The implementation is one of the crucial phases of the process of public policy that has been defined by Hill, Michael and Hupe, Peter (2002: 3) “to perform, accomplish, achieve, produce, complete.” Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) published the policy and implementation is all one to another that the two phases is very difficult to completely separate, as “a verb as implement’ must have an object as ‘policy’.” (Hill & Hupe 2002: 4). Besides the form of the method used to study the implementation, the objective is to implement what is planned and the results tell us about the results and whether goals are met or not. On this basis, the success or failure of any policy must be evaluated.
Case Study Center for Economic Development Agency (EDA) began in 1966, $ 23,000,000, Jeffery L. Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky (1984) gives a critique of research and challenges for the implementation of this program and causes of failure of this program. EDA office was established by Congress was intended to provide employment opportunities for minorities in urban areas. However, Oakland selected the pilot as the building of public works and loans to encourage employers to hire minorities (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: xx). The project aims to create 3000 jobs in Black-American minority in Oakland in principle. While there was high the start of an emergency project, but in the past, doubts about the success of the program revealed.
Eugene Foley, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for economic development has been an engine early in the program who wanted to start “a mass experiment to solve the urbant unemployment problem in principle” in Oakland (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: 2). He believed that a massive injection of funds needed ($ 23,000,000) was the most important factor for the success of the project (even though he resigned in 1966). After examining the “torture during the program”, Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) have given the frustration with a program characterized by reasons of the growing sense of frustration and “difficult to translate the agreement into a concrete Decisions broad, because many of participants and perspectives” (p. 6), obstruction and delay which the underlying Economic theories, etc. These factors suggest that “technical details” of the project, which was prepared in close effective implementation of the project.
A feature of the program requirements has been forced to entrepreneurs wishing to benefit from business loans EDA develop an employment plan outlining how these companies long-term lease unemployed black residents of Oakland. To this end, the EDA has been necessary to work with other local, provincial and federal governments to create training program. This added to the complexity of an agreement between the number of players still far from a mutual consensus, a sense of urgency and priority levels. This explains the unintended consequences that interfere with effective implementation. Pressman and Wildavsky noted that “when prospects are different and so is a measure of success” (p. 98). As for example, has been the creation of jobs for black key objectives and success criteria for leadership EDA original, while the criteria were different for the other participants in the program, an expansion of its facilities has been the subject main port of Oakland, on the other hand, Ministry of Health, Education, Welfare and was forced to increase funding for its competence center set up.
There were 30 action items identified by the authors note that there was a time when one or more participants were to reach an agreement before the project progressed. To this end, 70 agreements were required by the various stakeholders. Therefore the authors concluded that if the probability of an agreement with each release point was 0.99, the probability of success of the entire project would be below 50%. The probability of agreement was only 0.09 for each release point, then the probability of success is reduced to only one per cent (p. 108). The authors argue that to minimize the risk of delays and different interests, “the central political problem is to provide incentives to switch from low to high, or more precisely, how to maintain a high intensity positively by time” ( p. 120).
They also discussed the change in the intensity of the commitment by identifying changes of leaders in different phases such as Foley was very passionate about the program, which was replaced (due to resignation) by officials who had much less intensity of the commitment of the project. Linking policy formulation implementation is important for the successful implementation without delay, “even if those who design programs generally can not benefit from working less exciting to guide their implementation, a realization of the extent to which policy depends on the implementation, may lead these people to change their point of view time and staying in the technical details to implement policies” (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984: 146). In explaining the reason for the delay, arguing that the consensus among policy makers is more difficult to achieve due to the negotiation between managers and stakeholders. The problem is not the “no” to any part of the decision makers, but the challenge is to get to “yes” to several players.
The authors also argue that “the use of resources is the direct intervention of the intensity of preference” (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984: 117). However, the result is easier to achieve if the intensity is higher for results and compared with respect. Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) also mentioned the importance of the bureaucracy to ensure “a strong likelihood that each actor will collaborate” (p. 132). The similarity of aims and objectives is very important. Coordination, the authors imply that the “ability to monitor the agreements, when the employer is unable to do so irresistible federal agencies and their components to the continent you want at the right time, when the goal is reached, this is precisely what can be done” (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: 134).
Basically, the Oakland project the EDA, which was basically an urban development agency has shown that “implementation should not be separated from policy” (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: 143). EDA project was originally was not very complicated, because all targets were set and resources, but the complexity and diversity of many actors, agencies, bureaucracy, business and other stakeholders had increased its complexity, and the failure of the project. Therefore, the main problem is to get the problems of implementation as part of the original process the formulation of policy. “The implementation should not be construed as a process that takes place thereafter, and the policy of independent design” (Pressman and Wildavsky 1974: 143).
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.