The Problem

while at the same time calling for a central government to “give more attention to the
problems of local actors to provide them with more resources. Governance is seen as an
essentially political process in which local entities barter according to their personal
interests and purposes (8).
What we have come to today, it is argued, is a consideration of policy making taking
place in networks consisting of various actors (individuals, special-interest groups, public
organizations, private organizations, etc.), none of whom have the individual power to
autonomously determine the strategies of all the other actors. Policy processes are not
viewed as the implementation of ex ante formulated goals, but as an interaction process
in which actors exchange information about problems, preferences and means, and trade
off goals and resources.
Figure 1 illustrates conceptually what this means for our purposes with respect to various
implementation strategies and approaches to public policy. Within this figure,
assessment simply means a contextual understanding of the problem at hand. This does
not entail rote problem definition typical of system analysis perspectives, but simply
making an effort to understand the various interests involved and the ways these interests
interact, cooperate or compete for space in the public policy arena. Focusing entails
gaining an understanding of the resources needed for effective implementation.
Model I in Figure 1, which places an emphasis on the implementation phase of a
program, is most adequately typified by Pressman and Wildavsky’s seminal piece on the
subject (1979). However, such an approach is not suitable to the changes currently taking
place in contemporary public policy. Given the shift towards a network setting and the
changing role of administrators as facilitators, a similar shift in methodological
approaches to policy must also take place. Model II, which places a premium upon the
assessment stage as the primary arena for effective implementation, is a more suitable
approach considering what contemporary public administrators face in their working
environments. And without adequate assessment, implementation, as Pressman and
Wildavsky found nearly twenty years ago, ultimately fails.
7