3525645

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.
Public Management Research Association
Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects

Author(s): Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr.
Source: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, Vol. 10, No. 2, Tenth
Anniversary Issue (Apr., 2000), pp. 263-288
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3525645 .
Accessed: 02/10/2014 09:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc., Oxford University Press, Public Management
Research Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Research on Policy Implementation:

Assessmentand Prospects
LaurenceJ. O'Toole Jr.
Universityof Georgia
ABSTRACT
A version of this article was presented

at the fifth nationalConference on Public
Management,Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, December 2-4,
1999. Thanks are due to Peter deLeon,
KennethJ. Meier, Beryl Radin, and especially Ann Chih Lin for helpful comments
on the earlier draft. Responsibility, of
course, remainswith the author.
J-PART 10(2000):2:263-288
Whilepolicy implementation
no longerframes the core
and
questionof public management publicpolicy, some scholars
have debatedappropriatestepsfor revitalization.Andthepractical
worldstandsjust as muchin need now of valid knowledgeabout
as ever. Wherehas all the policy implepolicy implementation
mentationgone? Or at least all the scholarlysigns of it? And
why? Whathas thefield accomplished?Shoulda resurgenceof
attentionto the subjectbe exhorted?And if so, in what directions?
Thisarticle considersthese questionsas foci of an
assessmentof the state of thefield, and the argumentreaches
somewhatunconventionalconclusions:Thereis more here than
meets the eye. Whilemodestto moderateprogress can be noted
on a numberof fronts, an initial assessmentis likelyto understate
the extentof workunderwayon mattersquite close to the implementationtheme.Researchon policy implementation-like
questions has partiallytransmogrified.One has to look, sometimes,in
unusualplaces and be informedby a broaderlogic of intellectual
developmentto makesense of the relevantscholarship.Policy
work, in short, continuesto bear relevancefor
implementation
importantthemesof policy and management.But some of the discourse has shifted, the questionshave broadened,and the agenda
has becomecomplicated.Researchon implementation,under
whatevercurrentlyfashionablelabels, is alive and lively.
The explicit studyof policy implementationhas swung in
and out of fashionduringthe past quartercentury.Beginning
with Pressmanand Wildavsky'sclassic investigation(1984
[1973]) of an EconomicDevelopmentAdministration
project
gone sour in Oakland,California,the subjectquicklygained
cachetduringthe GreatSociety postmortemand the subsequent
years of welfare state and budgetarycrises.
2631Journalof Public AdministrationResearchand Theory

Research on Policy Implementation

Pressmanand Wildavskyexaggeratedmightilyin asserting
that, until theirefforts, virtuallyno one had addressedthe subject
(1984 [1973], xxi). But the claim was based in a real, and consequential,point: For all the attentionto administrationover the
years, the nitty-grittyof implementationhad been largely a backgroundissue. Their work and the work of hundredsof others
over the next severalyears (see O'Toole 1986) ensuredthat the
theme would be importantfor the foreseeablefuture.From nowhere, policy implementationmoved to a positionof prominence,
perhapseven overemphasis(see Linderand Peters 1987). The
proliferationof studiesbrought,in turn, an explosion in types of
researchdesigns, varietiesof models, and-especially-proposals
for addinga bewilderingarrayof variablesas part of the explanationfor the implementationprocess and its products.The
cornucopiaof investigationscatalyzed,in turn, a set of sectarian
disputes:qualitativeand small-nversus quantitative,large-n
investigations;top-downversusbottom-upframeworks;policydesign versus policy-implementation
emphasis,and so forth.
was
even
seen
some
worriedstudentsof tradiImplementation
by
tional public administrationas a themeposing a hegemonicthreat
to the field (Kettl 1990 and 1993).
It was no accidentthatthe interestin policy implementation
surgedfollowing the rise of and disappointmentin the initiatives
of the 1960s and 1970s. But many years of loweredexpectations,
incrementalprogramadjustments,budgetcrunches,and, in the
last few years, Republicancongressionalcontrolhave had dampening effects. Implementationissues tendedto recede from the
headlines,as the policy agendabecamepreoccupiedwith cutbacks, devolution,and holdingthe line.
Since 1990, the spateof scholarlyresearchaimedexplicitly
at the implementationthemehas abated.(Thereare exceptions,
of course, includingmany studiesreferencedbelow.) Lynn has
commented,in particular,on the ascendencyand diminishmentof
implementationresearchconductedin the nation'spremierpolicy
schools (Lynn 1996, 47). Othershave arguedthat researchinterest in the subjecthas declinedoverall (deLeon 1999a and 1999b).
It is hardlyas thoughthe scholarlycommunityhas declared
victory and moved on to otherchallenges,however. In fact,
assessmentsat earlierstages generallyemphasizedthe slow pace
of progress,the seeminglyintractableor at least interminable
scholarlydisputesremaining,and the need for bigger and better
empiricalinvestigations.(SamplesincludeO'Toole 1986; Goggin
et al. 1990.)
264/J-PART, April 2000

Researchon Policy Implementation

In recenttimes, a numberof prominentscholarsof public
have commentedhopefully,pessimispolicy and administration
tically, caustically,and pragmaticallyregardingthe likelihood
and utility of a large-scaleresurgenceof implementationresearch
(see Lesterand Goggin 1998; in responsesee deLeon 1999a;
Meier 1999; Schneider1999; Winter 1999). Some attributethe
shift of interestto otherpolicy questionsto betterframeworks
and a sharpenedsense of appropriately
productiveresearchquestions.1But few aside from Lesterand Gogginhave called for a
wholesalerenaissanceof the subject-in the sense, at least, of an
infusionof researcheffort to makethis topic the high-visibility
core of public managementandpublicpolicy scholarshipthat it
was a few years ago (Lynn 1996, 57).
Similarly,even as the researchersseem not to have solved
the implementation
puzzle, practitionerscontinueto find themselves enmeshedin the vexing challengesof convertingpolicy
intentinto efficaciousaction. Policy failurescontinueto be
prominent,and evidence of implementers'desires to be informed
in appropriateways by the researchcommunitysuggeststhat
many implementationconundrumsremainsalientin the world of
action. Lesterand Goggin (1998, 3-4) have sketcheda set of
additionalreasonsthe studyof implementation
today shouldbe
these
to
do
with
the
have
compelling;
emergingexperiencein
sectors
the
manypolicy
during past twentyyears, the development of several shifts in intergovernmental
relations,and the
movementof muchpolicy responsibilityto the states in recent
years. It seems clear, at the least, thatthe practicalworld is
now just as much in need of valid knowledgeaboutpolicy
as it ever has been.
implementation
'A well-known example is Sabatier's
suggestion that investigatorsabandonthe
so-called stages heuristic that places
implementationper se into prominenceas
a research subject, in favor of approaches
that emphasize policy change, policyoriented learning, and the influence of
policy coalitions over time. (See Sabatier
1991; Sabatierand Jenkins-Smith1993.)
2Inevitably, some related topics must be
neglected. One importantexample is the

scholarshipon policy design, which bears
on issues of implementation-and vice
versa. The integrationof design and
implementationconsiderationsis a theme
implicitly suggested by some of the recent
work on governance, a topic treatedlater
in this article. But research on policy
design itself cannot be addressedwithin
the constraintsof the present analysis.
If scholarshiphas not simply solved the problem,and if

practicecontinuesto requireattentionto the issue, what has
happened?Wherehas all the policy implementationgone? Or at
least all the scholarlysigns of it? And why? Whathas the field
accomplished?Shoulda resurgenceof attentionto the subjectbe
exhorted?And if so, in what directions?
This articleconsidersthese questionsas foci of an assessment of the state of the field,2and the argumentreachessomewhatunconventionalconclusions:There is more here thanmeets
the eye. While modestto moderateprogresscan be noted on a
numberof fronts, an initialassessmentis likely to understatethe
extentof work underwayon mattersquite close to the implementationtheme. A considerablequantityof provocative,wellconceived, and well-executedrecentscholarshipbears quite
directlyon salientissues of policy implementation,even if not
explicitlyand obviouslyframedin such terms. The second major


