Practitioners in public administration are working under action impera- tives. They constantly need to answer questions about how to act. In this chapter we want to tap some notions from the analytical knowledge pre- sented in the previous chapters and condense them into something that can be worthwhile for practitioners to reflect on in the concrete situations they have to deal with. If, in doing that, we go beyond the realm of empir- ical evidence available from existing research, this is justified by a need for a conceptualization that is inviting enough to reflect on. The central question here is: Given the developments in the practice of public admin- istration and the state of the field of implementation theory and research as described in this and the previous chapters, what kind of advice can be given to practitioners?
In the first half of this chapter a descriptionis given of implementation in practice and of practice-notions in implementation studies. Then the question is asked: Which factors can be seen as guiding political-administrative
CONTENTS Introduction 160
The practice of managing implementation 161 Policy recommendations in implementation studies 167
The quest for appropriate action 175 Governance in context 181 Managing implementation 187
Implementation as operational governance 193 Conclusions 195
Notes 195
action? On the basis of the normative principles exposed there, in the second half of the chapter a prescriptiveorientation is developed.
The next section focuses on what happens when public policies are being implemented, against the background of what appears to be a vari- ety of national institutional environments. Then the policy recommenda- tions formulated in the implementation literature are reviewed. After these descriptions some normative principles relevant in Western democ- racies are related to modes of governance. In the section that follows, the variation in contexts in which governance is practised is explored; there- fore the concept of governance is differentiated. Accordingly, prescriptive perspectives on managing implementation are developed. After that, an exposition is given of what implementation means in the context of modern governance. The chapter ends with some conclusions.
The practice of managing implementation
Managing implementation in practice
Sometimes the results of a policy are judged as disappointing, or even worse (Bovens and’ t Hart, 1996). Particularly in judgements expressed in daily conversations, analytical distinctions between outcomes and out- puts, between content and process are not always made. Rather, such judgements have a highly ‘political’ character: they tell something about the way the world is observed, interpreted and evaluated. A standard reaction to policy results perceived as disappointing is to blame the implementers of that policy. The degree to which such blaming is justi- fied, however, is an empirical question. In what kinds of circumstances do policy implementers as well as policy formers do their work? And what is the relationship between the work of both? In order to give practitioners some prescriptive notions for reflection later in this chapter, it is necessary to make some descriptive observations of their practice. On the basis of empirical evidence, we try to sketch a picture of ‘policy in process’ that may be recognizable for practitioners.
The world of implementation At the very end of the line between policy intentions and policy outputs, street-level bureaucrats interact with citi- zens. Facing all sorts of dilemmas in those daily contacts, these public servants practise coping strategies, as Lipsky (1980) and others have pointed out. Though the relationships between bureaucrats and citizens are cer- tainly not symmetrical, there is a mutual dependency and negotiation may even take place. Much of what police officers, teachers, social work- ers and other public functionaries are doing has not been laid down in a formal document. In circumstances that have never been foreseen and GOVERNANCE AND MANAGING IMPLEMENTATION 161
confronted with norms that are often vague, these public servants have to act. In such situations they see themselves as required to interpret the public policy involved in a creative but justifiable way. Being imple- menters, they may, in fact, sometimes practise ‘formulation and decision making’ additional to the policy formally at hand.
It is obvious that empirical reality varies greatly here. One of the dimen- sions along which implementation practices vary is the type of imple- mentation organization involved. Not only is a general hospital an organization different from a fire station, but the way in which each of those types of organization is structured may vary as well. And while social workers clearly differ from medical practitioners, also within each of these groups the professional styles may vary. What all of these profes- sionals in public service have in common is that they are working in direct contact with individual citizens on behalf of the ‘general interest’. Because of the publiccharacter of their work they are confronted with the rules and regulations of the government policies that, in one way or another, they are expected to implement. At the same time, because they have a self- image of being professionals, these deliverers of public services consider themselves to be working in practice, as opposed to working in the ‘civil service’, as symbolized by labels like ‘Washington’ or ‘Whitehall’. When such a label is used to refer to the locus of the formation of a certain policy, a perception of distance is expressed. This may be expressed in terms like:
‘Those people there seem to know everything better; while we are doing the dirty work here.’ In this way perhaps the relationship between policy implementation and policy intentions has a material side: by their ‘inhab- itants’ the two seem to be experienced as separate worlds.
