MG 451 Major Assignment

Challenges to Policy Implementation in

Public Sector Reforms – A Review of New
Public Management (NPM).

Group Members:
Archana Sami : S11057429
Krishneel Reddy : S11058534
Nivedita Sami :S11058408
Declaration
Table of Content
Introduction

Rahman, Naz & Nand (2013), stated that the Public Management Reform has been a developing
concept for many years. The New Public Management (NPM) and Governance has been the
modern approach to restructure the traditional public sector model to respond to the
inefficiencies in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Inspired by the New Public Management led policies
changes in the developed countries, many developing countries embraced this trend but did not
achieved the success as planned.
Khan (2016), emphases what is called public policy must have to be implemented. However, the
success of a policy depends on how successfully it has been implemented. Even the very best
policy is of little worth if it is not implemented properly. Equal resources, time and efforts are to
be dedicated at each stages of policy implementation to ensure successful policy implementation.
It is vital to understand that New Public Management and governance are linked. Governance
became progressively associated with New Public Management and its prescription for
reforming public administration by contracting out responsibilities to non-state actors in policy
making [ CITATION Rah13 \l 1033 ]. This has directly implicated on challenges noted during policy
implementation.
Policy implementation is of critical importance to the success of state. No policy can succeed if
the policy implementation does not bear any relationship to the intentions of the policy makers
[ CITATION Rah15 \l 1033 ].

Rahmat (2015) says that unless and until the policies formulated are executed in a fair, impartial
and effective way, it is impossible to achieve the policy objectives/outcomes as intended.
According to Rahman, Naz & Nand (2013), it was observed that the policy makers had allocated
more funds towards resources in policymaking rather than addressing the policy implementation
challenges and also had ignored the issue of administrative culture.
Leadership challenges and poor governance account for persistent failure in policy
implementation regardless of the good administrative/management practices adopted [ CITATION
Muh14 \l 1033 ].

This assignment intends to outlines and examines the challenges faced during policy
implementation and possible ways to overcome these challenges.
Literature Review
Policy implementation is an interactive process of translating the goals and objectives of a policy
into an action. Policy Implementation is considered to a very critical stage of the policy-making
process as it means the execution of the law in which various stakeholders, organizations,
procedures, and techniques work together to put polices into effect with a view to attaining
policy objectives [ CITATION Kha16 \l 1033 ] . Therefore, Muhammad (2014) argues that it is
necessary to have interactive competencies to constitute the ability to establish networks that
enable effective communication among and between stakeholders with good networking to
encourage and boost stakeholder participation in policy implementation [ CITATION Muh14 \l
1033 ].

In addition, Muhammad (2014) acknowledges that policy implementation is dynamic, fragile and
is of pretentious nature. Public policy implementation is dynamic due to the multiplicity of
stakeholders involved and is fragile because of the inherent risk of failure and pretentious on the
basis of the audacious public expectation of automatic delivery and development by the
Government Leaders. On the other hand, Rahmat (2015) states that Policy implementation
involves actions that are directed at the accomplishment of the goals and objectives set forth in
prior policy decisions. It encompasses the creations of a policy delivery system in which specific
mechanisms are designed and tracked in the hope of reaching particular ends.
According to Khan (2016) the aim of policy implementation is to form a connection between the
objectives of public policies and the outcomes of government activities as the final achievement
of policy making process.
Brunetto & Farr-Wharton (2005) says that policy implementation occurs in a centrally controlled
environment where policies are formulated at top level of the hierarchical structure and are then
translated into instructions for those located at the lower level of the hierarchical structure to
execute the policies. On the other hand, Khan (2016) says that policy implementation occurs in
three stages that comprise of the top-down model that depicts six variables to shape the linkage
between policy and performance which include the following factors:
1. Policy standards and objectives
2. Resources
3. Intergovernmental communication
4. Enforcement activities
5. Characteristics of implementing agencies; economic, social and political conditions
6. Disposition of the implementers

