Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.

org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.6, No.15, 2016

Problems and Challenges of Policy Implementation for National

Development
IYANDA KAMORU AHMED PH.D
Department Of History And International Studies,Nigeria Police Academy, Wudil Kano.

BELLO SANUSI DANTATA

Department of political Science, Nigeria Police Academy, Wudil Kano

Abstract
As policies and programmes continue to fail in Nigeria, public confidence in government ability to achieve
national development erodes. Analysis in public policy implementation continually assumes a greater
significance. Public policy is not a bed of roses; it is often challenging and creative, many proposals faced
obstacles on their way to implementation. Most proposals do not survive and those that do, emerged mutilated or
distorted, so that they no longer serves their intended purposes. The objectives of the paper are to examine the
problems and challenges of policy implementation in Nigeria. The paper relies on secondary data for its
presentation and analysis. It is of the view that effective policy implementation can only be achieved not only
through a continuous political commitment and clear definition of responsibilities and coordination, but also
through genuine commitment to eradication of corruption at all levels of government.

Introduction
Public policy implementation has been described as the major problem confronting Nigeria in its effort to
achieve national development. Implementation often turn out to be the graveyard of many policies. From
experience, little attention is paid to the subject of policy implementation by policy makers. It is often taken for
granted that once a policy is adopted by government, it must be implemented and the desired goals achieved.
And in most cases little or no attention is paid to the problems and complexities associated with execution of
policies. Large amount of energy and resources are spent on designing and preparing plans for all kinds with
little or no thought given to the complex chains of reciprocal interactions and variables required and this can be
seen usually in the widening gap between intentions and results.
The situation of public policy implementation in Nigeria is best described by George Honadle and
Rudi Klauss, (cited from Egonmwan, 2009)
“Implementation is the nemesis of designers, it conjures up images of plans gone awry and of
social carpenters and masons who fail to build to specifications and thereby distort the beautiful
blue prints for progress which were handled to them. It provokes memories of good ideas that did
not work and places the blame on the second (and Second Class) member of the administration
team"
This is a typical situation in Nigeria, where the intention of designers of Policies are often underline by
constellation of powerful forces of politics and administration coupled with prevalence of high level corruption.
The resulting short-comings, difficulties and failures that have attended major policies in developing countries
have help to direct attention to the need for planning explicitly, management of policy implementation in which
adequate attention is paid to such factors as political variable and institutional capacity to execute and operate
development projects. It also led to the emergence of theories and models particularly during the period of the
United Nations second development plan decade in 1970, when emphasis shifted from plan formulation to plan
feasibility. These theoretical constructs have been designed to help policy makers, especially toward better
understanding of the problems of policy implementation. (Egonmwan 2009)

The Concept of Public Policy

It is sensible to begin our discussion of implementation with analysis of how public policy is perceived and
understood. Many scholars regard policy implementation as a separate activity which takes place after policy has
been formulated. Although this view is held because there is little appreciation of the fact that building support
for policies is an integral part of designing them. This widely held view on separation of policy design from
implementation has been attacked by scholars like Pressenca and Wildavsky (1973) as fatal from any sense of
direction. They argued that "the separation of policy formulation from implementation is fatal. It is not better
than mindless implementation without a sense of direction, though we can isolate policy formulation and policy
implementation for a separate discussion" (cited in Egonmwan 2009). However, a number of implementation
scholars make a conceptual distinction between policy formulation- and policy implementation. Example
Sabatier (1986), Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983). Chronologically, implementation is though to occur after the
adoption of a policy.

