SYSTEMIC MODEL OF PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION VAN METER VAN HORN / THE POLICY
Implementation Process
Model approach to the implementation of policies formulated by Van Meter and Van Horn called A Model of the Policy Implementation (1975). This implementation process is an abstraction or performance of a policy that basically articulates deliberately done to achieve high performance implementation of policies that took place in the correlations among variables. This model assumes that the implementation of the policy runs linearly from political decisions, and implementer of public policy performance. This model explains that policy performance is influenced by several interrelated variables, these variables are:
1. Standards and targets of policies / measures and policy objectives
2. Resources
3. Characteristics of the implementing organizations
4. The attitude of the implementers
5. Communication between relevant organizations and implementation activities
6. The social environment, economic and political
In detail, the variables of public policy implementation model of Van Meter and Van Horn explained as follows:
1. Standards and targets of policies / measures and policy objectives
Performance of policy implementation can be measured the success rate of measures and policy objectives that are realistic with the existing socio-cultural level policy implementers. When the size and and policy targets are too ideal (utopian), it will be difficult to be realized (Agustino, 2006). Van Meter and Van Horn (in Sulaiman, 1998) proposed to measure the performance of policy implementation must assert specific standards and targets to be achieved by implementing policies, performance appraisal policy is basically a top-level achievement standards and goals.
An understanding of the general purpose of a standard and is an important policy objective. Successful policy implementation, could be a failure (frustated) when the executors (Officials), not fully aware of the standards and policy objectives.Standards and policy objectives have a close relationship with the disposition of the implementers (implementors). The direction of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) to standards and policy objectives is also a "crucial". Implementors might be failing in carrying out the policy, because they refused or did not understand what the objectives of a policy (Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974).
2. Resources
The success of policy implementation depends on the ability to utilize available resources. Humans are the most important resource in determining the success of policy implementation. Each stage requires the implementation of quality human resources appropriate to the work implied by the policies established by apolitical. In addition to human resources, financial resources and time become an important calculation in the successful implementation of the policy. As stated by Derthicks (in Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974) that: "New Town That study suggest the limited supply of federal incentives was a major contributor to the failure of the program."
Van Mater and Van Horn (in Widodo 1974) asserted that:
"The resources policy (policy resources) are not as important as communication.Resource policies must also be available in order to expedite the implementation of a policy administration. These resources consist of funds or other incentives that can facilitate the implementation (implementation) of a policy. Lack of or limited funds or other incentives in policy implementation, is a major contribution to the failure of policy implementation. "
3. Characteristics of the implementing organizations
Focus on executing agent include formal organizations and informal organizations will be involved in policy implementation. This is important because the performance of policy implementation will be strongly influenced by the characteristics of appropriate and compatible with the executing agencies. This relates to the policy context that will be implemented in a number of policies required implementing strict policies and discipline. In other contexts required the executing agent of a democratic and persuasive. Selaian it, scope or area is an important consideration in determining the implementing agency policies.
According to Edward III, 2 (pieces) the main characteristics of bureaucratic structure is the standard work procedures (SOP = Standard Operating Procedures) and fragmentation.
1. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). SOP was developed as an internal response to the limited time and resources from the executive and the desire for uniformity in the workings of complex organizations and to spread. SOPs that are routinely designed for typical situations in the past may mengambat a change in policy because it does not suit the situation or new programs. SOP is very likely impede the implementation of new policies that require new ways of working or new types of personnel to implement the policy. The greater the policy requires changes in routine ways of an organization, the greater the probability that hinder the implementation of SOP (Edward III, 1980).
2. Fragmentation. Fragmentation comes mainly from pressures outside the bureaucracy units, such as legislative committees, interest groups, executive officials, the State constitution and the nature of policies that affect the organization of public bureaucracy. Fragmentation is the spread of responsibility for an area of policy among several organizational units. "Fragmentation is the dispersion of responsibility for a policy area installments Among organizational units." (Edward III, 1980). More and more actors and agencies involved in a particular policy and the increasingly intertwined their decisions, the less likely the success of implementation.Edward said that in general, the more coordination is needed to implement a policy, the less chance to succeed (Edward III, 1980).
