See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313360341

A Critical Insight into Policy Implementation and Implementation

Performance

Article  in  Public Policy and Administration · January 2017

DOI: 10.13165/VPA-16-15-4-02

CITATIONS READS

11 1,657

2 authors:

Anisur Rahman Khan Shahriar Khandaker

East West University (Bangladesh) East West University (Bangladesh)
28 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Male Suicide View project

Social and Behavioral Epidemiologic Studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anisur Rahman Khan on 21 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1648-2603 (print) VIEŠOJI POLITIKA IR ADMINISTRAVIMAS
ISSN 2029-2872 (online) PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
2016, T. 15, Nr. 4 / 2016, Vol. 15, No 4, p. 538–548.

A Critical Insight into Policy Implementation and

Implementation Performance

Anisur Rahman Khan, Shahriar Khandaker

East West University, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh

DOI:10.13165/VPA-16-15-4-02

Abstract. Policy implementation involves translating the goals and objectives of

policy into action. Although seen as an integral part of the policy cycle, substantial
research has not yet been carried out in this area. This paper examines the state and
status of policy implementation as a discipline and the factors associated with imple-
mentation performance, based on a review of the literature and analysis by research-
ers. The assessment in this study confirms the dearth of theoretical development of this
subject as a major concern for this discipline and a barrier for perfect execution. It was
also found that multiple factors are linked to poor policy performance, such as a lack
of coordination, funding, commitment, capabilities among implementers and top-down
support. Finally, by critically looking into loopholes associated with performance in
policy implementation, five theoretical models were developed for improving perfor-
mance. These respectively had a rational, organisational, political, bureaucratic and
management basis. It is expected that the application of these standards would help to
overcome issues, leading to successful policy performance.
Keywords: public policy, policy implementation, policy performance, implemen-
tation theory, implementation models.

Raktažodžiai: viešoji politika, politikos įgyvendinimas, politikos efektyvumas,

įgyvendinimo teorija, įgyvendinimo modeliai.

Introduction

Public policy is a guide to action, and it relates to a broader framework that

involves putting into operation a philosophy, principle, vision and decision that are
translated into various programmes, projects, and activities. A policy entails the
broad statement of future goals and actions, and expresses the means of attaining
Public Policy and Administration. 2016, Vol. 15, No 4, p. 538–548. 539

them. It is a framework of governmental intervention and covers a variety of activi-

ties. Public policy is defined as a purposeful course of action that an actor or set of
actors follows in dealing with a problem or matter of concern [1]. It is a series or pat-
tern of government activities or decisions designed to remedy certain social prob-
lems. Public policy must be properly implemented to reap benefits for citizens [17],
and its success is positively correlated with the way in which it is put into practice.
Even the best policy is worth little if it is poorly implemented.
One problem involved with policy implementation is that how to put it into
practice lacks proper direction or guidelines. Markedly, such direction is supposed
to be derived from the appropriate theories of policy implementation. Unfortunately,
there is a consensus amongst scholars that “policy implementation” as a discipline
suffers from viable, valid and universally accepted imposing or good theories. In
this subject area, there is perhaps no such grand or fully fledged theory that, for in-
stance, is comparable to Durkheim’s sociological theory of anomie or other similar
patterns of theoretical sophistication [7]. One reason for the absence of such a grand
theory for implementation is because this is still in its infancy as a discipline [6].
Over the years, this area has also been severely overlooked in the broader domain
of public administration, thus restricting its theoretical development. Moreover,
the implementation of a particular policy is very much context specific because it
depends on political, social, economic, organisational and attitudinal factors that
influence how well or poorly a policy or programme is implemented [10] [17]. The
situation also varies considerably over time, across policies, and from one state to
the next [6]. Many contextual factors have stopped the discipline from being ad-
equately developed with regard to intellectual advancement.
The aim of this research is to take a critical look at the theoretical aspects of
policy implementation, and issues associated with its performance. On the basis of
such reflections, a few models are developed to provide guidelines for successful
implementation. The research methodology relies on a literature review and rigor-
ous reflexive interpretation.

