Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
BY JAN-ERIK LANE
Introduction*
Implementation analysis appears to promise that
rare combination of rigorous methodology and
social relevance so often sought in policy analysis.
In theory, implementation analysis seems to offer
not just evaluation techniques for the assessment
of public program performance but also guidance
if not rules for the successful attainment of policy
objectives. In a seminal article, typical of the state
of implementation analysis, P. Sabatier and D .
Mazmanian ventured to state conditions for the
accomplishment of a policy objective or "effective
implementation" (Sabatier & Mazmanian 1979).
Implementation analysis would, if its potential is
realized, take policy analysis further than evaluation research (ER) or social impact analysis
(SIA); as opposed to the narrow focus of traditional public administration on program execution, implementation analysis would not only
highlight the extent to which the policy objectives
had been attained but would also come up with
directives to planners and policy-makers as to how
they should mould their program in order to
achieve "effective implementation" (Hargrove).
In the introduction to the volume Studying Implementation (1982) W. Williams goes as far as to
state that "the primary criterion for the worth of
implementation studies is policy relevance" (Williams 1982:1). However, some words of warning
against excessive optimism about implementation
analysis would not be out of place if they were to
result in a realistic understanding of the difficulties involved in doing implementation analysis,
18
Jan-Erik Lane
d e
f.
objective"
Successful implementation does not only require a
state of affairs in which there is a policy objective
and an outcome (or several objectives or outcom
es) for, in addition, the concept of implementation
implies that these two entities - objective and
outcome - satisfy two different relationships: the
causal function and the accomplishment function.
Two ideas are fundamental to the concept of im
plementation: that the policy program is the out
put that brings about the outcomes (the causal
function) in such a way that the outcomes accom
plish the objectives of the policy (the accomplish
ment function). It is vital to make a distinction
between these two relationships, because they
present difieren analysis problems. Let us begin
with the accomplishment function.
The Wildavsky
Successful
Problem
T h e r e s e e m s t o b e a real d i l e m m a h e r e : p o l i c y
implementation
requires
that
the
o b j e c t i v e ( s ) a n d t h e o u t c o m e ( s ) satisfy t h e r e
q u i r e m e n t s of a very special relationship with e a c h
o t h e r : w h a t is i m p l e m e n t e d is a n o b j e c t i v e ( i n t e n
t i o n ) t h a t exists before
19
m e n t a t i o n is t h e p r o c e s s o f e f f e c t i n g an o u t c o m e
that is t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t i v e , i . e . , t h e
i n v o l v e s e n d s a n d m e a n s a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n is
the e m p l o y m e n t of the m e a n s t o achieve the e n d s ,
yet p o l i c y i s t o b e s o m e t h i n g that is s e p a r a t e f r o m
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ! H o w is t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n
p o l i c y a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , s o crucial in i m p l e
mentation
analysis,
to be preserved
using
means-end terminology?
o u t c o m e that c o m e s a b o u t as a function of t h e
In o r d e r t o s o l v e t h e W i l d a v s k y p r o b l e m a d i s
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n is t h e o b j e c t i v e w h i c h m e a n s that
t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t w o d i m e n s i o n s in a n i m p l e
t h e o b j e c t i v e exists after t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . T h i s
s o u n d s l i k e a c o n t r a d i c t i o in a d i e c t o . A . W i l d a v s
k y h a s d e a l t w i t h this p r o b l e m u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g
r e s p e c t i v e l y . If this d i s t i n c t i o n is a c c e p t e d it b e
t i o n s t u d i e s l i k e Implementation
( w i t h J. P r e s s
c o m e s possible to distinguish b e t w e e n i n t e n d e d
G . M a j o n e ) . T h e f o l l o w i n g t w o q u o t a t i o n s illu
strate h i s l i n e o f t h o u g h t :
meanSj a n d m e a n s
arrive at D i a g r a m 1.
". . . the attempt to study implementation raises the
g r a m f o r t h e W i l d a v s k y p r o b l e m t h e k e y w o r d s in
t h e D i a g r a m s h o u l d b e d e f i n e d formally: an e n d ; is
a n y b e h a v i o r o r s t a t e s u c h as a n actor an i n d i
vidual o r a n o r g a n i z e d c o l l e c t i v i t y - c o n c e i v e s it
Diagram 1. Dimensions
of
w h i c h t h e a c t o r wants t o b r i n g a b o u t . A m e a n s ;
is a n y b e h a v i o r s u c h as t h e a c t o r p e r c e i v e s it a n d
wants t o p e r f o r m in o r d e r t o a c c o m p l i s h a n e n d .
