resources such as funds, capacity, and power or authority to implement decisions. The dominance of one specific partner in a network can have a negative effect on the network in the way that it can undermine the contributions of the other members.
Participation is key in policymaking and policy implementation (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002:51). According to Exworthy and Powell (2004:266), all stakeholders must believe that it is 'their' problem and that they have a role to play in the partnership, with solutions within their control. Effective policy implementation depends on synergy among stakeholders. This means that, combined, more and better outcomes are attained than if the partners acted independently.
Despite their weaknesses, networks remain valuable because they offer the potential for rapid adaptation to changing conditions, the flexibility of adjustment, and the capacity for innovation. "When relationships among members are established, goals are agreed upon, and operations are fruitful for all concerned, the wide spectrum of expertise that comprise a network offer great potential for flexibility and adaptation." (Agranoff and McGuire,
1999:25)
Factors which contribute to network failure, according to Kickert et al (1997:9) include: a lack of incentives to cooperate and the existence of blockades to collective action;
proposed goals may be vague; important actors may be absent, while the presence of other actors may discourage the participation of necessary actors; crucial information about goals, means and actors may be lacking; discretionary power may be absent; and the absence of commitment of actors to the common purpose. All the above were evident in the implementation of the INP.
According to Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff (cited in Mandell, 2001:169), there are factors that networks need to address in order to function effectively and contribute to policy implementation. These include specification of objectives and degree of convergence, mechanisms for combining effort and managing cooperation, determination of
•
appropriate roles and responsibilities, and capacity to fulfil those roles and responsibilities.
Another important factor which affects successful implementation is monitoring and evaluation. Successful policy implementation depends on continuous policy monitoring and evaluation. The primary purpose of evaluation is to assess the value, merit, and worth of a particular policy or program so that decisions can be made on: how to improve the policy; whether to continue or terminate the policy; and whether to contract or expand the program to other areas. Monitoring and evaluation was difficult to do due to a lack of professional staff. This means that more professional staff should be recruited by the DOH, and staff that is currently available should be trained on monitoring and evaluation.
Recommendations for NGOs include; forming networks with potential partners and promoting capacity building, particularly in policy advocacy, constituency building and implementation capacity (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002:113). Governments must understand how networks operate, what constraints they face and what constitutes best practice. It also includes providing direct capacity building support to potential partner organisations, both funding and technical assistance, without being domineering over how those funds are spent (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002:114).
Managing policy implementation also involves the sharing and coordination of 'management' between multiple parties, often located at different levels of government or even outside of government institutions (Kickert et al, 1997:25). Successful policy implementation is not merely about good administration, it is also about 'good management' which also means good planning (Minogue, cited in Hill, 1997:17).
Managing policy implementation is about developing a shared vision; influencing and persuading supporters and opponents; negotiating agreements; reducing conflicts;
cooperating with a wide range of stakeholders; and devising work programs in participatory and collaborative ways (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002:118).
There are bound to be conflicts and weaknesses in policy networks due to the multiple actors involved, each with their own interests and priorities. It is often difficult to pursue compatible and convergent goals because different organisations have different agendas (Brinkerhoff and Crosby, 2002:86). Hogwood and Gunn (cited in Hill, 1997:221) argue that 'where there is a complete understanding of, and agreement on the objectives to be achieved, and where the tasks that should be performed by each participant are specified in complete detail throughout the policy process, then policy implementation will succeed and achieve its intended objectives'.
This is easier said than done. The implementation of the INP is for the most part successful due to the use of a network. The issue is about whether it is a relationship which will be able to endure and overcome its existing weaknesses thereby sustaining the delivery of an integrated nutrition program.
Civil society organisations, such as NGOs, add value to service delivery due to their vision, commitment to community development and equity in service delivery, and the highly skilled and passionate staff that they hire. This makes civil society a valuable resource for government in ensuring good governance and service delivery to all in South Africa, particularly due to the lack of human resources with skills and expertise to serve a population which is largely deprived of access to basic health care. The ratio of professional with the necessary skills required to ensure health care delivery to the needs of the population of this country to the population of this country is extremely obscured and out of balance.
Identifying and acknowledging the problems and weaknesses of the existing network enable them to revisit existing practices, while also anticipating future problems of joint ventures. This would ensure better working relations, thus getting the most out of the collaboration which then increases the likelihood of efficiency and effectiveness in the sustainable implementation of the INP.
After all, policy networks can contribute to improved policy implementation because of the collaborative nature of the relationship between the network members. However, its strength, being loose arrangements and fairly autonomous actions of its members, can be its weakness, where there is no clear autonomy and no clear accountability because, as Agranoff and McGuire (2001:33) say: "everyone is somewhat responsible".