Policy Implementation in a Postmodern
Context: Partnering to Succeed
Candidate #: 60802
Word Count: 3, 108.
It is quite common for those opposed to the current
austerity climate to look fondly back at the decades
immediately following the Second World War. In theory, this
was a time of prosperity, middle class stability and an
optimistic belief that persistent social issues could be
solved by direct government intervention. Programs led by the
central state such as the ‘great society’ initiatives in the
US along with simultaneous rebuilding of war ravaged city
centres and construction of so called new towns in the UK were
designed to mitigate, if not end, poverty, urban social
exclusion and other such ‘wicked issues’. As has become
apparent, the expected result did not materialize. The
implementation process of such programs was subject to a fair
amount of academic critique throughout the 1970’s, the
substance of which being that the state had overreached itself
and the projects themselves had involved a confusing number of
actors, sometimes working at cross purposes. Furthermore, the
increasing complexity and multiplicity of demands placed upon
the post-war state were conceptualized in this literature as
negative. The solution to these problems was supposed to be
for the state to limit complication in program delivery and
strive to come as close to so called ‘perfect’ implementation
as possible.
This paper will take issue with the concept of perfect
implementation; not only is it impossible in practice, to even
strive in that direction is excessively oriented towards top
down control and unsuited for the pluralist society that
exists today. Instead, the concepts of implementation
structures, partnerships and incrementalism will be elevated
from a descriptive narrative to a prescriptive model of how
policy should be implemented in the future. Urban regeneration
programs under New Labour will be studied in more depth to
illustrate how these concepts did gain some limited traction
among high ranking policymakers and some recommendations for
the future will be made.
The 25 years following the conclusion of the Second World
War have been mythologized as the golden age of benevolent
state intervention to correct the ills of society (Judt,
2006). Naturally enough with the Great Depression still in
living memory, public goodwill existed to enable and support
initiatives of the central state towards the eradication of
deeply rooted problems; a path made possible by the faith in
science and rational progress which still retained relative
currency at the time (Fischer, 2003). Nevertheless, in spite
of the myriad programs, studies and public money thrown about,
noticeable improvement in conditions of social exclusion,
poverty and urban blight had not materialized on either side
of the Atlantic by the 1970’s (Klemek, 2011). Inevitably,
sustained academic criticism of these initiatives took place,
focusing on a number of supposed key deficiencies. Firstly,
the state apparatus was presented as far too exposed to the
complexity and competing demands of society (King, 1975, p.
288) with an added propensity to try and please as many as
possible, leaving many programs incomplete (King, 1975,
p.288). Furthermore, the lack of one single agenda with a
clear goal in mind was theoretically an ingredient in the
lacklustre performance of central government programs (Hood,
1976, p. 17). Those initiatives aiming towards some form of
wealth redistribution, such as welfare regimes or the
regeneration of blighted cities, were presented as being
highly likely to be subject to influences outside traditional
bureaucracy; thus breaking what can be described as the
implementation chain between policy formulation and eventual
success (Hogwood and Gunn, 1997, p. 220). Using these issues
as a starting point, proponents of what has come to be called
the top-down theory of policy implementation insist that in
order to avoid failure, future dependency relationships should
be minimized (King, 1975, p. 290). Here, dependency
relationships are defined as situations where the state is
dependent on the performance of other actors in society in
order to successfully put a given program into place (King,
1975, p. 290). As top-down theorists understand it, such
relationships tend to build upon one another, leaving the
state simply one weak actor among many (King, 1975, p. 292;
Hood, 1976, p. 18). Thus, perfect implementation is
conceptualized as a process whereby central state bureaucrats
maintain tight control over processes and do their utmost to
limit any damaging linkages that could distract from the ideal
of linear policy delivery (Hogwood and Gunn, 1997, p. 220).