State of the Discipline of “Policy Implementation”

What are the characteristics of a good theory? A good argument must follow
virtues such as uniqueness, parsimony, conservation, the ability to be generalised,
fecundity, internal consistency, empirical riskiness, and abstraction that applies to
all research methods [20]. It is highly unlikely that policy theory would contain all
these characteristics, and is almost impossible for any theory to include all these
traits at once [11]. Ironically, there is no grand theory for policy implementation and,
as such, this serves to obfuscate what implementation is and is not [6]. Nonetheless,
although the discipline of policy implementation requires having classical theories
over a span of time, different theoretical models or approaches (at least two: top-
down and bottom-up) [17] and case studies have been developed in this area.
 Anisur Rahman Khan, Shahriar Khandaker. A Critical Insight into Policy Implementation
540 and Implementation Performance

Implementation is an important stage in the policymaking process. This re-

fers to the execution of law, in which various stakeholders and organisations
work together with the use of procedures and techniques to put policies into ef-
fect to help attain goals [17]. Implementation is considered a process, output and
outcome, and involves some actors, organisations and techniques for control. It is
a process of interactions between setting goals and the actions directed towards
achieving them [12]. The constituent element of most cited definitions of imple-
mentation is the gap that exists between policy intent and outcomes [9] [16]. The
first-generation study of policy implementation has grown substantially since the
seminal book “Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed
in Oakland” by Pressman and Wildavsky was published in 1973. Before then,
there was a period of academic debate about the meaning of implementation [7].
As a case study, this work explored the difficulties encountered by the Economic
Development Administration in Oakland, California, when trying to implement a
job-creation programme during the 1960s. The research resulted in demonstrable
progress in at least two respects. Firstly, there is now an enhanced understanding of
the meaning of implementation and how it varies across time, policies and govern-
ment; and secondly, it links policy design and application performance [17]. “The
Implementation Game” is another important first-generation study conducted by
Bardach (1977) [13]. First-generation studies were primarily concerned with de-
scribing numerous barriers to effective policy implementation [17]. However, they
have been criticised for being atheoretical, case-specific and non-cumulative [6],
and, importantly, theory-building was not at their heart [13].
Second-generation studies were more concerned with explaining success or
failure with regard to implementation [17], and contributed towards developing
analytical frameworks and models to guide research on implementation [6]. These
studies can be broadly classified into top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy
implementation [17]. This period was seemingly marked by a debate that was later
dubbed as referring to top-down and bottom-up approaches and models for im-
plementation research [13]. Notable scholars, such as Meter and Horn, Maznamin
and Sabatier, illustrated a top-down model in explaining implementation, whereas
on the bottom-up side, scholars such as Elmore Lipsky emphasised that applica-
tion consisted of the standard problem-solving strategies of “street-level bureau-
crats” [13]. Again, scholars tend to unify the two approaches or provide a hybrid
one, and argue that policymakers should employ policy instruments based on the
structure of target groups [15] [6]. According to the hybrid approach, the outcome
of implementation is influenced by factors at a central and local level [6]. The goal
of third-generation research was simply to be more scientific than the previous two
generations in its approach to the study of implementation. This research attempt-
ed to directly confront conceptual and measurement problems that have impeded
progress in the discipline [6], and put emphasis on defining specific hypotheses,
finding proper operationalisation, and producing empirical observations to test the
hypotheses [13].
Public Policy and Administration. 2016, Vol. 15, No 4, p. 538–548. 541

Under the above circumstances, many scholars of policy implementation agree

that the future phase of research in this area must be directed towards theory devel-
opment [17], because a lack of theoretical sophistication is a critical problem that in-
variably affects policy performance, and effective performance requires appropriate
guidance. It is assumed that direction should be derived from sound theories. Before
we deal with the issue of theory development for this discipline, some aspects and
understanding on policy performance are outlined below.

