1. PhD-Course ‘Studying Public Policy Implementation in an Era of Governance’, Paris, May 6, 2015 Implementation and governance research Peter Hupe Department of Public Administration Erasmus University Rotterdam Visiting Fellow 2012-2013 All Souls College, Oxford

2. Introduction ‘Governance, governance everywhere.’ Source: Frederickson (2005).

3. Introduction Central question What implications may the governance paradigm have for the study of government?

4. Introduction Agenda A. The governance paradigm and its implications B. Governance research frameworks C. Assessment

5. Introduction Central message Implementation research goes on – although partly under different headings. Although being a ‘magic concept’, when governance is conceptualized properly it may enhance a more complete and less hierarchically biased study of the role of government.

6. A. The governance paradigm and its implications The age of governance Government and society Away from government centrism Role of government Inviting participation Locus vs focus Who governs? = Empirical question

7. A. The governance paradigm and its implications Governance as a magic concept Characteristics - Broadness - Normative attractiveness - Implication of consensus - Global marketability Source: Pollitt and Hupe (2011)

8. A. The governance paradigm and its implications Governance as a magic concept (II) Magic concepts may have potential explanatory functions, but only if positioned, specified, operationalized and applied in systematic ways. Source: Pollitt and Hupe (2011: 654).

9. B. Governance research frameworks The Logic of Governance Framework (Lynn et al. 2001: 80) O = f (E, C, T, S, M) where O = outputs/outcomes (at individual and/or organizational level) E = environmental factors C = client characteristics T = treatments (primary work) S = structures M = managerial roles and actions

10. B. Governance research frameworks The Multiple Governance Framework (Hill and Hupe 2014: 130) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The trias gubernandi (I) Action dimensionConstitutiveDirectional Operational Action scalegovernancegovernancegovernance ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SystemInstitutional General rule Managing design making trajectories OrganizationDesigning Mission and Managing (inter-)organ.maintenancerelations settings IndividualInternalizationSituation-boundManaging of values and norms rule applicationcontacts -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. B. Governance research frameworks Explaining Government-in-Action: Clustering factors --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The trias gubernandi (II) Action dimensionStructureContent Process Action scale ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SystemContextOrientationControl OrganizationSettingTasksManagement IndividualAntecedentsHabitusBehaviour ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: see note (1).

12. C. Assessment Governance research. Characteristics - Differentiation of the dimensions of governing. - Attention to variety of administrative layers and their impact. - The act of management is taken seriously. - Consequence is contextualization.

13. C. Assessment Governance research. General implications O’Toole (2000: 276) on the study of governance: ‘(T)he broader conceptualization of governance is not antithetical to implementation research; it is designed to incorporate a more complete understanding of the multiple levels of action and kinds of variables that can be expected to influence performance.’

14. C. Assessment Governance research. Possible functions - Focus on action. - Operational dimensions get attention. - Who are the acting actors = empirical instead of normative question.

15. C. Assessment Governance research. Possible constraints - Widening of scope (cf. from government to governance) means more variables. - Chance of subsuming the practice of implementation at the street level. - Chance of defining politics and power a-symmetries away.

16. Conclusion Ways forward Explaining ‘horizontal’ empirical variation. Comparative research design. Agency as embedded in structure. Making connections across scholarly themes.

17. Notes Note (1) Source: Hupe, P.L. (2012) ‘Determinants of discretion: Explanatory approaches in street-level bureaucracy research’, unpublished working paper written during a Visiting Fellowship 2012-2013 at All Souls College, Oxford. Based on the Multiple Governance Framework (Hupe and Hill 2006: 23; see also Hill and Hupe 2014: 130), which was inspired by the ‘three worlds of action’ (Kiser and Ostrom 1982).

18. References Frederickson, H.G. (2005) Whatever happened to Public Administration? Governance, governance everywhere. In: E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, Jr and C. Pollitt (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hill, M.J. and P.L. Hupe (2014) Implementing Public Policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. London: SAGE (third, revised, edition). Hupe, P.L. (2012) Determinants of discretion: Explanatory approaches in street- level bureaucracy research. Unpublished working paper written during a Visiting Fellowship 2012-2013 at All Souls College, Oxford. Hupe, P.L. and M.J. Hill (2006) The three action levels of governance: Re- framing the policy process beyond the stages model. In: B.G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Policy. London: SAGE, pp. 13-30.

19. References Kiser, L.L. and E. Ostrom (1982) The three worlds of action: A meta-theoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: E. Ostrom (ed.) Strategies of Political Inquiry. London: SAGE, pp. 179-222. Lynn, L.E. Jr, C.J. Heinrich and C.J. Hill (2001) Improving Governance: A new logic of empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. O’Toole, L.J., Jr (2000) Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 263- 288. Pollitt, C. and P.L. Hupe (2011) Talking about government: The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review 13(5): 641-658.