Sections

Research

Turning policy into action in Africa

Overcoming policy failures and bridging implementation gaps for real-world impact

Many hands reach together, as if to kick off a project
Shutterstock/Rawpixel.com
Editor's note:

This essay opens Chapter 4 of Foresight Africa 2025-2030, which dives into the state of governance across Africa, with particular focus on how African governments are meeting the priorities and needs of African citizens.

A policy landscape marked by uneven implementation outcomes

One of the biggest challenges policymakers face around the world is bridging the gap between policy intentions and implementation outcomes, whether in meeting public demand for development, education, health, security, or foreign policy, or achieving more specific policy goals. Successful policy implementation is critical at every level of policymaking in both advanced and developing economies, yet its drivers are often overlooked and underexplored, and policymakers do not often engage with the literature on policy implementation. This is especially salient when it comes to addressing Africa’s development challenges. This essay addresses the existing shortfalls by providing a concise, systematic account of the causes of policy failures and implementation gaps. It proposes an integrated policy implementation model that builds on the drivers of successful implementation and offers context-specific actionable options to bridge the implementation gap while strengthening governance and policymaking for the effective delivery of policy outcomes that meet the expectations of citizens and stakeholders.

Successful policy implementation is critical at every level of policymaking in both advanced and developing economies, yet its drivers are often overlooked and underexplored.

The effect of implementation challenges on achieving sustainable development

Even in cases where there is an overall alignment of motivation, resources, and plans, there is often a divergence in policy successes and failures both between and within continents, countries, cities, etc. For example, despite global coordination on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which spell out clear targets and a range of strategies to achieve them, globally, only 16% are on track to be met by the 2030 deadline, while 84% are facing limited progress or a reversal of progress. Uneven levels of policy success are apparent both across and within regions and continents. Across regions, countries like Finland, Sweden, and Denmark score 85 (out of 100) or more across the 125 indicators that make up the SDG index, whereas countries such as Yemen, Afghanistan, and Papua New Guinea score only 46.9, 48.2, and 52.0 points respectively. Similarly, within Africa, Tunisia, Morocco, and Mauritius lead the way with over 70 points according to the 2024 ranking, while Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are lagging with less than 50 points. Overall, the gap in SDG achievement between the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries and the global average has widened since 2015.

Implementation challenges are bound up with governance, fragility, and public opinion

Divergence in policy outcomes is not unique to the SDGs. Despite global efforts to combat state fragility through the infusion of resources and the implementation of numerous policies, many countries “have remained ‘trapped’ in fragility for decades.” The “complexity and multidimensionality of fragility” make policy implementation strategies critical to success and explain how the same region can experience a wide range of outcomes. For example, according to the Fragile States Index, Africa is home to 14 of the 20 most fragile countries in the world, yet it is also home to Mauritius, one of the least fragile states in the world, which outperforms countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, and Costa Rica.

Policy implementation success—and, importantly, policy implementation failure—do not go unnoticed by the public. According to new data from Afrobarometer, of 39 African countries surveyed, “only a quarter (26%) of citizens say their government is doing ‘fairly well’ or ‘very well’ in managing the economy, while 71% think they are doing a poor job.” More specifically, the public’s approval of their government’s ability to deliver is strikingly low: Only 22% approve of their governments’ efforts to improve the living standards of the poor, 20% approval on creating jobs, 16% for narrowing income gaps, and 12% for keeping prices stable.

These low approval ratings are reflected in governance trends at large. According to the Mo Ibrahim Index report, overall governance performance scores have deteriorated across Africa for 47.9% of the population (across 21 countries) and have improved for 52.1% of the population (across 33 countries) in the past decade (2014-2023). However, improvement has mostly stalled since 2018. The deterioration of some countries (e.g., Botswana, Mauritius, Namibia, and Tunisia are among the top 10 scorers in governance performance as of the 2023 rankings, yet are also some of the countries that have deteriorated the most since 2014) and the improvement of others (e.g., Seychelles is the best performing and most improved) reflect how policy implementation is a continuous process that, without coordination, can lead to diverging policy outcomes.

Review of the policy implementation literature: Various approaches to a complex issue

What drives different policy outcomes when it comes to effective service delivery and good governance? The study of policy implementation provides frameworks for understanding how contextual factors impact the success or failure of policies and can help policymakers better address the implementation gap. While scholars agree that implementation cannot be understood through a single theory, the following systematic review of the implementation literature can help explain why and how the implementation gap exists.

