Jurnal Mugambwa 2018 Policy Implementation Conceptual Foundation, Accumulated Wisdom and New Direction

Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Policy Implementation: Conceptual Foundations,

Accumulated Wisdom and New Directions
Joshua Mugambwa
Lecturer and Phd Candidate, Department of Leadership and Governance
Makerere University Business School, P.O.Box 1337, Kampala, Uganda (East Africa)
E-mail: jmugambwa@mubs.ac.ug
Dr. Nkote Nabeta

Dean, Faculty of Commerce
Makerere University Business School
Associate Professor Muhammed Ngoma

Dr. Nichodemus Rudaheranwa

Head of Economics Department
Professor Will Kaberuka

Professor, Department of Management Science
Prof. John C. Munene

Received: Aug. 6, 2018 Accepted: Aug. 29, 2018 Online published: Sept. 5, 2018
doi:10.5296/jpag.v8i3.13609 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v8i3.13609
211 http://jpag.macrothink.org
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Abstract
Progressive development is an interest of every country. Advancement in development is an
indicator of successful policy implementation. However, some authors claim it‟s a concept of
“yesterday”. Policy implementation until now lacks an integrated theoretical foundation and
guidance for success which partly contributes to misguided, uncertain, ineffective and
retrogressive policy implementation practice especially in the developing world. Little
attention has been put on policy implementation effectiveness. This article traces the policy
implementation concept and project new directions for its more rewarding furtherance.
Contributions towards policy implementation research and practice should be relevant to its
contemporary generation. Using reviewed literature, this article traces the historical,
methodological and practical development of policy implementation. It suggests that the third
generation paradigm may exploit advances in implementation science. Networks, governance,
and internationalization are sectors and resources that can progress policy implementation
towards focused relevance and enhanced contribution towards sustainable development.
Keywords: policy implementation, bottom-up, top-down, policy action, third generation,
normalisation process theory, policy leaning, development
1. Introduction
There is increasing demand by public officials to adopt evidence based implementation
practices in various policy areas. This has contributed to an increasing focus on research
based policy implementation dynamics (Saetren, 2005). Policy implementation remains a key
and legitimate challenge in the policy cycle. Non-implementation of policy means there has
been wastage of resources, time and expertise spent in formulating policy and damages the
standing of leaders. Failure to implement a policy is interpreted either as a lack of political
will, or as weak institutional capacity (Attia, 1999; Mthethwa, 2012). Policy implementation
is understood as the carrying out of a policy decision; translating a policy decision into action
(Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989). Policy decisions are usually incorporated in statutes,
executive orders or court decisions (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1983). However, there has been
more focus on policy creation and analysis than implementation (O'Toole, 2000). Many
policies in the world have fallen short of achieving their intended objectives
(Blanco-Mancilla, 2011; Polidano, 1999; Yanguas & Bukenya, 2016). Changes in policies
and political regimes have not helped solve the problem either. The developing world
continues to reign in poverty and inadequate social services. Countries are unsuccessfully
striving to shift in their stages of development without success. Policies to improve the
wellbeing of the masses are often a failure or inappropriately implemented (O'Toole, 2000). It
is clear that the practical world is in need of valid knowledge about policy implementation
(Lester & Goggin, 1998; Blanco-Mancilla, 2011). Policy implementation research is yet to
develop a suitable theory to guide practice.
Policy implementation research has had three generations; the top-down , bottom-up and the
third generation. In the third generation, there is need for concentration on building policy
implementation theory which has not yet been realized. (Imamura, 2015; May & Winter,
2007). The theoretical perspective on policy implementation is to understand how
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
government organizations, people and groups interact with their external environment in the
delivery of policies (Bressers, Klok, & O‟Toole, 2000; deLeon & deLeon, 2002).
This article has two specific objectives;
a) To examine the history, and theoretical background of policy implementation
b) To examine the new directions to the future of policy implementation scholarship.
In the following section we will be tracing the historical and theoretical background of policy
implementation, followed by an examination of the new directions of the future of policy
implementation. The paper reviews literature regarding the themes under study; this is a
contribution to other scholarly work on conceptual tracing in literature done by O'Toole 1986;
Sabatier 1986; Goggin et al. 1990; Matland, 1995; O'Toole, 2000; Harald Saetren, 2014). The
contribution of this article is to consolidate the literature on policy implementation concept,
and add to the ideas for the new direction and focus, in the third generation research. The
purpose is to enable scholars contribute relevantly to policy implementation. Implementation
science research and gaps provide opportunity for policy implementation furtherance.
2. Historical and Theoretical Background of Policy Implementation
Policy implementation literature dates at least as far back as Phillip Selznick‟s (Selznick,
1949) analysis of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Selznick observed that the goals and
outcomes of the federal economic development initiative were shaped substantially by the
local implementation context, where local leaders altered and influenced the process (Saetren,
2005). However, the structured study on policy implementation is traced to Pressman and
Wildavsky‟s 1973 examination of a federal jobs program on Oakland, California. Pressman
and Wildavsky (1973), in their book “Implementation”, called attention to the joint action
required for the successful execution of policy. The subsequent growth of government
interventions in the 1960s and 1970s hatched increasing attention to failed attempts to
achieve policy objectives, with an emphasis on the implementation gap between policy intent
and actual results. The policy failure challenged notions of bureaucratic organization, and
called upon policy scholars to pay closer attention to policy implementation. By 1975,
Hargroe (1975) cited implementation as a missing link in the study of public policy. Efforts
were made to identify factors that contribute to effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of
government interventions and thus secure (or eliminate) continued funding (Pressman &
Wildavsky, 1973; Saetren, 2014).
By the late 1980s, a number of variables were identified that could affect desired results,
beginning with factors related to policy design at the top of implementation systems (Bardach,
1977; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980; VanMeter & VanHorn,
1975) and local implementation contexts at the bottom of implementation systems (Berman,
