INTRODUCTION
Change is an integral aspect of our lives, influencing various sectors such as transportation, education, healthcare, and social policies Despite its prevalence, our understanding of when and how change occurs is still limited Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff, famously noted that a serious crisis should never be wasted Since the economic crisis of 2008, policymakers in OECD countries have grappled with significant challenges, raising the question of whether this crisis served as a missed opportunity or a catalyst for change This leads us to ponder whether substantial shocks are necessary to spur transformation or if incremental changes can also pave the way for progress.
Policy change is a critical area of study in public policy and political science, particularly in education policy, where practical approaches often overshadow theoretical frameworks This paper aims to address this gap by reviewing key theoretical perspectives on policy change It emphasizes that without considering the implementation process, policy change may not yield the intended outcomes Consequently, the central question explored is how to effectively explain both policy change and its implementation While there is an expanding literature on these topics, this review focuses on a select few theories most relevant to education policy.
This review examines key theories and models of change, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and relevance across various policy areas It covers theories such as path dependence, advocacy coalition framework, policy learning, policy diffusion, punctuated equilibrium, institutional change, multi-level governance, policy networks, and disruptive innovation, along with the politics of change and reform Additionally, it explores significant theories related to policy implementation, including top-down and bottom-up approaches, as well as rational choice and game theory The review concludes by summarizing findings and suggesting avenues for further research, supported by examples from different countries, though it primarily remains theoretical and calls for more empirical studies.
THEORIES OF POLICY CHANGE
Path dependence
When examining policy change, the concept of path dependence highlights the challenges involved, as institutions tend to resist change and protect existing models, even if they are suboptimal (Pierson 2000; Greener 2002) Path dependence indicates that once a region commits to a particular policy trajectory, reversing that path incurs significant costs (Levi 1997) As Pierson (2000) points out, public policies are often structured to promote continuity, making past decisions influential in shaping future policies In the context of immigration policy, Hansen (2002) asserts that path dependence is evident when policy changes are considered but ultimately rejected due to the costs and incentives established by previous choices Furthermore, significant policy shifts typically require a critical juncture or a unique opportunity, referred to as conjuncture (Capoccia and Kelemen 2007; Wilsford 1994).
Taking the example of health care reform in the United Kingdom, Wilsford (1994) and Greener
In 2002, Wilsford analyzed the factors that facilitated health care reform, attributing it to a convergence of events He noted that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's enhanced political authority, the growing diversity within the medical profession, prior managerial reforms, and the absence of threats to patients and the public all contributed to the successful implementation of these reforms.
The theory's primary strength lies in its ability to explain the tendency for policy continuity over change, as established policies become institutionalized, making alterations costly and challenging for those seeking change However, a notable weakness is the difficulty in quantifying the costs and incentives stemming from initial policy decisions and their influence on future choices Additionally, methodologically representing critical junctures is complex Capoccia and Kelemen (2007: 348) define critical junctures as brief periods where the likelihood of agents' choices significantly impacting outcomes is heightened, allowing for a wider range of feasible options and substantial influence on future developments.
Understanding the decisions made during critical junctures is essential for analyzing reform processes (Capoccia and Kelemen, 2007) In the context of healthcare reform, Greener (2002: 177) emphasizes that Wilsford’s concept of conjuncture is more effective in explaining when reforms occur rather than the necessary conditions for their existence Consequently, significant challenges persist in identifying the specific conditions that facilitate reform and in recognizing the windows of opportunity that allow for such changes.
Advocacy coalition framework
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, posits that public policy is influenced by coalitions formed around core ideas about causation and values These coalitions emerge due to shared interests, allowing for the mapping of actor networks within a policy sector Change is driven by the adaptability of these ideas in response to operational questions relevant to specific contexts (John 2003: 490) Consequently, policy change results from the interplay between significant external shifts in the political landscape and the effectiveness of coalition ideas, which can lead to shifts in actor alliances.
The model consists of various components, where stable system parameters, both internal and external to the sub-system, influence external events, thereby affecting the constraints and resources available to sub-system actors Within the policy sub-system, diverse advocacy coalitions, each with unique beliefs, resources, and strategies, operate Policy brokers aim to manage political conflict and facilitate reasonable solutions to issues (Sabatier 1988: 141) Decisions made by policy-makers shape governmental programs, influencing both policy outputs and impacts, with significant feedback effects evident in the policy sub-system.
Figure 1: General model of policy change
Advocacy coalitions within policy sub-systems, comprising diverse actors from public and private organizations, play a crucial role in understanding policy analysis and its impact on governmental program changes These individuals, including elected officials, agency representatives, interest group leaders, and researchers, contribute to a shared belief system characterized by fundamental values, causal assumptions, and problem perceptions, demonstrating coordinated efforts over time The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) prioritizes belief systems over interests, as beliefs are more inclusive and can be measured through surveys and content analysis Typically, each sub-system features two to four key coalitions, alongside twenty to thirty active organizations.
Gornitzka, Kogan, and Amaral (2005) suggest that the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is relevant to higher education policy, influenced by stable factors like societal income, educational levels, and cultural norms regarding elitism and egalitarianism in access Additionally, dynamic factors such as socio-economic conditions and governing coalitions play a crucial role in driving policy change This leads to the formation of advocacy coalitions among politicians, interest group leaders, and researchers focused on higher education reform.
The model's contribution lies in utilizing the concept of policy sub-systems to develop a theory of policy change, linking it to the broader political system and emphasizing advocacy coalitions as key internal structures (Sabatier 1988: 158) By integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches, it seeks to understand long-term policy change while drawing on insights from social psychology and policy sub-systems (Sabatier 2005) The model posits that not all actors act solely in self-interest, allowing for some collective welfare, and acknowledges that actors have limited information-processing capacities It emphasizes the significance of beliefs and the origins of ideas in shaping perceptions (Sabatier 2005) The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is particularly suited for policy areas marked by high goal conflict, technical uncertainty, and numerous actors across various government levels (Hoppe and Peterse 1993) This framework has been extensively applied to cases in energy, environmental, social policy disputes, and education.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) faces several challenges, particularly in identifying the beliefs of key stakeholders, mapping advocacy coalitions, and understanding the internal and external factors influencing the policy sub-system According to Sabatier (2005), the ACF's application in higher education has been limited due to the lack of high goal conflict and competing belief systems in most reforms Furthermore, if researchers and agency officials within a policy sub-system are part of advocacy coalitions and actively promote reform, it contradicts their expected neutral stance in the civil service (Sabatier 2005).
Policy learning
Policy learning, closely linked to theories like the advocacy coalition framework, involves lasting changes in thought or behavior driven by experience, aimed at achieving or revising policy objectives This concept plays a crucial role in policy change, influencing not only secondary elements of a coalition's belief system but also potentially altering core aspects of policy itself.
