Why does implementation of policy sometimes fail

We can identify four broad factors contributing to policy failure:. It undermines value for money at best and, in the worst cases, leads to unviable projects. Dispersed governance: Policies that are formulated at national level will need some degree of consistent delivery at sub-national level; this can be difficult where the latter has some separate degree of political authority. Even in a country as centralised as Britain, general rules and guidelines will be reinterpreted to fit into local contexts and front-line practices in ways that can undermine legislative intention.

Policy design and policy implementation accordingly need to resemble an integrated process rather than discrete and distinct stages.

It rarely happens. Vagaries of the political cycle: Policies of significance that involve change over a long period of time raise issues of political sustainability and support. In general, there is evidence to suggest that the political will necessary to drive long-term policy-making tends to dissipate over time.

Rather than just let policies drift into full or partial failure, it is incumbent upon policymakers to take an interest in ways in which the policy process can be strengthened and supported.

This could take place at three points: preparation; tracking; and support. Faulty policy design can stem from many causes — a poor understanding of the problem, insufficient knowledge of the implementation context, unclear and even contradictory goals, and absence of political backing, amongst them.

In such circumstances, any degree of successful implementation is unlikely. Jennifer Gold has noted that few countries have mechanisms in place to ensure more robust policy design. This is a startling omission. In the UK, the Civil Service Reform Plan requires permanent secretaries to warn before a political decision is taken if there are likely to be implementation concerns, but in practice the central machinery has only tended to be activated once an established policy is off track.

Indeed in the case of Brexit it seems likely that such warnings have been routinely given but widely ignored. These policies are defined as fitting one or more of several criteria: addresses a top government priority; has significant budget implications; makes major or complex changes to existing policies; involves significant cross-agency issues; is particularly sensitive; requires urgent implementation; involves new or complex delivery systems; and has been developed over a very short period.

In such cases a full implementation plan has to be developed during the drafting process covering seven domains: planning, governance, stakeholder engagement, risks, monitoring, review and evaluation, resource management and management strategy. There does not yet appear to be any evaluation of the effectiveness of these innovative arrangements. It is unclear how effective these different bodies have been. They tend to be based upon a linear-rational model of decision-making in which unambiguous objectives are established, action upon them flows in predictable ways through established implementation structures, and outcomes are monitored against them.

It is the realisation that implementation is complex, contextual and as much a bottom-up as a top-down imperative that has led to interest in an alternative approach — that of policy support. Consequently, the nature of the problems are not well understood by defining the problem, objective of the of the policies, the criteria and the strategic approach for formulation, evaluation and implementation.

Proper consultations with various stakeholders are jettisoned and this could go a long way in determining project success. Political issues often marr policy success. At times, policies are made based on polical reasons rather than the need for it.

In such a case, the effect of the policies are not felt and they tend to die when the administration elapses. Public policies do fail due to lack of political will for effective implementation, lack of coordination and synergy amongst the implementing agencies, paucity of fund for proper implementation, lack of or insufficient policy appraisal at the begining, as well as lack of policy implementation monitoring.

Public policy fails mostly due to corruption and lack of continuity, bad data and a host of other factors. Policy fails due to lack of proper planning and political interference.

Public officers tend to work within the time frame of their tenure and its thereby subjected to ignoring due diligence and overshadowed by rushed activities. Another reason why policy fails is most times public officers tend to ignore the beneficiaries of the policies.

Skip to content. Share this:. Like this: Like Loading Public policies fail due to corruption and poor coordination which make the policies ineffective or totally fail Loading In such a case, the effect of the policies are not felt and they tend to die when the administration elapses Loading Public policy fails mostly due to corruption and lack of continuity, bad data and a host of other factors Loading Public policies fail because of abscence of Executive Capacity and bureaucratic bottle necks Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply.

Loading Comments Email Required Name Required Website. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Within the context of goal-setting, SMART is an acronym that generally means the goals are "specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely.

For workplace policies to be successful, there must be alignment between the employer's strategic goals and what the company hopes to achieve through implementing certain policies. For example, if the employer wants to become an employer of choice known for its streamlined hiring process, it doesn't make sense to design a recruitment and selection process that requires layers of approval from the recruiter, the hiring manager, the hiring manager's director and so on. A better approach to the hiring policy that aligns with the goals is to empower managers to make wise hiring decisions, through training and leadership development.

Workplace policies that the HR leader single-handedly champions are likely to fail because they may not get the necessary support from top management. When the company's leaders voice their support for employment-related endeavors, employees may be more inclined to get on board with the policies. It's transferring a trickle-down theory to workplace communication.