Urban regeneration schemes have been flagship attempts in
the United States and Britain to dramatically reduce endemic
poverty and exclusion in certain sectors of post-war society
(Klemek, 2011). According to policy scholars adhering to a
broad top-down framework, their failure to substantially do so
is the result of straying too far from perfect implementation
(Hogwood and Gunn, 1997, p. 221). The case of East Glasgow,
subject to urban renewal in the 1970’s, can be used to
demonstrate this line of argument (Booth et. al., 1982, p. 59-61).
Essentially multiple levels of government, the business
community, tenants and voluntary groupings were all involved;
causing complexity and confusion (Booth et. al., 1982, p. 66).
Specifically in this case, national government changed course
midway through the plan and began to act at cross purposes
with other actors in the project following the introduction of
austerity in the early 1980’s (Booth et. al., 1982, p. 64). Thus,
the renewal goals for East Glasgow were only met in part. In
theory, had those involved attempted to act as closely to top-
down perfection as possible, the project may have achieved
much more (Booth et. al., 1982, p. 66; Hood, 1976, p. 18).
All of this does seem to present a compelling argument.
What sort of person would disagree with striving for
perfection? Nevertheless, as social scientists or policymakers
we cannot simply accept theory on its own merits; it must be
placed into context. By doing so, we can see quite clearly the
entire concept of perfect implementation is fundamentally
flawed; unsuited to handle the changes from a modern to a
postmodern, pluralist society. First and foremost it should be
mentioned that some of those who advocate for perfect
implementation fully admit that it is quite impossible to
practically achieve (Hogwood and Gunn, 1997). Regardless,
although such theorists may support trying to come as close as
possible to perfection, attempting to do so in the UK has
resulted in a number of spectacular failures (Dunleavy, 1995,
p. 58). A number of these failures took place when British
government, already among the most centralized worldwide
(Dunleavy, 1995, pp. 57-58), explicitly sought to limit ideas
emanating from outside Whitehall and acted with extremely
centralized procedures (Dunleavy, 1995, p. 58). This is
particularly apparent with the failed poll tax imposition and
some unwieldy defence procurement initiatives that finished
highly over budget. A lack of consultation with civil society
in part led to a series of avoidable mistakes compounding
towards failure (Dunleavy, 1995, pp. 52-60). The UK government
acted as if directly taking advice from top-down theorists.
How then, are we to explain the persistent state of
failure? King (1975) has spoken of government overload, where
attempts to solve intractable wicked issues lead to a
stretching of public resources. Much top-down theory has also
emphasized the limiting of public involvement to paternalistic
notions of ‘stakeholder’ engagement (Head, 2007). However,
what if this itself was the cause of failure rather than the
solution? Top-down, perfect implementation has been rooted
deeply in a corporatist view of society, through which
citizens can be grouped into broad occupational categories
such as the working or middle classes; indeed they often self-
identify as such. This made it simpler to manage the community
in a hierarchical manner (Metcalfe, 1978, p. 38-39; Bogason,
2009, p. 13) as including labour and business leaders in a
pact could deliver large segments of the population passively
into the post-war consensus. This situation was ultimately the
culmination of several previous decades’ progress towards a
modernist society which can be defined broadly as one bounded
by a clear hierarchical division of labour, bureaucracy and
centralization (Bogason, 2000, p. 13-18). Without starting a
needless ‘chicken and egg’ argument, it can be said that
corporatism, modernism and the era of big government were
mutually supportive (Richards and Smith, 2002, p. 3; Bogason,
2009, p. 13-18; Metcalfe, 1978, p. 40). Such mutual support
will naturally collapse if one of its constituent parts were
to become obsolete and the modes of social organization that
enabled the post-war consensus are rapidly shifting into
something new with power no longer emanating from the top
(Richards and Smith, 2002, p. 5).
The subject of how this came about would naturally be a
full length discussion itself. For this space it should be
sufficient to say that there is no clear end date to the
corporatist, industrialized society based upon modernism but
in many ways society has moved towards postmodernism; the
clear lines that anchored post-war life have given way to a
state of fragmentation and individualism in which many
worldviews vie for attention (Bogason, 2000, p. 19).