In addition of the above, Khan (2016) further elaborates that the first stage of policy
implementation begins with the tractability of the problem. The goal of this stage is to identify
the need for change, determine the processes that will be used to achieve the goals and mutually
agreed to whether to proceed further to policy implementation.
Secondly, the ability of the statute to structure implementation. This stage involves building a
system capacity which will support the policy implementation by examining and strengthening
the mechanisms which are necessary to assure the success of policy implementation. Finally,
identify and understand the non-statutory variables affecting implementation process. This stage
involves putting together new practices in place to guide the implementation process, review
data, make decisions and provide feedback on successes and challenges. Also to assure practices
are used with high reliability, and are achieving expected outcomes with a focus on
sustainability.
Evaluation activities are executed to monitor reliability and outcomes of practice. Whereas
according to Ikechukwu & Chukwuemeka (2013), says that variety of activities are involved in
policy implementation that encompasses application, effectuation and administration of a policy.
A variety of activities that is involved during policy implementation includes collecting data and
analyzing problems, hiring and assigning personnel, assigning tasks, issuing and administering
directives, disbursing funds, signing contracts with various stakeholders.
Conclusively, it could be said that policy implementation in general is viewed as the process of
executing a basic policy decision to archive the outcomes as planned.
The major explanation for the failure or success of any given policy depends on the pattern and
nature of policy implementation.
Successful policy implementation requires the support of a coordinated interaction of
stakeholders with established objectives, resources and accountability coupled with timely
monitoring review process (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2005). Furthermore, effective public
leadership and good governance are the pillars of public policy implementation and sustainable
development (Muhammad, 2014). According to Ikechukwu and Chukwuemeka (2013), effective
policy implementation requires executing a policy in such a manner that will produce the goals
and objectives of the policy. This could be achieved through public bureaucracy because it
assists to bridge the gap between the legislative intent and its fulfillment and determines the
course and speed of policy implementation. (Ikechukwu and Chukwuemeka, 2013).
Furthermore, Khan (2016) stated that for a successful policy implementation it is essential to
have roles and responsibilities clearly defined with simple internal procedures to avoid
complexity and confusion amongst stakeholders.
It is substantial to note that it is difficult to achieve success in policy implementation if the policy
objectives are not formulated and executed in a fair, impartial and effective manner (Rahmat,
2015). There are quite a number of challenges accounted during this stage which hinders the
successful implementation of a policy. One of the utmost challenges that is accounted during
policy implementation is the ability of the Leader’s to facilitate the development of a vision that
expresses the objectives of the key stakeholders with regard to where the organisation wants to
be in future [ CITATION Rah13 \l 1033 ]. The role of leadership is indispensable in implementing
public policies.

It is important to understand the nature of the existing and obtainable resources that policy
makers can use to counter the challenges. Lack of dedicated staff and non-compliance to policy
guidelines also hinders the policy implementation policy. All stakeholders engaged in policy
implementation must work as a unit for the purpose of achieving the policy objectives [ CITATION
Bru05 \l 1033 ]. In absence of adequate and evaluation of plan, it is seen there is a considerable
amount of wastage of resources and funds in the policy implementation process [ CITATION
Rah15 \l 1033 ].

It is compulsory to have human, technical, materials and financial resources on hand to

implement a new policy Rahmat (2015) clearly mentions that Public involvement is policy
implementation is of crucial importance. With the recent trend it is to be noted that the
organizational structure in their current form is inadequate for responding to the emerging
challenges and compliance.
Further in this assignment, we will identify and discuss the various challenges that are
encountered during the policy implementation and suggest possible ways to tackle these
challenges.
Challenges to Policy Implementation
As literature and research on policy implementation has multiplied, so has the list of factors or
challenges affecting them. The following are few challenges to policy implementations that have
been highlighted.
Ineffective and Corrupt political leadership
Despite effective public leadership and good governance being considered as pre-conditions for
proper public policy implementation (Muhammad,2014) political leaders are often seen to be
influencing policy formulation and implementation.
Ineffective and corrupt political leadership leads to poor implementation of policies as it affects
the content and quality of policies at formulation stage. Leaders are often seen to be designing
and implementing policies that tend to serve their interests and gain popularity rather than
serving public interests and addressing societal problems (Ugwuanyi and Chukwuemeka, 2013).
While implementing policies that serve their own self-interest, they use and exploit the resources
(financial and labor resources) that have been assigned for the welfare of the society.
Capacity Building
Capacity building is a process that allows organizations to perform at a greater larger scale.
Capacity building is aided by mobilizing resources and actions. If policies are to achieve the
desired results, then actions and resources are to be mobilized in the right directions (Khan,
2016).
Mobilization of resources includes preparing a complete action plan, clarification of performance
goals and performance standards and conduct correct action plans of those activities [ CITATION
Rah13 \l 1033 ]. Failure to understand the nature of the existing and obtainable resources used by
policy makers lead to challenges to policy implementation.
Over Ambitious Policy Goals
There are times when some public policies pursued by government tend to be over ambitious. In
most cases these over ambitious policies are formulated not out of genuine effort to promote
rapid and fundamental development but to boost the egos of political leader (Ugwuanyi and
Chukwuemeka, 2013). As per Khan (2016), policies must have specific, clear, measurable,
rational, achievable and time-bound goals and objectives. Failure to comply with these lead to
challenges to policy implementation.
Coordinating Policies
The main role of coordination is to make sure that the policy initiative is aligned with the explicit
and implicit goals and objectives of the state [ CITATION Rah13 \l 1033 ]. All stakeholders engaged
in policy implementation needs to work as a unit for the purpose of achieving the policy
objectives [ CITATION Bru05 \l 1033 ] . Failure to work together and align policies to the goals and
objectives of the government affects policy implementation.

