Origin and evolution of implementation research PhD-Course ‘Studying Public Policy Implementation in an Era of Governance’, Paris, May 4, 2015 Origin and evolution of implementation research Peter Hupe Department of Public Administration Erasmus University Rotterdam Visiting Fellow 2012-2013 All Souls College, Oxford

Introduction ‘I got a lot of PhD-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, “Mr President, here’s what on my mind.” And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the advice, I decide, you know, I say, “This is what we’re going to do.” And it’s, “Yes, sir, Mr President.” And then we get after it, implement policy.’ (Note 1)

Introduction Policy goals are expressions of explicit ambitions. After policy formation implementation follows accordingly. Policy implementation consists of applying the skills needed to realise the policy goals.

Introduction Central question What does implementation mean and how has implementation research evolved?

Introduction Agenda A. The meaning of implementation B. The policy-implementation paradigm C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm

Introduction Central message Implementation as following instructions in a residual exercise of authority, versus implementation as practice. Both in practice and theory, implementation is primarily presupposed just to follow expressed policy intentions, - unless there is an explicit and normatively open focus on ‘what happens on the ground’ (Hupe 2014). Implementation research goes on – although partly under different headings.

A. The meaning of implementation The policy/implementation nexus: Types of approaches Policy as clearly defined prescriptive input Policy as broadly desired outcome Policy as circumscribing permitted divergence Policy as institutional mandate Policy as actual output

A. The meaning of implementation a) Policy as clearly defined prescriptive input Politics/Administration distinction (Wilson 1887). Stages model of the policy process (a.o. Jenkins 1978).

A. The meaning of implementation b) Policy as broadly desired outcome Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland (…) Pressman and Wildavsky (1973). Implementing Thatcherite Policies (Marsh and Rhodes eds 1992).

A. The meaning of implementation c) Policy as circumscribing permitted divergence Multi-level policy-making systems producing non-binding ‘soft policies’ (Torenvlied and Akkerman 2004). ‘Policy divergence’ as dependent variable ‘measured by computing the absolute difference between the value of the policy decision on the policy scale with the value assigned to the actions and behaviours of the relevant implementation agency on the same scale’ (Oosterwaal and Torenvlied 2012: 207).

A. The meaning of implementation d) Policy as institutional mandate Giving advice on how to design policies to be implemented in a congruent way (Gunn 1978). Mandates as facilitating implementation ‘through various inducements, system changes, and capacity building features’ (May 1993: 636). -

A. The meaning of implementation e) Policy as actual output Studying implementation from the policy delivery end (Elmore 1979). Explaining empirical variation in the outputs of a particular policy (Winter 2012).

A. The meaning of implementation The policy/implementation nexus characterized Policy as: Implementation as: a) Prescriptive input Following instructions b) Broadly desired outcome Realizing an ideal c) Permitted divergence Adopting legislator’s intentions d) Institutional mandate Using facilities e) Actual output To be measured comparatively

A. The meaning of implementation Some observations A varying level of attention to ambiguity and conflict. A varying degree of specification of the policy/ implementation relationship. Like in practice, in several approaches implementation is treated as a residual that is merely presupposed. The black box remains un-opened.

A. The meaning of implementation Implementation as a residual presupposed in goal achievement A persistent view A sustained attraction of rationality. Policy as problem-solving focuses primarily on formulating policy goals. An enduring quest for control (Van Gunsteren 1976) Hierarchical relations between politics and administrat ion, ends and means, policy formation and policy implementation. A view on the implemendum as a technical instruction.

A. The meaning of implementation Implementation as a residual presupposed in goal achievement (II) Consequences for research A neglect of the political dimensions inherent to policy-making. An under-assessment of the relevance of discretionary capacities of actors on ‘lower’ layers. An insufficient potential to explain what happens with policy objectives.

B. The policy-implementation paradigm Public policy implementation in practice and theory - Policy implementation in practice = to affect what happens - Analyzing policy implementation = to explain what happens

B. The policy-implementation paradigm Adapting and applying Kuhn’s (1970) concepts A paradigm shift would mean that the prevalence, particularly in terms of a hegemonic legitimacy, of a specific problems/solutions set at a certain moment has diminished in favour of another set of problems and solutions. A ‘policy-implementation paradigm’ refers to the hegemonic legitimacy in a certain period of a set of problems and solutions connected with turning public policies into actions, as perceived by both practitioners and analysts of implementation. Based on Hill and Hupe (2014) ch. 5.

B. The policy-implementation paradigm Paradigm shifts in the practice and study of government Period Central Direction Paradigm problem for solution 1950s-1970s Unemployment Formation of Problemsolving and other social policy problems programmes 1970s+1980s - Effectiveness of - Less discretion Policy- public policies Implementation - Pressures on SLB - More discretion 1980s-present Government The Market and New Public business corp. Management 1990s+2000s Monopolies etc. Institutionaliza- Embedded Market tion of oversight 2000-present Government Variety of actors Governance centrism Role gov. specific Source: Hill and Hupe (2014) ch. 5.