section of the articlesketchesselectedlines of researchthathave
advancedsome of the themesof implementationresearchin nonobvious but notableways. The articleconcludeswith a brief
review of prospects.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO
IMPLEMENTATIONRESEARCH?
Policy implementationis what developsbetweenthe establishmentof an apparentintentionon the partof governmentto do
something,or to stop doing something,and the ultimateimpact
in the world of action. Some scholarsincludehere both the
assemblyof policy actorsand action, on the one hand, and the
cause-effectrelationshipbetweentheirefforts and ultimate
outcomes,on the other (for instance,Mazmanianand Sabatier
1989). Others,includingmyself, have emphasizedthe importance
of makinga conceptualdistinctionbetweenimplementation
(actionon behalf of the policy) and ultimateimpacton the policy
problem(for initial statements,see Montjoyand O'Toole 1979;
researchconcerns
O'Toole and Montjoy 1984). Implementation
the developmentof systematicknowledgeregardingwhat
emerges, or is induced,as actorsdeal with a policy problem.
Aside from relativelytrivialcircumstances(one-shotimplementationefforts, self-implementingpolicies, and small-scale
implementation),an understandingof implementationrequires
recognitionof the multiactorcharacterof policy action(O'Toole
cases can sometimesbe treated
1996b). While intraorganizational
in termsof the tools and theoriesthathave been developedto
understandthe managementof public organizations(see, for instance, Montjoyand O'Toole 1979), even these instancesexhibit
multiactorfeatures-particularlywhen clients, political support,
and otherexternalinfluencesare takeninto account.Clients(or
more generally,targets)of policy, for instance,must be more
thanpassive recipientsof publiclyinitiatedeffort; they are among
the partieswho have to be active towardimplementation,through
coproductionor in some otherless direct fashion. Even more
implementationrequiresadditional
obviously, interorganizational
approaches.Here analystsand practitionersmust confronta
world of multipleinstitutionalactors-more thanone government, agency, or sector-whose cooperationand perhapscoordinationare neededfor implementationsuccess.
Clearly, a multiactorapproachto understandingimplementation offers a shift from the standardworld presentedin conventional organizationtheory. The formerpresentsthe pressingissue
of how to concertactionin the absenceof operationalauthority
and across institutionallines. The theoreticaland practicalissues
266/J-PART,April 2000

involvedgo considerablybeyondthe standardsingle-agencyperspective.

Even if one were to ignore for purposesof analysisthe
involvementof clients and otherinterestedparties,the world of
multiactorimplementationis far from a trivial set. In larger-n
research,it has been demonstratedthat a substantialsegmentof
the large set of U.S. nationalcases is multiactor(O'Toole and
Montjoy 1984). Numerousresearchershave arguedthatthis
clusterof instancesis important,even dominant(for instance,see
Hjern 1982; Hjernand Porter 1981). A recentcontentanalysisof
federalstatutesshows thatmultiactorcases constitutethe great
majorityof new or substantivelyrevisedfederalprograms,and
this phenomenoncan also be documentedin the work of a Congress from a generationago (Hall and O'Toole 2000). Others
might arguethatthe numberand strengthof causal forces pressefforts in more
ing governmentsto organizetheir implementation
networkedforms have been growingin recentyears (see the
coveragein O'Toole 1997b). But the mainpoint is thatthis set of
cases is a large and significantsegment, and it has been the focus
of the bulk of implementationresearchover the years (for a critique of this emphasis,see Kettl 1993). The key challengesto
explanation,prediction,and performancearise here.
In 1986, I reviewedvirtuallythe entirescope of multiactor
policy implementationresearchand concluded:
The field is complex, without much cumulationor convergence. Few welldeveloped recommendationshave been put forward by researchers, and a
numberof proposals are contradictory.Almost no evidence or analysis of
utilization in this field has been produced. Two reasons for the lack of
developmentare analyzed: normativedisagreementsand the state of the
field's empirical theory. Yet there remain numerouspossibilities for increasing the quality of the latter. Efforts in this direction are a necessary
condition of furtherpractical advance (1986, 181).
What, then, can be said by way of progressin the succeeding years?The explicit evidence is mixed. Virtuallyall analysts
have moved past the rathersteriletop-down/bottom-up
dispute,
and some helpfulproposalsfor syntheticor contingentperspectives have been offered. But consensusis not close at hand, and
therehas been relativelylittle emphasison parsimoniousexplanation.The dominanceof the case-studyapproachhas receded,
and a numberof thoughtfullarger-nempiricalstudieshave been
conducted-a point often missed by critics. But significantlymore
are needed;more importantly,the recentempiricalwork raises a
questionaboutappropriatemodelingstrategiesand specifications.
The context-dependent
(andprimarilyAmerican)featureof much
earlierwork has been exposed and theoreticalefforts have


become more self-consciouslygeneral, but solid cross-national
investigationsare still rare. A so-calledthird-generation
approach
to implementationresearchhas been suggested,but relatively
little such researchhas been stimulatedby this call. As I will
show, there are some sensiblereasonsfor this state of affairs.
Finally, and perhapsmost importantly,the implementationproblem has been reconceptualizedin somewhatdifferentfashions,
and work has proceededalong a numberof parallel,overlapping,
and highly relevantlines of research.These promiseto expand
knowledgeaboutconvertingpolicy into action, even as they
diffuse attentionaway from implementationin the narrow.Far
from signalinga failureof the researchenterprise,this last
developmentprovidesevidence of impactand advance.
Efforts at Synthesis
Attemptsto stimulatesynthesisin theoryhave appeared
duringthe past decade. An importantdisputebetweenadvocates
of the so-calledtop-downperspectiveand those identifiedas
bottom-uppersragedfor a numberof years, to some limited
overall impact.Most scholarswould now agree on a few importantpoints in this regard.First, normativetop-downand bottomup differencesregardingwhere leverageis most appropriately
placed in the implementationsystem continueto be importantin
practicalterms, but heatedempiricalargumentshave quieted.
Second, variableslocated at the top or centercan be important,
as can contextualor field variables.Sufficientevidencehas
accumulatedto validatepartiallyboth top-downand bottom-up
arguments(Bressersand Ringeling 1989; Mazmanianand Sabatier 1989, 302-04; Goggin et al. 1990; Stoker 1991; Matland
1995; Ryan 1996).
Whathas not happened,however, is a carefulwinnowingof
the mass of potentialexplanatoryvariablestowardparsimonious
explanation.Indeed, and this is a thirdpoint of generalagreement, a multitudeof candidatevariablescontinueto float through
the researchliterature.In my earlieranalysis, I foundplenty and
documentedtheirpublishedsources(1986). Most continueto
remainactive candidates.Meier has commentedrecentlyon this
point with a caustic suggestion:"I often characterizethe theory
as 'forty-sevenvariablesthatcompletelyexplainfive case
studies'. ...
I propose ...
[a]ny policy implementation scholar
who adds a new variableor a new interactionshouldbe required

to eliminatetwo existing variables"(1999, 5-6). While this
does too littlejustice to some extantefforts,
characterization
particularlysome larger-ninquiries,the mainpoint remains
valid. One attractionof some early efforts at formaltheory
buildingin this field (see below) is thatit avoids this problem.


MethodologicalDevelopments
The field of implementationresearchwas takento task some
time ago for its overrelianceon case-studyresearch(Goggin
1986). Whathas happenedin the interim?First, it shouldbe
noted, some implementationanalystshave developedsmaller-n
studiesof an exceedinglyhigh standardand demonstratedthat
there are multipleroutesto understanding.In particular,it seems
clear thatresearchperformedin ignoranceof the understanding
that implementationactorsthemselveshave abouttheir circumstancesis likely to miss importantpartsof the explanationfor
what happens(see especiallyLin 2000; also Brodkin1997;
Glaserand MacDonald1998; Lin 1998; Sandfort1997; see
deLeon 1999bfor a generalbrief for qualitativeapproaches).
Second, some empiricalstudieshave takenadvantageof careful
design to allow for statisticalinferencedespiterelativelylimited
numbersof cases (O'Toole 1989).
Third, a numberof larger-nmultivariateinvestigationshave
been completedin recentyears, and these in generalhave
demonstratedthe importanceof both centrallycontrolledand
contextualvariablesin explainingimplementation
results, however operationalized.(A sampleincludesLesterand Bowman
1989; McFarlane1989; Scheirerand Griffith1990; Meier and
McFarlane1995; Meier and Keiser 1996; Gersteinet al. 1997;
Berry, Berry, and Foster 1998; Brown, O'Toole, and Brudney
1998; Jenningsand Ewalt 1998 and 2000; Heinrichand Lynn
1999). The claim thatempiricalimplementationresearchis
nothingbut case studiesis no longervalid.
Yet-fourth-the move to multivariateexplanationand large
numbersof cases exposes the specialtyto new or renewedchallenges, which have yet to be addressedfully. These are partially
methodologicaland partiallytheoretical,and they are not
restrictednarrowlyto questionsof implementationalone. Three
issues in particularare worthyof note.
The first is not strictlynew, but it is a more prominentissue
now: larger-ninvestigationsremainalmostexclusivelycross sectional. A thoroughunderstanding
of implementation,indeedof
policy actionmore generally,requireslongitudinaldesigns,
preferablyover extendedperiods. Executingsuch researchis
typicallydifficult, for all the usual reasons,but this remainsa
significantchallengefor the field.
The secondhas to do with the whole point behindimplementationanalysisand the link betweentheoryand practice.


