There are many differing reasons as to why policy implementation can cause so many unintended outcomes. Baum suggested that an unintended outcome of implementing policy is the opposition that a policy may face from targeted groups (50). This essay will seek to explore the theme of unintended outcomes during the implementation process. There will be an examination of works produced by Baum, Garson, Mazmanian and Sabatier and Secret to explore why the implementation of policies can produce so many unintended outcomes.
In order to tackle with the problem of opposition to the unintended outcome of implementing policies, Mazmanian and Sabatier proposed that more regulations should be imposed to prevent opposition from occurring (35). However, the problem with this unintended outcome is that it leads to regulations strangling policies which only harms the effectiveness of certain policies. Mazmanian and Sabatier also realized that the unintended outcome of imposing regulations means more red tape that can harm the effectiveness of a program (35). Mazmanian and Sabatier suggested that differences in discrepancy between statutory objectives and policy decisions can be reduced if the statute introduces unambiguous objectives, delegates implementation of certain policies to sympathetic agencies and provides resources and incentives to overcome opposition, particularly financial opposition to certain polices (35). This would certainly be an effective way to reduce the amount of unintended outcomes in implementing policies as it helps speed up the process. Non-compliance can lead to further unintended outcomes for the implementation of certain policies, which is why Mazmanian and Sabatier suggested that police-power programs need to be supplemented by the allocation of side-payments in cases of civil disobedience towards certain policies (37). This shows how difficult it is to enforce policies when they are not welcomed by people. There will always be opposition politicians who will find certain ways to ‘fix’ legislation, but Mazmanian and Sabatier implied that if a certain policy has been successful over the course of ten to fifteen years, no politician would dare try to ‘fix’ popular legislation, which deals with the unintended outcome of wholescale opposition to a certain policy (37). Over time, popular policies will always stand the test of time and it would be a significant mistake for any politician to try and amend them at the risk of losing an election.
There are many more barriers that prevent a successful outcome of policy which produces many other types of unintended consequences. Garson realized that many of the unintended outcomes of implementing policy include the resistance of agencies to certain policies, vested interests in current programs and the bias to show positive impact will cause policy analysis to move away from casual theory (16). Agencies will always act as a significant barrier to implementing policies and that is why it is important to try and reduce the opposition they show towards policies. Therefore, Garson proposed that there should be six dimensions allocated to the successful provision of implementation to prevent many further unintended outcomes (18). Garson suggested that the procedure of policy should be designated to rational or charismatic figures; there should be an application of finer distinctions between the levels of responsibility during the implementation process e.g. appointed and career; function, whereby policy is implemented along the traditional lines of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and/or budgeting (POSDCRB) or through a three-level functional typology that includes system capabilities, conversion functions and system maintenance (18). Other solutions Garson proposed included: a rough sequence of stages and by analyzing the context of certain policies to prevent further unintended outcomes by analyzing historical or comparative analyses, or the economic and cultural context of policies (18). These solutions that Garson proposed would be very effective in reducing the amount of unintended outcomes as it would ensure that policies are implemented quickly due to the reduction of barriers that prevent policies from being implemented.
Baum argued that further unintended outcomes of implementing policies include the lack of clarity in interpreting legislation among the legislature and the judiciary, which leads to appellate courts taking special efforts to reduce vagueness in implanting policies (50). This includes the Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) case, in which the Supreme Court laid down rules for police interrogation, and Roe vs. Wade (1973), whereby the Supreme Court had to indicate the scope of permissible state regulations of abortion during each trimester (Baum 50). Appellate courts can certainly be very effective as power is devolved to them to enforce certain policies and they have the freedom to interpret them. Baum suggested that the problem with legislators is that they are limited in their capacity to monitor the implementation process and that they have little time to do so, which is what leads to so many unintended outcomes such as schools disobeying legislators when they try to remove school practices (55). Legislators have numerous different priorities and that is why it would be more effective to trust appellate courts as they can issue consequences for disobeying legislation. Baum proposed that the most effective way to deal with the unintended outcome of disobedience towards policy implementation is to introduce sanctions for appellate courts to deal with case of civil disobedience (55). Some of these powers include prison sentences and fines which is why so many schools can continue with practices that have been outlawed by the legislature (Baum 55). These powers could be very effective in ensuring that there is compliance towards legislation at a local level.
Appellate courts do not always conduct themselves properly, as shown during the nine-year battle to house four thousand people with mental illnesses, as the lower court believed that the current law sought to ‘warehouse’ patients that contradicted the Disabilities Act (Mosi, “Court Upends 9-Year Fight on Housing Mentally Ill”). This proves at times that appellate courts can cause problems rather than effectively enforce legislation. Because the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled out transferring mentally ill patients from institutional homes back to their own homes and apartments, the long-term implications for the mental health care system remain unclear (Mosi, “Court Upends 9-Year Fight on Housing Mentally Ill”). Rather than helping the legal process, courts can effectively throw into question the difficulties behind certain legislation. Essentially, as Mosi suggested, the decision has caused the legal process to start all over again, which has led to Cliff Zucker, the chief executive of Disability Advocates, to try and reach a settlement with the authorities (“Court Upends 9-Year Fight on Housing Mentally Ill”). Therefore, whilst it is more effective to trust appellate courts at a local level, many of their decisions can delay the legal process in enforcing legislation.
In conclusion, there remain many unintended outcomes in terms of implementing policy. These include the lack of sanctions that causes legislation to be ignored by many different bodies. There are many effective ways to reduce the amount of unintended outcomes in policy implementation. For example, entrusting appellate courts to enforce policies at a local level. But even they do not always interpret legislation effectively in certain cases. There will always be unintended outcomes in policy implementation no matter how many solutions are implemented to prevent them from occurring.
Works cited
Baum, Lawrence. “Comparing the Implementation of Legislative and Judicial Policies.” Effecitve Policy Implementation. Eds. Daniel A. Mazmanian & Paul A. Sabatier. Lanham: Lexington Books, 1981. 39-61. Print.
Garson, David. “From Policy Science to Policy Analysis: A Quarter Century of Progress.” Policy Analysis: Perspectives, Concepts and Methods. Ed. W.N. Dunn. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1986. 3-22. Print.
Mazmanian, Daniel A. & Paul A. Sabatier. Implementation of Public Policy. Illinois: Scott Foresman, 1983. Print.
Mosi, Secret. “Court Upends 9-Year Fight on Housing Mentally Ill.” The New York Times website. The New York Times, 6 April 2012. Web. 29 February 2016.
