LIST OF WORKSHOPS

RESEARCH QUESTION: Which political and institutional factors affect how different implementation arrangements are chosen? And, how different implementation arrangements impact policy implementation?

CONTEXT: The starting point of our workshop are essentially two observations. The first observation is that governments must deal with an ever-increasing number of societal challenges. These issues range from, for instance, climate change, rising inequality, global pandemics to the management of immigration flows. Governments typically address and try to solve these issues by the production of new public policies (Adam, et al. 2019). These new policies, however, imply new implementation tasks that directly turn into additional work burden for those in charge of their implementation. The second observation is that governments face fundamental fiscal and ideological barriers to also constantly expand the capacities that are necessary to properly execute and enforce the policies produced (Bozeman, 2000; Limberg, et al. 2021). There are various reasons for these constraints including globalized financial markets that limit the government capacity to extract resources from the economy and society as well as the dominance of neoliberal ideas such as austerity (Lobao, et al. 2018). In consequence of these ‘diverging’ trends of ever-more policies up for implementation and limited administrative capacities and resources available, it is highly important to optimize implementation arrangements and structures in a way that they allow for the highest level of implementation  effectiveness. Unfortunately, however, the current state of the research on implementation arrangements and structures suffers from several blind spots that makes it difficult to propose suitable solutions.

STATE OF ART: Implementation arrangements and structures are of long-standing concern in public policy and public administration research. The major debate has centered on the question whether public policies are typically implemented through a “single lonely organization” (Peters, 2015: 132) or if it needs a “multiorganizational analytic perspective” (Hjern and Porter, 1981: 201) to fully understand and grasp the implementation process (Sætren and Hupe, 2018). Other scholarly contributions, in turn, have analysed changes in the composition of the type of actors (governmental/business/non-profit) involved in implementation arrangements (Hall and O’Toole 2000). A good deal of literature on implementation found that implementation structures generally, and increasingly, involve multiple actors from both the public and the private sector (Thomann, et al. 2018; Steinebach 2021). While existing scholarship thus provides some knowledge on the inter-temporal dynamics of implementation arrangements, we know much less about cross-sectional variation. Why do governments in different spatial contexts opt for different implementation arrangements - and this even in case of quite similar policy measures? What determines the ‘choice’ of certain implementation structures? And what difference does this choice ultimately make for the functioning of public policies? Existing scholarship provides little to no answer on these questions. This is particularly surprising given that Schneider and Ingram (1997) considered decisions regarding the implementation arrangements as “fundamental empirical elements of public policy” (see Schneider and Sidney 2009: 104).

HYPOTHESES: The workshop would like to explore some preliminary, and under-investigated hypotheses on the reasons that push towards the choice of different implementation arrangements. As preliminary step, we advance five general, and competing working hypotheses that are: (1) The choice of implementation arrangements is guided by functional considerations; (2) The choice of implementation arrangements is guided by political considerations; (3) The choice of implementation arrangements is determined by the actors' capacities in shaping the implementation capacities; (4) The choice of implementation arrangements is driven by path dependence and policy-administrative legacy; (5) The choice of implementation arrangements is based on the characteristics of the adopted policy instruments. Moreover, we expect that (6) The choice of implementation arrangements will ultimately make a difference for the performance (effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy) of public policies.

PAPERS: The panel welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions, including comparative analysis (both cross-sectorial and -national). Topics related to new societal and environmental challenges (e.g., climate change, pollution, poverty reduction of equality, sustainable mobility, digital society, etc.), as well as to the study of the new implementation arrangements and structures chosen to cope with the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak (e.g., vaccination policy, economic recovery packages, etc.) are particularly welcome. Contributions with a qualitative or quantitative approach are equally appreciated.

AGENDA:  The workshop will be designed to be a forum for in-depth discussion on research in progress, and collaboration among participants. We intend to facilitate and encourage the participation of and the interaction between young ICPP members, advanced scholars, and well-established researchers. Each participant is expected to contribute and present an own paper as well as participate in the discussion of the other papers presented. For each paper, there will be a discussant designated by the Chairs. As final outcomes, the chairs will summarize the main results of the workshop within the last session and open a broader discussion on the general topic. In the aftermath of the workshop, the Chairs will work on a Special Issue proposal for a leading journal on public policy/public administration such as Policy & Society or Public Policy and Administration.

POSSIBLE PAPERS: We do not have already identified specific participants. However, the two Co-Chairs are very active within the IPPA community and participated in the main Panels/Workshops on policy implementation organized as part of the IPPA activities (e.g., ICCP4, ICPP5, IWPP1, etc.). As a consequence, they have a long list of potential authors that can be involved in this workshop, and that, on a preliminary basis, have already given their willingness to present their ongoing research on these topics. These scholars include, amongst others, Christoph Knill (LMU Munich), Muiris MacCarthaigh (Queen’s University Belfast) and Eva Euchner (Fliedner University of Applied Sciences).

REFERENCES:

Adam, C., Hurka, S., Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2019). Policy accumulation and the democratic responsiveness trap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peters B. G. (2014). Implementation structures as institutions. Public Policy and Administration. 29(2): 131-144.

Hjern, B. & Porter, D.O. (1981). Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis. Organization Studies. 2(3): 211-227.

Limberg, J., Steinebach, Y., Bayerlein, L. & Knill, C. (2021). The more the better? Rule growth and policy impact from a macro perspective. European Journal of Political Research. 60: 438-454.

Lobao, L., Gray, M., Cox, K. & Kitson, M. (2018).  The shrinking state? Understanding the assault on the public sector, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(3): 389–408.

Sætren, H. and Hupe, P.L. (2018), Policy Implementation in an Age of Governance, in E. Ongaro and S. van Thiel (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe, Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 553-575.

