LIST OF PANELS

Since the groundbreaking argument made by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) about implementation as a separate component of public policy, numerous studies have focused on varied aspects of implementation arrangements, which ultimately allocate the position of different implementing agents in policy-delivery: either at the central government, in two-tier agencies, in street-level management or at the direct-delivery phase (e.g., Bardach 1977; Gassner and Gofen 2018; Weimer and Vining 2011). Either as formally designed or as exercised on-the-ground, the organization, structure and management of policy implementation define roles, allocate resources, facilitate relationships, and distribute decision power for the various implementing agents. Hence, implementation arrangements are of fundamental importance not only for policy outputs and outcomes, but also for the ways through which government is experienced and perceived by citizens. Moreover, implementation arrangements are definitely not 'fire and forget.' Rather, they require active maintenance, continuing reconsideration and on-going tuning to local circumstances because “[e]ven the most robust policy—one that is well designed to survive the implementation process—will tend to go awry” (Bardach 1977, 5).

Although implementation refers to all the activities executed by all levels of administration in all types of public organizations in order to carry out a formal policy decision (O’Toole 1986), three rather distinct perspectives guide its rich and varied scholarship: Within a top-down perspective, studies focus on the linkages between agencies and organizations at the local level as the main contribution for implementation success (Elmore 1979; Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Sabatier 1986). Within a bottom-up perspective, studies focus on the actions of the staff engaged in direct-delivery, who adjust implementation efforts to the dynamic, unexpected, and ever changing street-level context (Gofen 2013; Lipsky 1980; Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003). Within public management perspective, studies focus on managerial functions, such as the translation of political decisions (e.g., Lynn et al. 2000), co-production (e.g., Alford 2002; Bovaird 2007), and upwards communication of ideas (e.g., Floyd and Wooldridge 1992).

Committed to theoretical and methodological pluralism, this panel welcomes papers that apply a wide range of approaches. Papers can focus on implementation arrangements as a theoretical framework, and address such questions as how to conceptualize and measure implementation arrangements and how to define its analytic dimensions. Papers can refer to various aspects of implementation arrangements, including organizational, structural and managerial, and address them as the dependent variable as well as the independent variable.

By encompassing contributions from various policy fields, diverse organizational settings and different theoretical frameworks, this panel attempts to bridge areas of explorations which are less likely to interact. Specifically, the aim of this panel is threefold. First, we seek to allow a more nuanced conceptualization of implementation arrangements, including their components and dimensions. Second, we aim to enable a wide-ranging discussion of the ways through which implementation arrangements both influence and influenced by additional aspects of the policy domain. Lastly, we strive to facilitate an opportunity for scholars who study policy implementation from different perspectives correspond and further develop a comprehensive approach to implementation research.

Policy implementation arrangements– both as formally designed and as exercised on-the-ground– ultimately allocate the position of different implementing agents in policy-delivery: either at the central government, in two-tier agencies, in street-level management or at the direct-delivery phase. Specifically, the organization, structure and management of policy implementation define roles, allocate resources, facilitate relationships, and distribute decision power for the various implementing agents. Implementation arrangements are therefore of fundamental importance not only for policy outputs and outcomes, but also for the ways citizens experience and perceive government. Moreover, implementation arrangements are not 'fire and forget,' but rather require maintenance, continuing reconsideration and active tuning to local circumstances.

Three perspectives guide the rich and varied literature: Within a top-down perspective, decision-making and implementation are considered two discrete stages and studies focus on the suitability between organizational arrangements and formal policy goals; Within a bottom-up perspective, policy is referred to as manifested by its implementation and studies address questions such as how do organizational constraints support/hinder implementers; Within public management perspective, attention has diverted from “implementation”—how a policy is being carried out— to “outcomes”— achieving policy goals, and studies explore the interrelation between managers/management, implementation arrangements and organizational performance.

Drawing on the well-accepted notion of implementation as a “black box” laying between “great expectations” and “ruined hopes,” this panel invites papers that shed light on implementation arrangements, either as formally designed or as in-effect practiced. Motivated to bridge areas of explorations that are less likely to interact, the panel is committed to theoretical and methodological pluralism and welcomes contributions from different conceptual frameworks, various policy fields, and diverse organizational settings. Our aim is facilitating a more nuanced implementation arrangements conceptualization, including their components and dimensions; a wide-ranging discussion of the ways through which implementation arrangements influence and influenced by additional aspects of the policy domain; and an opportunity for scholars who study implementation from different perspectives to correspond and further develop a comprehensive approach to implementation research.