Top-Down
Top-down approach is known as step down, and is essentially a tinkle down effect of policy. Top down approach starts with the big picture, and breaks down. Top-downers typically start from a policy decision reached at the “top” of the political system and work their way “down” to the implementers. The top-down approach is a clear-cut system of command and control.
This approach has clear and consistent goals, knowledge of pertinent cause and effects, clear hierarchy of authority, rules established at the top and policy is aligned with the rules (Sabatier and Mazmanian). An example of top-down policy or organization would be the United States (US) Military. The US Military has always been a top-down organization, and will unto the future. The US Military structures starts with the President of the United States and then in a hierarchic organization structure all the way down to the recruit.
Top-down approach is the carrying out of a policy decision, by an act, executive order, or a court decision; whereas the authoritative decisions are “centrally located” by actors who seek to produce the “desired effects” (Matland). Top-down approach is motivated by what has been called the “textbook conception of the policy process” (Na- kamura). This approach assumes that the policy may be divided into several phases. Top-down policies do not focus on the whole policy process, but “what happens after a bill becomes a law” (Bardach).
Just like any other policy the top down approach has been criticize. One of the criticisms for the top down approach “fails to consider the significance of actions taken earlier in the policy-making process” (Matland). Matland is discussing the early stages of the top down approach where the legal lang...
... middle of paper ...
...pproach, such as continuing to keep a centrally policy decision to be implemented by lower-level actors. They also took certain parts of the bottom-up approach such as the concept of the fact that local implementers are also actors (Goggin, Bowman, Lester, and O’Toole). Additionally, the outcome of this approach would require a negotiation processes between the local implementers and central authority (Goggin, Bowman, Lester, and O’Toole).
Top-down and bottom-up approaches could be combined if you were dealing with the right type of infrastructure that will allow each other to share and voice their opinions. This approach will not work for businesses and government entity that do not value opinion of the company or agency. If the a combined approach does not work, the business or government entity should look at choosing either the bottom-up or top-down approach.
If there was a problem in a hierarchical structure it would move up through the structure again from one person to another until it gets to where it is supported to be. Strengths of a Hierarchical structure In a hierarchical structure there is a close control of workers. Workers in ASDA will know exactly what they have to do so they don’t wait around until they are told what they have to
Agenda setting is the process that determines appropriate solutions to a certain problem of a given field (Kingdon, 3). The process itself consists of three streams: problems, policies, and politics (Kingdon, 16). These separate streams interact when windows of opportunity are open – solutions are fitted with problems, and the impetus for this relationship is amenable political forces (Kingdon, 20). Prominent agendas are determined by the problem or political streams, while solutions are crafted in in the policy stream (Kingdon, 20). In the field of health care, the agenda setting is based upon the high number of uninsured citizens, the rising cost of medical care, the development of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in response to this issue, and the key players that debate whether governmental involvement is the correct approach in the issue of universal healthcare.
What Jessop purposed as the second approach is a "State in Capitalist Society" approach. This approach is in contrast to the first approach, "capitalist type of society," but both equally rooted in the works of Marx and Engels (Jessop, 2008). For example, one of the works of Marx and Engels who became grounding of the first approach is The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; and the second approach based on The German Ideology (Jessop, 2013, p. 16-17).
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix for the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South it did not help in preventing the civil war.
The authoritarian style of leadership for many may seem harsh and extremely cut and dry. However that is not the case. For some people the best way to function is to create a system that works best for their planning ideas and methods. The Authoritarian style of leadership is the best method in this scenario. It allows one to plan in great detail how a scenario should play out and what each person involved should to do to meet the end goal. Perhaps because of the word authoritarian it seems
There is a minimum of leader participation. A leader using this style may seem to be apathetic. Because the style is based on non-interference, a clear decision may never be formulated. The laissez-faire style results in a decision, conscious or otherwise, to avoid interference and let events take their own course. The leader is either permissive and fosters freedom or is inept at guiding a group. Followers may need greater structure than the leader gives them. Despite its potential drawbacks, this style has advantages when used with groups of fully independent care providers or professional working together (Huber
Secondly the reforms must satisfy everyone who would be affected by any new changes, may it be individuals, departments, states, insurance companies, citizens or the government. Thing which will be beneficial to all the concerned, involved will bring the best outcome of the efforts. It’s always difficult to agree upon one rule for all, like studies conducted by RAND Health Insurance Experiment showed that people tend to reject even basic health care, if prices of health care are increasing. So any reform must be effective in quality as well as in
The policy process is a long process that involves many steps and participants from the federal government, state government and local governments. All three levels of government deal with issues related to crime. Once the issues have been addressed and the policy has been created the policy then governs the criminal justice system. Some of the roles of the federal and state governments are similar and others differ yet they all share a common goal, to better the criminal justice system.
The bottom layer would follow the guideline so they can achieve the company objectives. The group structure is Chairman Board of Directors Group of Executives Board of Management Group of General Management The main departments within the group are: Administration Division Business Division Customer Support Division Network Development Division Production Services Division R&D Department Finance Department Human Resources Each division has managers for supervision. The staff in each division needs to follow the managersÂ’ decision. Every member of staff clearly understands their role and responsibility under the hierarchical structure. It is because each layer gets different responsibilities.
Catalytic government (steering rather than rowing) is the role of government and management where they are to be proactive and innovative, not reactive and traditional. Instead of dealing with issues as they arise, governments are encourages to be catalytic. In order to help with governing and managing tasks, they should find new and creative ways to achieve public goals. They should deal with issues and problems by thinking outside the box and beyond standard action, thus finding new and better ways to address the matters. Their first action should be to “steer” rather than “row.” Instead of hav...
Corduneanu-Huci, Cristina,; Alexander Hamilton and Issel Masses Ferrer (2012) Understanding Policy Change: How to Apply Political Economy Concepts in Practice. The World Bank: Washington DC
This Approach was developed by J. P. Dunlop of Harvard University in 1958. This approach, involves individuals who a part of a continuing independent social system. The behavior, actions, and roles of individuals are based on the culture within. There are three elements the systematic approach, they are; input, process and output. Society and institutions within this society creates the system which influences the process, which then determines the outcome or response of the individuals. This theory is based on the idea that individuals are shaped by society and societal factors (Humanresource.com).
...ee BOP in policy, status, symbol or system. The BOP is intellectually closely related to the idea of raison d’état (Staatsräson), an idea that belongs to the intellectual heritage of a Machiavelli, Hobbes or Friedrich Meinecke. Statesmen assumed the existence of objective power relationships in the international system out of which they could derive their ideal strategy to promote the individual national interest of their own state. This means they had to strategically anticipate the decisions of their enemies concerning armaments, alliance policies, and preventive military actions and so on. Statesmen thought in a systemic way. Their decisions, classical BOP theory assumes, are influenced by external developments more than by internal processes. (Representatives of Neoclassical Realism (NCR) and liberal approaches to IR disagree in this respect to various degrees).
1. The purpose of this response is to assert the active role of public managers in policy making. By using their technical, analytical and managerial skills public managers can be effective in the policy process and just in implementation.
It aims towards economic principles and to apply these principles in decision making while administration is fixated on the structural principles and policy implementation. Public administration centres on the procedures within an institute and they see everyone as being detached and professional in the workplace. Public administrative theories also emphasise that these organizations have a bureaucratic structure. The separation between public administration and public choice arise in a hypothetical field. Their concepts vary greatly in many features of procedures.