I

Summary

Implementation

Policy implementation ‘may refer to anything meant to happen after an intention or aspiration has been expressed’ (Hupe, 2014, p 166). However, it has largely been constructed in the sub-field of implementation studies as having certain common features. These include a rejection, or under-emphasising, of the role of theory; an assumption of rationality in the actors involved; a strict conceptual division of labour between policy makers at the ‘top’ and implementers at the ‘bottom’; a reliance on a technical interpretation of the mechanisms of implementation; and an understanding of the relationship between the elements in a causal chain as linear and direct. Implementation in this positivist perspective is amenable to being rendered as broad-brush diagrammatic models comprising, for instance, wheels, cycles or one of the latter in a series of sequential or perceived causal stages.

Such simplistic models cannot capture the complexity of the social and political interactions involved in policy processes. Neither can the conceptual and theoretical tools used in most implementation studies satisfactorily explain how policy ‘gets done’. Consequently, the sub-field, which emerged following Pressman and Wildavsky's (1973) landmark publication, is characterised by disputes. For instance, the field engaged in a long-lasting debate regarding whether policy implementation should be seen as ‘top-down’ or ‘bottomup’. A ‘top-down’ perspective is concerned with how faithfully, effectively and efficiently a policy is translated into practice from the hierarchical apex, where it is formulated, to the chalkface, and by which mechanisms. Any deviations from the original policy intention are problematised and the implementer blamed for them. Concomitantly, the values and actions of the policy maker are accepted uncritically and adopted as the starting point of the implementation study. Hupe (2014) describes ‘mainstream implementation studies’ (p 170) as typically ‘top-down’ and tending to be explored through single case studies. ‘Bottom-up’ implementation studies are concerned, on the other hand, with the motivations, experiences and actions of those who are meant to be doing the implementing. These actors are characterised by Lipsky (1980) as ‘street-level bureaucrats’. Far from wilful non-compliance, bottomup studies demonstrated the diverse influences on actors as they engage with policy.