Lack of sound policy design

The challenges to public policy implementation arises when the internal procedures are complex
and the roles are not clearly defined. Rahmat (2015) states that for public policies to be
efficiently implemented, the internal measures and procedures should be simple and clearly
defined. Factors such as speed and responsiveness, avoiding unnecessary delays and
incorporating the vision of intermediaries should be taken into account in these procedures.
Simple internal procedures, where the roles are clearly defined at specific levels result in
efficient policy implementation.
Furthermore, Ugwuanyi and Chukwuemeka (2013) have highlighted that the degree of
behavioral change the policies envision for the intended beneficiaries affect policy
implementation. Policies that are designed to achieve long term goals may be difficult to
implement than those whose benefits are received immediately.
Lack of Financial and Human Resources
It is important to have a steady flow of human, material, technical and financial resources on
hand to implement a new policy (Khan, 2016) however some institutions or agencies who have
the responsibility of implementing policies do not have adequate manpower or financial
resources to implement them (Ugwuanyi and Chukwuemeka, 2013).
Khan (2016) states that money is very important in policy implementation however as
highlighted by Ugwuanyi and Chukwuemeka (2013), sometimes governments do not sufficiently
budget for policy implementation and in some cases government provides the required funds but
corrupt practices within the public organizations lead to misuse. In any case, financial resources
should be adequate and available on time for effective policy implementation and unavailability
of these resources leads to challenges to policy implementation.
Furthermore, Rahmat (2015) states that lack of trained and dedicated staff hinders
implementation process as well. Similar views are shared by Khan (2016), on the commitment
and skills of frontline implementers. He states that frontline implementers are important resource
for policy implementation and they need to have commitment towards policy objectives and
necessary skills to utilize available resources in order to achieve policy objectives since their
incompetency leads to implementation failure.
Rahmat (2015) goes on to state that lack of motivation, misuse of funds, no actions taken against
defaulters, poor working condition, paucity of staff, unrealistic targets and deadlines given to
staff also affect policy implementations.
Lack of Stakeholder involvement
Implementation of public policy involves a number of actors at various stages and each having
their own particular interests. Involving the concerned stakeholders and engaging the respective
actors in the process of implementation enhances success (Khan,2016).
Rahmat (2015) states that a crucial element in policy implementation is public involvement. In
order for policies to be successfully implemented the target group (public) should be actively
involved.
However, it is often perceived that reforms are part of government activities and therefore there
is little or no interest and participation from the public but government should encourage and
enhance public consultation because this later tends to affect the state when they try to
implement policies and the public do not accept it.
Issues with Organizational design and Modification
Policy implementation is also affected when there is inappropriate organizational design and
modifications. Khan (2016) has highlighted that appropriate organizational design in an
important condition for successful implementation of policies.
Policy changes tend to affect an organizations internal activities and its relationship with its
operating environment and this may lead to designing of new structures and procedures (Rahman
et al.,2013). Khan (2016) also states that due to the difficulty of implementing new tasks in an
organization, it is politically more practical to create new structures rather than overhauling
existing structures.
Having said that, the inability to design appropriate new organizational structures and policies to
implement policy changes leads to challenges in effective policy implementation.
Lack of Monitoring and Evaluation
Lastly, the lack of monitoring and evaluation affects policy implementation. As per Rahman et
al. (2013), setting time frames and targets in order to achieve desired policy outcomes especially
for long term policies are amongst the common issues in the process of policy implementation.
In order to overcome this, monitoring mechanisms for periodic evaluation and tracking policies
across multiple agencies is very essential.
Rahmat (2015) also states that policy objectives can be achieved once there is an effective
system of implementation and monitoring. However, when there is absence of adequate
monitoring mechanisms and evaluation of policies, there is wastage issues, corruption, spillover
of policies over successive plans which leads to less than optimal use or misuse of the limited
public resources.
Case Study : Exporting New Public Management: Performance Agreements in a Pacific
Microstate
By : Michael O’ Donnell & Mark Turner
The article examines the introduction of a performance agreement system, which is one aspect of
performance management in Vanuatu.
Background
The economic growth of Vanuatu had been poor with a negative annual growth in GDP per
capita between 1990 and 2002. During this time the public sector had played an important role in
the economy in terms of formal employment and share of GDP.
By the mid-1990s, reports by donor agencies were highlighting public administration problems
which included weakness in developing, coordinating and monitoring policies, lack of
prioritization in the process, lack of performance criteria, declining executive accountability
changing ministerial jurisdictions and mandates.
To address these problems, the Vanuatu government and donor agencies formed the
Comprehensive Reform Program (CRP) which was endorsed in June, 1997. Its objectives were
to improve service delivery, economic and public sector management as well as economic
growth. Public sector reform and good governance was given major priority and the Vanuatu
government sought assistance from donors to develop and implement policies.
Furthermore, performance agreements were introduced into the Vanuatu public service in 2002
for Director Generals (DGs) and Directors. The suggested procedure was for DGs to draft their
own performance agreements which would be submitted to their ministers and PSC chairman
whereas Directors were to submit their performance agreements to their DGs.
Progress in completing the performance agreements was slow as by March 2004 (one and half
years later) after the introduction of performance agreement, there were only 5 out of 9 DGs and
11 out of 35 Directors with performance agreements.
Implementation Issues
The following implementation issues were identified in the article:
Suspicion and Hostility
The senior public servants doubted the justification behind introducing the performance
agreements. Despite assurances from the PSC and the Prime Minister that the agreements were
tools to improve service delivery and communication, the senior public servants suspected some
sinister motives behind it. They perceived that the performance agreements would be used
against them in cases of demotion and termination.
Furthermore, senior public servants knew the dangers of signing off on performance agreements
in the politically volatile and unstable environment they were operating in. The political events
in the year that performance agreements were supposed to be completed was quiet turbulent and
for senior public servants such events meant regular adjustments to new governments. The
incoming of new government ministers would lead to them questioning the public servants
political allegiances and those that did not have allegiances with the new government may be
targeted down using the performance agreements.
Incentives
Performance contracts which was introduced in Samoa, Solomon Islands and Fiji had involved
salary increases, bonuses and other allowances but in Vanuatu the DGs and Directors were not
getting any incentives attached to performance agreements. The lack of incentives combined
with the suspicion of public servants towards the performance contracts leads to low level of
commitment to performance agreements.
The inability of PSC to enforce performance agreements has also affected implementation. In
theory, PSC is to lead and exercise authority over public sector organizations however it failed to
do so in this case. The public servants did not sign off on the performance agreements knowing
that the PSC would not force them to comply.
Technical Considerations
Three issues were highlighted. Firstly, the performance agreement template which was designed
was very lengthy and had very complex performance objectives. The second issue was with the
six – monthly review periods and whether it was necessary or not because annual reviews were
conducted elsewhere. The third issue was whether existing documents were sufficient for
monitoring the progress towards policy goals. The documents included corporate plans and
annual reports.
Influence of Donors
In the case of Vanuatu, the introduction of performance contracts was of policy transfer from the
region’s rich countries. Because performance agreements were not domestic inventions of the
Vanuatu government, its adoption has been noted to be in the “middle – ground” between
voluntary and coercive transfer.
Lessons Learnt
For performance agreements to succeed there needs to be a clear understanding of organizational
goals and how individual employees can contribute to the achievement of these goals.
In the case of Vanuatu, there was a lack of trust between the stakeholders, lack of government
commitment as there were no incentives attached to performance agreements, lack of compliance
because the PSC were not exercising authority, there were complex and unclear goals with no
proper monitoring mechanisms in place, budget constraints and lack on consultation and
involvement of stakeholders.
According to the authors, it was unlikely that the introduction of performance agreements would
succeed in facilitating dialogue about organizational goals and individual expectations where
there were so many implementation challenges.