4. Communication between relevant organizations and implementation activities
For public policy can be implemented effectively, according to Van Horn and Van Mater (in Widodo 1974) what is the objective standard should be understood by the individual (implementors). Responsible for the achievement of standards and policy objectives, because the standards and objectives must be communicated to the implementers. Communication within the framework of information delivery to the implementers of what became the standard policy and objectives must be consistent and uniform (consistency and uniformity) of various sources of information.
If there is no clarity and consistency and uniformity of standards and policy objectives, then that becomes the standard and difficult policy objectives to be achieved. With clarity, the policy implementers to know what is expected of him and know what to do. In a public organization, the local government for example, communication is often a difficult and complex process. The process of transferring the news down in the organization or from one organization to another organization, and to other communicators, often experience interference (distortion), whether intentional or not. If different sources of communication make interpretations that are not the same (inconsistent) against a standard and goal, or sources of information together provide a full interpretation with conflict (conflicting), then at some time implementing the policy will find an event that is more difficult to implement a policyintensive.
Thus, the prospects for effective policy implementation, is determined by the communication to the executive policy accurately and consistently (accuracy and consistency) (Van Mater and Varn Horn, in Widodo 1974). In addition, coordination is a powerful mechanism in the implementation of the policy. The better the coordination of communication among the parties involved in policy implementation, then the error will be smaller, and vice versa.
5. Disposition or attitude of the implementers
According to the opinion of Van Metter and Van Horn in Augustine (2006): "attitude of acceptance or rejection of the implementing agency policies greatly affect the success or failure of public policy implementation. It is very likely to occur because of the policies implemented is not the product formulation of the local people who know well the problems and issues that they feel. But public policy is usually a very top-down decision-makers may not know can not even touch the needs, desires or problems that must be resolved ".
Their attitude was influenced by pendangannya against a policy and how to see the impact of the policy was against the interests of his organization and his personal interests. Van Mater and Van Horn (1974) explain the disposition of that policy implementation begins filtering (befiltered) in advance through the perceptions of the implementers (implementors) in the limit where the policy was implemented. There are three kinds of response elements that can affect the ability and willingness to implement a policy, among others, consist of first, knowledge (cognition), and to deepen understanding (comprehension and understanding) with the policies, second, whether the response they receive, neutral or reject ( acceptance, neutrality, and rejection), and third, the intensity of the policy.
An understanding of the general purpose of a standard and is an important policy objective. Because, after all that successful policy implementation, could be a failure (frustated) when the executors (Officials), not fully aware of the standards and policy objectives. The direction of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) to standards and policy objectives. The direction of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) to standards and policy objectives is also a "crucial". Implementors might be failing in carrying out the policy, because they reject what the objectives of a policy (Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974).
Conversely, acceptance of the spread and depth of standards and policy objectives of those responsible for implementing the policy, is a great potential to the successful implementation of the policy (Kaufman in Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974). Ultimately, the intensity of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) can affect the executive (performance) policies. Lack of or limited intensity of this disposition, will be able to cause the failure of policy implementation.
6. The social environment, economic and political
The last thing to consider in order to assess the performance of policy implementation is the extent to which the external environment have promoted the success of public policy. The social environment, economy and politics are not conducive to the source of the problem of failure of policy implementation performance. Therefore, the efforts of policy implementation requires a conducive external environment conditions.
The differences in the implementation process will be influenced by the nature of the policies to be implemented. Furthermore, Van Meter and Van Horn offers an approach that tries to link the issue with the implementation of policies and a conceptual model that links policies with policy performance. They assert that the changes, control and compliance action is an important concept in the implementation procedures. By utilizing these concepts, the problems that need to be studied in this connection is
a. Obstacles to what happens in introducing change in organizations
b. How keep the level of effectiveness of control mechanisms at every level of structure, this problem concerns the power of the lowest in the organization concerned.
c. How important is a sense of attachment to each person in the organization (compliance issues).
From this view, the Van Horn and Van Meter made by policy typology:
a. The amount of each change that will occur
b. Range or scope of the agreement on objectives among the parties involved in the implementation process.
The reason put forward this case is that the implementation process will be influenced by the dimensions of such a policy. Another thing that connects them that dikemukan policies and performance are separated by a number of independent variables related. The independent variables are:
Size and policy objectives
b. The sources of policy
c. Communication between organizations
d. The attitude of the implementers
e. Economic environment, social, political.