60
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.6, No.15, 2016

There are various ways in which the word "policy" is used. Many definitions of public policy abound
and may simply be futile trying to discover which is correct or proper. Henri (2006) traced back public policy to
4000 years to the Babylon city of Ur and defined it “as a course of action adopted and pursued by government
towards accomplishment of objectives”. Other definitions associated public policy with purposive behavior. In
this regard, Anifowose & Enemuo (2005) defined it as "purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of
actors in dealing with a problem or mater of concern". They further stressed that, at a broader level, it is
concerned with the relationship of the government units to its environment. On the other hand, Dye (1972)
simply defined public policy as "whatever government choose to do or not to do", though, he was criticized for
not taking cognizance of the gap between what government wants to do and what they actually do. However,
what makes public policies distinctive is that they are developed by governmental bodies and officials who
possess the authority to make decisions that are accepted as binding, so long they act within the limits of their
roles.
Basu (2006) has identified certain basic elements that distinguish public policy from other policies; as
follows:
i. Purposive or result oriented action rather than random behaviour is the hallmark of public policy.
ii. Public policy refers to the action or decisional pattern by public administrators on a particular issue over
a period rather than their separate discrete decisions on that matter in adhoc fashion.
iii. Policy is what government actually do and what subsequently happens rather than what they intend to
do or say.
iv. Public policy may be either positive are negative in form positively, it may involve some form of
government action regarding any issue or problem, negatively, it may involve a decision by government
officials not to take action on a matter on which government opinion, altitude or action is asked for.
v. Public policy is based on law is authoritative. It has legal sanction behind it, which is potentially
coercive in nature and is binding on all citizens.
As a course, of action public policy involves a number of activities that are carried out sequentially or
processually in district stages as follows:
a. Goal formulation involving multiple groups with varying and often conflicting objectives,
b. Problem identification and definition as a result of partial ignorance or problem situation.
c. Agenda setting involving attempts by individuals and groups to influence policy decisions.
d. Seeking of policy alternatives and evaluating such policy alternatives, that is analysis of policy options
and policy choice.
e. Policy execution by administrators after formal adoption i.e policy implementation.
f. Policy evaluation that is concern with estimation, assessment or appraisal of policy.

Implementation: Theoretical & Conceptual Framework

A concern with implementation emerged as an outgrowth of the renewed interest in the substance of policy
among post behavioural era. Political scientist and scholars such as Repley (1985) Austine Rannley (1968) and
Sharkansky (1970) argues that it become imperative and legitimate for political scientist to relate policy content
to characteristics of the policy making process. They emphasize that government performance can only be
improve through study and analysis of implementation. According to Pressman and Wildavsky (1984) “By
concentrating on the implementation of programs, as well as their initiation, we should be able to increase the
probability that policy promises will be realized”.
Public policy implementation has been described as one of the major problem confronting developing
countries. Egonmwan (2009) argues that "relativity, the successful implementation of public policy is difficult in
first world countries; it is more difficult in the third world, and may be most difficult in reform oriented
governments in the third world such as Africa and Latin America and most usually it is the problem of widening
gap between intentions and result". Weimer and Vinning (1992) buttress this point, by drawing the analogy
between implementation and marriage, "that if policy adoption is courtship, then implementation is marriage.
Courtship is a sort of coalition building in which the couple maneuvered to gain the support of their parents, they
often must seek the support of their own children from previous marriages. Not all courtships are successful,
however, with the wedding, begins implementation of the wedding agreements. The couple must constantly
work to keep the marriage healthy in ever changing environment. At some point, they may become so
accommodated to each other that the marriage stays healthy with little conscious effort. Perhaps achieving this
latter condition, though not always permanent, represents the closet we can come to declaring a successful
implementation".
Implementation scholars exhibit wide differences on a number of crucial issues. Where
implementation starts or end is riot settled. While implementation is commonly referred to a stage, boundaries
are not clear. Authors vary in their selection of critical factors affecting implementation. Criteria for evaluating
implementation success are conflicting. Moreover, the simplest, most straight forward path for implementation

61
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.6, No.15, 2016

has proven to be difficult.

