How Public Policies Are Implemented: A Comparison of Urban Domestic Waste Classification Policy Implementation Models

(1) Background: Domestic waste classification has become a focal point of urban governance. Existing studies lack inter-case comparisons and ignore the precise path of waste separation policy implementation. (2) Methods: I examined the process of implementing domestic waste separation policies in Shanghai, Tokyo, and Taipei using the Policy Implementation Process Model as an analytical tool. Then, I compared the implementation paths of waste classification policies across cities. (3) Results: I discovered that Shanghai typically uses a mandatory strategy, Tokyo uses a benefit-driven strategy, and Taipei uses an administrative-intervention approach. The government’s mandatory strategy for waste classification policies is heavily reliant on grassroots government mobilization. This mobilization technique, however, does not significantly motivate residents. The benefit-driven strategy encourages pluralistic participation and improves the interaction of various social groups. This strategy, however, must achieve equal cooperation among all participants. The timely exit of the intervention is critical to the effectiveness of the administrative intervention strategy. (4) Conclusions: In analyzing the characteristics of policy implementation, I find that literature is primarily grouped into two perspectives: administrative mobilization and pluralistic participation. This approach appears to imply that these two cannot be harmonized in terms of methodology. I divide the policy implementation process into stages, each of which can be distinguished by administrative mobilization or pluralistic participation. When I consider the entire process, I can see that a given policy implementation process can be characterized by both administrative mobilization and pluralistic participation. My approach allows for the methodological integration of these two key features.