Crucially, we can see a professed disdain emerging for
hierarchical structures; membership in political parties and
formal unions is dwindling in the developed world. Instead,
people try to mix and match their identities by choosing which
causes to support and one can see how class awareness from any
segment of the community seems to be lacking (Bogason, 2000,
p. 20). The era of big government is not so much outdated as
utterly obsolete and unable to come to grips with these
realities; it follows that we should move beyond the term
‘government’ to describe public sector operations in a
postmodern context: the term ‘governance’ is far more
appropriate (Richards and Smith, 2002, p. 5). Furthermore, the
concept of corporatism is problematic when governance is the
norm. Thus, pluralism is the theoretical framework to which we
must turn, as it aptly describes a society of loose
organizations and individuals both competing and cooperating
in the public sphere (Metcalfe, 1978, p. 40-41). In a sense,
citizens tend to act more like consumers as the expectation is
that services be tailored to suit self-identified lifestyles
(Simmons, 2009, p. 58). Thus, a one size fits all approach
would be viewed as highly unresponsive (Simmons, 2009, pp. 58-
59).
While pluralism is the theoretical foundation upon which
this paper is built, it becomes necessary to mar the rosy
picture presented so far. It is important to recognize that
for those not equipped to navigate the brave new postmodern
world due to structural poverty, lack of education etc. the
demise of old certainties and social solidarity in favour of
insecurity, coupled with the need to market and constantly
reinvent oneself, can be debilitating (Clarke 2010, p. 21).
The hope is that by recognizing the weaknesses and failures of
top-down attempts at administration, the public authority can
embrace a new way of operation befitting the era of
governance.
If this is the case and even trying to reach a state of
perfect implementation in a pluralist, postmodern context is a
recipe for spectacular failure, what is the public sector to
do in order to achieve anything substantive at all? What is
necessary now is to take a fresh look at the idea of
incrementalism so as to update it for the postmodern era and
position it as a true model for 21st century governing as
opposed to a resigned description of a reality that the top
down approach should try to eliminate. Originally defined by
Lindblom (1959) as the “science of muddling through”, the
theory of incrementalism has a long history as the main
counterpoint to ‘rational’ top down conceptions of
implementation. Unfortunately, it was largely seen by its
proponents as only an honest appraisal of how public servants
work on a day to day basis (Lindblom, 1959, p. 80). That
method of working boils down to a coping strategy of
“successive limited comparisons” through which public workers
distil sometimes lofty and often impossible directives from
above (Lindblom, 1959, p. 81). Furthermore, it is through such
modifying that simplistic, politically motivated policies can
make some difference to citizen’s everyday lives and avoid
becoming costly failures (Lindblom, 1959, p. 85). Still, this
analysis is hampered by emanating from the height of the era
of big government in administration and the academic study
thereof. So it suffers from a focus on the workers employed
directly by the government and lacks major discussion of wider
forces in society and the broader public sector. That being
said, the concept itself is sound and it is possible for us to
update it for the postmodern era.
Instead of trying to graft an outdated model of
implementation perfection onto the increasingly pluralist
reality of policy, the use of partnerships is a way that the
public sector can come to grips with the new understanding of
power as an exchange process (Richards and Smith, 2002, p. 5).
Not to mention that the fragmented nature of the body politic
may make cooperation necessary in order for the public sector
to achieve anything concrete (Balloch and Taylor, 2001, p. 1-
2). However, partnerships in implementation need not only be a
reaction to the demands of fractured postmodernism, they can
often amplify the efforts of the public sector by accessing
skills and ideas present in the voluntary or business areas to
create more comprehensive solutions (Skelcher and Lowndes,
1998, p. 314; Balloch and Taylor, 2001, p. 2). This can be
especially useful when dealing with an intractable issue such
as urban poverty, still with us despite years of action.
