Synergistic Governance and Public Policies Cycle

Abstract

Public policies have been going through a transitional state in which conventional tools such as the “top-down” approach in the executive phase of public design have proven to be less effective. In an inherently uncertain and chaotic world, public administrations are assigned with the implementation of rules governing post-netaw public management expertise within a context that is ever-changing and which transcends what has been so far considered as “normality” in a hierarchical model. To create a viable environment, political leaders and civil servants engage in a struggle to manage uncertainties through existing networks and the relevant expertise of stakeholders. Moreover, nonconventional methods that are unfamiliar to the hierarchical (Weberian) state, such as heuristic judgments, the application of principles of the neuroscience behaviorist approach, and so forth, open up new road maps for public administration to enable organizations to act in a nonlinear and incrementalistic manner. In this chapter, it will be attempted to break down the new prospects that appear; this is a dynamic public administration, remodeled in an efficient manner catering to the needs of contemporary users. It is stressed that immediate, flexible forms of management must be established; the aim of this is to achieve a mutually accepted situation as has been recommended by experts and stakeholders, in order to be able to determine what may be a viable, provisional solution.

1. Introduction

Public policy design is a complex undertaking of primary concern in governance and constitutes a conscious and deliberate effort to define the policy objectives in a specific area and to match them to the available policy instruments [1]. Public policy analysis traditionally refers to “Policy formulation based on the collection of knowledge about the effects of instruments used for the appropriate policy objectives in order to develop and implement policies to achieve specifically desired public policy outcomes and aspirations” [2]. Considering those assumptions, we hereby aim to highlight the limited perception of the traditional aspects of public administration and the necessary adaptations to be made in modern governance, especially in the light that it faces unprecedented challenges that necessitate the cultivation of the operational dimension of governmental action. This transversal approach, that sheds light on the administrative apparatus of public administration ([3], pp. 48–49) in a networking mode, is also advocated by the nature of modern challenges. For these missions, the state needs to transform its institutional framework, its resources, functioning, and human resources to perform more effectively in a particularly demanding environment.

2. Modern public policies positioned in a hostile external environment

Scholars, such as Thomas Dye, define public policies as “What governments choose to do and what they choose not to do” [4]. Lasswell [5] added the concepts of “ends” and “means” that governments choose at any given time to implement the government’s agenda to the aforementioned definition. More commonly, policies (the political dimension of public policies-policy) include a wide range of purposes pursued through official government action, such as reducing crime through public policy on justice, improvement in the general public’s health through public policy on health, etc. Interventions in the areas of public policies usually involve programs, measures, and actions undertaken by more than one ministry, for example, in the analysis of public policy on health; strategic planning requires simultaneous cooperation of all relevant institutions and agencies (beginning with the ministry of Health and internal affairs to the ministry of employment and Finance) in an effort to ameliorate the condition in public health, prevent risks to physical and mental health, and generally enhance the quality of life of citizens. The specific characteristics of public health problems and their undeniably multifactorial nature call for a horizontal approach, integrated planning, and cross-sectoral action, and this usually happens also at a multilevel administrative status. Howlett ([6], p. 2) stated that “Policy tools and designing policy portfolios becomes more complex when, as is very common in many policy-making situations, multiple goals and multiple sectors are involved in a programme.” To that end, a more effective and consistent decision-making process should be applied where a holistic governmental approach would take the lead and propose viable solutions in a coordinated and inclusive manner [7].

