The polity of implementation: Organizational and institutional arrangements in policy implementation

Policy implementation is a formative stage of the policy process. It determines policy's form and effect while also lying at the intersection of politics, policy, and the public. Policy implementation takes place within a given institutional setting and requires specific structure and organization to conduct it both of which allocate decision power and mint specific roles in the implementation process. Nevertheless, current implementation literature tends to overlook implementation arrangements as structures influencing, and influenced by, power. This special issue draws on various aspects of implementation arrangements to demonstrate the significant, yet underexplored, polity of implementation. To do so, this introduction begins by reviewing the conceptual frameworks available in the current implementation scholarship. This is followed by a discussion of the special issue's seven contributions. Finally, the conclusion proposes recommendations for conducting future research on the polity of implementation

Frontline organizations as experimental settings for policy change: why public management matters even more

Denominado aquí como Innovación de políticas a nivel de calle, este estudio dirige la atención al papel de los administradores públicos en los procesos de cambio de políticas durante los cuales las adaptaciones de implementación a nivel de calle se adoptan formalmente como un nuevo instrumento de política. El estudio desarrolla un marco analítico a partir del caso del programa Banquetas Libres en México. En resumen, surgen tres procesos, como el rediseño de los arreglos de implementación, la acumulación de evidencia y la adopción del instrumento experimentado como un cambio de política formal. El artículo contribuye a comprender el papel de las organizaciones de primera línea como escenarios donde los gerentes exploran, experimentan y experimentan con nuevos instrumentos de política.ITESO, A.C

What\u27s going on in there? Canadian government policy labs and public value management

Government-based policy labs have established themselves across the Canadian policy landscape. This article argues these labs contribute to public value management. We begin by reviewing the public value management literature, followed by Canadian contributions to the policy lab literature. Then, our inventory of 35 current Canadian government-based policy labs is descriptively analyzed, including trends in spatial concentration, the tools and methods employed, their focus areas, the number of years in existence, and their primary role in the policy process. We randomly selected nine of these labs, provide more details of their activities, and present a preliminary public value management typology to analyze policy labs

Compliance with COVID-19 measures: A comparative study of street-level managers in Switzerland, Italy, Germany and Israel

Responsible for the direct-delivery of public services, street-level organizations (SLOs) serve as the operational arm of the state in general, and as the frontline of governmental efforts during times of crisis. Street-level managers (SLMs), who occupy the sole, top managerial tier in SLOs are under-studied not only during crises but also in routine, although exerting immediate significant influence on the daily life of local publics. To better understand on-the-ground policy efforts during the pandemic, this study focuses on SLMs’ compliance in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and Israel. Data comprises 399 “compliance stories” gathered from interviews with SLMs in nurseries, schools, health and welfare offices, police stations as well as care homes. Standardized coding of the stories identified different levels of (non)compliance as well as the prominent explanatory variables that shape (non)compliance. Three influences emerged as the main compliance barriers, that is, lack of resources, relationship with the local public, and perception of the measure's effectiveness. Emphasizing that SLMs often act as local policy entrepreneurs who use their discretion to solve problems and serve their local public, findings further demonstrate the key role of SLMs in shaping the face of government for the public

Coproduction investments: Street-level management perspective on coproduction

Although public managers are considered to substantially influence coproduction, current research concentrates on service users and communities’ perspectives, whereas the contribution of the public workers is understudied. Because direct–delivery interactions often depend on coproduction, this study explores coproduction from the perspective street-level management, that is, those who are overarchingly in charge of, and accountable for, the outputs and outcomes of the direct-delivery phase of service provision in street-level organizations. To allow for analytical and conceptual accuracy in characterizing coproduction management, analysis draws on in-depth semi-structured interviews with street-level managers in three different policy sectors: policing, education, and social services (N = 78). Managing coproduction emerged as threefold. First, clients’ coproduction during direct–delivery interactions with frontline professionals, known as co-delivery, is considered the essence of the street-level organization and requires additional, ongoing, facilitating efforts. Second, securing clients’ co-delivery emerged as an investment: routine efforts that are exercised with the expectation to enhance clients’ long-lasting willingness to co-deliver with all the programs provided by the street-level organization, termed here “coproduction investments.” Third, coproduction investments entail both voice and action organizational activities, which differ according to the socioeconomic level of the community served. Coproduction investments demonstrate how public managers transform coproduction principles into managerial activities, and shift attention to street-level organizations as the interstices between “what’s right” and “what works” in coproduction

The Science–Policy Interface and Evidence-Based Policymaking in Environmental Policy

This chapter addresses the promises and pitfalls in the environmental science–policy interface and evidence-based policymaking literature. First, the barriers and drivers of evidence-based policymaking in the environmental field is reviewed. Second, bounded rationality often leads policymakers to overlook critical evidence relevant to policy problems. To overcome this impasse, policy practitioners and scientists need to pay particular attention to the policymaking process and the contributions of policy theory. A third promising development is the role of causal mechanisms in enhancing the barriers/drivers and the policy theory approaches. Finally, the rise of environmentally based policy innovation labs in facilitating evidence-based policymaking is discussed

Policy innovation lab scholarship: past, present, and the future–Introduction to the special issue on policy innovation labs

The past decade has seen a rapid rise in the number of policy innovation labs (PILs). PILs that are found both inside and outside of government address a wide range of social issues. Many PILs share a few distinct common characteristics: a commitment to the design-thinking methodology, a focus on applying experimental approaches to testing and measuring the efficacy of comprehensive public policy and intervention program prototypes, and the use of user-centric techniques to stakeholders in the design process. In this introduction to the special issue on PILs, we begin by taking stock of the policy lab literature published to date by providing an overview of 70 related publications (peer review articles, book chapters, theses, reports, and catalogs) and the extent that they engage the policy literature. This review demonstrates the underexplored practitioner perspective, which serves as the theme for this special issue. Next, the six articles that comprise this special issue are introduced. They are written from a practitioner perspective and include contributions from Brazil, Canada, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Finally, suggestions for future research are highlighted, including the role of PILs in policy work, PILs as street-level policy entrepreneurship settings, and the need for more rigorous inferential methods