Moreover, by recognizing that implementation through
partnership may be slow moving, but far more attuned to shifts
in public opinion and community cohesion (Skelcher and
Lowndes, 1998, p. 314), we can essentially broaden the scope
of Lindblom’s “mudding through” thesis and use its conclusions
as the methodological lens through which we understand
partnership working.
There are, of course, many kinds of partnership that can be
employed in policy implementation but the most successful will
take the form of implementation structures; clusters of
public, private and voluntary actors that coalesce around a
specific policy issue (Hjern and Porter, 1997, p. 227). These
structures are often guided towards a goal by the relevant
government body, but their very strength lies in their ad hoc
nature. The informality that characterizes the clusters means
that they possess the flexibility to deal with problems as
they arise (Hjern and Porter, 1997, p. 231). Using this
approach, it is possible to finally liberate the notions of
incrementalism and partnerships from the rhetorical prison of
being seen as unfortunate realities that perfect
implementation must try to eradicate.
Through an examination of British urban regeneration
programs under New Labour, the benefits of fully embracing
partnerships become clear. Previously, this paper has detailed
how supposed failure in the East Glasgow renewal program was
due to a lack of central guidance and control. However, in a
postmodern context, such a situation is necessary if the aims
of regenerating depressed city centres are to be achieved.
After 1997, there has been some willingness, at least
rhetorically, to challenge the top-down model and introduce
true partnership working into urban regeneration processes
(DETR, 1998; Liddle, 2001, p. 314). In fact, funding from the
UK and European Union was dependent on projects demonstrating
meaningful attempts to craft partnerships with local community
and business sectors (Mayo, 1997, p. 8). This is recognition
from national and supranational levels of government that
partnerships are empowering for localities long used to some
form of democratic deficit (Mayo, 1997, p. 6). Also, they can
ensure that renewal projects are able to access resources and
talent from the wider community; theoretically solving the
problem of public sector overload and implementation gaps
identified in the top-down literature (Lowndes, 1997, p. 334).
Thus, if set up properly, relatively slow moving partnerships
can avoid the pitfalls associated with the centralized
approach.
Nevertheless, regeneration initiatives undertaken
throughout the tenure of New Labour display many of the
characteristics of failure (Liddle, 2001). Unfortunately,
years of top down thinking are still being reflected in the
cultures of local authorities and related regeneration actors
(Diamond and Liddle, 2005, p. 93). The persistence of that
idea has led to shallow attempts at consultation, involving a
paternalistic treatment of organizations trying to become part
of the long term urban renewal process (Lowndes, 1997, p. 339-
341). Additionally, when consultation does take place it often
is performed in a rather half-hearted way without
incorporating alternate viewpoints or identifying improvements
to be made over the course of the program (Liddle, 2001, p.
321). Finally, actors who are a part of the community sector
find it difficult to compete against business or even larger
charities with an international support base, which do not
include the majority of UK voluntary sector members (Chanan,
1996, p. 100). Little real effort has been made to challenge
that sort of power imbalance (Mayo, 1997, p. 13). If we add
these deficiencies together, it is possible to see how the
top-down approach has continued to be influential even when
the national government was formally committed to using
partnerships in urban regeneration. What this means is that
the lacklustre performance of these endeavours is not due to a
failure of partnerships or moving slowly, rather it is because
top down thinking has maintained its supremacy and the path to
failure illustrated by Dunleavy (1995) is being trod again.
Bearing in mind the shift from modernism to postmodernism and
pluralism previously discussed, utilizing the partnership
strategy is the way to definitively banish the quest for
perfect implementation from the minds of policymakers and the
academy.
The legacy of post-war attitudes to policymaking remains
with us still. The very fact that top-down approaches to
implementation are termed “perfect” goes a long way towards
showing why the concept has remained quite powerful. Its
academic champions will admit that it is impossible to reach,
yet this paper has detailed how they would prefer
implementation to get as close to perfection as possible.