Scholars offer many definitions of implementation, but at its core, implementation refers to how a practice, activity, or policy will be carried out, and implementation science is the study of “how best to engage in the delivery of specific innovations.” Early research on implementation gaps identified a number of decision points—what has been referred to as the “complexity of joint action”—that create a barrier to implementation and serve as the foundation for the following models. Top-down policy implementation models emphasize the ability of top authorities to administer policies and the availability of resources, often focusing attention on policy enforcers rather than those affected by a policy. These models measure policy success by evaluating legislative objectives. Bottom-up implementation models, on the other hand, emphasize the perspectives of service deliverers and those affected by a policy, often focusing on flexibility and the need to adapt policies to local conditions based on standards developed by users and deliverers.

While these models are the most often discussed, other approaches which may or may not contain elements of top-down or bottom-up approaches, exist. Governance approaches attempt to synthesize the different stages of the implementation process. One example is the “quality implementation framework” which includes four phases, each of which is considered a variable of implementation success or failure: 1) initial considerations regarding the host setting, 2) creating an implementation structure, 3) the ongoing structure post-start, and 4) improving future applications. The literature also discusses potential causes of failure, often pointing to the level of ambiguity of a particular intervention, the degree of discretion of front-line implementers, access to funding and resources, and politics and conflict as key determinants of policy failure.

An integrated policy implementation model for effective delivery

How can these models and approaches be integrated in a systematic way to allow policymakers to bridge the implementation gap between policy intentions and policy outcomes? In the context of this review of the implementation literature, I expand and apply an explanatory model for different outcomes in effective policy implementation that builds on Matland’s integrated implementation model complemented by my work on the causes of policy failure, and an expansion of the drivers of successful implementation.

Matland’s ambiguity-conflict model reconciles both top-down and bottom-up models in an integrated approach to propose that, within a given context, degrees of 1) policy ambiguity and 2) policy conflict impact the factors driving the success or failure of policy implementation. The level of policy ambiguity depends on how clear the goals or means of a policy are and can vary based on the availability of technology, the degree of coordination among players, and the ability to leverage tools or financing to reach a goal. For example, high policy ambiguity might exist within public service delivery if the tools, technology, or means of coordination required to deliver on a policy are not clear. The level of policy conflict depends on the intensity of disputes or incompatibilities between different players over the means or goals of a policy. For example, policy conflict might exist within public service delivery when there are political disagreements or divergences among players that make it impossible to move public service delivery forward.

Four implementation scenarios emerge from four possible combinations of policy ambiguity and policy conflict (Table 3). Each of these scenarios represents a unique context, that, if properly understood, can yield insight into what factors might be the most impactful for overcoming implementation barriers to achieving public service delivery outcomes. These scenarios can be identified at various levels—from countries to ministries to specific policies—and can change over time and across different implementation phases. Despite these varied and layered configurations, the model can help disentangle specific barriers to implementation and lead policymakers toward actionable policy options.

Ambiguity-conflict model of policy impelmentation, revisited

Low policy ambiguity and low policy conflict: Administrative implementation

In contexts where both policy ambiguity and policy conflict are low, a focus on “administrative” implementation is needed, with the most important factors for overcoming implementation barriers being the availability of resources, motivation, learning, staff competency, and processes. For example, when government actors and external actors agree (low conflict) that digital health services could help more citizens access health care and improve health outcomes (low ambiguity), a solution can be implemented if the technology and resources are available. In the Central African Republic, actors agree that security forces are needed for enforcing citizen security (low policy ambiguity and conflict), but insufficient resources hinder successful implementation. Potential solutions, therefore, include securing technical knowledge and investing in available financing.