Considering the above, it is also undeniable that more and more public administrations and societies are exposed to unforeseen risks, to volatile political-economic or other conditions, and to new challenges, such as extreme weather which increases in intensity and frequency. Especially in a volatile and hostile external environment such as the current one, public authorities struggle to generate viable public policies that amend traditional methodologies and foster resilience to overcome challenges while simultaneously respecting the “rule of law” (Etat de droit) and applying accountability measures. Ready-to-apply contingency plans seem to be a mediocre responsive measure toward various novel threats such as outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola, or flu or severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2, COVID-19), massive immigration flows, or natural disasters. It is needless to say that no government can claim a level of preparedness for these systematic threats at a great scale. In this context, the “raison d’être” of public administration is gradually changing from being a “permanent responder” to the basic and mild needs of citizens’ daily lives to becoming a “proactive operational manager” of frequent and simultaneous crises in different fields where the slightest failure can be fatal for large numbers of citizens. Undoubtedly, there will be errors, miscalculations, misjudgments, and other fallacies in a logic in which the following motto prevails: “work for the better, prepare for the worst.” This external challenging environment calls for a remodeled approach for the generation of public policies, and these will be outlined on the following pages.

3. Processes for the generation of public policies

The foundations of the functioning in public administrations lay, as Lasswell stated, on the public policy planning in a procedural dimension of public policies that are composed of interrelated evolutionary stages in a sequential manner, leading from “inputs” (problems-resources) to “outputs” (policy outcomes and related impacts). The same view was supported by Easton in his expression “Black Box” as to the processes that unfold within the political-administrative machine to demonstrate the impossibility of exercising full control within it [8]. The resulting sequence of stages in the formulation and implementation of public policy, referred to as the “policy cycle” ([9], p. 12, [10], pp. 45–55), is initiated from the statement of public problems, policy formulation, decision-making, and implementation and leads to evaluation. According to another approach to the “policy cycle,” it includes six stages: (1) identification – definition and analysis of the problem; (2) policy formulation of evaluation criteria; (3) identification of policy alternatives; (4) evaluation of policy alternatives – termination; (5) presentation and selection of appropriate policy; (6) monitoring of implementation of the policy.

From this perspective, public policy analysis investigates the interdependent decisions of a politician or a set of actors with the aim of refining the quality of governmental choices in this sequential process. This requires both the establishment of formal institutions (the political dimension of public policies – polity) charged with the authority to assume the responsibility for designing the content and implementing public policies, as well as an analysis of the instruments and tools available to support decision-makers in their effort to make the right decisions or those with the most positive effects while remaining accountable for them.

In the methodology of public policy analysis, four main approaches can be distinguished. The first one known as the rational model focuses on centralized governance where means are proportionate to the objectives assigned and help to their attainment. Policies are deemed to achieve specific objectives, and alternative scenarios are considered from both quantitative and qualitative perspective in a cooperative structure. The rational model essentially advocates that there is one best option and that this is to be explored and implemented. In the rational model, the linear approach to problems, as well as selectivity in the choice of criteria that ultimately prevail in terms of decision-making, often leads us to adopt erroneous approaches that are found to be such only after they have been implemented. Under its ratio, the success of an organization depended on the application of ten principles that promoted the administrative science [11]: unity of command, hierarchical transmission of orders (“chain of command”), separation of powers – authority, subordination, responsibility and control, centralization, order, discipline, planning, organization chart, meetings and reports, and accounting. In the hurt of the rational model lays the foundation that, in political, just as in economic, contexts, individuals tend to rationally maximize their utility [12, p. 47]. Examples of the rational model of management in the public service are the zero-based budgeting system and the planning and program budgeting system (PPBS), which were implemented in the budgeting processes of federal agencies in the United States. Nevertheless, the rational model connects to bounded rationality ([13], p. 355, [14]) and has been strongly criticized because of the limits of human cognition and information available to the public policy analyst and technocrat. In this area, decision-makers are inevitably led to focus on certain aspects of the problem under study and downplay the impact of others ([15], p. 39). Also, it was obvious that subjectivity in criteria and inability to rely on a completely objective judgment, as the rational model advocates, prevailed even if the problems were simpler, easier to manage by the state and developed in a rather stable environment ([15], p. 38).

