Implementing Public Policy

P√olzl, Helga; Treib, Oliver

doi:10.1201/9781420017007.ch7

Cited by 118 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the scaling and system change literature, there is debate among researchers about the merits of top-down or bottom-up approaches (Klingner, Boardman, and McMaster, 2013;Pulzl and Treib, 2006), the wisdom of requiring fidelity or accepting adaptations in the use of innovations (Aarons et al, 2012;Szulanski and Jensen, 2008), and the value of policy-first or outcome-first strategies (Haskins and Baron, 2011;Manna, 2008). There also is discussion of scaling strategies that comprise more linear and planned approaches…”

Section: Scaling Outcomes: Changing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling Effective Innovations

Fixsen¹,

Blasé²,

Fixsen³

2017

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h C a r o l i n aAmanda A. M. Fixsen I n v e s t i n K i d sI mplementation and scaling evidence-based practices and other effective innovations is a challenge in criminology as it is in all social sciences. Yet, scaling is essential to achieving socially significant outcomes envisioned in state and federal legislation and recommendations for reform (Charles Colson Task Force, 2016). In their article, Christopher J. Sullivan, Brandon C. Welsh, and Omeed S. Ilchi (2017, this issue) provide one of the few attempts to estimate the social impact of known variables related to an evidence-based program. Their computer simulation model holds promise for estimating outcomes of scaling in human service settings. The computer model is useful for evidencebased interventions that have substantial data on implementation influences (impact of high or low fidelity) and on intervention influences (impact on offense rates or recidivism).In this policy essay, we explore scaling more broadly with emphases on factors that should be considered, not just those that are available. Scaling is defined as the extent to which an innovation is used with good effect in the entire population of interest. It is argued that delivering the innovation as intended (with fidelity) and sustaining innovations in practice are essential to achieving social impact. Innovations refer to something new and previously

show abstract

Section: Scaling Outcomes: Changing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling Effective Innovations

Fixsen¹,

Blasé²,

Fixsen³

2017

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, bottom-up perspectives view implementation as decentralized problemsolving. Europeanization becomes the application of common solutions to shared problems, tailor-made to domestic circumstances (Pülzl and Treib 2007). The analytic focus shifts toward the 'conditions [under which] directives do or do not allow for continuing national heterogeneity' (Töller 2010: 429) to facilitate context-sensitive problem-solving.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation

Thomann¹

2015

Journal of European Public Policy

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European Union (EU) implementation research has neglected situations when member states go beyond the minimum requirements prescribed in EU directives (goldplating). The top-down focus on compliance insufficiently accounts for the fact that positive integration actually allows member states to transcend the EU's requirements to facilitate context-sensitive problem-solving. This study adopts a bottom-up implementation perspective. Moving beyond compliance, it introduces the concept of 'customization' to depict how transposition results in tailor-made solutions in a multi-level system. The study analyzes the hitherto unexplored veterinary drug regulations of four member states. Using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and formal theory evaluation, this paper assesses how policy and country-level factors interact. Results reveal the countries' different customization styles. The latter simultaneously reflect the interplay of domestic politics with institutions, and the 'fit' of EU regulatory modes with domestic, sectoral interventionist styles. Compliance approaches cannot fully explain these fine-grained patterns of Europeanization.

show abstract

“…Pülzl and Treib (2007) point out that this stage has generated research interest for two reasons. First, it is perceived to be the deliverer of change, and second, it cuts across several fields such as public administration and management as well as policy studies.…”

Section: Boxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, it is perceived to be the deliverer of change, and second, it cuts across several fields such as public administration and management as well as policy studies. Further, Pülzl and Treib (2007) also point out the three generations of implementation research. The first wave of implementation research raised awareness that this field had challenges that deserved a detailed understanding.…”

Section: Boxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using systems thinking to conceptually link the monitoring and evaluation function within development interventions and public policy

Wotela

2017

TDSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The monitoring and evaluation function provides for accountability and to some extent transparency and, therefore, governance. However, this function can only be effective if it is conceptually linked within development interventions and public policy. There is an explicit discussion of the middle-third tier (how to monitor and evaluate) as well as the bottom-third tier (data collection and storage, data processing and analysis, reporting results and findings, integrating results and findings into planning and implementation as well as overall decision making). Unfortunately, the top-third tier that links monitoring and evaluation within development interventions (the what) and public policy (the how) is implicit, if present. The discussions often point out that monitoring and evaluation is a management and decision-making tool but they omit or fail to link it to development interventions and public policy, leadership and governance. In this paper, we interrogate literature from a systems thinking perspective to derive a model that conceptually links the monitoring and evaluation function within development interventions and public policy. In doing so, we point out and link the five components (cultural, political, economic, social and environmental) and two processes (imminent and immanent) of development. Similarly, we point out and link the five components (leadership, governance, political-economy, institutional arrangements and organisation arrangements) and three processes (research, decision-making and the public policy cycle) of public policy. It is in the latter that we point out, situate and link the monitoring and evaluation function. We envisage that the proposed model may be useful in reconfiguring institutional and organisational arrangements to foster effective monitoring and evaluation of development interventions.

show abstract

Implementing Public Policy

Cited by 118 publications

References 31 publications

Scaling Effective Innovations

Scaling Effective Innovations

Customizing Europe: transposition as bottom-up implementation

Using systems thinking to conceptually link the monitoring and evaluation function within development interventions and public policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About