Policy translation through localisation: implementing national policy in the UK

Abstract

This paper builds on policy implementation studies, which seek to explain how policies undergo some form of ‘translation’ from general policy guidelines to implementation in practice at the local level. The paper makes two contributions to the policy implementation literature. First, it draws on the concept of ‘local universality’ to suggest that the translation of policy by central actors is not simply transmitted but is iteratively transformed through multiple distributed agencies including local actors, infrastructure, data sets and organisational practices. Second, empirical findings show how structural policy design features influence implementation and (re)shape policy content by incorporating knowledge from practice.

Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help?

“…Policies formulated at national level may face the challenge of ensuring some degree of consistency in delivery at subnational level, a process that is especially fraught where the subnational level has some separate degree of political authority (Norris et al 2014). Sausman et al (2016) draw on the concept of "local universality" to describe the process whereby general rules, products, or guidelines are shaped and tailored to fit into local contexts and enacted within practices. What is less clear is how central authorities can respond to this reality, especially where it occurs hidden from the view of the policy-making authorities.…”

The role of middle managers in the implementation of national public policy

“…Increasingly, this includes the bottom up activities of individuals in local teams (Sausman et al, 2016). Previous studies highlight the complexities associated with actors and their ability to make conscious choices on how policy is implemented locally (Cairney, 2012a).…”

“…Knowledge brokering is important to local policy implementation activities because it provides a mechanism for HMMs to manage the potential conflicts between the intended changes expected from policy designers, and the reaction of professional practitioners to these proposals (Sausman et al, 2016;Oosterwaal and Torenvlied 2012). A good general example is provided by HMMs operating at the hospital ward level, who broker the strategic expectations of the top management team with professional clinicians (Chreim et al, 2013;Travaglia et al, 2012).…”

“…Activities associated with reworking policy for local implementation involved HMMs encouraging bottom up activities from professionals within their teams (Sausman et al, 2016). Theatre Managers performed a knowledge brokering role by managing potential differences between the intentions of policy designers and the response from their teams during implementation (Currie et al, 2015;Oosterwaal and Torenvlied 2012).…”

“…A key strand has concentrated on the disparities between the top down objectives of politicians and policy designers, and the bottom up responses to these (Ansell et al, 2017). These studies highlight the potential for conflicts between the 'rational' intentions of national policy designers, and their 'subjective' interpretation by local actors (Sausman et al, 2016;Richards and Duxbury, 2014;Oosterwaal and Torenvlied 2012). Increasingly, the designers of evidence-based policy try to draw on the experiences of practitioners and incorporate what is working well in practice into their interventions (Fleming and Rhodes, 2018).…”