The birth of implementation studies
Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) traced why a federal job-creation programme in Oakland fell short. They showed the 'complexity of joint action': the more agencies and decision points required, the more small delays and disagreements accumulate into failure. The study broke the assumption that decided policy implements itself and made implementation a field of its own.
Top-down and bottom-up
In the top-down tradition, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980) argued that implementation succeeds given clear objectives, a valid causal theory, adequate resources and authority, committed officials and stakeholder support. The bottom-up approach starts from the field. Lipsky (1980) argued that street-level bureaucrats effectively make policy through discretion; Elmore (1979) proposed 'backward mapping' from concrete front-line behaviour; and Hjern and Porter (1981) took multi-organizational 'implementation structures' as the unit of analysis. Top-down stresses bureaucratic control; bottom-up stresses local adaptation and bargaining.
Synthesis models
Sabatier (1986) compared the approaches and called for combining bottom-up network insights with top-down institutional conditions, work that grew into the advocacy coalition framework. Matland (1995) classified implementation by policy ambiguity and conflict into administrative, political, experimental and symbolic types, arguing that top-down fits low ambiguity and conflict while bottom-up fits high ambiguity. With the multiple streams framework for decision-making, it is a core topic in policy process research.
FAQ
- What are top-down and bottom-up approaches in simple terms?
- Top-down asks whether policy set at the top is carried out properly; bottom-up looks at how front-line officials and citizens actually reshape it.
- Which approach is better?
- Matland argued top-down explains well when goals are clear and conflict low, bottom-up when goals are ambiguous.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press. The book that launched implementation studies.
- Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–560. The classic top-down framework.
- Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616. Proposes backward mapping.
- Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation. Street-level discretion, a bottom-up foundation.
- Hjern, B., & Porter, D. O. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211–227. Implementation structures as a unit of analysis.
- Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48. Critical comparison and synthesis.
- Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. The ambiguity–conflict model.