In modern times, when it comes to dealing with flexible, unknown, and multidimensional challenges in a context that lacks stability (in terms of health, transport, employment, commerce, etc.), it is very difficult to dispose off a readily applicable mechanism of information and related data transfer between institutions to exist (in real time), yet we should work toward developing these monitoring skills so as to achieve better performance in various areas of public intervention. To be more specific, “harsh times” refers to failures in dealing with complex public problems and in implementing decisions; these have led to the research of new approaches such as the incrementalism model, which is the second approach to public policy analysis. According to Peter Haas [16], “Complexity refers to the existence of socio-economic interactions between many actors, including the exchange of resources and knowledge that crosses into new relationships.” The provisions of the incremental solution model of the public policy focus on a tactic of seeking out the optimal solution through the undertaking of incremental small initiatives to achieve “small wins” ([17, 18], p. 145), up until the moment that, long term, a more holistic and possibly definitive solution to the problem is achieved. The incremental resolution of public problems through public policies was extensively addressed by Lindblom in his publication “The Science of Muddling Through” [19] where he precisely expresses the need for public policy analysts to distance themselves from the interests of users that should be reconciled through a series of multilateral negotiations focusing on persuasion and mutual compromise in order to seek a gradual resolution of the problem ([15, 20], p. 40). This is an attempt to manage them better, i.e., to reduce the negative consequences of the problems, rather than to remove them from the “map” of public problems immediately. For example, in the case of the management of the homelessness problem, the distribution of food in public places gives a temporary reduction in the negative effects of the existence of the problem but does not definitively solve it. Furthermore, in the likelihood of dealing with those complex issues, it is very possible to commit errors related to the oversimplification of the issue as is common in attempts to overcome chaotic situations. In cases like this, public policy-makers are advised to take the assistance of behavioral analysts¹ that inaugurate a “behavioral public policy” [22] founded on the idea of the activation of polyheuristics and behavioral components in view of a new policy while predicting the human behavior that would be triggered ([23], pp. 188–189). The poliheuristic approach combines poly (many) and poli (politics) along with heurisitic (shortcuts) ([24], pp. 82, 84) which relate to two options: under the first one, the policy-making screens the alternatives to discard some of them, and under the second one, left with fewer choices, the policy-maker compares the alternatives with the expected outcomes to make a more rational decision. From this perspective, the concept of managing through networks is also analyzed in an effort to deal with the unforeseen and to prepare acceptable and viable solutions for all counterparts ([25], pp. 131–159).

The third model is referred as the garbage bin model and advocates that organizational goals and stated objectives of public policies do not exist in the sense of declarations and strategies but emerge through the circumstances and parallel initiatives of organizations ([18], p. 146, [26, 27]). This model does not envisage that it is possible to have a set of objectives aimed at the optimal functioning of agencies, but that any solution to a public problem is the result of random factors.

In between the above-mentioned “incrementalism” and the “garbage bin” model lays the proposition of Etzioni [28] who discussed the issue of distinguishing the governmental decisions between those with long-term repercussions and those that relate more to an incrementalistic approach that has short-term implications. His contribution is valuable in terms of considering the two options as being two variables that divide issues in a relatively substantive approach. His contribution known as mixed scanning recognizes that governmental actors often oscillate between these two dimensions when it comes to deciding upon the resolutions to make ([29], p. 363).

3.1 Working toward a synergistic method for public policy that deals with complex public problems

3.1.1 Problem definition: traditional vs. wicked and unpredictable problems

Every public policy analyst places the identification of problems, their conceptualization, and prioritization first in the order of significance according to specific indicators. The definition of any problem is one of the most important stages in the formulation of public policies where all the known variables are being considered and the primary guidelines for their solution are presented. When defining the problem, the aim is to assess the information required and to take an objective, all-round approach which may require a lengthy and time-consuming process of evidence, interviews, and surveys. Information should be gathered, and one must ensure that it fits the criteria of credibility that it is controlled, reachable, authentic, updated, relevant, fit for purpose, and approved.

