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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hupe et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: