Harald Sætren

Implementation and ambiguity

Abstract Studies of implementation have established two conspicuous things: First, policies can make a difference. Bureaucracies often respond to policy changes by changing administrative actions. Second, policy as implemented often seems different from policy as adopted. Organizational actions are not completely predictable from policy directives. Efforts to tighten the connection between policy and administration have, for the most part, emphasized ways of augmenting the competence and reliability of bureaucracies, of making them more faithful executors of policy directives. Alternatively, they look for ways of making policy makers more sophisticated about bureaucratic limitations. Such recommendations, however, assume that policies either are clear or can be made so arbitrarily. By describing discrepancies between adopted policies and implemented policies as problems of implementation, students of policy making obscure the extent to which ambiguity is important to policy making and encourage misunderstanding of the processes of policy formation and administration.

Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research: An empirical assessment

A comprehensive literature review a few years ago found, contrary to a commonly held belief, research on public policy implementation to be still alive and have developed further well into the 21st century in quantitative terms. We pursue this line of inquiry by asking whether this conclusion also applies to progress in qualitative terms. All articles published in core journals in political science, public administration/management and public policy under the label implementation or implementing were used to investigate this research question. Key defining features of the plea for a more rigorous third generation research paradigm was used as benchmark to measure progress or lack thereof in the policy implementation literature over more than four decades of research. Our investigation basically supports conclusions from more intuitively based earlier state-of-the-art reviews: (1) policy implementation research has reached a relatively mature stage of development, (2) more progress has been achieved on methodological than theoretical fronts and (3) this field of study progressed fairly rapidly through two previous generations of research, coinciding roughly with the 1970s and 1980s with some assumed characteristics while progress since 1990 has been much slower and more incremental. The latter fact can probably best be explained by the very demanding nature of the third generation research paradigm itself and some inherent tensions and contradictions between its defining features. Our contribution in this respect is that we have been able to provide more detailed and nuanced information about exactly where progress has been achieved and when as well as where it is still lagging.A comprehensive literature review a few years ago found, contrary to a commonly held belief, research on public policy implementation to be still alive and have developed further well into the 21st century in quantitative terms. We pursue this line of inquiry by asking whether this conclusion also applies to progress in qualitative terms. All articles published in core journals in political science, public administration/management and public policy under the label implementation or implementing were used to investigate this research question. Key defining features of the plea for a more rigorous third generation research paradigm was used as benchmark to measure progress or lack thereof in the policy implementation literature over more than four decades of research. Our investigation basically supports conclusions from more intuitively based earlier state-of-the-art reviews: (1) policy implementation research has reached a relatively mature stage of development, (2) more progress has been achieved on met...

Comparative Implementation Research: Directions and Dualities

Abstract The study of policy implementation developed steadily and considerably in the 1970s and 1980s through two generations of research. Since then progress towards a more rigorous scientific “third generation research paradigm”, assumed to be crucial for further theoretical development, has been much slower and more uneven. Comparative studies figure prominently in this respect. On one hand they are strongly encouraged but on the other they are difficult to conduct according to best practice advice in the textbooks. Comparative implementation research is the theme of this special issue. In this Introduction the articles included are presented, focusing on how they deal with some of the issues posed by the norms of a rigorous “third generation” approach. Reasons for the state of affairs in implementation research are discussed. Some inherent dualities and tensions in contemporary comparative implementation research are identified as particular challenges.

Tales From the Crypt The Rise and Fall (and Rebirth?) of Policy Design—A Rejoinder

This rejoinder challenges and refutes the alarming decline thesis posited by Howlett and Lejano in their Disputatio article in this journal in 2012. Using their own data Source - JSTOR - updated to 2009 and search term “policy design” as well as the more comprehensive Social Science Citation Index in terms of journal coverage and supplementary search terms ‘policy instrument’s and ‘policy tool’s we clearly demonstrate that policy design research instead of languishing has continued to flourish in all academic fields during the late 2000’ and early 2010’s at an exponential rate never observed before.

Policy Implementation in an Age of Governance

Four main findings stand out in this state-of-the-art analysis of policy implementation research. First, after a sudden rise in research interest and publications on this topic since the early 1970s up to the mid–late 1980s, scholarly interest stagnated and declined until the late 1990s and beginning of the new century. Then research publications started to rebound to an unprecedented new high level. Second, during these five decades or so, research on this topic has made great progress towards a ‘third generation’ research paradigm. The latter implies the application of more rigorous scientific research designs and methodologies. Third, advances towards a more parsimonious theory of policy implementation that motivated the call for a third-generation research design has been less than one could hope for. Finally, a major shift in regional focus and origin of implementation research away from North America towards Europe and other regions has taken place especially during the last decade.

Crucial Factors in Implementing Radical Policy Change: A Comparative Longitudinal Study of Nordic Central Agency Relocation Programs

Abstract Why do public policies succeed or fail? The aim of this article is to contribute to answering this enduring research question in policy research through a comparative study of the variable efforts by Nordic governments to relocate their central agencies from the capital regions over a period of several decades. This was a radical redistributive policy program premised on a policy instrument – coercion – which was very alien to political systems characterized as consensual democracies. Hence, it is no surprise that only two out of seven relocation programs of any substance were successful. The really intriguing research question here is how any relocation program was achievable at all in a policy context where this was very unlikely. A broadly based multi-theoretical analytical framework linking interest groups, institutions, human agency in the form of policy entrepreneurship/design and situational factors is employed to solve this research puzzle. Findings from this study offer important contributions to the following research fields: comparative public policy, radical policy change and most specifically the so-called third generation of public policy implementation research.

The Politics of Policy Design and Implementation: A Comparative Study of Two Belgian Service Voucher Programs

Abstract When two policy programs, identical in many important respects, are implemented in the same national context, similar program results would be expected. If this is not the case, an explanation is needed. In this article two Belgian voucher programs are compared: one for household services and one for childcare services. The first program was termed a success while the latter was abandoned after disappointing results. Ideological differences between policy makers at cabinet level are identified as the most crucial factor explaining the contrasting results of the two programs. The failure of the childcare voucher scheme was due to its deeply flawed policy program design, particularly with respect to the implementing structure as well as the needs and demands of the designated target group. This comparative study confirms the usefulness and validity of two well-known theoretical constructs: an integrated implementation model and related statutory coherence thesis. The necessity of more attention to the potential influence of higher-level political-institutional factors and the dynamic interaction between policy formulation/design and policy implementation is one important lesson for contemporary implementation research. Another is that policy instruments per se do not determine policy results. Their role can only be fruitfully analyzed and explained in the context where they are selected and applied.

Public Policy in Practice

The main purpose of the Permanent Study Group (PSG) is to develop and strengthen the ties between the fields of public administration/public management and political science/public policy by bringing scholars from these fields together. Special attention is given to implementation theory and research. Over the past years, the Study Group has contributed to gathering older and new generations of implementation researchers who contribute and publish on cutting-edge topics of policy implementation. The future agenda of PSG XIII includes making work of systematic comparative research, addressing both the limits and capacities of administration, and developing dialogues between academia and practice.

The sustainable future of implementation research: On the development of the field and its paradoxes

As fashionable as implementation studies were in the 1970s and 1980s, as en vogue it has become currently, four decades later, to consider implementation as an obsolete research theme. It is clear that in the study of government, new themes and concepts have been put on the agenda. In the ‘age of governance’, that study takes place under a variety of headings beyond ‘implementation’. At the same time, a continued attention to what happens with policies-on-paper can be observed. In this special issue, the development of implementation research as a scholarly field is assessed. A closer look reveals some paradoxes, but also steady advancement.