7 usually result from shifts in external factors such as macro-economic conditions or the rise of a new systemic governing coalition (Sabatier 1988: 134)
Policy learning encompasses various types, including social learning, political learning, policy-oriented learning, lesson drawing, instrumental learning, and causal and diagnostic learning Each type raises distinct questions regarding who learns, what is learned, and the effects on policies For example, in policy-oriented learning, the focus is on the policy network as the learning agent, emphasizing ideas and beliefs within advocacy coalitions rather than organizational aspects This learning process involves networks drawing from past experiences to enhance techniques and processes for improved policy outcomes.
The advocacy coalition framework emphasizes policy-oriented learning, highlighting how actors' motivations to achieve core values amid resource constraints drive them to better understand pressing issues and their implications for policy options (Sabatier 1988: 158) However, grasping the dynamics of policy change and the significance of policy-oriented learning necessitates a long-term perspective, spanning a decade or more.
Greener (2002) and Klein (1995) examine the impact of social learning on health care reform in the UK, highlighting that policy-makers adapt their goals and techniques based on past experiences and new information, as noted by Hall (1993) This process of social learning is evident when policy changes occur as a result of these adjustments, marking the beginning of internal reforms in the health care sector.
The 1987 general election saw the government facing criticism from both the opposition and the media regarding its handling of NHS funding, leading to necessary reforms within the health care system The government drew insights from its own market-based education reforms, which served as a testing ground for ideas that would later influence health care reforms (Greener 2002) The introduction of an internal market represented a novel policy tool aimed at achieving the same objectives established with the NHS's inception in 1948 Consequently, policymakers utilized past experiences and integrated new information when planning these reforms.
Policy learning is a crucial element in the theory of change literature, emphasizing that countries, regions, and systems can evolve their policies by observing and learning from others, thereby altering their beliefs Despite its significance, operationalizing and measuring the concept of learning remains challenging Additionally, the inherent heterogeneity of the concept complicates its application, as noted by Bennett and Howlett.
According to Bennett and Howlett (1992), policy learning encompasses three intricate processes: understanding organizations, evaluating programs, and analyzing policies They suggest distinguishing between the concepts of government learning, lesson-drawing, and social learning.
289) Nonetheless, adding more categories does not necessarily lead to a better understanding of the concept.
Policy diffusion
Policy diffusion is the process through which innovative policies are adopted by one government from another, highlighting the transfer of knowledge regarding policies, administrative structures, and institutions across different times and locations This concept underscores how experiences from one context can inform and shape policy development in another, facilitating the spread of effective governance practices.
According to Shipan and Volden (2008), policy diffusion occurs through four mechanisms: learning from earlier adopters, economic competition, imitation, and coercion Learning allows states to act as "laboratories of democracy," where policymakers observe and adopt successful policies from other governments Economic competition influences policy diffusion by creating economic spillovers across jurisdictions, prompting policymakers to consider the economic consequences of adopting or rejecting certain policies Positive spillovers increase the likelihood of adoption, while negative spillovers tend to deter it.
Imitation, also known as emulation, involves copying the actions of another government to achieve a similar appearance or outcome (Shipan and Volden 2008: 842) This mechanism emphasizes the actions taken by a government, contrasting with learning, which focuses on the policy being adopted Additionally, coercion stands apart from the voluntary mechanisms of imitation, learning, and diffusion, as it involves countries exerting pressure on one another through trade practices or economic sanctions, either directly or via international organizations (Shipan and Volden 2008).
Shipan and Volden (2008) highlight that imitation is a short-lived diffusion process compared to learning and economic competition, which tend to have more enduring impacts The effectiveness of these mechanisms varies across different countries, systems, and cities, influenced by factors such as domestic politics, political constraints, and the ideological preferences of politicians (Meseguer and Gilardi 2009).
In his 2007 analysis, Weyland explores the spread of the Chilean pension privatization model and the gradual adoption of health reforms across Latin America during the 1990s He identifies three key aspects that characterize the diffusion of these innovations, highlighting the complexities involved in health care reform in the region.
1 An S-shape in time: a pioneer takes the lead and many other countries jump rapidly on board until this trend eventually decreases (see also Gray 1973) This is similar to Hannon’s (2011) depiction of the S-curve for school improvement and innovation, and it can mean that policy- makers overemphasise initial success
2 Geographical clustering: diffusion is more likely to happen when countries are clustered because they need a close and successful example
3 Commonality amid diversity, which means that the same policy framework is adopted in varied national settings
Weyland (2007) contends that policy-makers lacked rationality by failing to thoroughly assess evidence following the Chilean pension privatization, leading to erroneous conclusions They relied on familiar experiences rather than considering global evidence on privatization Furthermore, policy-makers imitated the Chilean model with minimal modifications instead of choosing a model better suited to their national economies (Meseguer and Gilardi 2009: 535).
Policy diffusion, though not a new concept, has gained renewed attention due to its strengths It encompasses four distinct mechanisms, including learning, enabling a more comprehensive analysis of policy change This approach allows for a deeper understanding of how policies evolve across different contexts.
Distinguishing between concepts like policy learning and policy diffusion can be challenging, and the phenomenon of policy transfer adds another layer of complexity Additionally, questions persist regarding the varying speeds of policy diffusion and the significant differences in regional patterns, as highlighted by Meseguer and Gilardi (2009).
Punctuated equilibrium
The punctuated equilibrium model, proposed by Baumgartner and Jones in 1991, suggests that once an idea captures attention, it can quickly gain momentum and become unstoppable Although numerous ideas vie for attention, significant external events can disrupt the political system, leading to these rapid shifts It is essential to demonstrate that such punctuations occur and that they are driven by political changes.
Punctuated equilibrium describes how the interplay between beliefs and values regarding specific policies, known as policy images, interacts with established political institutions, referred to as venues of policy action This framework accounts for both prolonged periods of stability and brief instances of significant change within the policy landscape.
Institutional locations play a crucial role in shaping authoritative decisions on specific issues, as highlighted by Baumgartner and Jones (1991) When actors face institutional constraints in a dynamic environment, they often seek new venues, utilizing framing processes or policy images to adapt Each venue introduces its own decisional bias due to variations in participants and decision-making routines.
As the venue changes, the image may change as well; as the image of policy changes, venue change becomes more likely (Baumgartner and Jones 1991: 1047)
Baumgartner and Jones (1991) illustrate how nuclear policy actors strategically altered policy images by framing discussions positively or negatively, depending on the chosen venue Opponents of nuclear power leveraged divisions within the expert community, influenced popular media narratives, and captured the attention of regulators, Congress, and the courts, prompting a market response This manipulation of images and venues by policymakers occurred at both local and national levels, highlighting the importance of perception in shaping policy outcomes.
Political actors utilize a dual strategy to influence policy issues, focusing on controlling the narrative through rhetoric, symbols, and analysis, while also targeting the most favorable venues for discussion The interplay between institutional structures and the strategies of policy entrepreneurs is crucial, as they actively seek out receptive alternative venues to advance their policy objectives.
Greener (2002) identifies three levels of change in policy-making: first-order change involves adjustments within existing policy instruments, second-order change refers to modifications in the tools used to achieve policy objectives, and third-order change signifies a fundamental shift in the policy paradigm, where decision-makers abandon their previous frameworks for new ones Each level of change influences the methods and policy perceptions employed.
