Sham Erudition
Jerick Medrano

On The Ambiguity-Conflict Model

I. Woodrowrella
(Had a hard time pronouncing it, huh?)

Once upon a time, there was this man named Woodrow Wilson whom in his essay called “The Study of Administration” argued that implementation and execution, rather than the broad plans of government action is administration. Thus, making administration a separate entity from politics. And from then on, political science students will never be able to live happily ever after!

a poem badly written
Yes it’s a poem and it’s inspired by Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken. Just consider the title because I forgot its contents already.

So, is it my problem
that Wilson wanted them separate?
What if I want them combined?
Would there still be
a discipline called public administration?
I wonder if no one ever came out with that very ambiguous concept.
What if Wilson was not born?
Or what if I were Wilson?
Will people also write stupid fairy talesque tales about me
just like what I did?
Of course I’m not Wilson coz I’m jerick.
Lover of hypotheticals and what if’s.

II. Woodrowrella II: attack of the implementation scholars

Since then, the world was never a wonderful and peaceful place for political science students. (Media Player: But I could have told you Vincent. This world was never meant for one as beautiful as you---Vincent, Don Mclean)(see, even Don Mclean reckons our world is not the appropriate one) Two schools of thought have evolved and developed in analyzing the process of implementation. One is the Top down model wherein policy designers are considered the central actors and concentrate their attention on factors that can be manipulated at the central level. On the other hand, the bottom up model emphasized target groups and service deliverers and argued that policy really is made at the local level, that is by so-called street level administrators. In addition the bottom-up model has two level of implementations namely Macro and micro implementation. The former involves central actors while the latter involves local organization's response to the actions of central actors. Perhaps, it is also important to take note that there are already attempts from other scholars to combine the two models hoping to provide better results.


And the saga continues….
III. Policy Ambiguity

Policy ambiguity in implementation basically stems from ambiguous goals and the ambiguous means of achieving them. Four perspectives in determining the implementation process have been identified and they are as follows:

1. Low policy ambiguity low policy conflict. It means that it is clear who are actors that are supposed to implement a certain program. Here, expertise of actors is required and normative mechanism my apply due the low levels of conflict because of legitimacy that gives an implanting body its authority. Outcomes pf policie sare determined by resources”

2. Low policy ambiguity and high policy conflict. The central principle of this kind of implementation is that the “implementation outcomes are decided by power”
Coercive and/or remunerative mechanisms are required.

3. High policy ambiguity and low policy conflict. Contextual conditions are dominant in this kind of implementation. These conditions mainly are the basis for the assessment of outcomes of the policy. Following that premise, implementation becomes a case to case basis. Here, Means and goals are not clear. It can also be the case where there is a clear goal but there are no definite means to carry it out.

4. High policy ambiguity and high policy conflict. In this set up local level coalition strength determines the outcome of a program. Policies of this type are deliberately made ambiguous to eliminate conflict.


IV. Semi Charmed Life

Honestly, it never occurred to me that those models in analyzing implementation exist. The problem with omniscient people (like me..hahaha) tend to delve into realms too obvious that do not really need analysis. I mean, they (or shall I say, we) enjoy theorizing ostensible peculiarities which appear to them(us) to be pressing issues. It doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t it? I know. See? I know everything.hahahaha!

What I’m trying to say is that there are certain things in life that occur for no extraordinary reasons at all. More often than not, everything just comes out naturally. It reminded me of a short story back in elementary. It is a story about Mr. Ripe and Mr. Raw. Mr. Raw is the kind of guy who tries to explain things in technical terms. Mr. Ripe, on the other hand almost didn’t even give a damn to explain things. His only reply was “it’s only natural.” End of story. (Can’t those implementation scholars be like Mr. Ripe?)

Going back to the two models, the top down and bottom up, indeed there are differences between their underlying premises. Both have points and the fact that they live up to this day but I still hate them. The two models view the same implementation process from different perspectives and both are blind to some important elements in policy implementation. (Hail to those people who wanted to reconcile the differences of the two. However, I have this attitude of stereotyping those people as mediocres and always play safe by not making a stand. The least I want is a clear stance. It’s either black or white and no gray areas please!)

A pyramid (thanks to Sir Doti) best illustrates the concept of the two. As we go toward the top of the pyramid, the smaller the area becomes. The lesser the area the less actors it can accommodate. On the contrary, the base of the pyramid has far greater area than that of the top such that it can accommodate more actors than the top. Rationally, the problem with too many actors is that it is very difficult to reach a consensus. The top, on the other hand has lesser variables and further converges so that a single entity is left. This time the problem will arise if this single entity becomes very authoritative that it deliberately ignores the base. These now results to conflict that if not addressed might cause the pyramid to crumble.

I’ve learned from PS 153 class that policies are purposely vaguely structured to facilitate conflicts that may arise in the future. Aside from it, as far as I remember, according to the late Claro M. Recto it is to prevent a “kamay na bakal” feeling of any laws and policies that may be promulgated in the future. At first I thought it was a very stupid idea that leads to the arbitrariness of the application of law, and it’s the same arbitrariness that I truly abhor. Only to realize that it’s better to leave it that way than to have laws clearly dictating which are doable and which are not.

Better vague than never
(yes, i'm referring to my blog and not to any policies drafted)

Instead of having a full grasp of the mind boggling concepts of the ambiguities of public administration, I only realize that in the quest for knowledge is never an easy task. I thought of giving up, but then again, it’s my last chance to take PS 150 so I can graduate.
Damn! How I wish that Wilson never set his feet on earth nor breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide. I think he is a mutant and I’m not. Are you?

Hello