The registration of issues on the agenda ([30], p. 108) initiates a process of searching for a resolution via institutional channels for issues of great interest and impact. In pluralistic liberal societies, issues are discussed within the civil society as represented by stakeholders from the external environment such as political/party leaders, research institutes, interest groups ([30], p. 89), the media, the international environment in the context of mimicry, and the scientific communities ([31], p. 341 and [16]), and if there is enough support, they are transferred to the institutional agenda² if the topic is considered valuable enough to decide about it [32]. The more the groups are involved in the problem-solving stage, the more the forms and definitions of the problems emerge, creating a complex backdrop for their resolution.

The contemporary problems, as already mentioned, are complex and dynamic, hence the introduction of the term “wicked” in the relevant literature. As early as 1973, Rittel and Webber referred to the need for a public administration to deal with those problems that can only be “managed” rather than “tamed” [33]. It is even said that the only thing accomplished by many governments that promised society a solution to “wicked” problems has been to lose the confidence of their citizens ([34], p. 24). “Morbid” problems [35] cannot be fully defined or understood in terms of a linear cause-and-effect relationship, involve ambiguity and unpredictability in their development, and draw conflicts between stakeholders as to the values they serve (evoking value conflict). Initially, Rittel and Webber’s analysis focused on the problems of poverty, urban reconstruction, crime control, and poor education. However, a few decades later, environmental pollution and other more complex problems such as drugs, social policy, juvenile delinquency, etc., broadened the scope of “morbid” problems to include environmental disasters and ecological and technological problems [36]. According to the early analysts, these problems are “untamed” and “malignant”; they are also “vicious,” “tricky,” and “aggressive.”

Theoretical scholars of policy design and analysis have argued that much light should be shed on the causal phenomena that lead to the creation of a public problem based on the assumption that the discovery of the root causes of a problem leads to half of its solution and further argued that new policies arise because of the failure of a successful policy up until then.

3.1.2 Attempting to propose a schema for the design of successful public policies: hierarchical vs. incremental model: synergies through consultation and networking

Public policy formulation that ensues the definition of the problem attempts to identify and evaluate possible solutions to policy problems as well as to systematically examine the various alternatives available to address a problem successfully. Under the hierarchical model, the design of public policies is not only limited to assessing the relative benefits and risks presented by the policy instruments and whether they meet the stated policy objectives but also extends to their feasibility or to investigating the likelihood of being accepted by members of the society. Related to that, the research includes both a technical component which demonstrates the feasibility of the policy targeting plan and a political component through which the feasibility of the policy is investigated through the lens of the society behaviorally. Thus, several criteria are used for the evaluation of alternative action plans ([37], p. 44).

In contemporary policy studies, the framework of criteria is crucial for fostering an evidence-based and soundly weighed judgment of the appropriate policy for each problem. The analysis of policy instruments and their application are embedded both in the context of “designing” policies and in the study of the influence of policy ideas in the policy formulation process that led to the adoption of specific designs in particular circumstances ([38], pp. 103–119). Further, the context within which the relevant policy design processes are embedded also sets the boundaries and guides the decisions ([38], p. 37, [39]). In addition, when speaking about intolerable and complex issues such as the wicked or the environmental disasters that involve many cabinet offices, it is of great value to adequately evaluate these criteria. Later, Peters [40] reduced qualitative tools to the following: directness, visibility, capital/labor intensity, automaticity or level of administration required, level of universality, reliance on persuasion vs. enforcement, and their “forcing vs. enabling” nature.

While the definition of the problem, context, instrument, criteria, and indicators are said to be largely important for the outcome of the design process, it is worth highlighting the need to thoroughly practice the consultation phase with all relevant counterparts. Specifically, for the public policy formulation process, Harold Thomas [41] distinguished four important aspects that start with evaluation, continue with dialog and consultation, and conclude with the formulation and consolidation of policy. Under the evaluation process per se, the required information and data are explored to establish an integrated understanding of the public problem in the case. At this stage, sources of information may include reports, technical evaluations, empirical research, evidence-based data [42], inputs from stakeholders, or even the public. This is followed by the dialog phase among the actors and organizational staff involved in policy formulation. At the core of this phase are reflection, consultation, and exchange of views on the policy objectives and possible means to achieve them in a management by objective logical frame of thinking [43]. The dialog is conducted with the participation of experts and representatives of the private/public sector or other stakeholders. The consultation of nascent public policies allows the implementing organizations to identify any comparative advantages to shape their policies ([34], pp. 32–46).