Meier, with coauthors,has suggesteda set of refinementsin the
use of statisticalinferenceto take into accountthe interest,
among specialistsin policy and public management,in improving
performanceratherthanmerely documentingand explainingit.
The generalapproachis dubbedsubstantivelyweightedanalytical
techniques,or SWAT (see Meier and Gill forthcoming).The
initialpublicationin the projectapplieda version of SWAT to a
cross-stateanalysisof policy implementationfor one kind of
program(Meier and Keiser 1996). The main contributionwas to
arguefor the desirability,undersome circumstances,of examining outliercases distinctivelyin multivariatemodelingin orderto
see what they might reveal aboutunusualcombinationsof productionfactorsin high- and low-performinginstances.It is also
noteworthythatthis piece is framedas an implementationstudy.
The implicationsof such innovationsfor larger-nimplementation
researchportendincreasedpossibilitiesto offer guidanceboth in
the selectionof cases for intensiveexaminationand as a tool to
guide policy designersand implementationpractitionersin improvingperformance.SWAT may help to make sense out of puzzling multivariatefindings(for an invitingcandidate,see Scheirer
and Griffith1990). And the possibilitiesof employingSWAT for
implementationresearchand practicehave only recentlybeen
seen. For instance,this approachcan be read as implyingthat
serious considerationoughtto be accordedinterpretivisttreatments of implementation,whereinthe context-specificmeanings
of implementers'words are importantto an understandingof why
actiontranspiresas it does. And SWAT could be combinedwith
interpretiveresearchas one tool in case selection. The links and
implicationsacrossboth epistemologicaland methodologicalperspectiveshave scarcelybeen considered.
The thirdpoint of interesthas been, if anything,less visible
to most implementationresearchers:opportunitiesfor innovation
in modeling.Multilevelprogramarrays,especiallythose that
exhibit site-specificvariationsthat seem to matter,can be
approachedby alteringconventionalregressionanalysisand
framingthe model in hierarchicalterms, to allow for interaction
across the levels of the hierarchicalmodel. In this fashion,
administrativeand policy influencescan be separatedfrom client
characteristics,state-leveldeterminantscan be distinguishedfrom
site-specificfeatures,and models can offer both greaterexplanatory power and more sensible specificationsfor interpreting
policy action.
Hierarchicallinearmodelingoffers promisein explaining
aspectsof performance(see, for instance,Heinrichand Lynn
1999 and 2000; Roderick2000). The techniquehas not been
much used thus far to advancework on policy implementation.


Two caveatsmightbe entered.First, its success is highly dependent on the availabilityof very large data sets, ideally with
individual-levelclient or targetinformationincluded;thus empirical studieswill be restricted.Second, hierarchicalmodels are
obviouslymeantto fit hierarchicallystructuredcontexts. To the
extentthatprogramimplementationarrangementsare more fluid
or multicentered,this form of modelingwould be inappropriate.
Research beyond the United States
Most implementationresearchhas been conductedin and
regardingthe UnitedStates, albeitwith the goal of truly general
understanding.Even in earlieryears, however, contributionsin
WesternEuropewere an importantpartof theorybuildingand
testing(for instance,Hull with Hjern 1987). Solid cross-national
comparativework has been especiallylacking(for a significant
exception, see Knoepfeland Weidner1982). This problempersists, althoughit is surely not uniqueto implementationresearch.
Public managementmore generallyis sorely in need of such
investigations.
Some empiricalstudieshave been conductedoutsidethe

UnitedStatesand WesternEurope(see Grindle1980; Ross 1984;
Chanet al. 1995; Brinkerhoff1999). Investigationsuggeststhat
the approachesdevelopedin Westernliberalcontextsmay have
limitedutility in other settings(see O'Toole 1994 and 1997a), but
this subjectremainsprimarilya frontierfor furtherinvestigation.
Interestingly,one of the topics on which cross-national
comparativeimplementationresearchcan bear fruit, and has done
so to some extent already,is on the executionof international
agreements,especiallymultilateralones. The typicalcircumstance
is a commonpolicy and a numberof signatorycountries.Hundreds of such agreementsnow presentimportantempiricalcircumstancesfor systematicstudy. Early scholarshipoffers some
cross-nationalcomparisons(see Weiss and Jacobson1998; Victor, Raustiala,and Skolnikoff1998), but additionalinvestigations
are clearly needed.
Third-GenerationResearch: Progeny?
Goggin et al. (1990, 17-18) proposedthat implementation
researchtake seriouslythe need for advancingthe field scientifically:
The principalaim of third-generationresearch is to shed new light on
implementationbehavior by explaining why that behavior varies across time,
policies, and units of government. . . . Third generation research is
2711J-PART,April 2000


designedto overcomethe conceptualandmethodological
problemsthat
manyscholarsagreehave impededprogressin this field. In a word,the aim
researchis simplyto be morescientificthanthe previous
of third-generation
two in its approachto the studyof implementation.
To thatend, Gogginet al. offer details of a set of hypotheses

derivedfrom a candidateframeworkand ideas aboutthe essential
issues of measurement.The third-generation
argumentalso
endorsesthe use of multiplemeasuresand multiplemethods.
As a coauthorof that study, I am hardlydistancedfrom its
argumentand I continueto endorsethe generaltheme. But one
point of reflectioncan be noted. In advocatingfor a thirdgenerationperspective,we soughtto catalyzesustainedempirical
investigationof this type. Some such studieshave been attempted
(see, for instance,Orth 1997; Berry, Berry, and Foster 1998;
Jenningsand Ewalt 2000), but there has been no sustained
interest.
Why not? Otherframeworks,of course, may be more
appropriate(in this regard,see Cline forthcoming).Beyondthis
obviouspoint, it is useful to recognizethat a potentiallyintimidatingstandardwas designedinto this vision of third-generation
research.
Gogginet al. (1990) indicatethatthe best kind of implementationstudy, at least for intergovernmental
programs,consists of
that
involve
numerous
variables
and variable
investigations
clusters(andmultiplemeasuresfor these) across policy types
(threetypes are includedin the volume), across the fifty states,
and over at least ten years (with annualobservations).The argument implies a design ideal of large-nstudiesinvolving 3 (policies) x 50 (state)x 10 (years), or 1500 observationsfor every
variable. And the measurements are best taken via a combination
of content analyses, expert panels, elite survey responses, and
expertreassessmentof the data from questionnairesand interviews. A reasonableresponseto this proposalwould be that it
outlinesa career'sworthof work, perhapsmore.
Absentfeasibilityconstraints,such a projectwould be of
great help in advancing the understanding of policy implemen-
tation, particularlyin the UnitedStatesand for intergovernmental

programs. But proceeding directly in this fashion could impose
an unrealisticset of requirementsfor the advancementof empirical research.Needless to say, executingthe agendain partial
fashions, for instance by testing parts of the framework in individual efforts, is a more feasible objective.


Viewing the Half-Full Glass
The sketchofferedthus far indicatesa numberof developments thatcarry significancefor the systematicstudyof policy
implementation,but it also indicatesthatmuch remainsto be
accomplished.And for every importantstudythathas been
completedin recentyears, many studiesyet remainto be done.
Still, this picturealone would suggesttoo limiteda view of the
state of the field. Scholarshipthatbears directlyon the core
questionof implementation-whathappensbetweenthe establishment of policy and its impactin the world of action?-has arisen
in many ways thatwould not be immediatelynoticeableif one
were to observemerely those investigationswith a selfproclaimedfocus on implementation.In fact, muchhas been
developingthat shouldbe of interestto those studyingthe
implementationissue, particularlywith regardto theoreticalfoci
and themes. Most of these lines of effort contributeovertly to
otherforms of scholarship,but they carryimportmore broadly
and shouldbe consideredin a completeassessment.
Analystshave noted thata considerableamountof effort has
been devotedrecentlyto implementation-like
questions,under
otherrubrics.As Winterhas said, "[i]f definedin termsof
the problemsanalyzed,the 'field' of implementationresearch
would be consideredmuch more robustthansimplyby counting
researchunderthe label of implementation"
(1999, 2). And
in
has
been
in
this
Meier, particular,
pointed
regard:
My biasedsurveyof literaturesuggest[s]thata wide rangeof journals
mainpublisharticlesthatinformthe studyof policyimplementation-the
streamsociologyjournals,mostof the publicadministration
journals,the
professionsjournals(publichealth,socialwork,sometimeslaw or medicine), manyof the economicsjournals,andon rareoccasiona political
sciencejournal.Muchof this literatureis not intendedto directlyanswer
but it addressesconcernsthatarecentral
questionsof policyimplementation,
to policyimplementation
(1999, 6-7).
Wherehas useful work on the subject-or, more accurately,

work that is of potentialbenefitin elucidatingthe subject-been
takingplace?Whatare the promisinglines of development?What
do these suggest aboutresearchfor understanding
policy implementation?
INDIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS
TO IMPLEMENTATIONRESEARCH
Numerouskinds of scholarlyinquirythathave been developed in recentyears offer promisefor those interestedin explicatingpolicy implementation,particularlythe multiactorvariant.