The concept of policy images and action venues is crucial, with punctuated equilibrium theory being extensively referenced in literature The framing of policies and proposals, along with the strategic selection of venues by actors, significantly influences the success of policy changes Consequently, policymakers must thoughtfully consider the policy image they aim to establish and the venues they choose for action.
The punctuated equilibrium model faces challenges in engaging stakeholders, including the public, due to its unclear methodology Defining and analyzing frames over time proves difficult, and identifying the timing and nature of punctuations is not straightforward Consequently, this model shares similar issues with other frameworks, such as path dependence.
Institutional change
Streeck and Thelen (2005) present a typology for institutional change, defining institutions as formalized rules enforceable by third parties While institutional change differs from policy change, they can overlap, as policies often establish rules that assign rights and responsibilities to actors, ensuring public enforcement Policies function as institutions by creating legitimate rules for actors beyond policymakers, which are subject to implementation and societal enforcement For instance, early retirement policies set expectations for workers and employers regarding pension entitlements, allowing individuals to seek legal protection for these expectations.
Streeck and Thelen (2005) propose a typology that categorizes change into either incremental or abrupt processes, with outcomes classified as continuity or discontinuity Incremental change typically leads to reproduction through adaptation, while abrupt change results in breakdown and replacement of institutions This framework is summarized in Table 1, which outlines the various options for understanding the dynamics of institutional change.
Table 1: Typology of results and processes
Process of change Incremental Reproduction by adaptation
Abrupt Survival and return Breakdown and replacement
Streeck and Thelen (2005) identify five types of institutional change: displacement, layering, drift, conversion, and exhaustion Displacement occurs when existing institutional configurations become susceptible to change, often as traditional arrangements lose credibility and are replaced by new institutions and behaviors This process frequently involves the rediscovery and activation of alternative institutional forms, highlighting the dynamic nature of institutional evolution.
Layering refers to the active sponsorship of amendments, additions, or revisions to existing institutions This process leads to change through differential growth, where the introduction of new elements initiates dynamics that gradually crowd out or replace older structures over time.
Institutions may experience a decline in relevance if they fail to adapt to evolving political and economic conditions, leading to erosion or atrophy, as noted by Streeck and Thelen (2005: 24) This process, known as drift, often occurs due to gaps in existing rules Additionally, political cultivation can facilitate necessary changes within these institutions.
Institutions often shift their goals and functions in response to new environmental challenges, changes in power dynamics, or political debates regarding their roles This process can lead to unintended consequences, requiring compromises as stakeholders navigate ambiguities Additionally, the timing of these changes plays a crucial role in their effectiveness (Streeck and Thelen 2005: 26).
Exhaustion is a gradual process that leads to institutional breakdown, distinguishing it from other change processes (Streeck and Thelen, 2005) This phenomenon occurs when an institution's typical operations compromise its external conditions and deplete its resources (Streeck and Thelen, 2005: 31).
The influential theory by Streeck and Thelen has significantly shaped the literature on institutional and policy changes, distinguishing various types of change and their impacts on systems For this review, the focus is primarily on institutions, acknowledging that policies can sometimes act as institutions, although the distinction is not always clear in practice.
Multi-level governance
Change is a complex, multi-dimensional process that involves various actors across different levels of authority, including national, regional, and local tiers The literature emphasizes the necessity of adopting a multi-level perspective to understand policy change processes effectively Government reforms play a crucial role in these ongoing changes, as they can both respond to and instigate new policies.
Multi-level governance, as defined by Hooghe and Marks (2003), encompasses various interpretations, originally focusing on the European Union as a framework for ongoing negotiations among governments at multiple levels—supranational, national, regional, and local (Marks 1993: 392) This concept serves as a bridge between policy change and implementation, integrating both top-down and bottom-up approaches Top-down processes involve the transmission of policy decisions from national authorities to lower levels, while bottom-up processes emphasize the role of local entities in shaping policies that influence higher tiers of governance.
Multi-level governance encompasses various forms, specifically Type I and Type II, as detailed by Hooghe and Marks (2003) Type I multi-level governance consists of general-purpose jurisdictions organized into a limited number of packages, featuring non-intersecting memberships that are nested within each other This structure operates at a few levels, such as international, national, regional, meso, or local, and is characterized by a durable system-wide architecture resulting from systemic institutional choices Typically, these jurisdictions follow a trias politica framework, which includes an elected legislature, an executive branch, and a court system Consequently, the federal government institutions in the United States exhibit more similarities to a French town than to Type II governance arrangements.
12 reform is usually costly and unusual, and change mostly consists of reallocating policy functions across existing levels of governance Institutions for governance are sticky (Hooghe and Marks 2003)
Type II governance features task-specific jurisdictions with overlapping memberships and no restrictions on jurisdictional levels This flexible design allows jurisdictions to adapt and change based on governance needs (Hooghe and Marks 2003) It is commonly observed at the local level, such as in Swiss communes and various special districts, including schools, across the United States.
Fullan (2007) highlights the concept of multi-level governance in educational change, advocating for a tri-level reform approach that encompasses the school and community level, the district level, and additional layers of governance.
(3) state or national level That there should be a two-way interaction and mutual influence within actors at all three levels highlights the complexity of change on a large scale (Fullan 2007)
Multi-level governance offers significant scale flexibility, but it faces challenges due to the transaction costs associated with coordinating multiple jurisdictions Effective coordination is essential to manage potential spillover effects among these jurisdictions However, the involvement of numerous actors can lead to issues like free riding To mitigate these challenges, strategies such as limiting the number of autonomous actors or reducing interactions among them can be implemented.
In the context of multi-level governance, both Type I and Type II governance offer distinct advantages and drawbacks, often functioning in a complementary manner However, identifying all the actors and jurisdictions involved can be challenging, as existing theories primarily emphasize formal institutions, potentially overlooking informal actors and flexible arrangements Consequently, some researchers advocate for a broader analysis that examines the diffusion of decision-making across informal and overlapping policy networks This network approach is especially pertinent and will be explored further in the following section.
Policy networks
A policy network is defined as a complex of interconnected organizations characterized by resource dependencies that distinguish it from other networks (Rhodes and Marsh 1992: 182) These networks vary in integration levels and membership types John (2003: 486) highlights that the structure of coalitions within diverse policy sectors influences policy outputs, leading to increasingly intricate networks formed between public and private entities as the number of institutions and participants expands.
Phillips (1991) posits that social movements function as networks that facilitate organizations in negotiating meaning and forming collective identities By analyzing the relationships among 33 national Canadian women’s organizations, she illustrates how these diverse entities create a broad, loosely connected network unified by a shared feminist identity The study highlights that an organization's position within this network significantly influences its perceived effectiveness in the social movement landscape.
The policy network theory effectively illustrates the intricate interactions among various stakeholders in both the public and private sectors, encompassing a wide range of participants These networks can be dynamic and may evolve into more formalized structures over time However, the theory has notable limitations; for instance, Dowding (1995) critiques it by questioning what constitutes a policy network, suggesting that networks are more metaphorical—like the 'iron triangle' in the United States—rather than concrete models Additionally, Thatcher emphasizes the ambiguity in categorizing these networks.