Indeed, consultation represents a vital tool for contemporary public governance as it sheds light on all aspects of the problem at hand and sustains accountability. One well-known definition from Hartz-Karp places emphasis on “an approach to decision making in which citizens analyse existing events from multiple perspectives, debate among themselves and weigh up their options” [44]. Based on another definition, consultation consists of simply seeking information and advice. According to the most widespread practice of consultation, it ranges from information, advice, or mediation from the government to the parties [45] to the active participation of direct or indirect stakeholders. Otherwise, it varies in spectrum from information and listening to action or decision-making. Among these stages, there is dialog with the parties concerned, debate, and in-depth analysis of the different views and alternatives to the public problem at hand ([34], p. 32, [46, 47]).

Τhe analyst of any sectorial public policy is then advised to select the criteria for the ranking of the alternatives based on the predominant public interest at stake [48] separately in each case and the priorities of the different (identified) stakeholders ([49], p. 390). In order to study the above options and arrive at the adoption of the optimum one, various methodological approaches can be applied such as the cost–benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a method of assessing the benefits of each alternative by focusing on the “cost” (not the “objective”) and evaluating the wider public benefit in terms of the expenditure/investment made to meet a societal need. Cost-effectiveness analysis collects and evaluates data to assess the alternatives offered as a means of solving the public problem. The aim is to find out which is the least costly scenario for a given level of effectiveness or the most effective for a given level of resources. For example, in the context of the Ministry of Development, given a specific amount budgeted for a purpose, alternatives of the same investment cost will be evaluated and which of them are most successful in achieving the stated objective will be assessed. Also, at this stage of identifying and evaluating alternatives, empirical social experiments can be carried out. To conduct an experiment, researchers randomly assign some members of a target group the alternative option under observation and the parameters to be analyzed ([50], pp. 361–362). The impact of the proposed alternative is measured as the average difference between the proposed study and control groups on the relevant measures (e.g., for general cases, how the accident rate or the level of traffic violations, etc., has changed). The abovementioned methodologies entail that there is sufficient time and a systematic approach that allows for the development of consultation, empirical and evidence-based research, and cost–benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis. All the abovementioned tools combine to permit the evaluation of performance management in a specific area; yet they are used, not only to improve policies and their implementation but also to arm policy-makers with arguments “for or against policy” ([51], p. 15).

When it comes to dealing with wicked-multidimensional problems that engage several cabinets and may have a greater negative impact on society on a larger scale, some of these methods appear to be obsolete or inappropriate to apply in a very short and stressful time frame. In this context, the feasibility of public policies, the realistic framework that determines them, and the logic of satisfying as many interests of as many stakeholders as possible comprise the methodology of decision-making based on the model of incrementalism, where reference is made to “the need for political leaders to lead to compromises which, however, result in the existence of unclear objectives for public policies.” In decision-making based on the incremental approach model, objectives and instruments evolve simultaneously, while the experimentation and the “trial and error” logic prevail due to constant changes [52].

It is precisely this difference in the nature of the task of crisis management compared to the traditional governmental tasks that are referred to above. When the basic institutions of the State are confronted with a crisis, they cease to operate under the familiar traditional hierarchical form of administration, depart from their main role, and are led to a horizontal, networked, and collaborative form of action. The more complex and ambiguous the system is, the more the need for central steering and coordination arises, but it is, unfortunately, inclined to failure as there are many factors that interfere in the process and there is no consensus for the primordial role of any of them (almost all ministries, health national experts with different views, associations of medicines, etc.). For example, the management of the COVID-19 crisis ([53], p. 105) introduces the question of the ownership of coordination mechanisms that will be implemented on a national level. Usually, it is on the central governmental level that these committees and working groups depend on, and this is a given fact that we will consider in this paper.