Policy Implementation Performance

The performance of policy implementation can be categorised into three areas,

namely: 1) output and outcome of the policy; 2) the impact of policy; and 3) assess-
ment of whether the policy leads to the development of a country or society as a
whole. Successful policy outcomes depend not only on designing effective systems,
but also on managing their implementation [4]. Until the early 1970s, application
was considered unproblematic and considered only putting theory into practice.
This viewpoint changed with the publication of Pressman and Wildavsky’s case
study “Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in
Oakland.” The authors examined the implementation strategies of the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) in Oakland, California, in the US. Despite hav-
ing excellent intentions, this programme was unsuccessfully implemented, and the
primary factors for failure included: 1) faulty theory for the programme; 2) unclear
goals and objectives, 3) a lack of coordinated planning; 4) a lack of standardisation;
5) intra-agency antipathies; and 6) the complexity of joint actions. The complexity
of joint action was in turn evident with regard to many aspects, such as i) the large
number of participants and perspectives; ii) the multiplicity of decisions and the
decreasing probability of programme success; iii) the result of having two goals and
two decision paths; iv) the emergence of unexpected decisions; and v) the anatomy
of delay. Later on, a study conducted by Bardach as a case of mental health reform in
California viewed the implementation process as involving pressure politics (pres-
sure and counter forces), messing with assent, administrative control processes,
intergovernmental bargaining, and the complexity of joint actions. Features associ-
ated with each of these factors headed towards the conceptualisation of the process
as “a system of loosely related games”. Bardach was concerned about those games
that have adverse effects on policy implementation, or factors that cause delays or
failures in implementation. There are four types of adverse effect: (a) the diversion
of resources; (b) the deflection of policy goals; (c) administration dilemmas; and (d)
the dissipation of energies.
Other scholars have talked about constraints associated with policy implemen-
tation. Many policies are not implemented or executed according to their design,
and a policy intervention may just be poorly managed or compromised by political
interference. Sometimes personnel are not available or facilities are inadequate, and
sometimes front-line implementers are unable to carry out an intervention through
 Anisur Rahman Khan, Shahriar Khandaker. A Critical Insight into Policy Implementation
542 and Implementation Performance

a lack of motivation or expertise. Policy design may also be poorly structured, or

the original design may not be transmitted well to staff. Moreover, indented policy
participants may not exist in sufficient numbers or be identified precisely, or may
be found to be non-cooperative [14]. Some scholars confirm that effective imple-
mentation of any policy can be severely undermined through a lack of sufficient
resources [10] [9] [4] [8], incentive [10] [3] or competent staff, the presence of a
negative disposition among implementers [10], a lack of inter-organisational com-
munication [10] [3], professional and technical resources [6] [9], official commit-
ment to statutory objectives [9], delegation of authority and flexibility [5], or suffi-
cient autonomy [21], inter-organisational complexity and conflict [18], the impact of
economic, political and social conditions [10], a lack of specific technical know-how
or administrative capabilities, in prevalence of self-serving goals of street-level bu-
reaucrats and an absence of organisational willingness [19], increased demand for
services, vague, ambiguous or conflicting goal expectations, difficulties in achiev-
ing goals, and involuntary clients [8].

Models Developed for Successful Policy Implementation

Based on the contextual premises mentioned above with regard to precise

performance, five
This model models have
is primarily basedbeen designed
on the to accelerate
assumption that policy implementation per- the clarif
implementation requires
formance, as outlined below. These respectively comprise a rational, management,
of goals, missions
organisational and objectives,
development, detailed and
bureaucratic planning, appropriate
political job assignments,
model. Relevant effective monito
hypotheses
have
andalso been formulated
evaluation, with and
comprehensive regard to each
efficient model procedures,
operating so they canand
be tested to com-
techniques required to assis
prehend the effect of implementation performance. The application of these stand-
implementers to define the scope of their responsibilities in line with policy objectives. The key
ards would assist in developing theories for this discipline. Once these are devel-
independent
oped, variables
sufficient involved
guidelines mustinbeand the wayfor
available they impact onpolicy
successful policyimplementation.
performance have been highl
in the following conceptual model.
1. Rational Model

Independent Variables

Dependent
1. Clarity of policy goals, Variable
targets and objectives
2. Accurate and consistent
planning
Positive Implementation
3. Clear and detailed task
impact Performance
assignments
4. Accurate standardisation
5. Proper monitoring

Hypothesis 1: The clearer the goals, targets and objectives, the more chance that the policy
successfully implemented; Hypothesis 2: The more accurate and consistent the planning, the gre
Public Policy and Administration. 2016, Vol. 15, No 4, p. 538–548. 543

This model is primarily based on the assumption that policy implementation

requires the clarification of goals, missions and objectives, detailed planning, ap-
propriate job assignments, effective monitoring and evaluation, comprehensive and
efficient operating procedures, and techniques required to assist implementers to
define the scope of their responsibilities in line with policy objectives. The key
independent variables involved in and the way they impact on policy performance
have been highlighted in the following conceptual model.
Hypothesis 1: The clearer the goals, targets and objectives, the more chance that
the policy will be successfully implemented; Hypothesis 2: The more accurate and
consistent the planning, the greater the possibility of successful implementation;
Hypothesis 3: Setting clear and detailed task assignments will lead to better
implementation performance; Hypothesis 4: Accurate standardisation will enhance
the performance of policy implementation and result in successful implementation;
Hypothesis 5: The greater the level of monitoring, the greater the chance of
successful implementation.

