Ambiguity, Uncertainty and Implementation

Kristin Taylor,Nathan Jeschke,Stephanie Zarb

doi:10.4000/irpp.1638

Abstract

In policy implementation the roles of ambiguity and uncertainty have been theorized but insufficiently tested. This study contributes to the policy process literature by arguing that ambiguity and uncertainty are two sides of the same coin in implementation. Their effects are linked to the credibility of policy, the clarity of goals, and agency capacity. We analyze ambiguity and uncertainty through the lens of post-disaster policy in local government using primary qualitative data from 22 local government officials across 8 counties and 6 cities that were affected by Hurricane Harvey. We find that the credibility of a policy is evaluated separately from the credibility of the formulator; experience moderates the effects of ambiguity; and uncertainty in implementation has a similar effect as ambiguity and is not lessened with more information. The distinction between the political manipulation of ambiguous circumstances and the rational, technocratic approach to gathering more information to reduce uncertainty may be less clear than previously considered.

Highlights

A fundamental challenge in advancing knowledge of the policy process is understanding the apparent gap between how policy is formulated and implemented (Baier et al, 1986; Matland, 1995; O’Toole, 1995; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973)
There are two common explanations: the first is that ambiguity in formulation allows for political deal making to pave the way for policy change (Herweg et al, 2018); the second is that understanding technical and scientific information in the policy process creates uncertainty that actors must contend with when weighing policy options (Jenkins-Smith et al, 2014; Weible et al, 2009)
We present the analysis of the qualitative data and examine the results on themes of ambiguity and uncertainty

Summary

Introduction

A fundamental challenge in advancing knowledge of the policy process is understanding the apparent gap between how policy is formulated and implemented (Baier et al, 1986; Matland, 1995; O’Toole, 1995; Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973). There are two common explanations: the first is that ambiguity in formulation allows for political deal making to pave the way for policy change (Herweg et al, 2018); the second is that understanding technical and scientific information in the policy process creates uncertainty that actors must contend with when weighing policy options (Jenkins-Smith et al, 2014; Weible et al, 2009). We conceive of ambiguity and uncertainty as cross-cutting concepts in the Multiple Streams Framework (Herweg et al, 2018), the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Jenkins-Smith, Nohrsted, & Weible Sabatier 2014), Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (Jones & Baumgartner, 2012), and policy learning (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2018)

Objectives

Results

Conclusion