The classifications discussed are often arbitrarily selected and lack a clear continuum, rendering them neither comparable nor exhaustive According to Thatcher (1998), these categories are generally poorly defined, making them ineffective for operationalizing research questions The extensive range of factors and connections stemming from these vague classifications ultimately renders them unusable in research contexts.
Critics of network theory highlight significant limitations in its theoretical and methodological frameworks, particularly its inability to explain the origins and evolution of networks Existing literature often attributes network transformations to external shocks such as government policy changes, economic crises, or natural disasters (Dowding 1995, Thatcher 1998) A comprehensive theory should be applicable across various contexts and elucidate both the differences and similarities among different entities (Dowding 1995) However, the policy networks model falls short of this goal, as it primarily illustrates the policy process rather than predicting actor behavior under varying institutional conditions (Dowding 1995: 141).
The study of networks is often more about classification than theory-building, as highlighted by Dowding (1995), who critiques the tendency to create theories based on actor properties instead of the network itself This approach leads to the unnecessary generation of new types for every possible actor and network configuration, rather than providing insights into how different actors would behave within the same structural context.
Methodological challenges in policy network research are highlighted by Dowding (1995), who critiques Phillips’ study on Canadian women’s associations, which relies on interviews to assess the influence of network members The research suggests that actors at the core of networks are deemed most significant (Phillips 1991), yet this does not accurately reflect their true power Core actors typically have more interactions with the interviewees, leading to a skewed perception of influence Furthermore, interviewees often lack awareness of the interest groups, unions, or parties that impact the intermediary organizations they engage with, rendering them subjective and unreliable in evaluating the actual effects of these groups on policy formation.
One significant limitation is that only visible decisions are acknowledged, while non-decisions and lack of participation are overlooked, potentially missing anticipated reactions (Thatcher, 1998) Additionally, Thatcher (1998) argues that many theories emphasize the impact of network shapes on policy-making, which can create further complications Although the exploration of networks holds promise, there is a need for more formal analysis and improved data to fully harness these advantages.
Disruptive innovation
Disruptive innovation, distinct from other change theories discussed in this review, is a model of social change derived from management principles This concept is particularly relevant for facilitating radical change and has been successfully applied across various policy areas, as noted by Christensen, Aaron, and Clark.
2003, Christensen et al 2006) Disruptive innovation needs to be differentiated from sustaining innovation,
14 which ‘introduces improved performance to existing services, systems or products along an established trajectory (OECD 2009: 69, see also Christensen and Laergreid 2001) In contrast, disruptive innovations
Disruptive innovation often fails to meet the needs of existing customers, focusing instead on simpler and more affordable products that attract new or less-demanding users (Christensen et al 2006) This innovation process unfolds in two stages: initially, an innovator simplifies and reduces the cost of a product compared to existing options, followed by technological advancements that make production and upgrades more accessible (Christensen, Horn, and Johnson 2008) Such disruptive innovations significantly alter industrial structures and can lead to unintended social changes.
Online learning, corporate training programs, and community colleges exemplify disruptive innovation in the education sector This model presents numerous opportunities at the secondary level, where traditional structures are challenged and innovative solutions emerge For example, online language and advanced placement courses provide affordable access to educational content for individuals who may have limited options otherwise Apex Learning, the non-profit Virtual High School, and Florida Virtual School have successfully delivered specialized classes to thousands of students through online curricula, often at a significantly lower cost than traditional in-person courses However, it is important to note that student attrition rates tend to be higher in online courses compared to live classes, indicating some inherent challenges.
Disruptive innovation serves as a key driver for policy change across various sectors, enabling industries to achieve increased access, higher quality, and lower prices (Christensen, Aaron, and Clark 2003: 41) In the context of challenging education reforms and shrinking state budgets, this innovative approach could provide a valuable framework for enhancing primary and secondary education, suggesting its potential for broader application by policymakers in the future However, the specific conditions that predict disruptive innovations and their occurrence in certain sectors and countries remain unclear, indicating a need for further research on cross-national and cross-sectional variations.
Politics of change and reform
Introducing and sustaining educational change is inherently a political process, as it involves navigating conflicts and representation among various stakeholders (Hargreaves, 1998) Mehta (2013) asserts that overhauling the U.S schooling system will demand considerable political commitment and transformative adjustments to entrenched institutions The politics surrounding policy change and reform significantly influence every stage of the process, from inception to execution (Reich, 1995) Broad reforms can only occur when there is adequate political will and when changes are orchestrated by skilled planners and managers (Reich, 1995) Furthermore, reform is intrinsically political due to these dynamics (Reich, 1995).
1 It represents a selection of values that express a particular view of society
2 Reform has distinct distributional consequences in the allocation of benefits and costs
3 Reform promotes competition among groups that seek to influence consequences
4 Enactment or non-enactment of reform is often associated with regular political events or political crises
5 Reform can have significant consequences for a regime’s political stability
A strong and focused political coalition enhances leaders' ability to withstand concentrated economic pressures Reich (1995:47) emphasizes that successful reform requires policymakers to effectively analyze political conditions and influence key factors in favor of reform He identifies three distinct models for policy reform, which correspond to different clusters of political conditions that facilitate reform, noting that these models can coexist and are not mutually exclusive.
The political will model posits that significant policy changes rely primarily on the decisions made by political leaders, emphasizing a technocratic and rational approach to decision-making However, it often overlooks the political constraints that can hinder policy reform This model is more effective in environments characterized by strong mandates, robust state structures, narrow coalitions, and decisive leadership, as noted by Reich (1995: 58).
The political factions model illustrates how politicians aim to satisfy the needs of various groups, including interest groups and political parties Rational analysis plays a crucial role in advancing and fulfilling organizational interests Reforms are implemented when they align with the desired allocation of benefits for specific constituent groups represented by government leaders.
The political survival model posits that government officials prioritize their individual interests to maintain or enhance their control over resources This framework suggests that politicians engage in opportunistic politics, where they adjust policies to fulfill their objectives Consequently, reforms are implemented primarily when they align with the political survival or personal interests of leaders (Reich 1995: 58).
As mentioned before, for reform to happen, several conditions have to be present (Wilford 1995)
In the context of health care reform in the United Kingdom, the government may overlook doctors' resistance due to rising militancy and diversity among medical professionals, which has weakened the credibility of their representation (Greener 2002: 174) Furthermore, criticism from the media, public, and opposition regarding the government's management of health care is crucial for prompting necessary reforms.
Immergut (1992) examines health policy reform in four countries, highlighting significant variations in public control over health insurance due to differing institutional structures within each political system These variations have led to the formation of diverse coalitions of interests, including doctors, patients, labor unions, and other stakeholders (Wilsford 1994) Consequently, the roles of actors and institutions are crucial in shaping health policy reform.
Policy reform can lead to negative consequences due to the classic collective action problem, where individual costs deter collective benefits More powerful societal groups often wield greater influence over government decisions compared to less powerful groups To address these challenges, forming political alliances and offering compensatory benefits is essential Any agreements made with external actors must be politically acceptable and sustainable within the domestic political landscape.