This section offers a sampling,with some links to the main

theme. It shouldbe recognized,nonetheless,thatthese kinds of
contributionsreachconsiderablybeyondthe implementationproblem; indeed, Frederickson(1999) has arguedthat several of these
kinds of scholarship(he emphasizesthe first three covered in this
section) have infusedthe subjectof public administrationmore
generallyand indicatea revitalizationof that field. The treatment
here focuses on implementationper se, with the recognitionthat
this limitationis somewhatarbitrary.
Institutional Analysis
Implementationresearchis, in importantrespects,heavily
relianton institutionalscholarship.Virtuallyall policies and
programsdependon institutionalaction, and the institutional
forms now increasinglycommonfor policy implementation
embracecharacteristicsthatextendfar beyondthe traditional
focus on bureaucracyor market.A few examplesillustratethe
importanceof this line of researchfor policy implementation.
Institutional Analysis and Development. The pathbreaking
scholarshipof ElinorOstromand colleagues(Ostrom,Gardner,

and Walker 1994; Ostrom1999) has reshapeda great deal of
policy research.Ostromand othershave sketchedan approachto
institutionalanalysisthat is largelybased in a rational-choice
perspectiveand a goal of understandingthe emergenceand
impactof variegatedinstitutionalforms.
This rule-basedperspectivemakes it possible to sketch
institutionaldetails with precisionand clarity. Some might argue
thatthe multidimensionaldistinctionsallowed in this approach
create overwhelmingcomplexitythatultimatelyhindersparsimoniousexplanation.But the approach-institutionalanalysisand
development(IAD)-provides not only conceptualdetail but an
analyticalapproachto develop and extendempiricaltheory. A
numberof promisinginvestigationshave been completed;these
focus particularlyon how stable, long-termsolutionsto problems
of common-poolresourcemanagementcan emerge and be sustained(Blomquist1992; Ostrom,Gardner,and Walker 1994;
Schlager,Blomquist,and Tang 1994). There are indicationsthat
the approachcan be extendedto other settings(Cowie 1999).
IAD is by no meansa relabeledversion of implementation
research.But the routethat Ostromand colleagueshave taken
promisesto offer benefit for the ultimateelucidationof implementationaction. In particular,the perspectivecan comprehend
and analyzeinstitutionalforms of all sorts, includingmultiactor
arraysthatvary in severalways from each other, and public274/J-PART, April 2000


combinationswith subtlebut potentiallyimporprivate-nonprofit
tant institutionalfeatures.Of special advantageis the IAD's
approachof explicitlyincorporatinga logic of multileveledaction
(Kiser and Ostrom1982).
IAD takes analystswell beyondlimitingtop-down/bottom-up
debates,at least in principle.And it does not succumbto the
atheoreticaltendenciesobservablein some bottom-upapproaches
thatbegin with the functioningpatternof implementationand
tend to regardvirtuallyany set of operatingrelationsas necessary, perhapseven optimal(as in Hjernand Hull 1983). Adding
a theoreticalengine createsopportunity,as well, for generating
testablepropositionsaboutimplementation
behaviorand resultsin
institutionsof widely varyingforms (for an illustrationsee
O'Toole 1996a).
Still, there are drawbacks.Most importantis the almost
exclusive attentionthus far to self-organizingsystems. The
exclusionof official governmentalprograms,especiallythose that
incorporateregulatoryor otherformallyauthoritativeapproaches,
constitutesan importantlacuna.In particular,studiesof the
comparativeperformanceof differentinstitutionalarrangements
for dealingwith policy issues are mattersof high priority(see
Tang 1991). The studyof multiactorpolicy implementationneeds
a theoreticalapproachthatcombinesthe self-organizingpotential
of combinationsof actors(includingcorporateactors)with the
mandatedcharacterof certaininterunitlinks, the latterquite
typicalof at least some portionsof governmentprograms
(O'Toole 1993). An adjustmentof IAD to includeboth selforganizingand mandatedelementscould provideconsiderable
enlightenmentfor analystsof implementation.
Actor-centeredInstitutionalism.With RenateMayntz,Fritz
theorizScharpfhas initiateda promisingline of institution-based
ing aboutpolicy (Mayntzand Scharpf1995; Scharpf1997). Via
"actor-centered
institutionalism,"Scharpfhas combinedinsights
from game theory, welfareeconomics, and institutionalanalysis
to suggest an approachto modelingpolicy-relevantsettingsof
many types. While mostly ignoringimplementation
per se in this
recentscholarship,Scharpfoffers a logic and set of conceptual
tools thatmay be able to elucidatea numberof implementation
circumstances.This is particularlythe case since, like Ostrom,he
explicitlymodels multiactorsettingsin which institutionalforms
are complex and do not readilyfit the simple market-or-hierarchy
designation.
A depictionof Scharpf'sfull approachwould take this

expositionafield. But it is worthnotingthathe exploresthe


potentialfor game-theoreticlogic, along with the linked-game
elaborationof the basic approach,to make sense of institutional
settingsin which hierarchicalauthoritylines do not arrayfully
the relevantactors. Consideras an examplemoves by European
actorsenmeshedin complex settingsinvolvingboth country-level
(domesticpolitical)and European-level(for instance,European
Union) patternsof interdependence.Scharpf'sfocus on policy
settingsinvolvinggovernmentalactionsdifferentiatesthis
approachfrom the main emphasisthus far in IAD. He sketches
possibilitiesthat allow for numerousmodelingopportunities.It
remainsto be seen to what extentthis basic perspectivewill
catalyze significantwork.
These two approachesare a mere samplingof the relevant
research,but they suggest some of the achievementand potential
from institutionalanalysis. Theorybuildingand testing along
these lines is certainto informthe understandingof policy
implementation.
The Study of Governance
Ratherthanconcentratenarrowlyon implementationto the
exclusionof other forms of actionand other levels of influence
on the ultimateperformanceof publicprograms,some analysts
have soughtto considerthe more comprehensivesubjectof how
systems of governancedeliver policy-relevantimpacts.This
broaderconceptualizationis not antitheticalto implementation
research;it is designedto incorporatea more completeunderstandingof the multiplelevels of actionand kinds of variables
thatcan be expectedto influenceperformance.
The theme and perspectiveof governanceare difficultto
denote with precision. The topic is meantto refer, nonetheless,to
severalrelateddimensionsof the contemporarypolicy world.
One is the multivariatecharacterof policy action: Not only do
many factorsinfluenceresults, but these factorsare of very
differenttypes and are too often examinedin isolatedfashionto
the relativeneglect of otherpartsof the explanation.Anotheris
the commitmentto treatgovernanceas somethingconsiderably
broaderthangovernmentitself: to take account,and considerthe
design and operation,of structuresand processesof policy
action, whereverthey might be. In this sense, the governance
theme is quite complementaryto the emphasison institutions.
Third, a governanceapproachemphasizesthe multi-layeredstructuralcontextof rule-governedunderstandings,along with the role
of multiplesocial actorsin arraysof negotiation,implementation,
and service delivery. Addressinggovernancerequiresattendingto
social partnersand ideas abouthow to concertactionamong


them. It shouldbe clear, therefore,thatwhile governanceis not
an old-wine-in-new-bottles
version of implementation,interestin
the governancetheme indicatesthe continuedvitalityof the
concernsthathave flourishedunderthe implementationrubric
since the first critiquesof simplistictop-downapproaches.
Some versionsof policy researchaimedat the themeof
governanceare explicitlyconnectedwith the studyof policy
implementation.An exampleis the insightfulwork of Stoker
(1991), who has adaptedthe regimesframeworkof Stone (1989)
to intergovernmental
implementationand has applieda nontechnical form of game theoryto distinguishdifferentimplementation
circumstances-especiallythose that involve more or less intractable forms of conflict amonginterdependent
actors. Stoker's
work suggestsnot only thatit may be possible to combinetopdown and bottom-upinsightsin a coherentregime-based
approach,but also thatpractical-and in some cases counterintuitive-injunctionscan follow from such an analysis. Imporresearchis explicitlyintegrated
tantly, Stoker'simplementation
into a perspectivethat sees implementationquestionsas an aspect
of the broadergovernancetheme.
3In his publishedwork, Weber has not

fully explicated the frameworkon which
his investigationsrely. But in his booklength study of innovative approachesto
regulatorychallenges in environmental
policy, the instances he explored and
the model he used reference Prisoners'
Dilemma circumstances.The approachalthough not the specific injunctions-can
probablybe generalized to a more comprehensive set of multiactorcircumstances.
4Corporatistnations have had substantial
experience with the kinds of games
Weber examines, but these forms of
action--"pluralismby the rules," as he
dubs them-are relative rareties thus far
in the United States.
Anotherinstance,less exclusivelyfocusedon implementation per se, is the recentscholarshipof EdwardWeber (1998).

