Peter Hupe

Talking About Government

Abstract This article examines the phenomenon of ‘magic’ concepts – those key terms which seem to be pervasive among both academics and practitioners. Within that category our focus is on ‘governance’, ‘accountability’ and ‘networks’. Our prime purpose is to map their meanings and how they are used. Following an analysis of a wide range of literature – both academic and practitioner – we find that these concepts have properties in common which help promote their popularity. A high degree of abstraction, a strongly positive normative charge, a seeming ability to dissolve previous dilemmas and binary oppositions and a mobility across domains, give them their ‘magic’ character. Limitations are also identified. Magic concepts are useful, but potentially seductive. They should not be stretched to purposes for which they are not fitted.

The multi-layer problem in implementation research

This article argues that many discussions of implementation deal inadequately with the fact that several layers of government are often involved in policy processes. It thus identifies a multi-layer problem in the literature on implementation, and explores its dimensions. It argues that a failure to deal adequately with the problem leads to two particular pitfalls. One is that the notion of ‘dashed’ expectations on the part of one layer suggests either that there has been a failure of control, or that there have been interventions in the policy process that are seen as illegitimate. The other is that the relationship between layers is a simple and uniform phenomenon that can be expected to have similar characteristics in dissimilar situations. It then offers some proposals to deal with these pitfalls, and looks at what this reframing of the problem means for implementation research.

Analysing policy processes as multiple governance: Accountability in social policy

There is a need to develop appropriate ways to analyse issues about complexity in the governance process and about accountability. The preoccupation with policy ‘stages’ need to be replaced with a more complex model of the way in which policy decisions are inter-related or ‘nested’. It is argued that a ‘multiple governance framework’, influenced by Elinor Ostrom’s ‘institutional analysis and development’ framework, offers a way to do this. The framework is illustrated using examples from English health and education policy, where there are opposed positions about professional autonomy and about local prerogatives, to show how this approach assists the analysis of issues like these.

A Public Service Gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy

Abstract Studies of street-level bureaucracy have introduced a variety of conceptualizations, research approaches, and causal inferences. While this research has produced several insights, the impact of variety in the institutional context has not been adequately explored. We present the construct of a public service gap as a way to incorporate contextual factors and facilitate comparison. This construct addresses the differences between what is asked of and what is offered to public servants working at the street level. The heuristic enables the systematic capture of macro- and meso-contextual influences, thus enhancing comparative research on street-level bureaucracy.

What happens on the ground: Persistent issues in implementation research

Since the demise of what has been labelled as the policy-implementation paradigm, the heyday of implementation research appears to be over. This suggests that the issues going back to the ‘top-down/bottom-up’ controversy have been resolved. Central in this article is the exploration of how these issues are being dealt with in contemporary implementation studies. An issue like the one of the ‘too many variables’ seems to have been settled, especially in quantitative studies. Other issues, however, like the theory/practice relationship, the multi-layer problem and the policy/politics nexus appear to have remained relatively unsolved problems. Solutions are explored how to deal with them when doing implementation research.

The Thesis of Incongruent Implementation: Revisiting Pressman and Wildavsky:

The more links can be observed in the vertical line between intentions and results as embodied by a policy process, the smaller the chance will be of a congruent implementation of the public policy concerned. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) expressed this view on implementation in one of the longest and most famous subtitles in the study of public administration. In this article this view is addressed as the thesis of incongruent implementation. Although still common with policy makers, since Bowen’s (1982) critique it hardly has been investigated further. At the same time, however, scholars across different research communities have started to explore the effects of intermediary variables between government intentions and governmental performance. The objective in this article is to look at what is known about the impact of such variables currently and to explore the implications for the study of implementation.

‘And the rest is implementation.’ Comparing approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond Great Expectations

Implementation occurs as a ‘late’ part in the stages model of the policy process. As such, it is seen as following upon and subordinate to the preceding stages of agenda-setting and policy formation. Hence, implementation is often addressed as ‘the rest’. This view on implementation as a presupposed residual in goal achievement implies little attention to ‘political’ dimensions, like ambiguity and conflict. Therefore, the view can only partially explain the – sometimes disappointing – results of policy processes. Alternatively, approaches to the policy/implementation nexus with an explicit focus on what happens at the street level have a greater explanatory potential. They are not taking implementation for granted as a seemingly technical matter, simply prescribed by policy objectives.

Studying implementation beyond deficit analysis: The top-down view reconsidered

Contemporary researchers of policy implementation make a plea for explaining variation in policy outputs. At the same time, still much implementation research, dispersed across the social sciences, entails studies of single cases in which a perceived gap between the intentions and the results of a public policy is analysed. In this article, a case is made for the lasting relevance of studying single policy processes, seen ‘from the top’, provided that the multi-dimensional character of these processes is taken into account. Empirical material from a study of educational inclusion policy in the United Kingdom shows how public policies may refer to different values (normative dimension) and imply ongoing policy formation between a variety of actors, each with particular stakes (political dimension), while policy goals seldom speak for themselves (practical dimension). By consequence, in implementation research the issues of, respectively, what needs explanation (the explanandum), locus specification and the appropriate unit of observation and analysis need attention.

The accountability of power: Democracy and governance in modern times

In modern governing, a variety of actors in the public domain daily make decisions with consequences for the common good, but how these actors are held accountable to political representatives is not always clear. While representative democracy in most societies still functions as the traditional standard, deficits in democratic control are perceived. There is an exercise of power-without-corresponding-representation . At the same time modern citizens appear hard to engage in politics. Representation-without-corresponding-participation also appears. We address this dual problem, one of accountability and one of legitimacy, in terms of political theory. Various strategies are explored, indicating that some of them contribute to bringing democracy up to date more than others. In particular, it seems fundamental to rethink contemporary democracy by connecting it with the multi-dimensional character of governance. Functional participation by modern citizens can enhance the legitimacy of the exercise of power by making the latter accountable in a multi-local way.

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.