1981; Elmore, 1979-80; Lipsky, 1980). To make sense of the various variables, policy
implementation researchers developed frameworks and techniques to integrate factors affecting
implementation and specifying when certain types of factors would be more or less important.
During this time, Goggin et.al., (1990) called for the third-generation policy implementation
(Ingram & Schneider, 1990; Sabatier, 1988). The focus on policy implementation within the
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
core disciplines of public affairs began to dissipate in the 1990s, leading some to conclude
that interest in the subject had declined (DeLeon, 1999; deLeon & deLeon, 2002; Schofield,
2001), or that the focus was no longer useful without more precise research questions,
constructs and methods to analyze complex systems (O‟Toole, 2000). Saetren (2005) noted
that policy implementation was out of fashion, allegedly dead, but still alive and relevant.
However, O‟Toole (2000), in his review of literature noted that the focus of policy
implementation research had shifted considerably in the previous fifteen years then, with
application models (Goggin et al., 1990;Sarbaugh-Thompson & Zald, 1995). Moreover, the
apparent diminution of analytic interest in policy implementation may reflect that the inquiry
has shifted its focus and terminology to policy learning and policy change (O‟Toole, 2000;
Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989; Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980).
As noted from the above narrative, policy implementation emerged from interest of policy
scholars to explain the roots of policy failure (Harris, 2005). We now review the top-down,
bottom-up and the third-generation perspectives of the policy implementation concept. In the
following section, we examine the characteristics, contributions, key factors and critique of
the perspectives.
2.1 Top-Down Perspective
The top-down was the first generation of policy implementation studies. In this generation,
researchers believed that policy implementation would happen automatically once
authoritatively proclaimed (Najam, 1995). Every actor was seen to be efficient and to act
according to orders prescribed without their own reflection or discretion. The organizational
hierarchy was followed without any interruption. There was no attention paid to the
implementation process as carried out in real life. Authoritative decisions and
centrally-located actors are seen as most relevant in producing the desired policy effect
(Matland, 1995). Top-down theorists believe that policy designers are the central actors and
focus their attention on factors that can be influenced by the central level.
The top-down approach is criticized for focusing on the created policy (Matland, 1995). It
underestimates the role of politics which could lead to resentment among the implementers
who may favor another solution. The main contributors towards the top-down approach are;
Van Meter and Van Horn who developed one of the first top-down models; the
communication process within the implementation phase (Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975).
Their model of the policy-implementation process adds the resource factor to the
implementation process (Hill & Hupe, 2009). The other important representatives of the
top-down model are Mazmanien and Sabatier (1983; 1989) who noted that policy
implementation is often affected by the degree to which the actions of implementing officials
and target groups coincide with the goals embodied in an authoritative decision. The common
top-down recommendations are: making policy goals clear and consistent, minimize the
number of actors, limit the extent of change necessary, and place implementation
responsibility in an agency sympathetic with the policy's goals (Mazmanian and Sabatier
1983; Sabatier 1986).
The top-down implementation perspective research was dominated by exploring theoretical
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
single case-studies based primarily on qualitative data. Matland (1995) outlines three sets of
criticisms met by top-downers; First, the top-down model fails to consider the significance of
actions taken earlier in the policy-making process. Secondly, it considers policy
implementation as a purely administrative process and ignores the political aspects (Baier,
March, & Saetren, 1986; Hoppe, van de Graaf, & van Dijk, 1985). However, it is hardly
possible to separate politics from administration. Attempts to insulate an inherently political
subject matter from politics do not necessarily lead to political actions. They may instead lead
directly to policy failure (Matland, 1995). Thirdly, top-down models emphasize the statute
framers as key actors. The main criticism to top-downers is that local service deliverers have
expertise and knowledge of the real problems therefore they are in a better position to
propose purposeful policy.
2.2 Bottom-Up Perspective
The second generation of policy implementation scholars promoted the bottom–up
perspective.. It acknowledged the implementation process as being complex and embossed by
the exercise of discretion of the different actors within the chain of the process so
implementation would not be taken for granted (Najam, 1995). Bottom-up theorists
emphasize the local level or target groups and service deliverers, are key players in policy
implementation (Matland, 1995, Hill & Nupe, 2002).
Hjern‟s model, which is one of the contributions to the bottom-up paradigm, identifies
relevant actors involved in policy implementation. It has, however, been criticized for being
inconsistent and biased; The model identifies actors and their action (or inaction) in policy
implementation. Like the top-down model, it tends to over-emphasize the ability of one side
to dictate the actions of the other; in this case, the periphery (or bottom), as opposed to the
center (or top). Its views of the policy implementation process are shaped by the perceptions
and activities of the participants. It represents a direct reaction to the top-down model as
opposed to a complete theoretical approach to understanding policy implementation. This
networking methodology is a useful starting point for identifying many of the actors involved
in a policy area but it needs to be related in view of an explicit theory to social, economic, and
legal factors which structure the perceptions, resources, and participation of those
actors(Schroeder, 2001).
Bottom-uppers, such as Paul Berman, 1978, 1980; Hjem & Porter, 1981; Hull and Hjem 1987
and Lipsky (1978) argue that a more realistic understanding of policy implementation can be
gained by looking at a policy from the view of the target population and the service deliverers.
Policy implementation occurs on two levels; at the macro implementation level, that is
centrally located actors devise a government program; at the micro implementation level,
local organizations react to the macro level plans and they develop their own programs and
implement them. Berman, 1978 and 1980) argues that most implementation problems stem
from the interaction of a policy with the micro level institutional setting. Central planners can
indirectly influence micro level factors. Therefore, there is wide a variation in how the same
national policy is implemented at the local level. Contextual factors within the
implementation environment can completely dominate rules created at the top of the