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm Development of implementation studies 1970s-1980s ‘Top-down’ implementation studies 1980s-1990s ‘Bottom-up’ implementation studies 1990 Goggin et al. proclaim the need for ‘synthesizing’ studies Since then: ‘What happened to implementation research?’

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm A ‘yesterday’s issue’? ‘There is more than meets the eye’ (O’Toole 2000: 265; also Meier 1999: 6-7). ‘The data (of the bibliometrical study of the field) overwhelmingly refute the decline proposition’ (Sætren 2005: 562). Substantial numbers of articles found in journals devoted to education, health, law, economics and the environment.

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm Implementation as a scholarly field More ‘implementation research’ takes place than under this heading. Implementation is historically older than implementation theory and research as an academic sub-discipline of Political Science and Public Administration. Implementation studies beyond the sub-discipline provide insights relevant to those studies. The diversity in implementation studies reflects the multiple character of practice. As long as people engage in collective endeavours, there will be ‘implementation’. As such it will be studied, under whatever heading. = A pragmatic stance

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm Assessment of the field (Sætren 2014) A mature state of development. Since 1990 slower progress. More methodological than theoretical progress. ‘Third generation’ research More use of statistical analysis using quantitative data to supplement qualitative analysis. More comparison across different units of analysis within and across policy sectors. More longitudinal research designs (5-10 years).

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm Contemporary implementation studies Mainstream implementation studies Neo-implementation studies Advanced implementation studies downward looking Advanced implementation studies upward looking Source: Hupe (2014).

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm Persistent issues (Hupe 2014) The problem of ‘too many variables’. Solutions to deal with the variety of potential explanatory variables. The theory/practice relationship. Addressing relationships researchers have with the object of their research. The multi-layer problem. Acknowledgement of the involvement of multiple actors on different layers. The policy/politics nexus. Dealing with the consequences of the complex, non-technical nature of policy-making.

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm Point of departure What empirical variation needs explanation? Design Empirical research is comparative research Theory Public policies are made on the ground Method Data need theory Techniques Beyond ‘slow journalism’ ContributionSeeking truth through accountable knowledge

C. Evolution of the field beyond the paradigm The quest for rigour and relevance in multi-dimensionally constrained research settings continues.

Notes Note (1) President George W. Bush is quoted here, explaining his decision to veto a popular children’s heath insurance bill. The quote is mentioned in Stone (2012: 248) as coming from an article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Carl Hulse. ‘Bush Vetoes Health Bill Privately, Without Fanfare ‘, New York Times, Oct. 4, 2007, p. A17.

References Elmore, R.F. (1979) Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly 94(4): 601-616. Goggin, M.L., A.O.M. Bowman, J.P. Lester and L.J. O’Toole, Jr (1990) Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, Il.: Scott Foresman/Little, Brown and Company. Gunn, L. (1978) Why is implementation so difficult? Management Services in Government 33(4): 169-176. Gunsteren, H.R. (1976) The Quest for Control: A critique of the rational-central-rule approach in public affairs. London: John Wiley & Sons. Hill, M.J. and P.L. Hupe (2014) Implementing Public Policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. London: SAGE (third, revised, edition). Hupe, P.L. (2014) What happens on the ground: Persistent issues in implementation research. Public Policy and Administration 29(2): 164-182.

References Jenkins, W.I. (1978) Policy analysis: A political and organizational perspective. London: Martin Robertson Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientfic Revolutions. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press (second edition). Marsh, D. and R.A.W. Rhodes (eds) (1992) Implementing Thatcherite policies: Audit of an era. Buckingham: Open University Press. May, P.J. (1993) Mandate design and implementation: Enhancing implementation efforts and shaping regulatory styles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12(4): 634-663. Meier, K.J. (1999) Are we sure Lasswell did it this way? Lester, Goggin and implementation research. Policy Currents 9(1): 5-8.

References O’Toole, L.J., Jr (2000) Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 263-288. Oosterwaal, A. and R. Torenvlied (2012) Policy divergence in implementation: How conflict among decisive legislators reinforces the effect of agency preferences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 195-171. Saetren, H. (2005) Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: Out-of fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant. Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 559-578. Sætren, H. (2014) Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research: An empirical assessment. Public Policy and Administration 29(2): 164-182.

References Stone, D. (2012) Policy Paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Torenvlied, R. and A. Akkerman (2012) Theory of ‘soft’ policy implementation in multi-level systems with an application to social partnership in the Netherlands. Acta Politica 39(1): 31-58. Wilson, W. (1887) The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly no 2: 197-222. Winter, S.C. (2012) Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. Chapter 16 in Peters, B. G. and J. Pierre (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration, London: SAGE (second edition) pp. 265-278.