LIST OF PANELS

Implementation is a crucial stage in the policy cycle due to the impacts it has on achieving effective policy outputs. This relevance led to the development of a specific branch of public policy called ‘implementation studies’ and to the publication of the seminal book by Pressmann and Wildavsky (1973), and the following works of Bardach (1977), Lipsky (1980), Hjern and Porter (1981), O’Toole (1986), Nutt (1986), Matland (1991) and Hupe and Hill (2002). Since then, several studies have been investigating the processes of adoption of policies across different policy domains and along with different institutional levels. A policy area where implementation studies have particularly flourished is welfare. In the social policy domain, in fact, implementation gaps frequently emerge. The reason has to be traced back to the multi-level nature of the governance systems characterizing social policies and/or it is due to the nature of the services provided. Here competences and powers are allocated to actors from different institutional levels (local, regional, national) and with different legal status (public, profit, non-profit). Several scholars tried, therefore, to explain complex implementation processes in welfare regimes drawing on existing literature. For example, these studies focused on 'micro' explanations such as the impact of street-level bureaucrats’ discretion on service provision (Riccucci, 2002; Keiser 2010; Rice, 2012; Tummers and Bekkers, 2014; Buffat, 2015; Evans, 2015; Hupe, Hill, and Buffat, 2015; Leibetseder et al. 2015; Musheno and Maynard-Moody, 2015;  Nothdurfter 2016; Nothdurfter and Herman, 2018; Thomann et al., 2018; Van Berkel 2019), on street-level bureaucrats’ influence on implementation (May and Winter, 2007), on street-level bureaucrats’ accountability (Hupe and Hill, 2007), on the effects of inconsistent policy design behind policy failures (Vancoppenolle et al. 2015; Hudson et al., 2019; Samnakay 2020), or finally on coordination and integration capacities of public officials (Lundin, 2007; Champion and Bonoli, 2011). 
Together these studies provide important insights into the problem of implementation gaps and demonstrate how the debate is relevant and lively – especially in the area of welfare policies. At the same time, however, implementation studies appear as highly fragmented and still characterized by weak theoretical foundations and by an approach largely descriptive (Howlett, 2019; for an exception see Pires 2010, and Hupe and Buffat, 2014).

The panel is therefore aimed at advancing the academic debate on implementation by discussing whether is it possible to develop more coherent and general interpretative frameworks for welfare-related policies especially in the context of multi-level governance.

Namely, the panel aims to contribute to the field of policy implementation by discussing contributions that present, also with the support of empirical data, multidimensional models of policy implementation.

The panel welcomes papers from both junior and senior scholars that analyses implementation processes in the area of social policies (e.g. minimun income, minimum wage, social care, employment, and activation policies).

Social policies are of particular importance in this period of of health and economic crisis due the Covid-19 pandemic. States are trying to cope with the emergence introducing several social measures that involve different actors and that usually requires coordinated and integrated strategies but also rapid problem-solving capacity. Implementing these type of measures is, therefore, really challenging for political and bureaucratic actors. The panel welcomes papers addressing these challenges.

Contributions can be both of theoretical and empirical nature and may include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

·         models of policy implementation that try to integrate micro policy dynamics (e.g. discretion) with the macro context

·         frameworks to evaluate the process of policy implementation

·         explanation of implementation gaps using multi-dimensional frameworks

·         analysis of the role and impacts of co-ordination and integration, bureaucratic discretion and administrative capacities on policy implementation – especially in comparative perspective

·         analysis of implementation gaps using quantitative methods/qualitative comparative analysis

·         description and empirical analysis of mechanisms adopted to ensure accountability

Abstracts should include research questions, on outline of the research design and main contribution of the proposed paper to the panel.