W h a t is d e n o t e d
between
m e a n s a n d e n d s is a r e l a t i v e o n e in t h e s e n s e t h a t
Implementation
Intentional Level
Behavior Level
(Actual Level)
Means,,
a
End;
Means-End Relationshipj
Realized Means
Realized End
Ends
a
Means-End
Relationship
MeanSj
Integrated Means-End
Action
20
Jan-Erik Lane
implementor
(i) m e a n s = means;
(ii) e n d s = ends;.
a
21
Relationships
Implementor
Formator
National Level
National Level
Regional Level
Local Level
Case I
Case II
Case III
Case IV
Case
Regional Level
Local Level
Case VI
22
Jan-Erik Lane
alternatives
(i)
P (ends: = ends ) 1= .9
(ii)
P (meanSj = means )
(iii)
=79
23
24
Jan-Erik Lane
(i)
(ii)
=o .
2
and Accomplishment
25
Functions
Accomplishment
Causality
Policy Effectiveness
Policy Ineffectiveness
Policy Failure
Policy Success
II
III
IV
(a)
(b)
Implementation
Outcome)
(Intention,
Output,
26
Jan-Erik Lane
Set of Objectives
27
Accomplishment
Congruence
The Paradox of
Set of Outcomes
Implementation
28
Jan-Erik Lane
the concept of-a process of implementation. W-ildavsky has introduced this new idea about a pro
cess of implementation as resulting not in imple
mentation but in evolution; he states:
"Implementation is evolution. Since it takes place in a
world w e never made, we are usually right in the middle
Impossibility
of
Implementation
29
between
30
Jan-Erik Lane
processes as
implementation
"-An implementation structure is comprised of subsets ofmembers within organizations which view a programme
as their primary (or an instrumental^ important) inte
rest.". (Hjern & Porter 1981:216).
31
assumed
'perfect
implementation'."
(Dunsire
1976:230).
Varieties of implementation
processes
32
Jan-Erik Lane
33
implementation
the implementation
34
Jan-Erik Lane
Diagram 5. Contexts
of
Presence of I m p l e m e n t a
Theoretician's Point of V i e w
Successful
Implementation
,
.-
.Implementation
Failure
tion Perspective.
Absence of Implementa
tion Perspective
III
'
implementation
Participant's
Point of View
- "'V.' .
35
36
Jan-Erik Lane
Diagram 6. Implementation
conditions
Status of Conditions
Conditions Relating
to Actor
The Formator
The Implementor
Controllable
Uncontrollable
11
III
IV
37
'pertinent,
Conclusion
It is not uncommon to find negative assessment of
policy implementation or policy implementability
in the literature. Typically, Helen Ingram states:
"The primary lesson that emerges from the existing
literature on policy implementation is that a tremendous
ravine filled with tangles and briars separates the state
ment of federal goals and objectives from their actual
achievement in the field"' (Ingram 1977:524)
38
Jan-Erik Lane
(i)
(ii)
not a formalized procedure; and the culminating step explanation building and testing - seems to follow few
methodological guidelines." (Yin 1982:61)
Literature
Bardach, E . (1977) The Implementation
Came: What
Happens After a Bill Becomes a Law. Cambridge: The
MIT Press.
Barrett, S. & Fudge, C. (eds) (1981) Policy and Action.
. Essays on the Implementation
of Public Policy. London: Metheun.
Brigham, J. & Brown, D . W. (eds) (1980), Policy Implementation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Browne, A . & A . Wildavsky (1983) "Should Evaluation
become Implementation?". In Wildavsky, A . , Implementation. 3rd ed.
Derthick, M. (1972) New Towns in-Town. Washington:
The Urban Institute.
Dolbeare, M. K. (ed) (1975) Public Policy
Evaluation.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
39
40
Jan-Erik Lane
Simon,-H. (Wl(>).Administrative
Behavior. N e w York:
Free Press.
Smith, T. B. (1973) "The Policy Implementation Pro
cess" in Policy Sciences 4 , 1973:197-209.
Struening, E. L. & Guttentag, M, (eds) (1975) Hand
book of Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills: Sage.
van Horn, C. E. (1979) Policy Implementation
in the
Federal System: National Goals and Local
Implementors. Lexington: Heath.
Van Meter, D . & Van Horn, C. (1975) "The Policy
Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework"
in Administration
and Society, no 6: 445 - 8 8 .
Yin, R. K. (1982) "Studying the Implementation of Pub
lic Programs" in Williams (ed) Studying
Implementa
tion.
Williams, W. (1971) Social Policy Research and Analy
sis: The Experience in the Federal Social
Agencies.
N e w York: Elsevier.
Williams, W. & Elmore, R. F. (eds) (1976) Social Pro
gram Implementation.
N e w York: Academic Press.
Williams, W. (1980) The Implementation
Perspective.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Williams, W. (ed) (1982) Studying Implementation.
Met
hodological
and Administrative
Issues. Chatham,
N e w Jersey: Chatham H o u s e Publishers.