High policy ambiguity and high policy conflict: Symbolic implementation

In contexts where policy ambiguity and policy conflict are both high, a focus on “symbolic” implementation is needed. In this case, the most important factors for overcoming implementation barriers are the strength of the coalition on the local level and the most important strategies include strengthening democracy and building capacity. For example, if the goal of a public service program is unclear (high policy ambiguity) and multiple players are trying to impose a way forward (high policy conflict), implementation will become highly political and dominated by local actors as different coalitions form and coercion and bargaining become the means to arriving at a solution. For example, Nigeria’s attempt to implement a diversity program within the civil service recruitment process, known as the Federal Character Principle, has yet to achieve the diversity it sought to create since its addition to the constitution in 1999. This is due to ambitious and unclear goals (high policy ambiguity) and the numerous political cleavages have led to immense differences of opinion on how to best implement the policy, either weighted by the population of each state or a set number per state (high policy conflict). The implementation of the policy depends on the perception that leaders hold and their responses.

In contexts where fragility, violence, and instability are prevalent, such as Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, and Mali, the delivery of public services, especially in alignment with a long-term implementation plan, becomes extremely complex. Leaders in fragile democracies or transitional governments are likely to be preoccupied with a multitude of problems and with the quest for power. In such contexts, resources alone will not be enough to implement public service policy goals. In addition to resources, these countries will need to focus on reducing conflict, supporting democratic elections, and informing and incentivizing leaders to commit to solutions.

Low policy ambiguity and high policy conflict: Political implementation

In contexts with low policy ambiguity and high policy conflict, a focus on “political” implementation is needed, with the most important factors for overcoming implementation barriers being strong political direction and sound governance among other top-down considerations. This combination appears when the goals of a policy are clearly defined (low policy ambiguity), but the means or steps to achieving these goals are contested among players (high policy conflict), either or both internally or externally. For example, a government might have figured out how to adopt and expand electronic financial systems, but external conflict from the informal sector, which might have competing interests, could threaten successful implementation. In Chad, despite a widespread belief in the need to preserve resources (low policy ambiguity), leaders often disagree on how to prioritize government spending (high policy conflict), leading to saving policies that are highly impacted by commodity prices. Whoever has the power and whether or not they can promote compliance in these contexts will be the deciding factors of if, or how, public service delivery will be implemented. Accountable leadership will be key.

High policy ambiguity and low policy conflict: Experimental implementation

In contexts with high policy ambiguity and low policy conflict, a focus on “experimental” implementation is needed, with the most important factors for overcoming implementation barriers being contextual conditions, institutional factors, organizational structure, and culture. For example, in countries that have the political commitment to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (low policy conflict) but lack clarity as to the means to achieve such goals (high policy ambiguity), implementation will rely on experimental factors. Most African countries are facing such a challenge. By aligning the goals and means, actors can move toward taking action to implement their policies. Potential solutions may include focusing on evaluation, enabling knowledge development and transfer, bolstering the role of civil society organizations, and aligning goals with institutions.

Conclusion

This extended version of Matland’s model in conjunction with other implementation science models can help leaders think systematically through an aspect of public policy that is often overlooked: The different factors that might be more or less important for overcoming implementation barriers within a given context. While resources will always be necessary, it is clear from these four scenarios that they will likely need to be complemented by other interventions to successfully bridge the implementation gap. Given the vast differences between the 54 African countries, and the fact that continents, regions, countries, ministries, and policies move across the spectrum of policy conflict and ambiguity, leaders must constantly evaluate contextual conditions to better understand the necessary drivers of successful implementation. By doing so, attempts to improve governance can find a firm foundation, and true commitment to moving beyond strategies and goals and toward strategic action can take shape.

