Understanding implementation

There are three generations of schools of thought with respect to implementation, which are largely derived from studies in the West, that is, the USA and developed

countries in Western Europe. It is important to set these out within this study as they provide insight into assumptions about the implementation process as well as opportunities for greater insight from management studies. The first generation, somewhat aligned with rationalist and functionalist perspectives, sees implementation as a rational and top-down process that happens automatically, in an administrative sense, once the appropriate policies and mandates have been set; the second generation challenges the earlier perspective, and to some degree recognises the complexities of policies and implementation processes, often explaining implementation failure with specific case studies; and the third generation emphasises the use of tools, constructs and models for enhancing the prospects of successful implementation (Brynard, 2005; de Leon and de Leon, 2002).

First generation

Inherent in most understanding of implementation is the assumption that once a policy has been formulated it will be implemented, particularly from the first-generation perspective (Smith, 1973). Yet the reality of policy implementation often suggests the contrary. It is increasingly evident in developing economies that governmental bureaucracies often lack the capacity for implementation. Interest groups, opposition parties, and affected individuals and groups often attempt to influence the implementation of policy rather than the formulation of policy, particularly if policies are largely imposed by external global organisations (ibid).

Policy implementation thus generates tensions between and within components of the implementing process such as idealised policy, implementing organisations and target groups. These tensions result in transaction patterns or modes of

operation which may or may not match the outcomes expected by the policy formulators and which may become crystallised into institutions. Both the transaction patterns and the institutions may generate tensions which, by feedback to the policymakers and implementers, may encourage or hinder further implementation of the policy. Management and those responsible for creating and implementing policies should therefore focus on minimising disruptive tensions which can cause policy outcomes to fall short of expectations (Smith, 1973).

Second generation

Multiple implementation theories have been dominated by a discourse as to whether decision-making is top-down or bottom-up, or a synthesis of the two (Sabatier, 1999). Even in a democracy like the United States, public policy is argued to be a top-down process (Dye, 2001). This means that public policy largely reflects the values, interests and preferences of the governing elite. Even when policy development is separated from implementation, bureaucrats may affect policy in implementation, but ultimately all decisions are monitored to ensure they are not altered significantly (Dye, 2001). The top-down model, rooted in the stagist approach, makes a distinction between formulation and implementation. In the bottom-up model, which places less emphasis on hierarchy, structural relations between actors and agencies provide the basis for understanding policy implementation (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984). This model holds that implementation of policy is highly influenced by ‘street-level bureaucrats’ – front-line staff who can change policies significantly (Lipsky, 1980).

The first-generation understanding of policy implementation is embedded in a top-down model of policy implementation. Although this may arguably apply to the second-generation viewpoint to some degree, the second-generation model better accommodates the complexity and magnitude of the tasks of implementation and change management. Some of the differences between the top-down and bottom-up policy implementation models are reconciled within this school of thought, such as the tensions between the assumptions of government in terms of what ought to be done and how it should be done, conflicting interests, and the need to bargain and compromise (Barrett and Hill, 1981 in Hill, 2005; Matland, 1995). Matland’s approach goes some way toward achieving this by focusing on the importance of ambiguity and conflict for policy implementation and identifying four policy implementation paradigms: low conflict/low ambiguity (administrative implementation), high conflict/low ambiguity (political implementation), high conflict/high ambiguity (symbolic implementation), and low conflict/high ambiguity (experimental implementation).

Third generation

Beyond the top-down and bottom-up understanding of implementation, for some scholars the tools that support implementation are the most pertinent considerations.

In policy studies, the tools for implementation used by policy bodies to achieve policy objectives are metaphorically characterised as carrots, sticks or sermons;

that is, economic or financial incentives, regulative instruments and information (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 2003). An alternative categorisation indicates that to

implement policies, governments use voluntary instruments such as the private market, mixed instruments such as subsides, taxes and user charges, and compulsory instruments such as regulation and direct provision (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003).

Despite the breadth and depth of research into policy and its processes, there is little existing research on how the government might select the appropriate tools to achieve policy objectives and inform all stages of the policy cycle; research into resource intensiveness, targeting, institutional constraints and political risks associated with policy tools is very sparse (Rist, 2003). The complexity of factors involved in the choice of policy instruments, such as prior experience, national policy style and ideology, are also deserving of further enquiry (Howlett, 1991;

Schneider and Sidney, 2009). Studies of change management may potentially contribute information regarding instruments that support particular processes and produce desired outcomes and how these outcomes may be measured.

In summary, the theories and analysis of implementation range from those that argue that the problems of implementation may be due to weak or poor constitutions, statutes, or guidelines that failed to control the actions of agents who mismanaged or abuse their mandates, to those that characterise effective policies as those which permit considerable local on-the-ground autonomy (Elmore, 1981;

Goggin, 1987; Schenider and Sidney, 2009). Whether a top-down, bottom-up or multi-variant approach to policy and its implementation is used, however, there is still a disconnect between policies and the attainment of objectives through implementation and change management.