Labels: toxic
(Ambiguity-Conflict Model)
FEBBIE ANNE D.J. FLORES
I’m the least favorite of the gods up above no doubt, since I never hide the fact that I am an extraordinarily gorgeous demi-goddess condemned to take a mortal existence, by virtue of sheer beauty, till the day I succumb to their irrevocable wrath. One fateful day I never realized that the prelude to that heavenly rage will downright manifest itself. Destiny is to blame, not to mention arbitrary ESP. I’ve been silently chanting my “I’m-gonna-get-the-easiest-part” incantation in my head for nth times so that my unblemished fingers will pick the part I desire. But it was a failure. I was hoaxed. A relentlessly treacherous vengeance. This demi-goddess’ lethargic outburst, “Wow nice”, a smart retort I’ve learned from Migs’ (the equally irreproachable and gorgeous demi-god Michael Adrid) 3-year old nephew. (My version of textual hors d’oeuvre to prevent intellectual breakdown and indigestion (at least for myself). Or maybe otherwise. Just kidding *wink*)
Now back to the regular programming….
Jeux d’Enfants*
Public administration is not just a child’s game, especially policy implementation. The executive department cannot just say “Cap ou pas cap?”** to the legislative and plunge into an on-the-edge decision here and there. In reality, primacy is given over systematic policy planning by the public sector to avert disarray in the topsy-turvy world of public administration. Thus some brave (not to mention bored) souls had managed to categorized and suggested implementation process models, which are ingeniously labeled as top- down and bottom- up. Though sounded like some sort of school recess game, both schools of thought are beyond serious on their agendas. The former asserts the role of central actors in purveying policies which offers emanate from the central level. Hence the decision in this level are said to be administrative in nature, given the hierarchical position of the actors in the central level. The latter, on the other hand, gives the burden of policy implementation to the sub- level of the bureaucracy and by focusing instead to microcosm parts of the work itself.
Though highly regarded before in the field of public administration, these two had been though of as some sort of jeux d’enfants by its critics.
Top- down model, for starters, had somehow neglected the importance of policy making actions. Missing any of these vital actions could result to misleading which had resulted to focusing more on the broader perspective of public policy implementation. In addition to these, top- down concept is criticized for being merely administrative in nature; saying that the political aspect of processes is disregarded. Finally top- down perspective fails to consider the effort or the role of the personnel of in the microlevel.
Criticism regarding the bottom- up perspective manifest themselves in two ways. First is that it gives high emphasis to the local level. The second criticism is the derivative of the first. It asserts that actors in the local sphere is not accounted to the electorate and thus decentralization might actually occur. Geez. The more I think of this ludicrous jeux d’enfants the more I am convinced that I will settle to extremely exciting hopscotch instead.
Love Actually
Yes, love is possible. Even an illicit love affair with Jude Law or Ryan Agoncillo IS POSSIBLE. And marriage is not just an illusion guiltily enjoyed by a naïve girl from the suburbs.
Ambiguity- conflict model is the lovechild of Policy Conflict (PC) and Policy Ambiguity (PA), the primary factors defining the stated schools of thought above. The individual models could no longer support the occurrences bureaucratic policy execution because in reality, both actually are overlapping. The union of the two policies is then said to be a love affair tested by time and forged by ideology blossomed in the realm of public administration. Gender is irrelevant *wink*. But first, we should learn in a nutshell what our lovebirds (ambiguity of goal and ambiguity of means) are. Disparity of ideas between and among organization creates policy conflict. Policy ambiguity, on the other hand, is categorized into ambiguity of goal and ambiguity of means. As the name implies, ambiguity of goal is basically the ambiguity on the goal which leads to misunderstanding and implementation failure. The absence of technology necessary to reach a certain goal is ambiguity of means.
The birth of ambiguity-conflict model produces as well four sub-models under its wing.
administrative implementation (low PA & low PC)
- “outcomes are determined by resources”
political implementation (low PA & High PC)
-“implementation outcomes are decided by power”
experimental implementation (high PA & low PC)
-“contextual conditions dominate the process”
symbolic implementation (high PA & high PC)
-“coalitional strength”
Administrative implementation is follows the Weberian paradigm by which hierarchy is foremost and the legitimate actors hold the power of purveying information and resources, and sanctioning. Decision emanates from the higher echelon of the bureaucracy, going to the lower level of the organization.
