Aims
The implementation of public policies remains a poorly understood phase of the policy cycle. Materialized, ‘real’ policies are seldom if ever fully congruent with the politically agreed upon, ‘theoretical’ policy decisions. As an implication, it is crucial to analyze implementation processes in order to understand whether, how and under what circumstances policies have the (un)intended effects – ultimately, whether policies adequately address the important problems they are designed to resolve.
The concept of discretion, defined as the freedom to act, is crucial for the study of implementation. Top-down and bottom-up implementation perspectives differ in their views of the role and effects of discretion. Top-down perspectives tend to view discretion as a control problem. Conversely, bottom-up implementation perspectives emphasize the environment in which implementing agents act and how the latter problem solve to adjust to policies. The dissertation combines and confronts top-down and bottom-up views on discretion, and illuminates the latter’s use and effects.
One major reason why implementation research remains a ‘missing link’ lies in the lacking availability and the highly complex and context-dependent nature of the empirical data at hand. Recent years have witnessed a host of innovations in qualitative comparative research methodology, which provide researchers with useful and exciting tools to tackle these empirical challenges. The studies presented here intend to illustrate the potential of these techniques, and how their diligent application can generate valuable insights with a high relevance for both practitioners and researchers.