Webertoo uses an implicitlygame-theoreticanalyticalframework3and exploresthe requisitesfor cooperativeapproaches
to environmentalproblemsolving. While he is appropriately
restrainedaboutthe prospectsfor sustainedcollaboration,Weber
explicatesthe institutionaland otherpreconditionsfor this
approachto policy action-in effect, thereby,suggestingthe
dimensionsof a relativelyuntestedbut potentiallypromising
regime form for decisionmakingand implementationin the
UnitedStates.4Weber'swork is an exampleof current,theoreticallyinformed,policy-focusedwork, which has roots in the
themeof governanceand directimplicationsfor the studyand
practiceof policy implementation.It also links directlyto other
significanttopics thatare prominentin the best currentwork,
includinga combinationof top-downand bottom-upinsights, the
use of analyticaltools with the potentialto explicatemultiactor
settings,and an effort to includerelevantvariablesthat reach
beyondthe scope of earlierpolicy investigations.
Othersalso are pursuingthis themein ways thatare relevant
to questionsof implementation,even when they do not explicitly
trumpetthe latterin fashionsthatmay have caughtwidespread
attention.An importantinstanceof this form of governance
researchis the work of Lynn and colleagues(Lynn, Heinrich,
and Hill 1999 and 2000). In broadoutline, theirproject


constitutesan effort to synthesizeinfluenceson policy performance of several sorts, and from severallevels, by takingaccount
of the standardconcernsof implementationresearchersand
integratingthese with otherkinds of relatedanalyses.
Their conceptualization
treatsprogramsas units of analysis
and suggeststhat outputsbe considereda functionof an arrayof
factors(elementsof the environment,treatmentsor program
technologies,client or targetcharacteristics,structure,and
management),some of which have receivedtreatmentin implementationresearchover the years. Lynn, Heinrich,and Hill
expandupon standardimplementationresearch,furthermore,by
incorporatingadditionalconsiderations(for instance,from
institutionalanalysisand from public management)in their conceptualizationof what drives programperformance.They offer a
rathercomprehensiveassessmentof many relevantliteraturesincludingan assessmentof which studiesexplore which sets of
these variables,how they are measured,and what the findings
have been. Of particularnote, in connectionwith the governance
themeand the studyof policy implementation,is thatthese
researchersfocus especiallyon studiesthatoffer investigationsof
two or more of these types of variablesand thus suggest a more
complex arrayof models for explainingpublic programperformance. They also identifysome particularlyinterestinglines of
analysisfor furtherdevelopment.
Lynn and colleagueshave not organizedan agendafor
implementationresearchin the narrow.Instead,they have
suggestedways to link such work with additionaltraditionsof
researchto expandthe overall understandingof what makes
programswork. Some of the currentwork that is being developed on governance,therefore,offers the prospectof buildingon
earlierimplementationwork in especiallypromisingways.
Otheranalysescould equallywell be included-either here
or as partof the elucidationof closely relatedtopics, such as the
treatmentof networks(below). One instanceis the recentcontributionof Bardach(1998). Bardach,one of the influentialearly
implementationanalysts,continuesto eschew generaltheoryin
favor of practice-oriented,metaphoricaltreatmentsof important
issues (see Bardach1977). In his recentwork, he deals with
collaborativesof two or more units and seeks to understandwhat
linkagesmake for
aspectsof the developmentof inter-institutional
successfuljoint effort. Once again, implementationper se has
moved to the background,in favor of attentionto concerted
actionacross institutionalboundarieson behalf of public purpose.
But the practicalmanagementissues overlapwith the management challengesthat are evidentin many implementationstudies.


And some of the themes-like the importanceof buildingtrust
for collaborativesuccess-are also analyzedin some of the
implementationresearchof recentyears (for instance,O'Toole
1996b).
Additionalrecentresearchhas emphasizedgovernancerather
thanmanagementin ways thatare largely consistentwith the
foregoingexposition.Considersome of the contributionsof
Milwardand Provan(especially 1999). As they put the issue,
"governance... is concernedwith creatingthe conditionsfor
orderedrules and collective action, often includingagentsin the
privateand nonprofitsectors, as well as withinthe public sector.
The essence of governanceis its focus on governingmechanisms-grants, contracts,agreements-thatdo not rest solely on
the authorityand sanctionsof government"(p. 3).
Milwardand Provanbring into clear relief an uncomfortable
point thatremainsa challengefor researcherson such questions,
regardlessof the explicit theme:There is a "paucityof empirical
literatureon the relationshipbetweengovernancestructureand
outcomes"(p. 24). While they have been in the forefrontof
relatingcertaincharacteristicsof governanceforms to overall
outcomes,howevermeasured(1999, 24-25; Provanand Milward
1995), the varietyof arrangementsembracedby the governance
notiondefies parsimonioustheorybuilding.Thus this problem,
which has bedeviledimplementationresearchfor much of the last
fifteen years or so, is likely to reemergeunderthe governance
rubric.(The same point can be made regardingresearchon networks, an overlappingtopic to which Milwardand Provanalso
contributein importantways; see below.)
Networks and Network Management
The debatebetweentop-downersand bottom-upperscentered
in parton the questionof the appropriateunit of analysis(for
instance,implementingagencyvs. programand interagency
array).Behindthese argumentsis an importantquestionabout
institutionalarrangements:
Whatare the forms throughwhich
most implementationactiondevelops?Greatvarietyis evident.
But the emergenceof increasinglycomplex structuralforms,
includingmultiactornetworkedpatterns,has madeespecially
salientthe questionsof researchdesign, conceptualization,and
theorybuildingfor networkedpolicy action.
Partiallyas an independentintellectualeffort, but partially
as well in responseto this debatewithinimplementationresearch,
the studyof networksand networkmanagementhas acquiredconsiderablesignificance.Indeed,this subjecthas attractedgrowing


attentionin a numberof othercountriesas well (Hufen and
Ringeling 1990; Marinand Mayntz 1991; Jordanand Schubert
1992; Marshand Rhodes 1992; Scharpf1993; Bressers, O'Toole,
and Richardson1995; Klijn 1996; Kickert,Klijn, and Koppenjan
1997; Bogasonand Toonen 1998). Even in theoreticaldevelopments in the UnitedStatesthatovertly eschew an implementation
focus, versions of networkanalysishave occupiedan important
role (see Sabatierand Jenkins-Smith1993).
There are compellingreasons, both empiricaland theoretical, for scholarsto treatseriouslythe networktheme (O'Toole
1997b). Some have arguedthatnetworkapproachesshouldbe
amongthe most importantanalyticalheuristicsto be appliedin
understandingand improvingpublic management(Lynn 1996).
Othershave claimedthatin the currentera, shifts towardmassive
quantitiesof contractinghave triggeredthe formationof a hollow
state, with the managementof public programslargely consisting
of the monitoringand craftingof networkforms (Milward1996).
Scholarsin othercountriesplace heavy emphasison the networkedcharacterof policy implementationitself (Kickert,Klijn,
and Koppenjan1997), and cross-nationalcomparativepolicy
studiesoffer suggestiveprospects(Bressers,O'Toole, and
Richardson1995).
Much of my recentwork has been targetedat this set of
themes-and this focus is a direct outgrowthof tacklingimplementationquestions(O'Toole 1993; 1995; 1996a; 1997a). Thus,
for instance,I have soughtto provide some systematicinformation aboutthe networkedcharacterof publicprogramsenactedat
the nationallevel (Hall and O'Toole 2000) and in othercountries
(for instance,O'Toole 1998). Meier and I are at work modeling
and testing for the impactof both managementand structural
context on the operationsof public programs;we explicitlytreat
the extent of hierarchyor networkas structuralfeaturesamenable
to analysis(for the initialeffort see O'Toole and Meier 1999).
Othershave been busy along relatedlines. Agranoffand
McGuire,for instance,have providedconvincingevidence on the
descriptiveportionof the question,particularlyas regardsintergovernmentalmanagement(1998). And the emphasisby Provan
and Milwardon the link betweennetworkfeaturesand performance, as well as on a rangeof effectivenesscriteria,speaksto the
more complex agendaentailedin networkedforms of policy
action (1995; Milwardand Provan 1999). Additionalinstances
could be documentedat length (see LaPorte1996 for further
exposition).
A great deal of this researchis closely relatedto work on
implementation.In importantrespects,the upsurgein network


studiesrepresentsa continuationof some of the same lines of
researchthatbecamevisible in some of the best implementation
researcha few years earlier. This is not to say that a theoretical
consensushas emergedon how to conceptualizeand model networkedphenomenasurroundingpolicy action. Indeed,different
approachescompetefor attention(see Milwardand Provan
1999). And there is some disagreementaboutthe potential
applicabilityof formalapproaches(O'Toole 1993), or even the
generaltheory-buildingprojectitself (Bardach1998).
The studyof networksand public management,however,
drawsfrom promisingtheoreticalstreamswith questionsof
via governancein the deliveryof
implementation-performance
results-as
as
policy
significant ever. Further,the network
in
scholarship public managementalso overlapsthat on governance and on institutionalanalysis. The severalemerging
approachespromiseconsiderableadvancein the years ahead,
even if not a clear theoreticalsynthesisor convergence.
Formal and Deductive Approaches
The implementation
theorythatdevelopedin an explosionof
researcheffort from the 1970s throughthe 1980s was almost
exclusively inductive,and it was characterizedby a profusionof
variables.But some efforts have been initiatedto framea more
clearly deductiveand parsimoniousapproach.
Formal, rational-choiceapproacheslike game theorycannot
be reviewedhere, even in a cursoryfashion, but implementation
researchershave seen both promisingand limitingprospects.
Heuristicapplicationshave been offeredby a numberof scholars
(Stoker 1991; Koremenosand Lynn 1996; Weber 1998). Such a
line of inquirycan be useful, despitelimitations,in exploringa
set of persistentlyimportantimplementationquestions(O'Toole
1993). The limitationscan, somewhatparadoxically,suggest
practicaloptionsfor public managerswho are enmeshedin the
midst of networksfor implementation:Identifyinglimitationsto
modelingcan expose points of leveragefor implementationmanagers (O'Toole 1995).
Additionalrelevanttheoreticaldevelopments,thus far
insufficientlynoted amongimplementationscholarsin the United
States, also have appeared.Some formalapproacheshave
resultedin modelingthatappearsto be both plausibleand amenable to testing(see especiallyTorenvlied1996a and 1996b). A
relativelyparsimonious,deductivetheoryhas been developedin
the Netherlands,primarilyby Hans Bressersand Pieter-JanKlok.
Dubbed-perhapsmisleadingly-instrumenttheory, the approach


