ABSTRACT
We have already looked at policy implementation theory in chapter two above, focusing some attention on the distinction between top down and bottom up approaches. Concerns about rationalism in top down approaches to implementation have been aired, although it is acknowledged that rationalist explanations still hold considerable influence on the discursive practices of policy implementation. The point here is not to dismiss top down explanations because that would be to dismiss what is normative practice. The difficulty with rationalism is that it claims that problems of implementation imposed from above can be overcome given the correct conditions for implementation. This claim for a regulatory form of implementation is built upon an epistemology of scientific rationalism which is less sustainable if it can be shown that there are other factors that skew ‘perfect’ implementation, and over which rationalist practices such as traditional managerialism have little influence. It is at odds with other explanations which suggest that professional discretion in decision-making has some effect on implementation. This chapter provides such theoretical evidence, and is thus congruent with the empirical evidence presented in. chapter three. Rationalism would also be undermined if it could be demonstrated that, within a ‘rights’ approach to policy implementation there is evidence that citizen involvement might have some effect that influences the implementation process. This is not the brief for this book, but opens up a fascinating area for fruitful future research. In the previous chapter the concept of discourse, actors and agency was addressed. It was seen how an analysis of discourse in the key texts for Community Care exposes the confusion of policy intentions and helps explain the implementation deficit that results from role confusion
among key street level implementers. This was the same role confusion noted in the interviews in chapter three.