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
implementing pyramid and policy designers will be unable to control the process and
therefore under these conditions, according to the bottom-uppers, if local level implementers
are not given the freedom to adapt the program to local conditions, it is most likely to fail
(Matland, 1995)
Bottom-uppers argue that the goals, strategies, activities, and contacts of the actors involved
in the micro implementation process must be understood in order to understand
implementation. It is at the micro level that policy directly affects people. The influence of
policy on the action of street-level bureaucrats must be evaluated in order to predict the
policy's effect. Considering the fact that implementation arises from the interaction of policy
and setting, it is unrealistic to expect the development of a simple or single theory of
implementation that is context free (Maynard-Moody et al., 1990). While top-downers have a
strong desire to present prescriptive advice, bottom-uppers have placed more emphasis on
describing what factors have caused difficulty in reaching stipulated goals.
Two criticisms have been advanced against the bottom-up models; first, street level
bureaucrats have a great discretion in their interactions with clients, and are likely to abdicate
the goals of their clients and ascend their own in their place (Linder & Peters, 1987).
Secondly, is the consideration of normative democratic principles; the authority of local
policy implementers is not derived from the electorate. In a democratic system, policy control
should be exercised by actors whose power is derived from their accountability to sovereign
voters through their elected representatives. Given the challenge, decentralization should
occur within a context of central control Therefore, flexibility and autonomy involved in
bottom-up models might be appropriate when the goals of the policy formulators and
implementers are the same but if they differ greatly, it leads to poor implementation and
performance on official goals (Matland, 1995)..
Hjern and his colleagues (Hjern, 1982; Hjern & Hull, 1983; Hjern and Porter, 1978,
1981,1993; and Klijn, 2008), have contributed to the bottom-up perspective with their
network methodology. In this approach, policy implementation relies on perceptions and
qualities of actors in a network. Variations in actions can be explained largely by local level
differences yet all actions may fall within a limited range where the borders are set by
centrally determined policy. According to Hjern and his colleagues, Policy implementation
can be studied by a social network analysis. This clarifies the possible relationship between
network structure and organizational capabilities, and performance of policy networks. In
contrast to top-down theorists, bottom-uppers acknowledge the fact that implementers on the
micro-level think about their work and form their own opinion about the tasks they receive
and change the given programs in order to improve them or adapt them better to the real
circumstances. Najam identified some independent variables that determine the policy
implantation concept. These independent variables are; content of the policy, nature of the
institutional context, administrative capacity, commitment of the implementers, support of
clients, and coalitions forming the target group (Najam, 1995).
2.3 The Third Generation Policy Implementation Perspective
By the late 1980s, the call for the third generation policy implementation research paradigm
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
emerged. It was based on the premise that further theoretical development and more rigorous
scientific research design was necessary. The third-generation perspective aims to combine
top-down and bottom-up perspectives. It is more scientific in rigor, and in quality than the
previous two in its approach to the study of policy implementation. Goggin et al., 1990;
Goggin (1986) and Lester et al. (1987) offer defining features of the third-generation, namely;
Key variables must be clearly defined; Hypotheses derived from theoretical constructs should
guide empirical analysis; More use of statistical analysis using quantitative data to
supplement qualitative analysis. It endorses the use of multiple measures and methods; more
comparison across different units of analysis within and across policy sectors; and more
longitudinal research design (research timeframe of at least 5 to 10 years).
O‟Toole 2000 notes the slow and incremental advances made in the third generation policy
implementation studies. Many important defining features of the third generation research are
still far away from being implemented. There has been no sustained interest for, and
response to, the third generation call (Jennings & Ewalt, 2000).The explanation for this
implementation deficit is, to a large extent, due to the very demanding nature of the third
generation research design and some inherent dualities and tensions between some of its
essential features that make it hard to optimize them all simultaneously. Winter, Elmore,
Sabatier, Goggin, and Berman (1980) have proposed models and frameworks which are
reviewed in the following section.
Winter (2012) in his integrated model notes that many implementation barriers are found in
the policy-making process. He contends that conflicts or consensus in policy formulation
often continue in the subsequent implementation process as well as lack of attention among
the coalition partners passing the law and can lead to implementation failures (Winter, 2012;
Nakamura and Small-wood (1980), Elmore introduced the concept of forward and backward
mapping (1982 and 1985) in his early attempt to combine top-down and bottom-up
perspectives. Forward mapping consists of stating, precisely, policy objectives, elaborating
means-ends schemes in detail and explicitly specifying the outcome criteria by which to
judge the policy implementation at each stage. Backward mapping consists of stating
precisely the behavior to be changed at the lowest level. This process ensures consideration
of the micro implementers and target groups' interpretations of the policy problem and
possible solutions. This model falls short of interrelationships between concepts to contribute
to theory building. Elmore's model has no predictions as to generalize behavior (Elmore,
1982, 1985). Whereas Elmore's discussion is useful, it lacks explanatory power as a theory.
Besides the top-down perspective, Sabatier (1991) also contributes to the third-generation
perspective. He argues that policy needs to be analyzed in cycles of more than ten years to
allow for policy learning. Policies operate in parameters which include socio-economic
conditions, legal instruments and the basic government structure which remain relatively
stable over long periods of time (Sabatier, 1986, 1988; Sabatier, 1991). Sabatier argues that
advocacy coalitions should be the main unit of analysis in the study of policy actions.
Advocacy coalitions are groups of policy advocates from differing organizations, both public
and private, who share the same set of beliefs and goals. These groups attempt to have their
views regarding policy problems, solutions, and legitimate actors accepted. Sabatier urges the
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
use of Hjern's networking methodology to develop a mapping of these advocacy coalitions to

