What is implementation?

Mazmannian and Sabatier (1989), define implementation as;

“The carrying out o f a basic policy decision, usually incorporated within a statute but which can also take the form o f an important executive order or court decision. Ideally that decision identifies the problem(s) to be addressed, stipulates the objective(s) to be pursued, and, in a variety o f ways, ‘structures ’ the implementation process. The process normally runs through a number o f stages beginning with passage o f the basic statue, followed by the policy output o f the implementation agency, the compliance o f target groups with those decisions, the actual impacts - both intended and unintended - o f those out puts, the perceived impacts o f agency decisions and finally important revisions (or attempted revisions) in the basic statue. ”

Implementation simply means to put something or a process into effect according to, or by means of, a definite plan or procedure. In this regard, ‘policy implementation’ can be interpreted to mean ‘putting into effect public policy through an agreed method’. Some scholars of policy implementation have attempted to separate the policy formulation process from the implementation process, dividing them into two distinct processes (Rein and Rabinovitz, 1977; Matland, 1995). They generally regarded policy creation as guidelines from Policy Makers for the implementing agencies to use for administrative purposes (Rein

28

and Rabinovitz, 1977). This view has been greatly discounted by both proponents of the top- down and bottom-up schools o f thought as not being a holistic view o f policy creation and its implementation (O’Toole, 2000).

Implementation and policy creation is viewed as intrinsic to a successful outcome of intended goals. The general consensus between most scholars of implementation is that policy creation and implementation are inherently linked and the policy process does not end when the implementation process commences (Bardach, 1977; McLaughlin, 1975). Bardach (1977) argues that the policy and implementation process is a continuously interacting process. Majone and Wildavsky (1978) advocate that implementing bodies should not have the power o f ability to change the content of policy during implementation. They also advocate that policy and implementation are intrinsically linked, with lessons learnt during implementation used to strengthen the scope and content of policy. Policy creation leads to implementation, however, implementation leads to policy evolution as aims and objectives may change to better accommodate changing needs (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989;

Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984).

The main actors contributing to policy implementation can be divided into three central groups: (Policy Makers), implementing agencies (public or private) and the End Users. The policy-maker perspective involves how efficiently they are controlling the implementing agencies, the result of which is judged by the reaction o f the End Users to the policy (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989). The yard stick used by the Policy Makers is carried out by how well the policy objectives are met and the reasons for success or shortfall in the implementation process.

The main focus of implementation studies is to evaluate how programmes have achieved or not, their policy objectives. The criteria employed can either be focused on the outputs or outcomes of policy. This would usually begin by examining the goals and objectives of the Policy Makers (Van Horn and Van Meter, 1975). These goals and objectives could be defined either by Policy Makers or by the courts ordering action from the Policy Makers. This will set the yard stick for the re-evaluation of goals during the implementation process and at the end of the policy life span (Sabatier, 1986). A cost benefit analysis tool could also be employed where the cost of the programme (and who pays for it) is weighed against benefit to the End Users and achievement of policy objectives. The cost benefit could also be weighed against public sector provision and provision for the same services from the private sector (Hill and Hupe, 2006; Ingram and Mann, 1980).

A secondary focus of implementation analysis could be the output or outcome of policy (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989). Some implementation authors are concerned mainly with how implementation agencies meet the policy objectives of the Policy Makers. This is a highly limited view as some Policy Makers may simply aim to deliver a service with other mitigating factors affecting the service being ignored by the authors. However, most scholars of implementation like Sabatier (1993), Pressman and Wildavsky (1973, 1984), and Bardach (1977) advocate that implementation analysis should encompass both policy objectives, intended and unexpected outcomes and negative consequences of policies implemented.

The public or private agencies on the other hand being used to implement policy will judge the result of the implementation by how well they managed the disruptions from outside Policy Makers to their normal work routines. For example, how the insertion of policy from the Policy Makers aided or disrupted their ability to provide their mandated 30

services have been studied by Mazmanian and Sabatier, (1989); Browning, Marshall and Tab, (1981), and the coping mechanisms developed by street-level bureaucrats (Street level bureaucrats are the agents of government public servants or private contractors tasked with implementing policy and usually interact directly with the End Users) in order to carry out their mandated tasks have been analyzed by Lipsky, (1980) and Winter, (2002).

Finally, the effects on End Users can be considered as the yardstick against which implementation is gauged. The effect felt of the policy implementation on End Users can give a fair idea o f the impact o f the policy (Hill and Hupe, 2006). The first criteria for this group would be if the service was actually delivered to them. The second criteria for evaluating the benefits or disbenefits for this group are to understand what conditions necessitate their need for the policy. For instance, with education policies targeted at the most vulnerable students, what puts the child in this category and is it possible for the child to join the main student body or will the child remain in this group? A positive effect for this group will increase their participation in education, while a negative effect however will achieve reduced or non­

participation (Matland, 1995). The two main focuses for most implementation studies however, have been the Policy Makers and the implementing agencies for the policies, with little or no attention paid to policy recipients (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1989).