LIST OF PANELS

GENERAL OBJECTIVES:

This panel will gather works employing and extending or adapting the Policy Capacity Framework (Wu et al. 2015), in different ways and from distinct policy sectors, to better understand implementation process in high income (HICs) and low- and-middle income countries (LMICs). Either theoretically/methodologically or applied to case studies or comparative analysis in distinct contexts, papers will show how diverse mix of policy capacity, or an specify type of capacity, takes place at the organizational, individual and/or systemic levels - in a nested relational way -, and can be used to broader our understanding on diverse challenges and critical capacities needed for effective implementation. For instance, works will show how implementation capacity can highlight critical capacities, inform policy design and/or implementation to readapt and re-implement policies and to build different types of capacities.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

-How different mixes of types of capacity can contribute to effective implementation in HICs or/and LMICs, from a case study and comparative perspectives?

-To what extent political individual capacity and systemic capacities can play a dominant role in the implementation in LMICs – specially at the front level, and how it articulates with other levels of the implementation, focusing on one or on distinct spheres of the government - at the national and/or state or municipal - and types of capacity?

- How implementation analysis employing the PCF and modes of governance can contribute to high levels of policymaking/design capacity linked to more effective implementation?

- How implementation analysis focusing on policy capacity can be used in policy adaptation and re-adaptation, either from a policy learning or capacity building perspective, or other. 

- How the concept of society capacity can be brought to the PCF, giving a demand perspective, calling attention to how societies perspectives and satisfactions can frame the capacity to implement programmes/ policies?

- Are there another missing capacity type or links that could be brought to the PCF, adapting or extending it?

SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE

This panel will advance the implementation of the Policy Capacity Framework (PCF) (Wu et al. 2015) applied to implementation analysis in high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) concerning different types of Public Policies and interdisciplinary fields.

Implementation can be considered as the Achilles heel of implementation policy processes, as it involves different types of actors working or relating to distinct policy levels. Therefore, the capacity of distinct actors and institutions (involving skills and resources and diverse capabilities) to implement effective public policies have always been considered, and in a separated way, by distinct micro, meso and more systemic approaches. However, it was with the generation and further development of the PCF that the concept of policy capacity was systematized in an integrated multidimensional and nested way: putting together three different types of capacity (analytical, organizational and political) and related/nested levels where they can operate (individual, organizational, systemic)

The PCF has contributed to and can be advanced to increase our understand of policy process. It has been used to analyse critical capacities for implementation success (or better understanding of Achilles heel of implementation), in a multidimensional nested way. It has been relevant to foster our knowledge of complex implementation processes, being extended or adapted to employ large surveys with policy workers or understand single and small comparative case studies, adding new types of capacity (missing links) or further working in a multidimensional way on capacities originally considered in the framework. However, the advance of implementation analyses employing the PCF is needed to better systematize and consolidate our understanding on how mixes of capacity can strengthen implementation processes in HICs and LMICs, both in a separated and comparative way.

The Policy Capacity Framework (PCF) (Wu et al. 2015) inaugurates a new time in the employment of the concept of policy capacity in Public Policy and related interdisciplinary fields. Although the policy capacity concept has been always used to understand implementation processes and challenges, the PCF brought the systematization and more refined way in the use of the concept, from a multidimensional and nested perspective.

This panel will gather theoretically/methodological works or applied case studies or comparative analysis employing and/or extending or adapting the Policy Capacity Framework in different ways and from distinct policy sectors, to better understand implementation processes and/or generate complex evidence in HICs and LMICs. Papers will show how diverse mix of policy capacity, or an specify type of capacity takes place at the organizational, individual and/or systemic levels - in a nested relational way -, and that can be used to broader our understanding on diverse challenges and critical capacities needed for effective implementation. For instance, works will show how implementation can highlight critical mix of capacities or mix of dominant form(s) of capacity(ies), inform policy design and/or implementation to readapt and re-implement policies and be used to build different types of capacities.

We are welcoming papers focusing on:

-Extending or adapting the PCF in a theoretical and/or methodological way: adding new types of capacity or reframing nested levels of analysis, using diverse policy concepts, mixing the PCF with other relevant concepts and frameworks in Public Policy and/or other interdisciplinary fields – such as health and social policy, for instance. Works employing policy/system strengthening and resilience models and concepts together with the PCF are very welcome.

-Focusing on case studies or comparisons from diverse policy sectors

-Employing mixed methods, using secondary data, surveys and different types of qualitative data collection and analysis, for instance.

-Generating or systematizing critical themes and Archilles heel themes for the effective implementation of diverse policies.

-Working on interconnections between the implementation and (re)formulation/(re)design to better understand critical capacities for effective implementation.

-Employing policy capacity implementation analysis to inform policymaking, understand different aspects of implementation, readapt or re-implementation policies.

-Other related themes and ways employing the PCF in implementation analysis will be welcome as well.

SELECTED PAPERS WILL BE INCLUDED IN A THEMED ISSUE TO BE PROPOSED TO IPPA’S INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY (IRPP).