identify network of relevant actors involved in policy implementation (Hjern, 1982; Hjern &
Hull, 1983). Like Elmore‟s model, Sabatier does not provide a logical flow and relationships
between variables. In addition ten years are so many to wait if it were a failing policy
implementation. On his part, Goggin et al. (1990) contributes to the third generation policy
implementation paradigm with a communications model. This model looks at state
implementers as being at the nexus of a series of communication channels. In this regard,
three clusters of variables are described to affect state implementation: inducements and
constraints from the top (the federal level), inducements and constraints from the bottom
(state and local levels), and state-specific factors defined as decisional outcomes and state
capacity. This shows that contextual conditions can affect implementation.
In his evaluation of the top-down and bottom-up models, Berman (1980) argues that an
implementation plan should be developed using either the top-down or bottom-up approach
depending on a set of parameters that describe the policy context. He argues that these
situational parameters are dimensions that the implementation designer cannot influence.
These include the scope of change, validity of technology, goal conflict, institutional setting,
and environmental stability. Berman suggests that when change is incremental, technology is
certain, environment is stable, goal conflict is low, and institutional setting is tightly coupled,
an implementation plan should follow the tenets of the top-down model.
This argument is less convincing. Part of the confusion lies in the distinction between a
descriptive and a prescriptive model. It is virtually certain that when major policy changes are
implemented, where technology is uncertain and goal conflict is high, bargaining necessarily
occurs and adjustments are made. As a description of the process, many factors emphasized
in bottom up models are relevant.
Building on organizational theory literature, Matland (1995) proposes the application of the
ambiguity-conflict model for policy implementation. The ambiguity-conflict model is a
contingency model in which four implementation perspectives are developed based on a
policy‟s ambiguity and conflict level. Three types of mechanisms can be used for gaining
compliance from actors; normative, coercive, and remunerative. His contribution is in
consideration that previous theoretical work has failed to identify the conditions under which
policy recommendations would be effective. The degree of ambiguity inherent in a policy
directly affects the implementation process in significant ways. It influences the ability of
superiors to monitor activities, the likelihood that the policy is uniformly understood across
the many implementation sites, the probability that local contextual factors play a significant
role, and the degree to which relevant actors vary sharply across implementation sites.
When conflict exists, actions change and actors resort to bargaining mechanisms such as side
payments, log rolling, and oversight to reach agreements and hold coalitions together.
Coercive methods of insuring compliance are sometimes used in policy implementation
(Dahrendorf, 1958). However, high levels of conflict, especially involved in coercive
approaches make implementation harder. Administrative implementation, political
implementation, experimental implementation, and symbolic implementation are the four
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
forms of policy implementation that involve ambiguity and conflict in relative levels.
Conflict has to be controlled to raise issues and solutions, otherwise it may lead to violence
and poor policy implementation (Matland, 1995).
2.4 Third Generation Paradigm Assessment
The third generation set its goal on the analytical understanding of how implementation
generally works (Najam, 1995). However, scholars have never succeeded in setting up a
single theory to combine all the different approaches (Matland, 1995). In their
comprehensive quantitative and qualitative review of policy implementation literature, Harald
Saetren (2014) and O‟Toole (2000) noted that; first, there has been several high quality
research literature on policy implementation in recent times such as ; Barrett (Barrett,
2004; deLeon & deLeon, 2002; Hill & Hupe, 2009; O‟Toole Jr, 2004; O‟Toole, 2000;
Schofield, 2001; Schofield & Sausman, 2004; Winter, 2012). Secondly, progress is reported
more on methodological issues than theoretical issues. The likelihood to derive hypotheses
from theoretical constructs and subject them to some empirical testing has increased
substantially from only 10% before 1980 to almost 50% in the 2000s. The use of more
quantitative data to supplement qualitative and sophisticated statistical techniques to analyze
empirical data has increased during the same time period from 3% to 24%. The theoretical
utility of using single case-studies enhanced by careful selection of crucial or critical cases in
terms of testing a particular theory are rare (Gerring, 2007; King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994;
Yin, 2009), except for a few rare exceptions like Lundquist( 2001) and Lundin(2007).
Policy implementation studies need to do more to; combine the use of qualitative and
quantitative methodologies and to use a comparative research design; engage in
cross-national comparative studies which are rare despite their high vale and relevance in
improving policy implementation. Nevertheless, There are some examples of well-designed
comparative studies (Falkner, Treib, & Hartlapp, 2005; Falkner, Treib, & Holzleithner, 2008;
Goggin, 1987; Knill & Lenchow, 1998; May, 1995). But these identified studies are still few
and in Europe and America. Policy implementation studies especially in Africa and Asia are
minimal (Mugambwa, Nabeta, Kaberuka, Munene, & Rudaheranwa, 2017). Comparison at
the sub-system level is more common than cross-national comparison; the trend in
longitudinal research design which is another defining feature of the third-generation research
design is lacking. There is a tendency to neglect the works from some regions. On this
O‟Toole (2000) criticized his fellow North Americans, who have dominated this research
field for their tendency to neglect the works of European scholars. He also suggested that
much could be learned from a trans-Atlantic focus and dialogue (Saetren, 2014).
Meier and colleagues have suggested the use of statistical inference among specialists in
policy and public management, in improving performance rather than merely documenting
and explaining policy implementation. The approach, called Substantively Weighted
Analytical Techniques (SWAT). It takes care of cross-state analysis of policy implementation
(Meier & Keiser, 1996). There is need to exploit opportunities for innovation in modeling.