1988) As a result, passing a new policy requires a well-organised and highly mobilised interest group
Political timing plays a crucial role in enabling policy entrepreneurs to introduce new ideas into public discourse, while effective political management allows leaders to navigate the distributional consequences and maintain regime stability Opportunities for policy reform are often influenced by external events, with significant changes more likely at the onset of a regime and during major concurrent occurrences that create political windows for reform Additionally, while radical changes necessitate meticulous timing, minor incremental adjustments are less sensitive to these temporal factors.
Reich (1995) introduced a policy mapping model aimed at enhancing the political feasibility of policy reform This model evaluates six critical dimensions that are essential for achieving successful policy change.
1 The consequences of policy reform efforts
2 The positions of support and opposition taken by key players
3 The analysis of stakeholders’ objectives
4 The relationship of players in the policy network map
5 The transitions underway that create opportunities
6 The construction of strategies for change
The politics of change and reform emphasizes the necessity of political will, timely circumstances, and appropriate institutions to facilitate change Policy entrepreneurs play a crucial role in identifying opportunities for reform, aligning with the punctuated equilibrium model Additionally, some scholars have proposed specific models to further explore this dynamic, with Reich's contributions being notable in this field.
In 1995, three models of policy reform emerged, illustrating distinct political conditions conducive to reform implementation Additionally, Reich’s policy mapping model from the same year offers valuable insights aimed at enhancing the political feasibility of such reforms Despite its potential benefits, this model entails a complex process, emphasizing the challenges in accurately identifying all six dimensions involved in policy reform.
Lessons from policy change research
The evolution of policy change theories demonstrates increasing sophistication, with each theory possessing unique strengths and weaknesses that vary by policy area and degree of change This review highlights ten theories, representing only a fraction of the extensive range of change theories in the literature Notably, some scholars focus on developing new theories or rebranding existing ones rather than enhancing and refining established theories.
Determining the exact moments when change occurs is methodologically challenging, yet it is crucial for various theories Establishing the preferences and beliefs of actors, as well as assessing policy learning and the composition of coalitions and networks, adds to this complexity While theories should ideally generalize observations and possess predictive power, many currently focus more on explaining past changes than forecasting future ones Despite this limitation, researchers continue to develop broader theories, such as the advocacy coalition framework, often with specific conditions and constraints in mind However, creating universally applicable theories across all policy contexts may be impractical or undesirable.
17 areas since different conditions are usually present Therefore, it seems reasonable to mix and match convincing elements of the theories, depending on the policy area and context.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Top-down and bottom-up approaches
In the realm of policy implementation and change, a key distinction exists between top-down and bottom-up approaches These methodologies differ significantly in aspects such as the roles of stakeholders, their interactions, and the specific types of policies they are suited for.
Top-down theorists emphasize the role of policy designers as key actors, focusing on manipulable factors at the central level (Matland 1995) Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979) provided a comprehensive top-down framework, outlining six essential conditions for effective policy implementation, including clear objectives, a causal theory, a legal structure, committed officials, supportive interest groups, and stability amid changing socio-economic conditions (Sabatier 2005: 19) In their approach, 'top-downers' prioritize the establishment of clear policies (Matland 1995: 155).
The top-down approach in policy development is praised for its ability to generate generalizable advice and identify consistent behavioral patterns across various policy areas (Matland 1995) However, it faces criticism for relying solely on statutory language, neglecting the importance of prior actions and treating implementation merely as an administrative process This perspective often overlooks political dimensions and fails to account for the role of local actors, focusing predominantly on statute framers as key players in the process.
Bottom-up theorists argue that policy is formulated at the local level, emphasizing the roles of target groups and service deliverers (Matland 1995: 146) Scholars such as Hjern and Hull (1982), Hanf (1982), and Elmore (1979) criticize top-down theorists for overlooking local actors and focusing solely on central decision-makers The bottom-up approach, pioneered by Hanf, Hjern, and Porter (1978), investigates the networks of actors involved in service delivery, exploring their goals, strategies, and activities This method facilitates the identification of key local, regional, and national participants in the planning and execution of governmental and non-governmental programs, effectively linking local decision-makers to higher policy-makers (Sabatier 2005: 23) Additionally, bottom-up theorists focus on policy areas characterized by greater uncertainty (Matland 1995: 155).
The bottom-up approach emphasizes the role of local actors in developing and executing government programs, highlighting the importance of contextual factors in the implementation environment Understanding the goals, strategies, and activities of these actors is crucial for effective implementation Rather than offering prescriptive solutions, bottom-up approaches identify the factors that hinder the achievement of stated objectives (Matland 1995) Flexibility in strategies is essential for adapting to changing circumstances.
Bottom-up approaches to policy implementation aim to address local challenges and contextual factors; however, they face criticism on two main fronts Firstly, effective policy control should be managed by individuals accountable to sovereign voters via their elected representatives, whereas local service providers often lack this authority Secondly, these approaches may place excessive emphasis on local autonomy, potentially undermining broader governance structures (Matland 1995).
Recent literature emphasizes the integration of micro-level bottom-up and macro-level top-down approaches in implementation research This combination aims to leverage the strengths of both strategies and facilitate regular interaction across different levels (Elmore 1985, Fullan 2007, Goggin et al 1990, Matland 1995, O’Toole 2000, Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999) Building on Matland's insights, this approach enhances the effectiveness of implementation processes.
In 1995, Suggett introduced a framework that categorizes areas based on the degree of political conflict regarding policy goals and the level of uncertainty surrounding the means to achieve those goals This two-by-two typology illustrates the differences between top-down and bottom-up approaches across various policy areas.
In regions characterized by low conflict but high uncertainty regarding educational disadvantage, bottom-up strategies like networks and devolution are prevalent Conversely, in areas facing high conflict over specific goals, top-down approaches, including strong political direction and effective governance, are more common, particularly when there is clarity on implementation methods, such as targeted taxation for certain industries.
Combining different policy implementation approaches leverages their strengths while minimizing weaknesses, as successful execution relies on the interaction of various stakeholders, including both central policymakers and local actors This integrated strategy allows for a nuanced differentiation among policy areas, recognizing that implementation strategies vary significantly across sectors such as healthcare, taxation, and education For instance, the framework proposed by Suggett (2011) serves as a foundational tool for distinguishing these strategies, highlighting the differing needs between higher and secondary education policies, as noted by Gornitzka, Kyvik, and Stensaker (2005) Ultimately, the effectiveness of policy implementation is contingent upon the specific content and type of policies being addressed.
Rational-choice theories
Researchers have explored advanced methods for theorizing implementation through rational-choice approaches, which assume that actors possess fixed preferences and act rationally to maximize their attainment This perspective views politics as a series of collective action dilemmas arising from insufficient institutional arrangements that promote cooperation Furthermore, the strategic interactions among actors play a crucial role in shaping political outcomes (Hall and Taylor 1996: 944-945).