takes inspirationfrom top-down/bottom-upsynthesisand offers
the prospectof a predictivemodel focused on the interactions
amongpolicy actors. Instrumenttheorybuilds on a core of a
small numberof variablesto sketchan impressivelyvariedrange
of possible implementationresults. The theory, particularlyin its
later elaborations,has been extendedto multiactor,networked
settingswith a rangeof targetgrouppossibilities(see Bressers
and Klok 1988; Klok 1995; Bressersand O'Toole 1998). This
approachis syntheticand suggestivein anotherfashion, since it
aims to link the theoryof policy design with that of implementation, thus addressinga key criticismdirectedat the field for a
numberof years (for instance,Linderand Peters 1987). Unfortunately,the most completeexpositionsof the approachremain
availablein the Dutch languageonly (Klok 1991), althoughsome
key partsare also publishedin English(Bressersand Klok 1988).
The full utility of the approachremainsto be tested widely.
PROSPECTS
There are those who would arguethat for all the conceptual,
theoretical,and methodologicaleffort, the implementation
researchenterpriseremainsstuck in neutral,or is runningin a
circle. DeLeon's challenge(1999b) is perhapsthe most reasonably framedin this regard(more so, for instance,than Fox
1990). And his critiqueis direct:
is winningno conceptualconas currentlystructured
First, implementation
verts .... And, second, its focus on the exceptional failure to the preclusion
of the workadaysuccesseshave [sic] largelybeen ingrained,thusbiasingthe

researchproduct....
implementation
to
of a greateremphasison a democraticorientation
The combination
orientationand
buttressedby moreof a post-positivist
implementation,
can deliver
methodologyanda realisticassessmentof whatimplementation
(as opposed to promise) will . . . give the policy community a much better
handleon the linchpinstagethatdeliversthe policygoods.
As shouldbe clear, the presentassessmentis considerably

more optimisticaboutthe currentstate of the researchenterprise.
On the issue of converts, the situationis betterthanportrayedby
deLeon:a numberof promisingscholarshave contributedin
recentyears; and when one framesimplementationquestions
broadly,to includeresearchon complex institutionalarrangements, networks,governance,and the like, some of the supposed
defectors, like Bardach,can be seen as contributors.Second, the
supposed bias of implementation research toward the cases of
failureis an outdatedgeneralization.Even decadesago scholars

took pains to avoid such a bias towardfailurein the selectionof
cases for investigation (Montjoy and O'Toole 1979; O'Toole and

Researchon Policy Implementation

Montjoy 1984). Cross-statelarger-nstudieshave substantially
reinforcedthis effort (for instance,Meier and McFarlane1995),
and the third-generation
work of Gogginet al. (1990) was explicitly designedto avoid any trace of preoccupationwith the
"exceptionalfailure."Rather,the idea was to select multiple
policies in multiplesites over extendedtime periods, to maximize
withinreasonablelimits the amountof variancesubjectto explanation. Executingthis full agendahas its difficulties,as has been
explained,but such a perspectiveis clearly a far cry from the
excerptedindictment.
Has a democraticorientationbeen absentfrom implementation studiesuntil now? A reasonablecase can be made thatthis
is not so at all. Top-downand bottom-upinvestigationsare
animated,to be sure, by quitedifferentnotionsof democracytop-downersoffer justificationin conventionaloverhead-democratictenets, bottom-uppersfocus on more interactiveprocesses,
client involvement,and coproduction.Searchingfor an implementationapproachbuilt arounda normativecore of discursive
democracywould generatea fascinatingscholarlyagenda,but it
is not the case thatan interestin democratictheoryhas simply
been ignoreduntil now.
More basically, the studyof policy implementationis in
many respectsin a relativelymaturestage of development.
Weaknessesare apparent,issues remain,and some of the most
interestingrelevantwork is takingplace on the edges of the
specialtyor in relatedresearchfields. But these developments
point to an appropriatebroadeningratherthana shrinkingof the
relevantresearchenterprise.It behoovesscholarsnot to draw
arbitrarilynarrowjurisdictionallines, nor to expendenergy on
sectariancauses. Explaining--andultimatelyimproving-the way
policy intentioninfluencespolicy actionis the researchagenda,
by whatevername. Prospectsfor grapplingwith this important
subjectare both multipleand engaging.
As for implementationresearch:the top-down/bottom-up
debatesare ended, supercededby generalrecognitionof the
strengthsof each. Synthetictheoreticalefforts have been
numerous.Inductiveapproacheshave been supplementedby the
beginningsof deductiveand formalanalysis. Larger-nstudies,
while not plentiful,are considerablyless rare thanis typically
portrayed.Certaintendentiousmeasurementand methodological
issues have beenjoined, indeedin some cases addressed.And,
most significantly,a rangeof complementaryresearchinitiatives
is now underway,and these initiativesoffer prospectsfor shedding new light on the implementation
questionas they address
relatedchallenges.


Plenty of work remains.But the prospectsfor the scholarly
studyof-perhaps even the improvementof-policy performance
are reasonablybright. The studyof implementationcannotpossibly providethe full set of relevantanswers.But researchon
implementation,underwhatevercurrentlyfashionablelabels, is
alive and lively.
REFERENCES
Agranoff,Robert,andMcGuire,
Michael.
1998 "Multinetwork
Management:
andtheHollow
Collaboration
Statein LocalEconomic
Policy."Journalof Public
Researchand
Administration
Theory8:1:67-91.
Bardach,Eugene.
Game.Cam1977 TheImplementation
bridge,Mass.:MITPress.
1998 GettingAgenciesto Work
Together. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings.
Berry,FrancesStokes;Berry,
WilliamD.; andFoster,StephenK.
of Successin
1998 "TheDeterminants
an ExpertSystem
Implementing
Public
in StateGovernment."
Review58:4:293Administration
305.
Blomquist,William.
1992 Dividingthe Waters:Governing
in SouthernCaliGroundwater
fornia. SanFrancisco:Institute
Journalof Public
Perspective."
Policy18:3:213-39.
Bressers,Hans;O'Toole,LaurenceJ.
Jr.; andRichardson,
Jeremy,eds.
1995 Networks
for WaterPolicy:A
Perspective.LonComparative
don:FrankCass.
Bressers,J.Th.A.,andRingeling,
ArthurB.
in drie
1989 "Beleidsinstrumenten
arena's."Beleidswetenschap
3:1:3-24.
DerickW.
Brinkerhoff,
1999 "State-Civil
SocietyNetworks
in
for PolicyImplementation
Policy
DevelopingCountries."
StudiesReview16:1:123-47.
Brodkin,Evelyn.
1997 "InsidetheWelfareContract:
in
DiscretionandAccountability
StateWelfareAdministration."
SocialServiceReview71
1-33.
(March):
Review
PublicAdministration
55:4:333-40.
Cline,KurtD.
forthcoming"DefiningtheImplementationProblem:Organizational
versusCooperaManagement
tion."Journalof PublicAdministrationResearchandTheory.
Cowie,GailM.
Involvement
and
1999 "Stakeholder
Institutional
Change:Casesof
RiverBasinManageInterstate
ment."DPAdiss. TheUniversity of Georgia,Athens.
deLeon,Peter.
1999a"ColdComfortIndeed:A Rejoinderto LesterandGoggin."
PolicyCurrents8:4:6-8.
1999b "The Missing Link Revisited:
Contemporary
Implementation
Research."PolicyStudies
Review 16:3/4:311-38.
Fox, CharlesJ.
Research:Why
1990 "Implementation
Positivist
andHow to Transcend
In DennisJ.
Methodologies."
PalumboandDonaldJ. Calista,
andthe
eds. Implementation
PolicyProcess:Openingup the
Brown,MaryMaureen;O'Toole,
LaurenceJ. Jr.; andBrudney,
JeffreyL.
Bogason,Peter,andToonen,
Information
1998 "Implementing
TheoA.J., eds.
An
Networks."Sym1998 "Comparing
Technologyin Government:
Black Box, 199-212. Westport,
EmpiricalAssessmentof the
posiumin PublicAdministration
Conn.:Greenwood.
Roleof LocalPartnerships."
76:2:205-407.
Journalof PublicAdministration
H. George.
Researchand Theory8:4:499Frederickson,
Bressers,Hans,andKlok,Pieter-Jan.
of American
1999 "TheRepositioning
525.
for a Theoryof
1988 "Fundamentals
Gaus
PublicAdministration."
InterPolicyInstruments."
of the
annual
Lecture,
Hon
meeting
Koon-kwai;
S.;
Social
Chan,
nationalJournalof
Wong,
AmericanPoliticalScienceAssoEconomics15:3/4:22-41.
Cheung,K.C.; andLo, JackMan3.
ciation,Atlanta,September
keung.
1995 "TheImplementation
Gapin
Bressers,HansTh.A., andO'Toole,
in
Environmental
Gerstein,DeanR., andothers.
Management
LaurenceJ. Jr.
China:TheCaseof Guangzhou, 1997 FinalReport.NationalTreat1998 "TheSelectionof Policy
Evaluation
mentImprovement
andNanjing."
A Network-Based
Instruments:
Zhungshou,
for ContemporaryStudies Press.
Study. Washington, D.C.: U.S.


