Comparative Implementation Research: Directions and Dualities

Abstract

The study of policy implementation developed steadily and considerably in the 1970s and 1980s through two generations of research. Since then progress towards a more rigorous scientific “third generation research paradigm”, assumed to be crucial for further theoretical development, has been much slower and more uneven. Comparative studies figure prominently in this respect. On one hand they are strongly encouraged but on the other they are difficult to conduct according to best practice advice in the textbooks. Comparative implementation research is the theme of this special issue. In this Introduction the articles included are presented, focusing on how they deal with some of the issues posed by the norms of a rigorous “third generation” approach. Reasons for the state of affairs in implementation research are discussed. Some inherent dualities and tensions in contemporary comparative implementation research are identified as particular challenges.     

Crucial Factors in Implementing Radical Policy Change: A Comparative Longitudinal Study of Nordic Central Agency Relocation Programs

Abstract

Why do public policies succeed or fail? The aim of this article is to contribute to answering this enduring research question in policy research through a comparative study of the variable efforts by Nordic governments to relocate their central agencies from the capital regions over a period of several decades. This was a radical redistributive policy program premised on a policy instrument – coercion – which was very alien to political systems characterized as consensual democracies. Hence, it is no surprise that only two out of seven relocation programs of any substance were successful. The really intriguing research question here is how any relocation program was achievable at all in a policy context where this was very unlikely. A broadly based multi-theoretical analytical framework linking interest groups, institutions, human agency in the form of policy entrepreneurship/design and situational factors is employed to solve this research puzzle. Findings from this study offer important contributions to the following research fields: comparative public policy, radical policy change and most specifically the so-called third generation of public policy implementation research.     

Organised Interests,Authority Structures and Political Influence: Danish and Norwegian Patient Groups Compared

The article presents a comparative analysis of the strategies applied by Danish and Norwegian patient organisations and organisations for disabled persons in order to promote the interests of their members. Three research questions are addressed: Are Danish and Norwegian patient organisations service organisations operating according to a ‘logic of membership’ or political pressure groups acting according to a ‘logic of influence’? Do patient organisations apply ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ strategies in their efforts to influence healthcare policies? What impact do different authority structures have on the patient organisations' influencing strategies? The latter question is related to recent reforms in the public healthcare systems of the two countries. The major responsibility for public hospitals now rests with regional authorities in Denmark and central government in Norway. The study is based on a survey among nationwide patient organisations in the two countries and shows that most patient groups are ‘polyvalent’‘venue shoppers’ combining a variety of influencing strategies.     

Constitutional analysis: The power index approach

Abstract. A power index approach to the EU institutions gives a new perspective upon the EU institutions and their future reform. Using a standard power measure, the Banzhaf index, we show that in a group of states as the EU council, the voting power of a member state is equal to twice the individual power to block multiplied by the group's collective power to change. Political power of the member states is calculated under alternative constitutional rules for the EU, where cooperative game theory allows the derivation of power equivalences. We suggest that simple majority should be used more often in the EU council.