Recommendations
From the readings it has been found that there are a number of factors that could affect the
success of policy implementations and the effect of these factors would vary in application in
every country and the situation on hand. We have taken into account the following factors.
Firstly, Leadership, authors in the readings have highlighted that honest and dedicated leaders
are effective in ensuring successful policy implementation. Leadership challenges can be
overcome by having a robust and transparent recruitment system so that the right people are
recruited at the right time for the right position. It is also essential to maintain an efficient
training and monitoring program that encourages development of staff and thus encourages high
integrity standards and ethical behavior.
Secondly, Administrative Culture of the organization needs to be taken into consideration in the
planning stage and where essential a shift in the alignment towards the changing organizational
goals made prior to the policy implementation phases. Communicating and creating an
environment of trust and ensuring that staff engagement is happening at all levels of the
organization. Organizations need to use a more participatory and collaborative based approach in
engaging staff.
Thirdly, Political interference and influence as well as corruption also affects implementation of
proper processes and monitoring systems which need to be in place to curb this. There is a
genuine need to have transparent and accountable processes and having procedures and
guidelines to implement proper monitoring systems. Maintaining high integrity standards and
having a fair reward and discipline system is essential in policy implementation.
Moreover, lack of resources is another major factor whereby governments need to ensure that
adequate funding and resource allocation is managed properly in order to support policy
implementation. If however, government is unable to allocate resources where required, they can
engage in partnerships with organizations that are able to provide the resources at economic cost.
It is vital that prior planning is done during resource allocation so that resources are used
efficiently and economically by government themselves or in collaboration with other partners.
Funding needs to be properly allocated from planning till the implementation stage.
Furthermore, Public participation or targeted groups should be actively engaged in the policy
planning process as resistance to change may also be a drawback to policy implementation. It is
important that a participatory, collaborative and inclusive approach is taken with effective
communication from planning till the implementation and post implementation (feedback) phase.
Finally, the most important recommendation is the consideration of social, economic, political,
and administrative factors during the policy formulation stage. This depicts that consultation
with all stakeholders who are affected by the policy is done. Goal and objectives need to be
clearly outlined to set direction of the policy implementation, provide clarity and avoid
confusion. There needs to be clearly defined roles at all levels and well understood policies and
procedures with mechanism of feedback.

Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that policy implementation does indeed have many challenges which
vary in complexity. Some of these challenges are easy to overcome while others are difficult to
manage at times. It can also be stated that some of these challenges are correlated. An example is
political interference and corruption, which in turn leads to poor leadership and thus poor
decision making in terms of resource allocation whereby funding will not be utilized in the right
manner. Political influence is high as leaders are easily influenced by politicians in their own
self-interest and not focusing on other stakeholder’s part of the policy implementation as they see
them as hurdles in their personal gain. These leaders are ineffective and inefficient in the
implementation of policies as they have unclear goals for the organization which becomes
hindrance to the growth of the organization. It is clear that poor leadership leads to policy
failures thus, it can be concluded that good leadership is a major contributor for successful
reforms.
Relevant studies have shown that policy implementation, administrative culture and leadership as
part of the NPM model needs careful analysis as these are crucial elements of the reform process.
The case study of Fiji shows clearly how and why reforms fail and succeed. An important point
to note is that reforms are successful when the administrative culture and strategic leadership
spearhead the change and fully implement the formulated policies. Looking at reforms in Fiji,
plagued by coups, trade sanctions and aid/grant bans; the Fijian economy survived and continued
the struggle with declining economies. Reforms initiated by the SVT and SDL governments were
abolished by the Labor (FLP) government as they wanted to implement their own reforms and
thus things were left hanging in between mid-completion and just led to wastage of resources. In
the last ten years, Fiji has seen a number of successful Public Sector Reforms under the Fiji First
government, some of these are; Water Authority of Fiji, Fiji Airways, Maritime Safety Authority
of Fiji and HFC bank. The presence of administrative culture, policy implementation and
leadership has been the major driving force behind these successful reforms.
Administrative culture, policy implementation and leadership are the major driving factors for
successful reforms, however, other supporting factors such as ethics and governance, corruption,
empowerment, political influence and interference, customer satisfaction, outsourcing (PPP), and
capacity building also assist in successful policy implementation. More research and studies
should be done in these areas for better understanding and avoidance of failed reforms.
Bibliography
Ugwuanyi, B. and Chukwuemeka, E. (2013). The Obstacles to Effective Policy Implementation by the
Public Bureaucracy in Developing Nations. 2nd ed. Kuwait: American University, pp.59-68.

Brunetto, Y. & Farr-Wharton, R., 2005. The role of management post-NPM in the implementation of new
policies affecting police officers' practices, 28(2), pp.221-41.

Khan, A.R., 2016. Policy Implementation: Some Aspects and Issues, 3, pp.3-12.

Muhammad, F., 2014. Leadership, Governance and Public Policy Implementation Competencies in the
Broader Public Sector, 6(36), pp.66-74.

Rahman, M.H., Naz, R. & Nand, A.A., 2013. Public Sector Reforms in Fiji: Examining Policy
Implementation Setting and Administrative Culture, 36, pp.1-28.

Rahmat, A.A., 2015. Policy Implementation: Process and Problems, 3(3), pp.306-311.