Related viewpoints

  • Footnotes
    1. Landry Signé, “Policy Implementation – A Synthesis of the Study of Policy Implementation and the Causes of Policy Failure,” OCP Policy Center, no. PP-17/03 (2017), https://www.policycenter.ma/sites/default/files/OCPPC-PP1703.pdf: 28; Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky, Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It’s Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga . . . Morals on a Foundation, Third edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); “Chapter 2: ‘Enhancing Governance for Development: Why Policies Fail,’” in World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law (Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2017), 51–81, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017; I have contrasted the findings in the World Development Report 2017 with the early thinking ideas from which this report builds: Landry Signé, “Why Do Development Policies Often Fail in Africa? Perspectives on the World Development Report 2017” Africa Up Close – Wilson Center (blog), December 2017, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/why-do-development-policies-often-fail-in-africa-perspectives-on-the-world-development-report-2017.
    2. Landry Signé, “Public Service Delivery – What Matters for Successful Implementation and What Can Policy Leaders Do?,” OCP Policy Center PP-17/04 (2017): 24, https://www.policycenter.ma/publications/public-service-delivery-%E2%80%93-what-matters-successful-implementation-and-what-can-policy.
    3. Landry Signé, “Development Strategies in a Changing Global Political Economy” in Development Co-Operation Report 2023: Debating the Aid System (Paris: OECD, 2023), 26, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/development-co-operation-report-2023_bdba0621-en; Landry Signé, African Development, African Transformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108575041; Landry Signé, Innovating Development Strategies in Africa: The Role of International, Regional and National Actors (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316779699.
    4. Jeffrey Sachs, Guillaume Lafortune, and Grayson Fuller, “The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future. Sustainable Development Report 2024” (Dublin: Dublin University Press, 2024), https://doi.org/10.25546/108572.
    5. The respective scores are as follows: Tunisia (75.53 points), Morocco (70.85 points), and Mauritius (70.45 points) are leading the way, while Chad (45.07 points), Somalia (45.42 points), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (48.71 points) are lagging.
    6. Sachs, Lafortune, and Fuller, “The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future. Sustainable Development Report 2024.”
    7. Landry Signé, “Leaving No Fragile State and No One Behind in a Prosperous World: A New Approach,” in Leave No One behind: Time for Specifics on the Sustainable Development Goals., ed. Homi Kharas, John W. McArthur, and Izumi Ohno (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2019), https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LNOB_Chapter11.pdf.
    8. Signé, “Leaving No Fragile State and No One Behind in a Prosperous World: A New Approach.”
    9. “Fragile States Index,” (The Fund for Peace), accessed December 9, 2024, https://fragilestatesindex.org/excel/.
    10. Josephine Appiah-Nyamekye Sanny, “Africans’ Bleak Views of Economic Conditions Match Their Escalating Experience of Poverty, Afrobarometer Surveys Find” (Accra: Afrobarometer, May 27, 2024), https://www.afrobarometer.org/articles/africans-bleak-views-of-economic-conditions-match-their-escalating-experience-of-poverty-afrobarometer-surveys-find/.
    11. Appiah-Nyamekye Sanny. “Africans’ Bleak Views of Economic Conditions Match Their Escalating Experience of Poverty, Afrobarometer Surveys Find.”
    12. “2024 Ibrahim Index of African Governance: Index Report” (Accra, Ghana: Mo Ibrahim Foundation, October 2024), https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/sites/default/files/2024-10/2024-index-report.pdf.
    13. Africa’s overall governance score has not improved since 2018, aside from a +0.1-point increase in 2022, according to the Mo Ibrahim Index Report.
    14. Landry Signé, “How to Implement Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Successfully for Effective Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: An Innovative Policy Delivery Model,” OCP Policy Center PB-16/23 (July 2016), https://www.policycenter.ma/publications/how-implement-domestic-resource-mobilization-drm-successfully-effective-delivery: 10; Jamie F Chriqui et al., “Advancing the Science of Policy Implementation: A Call to Action for the Implementation Science Field,” Translational Behavioral Medicine 13, no. 11 (November 5, 2023): 820–25, https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad034.
    15. Bertrand Badie, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino, eds., “Implementation,” in International Encyclopedia of Political Science (SAGE Publications, Inc., 2011), https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412994163.
    16. Signé, “Policy Implementation – A Synthesis of the Study of Policy Implementation and the Causes of Policy Failure.”
    17. Abraham Wandersman et al., “Bridging the Gap Between Prevention Research and Practice: The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation,” American Journal of Community Psychology 41, no. 3 (June 1, 2008): 171–81, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z.
    18. Per Nilsen et al., “Never the Twain Shall Meet? – A Comparison of Implementation Science and Policy Implementation Research,” Implementation Science 8 (2013): 63, https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-63; Trisha Greenhalgh et al., “Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations,” Milbank Quarterly 82, no. 4 (December 2004): 581–629, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x; R. Grol, “Twenty Years of Implementation Research,” Family Practice 17, no. 90001 (February 1, 2000): 32S – 35, https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/17.suppl_1.S32.
