For example, Bottery (1998:40),[1] examining the pressures on professionals stemming from new policies in education and health care in Great Britain, cites a teacher arguing that: "The changes have been outrageous, and have produced a culture of meritocracy and high flyers.
Furthermore, a high degree of policy alienation can affect the quality of interactions between professionals and citizens, which may eventually influence the output legitimacy of government.
[10] In an attempt to provide clarity, Seeman broke these meanings down into five alienation dimensions: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation, and self-estrangement.
Many scholars have used these dimensions to devise operational measures for alienation so that they can examine the concept in a range of settings.
The policy alienation framework was conceptualized based on the works of sociologists such as Hegel, Marx, Seeman, and Blauner.
Furthermore, on an operational level professionals can feel powerless when they have to adhere to tight procedures and rules when implementing a policy (see also Lipsky).
This kind of powerlessness may be particularly pronounced in professionals whose expectations of discretion and autonomy contradict notions of bureaucratic control (see also Profession).
For instance, a professional can feel that implementing a policy is meaningless, if it does not deliver any apparent beneficial outcomes for society, such as more safety on the streets.
[13] To make the dimensions more specific, five sub-dimensions were identified: strategic, tactical and operational powerlessness, societal and client meaninglessness.