2. Management Model

This model is based on the belief that the performance of policy implementa-
tion depends on many factors such as organisational structure, personnel and human
resources, the activities of front-line implementers, equipment and technology, the
level of coordination and cooperation, the exercise of authority, and place/location
as implementation infrastructure. This model also attempts to identify problems or
obstacles to policy implementation caused by any shortages in resources or delays to
resource acquisition. The key independent variables and their impacts with regard
to implementation performance have been stated in the following model.

Independent Variables

1. Sufficient and effective use Dependent Variable

of budget
2. Right organisational
structure Positive impact Implementation
3. Quick, clear and two-way Performance
communication
4. Involvement of people as
co-producers
5. Adequate equipment and
appropriate technology
6. Correct location
 Anisur Rahman Khan, Shahriar Khandaker. A Critical Insight into Policy Implementation
544 and Implementation Performance

Hypothesis 1: The greater the budget and the more efficiently it is used, the
greater the chance of implementation success; Hypothesis 2: The right organisa-
tional structure will help lead to successful implementation; Hypothesis 3: Quick,
clear and two-way communication will help to ensure better performance during
policy implementation; Hypothesis 4: The greater the involvement of people (key
stakeholders or beneficiaries) as co-producers, the greater the chance for produc-
tive and fruitful implementation of the policy; Hypothesis 5: Adequate equipment
and appropriate technology will increase the effectiveness of policy performance;
Hypothesis 6: The correct location of implementation processes will decrease de-
lays and enhance the possibility of success.

3. Organisational Development Model

This model assumes that the performance of policy implementation debunks

on organisational leadership capacity, team building, the engagement of the various
parties involved, participation, motivation, coordination and commitment. Selected
independent variables involved in this model and their impacts on implementation
performance are shown below.

Independent Variables
Dependent
1. Effective leadership Variable
2. Motivation
3. Engagement of people
Implementation
4. Team building Positive
Performance
impact
5. Accuracy of decisions

Hypothesis 1: The1:success
Hypothesis of implementation
The success depends
of implementation largelylargely
depends upon upon
effective leadership. The
effective
leadership.
effective The more
the leader, effective
the more the leader,
successful the more successful
the implementation of policy; the implementa-
Hypothesis 2: Motivation wil
tion of policy; Hypothesis 2: Motivation will lead to successful implementation;
to successful implementation; Hypothesis 3: The engagement of people will lead to succ
Hypothesis 3: The engagement of people will lead to successful implementation;
implementation;
Hypothesis 4: The Hypothesis 4: The more
more committed and committed
fruitful theand fruitful
team, the team,
the greater the the greater the possibil
possibility
of implementation
implementation success;
success; Hypothesis
Hypothesis 5: The The accuracy
5: accuracy of theofdecisions
the decisions of leaders
of leaders will aid the succ
will aid the successful
implementation of policy. implementation of policy.

4. Bureaucratic Model

The bureaucratic model considers the role of front-line staff members in the implementati
policy. The idea is that successful policy implementation relies heavily on the role of members of
who directly come into contact with people and other stakeholders. This model is intended to asc
social reality with regard to the discretionary power of front-line implementers. This model is bas
implementation; Hypothesis 4: The more committed and fruitful the team, the greater the possibility o
implementation success; Hypothesis 5: The accuracy of the decisions of leaders will aid the successfu
implementation of policy.
Public Policy and Administration. 2016, Vol. 15, No 4, p. 538–548. 545
4. Bureaucratic Model
4. Bureaucratic Model

TheThe
bureaucratic model
bureaucratic considers
model the role
considers of front-line
the role staff staff
of front-line members in thein implementation
members the o
implementation
policy. The idea is of
thatpolicy. The policy
successful idea isimplementation
that successfulrelies
policy implementation
heavily on the role relies
of members of sta
heavily
who oncome
directly the role
intoofcontact
memberswithofpeople
staff who
and directly come into This
other stakeholders. contact withispeople
model intended to ascertai
and other stakeholders. This model is intended to ascertain social reality with regard
social reality with regard to the discretionary power of front-line implementers. This model is based o
to the discretionary power of front-line implementers. This model is based on the
thebottom-up
bottom-up theory
theory of policy
policy implementation.
implementation.WithWithregard
regardto to
policy compliance,
policy the the
compliance, behavior of fron
behavior of front-line policy implementers includes: (i) voluntary compliance; (ii)
line policy implementers includes: (i) voluntary compliance; (ii) unintentional non-compliance; (ii
unintentional non-compliance; (iii) intentional non-compliance; and (iv) involun-
intentional non-compliance; and (iv) involuntary compliance. Important independent variables and th
tary compliance. Important independent variables and the way in which they impact
wayoninpolicy
whichperformance
they impact on arepolicy
shown performance are shown
in the following in the following model.
model.

