Policy Implementation: Integral or Discrete Activity?
INTRODUCTION
Retrospectively, policy implementation was seen to be less problematic and for that matter minimal academic attention was allocated to the implementation stage in policy making (Dorey 2005; Fixsen et al 2005; Exworthy and Powell 2004,). However practical experiences led to the realization of how policy implementation shapes and determines policy success or failure and from the 1970s, implementation’s relevance and influence on policy making were increasingly witnessed (Dorey 2005). Over the past two decades, literature on implementation comprises the synthesization of existing literature and the revisiting of older ones where an epitome has been the success or failure of policy implementation. Buck et al (1993), Matland (1995), Ryan (1995) to mention a few, give vivid evidence to this approach (Schofield 2004).
Some Major themes have been inferred from within policy implementation literature, the first has been the development of analytical models which has resulted in the building of generation models. Second major theme in the study of this literature has been the various approaches employed in the study of public policy implementation, referred to as “top-down” or “bottom-up” approach. The third theme has been on the search of key implementation variables (ibid). The paper considers the second theme above, as in public policy implementation as a “discrete phenomenon” versus “integration into policy process” which is purely the archetype of the polarized concept of implementation process: top-down versus bottom-up (Hall 2009; Dorey 2005; Barret 2004). After defining terminologies where public policy implementation is the main variable to be defined, “discrete activity”/top-down and “integrated”/bottom-up approach archetypes, will be discussed followed by two case studies from Ghana in health, and environmental and resource policies. Final part is the conclusion to the “preferability” question to implementation approach which this paper sought to
Retrospectively, policy implementation was seen to be less problematic and for that matter minimal academic attention was allocated to the implementation stage in policy making (Dorey 2005; Fixsen et al 2005; Exworthy and Powell 2004,). However practical experiences led to the realization of how policy implementation shapes and determines policy success or failure and from the 1970s, implementation’s relevance and influence on policy making were increasingly witnessed (Dorey 2005). Over the past two decades, literature on implementation comprises the synthesization of existing literature and the revisiting of older ones where an epitome has been the success or failure of policy implementation. Buck et al (1993), Matland (1995), Ryan (1995) to mention a few, give vivid evidence to this approach (Schofield 2004).
Some Major themes have been inferred from within policy implementation literature, the first has been the development of analytical models which has resulted in the building of generation models. Second major theme in the study of this literature has been the various approaches employed in the study of public policy implementation, referred to as “top-down” or “bottom-up” approach. The third theme has been on the search of key implementation variables (ibid). The paper considers the second theme above, as in public policy implementation as a “discrete phenomenon” versus “integration into policy process” which is purely the archetype of the polarized concept of implementation process: top-down versus bottom-up (Hall 2009; Dorey 2005; Barret 2004). After defining terminologies where public policy implementation is the main variable to be defined, “discrete activity”/top-down and “integrated”/bottom-up approach archetypes, will be discussed followed by two case studies from Ghana in health, and environmental and resource policies. Final part is the conclusion to the “preferability” question to implementation approach which this paper sought to