Public policy implementation involves translating policy objectives into concrete reality. When all the
laws required to give effect to policies adopted have been put in place. The next logical stage is the actual
implementation of policy. Implementation refers to the process of converting inputs financial, information,
materials, technical, human, demand and support etc, into outputs -goods and services" (Egonmwan, 2009). It is
the stage that the earlier preparations, plans and designs are concretized. Brown and Wildavsky (1984) view
implementation "as a process of mutual adaptation in which policies and programmes adapt to their environment
and each alter the other". This suggests that implementation is a place in the life cycle of policy and indeed the
most crucial of all the other phases.
A number of implementation scholars make a conceptual distinction between policy formulation and
policy implementation, which for them means carrying out prior decision chronologically. Separating policy
from administration and the function of legislative bodies and administrative agencies are deeply entrenched
American values related to popular accountability and limited bureaucratic discretion. And it appeals to
democratic instincts to mark the start of implementation following the completion of policy making. Although
this view of policy administration dichotomy has been severely criticized by scholars like Jeffery Pressman and
"Widdavsky. The analysis of implementation needs to fee broad enough to include policy formulation and
impacts in order to be realistic and useful,

Factors That Affect Implementation

Among the most important contributions of the implementation literature has been to heighten sensitivity to the
numbers of factors that may adversely affect implementation. Many discoveries of factors affecting
implementation were not really new, but reformulations of public administration insights concerning
bureaucratic behavior and relations. The principals distinguishing feature of implementation analysis was the
overarching concern with policy consequences rather than structure or processes.
Many scholars have identified factors that are significant in the analysis of policy implementation.
Example Van Meter and Van Horn (3975) identified factors such as the characteristics of implementing agencies,
predisposition of implementers and resources as critical. Miolbrey McLaughlin (1978) emphasized the amount
of interest, commitment and support evidenced by principal actors had a major influence on the prospect for
success. However, there is a good deal of controversy in the implementation literature over which factors are
most important in determining implementation success or failure.
Lynn and Wildavsky (1992) further suggested that the challenge presented to implementers depends
very much on rhe problems passed along to them by policy formulators, success in implementing must be
evaluated within the context of particular problems, and critical factors affecting implementation will vary with
what is being attempted.
As implementation studies have multiplied, the list of variables affecting them have gotten longer. The
most comprehensive treatment can be found in the work of Egonmwan (2009), who identified the following
factors.

Content of Policy
The implementation of a programme is influenced by the interest affecting the content of a programme to the
extent that policy implementation seeks to introduce changes in social, political and economic relationships.
Those whose interests are threatened by such policy are bound to oppose it. And those who stand to gain are
bound to press for such policy. Sometimes, this generates conflict and competition and may make
implementation more difficult.
Policy implementation is also affected by the degree of behavioral change programme envisages, for
its intended beneficiaries. Programmes that are designed to achieve long range objectives may be more difficult
to implement than those whose advantages are immediately apparent to the beneficiaries.

Programme Implementors
The more active, the expert and personnel possessed by the implementing agency, the greater the support of the
political elites received by such agency and the greater access to resources it has, the more it is likely that such
agency can implement programmes successfully. The executive

The Context of Policy

Implementation of public policy involves various actors at various levels, each having a particular interest in the
programme. Thus the power base and strategies of actors involved in implementation can influence the course of
implementation. The characteristics of the various institutions and regimes as well as the compliance culture of
the people equally influence the implementation process and response of the people.

62
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.6, No.15, 2016

Environment
Environmental factors can influence or be influenced by the policy implementation. Environmental factors can
be thought of as a sort of constraining corridor through which the implementation or policy must be forced.
Different policies are implemented in differing cultural, social, political and economic conditions.