Departmentof Health and
Human Services, March.
Glaser, Bonnie, and MacDonald, Karin.
1998 "On the Front Lines of Welfare
Reform: Are Workers Implementing Policy Reform?"Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management17:1:1-22.
Goggin, Malcolm L.
1986 "The 'Too Few Cases/Too
Many Variables' Problem in
ImplementationResearch."
WesternPolitical Quarterly
38:328-47.
Goggin, Malcolm L.; Bowman, Ann
O'M.; Lester, James P.; and O'Toole,
LaurenceJ. Jr.
1990 ImplementationTheoryand
Practice: Towarda Third Generation. Glenwood, Ill.: Scott
Foresman/Little,Brown.
Grindle, Merilee S., ed.
1980 Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Hall, Thad E., and O'Toole,
LaurenceJ. Jr.
2000 "Structuresfor Policy Implementation:An Analysis of
National Legislation, 1965-66
and 1993-94." Administration
and Society 31:6:667-86.
Heinrich, Carolyn J., and Lynn,
LaurenceE. Jr.
1999 "Means and Ends: A Comparative Study of EmpiricalMethods
for InvestigatingGovernanceand
Performance."Paper prepared
for the Fifth National Public
ManagementResearch Conference, Texas A&M University,
College Station, December 3-4.
2000 "Governanceand Performance:
The Influence of ProgramStructure and Managementon Job
Training PartnershipAct (JTPA)
ProgramOutcomes." In Lynn
and Heinrich, eds. Models and
Methods in the Empirical Study
of Governance. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Hjern, Benny.
1982 "ImplementationResearch-The
Link Gone Missing." Journal of
Public Policy 2:301-08.
Hjern, Benny, and Hull, Chris.
1983 "ImplementationResearch as
EmpiricalConstitutionalism."
EuropeanJournal of Political
Research 10:2:105-15.
Hjern, Benny, and Porter, David O.
1981 "ImplementationStructures:A
New Unit of Administrative
Analysis." OrganizationStudies
2:3:211-27.
Hufen, Hans, and Ringeling,
Arthur, eds.
1990 Beleidsnetwerken:Overheids-,
Semi-overheids-enParticuliere
Organisaties in Wisselwerking.
The Hague: VUGA.
Hull, Chris, with Hjer, Benny.
1987 Helping Small Firms Grow.
London: Croom Helm.
Jennings, EdwardT. Jr., and Ewalt,
Jo Ann G.
1998 "Interorganizational
Coordination, AdministrativeConsolidation, and Policy Performance."
Public AdministrationReview
58:5:417-26.
2000 "Driving Caseloads Down: Welfare Policy Choices and AdministrativeAction in the States." In
LaurenceE. Lynn, Jr., and
CarolynJ. Heinrich, eds.
Models and Methodsfor the
Empirical Studyof Governance.
Washington,D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Jordan, Grant, and Schubert, K.
1992 "A PreliminaryOrderingof
Policy Network Labels." European Journal of Political
Research 21:1-2:7-27.
Kettl, Donald F.
1990 "The Perils-and Prospects-of
Public Administration."Public
AdministrationReview 50:4:
411-19.
1993 "Searchingfor Clues about
Public Management:Slicing the
Onion Different Ways." In
Barry Bozeman, ed. Public
Management:The State of the

Art, 55-68. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kickert, Walter J.M.; Klijn, Erik-Hans;
and Koppenjan,Joop F.M., eds.
1997 Managing ComplexNetworks:
Strategiesfor the Public Sector.
London: SAGE.
Kiser, Larry L., and Ostrom, Elinor.
1982 "The Three Worlds of Action: A
MetatheoreticalSynthesis of
InstitutionalApproaches."In
Elinor Ostrom, ed. Strategies of
Political Inquiry, 179-222.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: SAGE.
Klijn, Erik-Hans.
1996 "Analyzingand Mal.aging
Policy Processes in Complex
Networks: A TheoreticalExamination of the Concept Policy
Network and Its Problems.
Administrationand Society
28:1:90-119.
Klok, Pieter-Jan.
1991 Een instrumententheorievoor
milieubeleid. Enschede, The
Netherlands:University of
Twente Press.
1995 "A Classificationof Instruments
for EnvironmentalPolicy." In
Bruno Dente, ed. Environmental
Policy in Search of New Instruments, 21-36. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands:Kluwer.
Knoepfel, Peter, and Weidner, Helmut.
1982 "ImplementingAir Ouality Control Programsin Europe."
Policy Studies Journal 11
(Sept.):104-15.
Koremenos, Barbara,and Lynn,
LaurenceE. Jr.
1996 "Leadershipof a State Agency."
In Donald F. Kettl and H. Brinton Milward, eds. The State of
Public Management, 213-40.
Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
LaPorte, Todd R.
1996 "ShiftingVantage and Conceptual Puzzles in Understanding
Public OrganizationalNetworks." Journal of Public


AdministrationResearch and
Theory6:1:49-74.
Lester, James P., and Bowman,
Ann O'M.
1989 "ImplementingIntergovernmental Policy: A Test of the
Sabatier-MazmanianModel."
Polity 21:731-53.
Lester, James P., and Goggin,
Malcolm L.
1998 "Back to the Future: The Rediscovery of ImplementationStudies." Policy Currents8:3:1-9.
Lin, Ann Chih.
1998 "BuildingPositivist and Interpretivist Approachesto Qualitative Methods." Policy Studies
Journal 25:1:162-80.
2000 Reformin the Making: The
Implementationof Social Policy
in Prison. Princeton, N.J.:
PrincetonUniversity Press.
Linder, Stephen H., and Peters,
B. Guy.
1987 "A Design Perspective on Policy
Implementation:The Fallacies of
Misplaced Prescription."Policy
Studies Review 6 (Feb.):459-75.
Lynn, LaurenceE. Jr.
1996 Public Managementas Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham,
N.J.: ChathamHouse.
Lynn, LaurenceE. Jr.; Heinrich,
CarolynJ.; and Hill, Carolyn J.
1999 "The EmpiricalStudy of Governance:Theories, Models,
Methods." Presentedat the
Workshopon Models and Methods for the Empirical Study of
Governance, University of Arizona, Tucson, April 29-May 1.
2000 The Empirical Study of Governance: Theories, Models, and
Methods. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Marin, Bernd, and Mayntz,
Renate, eds.
1991 Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
Marsh, D., and Rhodes, R.A.W., eds.

1992 Policy Networksin British
Government.Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Matland, RichardE.
1995 "Synthesizingthe Implementation Literature:The AmbiguityConflict Model of Policy Implementation."Journal of Public
Theory5:2:145-74.
Mayntz, Renate, and Scharpf, Fritz W.
1995 "Der Ansatz des akteurzentriertenInstitutionalismus."
In Mayntz and Scharpf, eds.
Steuerungund Selbstorganisation
in staatsnahenSektoren, 39-72.
Frankfurtam Main: Campus.
Mazmanian,Daniel A., and Sabatier,
Paul A.
1989 Implementationand Public
Policy, rev. ed., Lanham, Md.:
University Press of America.
McFarlane, Deborah R.
1989 "Testing the StatutoryCoherence
Hypothesis: Implementationof
Family PlanningPolicy in the
States." Administrationand
Society 20:4:395-422.
Meier, KennethJ.
1999 "Are We Sure Lasswell Did It
This Way? Lester, Goggin and
ImplementationResearch."
Policy Currents9:1:5-8.
Meier, KennethJ., and Gill, Jeff.
forthcoming SubstantivelyWeighted
Analytical Techniques:A New
Approachto Program and Policy
Analysis. Boulder, Colo.:
Westview.
Meyers, Marcia; Glaser, Bonnie; and

MacDonald, Karin.
1998 "On the Front Lines of Welfare
Reform: Are Workers Implementing Policy Reforms?"Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 17:1:1-22.
Milward, H. Brinton, ed.
1996 Symposiumon "The Hollow
State: Capacity, Control, and
Performancein Interorganizational Settings." Journal of
Public AdministrationResearch
and Theory6:2:193-313.
Milward, H. Brinton, and Provan,
Keith G.
1999 "How Networks Are Governed." Unpublishedpaper.
Montjoy, Robert S., and O'Toole,
LaurenceJ. Jr.
1979 "Towarda Theory of Policy
Implementation:An
OrganizationalPerspective."
39:5:465-76.
Orth, Caroline M.
1997 "StateImplementationof Air
and Water Pollution Control
Policy: An Analysis of State
Ecological Capacity." Paper presented at the annualmeeting of
the Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, April 1012.
Ostrom, Elinor.
1999 "InstitutionalRationalChoice:
An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development
Framework."In Paul A. Sabatier, ed. Theories of the Policy
Process, 35-71. Boulder, Colo.:
Westview.
Meier, KennethJ., and Keiser, Lael R.

