Gazing Up at the Bottoms: Problems of Minimal Response in the Implementation of Manpower Policy

Abstract

The paper discusses the implementation of manpower policy as viewed from below, and is a partial critique of ‘bottom‐up approaches’ to implementation studies. It reports on a Social Science Research Council financed study at the School of Advanced Urban Studies which employed both bottom‐up and top‐down methods, and explored the hypothesis that the nature of the employment problem tackled by policy affected implementation. Restructuring policy would be easier to implement than policy designed to ‘mop up’ the effects of restructuring, the least easy to implement being policy designed to redistribute rewards in the labour market. The research attempts to include the view from below the ‘bottom’ usually referred to by bottom‐up theorists. The paper reports, from the point of view of those affected, the failed implementation of the multiple responses at central and local level to the creation of large‐scale redundancies. It shows the presence of ‘garbage can’, ‘symbolic’, ‘crisis‐response’, and ‘ambiguity’ elements in the implementation process. It also shows ‘mobilization of bias’, reluctance to assume responsibility for policy decisions, and the power of the market in implementation. It concludes that ‘economic’ is a quality akin to ‘magic’ which makes its manipulation in implementation extremely difficult, and suggests that powerful implementation institutions are needed if those below the ‘bottoms’ are not to suffer from restructuring in the labour market.

A Comparative Analysis of How Actors Implement: Testing the Contextual Interaction Theory in 48 Cases of Wetland Restoration

“…It is important to note that these variables are not arbitrarily chosen as three important variables among others, but because they have high explanatory power and exist at the core of interaction processes (Bressers 2004;Owens 2008). Motivation (Gross et al 1971;Ball 1976;Larson 1980;Nakamura and Smallwood 1980), information (Baum 1976;Edwards 1980;Williams 1980;Baum 1981;Williams 1982), and power (Bunker 1972;Berman 1980;Raelin 1980Raelin , 1982Ackermann and Steinmann 1982;Davies and Mason 1982;Browne and Wildavsky 1984) have been identified as key variables for implementation by other scholars. All three consistently emerge as core ideas within O'Toole's (1986) list of hundreds of variables deemed "important" by researchers in the field (Owens 2008).…”

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis

“…In addition to their study of manpower training programmes in Sweden and the German Federal Republic, Hjern et al have sought to apply this technique to a variety of programs designed to foster the economic viability of small firms in the Federal Republic and several other countries (Hjern and Hull, 1985). They have also encouraged the application of their approach to Swedish energy policy (Wittrock et al, 1982), English manpower training (Davies and Mason, 1982), Dutch pollution control (Hanf, 1982), and Swiss economic development (Ackermann and Steinmann, 1982). It should be noted, however, that-with the exception of Hanf-these latter papers are more united by a bottom-up perspective than by any serious effort to employ the networking methodology first outlined by Hjern and Porter (1981).…”

Policy Recommendations for Multi-Actor Implementation: An Assessment of the Field

“…'The degree to which an organization (a) is consensually clear about its task, (b) is appropriately differentiated into parts related to its pertinent sub-environments, (c) is integrated by information exchanges and effective conflict management devices, (d) has clear knowledge about its performance, and (e) is self-reflective and able to make corrective adjustments in its own behavior'; issue salience, power resources, agreement operational demands, resources, authority, support: 44 'factors for consideration'; structure of interdependence complexity of the change mechanism, degree of change, number of actors involved as targets, number of goals, clarity of goals, duration Author(s) and Variables Davies and Mason (1982) Durant 1984Edwards 1980Elmore (1976, 1977, 1978, i979-8o, 1985) Goodwin and Moen 1981Grindle (1980,1981) Gross et al 1971Gunn ( Majone and Wildavsky (1978) Mandell 1984Marvel 1982Mazmanian & Sabatier (1981& Sabatier ( , 1983; Sabatier & Mazmanian (1979; Sabatier and Klosterman (1981) Mead 1977Mechling 1978Menzel (1981,1983) Mitnick and Backoff 1984Montjoy and O'Toole (1979); O'Toole and Montjoy (1984); O'Toole (1983) Moore (1978a and1978b) Mueller (1984) Murphy (1971, 1973, '974. "976) Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) Nixon (1980) O'Brien (1980) Pesso (1978) Porter (1976) Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) Raelin (1980,1982) Rawson ( Bullock (1976) Rosenbaum 1980Ross 1984Sapolsky 1972Scharpf (1977,1978);…”