It appears that, through crisis, governmental routines change, conventional administrative working flow cannot find application, and rapid multitask ad hoc task-forces, such as interministerial committees, subcommittees, and working groups are installed in order (1) to elaborate on the various aspects of the issue at stake (that may have been detected at an early stage as described in the previous paragraphs), (2) to monitor the implementation plan, and (3) to oversee the crisis in depth while being able to respond in faster terms than the old machinery of the State. Their composition is determined in order to ensure broad participation of various stakeholders: representatives of the respective governmental departments, local authorities with their various committees, the best qualified national and foreign experts, representatives of economic sectors, research bodies concerned, social partners involved in the subject, other associations, interested parties, think-tanks specialized in the matter, etc. [31].

The final objective is to minimize negative consequences and at the same time satisfy as many stakeholders as possible in a consensual frame of mind that aims to promote the policy proposal that will be welcomed by most critical stakeholders (and therefore not necessarily the one ideal solution). Moreover, crises require immediate action, and the possibility of delays inevitably caused by successive approvals must be eliminated. Examples of crisis management from many countries have indicated that crisis management and consequently the informing of society are better undertaken by managers who are directly responsible, none other than the operational managers in charge of the crisis management (on the field). Thus, in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing (1995) ([54], p. 895), the Incident Command System (ICS) was successfully implemented, i.e., the system in which a coordinator from the local fire department was appointed who was the point of contact and the person in charge of all actions on the part of the relevant public services, voluntary organizations, and other parties involved. He also kept the public informed through frequent official announcements. Moreover, the relevant actors involved in the crisis had been identified in good time before the outbreak of the crisis, and the interaction and trust developed between them prior to the crisis facilitated the management of the crisis as it progressed. Subsequently, at the time of the crisis, the joint crisis management committees already formed were activated and implemented the plans already developed during the recession.

When setting up flexible schemes consisting of coordinating horizontal groups or committees of experts to manage the crisis on a minute-by-minute basis, it should be borne in mind that coordination is inversely proportional to the number of actors involved or administrative levels (central, regional, and municipal). In the Oklahoma crisis management system model, there was a line of command, with a parallel recognition of the sharing (diffusion) of power particularly as the crisis unfolded. In other words, it was a system that successfully combined a collaborative model of governance with a hierarchical one in the sense that a competent delegate and representative of the most involved entity took ultimate responsibility for the actions undertaken and gave orders under the general supervision of the central administration to which he or she was accountable at the completion of the project [54]. The question of who is really in charge would be a constant concern if there was not to be a supreme body (e.g., in fires the fire brigade, and so on) that would be legitimized to take final responsibility after an assessment of the information gathered from all the bodies and organizations involved.

4. Assertions and evidence for implementing public policies

The design of public policies, their successful implementation, as well as their monitoring and evaluation are key factors for modern governance as well as for the effectiveness of policies and the implementation of the “rule of law.” At the same time, flexible forms of approach to the tools for better management of public organizations are related to the ability of the public body to identify possible solutions to the problems it is called upon to solve and to initiate those policies that are the most applicable, realistic, effective, efficient, sustainable, and best suited to serve the public interest.

In particular, when we deal with the implementation of public policies, we call upon the institutional capacity to conform to the constraints of the external (PESTLE) environment in which public policies evolve, which have a major impact on the way in which public policies are implemented, i.e., whether they will achieve their purpose or not. Based on the theory of the external environment, the power of circumstances is enormous to the point that it ultimately leaves public administrators with little room and freedom of maneuver. Public organizations and leaders are indeed left with few choices because they are inevitably drawn by events and circumstances outside their control, and the degree of influence and control they can effectively exert over the policies they monitor and implement is reduced. Various external parameters, e.g., social differentiation, economic well-being of the population, major events, catastrophes, other disasters, etc., influence the degree of difficulty in making the decision. Moreover, action areas with many specific needs are more difficult to be efficient (e.g., education), while larger action areas where the stakes are high (e.g., health and safety of citizens, border security, and defense) are easier to help lead to a decision, however, costly.

