Implications Of Implementation: A Case Study Of Economic Development Agnacy (Eda) In The Us

Implementation is one of the crucial stages of publicHealth, Education, and Welfare was forcing for
policy process which has been defined by Hill, Michaelincreased funding for its established skill centre.
and Hupe, Peter (2002: 3) as “to carry out,There were 30 decision points identified by the authors
accomplish, fulfill, produce, complete.” Pressman andwho stress that there was a time at which one or
Wildavsky (1984) contend that policy andmore participants had to reach agreement before the
implementation are so much interrelated that the twoproject proceeded. For this purpose, 70 agreements
stages are very difficult to separate completely; as,were needed by various stakeholders. Hence the
“a verb like ‘implement’ must have an objectauthors concluded that if the probability of agreement
like ‘policy’.” (Hill & Hupe 2002: 4). Apart format each clearance point were 0.99, the probability of
the approaches used for the study of implementation,success of the whole project would be less than 50%.
the objective is to implement what is being plannedIt the probability of agreement was only 0.09 at each
and their outcomes tell us about the results andclearance point, then the probability of success would
whether the set goals are achieved or not. On thisdrop to barely one percent (p. 108). The authors
basis, the success or failure of any policy can becontend that to minimize the chances of delay and
judged.divergence of interests, the “essential policy
A case study of Economic Development Agencyproblem is how to provide incentives to change low to
(EDA) initiated in 1966 with $23 million, Jeffery L.high intensity or more accurately, how to maintain high
Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky (1984) provide apositive intensity through the lengthy delays” (p. 120).
critical account of the study of implementation and theThey also discussed the change of intensity of
challenges faced by this program and the underlyingcommitment by pointing the change of officials at
causes of the failure of this program. EDA was andifferent stages, as for instance, Foley was a very
agency established by the Congress which aimed atpassionate about the program who was replaced (due
providing employment opportunities to minorities in cities.to his resignation) by officials who had far less intensity
However, Oakland was chosen as experiment inof commitment to the project. Linking policy formulation
showing how the provision of public works and buildingwith implementation is important for the successful
loans can provide incentives for employers to hireimplementation without delays; “although those who
minorities (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: xx). Thedesign programs might not generally enjoy the less
project aimed at creating 3000 jobs for theexciting work of directing their implementation, a
Oakland’s Black-American minority basically.realization of the extent to which policy depends on
Although there was a high sense of urgency at theimplementation could lead such people to alter their
beginning of the project, but sooner, the doubts aboutown time perspectives and stay around for the
the success of the program became evident.technical details of executing a program”
Eugene Foley, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce(Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: 146). By explaining the
for Economic Development, was the early initiator ofreason for delay, they argue that consensus between
the program who wished to initiate “a massiveseveral decision makers is difficult to achieve due the
experiment in solving the principle urban problem,bargaining between administrators and stakeholders.
unemployment” in Oakland (Pressman & WildavskyThe problem is not the “no” at any decision point
1984: 2). He believed that the huge injection of neededby the decision makers, but the challenge is achieve
funds ($23 million) was the most important componentthe “yes” of several actors.
for the success of the project (though he resigned inThe writers also contend that “the use of
1966). After examining the “torturous course of theresources is a direct function of intensity of
program”, Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) havepreference” (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984: 117).
given the account of frustrations of the programThe desired outcome is easy to achieve if the intensity
characterized by underlying reasons adding toto achieve the outcomes is high and vis-à-vis.
frustrations and the “difficulties of translating broadPressman and Wildavsky (1984) also spoke about the
agreement into specific decisions, given a wide rangeimportance of bureaucracy is to ensure a “high
of participants and perspectives” (p. 6), blockageprobability that each and every actor will
and delay, underlying economic theories etc. thecooperate” (p. 132). Similarity of goals and
authors point towards these “technical details”objectives is very imperative. By coordination, the
of the project which had to be worked out closely forauthors mean that it is about the “ability to enforce
the effective implementation of the project.agreements on employers when you are unable to do
One of the characteristics of the program’sso; compelling federal agencies and their component
requirements was the compulsion for employersparts to act in a desired manner at the right time, when
wishing to receive EDA business loan to draw up anachieving this purpose is precisely what you can not
employment plan specifying how these companiesdo” (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: 134).
would hire the long term unemployed Black residentsIn essence, EDA’s Oakland project, which was
of Oakland. For this purpose the EDA was required tobasically an urban development agency, has shown
work in collaboration with other local, state and federalthat “implementation should not be divorced from
agencies for creating training program. This added topolicy” (Pressman & Wildavsky 1984: 143). The
the complexity of joint agreement between broadEDA project was initially seen as not very complex; as
number of actors who further diverge in mutualall the goals were set and funds committed but the
consensus, sense of urgency and levels of priority.complexity and multiplicity of several actors, agencies,
This accounted for the unanticipated consequencesbureaucracy, firms, and other stakeholders had added
which interfere with effective implementation.to the complexity, delay and failure of the project.
Pressman and Wildavsky noted that “whenHence, the major problem is to make implementation
perspectives differ, so also do measure ofproblems as part of initial policy formulation process.
success” (p. 98). As for instance, the job creation“Implementation must not be conceived as a
for blacks was the main goal and criteria of successprocess that takes place after, and independent of, the
for the original EDA leaders, while the criteria wasdesign of policy” (Pressman and Wildavsky 1974:
different for other participants of the program; the143).
expansion of its facilities was the main objective of theReference:
Port of Oakland; on the other hand the Department ofPressman, L.