Problems of Policy Implementation in Nigeria

It is important to note that the bane of Nigeria's national development lies in its inability to implement policies
effectively, despite the enormous resources at the disposal of the government. Many policies have suffered at the
stage of implementation and hardly serve their intended purposes. Many scholars expressed their views on the
problems of policy implementation in Nigeria, While some problems are structural, others are environmental and
attitudinal. Some of the major problems are highlighted below:
i. Lack of Clear Definition of Goals;
Various governments in Nigeria have the obvious tendencies of pursuing multiple goals that in most cases are
complicated. Policy goals often lack clarity and consistency with demands of the people. Policy makers in
Nigeria assume that they know the needs of the target groups whose social situation they are attempting to
ameliorate and therefore see no need for clarity of goals. And it is obvious where policy goals are not clear,
implementation tend to be more difficult.
ii. Over Ambitious Policy Goals:
Many policies pursued by government tends to be over ambitious which largely affect how programmes and
policy goals arc decided. According to Egomnwan (2009) "the desire to establish the legitimacy of the political
regime by providing tangible evidence of improving conditions, create a situation in which the political leaders
are likely espouse policies that led to improvement of conditions of life, but may be not .realizable because of its
overambitious nature", Therefore, the scope, comprehensiveness and operationability of policies formulated gave
rise to serious bottlenecks during implementation. Vision 2020 & the present nine point agenda are some of such
policies.
iii. Lack of Appropriate Technology for implementation
Implementing agencies in most cases lack appropriate modern technology, managerial skill and administrative
capacity that are prerequisite for effective policy implementation, The procedures adopted in policy
implementation are such that are not consistent with policy goals. And sometimes cultural consideration hampers
adoption of modern technology in areas of programme implementation. Examples can be seen in the peoples
resistance of use of fertilizer because of traditional beliefs some decades ago; or the rejection of polio vaccines in
some northern states.
iv. Lack of Continuity Commitment to Policy
Change in government more often is accompanied by change in priorities. The situation tends to make
implementation more difficult in terms of switch over to entirely different priorities and objectives which
requires new organizations, personnel, resources and technology which are not always easy to provide. This led
to abandonment of many policies.
v. Lack of Clear Definition of Responsibility & Coordination
Many policies in Nigeria require the involvement of many agencies at different levels of government. Example
includes the policy on poverty reduction that was designed in phases and requires the involvement of so many
agencies across the three level of government. And there is absence of coordination and clear definition of
responsibility among the various agencies involved This factor led to the failure of the poverty alleviation policy.
vi. Comparison During Implementation
Compromises are made that usually undermines the basic policy goals are detrimental to successful execution of
programmes. For example the successive Housing policies in Kano failed because it turnout to be the means of
rewarding party loyalist and other economic and royal elites, thereby negating the basic goals of the policies of
providing housing to the general public.
vii. Corruption:
The corrupt tendencies of public officials and politicians in connivance with private organizations and
individuals have no doubt have a far reaching consequences on effective implementation of policies in the
country. Corruption has pervaded every aspect of our societal life. Ii can be seen not only in inflation of contract
figures or percentage negotiations, but outright diversion of billions of naira meant for one programme or
another. Agencies like EFCC and ICPC created to control and convert corruption have turnout be toothless
bulldogs with nothing to show compared to the high level corruption in the country. These corrupt practices can
easily be seen in the diversion of billions of US dollars aimed at providing enough power supply that will boost
the national economy, a case which is yet to be investigated.

Challenges
Challenges associated with policy implementation depend largely on the problems passed on to the implemented

63
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.6, No.15, 2016

by policy formulators and those that are inherent within the implementation stage itself. In Nigeria, however, the
most serious challenge is the ability of the government to eradicate corruption at all levels. Genuine commitment
to the eradication of corruption involves not only the empowerment of the various agencies charged with
responsibility of converting corruption with little interference by the government in their activities, but also the
prosecution of the perpetrators no matter, their social, economic and political standing in the society.
Secondly, mere is also the issue of including implementation plan and analysis within the broader
policy formulation framework, where the chains and multiples factors for successful policy implementation will
be considered and appropriate measures taken, that will provide for clear .definition of goals and coordination as
well as defined programme for achievement of goals.
More importantly, the ability of the politicians and bureaucrats to imbibe a culture of patriotism and
the necessary political will and commitment, that will ensure continuity in policy direction and resistance to
temptations and compromises that for long have been detrimental to the successful implementation of public
policies.
Lastly, the challenge is to the various civil society organizations, other professional bodies and private
individuals to pressurize the government for better public policy that will ensure the progress of the country,
through the various constitutional means and other democratic norms and traditions.