In this context, public administrations and the leadership of public organizations are called upon to steer a course through complex scenarios and to manage uncertainties skillfully, demonstrating the resilience of their organizations against complex situations exacerbated by the external environment. Ultimately, public policies become susceptible to exogenous factors, and their intended outcomes are never entirely predictable, which makes it a priority to apply the “adopt and adapt” method, i.e., the ability of political and administrative systems to react quickly by incorporating changes arising from changing circumstances and adapting legislation [55] as quickly as possible to new political, economic, social, technological, legislative, and ecological circumstances.

4.1 Globalization and crafting of public policies

The adaptation of national administrations to international standards as a result of globalization is inevitably a factor in strengthening the modernization and readiness of public administrations to confront international conditions and negotiate the policy contents at an international level. Contemporary problems fall within the broader concept of managing systemic problems, where the influences are multiple, both within and outside the system, and for which a methodological centralized approach cannot deliver the expected solutions. The responsibility for solving these problems is usually shared between several ministries or is practiced in cooperation with counterparts from outside, and their consequences are often unpredictable and undesirable [56, 57]. For example, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was indispensable to apply coordinated methods [58] for the restrictions and public health policies among EU or OECD member countries to deal with the virus because otherwise poor implementation of a health policy in one country could automatically lead to an outbreak of the pandemic in another that might have applied more stringent protective measures. Even a change in the food system and the agricultural subsector can have dramatic changes in other subsectors, such as energy, health, economy, and education at the international level [57, 59].

4.2 The top-down approach for implementing public policies

The top-down approach focuses on the role of public authorities (central government directly, decentralized administration, local government [60], or finally services provided in partnership with the private sector) in the implementation process. Based on this approach, the policy process relies on a causal relationship between policies and mutually influencing parameters. The interactions and linkages between the acting subjects (predominantly within the public administration and secondarily in its wider environment) lead to outcomes (outputs), but this policy often tends to ignore the impact of the actions of the actors involved in the implementation. In the normative approach in which the “top-down” approach to public policy is embedded, this is interpreted as an input that comes predominantly from the political elite as a result of internal processes, and implementation is approached as an output factor that brings about a series of impacts on its recipients. It also takes the rational behavior of actors for granted when, as already mentioned, there is a finite limit of rationality and data to be applied.

According to Mazmanian and Sabatier’s [61] theory, policy decision and implementation are fully dependent on government representatives, and there is a clear distinction between the planning and implementation of public policies. Their model for effective top-down implementation of public policies includes the following criteria:

1. Specific clear and coherent public policy objectives.

2. A program based on a basic causal theory (what is happening and why).

3. The process, timeline for implementing actions, and measurable indicators of outputs and outcomes are well structured.

4. The relevant institutions have the appropriate authority to implement the programs, while being committed to achieving the assigned objectives.

5. Stakeholders (both executive and legislative) have an active role and support the project (within the administration).

6. There are no particular changes in the external socio-economic environment.

4.3 The bottom-up approach for implementing public policies

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the theory known as “bottom-up” emerged and came as a response to the previously prevalent hierarchical “top-down” approach. The trigger for its emergence was related to the divergence that occurred between the results (outputs) and the policy objectives (targeting) of governments. The studies conducted turned to the lower hierarchical levels and policy recipients who often seemed to have come up with better ideas for implementing the declared policies as the most directly relevant to the policy issues under development. Another prevailing view was also related to the need to highlight discretion and flexibility in implementation systems that were absent in the absolute top-down model, while methodological tools were directed toward the needs of the lower hierarchical layers (street level bureaucrats such as police officers, doctors, teachers, etc. [62].

