, this evaluation helps the policy makers to find the gaps in the existing policy
and to come up with necessary modifications/actions to formulate better policies in the future.
Thus, policy evaluation is a key component of the policy cycle. However, there are some
problems in policy evaluation as the evaluation requires a careful assessment of the impact of the
policy. The uncertainty over policy goals is one of the difficult tasks which is a product of the
policy adoption process. In addition to this, the inadequate resources, limited policy areas,
conflicting goals, irresponsive people, cost escalation, the changing of policy problem, arise of
new problems after implementation etc. make the intended policy goals unachievable or
ineffective. In this context, the cost benefit analysis assumes significance in the implicit or
explicit assessment of the cost and benefits of the policy.

References:
1. Anderson, J. E. (2003). Public policymaking: An introduction. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin
Company, pp. 1 – 34.
2. Carol H. Weiss (1997). Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, 2nd
Edition.
3. Daniel A. Mazmanian and Paul A. Sabatier (1984).Implementation and Public Policy,
Policy Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 1 (May, 1984), pp. 95-97.

4. Gabriel Almond and G. Powell, Jr., Comparative. Politics: A Developmental Approach

(Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1966)

5. James O'Toole (1995). Leading Change: The Argument for Values-Based Leadership,
Ballentine Books.

6. Larry L. Wade (1972). The Elements of Public Policy, C.E. Merrill Publishing Company.

7. Lipsky, Michael (1969). Toward a Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy (IRP Discussion

Papers No. 48-69) (p. 45). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP),
University of Wisconsin.

9
8. Michael Howlett, M Ramesh, and Anthony Perl (2009).Studying Public Policy: Policy
Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Oxford Publishers.
9. Pressman and Wildavsky (1984).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, University of
California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
10. Theodoule Stella and Chris Krofinis (2004).The Art of the Game: Understanding Public
Policy, Wadsworth Publishing.
11. Zafarullah (2015). Network Governance and Policy Making: Developments and
Directions in Asia, in I. Jamil et al. (eds). Governance in South, Southeast, and East Asia,
Springer International Publishing, Switerland.

10