Still, striving for perfection has produced a long list of
failures. Most importantly, that approach to perfection
theoretically requires a mode of social organization which is
fading with the advent of postmodern society. With some
reservations, we can best describe the postmodern era through
a judicious use of pluralist theory. To navigate this changed
reality and avoid the pitfalls that arise from attempting
perfect implementation the use of Lindblom’s “Muddling
Through” thesis, updated for postmodernism with a discussion
of partnerships and implementation structures, is essential as
a starting point. Putting the spotlight on UK urban
regeneration has illuminated the need for such an
understanding to ensure success in future. The sooner that
public sector agencies can embrace these sorts of
partnerships, the sooner a more flexible, successful
relationship between all participants in the policy process
can emerge.
Works Cited
Bogason, P. (2000) Public Policy and Local Governance: Institutions in
Postmodern Society. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Booth, S.A.S., Pitt, D.C. and Money, W.J. (1982)
‘Organizational Redundancy: A Critical Appraisal of the
GEAR Project’, Public Administration, 60(1), p. 56-72.
Chanan, G. ‘Regeneration: Plugging the Gaps or Pushing
Frontiers?’, Local Economy, 11(2), p. 98-103.
Clarke, J. (2010) Challenging Choices. Bristol: The Policy
Press.
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
(1998) New Deal for Communities: Phase 1 Proposals; Guidance for
Pathfinder Applicants. London: DETR.
Diamond, J. and Liddle, J. (2005) Management of Regeneration:
Choices, Challenges and Dilemmas. Abingdon: Routledge.
Head, B. (2007) ‘Community Engagement: Participation on
Whose Terms?’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), p.
441-454.
Hjern, B. and Porter, D. (1997) ‘Implementation
Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis’, in
Hill, M. (ed.) The Policy Process: A Reader. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall. p. 226-240.
Hogwood, B and Gunn, L. (1997) ‘Why Perfect
Implementation is Unattainable’, in Hill, M. (ed.) The
Policy Process: A Reader. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. p.
217-225.
Hood, C. (1976) The Limits of Administration. Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons.
John, P. (2011) Making Policy Work. Abingdon: Routledge.
Judt, T. (2005) Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. New York:
Penguin Books.
King, A. (1975) ‘Overload: Problems of Governing in the
1970’s’, Political Studies, 23(2-3), p. 284-296.
Klemek, C. (2011) The Transatlantic Collapse of Urban Renewal:
Postwar Urbanism from New York to Berlin. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Liddle, J. (2001) ‘RDA’s, Sub-Regional Partnerships and
Local Regeneration’, Local Economy, 16(4), p. 312-323.
Lindblom, C. (1959) ‘The Science of Muddling Through’,
Public Administration Review, 19(2), p. 79-88.
Lowndes, V., Nanton, P., McCabe, A. and Skelcher, C.
(1997) ‘Networks, Partnerships and Urban Regeneration’,
Local Economy, 11(4), p. 333-343.
Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998) ‘The Dynamics of
Multi Organizational Partnerships: An Analysis of
Changing Modes of Governance’, Public Administration, 76(2), p.
313-333.
Mayo, M. (1997) ‘Partnerships for Regeneration and
Community Development’, Critical Social Policy, 17(3), p. 3-26.
Metcalfe, L. (1978) ‘Policy Making in Turbulent
Environments’, in Hanf, K. and Scharpf, F. (eds.)
Interorganizational Policy Making: Limits to Coordination and Central
Control. London: Sage. p. 37-55.
Richards, D. and Smith, M. (2002) Governance and Public Policy in
the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simmons, R. (2009) ‘Understanding the Differentiated
Consumer in Public Services’, in Simmons, R., Powell, M.
and Greener, I. (eds.) The Consumer in Public Services: Choice,
Values and Difference. Bristol: The Policy Press. p. 57-76.
Taylor, D. and Balloch, S. (2001) Partnership Working: Policy
and Practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Top Related