Schneider & Ingram (1997). Policy Design For Democracy. Kansas City: University Press of Kansas.

Schneider, A. & Sidney, M. (2009), What Is Next for Policy Design and Social Construction Theory?. Policy Studies Journal, 37: 103-119.

Steinebach, Y. (2021), Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross-national analysis. Regulation & Governance.

Thomann, E., Hupe, P. & Sager, F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance. 2018; 31: 299–319.

Implementation arrangements and structures are of long-standing concern in public policy and public administration research.

The major debate has centered on the question whether public policies are typically implemented through a “single lonely organization” (Peters, 2015: 132) or if it needs a “multiorganizational analytic perspective” (Hjern and Porter, 1981: 201) to fully understand and grasp the implementation process (Sætren and Hupe, 2018). Other scholarly contributions, in turn, have analysed changes in the composition of the type of actors (governmental/business/non-profit) involved in implementation arrangements (Hall and O’Toole 2000). A good deal of literature on implementation found that implementation structures generally, and increasingly, involve multiple actors from both the public and the private sector (Thomann, et al. 2018; Steinebach 2021). While existing scholarship thus provides some knowledge on the inter-temporal dynamics of implementation arrangements, we know much less about the cross-sectional variation. Why do governments in different spatial contexts opt for different implementation arrangements - and this even in case of quite similar policy measures? What determines the ‘choice’ of certain implementation structures? And what difference does this choice ultimately make for the functioning of public policies? Existing scholarship provides little to no answer on these questions. This is particularly surprising given that Schneider and Ingram (1997) considered decisions regarding the implementation arrangements as “fundamental empirical elements of public policy” (see Schneider and Sidney 2009: 104).

The workshop would like to explore some preliminary, and under-investigated hypotheses on the reasons that push towards the choice of different implementation arrangements. As preliminary step, we advance five general, and competing working hypotheses that are: (1) The choice of implementation arrangements is guided by functional considerations; (2) The choice of implementation arrangements is guided by political considerations; (3) The choice of implementation arrangements is determined by the actors' capacities in shaping the implementation capacities; (4) The choice of implementation arrangements is driven by path dependence and policy-administrative legacy; (5) The choice of implementation arrangements is based on the characteristics of the adopted policy instruments. Moreover, we expect that (6) the choice of implementation arrangements will ultimately make a difference for the performance (effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy) of public policies.

The panel welcomes theoretical, conceptual and empirical contributions, including comparative analysis (both cross-sectorial and -national). We welcome articles that contribute to the theoretical development of the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research, as well as analytical contributions to better conceptualize new implementation arrangements and structures. Optimally, the empirical contribution should cover multiple spatial units (countries, regions, etc.) or sectors. Topics related to new societal and environmental challenges (e.g, climate change, pollution, poverty reduction of equality, sustainable mobility, digital society, etc.), as well as to the study of the new implementation arrangements and structures chosen to cope with the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak (e.g., vaccination policy, economic recovery packages, etc.) are particularly welcome. Contributions with a qualitative or quantitative approach are equally appreciated.

Policy implementation is a crucial stage of the policy process that turns policies from paper into practice. In many policy settings, this requires implementation arrangements and structures that comprise multiple organizations from different levels of government as well as from within and outside the public sector.

The starting point of our workshop are essentially two observations. The first observation is that governments must deal with an ever-increasing number of societal and environmental challenges. These issues range from, for instance, climate change, rising inequality, global pandemics to the management of immigration flows. Governments typically address and try to solve these issues by the production of new public policies (Adam, et al. 2019). These new policies, however, imply new implementation tasks that directly turn into additional work burden for those in charge of their implementation. The second observation is governments face fundamental fiscal and ideological barriers to also constantly expand the capacities that are necessary to properly execute and enforce the policies produced (Bozeman, 2000; Limberg, et al. 2021). There are various reasons for these constraints including globalized financial markets that limit the government capacity to extract resources from the economy and society as well as the dominance of neoliberal ideas such as austerity (Lobao, et al. 2018). In consequence of these ‘diverging’ trends of ever-more policies up for implementation and limited administrative capacities and resources available, it is highly important to optimize implementation arrangements and structures in a way that they allow for the highest level of policy effectiveness.

Unfortunately, however, the current state of the research on implementation arrangements and structures suffers from several blind spots that makes it difficult to propose suitable solutions. Existing scholarship shows that implementation arrangements and structures are of increasing complexity and tend to include a growing number of (clusters of) public and private organizations. Despite these (descriptive) insights gained, however, current implementation literature has relatively little to say on why governments opt for different implementation arrangements - and this even in case of quite similar policy measures. Moreover, we do not know what difference this choice ultimately makes for the functioning of public policies. In this workshop, we address these questions and, this way, intend to improve our understanding of both the determinants and the effects of implementation arrangements. 

Mattia Casula is a senior research fellow at the University of Bologna. His main research interests are analyses of the implementation dynamics in different multi-level and multi-actor organizational settings. Mattia has published in public policy and public administration outlets such as the Public Management Review, Public Money & Management, Policy Studies, Health Policy and the International Journal of Public Administration. His last book is “Economic Growth and Cohesion Policy Implementation in Italy and Spain: Institutions, Strategic Choices, Administrative Change” (published by Palgrave MacMillan within the International Series on Public Policy).

Yves Steinebach is an assistant professor at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich. His main research interests are analyses of the effectiveness of public policies and governing institutions. Yves has published in political science and public administration outlets such as the American Political Science Review, Political Analysis, the European Journal of Political Research, Governance, and the Public Administration Review. Moreover, he co-authored the books “Policy Accumulation and the Democratic Responsiveness Trap” and “A Matter of Style? Organizational Agency in Global Public Policy”, both being published by Cambridge University Press.