Implementation Process
Model approach to the implementation of policies formulated by Van Meter and Van Horn called A Model of the Policy Implementation (1975). This implementation process is an abstraction or performance of a policy that basically articulates deliberately done to achieve high performance implementation of policies that took place in the correlations among variables. This model assumes that the implementation of the policy runs linearly from political decisions, and implementer of public policy performance. This model explains that policy performance is influenced by several interrelated variables, these variables are:
1. Standards and targets of policies / measures and policy objectives
2. Resources
3. Characteristics of the implementing organizations
4. The attitude of the implementers
5. Communication between relevant organizations and implementation activities
6. The social environment, economic and political
In detail, the variables of public policy implementation model of Van Meter and Van Horn explained as follows:
1. Standards and targets of policies / measures and policy objectives
Performance of policy implementation can be measured the success rate of measures and policy objectives that are realistic with the existing socio-cultural level policy implementers. When the size and and policy targets are too ideal (utopian), it will be difficult to be realized (Agustino, 2006). Van Meter and Van Horn (in Sulaiman, 1998) proposed to measure the performance of policy implementation must assert specific standards and targets to be achieved by implementing policies, performance appraisal policy is basically a top-level achievement standards and goals.
An understanding of the general purpose of a standard and is an important policy objective. Successful policy implementation, could be a failure (frustated) when the executors (Officials), not fully aware of the standards and policy objectives.Standards and policy objectives have a close relationship with the disposition of the implementers (implementors). The direction of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) to standards and policy objectives is also a "crucial". Implementors might be failing in carrying out the policy, because they refused or did not understand what the objectives of a policy (Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974).
2. Resources
The success of policy implementation depends on the ability to utilize available resources. Humans are the most important resource in determining the success of policy implementation. Each stage requires the implementation of quality human resources appropriate to the work implied by the policies established by apolitical. In addition to human resources, financial resources and time become an important calculation in the successful implementation of the policy. As stated by Derthicks (in Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974) that: "New Town That study suggest the limited supply of federal incentives was a major contributor to the failure of the program."
Van Mater and Van Horn (in Widodo 1974) asserted that:
"The resources policy (policy resources) are not as important as communication.Resource policies must also be available in order to expedite the implementation of a policy administration. These resources consist of funds or other incentives that can facilitate the implementation (implementation) of a policy. Lack of or limited funds or other incentives in policy implementation, is a major contribution to the failure of policy implementation. "
3. Characteristics of the implementing organizations
Focus on executing agent include formal organizations and informal organizations will be involved in policy implementation. This is important because the performance of policy implementation will be strongly influenced by the characteristics of appropriate and compatible with the executing agencies. This relates to the policy context that will be implemented in a number of policies required implementing strict policies and discipline. In other contexts required the executing agent of a democratic and persuasive. Selaian it, scope or area is an important consideration in determining the implementing agency policies.
According to Edward III, 2 (pieces) the main characteristics of bureaucratic structure is the standard work procedures (SOP = Standard Operating Procedures) and fragmentation.
1. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). SOP was developed as an internal response to the limited time and resources from the executive and the desire for uniformity in the workings of complex organizations and to spread. SOPs that are routinely designed for typical situations in the past may mengambat a change in policy because it does not suit the situation or new programs. SOP is very likely impede the implementation of new policies that require new ways of working or new types of personnel to implement the policy. The greater the policy requires changes in routine ways of an organization, the greater the probability that hinder the implementation of SOP (Edward III, 1980).
2. Fragmentation. Fragmentation comes mainly from pressures outside the bureaucracy units, such as legislative committees, interest groups, executive officials, the State constitution and the nature of policies that affect the organization of public bureaucracy. Fragmentation is the spread of responsibility for an area of policy among several organizational units. "Fragmentation is the dispersion of responsibility for a policy area installments Among organizational units." (Edward III, 1980). More and more actors and agencies involved in a particular policy and the increasingly intertwined their decisions, the less likely the success of implementation.Edward said that in general, the more coordination is needed to implement a policy, the less chance to succeed (Edward III, 1980).
4. Communication between relevant organizations and implementation activities
For public policy can be implemented effectively, according to Van Horn and Van Mater (in Widodo 1974) what is the objective standard should be understood by the individual (implementors). Responsible for the achievement of standards and policy objectives, because the standards and objectives must be communicated to the implementers. Communication within the framework of information delivery to the implementers of what became the standard policy and objectives must be consistent and uniform (consistency and uniformity) of various sources of information.