Multi-level program arrays especially those that exhibit site-specific variations that seem to
matter, can be approached by altering conventional regression analysis and framing the model
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
in hierarchical terms, to allow for interaction across the levels of the hierarchical model.
Hierarchical linear modeling offers promise in explaining aspects of performance (Heinrich
& Lynn, 1999, 2000; Roderick, 2000). SWAT has not been used much to advance work on
policy implementation.
It is also noted that most policy implementation research has been conducted in and regarding
the United States, albeit with the goal of general understanding. (Hull & Hjem, 1987;
Knoepfel & Weidner, 1982). Some empirical studies have been conducted outside the United
States and Western Europe (Brinkerhoff, 1999). Investigation suggests that the approaches
developed in western liberal contexts may have limited utility in other settings (O‟Toole,
2000). It is also noted that there is need for large population longitudinal-empirical studies
(Lin, 2000). We turn to the new directions for the third generation paradigm which, in our
view, offers promise for prominence of policy implementation research.
3. New Directions for the Third Generation Paradigm
The new directions identified are promising to the future of policy implementation research
and practice. These directions provide an opportunity for progress in policy implementation
practice and research. These include the trends in implementation research, recent emphasis
on networks and network management; institutional analysis and governance (O‟Toole, 2000;
Winter, 2012). There is a focus on implementation of international agreements and protocols.
In the following section we discuss the four areas in relation to policy implementation;
Implementation Science; , Network Management; Internationalism, Multilateralism and
Regionalism; and Governance and Institutional analysis.
3.1 Implementation Science
There is a concentration on independent variables which implies that dependent variable (the
policy implementation concept) is neglected. There is still no agreement on the
measurement of policy implementation (Mugambwa, Nabeta, Kaberuka, Munene, &
Rudaheranwa, 2017). On the other hand, implementation science has made strides on two
critical fronts that were lacking in policy implementation literature First, by developing
measures for implementation that we find applicable in policy implementation. Secondly, the
normalization process theory (May, 2006; May& Finch, (2009) which is a long stride towards
policy implementation theory building. We therefore propose that the implementation
science and policy implementation scholars should listen to each other for the new direction,
in order to cause advancement in the scholarship.
Until now, implementation studies have tended to present long lists of variables without
exploring the theoretical relationship between them. The theoretical base provided by
implementation science (Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) is an opportunity to further
advance the discipline. The field of implementation science has unpacked the factors that lead
to the successful implementation of evidence based programs and practices, particularly for
health care and medical interventions (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Meyers, Durlak, &
Wandersman, 2012).
While many of the programs being studied take place in public settings or are enabled by
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
public policy, this program implementation literature is for the most part divorced from prior
studies of policy implementation (Moulton, Rolls, & Sandfort, 2014; Nilsen, Roback, &
Cairney, 2013). It is our considered belief that implementation science literature should be
employed in policy implementation literature and vice-versa (Mugambwa et al., 2017). The
most intriguing works in implementation science are; i) the normalization process theory and
ii) the measurement of variables to which we turn.
3.2 Normalisation Process Theory (NPT)
The NPT focuses on the contribution of social action to policy implementation
(implementation, embedding and integration) (May & Finch, 2009). It focuses on how
implementing a new intervention or practice involves people “working together”. NPT
considers practices and perceptions of different groups of people involved in implementing a
new intervention; the context where it is being implemented; the intervention/practice itself.
NPT provides a set of tools to understand and explain the social processes that frame the
implementation of material practices. Material practices become routinely embedded in social
contexts as the result of people working, individually and collectively to implement them.
May & Finch (2009) operationalised policy implementation to be achievable through four
mechanisms namely; Coherence, participation, Collective action, and Reflexive monitoring;
which we term as normalization process.
The NPT notion of coherence involves a process of differentiation where the new working
practice is identified by its differences from other practices. The second NPT notion of
participation is concerned with defining and organising the people involved in any type of
complex interaction. Before a new working practice, or policy action, can become embedded,
it is necessary for actors to be enrolled in social networks and to work together to participate
in that new working practice. It is also necessary for the actors concerned to become engaged
in the process of change and in interpreting how the new practice relates to shared beliefs or
norms about what constitutes legitimate working practice.
The third NPT notion of collective action is concerned with the work that individuals and
groups undertake in order to ascertain a new practice or system which becomes embedded
and forms part of everyday working practice. This notion relates to the collective action that
involves investing effort to achieve a policy goal, which could include resistance as well as
acceptance or compliance. The fourth NPT notion of reflexive monitoring is concerned with
the ways in which the implementation of a new policy practice is continuously evaluated by
the participants, both formally and informally (Murray et al., 2011). Whereas the
Normalisation Process theory is usable in the policy implementation, it has been majorly used
in the medical profession (Alverbratt, 2015; Cresswell, 2011; Hooker, Small, Humphreys,
Hegarty, & Taft, 2015).
3.3 Measurement of Variables
The Normalization process may be measured by the Normalization Measure Development
(NoMAD) survey tool developed by (Finch et al., 2016). It measures coherence, participation,
collective action, reflexive monitoring as the independent variables. The dependent variable
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
is Policy implementation with two components of embeddedness and integration.