The world of policy intentions At the other end of the line between outputs and intentions, policy formers, at the ministries in that very same
‘Whitehall’ or ‘Washington’, do not always fully understand why the rules and regulations they laid down in laws and other official documents are sometimes not entirely executed in the way they intended. In the event of disappointing results these policy formers, like the lay observers referred to above, tend to blame the implementers. The former are inclined to see the objectives of the policy involved as clearly stated and the means as provided; the rest is implementation. However, the connec- tion between these different elements in the world of implementation as pictured above may not always be seen as a straight line going from problem to solution. Official policy documents, as formulated and decided upon in the national capital, may be seen by implementers as less clear and directive than the policy formers in the ministries might think they are.
Often the formulations in such a policy document are the result of compromises, of various natures. A policy document is as much the product of bureau-political struggle as a rational answer to a political or
social problem (Allison, 1971). As such it can be ambiguous in its messages to implementers. It may be the case that a specific policy instru- ment, for instance a subsidy, was chosen not because it was seen as the means fitting the ends, but because the struggle of governmental politics was ‘won’ by a ministry that used subsidies as central in its standard repertoire. In addition to that, a policy document is seldom the fruit of the pure intellectual cogitation of one single actor sitting behind his or her desk. Simon (1945) indicated the cognitive limitations that inhibit
‘rational’ decision making in administrative behaviour, while Lindblom (1959) showed that these limitations may be compensated to a certain extent by the social interaction in which policies are made. Such inter- action takes place in the formation of a policy. The compromises resulting from there may add to the ones stemming from the ideological and party-political struggle in the agenda-setting process, the previous
‘stage’ of the policy cycle.
It seems no wonder, then, that implementers sometimes have difficulty in knowing not only how to implement a policy adequately but also what is to be implemented.
Inter-organizational relations Between the formulation of the intentions of a policy, for instance to guarantee a minimum level of existence, and the delivery of related policy outputs, such as assistance benefits, in fact a process of transformation takes place (Van der Veen, 1990). This process is embedded within a range of vertical and horizontal relations between organizations involved in the making of the specific policy. In the world of implementation, horizontal relations concern the connec- tions between the organization primarily responsible for the implemen- tation and related organizations. In the example used here, the delivery of National Assistance benefits in the Netherlands to citizens entitled to them is a task for local government. The Municipal Social Services Department has a central position in a local network in which, for instance, the Labour Office, Social Work and the Tax Office are other actors involved.
Also in the world of policy intentions there are horizontal linkages:
between political parties and other societal organizations, such as those of employers and employees; between departments; between the units of one such department, and so on. Vertically, there is the general system of inter-governmental relations within which public policies in a country are formed and implemented. In addition, there is a ‘trajectory’ specific to a policy. This ‘policy trajectory’ entails the range of organizations involved in the policy process at stake. In the case of Dutch National Assistance the formal administrative layers of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and of the municipalities are particularly involved, but alongside those also, for instance, client organizations participate as stakeholders.
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGING IMPLEMENTATION 163
Two worlds, different reactions In a stylized form the picture above sketches the variety of actors and factors that play a role in the imple- mentation of public policy. Earlier in this book we described the notion of
‘the implementation gap’ as analytically somewhat difficult. In research the notion has hardly any explanatory value. Nevertheless, it seems as if in practice the perception of different ‘worlds’ has a relevance for action.
When the results of a policy are seen as disappointing, actors involved in that specific policy process may commonly blame the ‘other world’.
Various consequential actions follow.
On the street level, actors directly held accountable for the delivery of policy outputs may react to perceived shortcomings by streamlining stan- dard operating procedures, enhancing professionalism, strengthening leadership and perhaps restructuring their organization. The public servants who directly interact with citizens are familiar with the need to cope with shortcomings in as justifiable a way as possible. For them, almost by definition, resources are scarce, while nevertheless the concep- tions of their occupation, practised in public service, urge them to make the best of it.
When policy formers initially responsible for a specific policy process are confronted with disappointing results, their standard reaction will be a different one: they will be inclined to take additional measures. Those actors accountable for the managing of the policy process involved will aim at a more strict control of the implementation of that policy by making more (internal) rules and regulations. Stated briefly, the outcome of dis- appointing policy results will be more policy. As In’t Veld observes: ‘The general reaction of government to successful policy and not-successful policy is identical: successful policy breeds a taste for more of the same, while not-successful policy asks for corrections in the form of new policy, naturally made by that same government’ (1984: 19). In’t Veld speaks here of the accumulation of policy. Paradoxically, the empirical consequence for implementers will be a policy discretion that, unintendedly, may be greater rather than smaller (Hupe, 1993a).
Because of the different ‘logic’ working in the two worlds as pictured, real-world perceptions of a ‘gap’ may be expected to continue. Yet recently in countries like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands the awareness of the relevance of implementation among policy formers seems to have increased. The possibility cannot be excluded that there is a relation here with the occurrence of results of some policies that were obviously perceived as disappointing but at the same time could not be waved away as entirely caused by bad implementation. After all, some- times economic and cultural developments may have changed the func- tion of a policy in society. (More divorces, for instance, produce more single mothers, which leads to more claims for social assistance.) And besides, it may be the exact content of a policy, as formulated in the world of policy intentions, that can make it difficult to implement. In the countries
mentioned it looks as if this discovery of implementationhas led to a greater inclination towards a self-critical look by policy formers at the very sub- stance of the laws and policies they formulate. In the Netherlands a few years ago ‘implementation checks’ and ‘implementation assessments’
were introduced in the policy formation part of the policy process.
Checklists thus force policy formers to give explicit attention to imple- mentation aspects of a policy proposal beforethe final political decision making at cabinet level takes place.
The picture of the two worlds as given above, each with its specific logic, has revealed such a variety of factors and dimensions that in the practice and management of implementation two completely identical sit- uations can hardly be expected. This is even more evident when the vari- ance between institutional environments in different countries is taken into account. In Chapter 2 we looked at the issue of democratic leadership over administration, raised by Woodrow Wilson and others. There we also discussed institutional theory. In Chapter 5 we made some comparative statements about the USA, the UK and the Netherlands. Now we will take a further step in the exploration of this theme and look at the differences in national administrative arrangements and political-administrative cultures that form the context within which implementation is being managed.
Varying institutional environments
At the end of a comparative investigation of differences between nations in style of regulation, in the use of certain policy instruments preferred most, in modes of network formation and in enforcement routines, Van Waarden (1999a) asks: Does nation matter here? He goes on to argue that the national differences in handling political and administrative issues discussed in the successive chapters of the book are related to the institu- tional environment, particularly the political, juridical and public service institutions specific to each respective country. Van Waarden argues that there is a need to look together at policy and regulatory styles, using those terms as equivalents.1Part of the regulatory style is the enforcement style:
the style in the stage of implementation, enforcement and sanctioning.
Van Waarden reaches the following conclusions. Characteristic of the USA is activist interventionism and a rigid, legalist, formal formulation and application of rules. This legalist interventionism takes place within government–corporate business relations characterized by distance and conflicts. The German style is relatively legalist and formal, too. On the other hand, there the government–corporate business relations are more intensive, more consensual and corporatist rather than liberal-pluralist.