Independent Variables

1. Proper discretion of front- Dependent

line implementers Variable
3. Competency of front-line
implementers
4. Control of the behaviour Positive impact Implementation
of front-line implementers Performance
5. Commitment of front-line
implementers

Hypothesis 1: The correct discretionary power of front-line implementers pos-

itively influences the implementation of policy; Hypothesis2: Competency among
front-line implementers will lead to delays and failures; Hypothesis 3: Control of
the behaviour of front-line implementers aids successful policy implementation;
Hypothesis 4: Commitment by front-line implementers will lead to implementation
success.

5. Political Model

This model hypothesises that the performance of policy implementation de-

pends on the outcome of interactions between agent capacity, either institutional
or representative, bargaining power, conflict resolution, and outside environmen-
tal factors from an economic, political and social perspective. The performance of
policy implementation is an outcome of the degree of conflict and the efficiency
of conflict management in society. The implication of this model for policy imple-
 resolution, and outside environmental factors from an economic, political and social perspective.
performance of policy implementation is an outcome of the degree of conflict and the efficiency
Anisur Rahman Khan, Shahriar Khandaker. A Critical Insight into Policy Implementation
546
conflict management in society. The implication of this model
andfor policy implementation
Implementation Performance depends on
interplay among agencies, actors and interest groups. The following conceptual model has b
mentation depends on the interplay among agencies, actors and interest groups. The
developed to consider the major independent variables and their impacts on policy performance.
following conceptual model has been developed to consider the major independent
variables and their impacts on policy performance.

Independent Variables
Dependent
1. Avoiding complexity of joint Variable
actions
2. Higher bargaining capacity
Implementation
3. Harmony among political Positive impact
Performance
actors
4. Active political motivation
5. Minimising the influence of
pressure politics

Hypothesis 1: The 1:
Hypothesis lower
The the complexity
lower of joint
the complexity actions,
of joint the greater
actions, the chance
the greater of implementat
the chance
of implementation
success; Hypothesis 2:success; Hypothesis
The greater 2: Thepower,
the bargaining greater
thethe bargaining
greater power, the
the possibility of implementat
greater the possibility of implementation success; Hypothesis 3: Harmony among
success; Hypothesis 3: Harmony among political actors aids implementation success; Hypothesis
political actors aids implementation success; Hypothesis 4: Implementation carried
9
out with a positive political motivation will result in successful implementation;
Hypothesis 5: Minimising the influence of pressure politics helps lead to imple-
mentation success.

Conclusion

This paper has significant implications, at least in some critical areas. Firstly, it
reminds us of the need for scholars to undertake efforts to produce substantial theo-
ries so that policy implementation is recognised as an important discipline. Once the
subject is rich with regard to theoretical sophistication, it will be possible to provide
appropriate guidelines to implementers for carrying out tasks in the best possible
way. Secondly, the paper helps us to revisit some of the biggest problems in the area
of policy implementation identified by scholars working in this field. Thirdly, it
develops five different models of policy implementation, each of which comes up
with some hypotheses. If these assumptions are applied before carrying out policy
implementation, it is expected that good theories will be developed. If the discipline
has theoretical sophistication, it will be easier not only to carry out effective policy
implementation, but also to reduce problems in this area. In conclusion, a large
amount of work still needs to be carried out by scholars to bolster the theoretical
basis of this discipline.
Public Policy and Administration. 2016, Vol. 15, No 4, p. 538–548. 547