    19. Pressman and Wildavsky, Implementation; Badie, Berg-Schlosser, and Morlino, “Implementation.”
    20. Paul A. Sabatier, “Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis,” Journal of Public Policy 6, no. 1 (1986): 21–48; Daniel A. Mazmanian, Implementation and Public Policy: With a New Postscript (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989).
    21. Lucie Cerna, “The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different Theoretical Approaches,” Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2013, 31.
    22. Steven Maynard-Moody, Michael Musheno, and Dennis Palumbo, “Street-Wise Social Policy: Resolving the Dilemma of Street-Level Influence and Successful Implementation,” The Western Political Quarterly 43, no. 4 (1990): 833–48, https://doi.org/10.2307/448738; Benny Hjern and Chris Hull, “Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalism – HJERN – 1982 – European Journal of Political Research,” European Journal of Political Research 10, no. 2 (June 1982): 105–15, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1982.tb00011.x; Richard F. Elmore, “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions,” Political Science Quarterly 94, no. 4 (1979): 601–16, https://doi.org/10.2307/2149628; Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, Publications of Russell Sage Foundation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980).
    23. Søren C. Winter, “Implementation Perspectives: Status and Reconsideration” in The Sage Handbook of Public Administration, ed. B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, D.C.: SAGE Publications, 2012), 265–78, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292392013_Implementation_Perspectives_Status_and_Reconsideration.
    24. Another model is the rational choice model, which focuses on the assumption of fixed preferences and rational behavior to explain implementation success. Some scholars also rely on game theory to explain potential collaboration throughout the implementation process and opportunities to influence cooperation. As some scholars have noted, rational choice models may be more helpful in understanding how decisions were made after the fact, rather than how they came to be; Signé, “Policy Implementation – A Synthesis of the Study of Policy Implementation and the Causes of Policy Failure.”
    25. Duncan C. Meyers, Joseph A. Durlak, and Abraham Wandersman, “The Quality Implementation Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process,” American Journal of Community Psychology 50, no. 3 (December 1, 2012): 462–80, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.
    26. Signé, “Policy Implementation – A Synthesis of the Study of Policy Implementation and the Causes of Policy Failure.”
    27. Signé, “How to Implement Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Successfully for Effective Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: An Innovative Policy Delivery Model.”
    28. Richard E. Matland, “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 5, no. 2 (1995): 145–74, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1181674.
    29. Signé, “Policy Implementation – A Synthesis of the Study of Policy Implementation and the Causes of Policy Failure;” Causes of failure include ambiguity in a particular intervention, implementers at the front lines, funding and resources, and politics, conflict, and the political economy.
    30. Signé, “Public Service Delivery – What Matters for Successful Implementation and What Can Policy Leaders Do?”; Some drivers of implementation include resources; motivation, learning; staff competency, processes, power, autonomy, governance, leadership, contextual conditions, institutional factors, organizational structure, culture, coalition strength, incentives and constraints, network management, and communication.
    31. Matland, “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature.”
    32. Signé, “How to Implement Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Successfully for Effective Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: An Innovative Policy Delivery Model.”
    33. Signé, “Why Do Development Policies Often Fail in Africa?”
    34. Signé, “How to Implement Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Successfully for Effective Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: An Innovative Policy Delivery Model.”
    35. Timothy Onimisi and Shakira Hannah Osasona, “Factors Affecting Effective Policy Implementation in Nigeria: Focus on Federal Character Principle,” Zamfara Journal of Politics and Development 2, no. 1 (2021): 12–12.
    36. Signé, “How to Implement Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Successfully for Effective Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: An Innovative Policy Delivery Model.”
    37. “Sahel Human Development Report 2023: Sustainable Energy for Economic and Climate Security in the Sahel” (New York: UNDP, January 2024), 9789210030571, https://www.undp.org/africa/publications/sahel-human-development-report-2023.
    38. Signé, “Leaving No Fragile State and No One Behind in a Prosperous World: A New Approach.”
    39. Signé, “How to Implement Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Successfully for Effective Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: An Innovative Policy Delivery Model.”
    40. Signé, “Why Do Development Policies Often Fail in Africa?”; “Regional Focus: Africa’s Oil Exporters: Balancing Saving and Spending,” IMF Survey 36, no. 009 (May 31, 2007), https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451938432.023.A008.
    41. Signé, “How to Implement Domestic Resource Mobilization (DRM) Successfully for Effective Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa: An Innovative Policy Delivery Model.”
    42. Chriqui et al., “Advancing the Science of Policy Implementation.”

The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).