The main features of the bottom-up approach are as follows:

• It takes into account the role of all those factors involved in the implementation stage that are called upon to bring about the final result by changing their behavior.

• The success of a public policy is defined in terms of human behavior, and this should be taken into account in the design.

• It emphasizes the adaptation of general objectives to changing circumstances.

Sabatier [63] notes senior state officials and ministers overemphasize the ability of central policy-makers to work it out secluded in their offices, to announce clear policy objectives, and to scrupulously control the process of their implementation. In criticizing this law-centric approach, the proponents of the “bottom-up” view simultaneously overestimated the amount of discretion of lower bureaucratic officials and thus overemphasized the autonomy of the “bottom” over the “top.” The focus on the empirical evidence gathered from the international literature led to the introduction of a third approach, the so-called intermediate or hybrid approach which took characteristics from both theories, i.e., the central, executive approach, and local autonomy ([64], p. 268).

4.4 The “intermediate-hybrid” approach in the implementation of public policies

The “intermediate-hybrid” approach, focusing on the interactions that develop during the public policy cycle, incorporates elements of both the top-down basic approach and ex-ante mapping, as well as the screening of stakeholder reactions and finally portrays policy as an evolutionary process based on a series of stages and interactions between critical variables.

In the intermediate approach, emphasis is placed on the interaction and the synergistic dimension in the implementation of public policies through negotiations that take place between those who design the implementation of the policy (political elites) and those on whom the necessary action for implementation depends on (not only bureaucrats and lower hierarchy but also other stakeholders). This approach views the design and the implementation as two inter-related procedures that should give and take information that is indispensable for the design of policies to come [65].

5. Conclusions

Dahl and Lindblom [66] stated that the possibilities for choosing policy instruments are unlimited and states should not be limited to only those already known and practicable. “Government” tends to be replaced by “Governance” that shifts the emphasis away from the statute “rule of law” (procedural and linear approach, [55]) to more flexible forms of regulation and implementation that will focus on the attended results and the needs of the stakeholders (citizens, private sector, organizations, etc.). Public governance refers to the formal and informal arrangements that determine how public decisions are adopted, how public authority is exercised, and how public actions are carried out, from the perspective of maintaining a country’s constitutional values, while being more flexible and resilient in the face of changing wicked problems, actors, and challenging environments. Moreover, good public governance describes various normative accounts of how public institutions ought to conduct public affairs and manage public resources for the maximization of citizens’ and other users’ satisfaction. Nowadays, good public governance not only relieson the traditional tools of “steering” and “rowing” through the legislative, executive, and judiciary but also compelled to seriously take into account the voice of all relevant stakeholders through the consultation process that may have a great impact on the formulation of any new policy [67]. Indeed, the model of the “lonely organization” that determines its policy in isolation is obsolete. Equally obsolete is the image of government at the apex of the societal pyramid. Horizontal networks and synergies replace vertical hierarchies, while at the same time, governance entails a move away from traditional hierarchical forms of organization and the adoption of network forms. As such, the traditional distance between the State and civil society becomes less and less obvious and a participatory approach emerges in the way of exercising public power through focus groups, e-forums, e-platforms, and other means that are used for entities to comment on, before the adoption of a new law. In addition, the European Commission has also been a strong proponent of the use of public consultation mechanisms as a best practice to be systematically followed.

It is up to the old institutions to face these new challenges and accommodate their means in a more horizontal, synergistic, accountable, and flexible way of operating in an incrementalism way of dealing with public affairs. The State is thus claimed to be superseded by a “networked polity” where authority is devolved to task-specific institutions with unlimited jurisdictions and intersecting memberships operating at sub- and supra-national levels. This issue becomes urgently important for modern governance and should be further analyzed so as to acquaint governments with a modern and dynamic way of crafting public policies.