The Effects of These Problems and Challenges On National Development

Given the ample problems and challenges elaborated earlier, the question of national development looks quite
not obvious. National development been multi faceted phenomena, that is concerned with total transformation of
the political economic, social and cultural aspects of the society, requires, commitment and structures conducive
to implementation of development programmes. The impact of implementation of policies on any economy is of
vital importance. "The greatest problem hindering development of less developed countries like Nigeria is a lack
of implementation and or improper implementation of plans, programmes and projects". (Bernard N. Olewel995)
In recent times, there has been increasing pressures on the Nigerian government to provide basic essential
services such as education, health infrastructures, etc which was resulted form growing number of population,
coupled with high level of insecurity that engulfed most parts of the country. This is attributed to the high level
of poverty and unemployment. And it is evident, that where policy goals are over ambitious, not well articulated
and made explicit, implementation because more difficult and complicated, and it amounts to overstretching the
available resources for maximum impact and at the end nothing concrete is achieved. Secondly, in the absence of
Modem technology, managerial skills and administrative capacity in our public agencies responsible for
implementing projects and programmes, the resultant effects will be inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the
utilization of resources which lead to serious misappropriations and mismanagement. Thirdly, constant change in
policies or shifts in priorities that led to abandonment of many projects across the country, largely due to change
in government has the potential of making our national developments more difficult and led to compromises in
our development plans. At the end, government may likely loose focus and direction, which will invariably
affects our national development.
Lastly, national development will never be possible in the face of high level corruption that pervaded
all nooks and crannies of the country. The situation was so bad to the extent that it caught the attentions of
International organizations such as the World Bank and Transparency International, and Nigeria was ranked
among the most corrupt countries in the world. It can be' seen in the way billions of US dollars were squandered
in NEPA (Now Power Holding Company of Nigeria) and NNPC in recent years, At some point, the transparency
international is showing accusing finger st Aso Rock as been the most corrupt place in the country. And
Nigerians are yet to recover from the recent oil subsidy saga that amount to trillions of naira and still nothing has
been done to perpetrators. The effects of these corrupt practices will no doubt lead to lack of basic essentials like
education, health, food and shelter, And poverty, unemployment, arm robbery, kidnapping, militancy and
terrorism will be on the increase and the question of National development will be pipe dream.

Conclusion
Essentially, success in implementation must-be evaluated within the context of particular problems and critical
factors affecting implementation varies, and "success prone" policies are not always obvious. Effective
implementation is said to be partially preordained by good leadership that can be the significant political hidden
hand that guides disorganized and desperate interest to converge in support of implementing policy. External
monitoring of the implementation process was also a crucial variable. Constant and closer monitoring and
intervention on continue basis can greatly facilitate action.
Effective and successful policy implementation is the key to national development, it is a building
block that facilitate socio-economic and political progress and can only be achieved not only through a
continuous political commitment and clear definition of responsibilities and coordination, but also through
genuine commitment to eradication of corruption at all levels of government.

64
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.6, No.15, 2016

References
Anifowose R. and Enemuo E. (2000). Elements of Politics: Sara Iroanusi Publications Surulere Lagos.
Basu. R. (2004). Public Administration: Concepts and Theories 5th Edition: Sterlin Publishers Limited New
Delhi.
Bernard, N.O (1995). Development Administration: Grace Ventures Aba Port-Harcourt
Dye Thomas R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy: Eaglewood Ciffs NJ. Prentice Hall.
Eghe E. V. (2004). Rudiments of Public Administration: Joyce Graphic Publishers Co. Kaduna.
Egonmwan, J.A. (2003). Policy Failure in developing Countries, An issue deserving analysis; Ambil Press
Otiki-Odibi Benin City.
Egonmwan, J.A. (2009). Public Policy Analysis, Concepts and Application: Resyin Nig, Company Benin
City.
Henri N. (2006). Public Administration and Public Affairs: 9th Edition: Prentice Hall India New Delhi.
Lynn B.N. Wildavasky A. (1992). Public Administration, The state of the discipline: Chatham House Publishers
Inc. New Jersey.
Ngu S.M. (2006). Policy Analysis and Policy issues: ABU Press Zaria.
Weimer L.D, and Vining R.A. (1995)Policy Analysis, Concepts & Practice: Prentice Hall.

65