1996 "Public Administrationas a
Science of the Artificial: A
Methodology for Prescription."
56:459-66.
Ostrom, Elinor; Gardner,Roy; and

Walker, James.
1994 Rules, Games, and CommonPool Resources. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Meier, KennethJ., and McFarlane,

Deborah R.
1995 "StatutoryCoherence and Policy
Implementation:The Case of
Family Planning."Journal of
Public Policy 15:3:281-301.
O'Toole, LaurenceJ. Jr.

1986 "Policy Recommendationsfor
Multi-ActorImplementation:An
Assessment of the Field." Journal of Public Policy 6:2:181210.


1989 "Alternative
Mechanisms
for
Multiorganizational
Implementation:TheCaseof Wastewater
Administration
Management."
and Society 21:3:313-39.
1993 "Multiorganizational
Policy
SomeLimitaImplementation:
tionsandPossibilitiesfor
Rational-Choice
Contributions."
In Scharpf,ed., 27-64.
1994 "EconomicTransition,ConstitutionalChoice,andPublic
Administration:
Implementing
in Hungary."JourPrivatization
nal of PublicAdministration
Researchand Theory4:4:493-
O'Toole,LaurenceJ. Jr., andMontjoy,

RobertS.
1984 "Interorganizational
Policy
A Theoretical
Implementation:
PublicAdminisPerspective."
trationReview44:6:491-503.
Pressman,JeffreyL., andWildavsky,
Aaron.
1984 [1973]Implementation.
Berkeley:Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Policyin Michigan."Ph.D. diss.

Universityof Michigan.
Scharpf,FritzW., ed.
1993 Gamesin HierarchiesandNetworks:AnalyticalandEmpirical
to the Studyof
Approaches
Governmental
Institutions.
Boulder,Colo.:Westview.
1997 GamesRealActorsPlay:ActorCenteredInstitutionalism
in
PolicyResearch.Boulder,Colo.:
Westview.
Provan,KeithG., andMilward,
H. Brinton.
Scheirer,MaryAnn,andGriffith,
1995 "A Preliminary
James.
Theoryof Net519.
workEffectiveness:
A Compara- 1990 "Studying
theDynamicsof
1995 "Rational
ChoiceandPolicy
tive Studyof FourMental
PublicPolicyImplementation:
American
HealthSystems."Administrative
A Third-Generation
Implementation."
Approach."
Reviewof PublicAdministration
ScienceQuarterly
40:1:1-33.
In DennisJ. Palumboand
25:1:43-57.
DonaldJ. Calista,eds. Imple1996a"HollowingtheInfrastructure: Roderick,Melissa.
mentation
andthe PolicyPro2000 "Evaluating
cess: Openingup the BlackBox,
RevolvingLoanProgramsand
Chicago'sEfforts
NetworkDynamicsin theAmerto EndSocialPromotion."
In
163-179.New York:GreenicanStates."Journalof Public
LaurenceE. LynnJr. andCarowood.
lyn J. Heinrich,eds. Modelsand
Methods
Theory6:2:225-42.
for theEmpiricalStudy Schlager,Edella;Blomquist,William;
1996b "ImplementingPublic
andTang,ShuiYan.
of Governance.
Washington,
In JamesL. Perry,
D.C.: Georgetown
1994 "MobileFlows,Storage,and
Programs."
University
ed. Handbookof PublicAdminisPress.
Institutions
Self-Organized
tration,2d ed., 150-62.San
for GoverningCommon-Pool
Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Ross, Lester.
Resources."
LandEconomics
1997a"Networking
1984 "TheImplementation
of
70:3:294-317.
Requirements,
Institutional
Environmental
Capacity,and
Policyin China:
A Comparative
Implementation
Gapsin TransiSchneider,AnneL.
Perspective."
tionalRegimes:TheCaseof
Administration
andSociety
1999 "Terminator!
Who,Me?Some
Acidification
15:4:489-516.
Policyin HunThoughtsaboutthe Studyof
gary."Journalof European
PolicyImplementation."
Policy
Public Policy 4:1:1-17.
Currents
9:1:1-5.
Ryan,N.
1997b TreatingNetworks Seriously:
1996 "SomeAdvantages
of an IntePracticalandResearch-Based
gratedApproachto ImplemenStoker,RobertP.
tationAnalysis."Public
Agendasin PublicAdministra1991 ReluctantPartners:Implementtion." Public Administration
Administration
74:737-53.
ing FederalPolicy.Pittsburgh:
Review57:1:45-52.
Press.
Universityof Pittsburgh
1998 Institutions,
Policy,and Outputs Sabatier,PaulA.
TheCaseof
1991 "TowardBetterTheoriesof the
for Acidification:
Stone,Clarence.
1989 RegimePolitics:Governing
Hungary. Aldershot, UK: AshPolicyProcess."PS 24:2:14756.
gate.
Atlanta1946-1988.Lawrence:
UniversityPressof Kansas.
O'Toole,LaurenceJ. Jr., andMeier,
Sabatier,PaulA., andJenkins-Smith,
KennethJ.
HankC., eds.
Tang,ShuiYan.
1999 "Modeling
theImpactof Public
1993 PolicyChangeandLearning:An
1991 "Institutional
and
Arrangements
of
Management:
theManagement
of CommonImplications
AdvocacyCoalitionApproach.
Structural
Context."Journalof
PoolResources."PublicAdminBoulder,Colo.:Westview.
PublicAdministration
Research
istratonReview51:1:42-51.
and Theory9:4:505-26.
Sandfort,Jodi.
1997 "PeeringintotheBlackBox:A
Torenvlied,Ren6.
1996aBesluitenin uitvoering.GroninStudyof theFront-Line
OrganizationsImplementing
Welfare
Univergen, TheNetherlands:
Press.
sity of Groningen


1996b"PoliticalControlof ImplementationAgencies:Effectsof Political Consensuson AgencyComand Society
pliance."Rationality
8:1:25-56.
Victor,David;Raustiala,Kal;and
Skolnikoff,EugeneB., eds.
andEffec1998. TheImplementation
tivenessof International
Commitments.
Environmental
Mass.:MITPress.
Cambridge,
Weber,EdwardP.
1998 Pluralismby theRules:Conflict
in Environand Cooperation
mentalRegulation.Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown
University
Press.
Weiss,EdithBrown,andJacobson,
HaroldK., eds.
1998 EngagingCountries:
StrengthenwithIntering Compliance
Accords.
nationalEnvironmental
Mass.:MITPress.
Cambridge,
Winter,Soren.
1999 "NewDirectionsfor ImplementationResearch."PolicyCurrents 8:4:1-5.


3525645

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

3525645

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.

Public Management Research Association

Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation:

A version of this article was presented

2631Journalof Public AdministrationResearchand Theory

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

264/J-PART, April 2000

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Researchon Policy Implementation

neglected. One importantexample is the

If scholarshiphas not simply solved the problem,and if

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

involvedgo considerablybeyondthe standardsingle-agencyperspective.

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

[a]ny policy implementation scholar

who adds a new variableor a new interactionshouldbe required

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

Some empiricalstudieshave been conductedoutsidethe

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

To thatend, Gogginet al. offer details of a set of hypotheses

tation, particularlyin the UnitedStatesand for intergovernmental

272/J-PART, April 2000

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

Wherehas useful work on the subject-or, more accurately,

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This section offers a sampling,with some links to the main

scholarshipof ElinorOstromand colleagues(Ostrom,Gardner,

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

A depictionof Scharpf'sfull approachwould take this

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

3In his publishedwork, Weber has not

Anotherinstance,less exclusivelyfocusedon implementation per se, is the recentscholarshipof EdwardWeber (1998).

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

This content downloaded from 148.202.168.13 on Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:45 AM

Research on Policy Implementation

of the workadaysuccesseshave [sic] largelybeen ingrained,thusbiasingthe

handleon the linchpinstagethatdeliversthe policygoods.

As shouldbe clear, the presentassessmentis considerably