References

1. Anderson, J. E. 2010. Public policy making-An introduction. Boston MA: Wadsworth.

2. Bardach, E. 1977. The implementation game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. 2004. Australian policy handbook. Crows Nest, NSW:
Allen &Unwin.
4. Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Crosby, B. L. 2002. Managing policy reform. Bloomfield:
Kumarian Press.
5. Fox, W., Bayat, S., & Ferriera, N. 2006. Introduction. In W. Fox, S. Bayat, & N.
Ferriera (Eds.), A guide to managing public policy (pp. ix-xi). Cape Town: Juta& Co.
6. Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A. Lester, J., & O’Toole, L. 1990. Implementation theory
and practice: Toward a third generation. New York: Harper Collins.
7. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. 2014. Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of
operational governance. London: Sage.
8. Lipsky, M. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
9. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. 1989. Implementation and public policy.Lanham:
University Press ofAmerica.
10. Meter, D. S. V., & Horn, C. E. V. 1975. The polciyimplementationprocess: A concep-
tual framework, Administration and Society,6, 445-488.
11. McCool, D. C. 1995. The theoretical foundations of policy studies. In D. C. McCool
(Edt.) Public policy theories, models and concepts: An anthology (pp.1-27).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavasky, A. 1973. Implementation: How great expectations in
Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkley: University of California Press.
13. Pulzl, H., & Treib, O. 2007. Implementing Public Policy. In F. Fischer & ‎ G. J. Mille.
(Eds.) Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods
(pp. 89-108). Boca Raton, NW: Taylor & Francis Group.
14. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. 2004. Evaluation: A systematic ap-
proach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
15. Sabatier, P. A. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and role of
policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Science, 21 (2-3): 129-168.
16. Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. 2009. The public policy primer. Boulder: Westview
Press.
17. Stewart, J. J., Hedge, D. M., & Lester, J. P. 2008. Public policy: An evolutionary ap-
proach. Boston: Thomson Wordsworth.
18. Stocker, R. P. 1991. Reluctant partners: Implementing federal policy. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
19. Vedung, E. 1997. Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick. Transaction
Publishers.
20. Wacker, J. G. 1998. A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-
building research methods in operations management, Journal of Operations
Management, 16: 361–385.
21. Wali, M. A. 2010. The dynamics of policy implementation in Nigeria. Bloomington:
iUniverse.
 Anisur Rahman Khan, Shahriar Khandaker. A Critical Insight into Policy Implementation
548 and Implementation Performance

Kritinės įžvalgos viešosios politikos įgyvendinimo ir efektyvumo požiūriu

Anisur Rahman Khan, Shahriar Khandaker
Anotacija
Viešosios politikos įgyvendinimo procesas neatsiejamas nuo viešosios politikos
tikslų pavertimo konkrečiais veiksmais. Kadangi šis etapas vertinamas labiau kaip
integruota politinio ciklo dalis, iki šiol nėra reikšmingų tyrimų šioje sferoje. Straipsnis
remiasi literatūros analize ir tyrėjų refleksine analize, orientuota į valstybės ir jos viešosios
politikos įgyvendinimą, kaip į discipliną, ir į veiksnių, kurie neatsiejami nuo viešosios
politikos įgyvendinimo efektyvumo, analizę. Šio tyrimo rezultatai patvirtina esminę
minėtos disciplinos teorinio vystymosi trūkumą, todėl šios tendencijos gali būti vertinamos
kaip iššūkis ne vien jai, bet ir veiksmingam politikos įgyvendinimui. Taip pat buvo atrasta
daugybė veiksnių, susijusių su neefektyviu viešosios politikos įgyvendinimu akcentuojant
koordinacijos, finansavimo, įsipareigojimo, įgyvendinimo kompetencijų trūkumą ir
aukščiausio lygio vadovų paramos trūkumą. Kritiškai vertinant egzistuojančias viešosios
politikos įgyvendinimo procesų efektyvumo spragas, buvo suformuoti penki teoriniai
modeliai: racionalusis, organizacinės politikos, biurokratinis ir vadybinis, kuriais remiantis
būtų galima padidinti viešosios politikos įgyvendinimo efektyvumą. Manoma, kad šių
standartų įdiegimas suteiktų galimybę disciplinai įveikti egzistuojančias disfunkcijas ir
užtikrintų viešosios politikos įgyvendinimo efektyvumą.

Anisur Rahman Khan, Doctor of Social Sciences, Assistant Professor of the Department of
Social Relations, East West University, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh.
E-mail: [email protected]
Anisur Rahman Khan – socialinių mokslų daktaras, Rytų ir Vakarų Universiteto Socialinių
santykių fakulteto docentas, Dhaka, Bangladešas.
El. paštas: [email protected]
Shahriar Khandaker, Master of Arts, a faculty member of the Department of Social Relations
at East West University, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh.
E-mail: [email protected]
Shahriar Khandaker – magistras, Rytų ir Vakarų Universiteto Socialinių santykių fakulteto
dėstytojas, Dhaka, Bangladešas.
El. paštas: [email protected]

Straipsnis įteiktas 2016 m. kovo–rugsėjo mėn., recenzuotas, parengtas spaudai

2016 m. gruodžio mėn.

View publication stats