Game theory exemplifies a rational choice approach by mathematically analyzing how rational individuals behave in conflict situations to achieve their goals (Firestone 1989: 18) This framework is particularly valuable for understanding the formation of coalitions and the legislative process However, the intersection of implementation studies and game theory remains underexplored within the field of political science.
Bardach (1977) views implementation as an extension of the political game that begins at the policy adoption stage, involving different actors and dynamics He explores the strategies these actors employ during implementation to further their interests, noting that such strategies can distort the original legislative objectives (Winter 2003: 213) Despite their limitations, game theoretic models provide valuable insights for implementation managers by identifying leverage points within the process (O’Toole).
O’Toole (1995) analyzes the application of rational choice theories, particularly game theory, in implementation research, highlighting its potential to improve inter-organizational management while acknowledging significant practical limitations that hinder theoretical possibilities Key challenges in rational-choice approaches include uncertainty across various domains and the insufficient institutionalization of implementation networks However, skilled multilateral implementation managers can effectively mitigate these issues by intervening at critical points within the network Strategies for success involve facilitating actions, linking games through signaling and commitment, influencing actor preferences to promote cooperation, fostering trust and collaborative norms, and restructuring inter-unit relationships to enhance cooperative efforts.
Firestone (1989) utilizes game theory to illustrate an education policy framework by examining an ecology of games, where individuals engage in various sectors such as government, education, business, religion, and news This model reflects ecological principles, highlighting how species interact through competition, cooperation, or interdependence Educational games are interconnected by resource and regulatory flows, with downward influences from legislation to classrooms and upward demands from educators and the public Additionally, the implementation of education policy is significantly affected by temporal contexts, suggesting that local variations should be leveraged and practitioners encouraged to experiment with diverse models at the community level.
Agency theory exemplifies a unique application of rational choice, focusing on how principals delegate implementation tasks to state agents This concept has been widely utilized across political science, economics, and sociology, as noted by Kiser (1999) Notable scholars in political science, such as Bendor and Moe (1985) and Kiewiet and McCubbins, have contributed to this discourse, enhancing our understanding of the dynamics between principals and agents in various contexts.
In the realm of political science, scholars like Weingast and Moran (1983) and Wood (1988) have explored the dynamics between principals and agents to mitigate implementation drift, diverging from the focus of economics literature Key issues highlighted include the role of third parties, administrative procedures, and the presence of multiple principals However, significant questions persist regarding the identity of the principal responsible for monitoring agents and the criteria for agent selection, as noted by Kiser (1999).
Rational choice theory offers a streamlined framework where actors pursue their preferences rationally and engage strategically with others However, as John (2003) notes, it does not address all scenarios effectively, particularly in understanding the origins of preferences or their changes While game theory enhances this approach with its deductive rigor and ability to incorporate both top-down and bottom-up strategies by viewing all actors as strategic players, it also faces challenges, including uncertainty and incomplete information.
21 institutionalisation (O’Toole 1995: 54) Overall, there is considerable potential to apply rational choice theories, including game theory, to implementation, especially when there are testable hypotheses.
Examples from education policy
A review of implementation literature indicates that the education sector accounted for approximately 65 percent of research in the 1970s, with other areas like environment and health gaining significance over time (Saetren 2005: 570) Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer (2002) explore the challenges of local education policy implementation, emphasizing the complexity of agents' sense-making regarding reform initiatives Their framework highlights three key aspects: individual beliefs and experiences, the contextual importance, and the influence of external representations in the sense-making process This complexity underscores that sense-making transcends mere decoding of policy messages; it involves an active interpretation process rooted in an individual's extensive knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer 2002: 391).
Implementing agents must share a common understanding of the program's values and assumptions, yet many are novices and lack insight into deeper relationships This can lead to biases in interpreting information based on pre-existing beliefs Reform is inherently a value-driven and emotional journey, with various sectors shaping work practices, innovations, and the implementation process Additionally, the social context significantly impacts how teachers interpret policy and the necessity to adjust their practices.
The challenges of implementing social change vary based on the degree of transformation required, including incremental adjustments, growth demands on change agents, and potential losses for those involved (Marris, 1975) Consequently, as the scope of change becomes more profound, existing frameworks must undergo significant restructuring (Spillane, Reiser, and Reimer).
2002) As Majone and Wildavsky (1978) have argued, implementation is evolution One explanation for this evolution is the process of human sense-making (Spillane, Reiser and Reimer 2002)
Fullan (2007) identifies nine essential factors that influence the implementation of education policy, including characteristics of change such as need, clarity, complexity, and quality/practicality Additionally, local characteristics—such as those related to districts, communities, principals, and teachers—play a significant role, alongside external influences from government and other agencies Consequently, educational change is a dynamic process that encompasses a range of interacting variables over time.
In summary, implementing a new educational program or policy involves three critical dimensions: the integration of new or revised curriculum materials, the adoption of innovative teaching practices, and the transformation of beliefs regarding the curriculum and learning methods (Fullan 2007: 30) While these elements are essential for effective change, the process is socially complex despite its technical simplicity (Fullan 2007: 84) It is crucial for all stakeholders to share a common understanding of educational change and demonstrate a commitment to its pursuit.
Lessons from implementation research
Policy implementation varies significantly among countries, influenced by diverse actors, agencies, and contexts Research and specific policy examples have revealed valuable lessons, notably outlined by Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979), who identified five key conditions essential for effective implementation.
1 The programme is based on a sound theory relating to changes in target group behaviour
2 Policy decisions have to contain unambiguous policy directives and structure the implementation process in a way that increases the chances of good performance of target groups
3 The leaders and implementing agencies require significant managerial and political skills and commitment to the goals
4 The programme also needs to be supported by organised constituency groups and few key legislators throughout the process
5 The priority of objectives is not undermined over time by conflicting public policies or changes in socio-economic conditions
To achieve policy objectives effectively, a sufficient set of conditions must be met, although one of the last three conditions can be omitted unless a significant policy change requiring extensive effort is pursued (Sabatier and Mazmanian 1979) It is crucial to incorporate policy feedback and evaluation into the broader implementation process to consider various impacts Scholars such as Cerych and Sabatier (1986), Van Meter and Van Horn (1975), and Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) have further refined the critical variables necessary for successful implementation (Gornitzka, Kyvik, and Stensaker 2005).
Effective implementation of policy standards and objectives relies on the specific nature of the policy and the various factors that influence the achievement or failure of its goals, which differ among different types of policies.
• Policy resources: funds are needed for implementation, but the ones available are usually not adequate, which makes reaching policy objectives difficult
• Inter-organisational communication and enforcement activities: technical advice and assistance should be provided, and superiors should rely on positive and negative sanctions
Implementing agencies possess both formal structural characteristics and informal attributes that significantly influence their effectiveness Key factors include the competence and size of the agency's staff, as well as the degree of hierarchical control over processes within the organization.
