Edward’s government did not know how many workers had died, what wages were actually being paid, or which JPs were corrupt. Modern governments have big data, yet still struggle with policy feedback loops. The medieval lesson: invest in implementation intelligence before legislation.
Consider the Pressman-Wildavsky Oakland Project, which invested $23 million in public works to combat unemployment in a community with an 8.4 percent jobless rate. Despite broad political support and adequate funding, only $3 million had been spent three years later. Pressman and Wildavsky diagnosed the problem as stemming from an excessive number of "decision points" requiring "clearance" by multiple actors—at least 15 different sets of participants, requiring a cumulative total of approximately 70 separate clearances. Even with an unrealistically high 99 percent probability of agreement at each point, the odds of overall success were only about one in two.
Disposition encompasses the willingness, sincerity, honesty, and democratic character of implementers. When implementers are committed to policy goals and share the perspectives of policymakers, implementation proceeds relatively smoothly. When implementers hold different values or perspectives, or when they actively resist the policy, effectiveness suffers greatly. Edward III notes that if communication is poor, implementers exercise their discretion—but if communication is overly detailed, it can damage implementer morale and independence.
This does not mean the bottom-up perspective is irrelevant; rather, Edwards III's model provides a powerful lens for analyzing implementation from the top-down vantage point. Other theorists, such as Mazmanian and Sabatier (who developed a more detailed bottom-up model focusing on problem characteristics, policy characteristics, and environmental factors) offer complementary insights. Some recent work has even attempted to synthesize these approaches using a "policy analysis triangle" that combines the strengths of Edwards III, Grindle, and Mazmanian & Sabatier models into an integrated analytical framework.
Before examining the work itself, it is essential to understand the scholar behind it. George C. Edwards III is University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies Emeritus at Texas A&M University, as well as a Distinguished Fellow at the University of Oxford. A leading authority on the American presidency, he has authored or edited 28 books and approximately 100 articles and essays. His career includes teaching at Tulane University before joining Texas A&M in 1978, and he served as editor of Presidential Studies Quarterly for nearly 25 years.
Edward’s government did not know how many workers had died, what wages were actually being paid, or which JPs were corrupt. Modern governments have big data, yet still struggle with policy feedback loops. The medieval lesson: invest in implementation intelligence before legislation.
Consider the Pressman-Wildavsky Oakland Project, which invested $23 million in public works to combat unemployment in a community with an 8.4 percent jobless rate. Despite broad political support and adequate funding, only $3 million had been spent three years later. Pressman and Wildavsky diagnosed the problem as stemming from an excessive number of "decision points" requiring "clearance" by multiple actors—at least 15 different sets of participants, requiring a cumulative total of approximately 70 separate clearances. Even with an unrealistically high 99 percent probability of agreement at each point, the odds of overall success were only about one in two. implementing public policy edward iii pdf
Disposition encompasses the willingness, sincerity, honesty, and democratic character of implementers. When implementers are committed to policy goals and share the perspectives of policymakers, implementation proceeds relatively smoothly. When implementers hold different values or perspectives, or when they actively resist the policy, effectiveness suffers greatly. Edward III notes that if communication is poor, implementers exercise their discretion—but if communication is overly detailed, it can damage implementer morale and independence. Edward’s government did not know how many workers
This does not mean the bottom-up perspective is irrelevant; rather, Edwards III's model provides a powerful lens for analyzing implementation from the top-down vantage point. Other theorists, such as Mazmanian and Sabatier (who developed a more detailed bottom-up model focusing on problem characteristics, policy characteristics, and environmental factors) offer complementary insights. Some recent work has even attempted to synthesize these approaches using a "policy analysis triangle" that combines the strengths of Edwards III, Grindle, and Mazmanian & Sabatier models into an integrated analytical framework. Even with an unrealistically high 99 percent probability
Before examining the work itself, it is essential to understand the scholar behind it. George C. Edwards III is University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies Emeritus at Texas A&M University, as well as a Distinguished Fellow at the University of Oxford. A leading authority on the American presidency, he has authored or edited 28 books and approximately 100 articles and essays. His career includes teaching at Tulane University before joining Texas A&M in 1978, and he served as editor of Presidential Studies Quarterly for nearly 25 years.