Law is used in a less activist way than in the USA. France has an activist approach and a somewhat inflexible rule-application in common with the GOVERNANCE AND MANAGING IMPLEMENTATION 165
USA. Government–corporate business relations, however, are more informal and more paternalist. Dutch and British officials follow a more pragmatic and consensual style, with the difference that the Dutch style is charac- terized by formalism and corporatism, while relations in the UK have traditionally been informal, within liberal-pluralist networks (Van Waarden, 1999a: 338). Van Waarden’s analysis is summarized in Table 8.1.
In a further chapter Van Waarden (1999b) goes on to explain civil servants’ behaviour from the national differences as presented above. His assumption is that this behaviour is, to a large extent, pre-structured by the macro-institutional framework within which they are working. As clusters of factors Van Waarden mentions the political, juridical and administrative institutions of the state. Also important are the separation of public and private law; the degree and nature of constitutional checks and balances on the political and administrative exercise of power; the recruitment, selec- tion and training of civil servants; and their professional identity. In addi- tion, civil servants’ styles are related to the structure of the civil society (position of societal organizations and so on); the general political culture;
and basic norms and values (for example, levels of trust in government).
One of Van Waarden’s findings is that the stronger the checks on the imple- mentation activities of civil servants in a country, the greater their inclina- tion to execute rules ‘according to the book’, in order to protect themselves from possible liability claims or public accountability.
TABLE 8.1 National policy styles
Country
Dimensions USA UK NL
Mode and degree of state intervention
(a) Dominant source Market Market Association
of regulation
Related ideology Liberalism Liberalism Corporatism (b) Active/passive Active Reactive Moderately active
intervention
(c) Integration/ Fragmentation Fragmentation Planning/integration fragmentation
Policy making process:
mode of interaction with societal organizations
(a) Antagonism/ Antagonism Consensualism Consensualism consensualism
(b) Formalism/ Formalism Informalism Formalism
informalism Implementation and
enforcement
Legalist/pragmatic Legalist Pragmatic Pragmatic
Source:Simplified version of the table in Van Waarden, 1999a: 339.
For Van Waarden, American liberalism and activism, legalism and formalism are related to federalism and the fragmentation of political power. Congress is powerful, while the check on legislation by judges has enhanced a litigiousjuridical culture. Government bureaucracy has developed relatively late. In the civil service there is a high external but low internal mobility. Civil servants have limited discretion, while the policy influence of interest organizations is relatively weak. In the British case liberalism and pragmatism are connected with the common law tradition. Political power is centralized in Parliament; there is no strong separation of powers. A check on legislation by judges is absent.
The voting system and the relatively disciplined political parties have enhanced strong majority cabinet regimes. In the civil service external mobility is low, but internal mobility – within life-time careers – is high.
There is a preference for generalists to specialists and a relatively high public trust in the civil service. The latter is surrounded by a civil society that is particularly informally organized. According to Van Waarden, Dutch corporatism and activism, consensualism and pragmatism, as well as the tradition of planning, can to a certain extent be attributed to the tradition of Roman law. There is a separation of state functions, with a concentration on executive power. The likelihood of a check on legisla- tion by judges is present, but in a limited form. The voting system of proportional representation and the tradition of collegial governing enhance the necessity of the formation of coalition cabinets. The internal and external mobility of civil servants is limited, while they have a rea- sonable status in society. The history of pillarization based on the pres- ence of strong societal organizations, a delegation of state tasks to those organizations, and a fragmented public service goes back to the times of the Republic (Van Waarden, 1999b: 371–2).
Given this empirical reality of differences in policy styles and political- administrative cultures, what kind of advice does the existing implemen- tation theory and research have to offer to practitioners?
Policy recommendations in implementation studies
The stages heuristic
The policy process is viewed by Anderson as a ‘sequential pattern of action involving a number of functional categories of activity that can be analytically distinguished ... problem identification and agenda forma- tion, formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation’ (1975: 19).
Others have provided a very similar image of the way public policy is made. As we indicated in Chapter 1, the essence of that image is that the GOVERNANCE AND MANAGING IMPLEMENTATION 167