• Economic, social and political conditions: general economic, social and political conditions are important for the relationship between objectives and results
• Disposition of implementers: This concerns the motivation and attitudes of those responsible for implementing the reform
Successful implementation is influenced by a variety of descriptive and contextual conditions, with literature identifying approximately 300 potential variables affecting success, yet lacking a definitive implementation model (O’Toole, 1986) Additionally, the duration of the implementation phase is crucial; Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) argue that the typical four to five-year timeframe is insufficient, advocating for an extension to at least ten years to facilitate policy-oriented learning Moreover, it is essential to recognize the existence of different stages within the implementation process (Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1980: 553).
1 The policy outputs (decisions) of implementing agencies
2 The compliance of target groups with those decisions
3 The actual impacts of agency decisions
4 The perceived impacts of those decisions
5 The political system’s evaluation of a statute in terms of major revisions in its content
Decades of implementation research reveal a shift towards a multi-theoretical approach, highlighting that change is non-linear and systemic This transformation arises from dynamic interactive processes rather than a centrally imposed design, as noted by Gornitzka, Kogan, and Amaral.
Creating generalized implementation theories in culturally diverse contexts, such as education, is challenging due to the significant variations in national policy-making and implementation systems Educational policies are not only specific to countries but also differ across primary, secondary, and higher education sectors To address these unique challenges, multiple implementation theories are often integrated to leverage their strengths Traditionally, top-down and bottom-up approaches were seen as opposing strategies; however, recent trends emphasize a combined approach that tailors implementation strategies based on policy area, context, leadership, stakeholders, and organizational capabilities.
Policy-making and implementation should be viewed as a network structure rather than a simple government-institution relationship, emphasizing a multi-actor and multi-level approach This perspective allows stakeholders to engage in flexible networks where processes can be informal and constellations can emerge spontaneously.
Implementation is inherently complex, presenting both advantages and challenges According to Wanna, Butcher, and Freyen (2010), a singular or simplistic model for addressing implementation challenges is unattainable Suggett (2011) supports this notion, suggesting that complexity necessitates nuanced implementation strategies Gornitzka, Kyvik, and Stensaker (2005) highlight that the intricate nature of public policy and governance can complicate implementation, especially when self-regulation intersects with central control and ambiguous responsibilities Therefore, leveraging a variety of implementation frameworks tailored to specific needs and policy contexts is essential Gornitzka, Kogan, and Amaral (2005) advocate for a case-by-case approach, acknowledging the difficulty in developing a universal theoretical model applicable across all domains.
CONCLUSIONS
This review addresses the question of how to explain policy change and implementation by discussing various theories of policy change and examining the challenges associated with policy implementation While the theories presented are not exhaustive, they provide a foundation for future exploration in this field.
The article explores various theories of change, including path dependence, advocacy coalition framework, policy learning, and disruptive innovation, each with unique strengths and weaknesses that vary across policy areas It highlights the methodological challenges in pinpointing critical junctures of change and understanding the preferences and beliefs of actors involved, as well as the dynamics of advocacy coalitions and networks While these theories aim to generalize observations and possess predictive capabilities, they tend to be more effective at explaining historical changes than forecasting future developments.
Change in the future will depend on specific conditions, as noted by Fullan (2007: 81), who emphasizes that change originates from diverse sources and combinations Ultimately, the effectiveness of the change process is more critical than who initiates it.
Policy change and implementation are interconnected, as merely passing policies does not guarantee successful outcomes Insights from literature on policy implementation highlight essential conditions for success, yet challenges persist due to varying situational contexts and the differing beliefs and priorities of implementing agents Consequently, a universal solution is unattainable Acknowledging the diversity in implementation research, it is more effective to develop partial theories that integrate the most compelling elements from various theories tailored to specific policy areas and contexts.
Policy-making and implementation involve multiple layers—institutional, regional, state, federal, and local—highlighting the complexity of this field (Gornitzka, Kogan, and Amaral, 2005) Future research should explore empirical examples of how theories of change and implementation relate to specific policy areas, particularly in education While Gornitzka, Kogan, and Amaral (2005) apply the advocacy coalition framework to higher education, there is a notable gap in literature regarding the application of these theories at the primary and secondary education levels This limited exploration extends to other theories of change as well.
Further research should explore the application of change theories and implementation across different levels, including countries, systems, communities, and schools Investigating the challenges of implementation in various policy areas, particularly education policy, can provide valuable insights from real-world examples Although policymakers may intend to enact new policies, the complexities of policy change often hinder successful implementation Therefore, it is crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the conditions and factors that influence these interactive processes.
Ansell, C (2000), ‘The networked polity: regional development in Western Europe’, Governance 12: 303-
Bardach, E (1977), The implementation game: what happens after a bill comes law, Cambridge:
Barrett, S and Fudge, C (eds) (1981), Policy and Action, London: Methuen
Baumgartner, F and Jones, B (1991), ‘Agenda dynamics and policy sub-systems’, Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044-1074
Bendor, J and Moe, T (1985), ‘An adaptive model of bureaucratic politics’, American Political Science
Bennett, C and Howlett, M (1992), ‘The lessons of learning: reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change’, Policy Sciences 25: 275-294
Berman, P (1995), ‘Health sector reform: making health development sustainable’, Health Policy 32: 13-
Brandeis, L (1932), ‘Dissenting opinion’, New State Ice Co v Liebmann, 285, US 262, 311
Capoccia, G and Kelemen, D (2007), ‘The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism’, World Politics 59(3): 341-369
Cerych, L and Sabatier, P (1986), Great expectations and mixed performance: the implementation of higher education reforms in Europe, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books
Christensen, T and Laergreid, P (2001), New public management: the transformation of ideas and practice, Aldershot: Ashgate
Christensen, C., Aaron, S and Clark, W (2003), ‘Disruption in education’, Educause Review Available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffpiu013.pdf
Christensen, C., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R and Sadtler, T (2006), ‘Disruptive innovation for social change’, Harvard Business Review 84: 1-8
Christensen, C., Horn, M and Johnson, C (2008), Disrupting class: how disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns, New York: McGraw-Hill
Dolowitz, D and Marsh, D (1996), ‘Who learns from whom: a review of the policy transfer literature’,
Dowding, K (1995), ‘Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach’, Political
Elmore, R (1979), ‘Backward mapping’, Political Science Quarterly 94: 601-616
Elmore, R (1985), ‘Forward and backward mapping’, in K Hanf and T Toonen (eds), Policy
Implementation in Federal and Unitary Systems, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp 33-70
Firestone, W (1989), ‘Educational policy as an ecology of games’, Educational Researcher 18(7): 18-24 Fullan, M (2000), ‘The three stories of education reform’, Phi Delta Kappan: 581-584
Fullan, M (2007), The new meaning of educational change, New York: Teacher’s College Press
Fullan, M (2009), ‘Large-scale reform comes of age’, Journal of Educational Change 10: 101-113
