Policy implementation as a distinct part of the policy process in the recent past has received its own focus within development debates. Attempts to isolate this element of policy in theoretical discussions are seen in writings by Hill (1993), Ham & Hill (1993), Hogwood & Gunn (1993), Hjern & Porter (1993), Minogue (1993) and Sabatier (1993). These writings have arisen out of concerns that implementation has been neglected in theoretical literature (Minogue 1993) despite its perceived importance in the overall policy process.
Policy implementation is an arena where political decisions are constructed into practical actions. It is the administrative or management aspect of the policy process, or the sphere where “decisions are translated into events” (Minogue 1993: 18). At this stage, policy pronouncements are translated into solutions hence failure and/or success would be most visible. The success or failure of policy decisions may not only be a failure at the implementation level, but as Masiza & Mangcu (2001) suggests, these could also be symptoms of poor theo- retical grounding at the design stage.
In Minogue’s (1993) analysis of the discrepancy between theory and practice, he discusses the gap in knowledge between the theoretician and the practitioner. His point of view assumes that policy decisions are made at an upper level, far removed from the reality of the practitioner. The knowledge of the policy maker is theoretical while that of the implementer is based on actual issues and con-
straints. It also implies that those who implement policy have little direct influ- ence on theoretical aspects of policy making. Minogue’s analysis further contra- dicts notions that presume the policy process as cyclical, assuming that informa- tion from practitioners may feed back into the process, and could be used in their revision. His analysis suggests that the policy maker is politically inclined, and strives to deliver certain promises through crafting solutions that remain theoreti- cal until they undergo the actual processes of implementation. Due to the politi- cal nature of his/her mandate, it will not always be desirable to receive critical input, especially in regard to the techniques that he/she proposes as crucial to realizing outcomes. In the end he argues, the policy maker, by virtue of his more powerful position, may overrule the ideas and input from the practitioner. These differences arise out of the separate worlds from which the policy maker and public managers originate, and also because they have different uses for policy. As the policy maker struggles to promote particular techniques in order to reach the desired policy outcome, the public manager may not be so much preoccupied with theoretical orientations and methods that inform the process but rather, how practical and workable the proposals are on site. The tensions that arise out of these discrepancies inherently turn into power struggles, and in the end, he asserts, “power dictates what truth is” (ibid.). The knowledge held by the practi- tioner may be manipulated or discarded, especially if it challenges interests of policy makers. Crosby (1996: 1404) summarizes this by indicating that:
Policy implementers are generally excluded from the process of formulation and policy selection, have little ownership of either the policy or the process, and have minimal control over the diverse resources needed to carry out the policy mandate, lack the appropriate organizational resources and often operate in an environment hostile to the changes man- dated.
The lack of connection between policy makers and implementers seem to be over-emphasized. Where the policy process is understood not to be a one-direc- tional hierarchical process, policy can be revised or reformed especially when it faces implementation hurdles, or when it is considered obsolete. Such revision would be based upon feedback that often emanates, though not always, from implementers themselves.
The implementation arena is wrought by contestation, but it is also a stage at which new ideas come into play, and where technical prescriptions from the policy making stage is advanced, challenged or discarded. Many policy scientists acknowledge the divide between policy decisions and implementation, but the problems are not always attributable to inadequate understanding of reality by those who craft policy. Practitioners are guided by own preferences and personal beliefs as well, and these can affect their understanding, interpretation and execution of policy. Minogue (1993: 21) challenge the views that presume policy to be a state-led process, devoid of influences from other non-powerful apolitical
entities or individual interests along the execution line. They argue, rightly so, that politics exist even within organizations, and individuals in those entities also compete for control of resources and manipulate these processes when it suits them. Therefore, analyses that tend to portray organizations as non-political are narrow, as “the internal world of the organization cannot be isolated from the world external to the organization”.
Earlier studies on policy-making and implementation portrayed the processes as linear and one-directional. Implementation in particular was analyzed as em- ploying either a top down or bottom up approach (Sabatier 2000). The top down approach implied a political process where policy decisions were made in the upper echelon of the political structure. These decisions were in turn channelled to the implementation levels without consideration of local input, perceptions or interpretation. In reverse, the bottom up approach assumed that policy was crafted with ample consideration of local views and perceptions of their pro- blems. Within this view, it was understood that the perspective of a wide range of actors with varied interests in the policy process had been incorporated (Birkland 2005). More recent analyses have discredited these assumptions and argue that implementation processes involve different interests, organizations and different subsystems within them (ibid.). Due to the diversity of the numerous entities, negotiation and bargaining becomes a core characteristic of these processes. Hence Birkland (2005: 188) argues that contrary to the top down or bottom up perspective, “implementation is as much a matter of negotiation and communica- tion as it is a matter of command”.
Hjern & Porter (1993) and Brinkerhoff (1996) reinforce this dimension to the debate while they challenge previous approaches to the study of policy imple- mentation, particularly the methodological challenges explicit in policy analysis. Instead of using the organization or individual actors as a unit of analysis, they advocate the study of implementation structures. This focus acknowledges that across several entities that partake in implementation, there exist clusters of actors. Implementation of policy may involve several different organizations ranging from the private to public, profit and non-profit, and small and large entities. Within each organization, a cluster of actors exists who may create a network with clusters in the other organizations. Combined, they form the imple- mentation structure.
The implementation structure as an alternative administrative unit of analysis, serves to recognize that no single organization is responsible for policy manage- ment, but that the tasks cut across several organizations both public and private. Secondly, the proponents of this method argue that previous strategies focused broadly on the organizational unit and, in the process, neglected information and data from the smaller functional units within the organizations. The role of
informal networking that takes place between these clusters is also ignored and when the focus is almost solely on one organization as the implementing agency as well, external forces that shape the direction of implementation are excluded, resulting in inadequate analysis through loss of data.
Hence the debate on implementation so far tackles three major issues: the divide in knowledge and understanding between the theoretician and practitioner and its consequences, the political and power dynamics in policy making, and the search for appropriate methods of analysis when studying the implementation aspect of policy. Underlying these issues are two distinct assumptions: that implementation is initiated from the top and led by the state. The second as- sumption, although not refuting the state facilitation of the process, seems to disagree with the linearity or the downward movement of policy and recognizes the existence a number of organizations and networks that are not necessarily public, but who also contribute to processes of implementation.
The divide between the policy maker and the policy implementer may exist, but not in a clear, unambiguous way as the literature suggests. There is still inadequate analysis on the extent to which implementers may influence policy making and even policy mending.