Chapter 7

1. Discuss three major institutional individual actors in the policy implementation process.

A. Bureaucracy: the rules made by bureaucrats, referred to as administrative law, require

established processes prior to being established. For instance, public hearings, and normally
legislative and/or executive oversight are required prior to acceptance. In addition, if statutory
implementation requires the creation of new agencies and new personnel positions, changes will
be required in areas such as position descriptions and personnel structures, along with the
establishment of new goals, priorities, and the standardization of operating procedures.

B. Pressure groups: these actors use public hearings to exert their influence on the
implementation process. If they are able to establish legal standing, these groups can even
challenge administrative rules through the judicial branch. Through activities such as information
campaigns, legislative lobbying, and the presentation of expert testimonies, pressure groups can
support bureaucrats in the policy implementation process, in the same way that they played a
major role in the agenda-setting process.

C. Clientele: the degree of influence on policy implementation that comes from clientele may vary
due to the prevalent societal values. Therefore, some clientele groups may have a higher level of
consideration with respect to others, who may be categorized as less “deserving” recipients of
public policy. For instance, convicted criminals, chronically indigent individuals, and habitual
illegal drug users may not be at the top of the priority list of policymakers when discussing policy
implementation, when compared to law-abiding citizens.

2. According to Richard Matland, what are four major types of policy implementation? Identify
and discuss.

The first type, according to Matland, is Administrative Implementation. In this type, the definition
of the policy presents low levels of ambiguity, which implies that it is clearly defined in terms of
the goals it wishes to achieve and the processes that will be followed to reach the desired
objectives. In addition, the levels of conflict are low, which indicates that there was no need to
define policies in a vague manner for the policymakers to arrive at a compromise. In this type of
policy implementation, the personnel and resources are stable, and the technology required
exists prior to the establishment of the policy.

The second type is Political Implementation, in which the policy goals are unambiguous, but the
complex nature of the policy generates conflict among policymakers. The decisive factor in policy
implementation is going to be politics and the group that wields the higher power will end up
adopting the choice of their preference.
The third type is Experimental Implementation. in this scenario, the goal of the policy is generally
agreed upon among policymakers; however, since this implementation is groundbreaking,
without previous examples that could be used as referential, a high level of policy ambiguity is
expected. For instance, policy technology may be non-existent and must be developed to satisfy
policy needs. Since future policy problems may have not been considered due to this process of
innovation, statutory compliance will be defined in a vague manner. However, there is a silver
lining: opportunities for policy-learning will present themselves and will be a referential point for
future implementations.

The fourth type is Symbolic Implementation, in which policies face a high level of both ambiguity
and conflict. Accountability is not assured, and statutory compliance has less relevance. The
groups involved in policymaking will compete to ensure that their specific values are included in
the policy. Coalition strength will be a major factor to achieve the desired policy implementation.
Since values tend to vary depending on the site in which the policy is being discussed, local goal
fulfillment plays a major role in the implementation process.

3. Identify three policy models and demonstrate how the models could be used to explain
policy implementation. Provide examples.

A commonly used policy model is the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) model. This
framework combines both top-down and bottom-up policy implementation approaches. This
model pursues the production of a policy that can be clearly designed at high levels of
government bureaucracy (top-bottom) while also considering the needs of local-level
stakeholders or clientele (the bottom-up approach). For example, the U.S. Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), focused on the conservation of farmlands nationwide, was analyzed and
developed with the IAD framework.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) model is developed with the participation of competing
coalitions of advocates. Due to the competitive nature of the parties involved, the goal is to
mitigate any types of ambiguities in the definition of the policies, enhancing the desired
outcomes. and mitigate ambiguity. In the U.S., a study that used the ACF model analyzed the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act; in this case, even though technical disputes arose
during the process, the different coalitions protected their core beliefs and included them in the
policy.

The constructivist approach points out that clientele groups are socially constructed, and
therefore some groups will be deemed more "deserving" to obtain support than others. For
instance, the United States has framed obesity not only as a medical problem for the population,
but also as a concern that is connected to broader social values. In this way, these policies will be
perceived as being highly important and will gain support and legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
 Chapter 8
1. What are three major purposes of evaluation? Identify and discuss.

Two overt purposes and one covert purpose of evaluation will be described in the following
paragraphs.

The first overt purpose of evaluation is to assess the implementation process of a specific policy
in order to reach a higher level of comprehension of both the positive and negative outcomes of
the implemented policy. Data can be gathered with respect to the degree of compliance of the
policy, along with the opinions of the actors involved in its implementation. Policy evaluators can
then understand in a clear manner what parts of the policy have been working, and which parts
require reviewing and improvement.

The second major overt purpose of evaluation is to determine policy impacts and outcomes. This
purpose works cohesively with the previous point analyzed, and once again involves the main
actors that have been affected by the implemented policy. A comparison between the expected
goals and the level of accomplishment of said goals, in addition to the appearance of unexpected
outcomes (both positive and negative) will provide valuable experience to improve the actual
policy and to help in the creation of future policies.

The third reason analyzed falls in the category of a covert purpose for evaluation; in this scenario,
evaluation is justified when the goal is to protect agencies from “political storms” that could stir
public rejection of the policy and the public agencies involved in its execution. For instance,
postponement is applied when evaluators wish to delay the distribution of information to the
public and, by doing so, protect the public agencies from external pressures.

2. What is the difference between formal and informal evaluation?

Informal evaluations rely on the experience of policy administrators rather than on the
quantitative processing of information with respect to the outcomes of a specific policy. Informal
evaluations are normally small and unscientific and do not require the allocation of immense
amounts of resources.

Formal evaluations require the collection of data with several important characteristics. For
instance, data recollected must be shown to have high levels of validity, which implies that the
evaluation measures developed represent the underlying theoretical concepts of the policy in an
accurate manner. Concepts such as concurrent and discriminant validity are integral part of this
analysis. In addition, the measurements that will be taken must be consistent; otherwise, the
results of the evaluation may not reflect the current status of the implemented policy; this quality
is known as reliability. These types of evaluations require significant time and financial
commitments, which may put pressure on agencies operating under severe budgetary conditions.
However, formal evaluation is the preferrable approach that will either confirm the success of the
implementation efforts or call it into question.

3. What are three major challenges to policy evaluation? Identify and discuss.

Policy evaluation effectiveness is dependent on the type of evaluation conducted. Internal

evaluators, for instance, will be affected because they are members of the implementing
agency, leading to evaluation bias. External evaluators are perceived as more objective, but they
could find obstacles in the process of data collection; that is why the recommendation is to
build trustworthy relationships with the most important actors involved in the agency in which
the policy will be implemented.

Additionally, the skill level of the evaluation team also plays a key role. Both internal and
external evaluators should go through processes of training and retraining in both quantitative
and qualitative methodologies and techniques.

Finally, there must be a high level of trust between the evaluation team and the members of the
agency in which the policy will be implemented. Policy evaluation emphasizes the use of a
scientific method of evaluation, but the evaluation team must also comprehend that the
evaluation must fit policy and agency type, which makes trust a key factor in the evaluation
process.