Goggin, M., Bowman, A., Lester, J and O’Toole, L (1990), Implementation theory and practice: towards a third generation, Glenview: Scott Foresman and Co
Gornitzka, A., Kogan, M and Amaral, A (eds) (2005), Reform and change in higher education: analyzing policy implementation, Dordrecht: Springer
Gornitzka, A., Kyvik, S and Stensaker, B (2005), ‘Implementation analysis in higher education’, in A Gornitzka, M Kogan and A Amaral (eds), Reform and change in higher education: analyzing policy implementation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp 35-56
Gray, V (1973), ‘Innovation in the states: a diffusion study’, American Political Science Review 67(4): 1174-1185
Greener, I (2002), ‘Understanding NHS reform: the policy-transfer, social learning and path-dependency perspectives’, Governance 15(2): 161-183
Hall, P (1993), ‘Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: the case of economic policy-making in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25: 275-296
Hall, P and Taylor, R (1996), ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies XLIV: 936-957
Hanf, K (1982), ‘The implementation of regulatory policy: enforcement as bargaining’, European Journal of Political Research 10: 159-172
Hanf, K., Hjern, B and Porter, D (1978), ‘Local networks of manpower training in the Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden’, in K Hanf and F Scharpf (eds), Interorganisational Policy Making:
Limits to Coordination and Central Control, London: Sage, pp 303-344
Hannon, V (2011), ‘Designing innovative systems: is moving to scale our challenge?’, OECD/CERI –
International Conference on Innovative Learning Environments, Alberta, October Available at: http://www.oecd.org/site/eduilebanff/49013550.pdf
Hansen, R (2002), ‘Globalization, embedded realism and path dependence: the other immigrants to Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 35(3): 259-283
Hargreaves, A (1998), ‘Pushing the boundaries of educational change’, In International Handbook of
Educational Change, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 281-294
Heclo, H (1974), Social Policy in Britain and Sweden, New Haven: Yale University Press
Hjern, B and Hull, C (1982), ‘Implementation research as empirical constitutionalism’, European Journal of Political Research 10: 105-116
Hooghe, L and Marks, G (2001), Multi-level governance and European Integration, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefields Publishers
Hooghe, L and Marks, G (2003), ‘Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance’, American Political Science Review 97(2): 233-243
Hoppe, R and Peterse, A (1993), Handling Frozen Fire, Boulder: Westview Press
Immergut, E (1992), Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press
Ingram, H and Schneider, A (1990), ‘Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes’,
John, P (2003), ‘Is there a life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions and punctuations: using evolutionary theory to explain policy change?’, Policy Studies Journal 31(4): 481-498
Kiewiet, D and McCubbins, M (1991), The logic of delegation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Kiser, E (1999), ‘Comparing varieties of agency theory in economics, political science and sociology: an illustration from state policy implementation’, Sociological Theory 17(2): 146:170
Klein, R (1995), The New Politics of the NHS, London: Longman
Kogan, M (2005), ‘The implementation game’, in A Gornitzka, M Kogan and A Amaral (eds), Reform and change in higher education: analyzing policy implementation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp 57-65
Kohler-Koch, B And Eising, R (ed.) (1999), The transformation of governance in the European Union, London: Routledge
Koremenos, B And Lynn, L (1996), ‘Leadership of a state agency’, in D Kettl and H Brinton Milward (eds), The State of Public Management, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp 213-240
Levi, M (1997), ‘A model, a method, and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis’ In
M Lichbach and A Zuckerman (eds), Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 19-41
Levy, J (1994), ‘Learning and foreign policy: sweeping a conceptual minefield’, International
Majone, G and Wildavsky, A (1978), ‘Implementation as evolution’, in H Freeman (ed.), Policy Studies
Annual Review (Vol 2), Beverly Hills: Sage
Marris, P (1975), Loss and change, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday
Matland, R (1995), ‘Synthesising the implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5(2): 145-174
May, P (1992), ‘Policy learning and failure’, Journal of Public Policy 12(4): 331-354
Mazmanian, D and Sabatier, P (1983), Implementation and Public Policy, Glenview: Scott, Foresman
McLaughlin, M W (1987), ‘Learning from experience: lessons from policy implementation’, Education
Mehta, J (2013), ‘Why American education fails and how lessons from abroad could improve it’, Foreign
Meseguer, C (2005), ‘Policy learning, policy diffusion and the making of a new order’, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 598: 67-82
Meseguer, C and Gilardi, F (2009), ‘What is new in the study of policy diffusion?’, Review of
OECD (2009), Working out change: systemic innovation in vocational education and training, Paris: OECD
O’Toole, L (1986), ‘Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: an assessment of the field’,
O’Toole, L (1995), ‘Rational choice and policy implementation: implications for interorganisational network management’, American Review of Public Administration 25: 43-57
O’Toole, L (2000), ‘Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects’, Journal of Public
Payne, C (2008), So much reform, so little change: the persistence of failure in urban schools, Cambridge: Harvard Education Press
Phillips, S (1991), ‘Meaning and structure in social movements: mapping the network of national
Canadian women’s organizations’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 24(4): 755-782
Pierson, P (2000), ‘Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics’, American Political
Pressman, J and Wildavsky, A (1984), Implementation (3 rd ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press
Putnam, R (1988), ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International
Reich, M (1995), ‘The politics of health sector reform in developing countries: three cases of pharmaceutical policy’, Health Policy 32: 47-77
Rhodes, R and Marsh, D (1992), ‘New directions in the study of policy networks’, European Journal of
Rose, R (1991), ‘What is lesson-drawing?’, Journal of Public Policy 2(1): 3-30
Sabatier, P (1988), ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy learning therein’, Policy Sciences 21: 128-168
Sabatier, P (2005), ‘From policy implementation to policy change: a personal odyssey’, in A Gornitzka,
M Kogan and A Amaral (eds), Reform and change in higher education: analyzing policy implementation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp 17-34
Sabatier, P and Jenkins-Smith, H (1993), Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach, Boulder: Westview
Sabatier, P and Jenkins-Smith, H (1999), ‘The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment’, in P Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview Press, pp 117-168
Sabatier, P and Mazmanian, D (1979), ‘The conditions of effective implementation: a guide to accomplishing policy objectives’, Policy Analysis 5(4): 481-504
Sabatier, P and Mazmanian, D (1980), ‘The implementation of public policy: a framework of analysis’,
Saetren, H (2005), ‘Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: out-of-fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant’, Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 559-582
Shipan, C and Volden, C (2008), ‘The mechanisms of policy diffusion’, American Journal of Political
Spillane, J and Zeuli, J (1999), ‘Reform and teaching: exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(1): 1-27
Spillane, J, Reiser, B and Reimer, T (2002), ‘Policy implementation and cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research’, Review of Educational Research 72: 387-431
Stoker, R (1991), Reluctant partners: implementing federal policy, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
Streeck, W and Thelen, K (2005), ‘Introduction: institutional change in advanced political economies’, in
W Streeck and K Thelen, Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political
Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1-39
Suggett, D (2011), ‘The implementation challenge: strategy is only as good as its execution’, State
Services Authority Occasional paper No 15
Thatcher, M (1998), ‘The development of policy network analyses’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4): 389-416
Van Meter, D and Van Horn, C (1975), ‘The policy implementation process: a conceptual framework’,
Wanna, J., Butcher, J and Freyens, B (2010), Policy in action: the challenge of service delivery, Sydney: UNSW Press
Weber, E (1998), Pluralism by the rules: conflict and cooperation in environmental regulation,