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.

Wildavsky, the eminent political scientist, noted, ‘…policy analysis is one activity for which there can be no fixed program, for policy analysis is synonymous with creativity, which may be stimulated by theory and sharpened by practice, which can be learned but not taught. In large part, it must be admitted, knowledge is negative – it tells us what we cannot do, where we cannot go, wherein we have been wrong, but not necessarily how to correct these errors. After all, if current efforts were judged wholly satisfactory, there would be little need for analysis and less for analysts (Wildavsky 1979: 3, 9).’

In Chapter 1, we examined the rationale for the study of public policy and in particular, the need for the study of policy processes. We introduced the policy sciences as a field of study comprising both the process and the prescriptive dimensions of public policy. In this chapter, we further explore the characteristics of policy analysis and describe its evolution as a field of enquiry. We then review different models of policy choice and theories of the policy process. These models are conceptual lenses for studying policy and explaining how policy processes take shape. They provide an analytic framework for the analysis of public policy. These models help us structure our thinking on policy; however, none of them is necessarily superior to the others. It is for us, as students of public policy, to critically evaluate each of them and examine their relevance for the study of public policy processes. Policy processes can be explained using one or a combination of these.

The organisation of this chapter is thus: we start with a review of some characteristics of policy analysis: it is applied, client-oriented and politically sensitive. We then look at how policy analysis has emerged as an interdisciplinary field, drawing from but at the same time deviating from conventional disciplines. The evolution of policy analysis as an applied interdisciplinary field is traced to the disenchantment with conventional disciplines on the supply side and the quest for the explanation of unsatisfactory development performance on the demand side.

We then move on to examine what is meant by a model, and why we should be interested in modelling social phenomena. The objectives of developing models of policy processes are described.