We noted in Chapter 2 that the linear model of the policy process creates a false dichotomy between the stages of policy formulation and implementation. Policy-making and implementation are seen as distinct activities, separate from each other. An interactive model of the policy process suggests, on the contrary, that policies can be reformulated in the implementation process and, therefore, the distinction between the processes of policy formulation and implementation is not water tight. In this chapter, we look more closely at the factors that influence the policy implementation process, as well as theoretical frameworks that help analyse the same.

The key question that we answer in this chapter is: How can we explain the difference between the intended and actual outcomes of public policy?What factors shape the implementation process? What analytic frameworks or conceptual approaches can be employed for the analysis of the implementation of public policy? In Chapter 2, we examined the importance of understanding the management of change; in this chapter, we look at different conceptual approaches and analytical frameworks that help analyse the management of change. In attempting to answer these questions, we draw upon concepts and frameworks developed in legal anthropology, development sociology and management literature.

Importance of the study of the implementation process

The interest in the study of implementation of public policy can be traced back to the publication of the book ‘Implementation’ by Pressman and Wildavsky in 1973. Prior to this, interest in public policy was confined more to the prescriptive dimensions of policy; earlier studies tended to be of decisions rather than of policies (Hogwood and Gunn 1984). The focus was on the moment at which the decision was taken or the policy was made. What happened after that was seen to be the concern of other disciplines such as public administration or management in the public sector. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a greater interest in studying what has been described by Dunsire as the ‘implementation gap’.

Mathur (1998) notes that most public administration could be seen as the implementation strategy of public policy. This means that the effort at dichotomising policy and administration needs to be given up.