In Table 1 below, a comparative analysis is made between the NPT and Third Generation
Policy Implementation. The reason is to expose the closeness of NPT to the Third Generation
Policy Implementation literature.
Table1. NPT and Third Generation Policy Implementation compared
NPT variable Related 3G 3G model 3G model proponent

metaphor (s)
 Behavior clarity Forward and Elmore, 1985
Coherence backward mapping
 Policy learning Advocacy coalition Sabatier(1986,1988,
model 1991)
Participation  Inducements and Communication Goggin,1990
constraints model
Reflective  Incremental change Berman, 1980;
monitoring  Delegation Nakamura &
Smallwood, 1980
Collective action  Civil rights Advocacy coalition Sabatier, 1991;
Linder and Peters,
model 1987
Source: Developed from reviewed literature
Key: 3G is Third generation policy implementation, NPT is Normalisation Process Theory
Table 1 above compares the contributions of the third-generation policy implementation
scholars and the Normalisation Process Theory. It is noted that the variables presented by
the NPT closely relate to the metaphors suggested by the third generation policy
implementation scholars. The idea advanced in this table is that the NPT is clearly a good
theory proposed by implementation science but can also be used to study policy
implementation.
3.4 Networks, Network Management and Policy Implementation
The emergence of increasingly complex structural forms, including multi-actor networked
patterns, has made especially salient the questions of conceptualization, research design, and
theory building for policy implementation. The study of networks and network management
has acquired considerable growing significance partially as an independent intellectual effort,
but partially as well, in response to this debate within policy implementation research.
Studies may include answering questions about institutional arrangements and various forms
through which most implementation action develops. There is recently a global explosion of
research on policy and implementation networks. There is a lot to learn about managing
networks and the complex decision-making processes that take places within them. Scholars
have already moved on with studies on networking behavior involving public managers and
the embedding of public action in networks (Klijn, 2009; O‟Toole, 2015; Lundin, 2007;
Provan, Veazie, Staten, & Teufel-Shone, 2005). Schroeder (2001) noted that networks and
interaction process can be influential in shaping the processes, outputs, and outcomes of
public policy action. Networks are a new approach which should be increasingly taken
seriously in policy implementation in view of the public sector to delivery for public good.
Studies reviewed examine and call for further examination of structures of interdependence
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
involved in converting policy intention into action. Knowledge about how networks and
networking behavior can shape performance and affect the most salient values in governance
systems is needed; policy implementation and empirical studies in this regard towards theory
building(O‟Toole, 2015). Validation of what seems to be a very promising theoretical
approach between networks and policy implementation has not taken place (Schroeder,
2001).
3.5 Internationalism, Multilateralism and Regionalism
States are continuously going beyond their borders and seeking to integrate with the rest of
the world. This situation has resulted into signing agreements and protocols. Domestic
politics and interests shape states‟ compliance with international, multilateral and regional
agreements. For example integration has caused free movements, at the same time
unemployment to the indigenous people who complain of foreigners occupying what would
be their jobs. Domestic political processes force state governments to make difficult political
choices for example denying foreigners jobs, and limitation of imports to safeguard local
infant industries. Implementation of useful agreements is often frustrated by partner countries.
This stand-off calls for policy implementation research to avert the collapse of useful
agreements and protocols as well as studies on how to make the arrangements work and
understand the factors affecting implementation and compliance. Some of the internationally
renowned agreements include UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC.,
1992); and the Kyoto Protocol. Today, other key agreements are in sectors of international
financial regulation, trade, human rights, and security (O‟Brien & Gowan, 2012).
Regionalism and multilateralism are aimed at positive social change. They involve adoption
of new social policy agendas that focus on addressing some of the most critical social
challenges. In this direction, the achievement of Millennium Development Goals was a
disappointment and confirms the gap between the policy rhetoric and programme
implementation. Equally the Sustainable Development agenda needs studies for successful
implementation.
Policy implementation is relevant in the context of deepening poverty, growing inequalities
within and between countries and the uneven impacts of economic and financial globalization
(Taylor, 2015). It will help the different regional blocks to achieve the global competitiveness
that they aim at. They include; among others; Southern African Development Community, East
African Community, North American Free Trade Agreement, The Association of Southeast
Asian Nations , European Free Trade Association (Mckay, Armengol, & Pineau, 2004).
Cross-national comparative implementation research can have an impact on the execution of
international agreements, especially multi-lateral ones. International agreements put in place
a common policy for the signatory countries. Hundreds of such agreements now present
important empirical circumstances for systematic study but additional investigations are
clearly needed (Weinthal & Yael, 2003; Weiss & Harold, 1998),
3.6 Governance and Institutional Analysis
To fully understand why policy outcomes often fall significantly short of policy intentions we
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
need to examine the structuring factors, such as the institutions of governance, that shape the
policy implementation process (Parto, 2005). This includes understanding the role of formal
and informal institutions, in facilitating and curtailing policy implementation. Institutional
actors and actions guide implementation of policies. Understanding the effect of Institutions
(regulative, normative, and cognitive dimensions) on policy implementation is useful in
establishing why some systems deliver policy-relevant impacts while others fail (Mugambwa
et. al., 2017). A case in point is the Decentralisation policy which has been adopted by most
developing countries without exceptional implementation success (Koelble & Siddle, 2013).
In decentralization, partnerships and interdependencies between actors call for accountability
in terms of policy implementation. Therefore, decentralization policy implementation needs
to be investigated at the multiple levels of institutional action.
4. Conclusion
This article has reviewed policy implementation literature research; the top-down, bottom-up
and the third generation perspective debates. We agree with previous literature reviewers like
O‟Toole (2000) and Winter (2012) that much has been achieved although a lot still remains to
be done. There have been numerous attempts towards theoretical development which have, so
far, been futile (Harald Saetren, 2014). The third generation perspective, and most
importantly its new direction, offers promise for prominence of policy implementation
research. Challenges of policy implementation research have also been examined.
Implementation science has made strides in developing the Normalisation Process Theory
(NPT) and measurements that are relevant in policy implementation. It is our wish that the
two disciplines listen to each other to further advance policy implementation research and
practice. This article has also identified that other areas that provide space and resource for
policy implementation prominence are; networks and network management; Internationalism,
multilateralism and regionalism; and Governance and institutional analysis. These should be
exploited more to further policy implementation studies. Research and scholarship should
contribute relevantly to the policy implementation concept.
Fund
This study was funded by Makerere University Business School and African Development
Bank
Biographical Statement
Joshua Mugambwa is a Phd Candidate at Makerere University. He is a Lecturer in The
Department of Leadership and Governance at Makerere University Business School, Uganda.
His research interests are in Public policy, Governance, climate change, leadership,
urbanization and poverty reduction. His contact is: jmugambwa@mubs.ac.ug;
mugambwaj@yahoo.com
Dr. Isaac Nkote Nabeta (PhD) is the Dean, Faculty of Commerce at Makerere University
Business School, Uganda. His research work is on public policy, foreign investment,
insurance and finance. His contact is: inkote@mubs.ac.ug
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Associate Professor Mohamed Ngoma (PhD) is the Dean, Postgraduate School at Makerere
University Business School, Uganda. His contact is: mngoma@mubs.ac.ug
Dr. Nichodemus Rudaheranwa (PhD) is the Head of Economics Department at Makerere
University Business School, Uganda. His work focuses on Trade Policy, Economic
Performance and Poverty. His contact is: nrudaheranwa@mubs.ac.ug