Political implementation is somehow entrenched to the definite goal of the given actors. The stern nature of these policies and goals are emanated from the powers of the actors who formulate them. Unfortunately, the very definitiveness of the goals created also clashes among themselves.
Problematic technological sources preferential constraint defines experimental implementation. Technology is actually important in realizing the said policies, hence lack of this will surely impend the very process itself.
Lastly is symbolic implementation serves as a confirmation program of the new existing goal. Also, it reaffirms the existing values and principles.
Gone were the days when dating takes 10 hours, excluded of the “zzzzzz time” when your not- so- hot date is an extreme dork (its ok if he’s dork, as long as he’s as hoootttt as Gael Garcia Bernal or an eye-candy like Gael Garcia Bernal *wink*). Gone were the days as well when bureaucrats categorically call themselves, with regard to policy implementation tactics that is, as top- downers and bottom- uppers.
Through time, things ultimately change; so as reality in every aspect of life, including in the bureaucracy. Ambiguity-conflict model is helpful in establishing the means by which the Philippine bureaucracy implements policies. Not only it is systematic, it is also more organized and well- categorized, as compared to the previous presented models. Scrutinizing the policy implementation process of ambiguity-conflict model, one could assess that the Philippine public sector is implement policies and carry out employing the four aforementioned implementation processes. In the purpose of this sublime literary work *wink*, the demi- goddess decided to further delve more on the administrative implementation.
The last time I check this still a democratic country, and bureaucrats are still elected (in an archaic manner that is) democratically or appointed by those who are elected democratically. Hence these people are actually holds the legitimacy to carry out legitimate decisions and orders. As stated by administrative implementation, legitimacy of the authority giving the commands should be taken for consideration. There is low policy ambiguity and low policy conflict, which my I supposed is a superb policy implementation combo.
Administrative implementation adheres to the “chain of command” concept by which decisions from the higher echelon purveys to the sub-levels should be followed definitely without any opposition whatsoever. In the processes of our public sector, it is evident that the central body of the particular public office creates the decision and also demand for implementation to its personnel. An example of which are the Presidential Proclamations emanated from the Office of the President, say PP 1017 or the Declaration of the National State of Emergency. In practice, these proclamations are expected to be carried through the subordinates, who are expected to execute them without any objection. The very obedience of the subordinates only attests the legitimacy of the person proclaimed the Eos, who in our case, the President (or the political monarch if you may). Thus, on the time the 1017 was proclaims, no one under the chain of command was able to oppose the realization of this. That is if the subordinates accept the legitimacy of the individual who gave that said order.
Unfortunately, in the circumstances apparent in the bureaucracy today, there is a palpable question to the legitimacy of some government officials and appointees. Not to mention that the constitutionality of the decisions made by these people is even deemed dubious, as what happened to PP 1017. Thus these decisions are prone to inquisition and questioning by those who condemn their legitimacy and even the legitimacy of the decisions themselves. Unfortunately this somehow slows down the natural flow of decision-making and could later jeopardize the process itself, which could be very much unproductive. Aside from procedural impediment, this creates even more upheaval to inside and outside the bureaucracy.
However, if “legitimacy” defined here is the position itself and not the legality of the acquisition of the post, the doubt on their implementation policies of the given central actors will somehow takes the backseat. We free- minded demi-gods and demi- goddesses may take this as some sort of a blind obedience to a pseudo- goddess (unlike me of course *wink*), but reality does bite, not to mention stinks big time. In the world were idealism is a sort of a heroic concept, the Lelainas (Winona Ryder in Reality Bites *wink*) of public administration world will really lose their head, not to mention unexpected shrugging off of a picture perfect of concept “reality”. No matter how many policy implementations there is, the fact still remains that none of these are categorically ideal. These implementation processes are just in the disposal of us demi- gods to aide us in further understanding the implementation and decision- making processes in the topsy-turvy reality of Public Administration.
End of dillusion….
*child’s game
**dare or no dare?
pebi talking in gibberish again around 7:17 AM
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
<$BlogCommentBody$>