If there is no clarity and consistency and uniformity of standards and policy objectives, then that becomes the standard and difficult policy objectives to be achieved. With clarity, the policy implementers to know what is expected of him and know what to do. In a public organization, the local government for example, communication is often a difficult and complex process. The process of transferring the news down in the organization or from one organization to another organization, and to other communicators, often experience interference (distortion), whether intentional or not. If different sources of communication make interpretations that are not the same (inconsistent) against a standard and goal, or sources of information together provide a full interpretation with conflict (conflicting), then at some time implementing the policy will find an event that is more difficult to implement a policyintensive.
Thus, the prospects for effective policy implementation, is determined by the communication to the executive policy accurately and consistently (accuracy and consistency) (Van Mater and Varn Horn, in Widodo 1974). In addition, coordination is a powerful mechanism in the implementation of the policy. The better the coordination of communication among the parties involved in policy implementation, then the error will be smaller, and vice versa.
5. Disposition or attitude of the implementers
According to the opinion of Van Metter and Van Horn in Augustine (2006): "attitude of acceptance or rejection of the implementing agency policies greatly affect the success or failure of public policy implementation. It is very likely to occur because of the policies implemented is not the product formulation of the local people who know well the problems and issues that they feel. But public policy is usually a very top-down decision-makers may not know can not even touch the needs, desires or problems that must be resolved ".
Their attitude was influenced by pendangannya against a policy and how to see the impact of the policy was against the interests of his organization and his personal interests. Van Mater and Van Horn (1974) explain the disposition of that policy implementation begins filtering (befiltered) in advance through the perceptions of the implementers (implementors) in the limit where the policy was implemented. There are three kinds of response elements that can affect the ability and willingness to implement a policy, among others, consist of first, knowledge (cognition), and to deepen understanding (comprehension and understanding) with the policies, second, whether the response they receive, neutral or reject ( acceptance, neutrality, and rejection), and third, the intensity of the policy.
An understanding of the general purpose of a standard and is an important policy objective. Because, after all that successful policy implementation, could be a failure (frustated) when the executors (Officials), not fully aware of the standards and policy objectives. The direction of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) to standards and policy objectives. The direction of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) to standards and policy objectives is also a "crucial". Implementors might be failing in carrying out the policy, because they reject what the objectives of a policy (Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974).
Conversely, acceptance of the spread and depth of standards and policy objectives of those responsible for implementing the policy, is a great potential to the successful implementation of the policy (Kaufman in Van Mater and Van Horn, 1974). Ultimately, the intensity of the disposition of the implementers (implementors) can affect the executive (performance) policies. Lack of or limited intensity of this disposition, will be able to cause the failure of policy implementation.
6. The social environment, economic and political
The last thing to consider in order to assess the performance of policy implementation is the extent to which the external environment have promoted the success of public policy. The social environment, economy and politics are not conducive to the source of the problem of failure of policy implementation performance. Therefore, the efforts of policy implementation requires a conducive external environment conditions.
The differences in the implementation process will be influenced by the nature of the policies to be implemented. Furthermore, Van Meter and Van Horn offers an approach that tries to link the issue with the implementation of policies and a conceptual model that links policies with policy performance. They assert that the changes, control and compliance action is an important concept in the implementation procedures. By utilizing these concepts, the problems that need to be studied in this connection is
a. Obstacles to what happens in introducing change in organizations
b. How keep the level of effectiveness of control mechanisms at every level of structure, this problem concerns the power of the lowest in the organization concerned.
c. How important is a sense of attachment to each person in the organization (compliance issues).
From this view, the Van Horn and Van Meter made by policy typology:
a. The amount of each change that will occur
b. Range or scope of the agreement on objectives among the parties involved in the implementation process.
The reason put forward this case is that the implementation process will be influenced by the dimensions of such a policy. Another thing that connects them that dikemukan policies and performance are separated by a number of independent variables related. The independent variables are:
Size and policy objectives
b. The sources of policy
c. Communication between organizations
d. The attitude of the implementers
e. Economic environment, social, political.
No comments:
Post a Comment