Prof. Will Kaberuka (PhD) is a Professor in the Department of Management Science at
Makerere University Business School, Uganda. His research interests are in Development
Economics, International Development, policy analysis, and statistical modeling. His contact
is: wkaberuka@mubs.ac.ug
Prof. John C. Munene (PhD) is a Professor and Director of Doctoral Programmes at the
Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, Makerere University Business School, Uganda.
His research interests are in poverty reduction, public policy, Systems thinking, and strategic
planning. His contact is; jmunene@mubs.ac.ug
References
Allison, G. (1972). Essence of decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA:
Little Brown.
Alverbratt, C. (2015). Implementation of a New Working Method in Psychiatric Care. (PhD),
University of Guthenburg, Sweden.
Attia, A. (1999). Planning For Sustainable Tourism Development: An Investigation into
Implementing Tourism Policy In the North West Coast Region of Egypt. (PhD), University Of
London, London.
Baier, V., March, J. G., & Saetren, H. (1986). Implementationa nd Ambiguity. Scandinavian
Journal of Management Studies, 2, 197-212.
Bardach, E. (1977). The Implementation Game. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Barrett, S. M. (2004). Implementation studies: Time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20
years of implementation studies. Public Administration Review, 82(2), 249-262.
Berman, P. (1978). The Study of Macro- and Micro- Implementation. Public Policy, 26(2),
157-184.
Berman, P. (1980). Thinking about Programmed and Adaptive Implementation: Matching
Strategies to Situations. In H. I. a. D. Mann (Ed.), Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Beverly
Hills. Califonia: Sage.
Berman, P. (1981). Educational Change: An Implementation Paradigm. In R. Lehming, M.
Kane, & B. Hills (Eds.), Improving Schools: Using what we know. CA: Sage.
Blanco-Mancilla, G. (2011). Implementation of Health Policies in Mexico City: What factors
contribute to more effective service delivery? (PhD), The London School of Economics and
Political Science.
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Bressers, A., Klok, J., & O‟Toole, L. J. (2000). Explaining Policy Action: A Deductive but
Realistic Theory. Paper presented at the Regulative policy strategies for fragmented societies,
IPSA World Congress, Quebec.
Brinkerhoff, D. W. (1999). State-Civil Society Networks for Policy Implementation in
Developing Countries. Policy Studies Review, 16(1), 123-147.
Cresswell, K. M. (2011). Implementation and adoption of the first national electronic health
record: a qualitative exploration of the perspectives of key stakeholders in selected English
care settings drawing on sociotechnical principles. (PhD), The University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh.
Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Towards a Theory of Social Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution,
2(2), 170-183.
DeLeon, P. (1999). The missing link revisted: contemporary implementation research
Policy Studies Review, 116(4), 311-338.
deLeon, P., & deLeon, L. (2002). „What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory Advance, 12(4), 467-492.
Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence
of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American
journal of community psycholog, 41(3-4), 327-350.
Elmore, R. (1979-80). Backward Mapping : Implementation Research and Policy Decisions.
Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
Elmore, R. F. (1978). Organizational Models of Social ProgramI mplementation Public
Policy, 26(2), 185-226.
Elmore, R. F. (1982). Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. In
W. L. Williams (Ed.), Studying Implementation. Methodological and Administrative Issues.
Chatham, N.J: Chatham Publishing.
Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and Backward Mapping: Reversible Logic in the Analysis of
Public Policy. In K. Hanf & T. Toonen (Eds.), Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary
Systems: Questions of Analysis and Design. Dodrecht, Netherlands: Martinus,Nijhoff.
Etzioni, A. (1961). Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Falkner, G., Treib, O., & Hartlapp, M. (2005). Complying with Europe. EU Harmonization
and Soft Law in the Member States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falkner, G., Treib, O., & Holzleithner, E. (2008). Compliance in the Enlarged European
Union. Living Rights or Dead Letters? . Aldershot: Ashgate.
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Finch, T., Rapley, T., Girling, M., May, C., Mair, F., Murray, E., ... Dickinson, C. (2016).
NoMAD, Implementation measure based on Normalisation process theory, measurement
instrument. Centre for Health Innovation, Leadership & Learning: University of Nottingham.
Gerring, J. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial case method? . Comparative Political Studies,
40(3), 231-253.
Goggin, M., Bowman, A., & Lester, J. P. (1990). Implementation Theory and Practice:
Toward a Third Generation. Glenwood, Illinois: Scott Foreman/Little Brown.
Goggin, M. L. (1986). The Too Few Cases/Too Many Variables' Problem in Implementation
Research. Western Political Quarterly, (38), 328-347.
Goggin, M. L. (1987). Policy Design and the Politics of Implementation. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(4), 102-122.
Hargroe, E. C. (1975). The missing link : The study of implementation of social policy. Urban
Institute Paper. The Urban Institute,. Washington, DC.
Harris, A. J. (2005). Civil commitment of Sexual Predators. A Study in Policy Implementation.
New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Heinrich, C. J., & Lynn, L. E. J. (1999). Means and Ends: A Comparative Study of Empirical
Methods for Investigating Governance and Performance. Paper presented at the The Fifth
National Public Management Research Conference, Texas A&M University,College Station.
Heinrich, C. J., & Lynn, L. E. J. (2000). Governance and Performance: The Influence of
Program Structure and Management on Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Program
Outcomes. In Lynn & Heinrich (Eds.), Models and Methods in the Empirical Study of
Governance. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2009). Implementing Public Policy, An Introduction to the Study of
Operational Governance. London: Sage Publication Ltd.
Hill, M., & Nupe, P. (2002). Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and
Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Hjem, B., & Porter, D. (1981). Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative
Analysis. Organization Studies, 2(211-27).
Hjern, B. (1982). Implementation Research: The Link Gone Missing. Journal of Public
Policy, 2, 301-308.
Hjern, B., & Hull, C. (1983). Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalism.
European Journal of Political Research, 10(2), 105-115.
Hooker, L., Small, R., Humphreys, C., Hegarty, K., & Taft, A. (2015). Applying
normalization process theory to understand implementation of a family violence screening
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
and care model in maternal and child health nursing practice: a mixed method process
evaluation of a randomised controlled trial. Implementation Science, 10(39). doi: DOI
10.1186/s13012-015-0230-4
Hoppe, R., van de Graaf, H., & van Dijk, A. (1985). Implementationa s Design Problem:
Problem Tractability, Policy Theory, and Feasibility Testing. . Paper presented at the
International Political Science Association, Paris.
Hull, C., & Hjem, B. (1987). Helping Small Firms Grow. London: Croom Helm.
Imamura, Y. (2015). Policy Implementation Studies: The Case of Eliminating Day-care
Waiting Lists in Japan WINPEC Working Paper Series No.E1501. Tokyo,Japan: Waseda
INstitute of Political EConomy, Waseda University.
Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1990). Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter
Statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10(1), 67-88.
Jennings, E. T. J., & Ewalt, J. A. G. (2000). Driving Caseloads Down: Welfare Policy
Choices and Administrative Action in-the States. In J. Laurence E. Lynn & C. J. Heinrich
(Eds.), Models and Methods for the Empirical Study of Governance. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Klijn, E. H. (2009). Policy and Implementation Networks: Managing Complex Interactions
Oxford Oxford Handbooks.
Knill, C., & Lenchow, A. (1998). Coping with Europe. The impact of British and German
administration on the implementation of EU environmental policy. Journal of European
Public Policy, 5(4), 595-614.
Knoepfel, P., & Weidner, H. (1982). Implementing Air Quality Control Programs in Europe.
Policy Studies Journal 11, 104-115.
Koelble, T. A., & Siddle, A. (2013). Why Decentralization in South Africa Has Failed.
Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 26(3),
343-346.
Laurence J. O., & Toole, J. (2015). Networks and Networking: The Public Administrative
Agendas. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 361-371.
Lester, J. P., & Goggin, M. L. (1998). Back to the Future: The Rediscovery of
Implementation Studies. Policy Currents, 3(3), 1-9.
Lin, A. C. (2000). Reform in the Making: The Implementation of Social Policy in Prison.
Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1987). A Design Perspective on Policy Implementation: The
Fallacies of Misplaced Prescription. Policy Studies Review, 6(3), 459-475.
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Lipsky, M. (1978). Standing the Study of Policy Implementation on Its Head. In W. D.

Burnham & M. Weinberg (Eds.), American Politics and Public Policy. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.
New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
Lundin, M. (2007). Explaining Cooperation: How Resource Interdependence, Goal
Congruence, and Trust Aff ect Joint Actions in Policy Implementation. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 651-672.
Lundin, M. (2007). When does cooperation improve public policy implementation? . Policy
Studies Journal, 35(4), 629-652.
Lundquist, L. J. (2001). Implementation from above. The ecology of power in Sweden‟s
environmental policy. . Governence, 14(3), 319-337.
Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict
Model of PolicyImplementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2),
145-174.
May, C. (2006). A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in
health care. BMC Health Services Research, 6(86), 1-11.
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding and integrating practices: an outline
of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535-554.
May, P. J. (1995). Can cooperation be mandated? Implementing intergovernmental
environmental management in New South-Wales and New Zealand. Publius, 25(1), 89-113.
May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2007). Politicians,Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats:
Influnces on Policy Implementation. JPART, 19, 453-476.
Maynard, M. S., Musheno, M., & Palumbo, D. (1990). Street-wise Social Policy: Resolving
the Dilemma of Street-Level Influence and Successful Implementation. Western Political
Quarterly, 43(4), 833-848.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. (1983). Implemntation and Public Policy. Glenview,III:
Scott Foresman.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implemenation and Public policy; with a new
postscript. Lanham,MD: University Press of America.
Mckay, J., Armengol, M. O., & Pineau, G. (2004). Regional Economic Integration In a
Global Framework. Frankfurt, Germany: European Central Bank.
Meier, K. J., & Keiser, L. R. (1996). Public Administration as a Science of the Artificial: A
Methodology for Prescription. Public Administration Review, (56), 459-466.
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Meyers, D. J., Durlak, & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: a
synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American journal of community
psychology, 50(3-4), 462-480.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people
stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. The Academy of Management
Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121.
Moulton, S., Rolls, S., & Sandfort, J. (2014). A Comparative Analysis of Policy and Program
Implementation Literatures: Ohio State University and University of Minnesota.
Mthethwa, R. M. (2012). Critical dimensions for policy implementation. African Journal of
Public Affairs, 5(2).
Mugambwa, J., Nabeta, I. N., Kaberuka, W., Munene, J. C., & Rudaheranwa, N. (2017).
Theorizing Policy Implementation: Making Sense of the Fish Stock Restoration Story.
International Journal of Policy Studies, 8(2), 2017.
Murray, E., Burns, J., May, C., Finch, T., O‟Donnell, C., Wallace, P., & Mair, F. (2011).
Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study. . Implementation
Science [online], 6(6).
Najam, A. (1995). Learning from the Literature on Policy Implementation: A Synthesis
Perspective International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The Politics of Policy implementation. New York:
st. Martin's Press.
Nilsen, P. C., Roback, K. S., & Cairney, P. (2013). Never the twain shall meet? A
comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation
science, 8(63).
O'Toole, L. J. (1986 ). Policy Recommendations for Multi-Actor Implementation: An
Assessment of the Field. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 6(2), 181-210.
O‟Brien, E., & Gowan, R. (2012). What Makes International Agreements Work: Defining
Factors for Success. Center On International Cooperation: New York University.
O‟Toole Jr, L. J. (2004). The theory-practice issue in policy implementation research. Public
Administration Review, 82(2), 309-329.
O‟Toole, L. Jr. (2000). Reserach on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263.
Palumbo, J. D., Maynard, M. S., & Wright, P. (1984). Measuring Degrees of Successful
Implementation. Evaluation Review, 8(1), 45-74.
Parto, S. (2005). Good Governance and Policy Analysis : What of Institutions ?
MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum series. Maastricht: MERIT – Maastricht
Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology.
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Polidano, C. (1999). The New Public Management In Developing Countries. IDPM Public
Policy and Management Working Paper. Institute for Development Policy and Management.
University of Manchester.
Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in
Washington are Dashed in Oakland or Why it’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Provan, K. G., Veazie, M. A., Staten, L. K., & Teufel-Shone, N. I. (2005). Th e Use of
Network Analysis to Strengthen Community Partnerships. Public Administration Review,
65(5), 603-613.
Roderick, M. (2000). Evaluating Chicago's Efforts to End Social Promotion. In L. E. L. Jr. &
C. J. Heinrich (Eds.), Models and Methods for the Empirical Study of Governance.
Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Sabatier, P. (1986). Top–Down and Bottom–Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A
Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of
policyoriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2-3), 129-168.
Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework
of Analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538-560.
Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. Political Science and
Politics, 24(2), 147-156.
Saetren, H. (2005). Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation:
Out-offashion, allegedly dead, but still alive and relevant. Policy Studies Journal, 33(4),
559-582.
Saetren, H. (2014). Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy
implementation research: An empirical assessment. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2),
84-105.
Sarbaugh-Thompson, M., & Zald, M. N. (1995). Child labor laws. Administraion and society,
27(1), 25.
Schofield, J. (2001). Time for a revival? Public policy implementation: A review of the
literature and agenda for future research. International Journal of Management Review, 3(3),
245-263.
Schofield, J., & Sausman, C. (2004). Symposium on implementing public policy: Learning
from theory and practice: Introduction. Public Administration Review, 82(2), 235-248.
Schroeder, A. D. (2001). Building Implementation Networks: Building Multi-organizational,
Multi-sector Structures for Policy Implementation. (PhD), Virginia.
ISSN 2161-7104
2018, Vol. 8, No. 3
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Taylor, V. (2015). Advancing regionalism and a social policy agenda for positive change:
From rhetoric to action. Glob Soc Policy, 15(3), 329-335.
UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change New York:
United Nations.
VanMeter, D., & VanHorn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process a conceptual
framework. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445-488.
Weinthal, E., & Yael, P. (2003). Two Steps Forward, One Step Backward: Societal Capacity
and Israel‟s Implementation of the Barcelona Convention and the Mediterranean Action
Plan. . Global Environmental Politics, 3(1), 51-71.
Weiss, E. B., & Harold, K. J. (1998). Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with
International Environmental Accords. London: MIT Press.
Wilson, J. (2010). Examining Job Embeddedness Survey Items For An Adventure Education
Population. (PhD), Indiana University, Indiana.
Winter, S. (1986). How Policy-Making Affects Implementation:The Decentralization of the
Danish Disablement Pension Administration. Scandinavian Political Studies, 9(4), 361-385.
Winter, S. (1990). Integrating implementation research. In P. D. a. C. DJ (Ed.),
Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box. New York: Greenwood
Press.
Winter, S. (2003). Implementation Perspectives: Status and Reconsideration (p.212-223) In B.
G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publication Ltd.
Winter, S. (2012). Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In P. BG & P. J
(Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage.
Yanguas, P., & Bukenya, B. (2016). New‟ approaches confront „old‟ challenges in African
public sector reform. Third world Quarterly, 37(1), 136-152.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
Zakaria, N. H. (2011). Impact of Knowledge Integration on Enterprise system sucess.
Queensland University of Technology
Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Jurnal Mugambwa 2018 Policy Implementation Conceptual Foundation, Accumulated Wisdom and New Direction

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jurnal Mugambwa 2018 Policy Implementation Conceptual Foundation, Accumulated Wisdom and New Direction

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Public Administration and Governance

Policy Implementation: Conceptual Foundations,

Dr. Nkote Nabeta

Associate Professor Muhammed Ngoma

Dr. Nichodemus Rudaheranwa

Professor Will Kaberuka

Prof. John C. Munene

use of Hjern's networking methodology to develop a mapping of these advocacy coalitions to

is Policy implementation with two components of embeddedness and integration.

NPT variable Related 3G 3G model 3G model proponent

Lipsky, M. (1978). Standing the Study of Policy Implementation on Its Head. In W. D.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen