Analysis of the Key Factors for Successful Public Policy Implementation: A Qualitative Study in Slovenia

Political leaders and policy makers, as well as bureaucrats shaping public policies, regularly face strategic decisions with uncertain future consequences due to the constant societal changes. The outcomes often depend on a variety of difficult to predict factors beyond their control (Volkery and Ribeiro, 2009). The reality of public policy decision-making is by definition met in conditions of high degree of uncertainty and complexity. In the last decades, design and implementation of PPPPs have been both contextually and methodologically, well elaborated in the academic literature (Howlett et al., 2015; Mintrom and Luetjens, 2017). Although a lot of research has been conducted so far, it has been without exception conducted in the specific policy area(s), which means that a systematic comprehensive analysis of the key factors influencing the process of public policy design and implementation, applicable widely for all or most policy areas, is still missing.

The main focus of public policy studies, that is classified as a subsection of a wider discipline of political sciences (Cairney, 2013), has long been how to explain public policy processes and their outputs in the form of particular policy instruments. Researchers in this political science subfield study the formation, the processes and developments of public policy-making and public policy change, and aim to clarify why particular public policy approaches appear to be more successful than the other. In order to better understand the complexity of public policy processes, researchers regularly narrow down the focus on a subset of main public policy players frequently included in public policy formation in a given public policy area, like environmental policy or health policy. However, contemporary complex environment requires (more) interdisciplinary approach already at the lower and even more importantly at the higher governance levels (Raadschelders, 2011).

One of the frequently disregarded questions in political science and public administration is about the intriguing relationship between politicians and bureaucrats and how governance and administration are related to each other (Svara, 2006). Literature (May, Workman and Jones, 2008; Robinson, Caver, Meier and O’Toole, 2007; Workman, Jones and Jochim, 2009) assumes a greater role of the public administration (bureaucracy) in the earlier stages of policy-making process. Public administration is politically independent from the politics in the policy execution, although some degree of dichotomy among the two is necessary (Rahman, 2015). Bureaucracy is considered the instrument of government to prepare the legislation in order to address public challenges through the implementation of targeted policies and subsequent evaluation of public policy impacts (Kerwin and Furlong, 2018). However, in fact, bureaucracy often plays a pivotal role in shaping public policy environment and directing public policies, especially under certain conditions, which may arise during the interval between the old and the newly elected government, lack of national strategies and plans, upon the arrival of inexperienced political structures on high political positions, or from covert ideological / political action of the bureaucracy. These problems can be especially acute in politically unstable countries with a short democratic tradition and weak state institutions. Such a practice can be very perilous, as it can escalate to a significant democratic deficit and other structural anomalies in the functioning of the government bodies. The search for the balanced role of the bureaucracy is delicate and must be supported by different systemic measures, such as; adequate legislation, the existence of strategic guidelines and action plans in the priority areas of state action, quality functioning of institutions, constant and comprehensive political (parliamentary) oversight, effective dialogue with civil society and non-governmental organisations, etc.

In the 1950s the theory of public policy cycles was developed by Harold Lasswell in the USA, where he proposed an innovative idea by describing public policy science as being multidisciplinary, problem-solving and explicitly normative. Nowadays, there is a consensus among academia that public policy cycle consists of five stages (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003), namely: (1) agenda-setting, (2) public policy formulation, (3) public policy decision-making, (4) public policy implementation and (5) public policy evaluation. Though all five are significant, three of them – agenda-setting, formulation and implementation – are vital to understanding public policy cycles. However, for successful implementation of public policies and their perpetual adaptation, it is of the upmost importance to carry out all phases of the public policy cycle, including evaluation with correctional measures, in order to follow sound public governance principles, again on various political as well as administrative levels (Ongaro and van Thiel, 2018).

Good governance theory is becoming the dominant political theory to analyse contemporary political affairs (see Keping, 2018, Ongaro and van Thiel, 2018, etc.). It denotes a legitimate, accountable, and effective way of obtaining and using public powers and resources in the pursuit of widely-accepted goals (Johnston, n.d.), and refers to public administration process that maximises public interest. Good governance comprises the active cooperation between citizens and the government, where the key to its success lies in the stakeholders participating in public debate and deliberation, and ensuing in public policy-making. In practice, good governance is established within a network among the government bureaucracy, interest groups, business, and civil society (Keping, 2018; Kooiman, 2003). Cooperation and engagement of multiple stakeholders contributing different views in political arena results in more robust and popularly legitimate public policies serving needs and expectantly benefiting the largest possible number of citizens. Besides scholars, numerous international organisations follow at least some of the respective principles outlined in the good governance theory, such as United Nations, OECD, IMF, and European Commission. A set of principles from this theory relies primarily on: participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and strategic vision. Due to the feasibility of the research, the limitations of the selected qualitative methodological approach, and, in the light of the priority deficiencies identified in the Slovenian national context, in this paper we focus on the impact of the following factors stressed out in the good governance theory, namely: rule of law (normative factors), effectiveness and efficiency (methodological/procedural factors), and strategic vision (strategic factors).

The rule of law, as one of the nine essential principles of good governance, implies that the law is the supreme principle in public administration, which ought to be respected by all government officials and citizens. The instant goal of the rule of law is the management of social affairs, regulation of citizen's behaviour, and maintenance of normal order in social life. The definitive goal of the rule of law is to protect citizens’ political rights like equality or freedom. In this view, the “rule of law” is an elementary prerequisite of good governance, that could be impossible without a firm legal system, including the respect for the law and a social order based on the law (Graham, Plumptre and Amos, 2003; Kovač and Bileišis, 2017). The role of the legal factors is in defining the relevant values and determining responsibilities in pursuing the public interest (Bennett and Howlett, 1992).

Strategic elements in a form of strategies, action plans, regulations, directives, and recommendations, etc. formulate practical instruments that direct the functioning of institutions and stakeholders, and may be used to create synergies between all participants by working together on a local, regional, national or European level (Council of Europe, 2018; European Union, 2018). The establishment of a strategic framework for public policies helps to ensure that individual policies are consistent with overarching government goals and long-term priorities (Bache and Flinders, 2004). The IFAC study (IFAC, 2004) demonstrates that strategic factors are very important, but not sufficient within government public policy process when determining the success or failure of particular policy. To offer guidance, the European Union adopts a number of strategic and legal documents for all major areas (EC, 2015; European Parliament and the Council, 2016). In our research these documents are considered as strategic factors, and are more or less consistently followed at national level (e.g. (MJU, 2015)). In the last years, however, for various reasons some EU Member States have been producing different strategic documents of doubtful quality (e.g. MJU, 2015) mainly due to requirements (and some recommendations) of the European institutions and not due to their own initiative.

Methodological/procedural factors are presented in this paper in association with effectiveness and efficacy as one of the characteristics of good governance theory (UNDP, 1997). Effective and efficient governance involves existence of measurable public policy objectives, indicators and target values. In pursuit of pre-determined public policy objectives, we must also consider the processes that enable the implementers to easily follow instructions when executing their agenda. Policy-makers, therefore, need to use adequate methodological tools in order to properly execute all five stages of public policy cycle. As defined and understood in this paper, procedural/methodological factors are translated into the subcategories, consisted of the following activities concerning the public policy cycle: how much emphasis is given to the analysis and impact assessment of the particular public policy, existence of relevant field related indicators, comprehensive and systematic approach to decision-making process(es), preparation of alternative solutions, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of public policies, and concrete actions and general development of public policy(ies).

Not only the environment determines the normative expectations for particular public policy, but institutions themselves are also able to form the expectations and perceptions of the environment (Scott, 1995). Designing and implementing public policies are engagements where substantial institutional work is essential for their achievement. Institutional theory explains public policy changes promoted by institutions where rules, norms, routines and environment become guidelines for accepted behaviour. Institutions, in this sense, are the “rules of the game” which govern social exchanges undertaken by organisations and individuals (North, 1990). Institutional theory deepens the understanding about the normative, coercive, and mimetic institutional dynamics that shape decisions of the government about the adoption and implementation of particular public policy. As a result, organisations that meet the environment's expected characteristics receive legitimacy and prove worthy of resources by community and the broader society (Toma, Dubrow and Hartley, 2005). Rather than optimising their internal processes and decisions, organisations are inspired by their peers for hints and cues to achieve appropriate behaviour and decision making (Marquis and Tilcsik, 2016). In public policy context, institutional theory is defined as a “policy-making that emphasizes the formal and legal aspects of government structures” (Kraft and Furlong, 2007). In this way, institutional environment may have a powerful effect on the development of formal structures in an organisation that are frequently more profound than market pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 2000; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Institutional factors are defined as a degree of embeddedness of responsibility/jurisdiction for the implementation of a particular public policy in hierarchical structure of public administration. Furthermore, Stoker (Stoker, 2006) claims that closed (public) institutions and ambiguity about where ultimate responsibility for decisions rests create a major problem of accountability for decision making. Consequently, an inadequate institutional placement often also means weak competencies and jurisdiction, poor project management and control, which can seriously affect the success of the public policies implementation.

Economic/financial factors play an important role in the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory is highly influenced by economics and assumes that in decision-making individuals are rational actors that seek to maximise their welfare or further their self-interest (Kraft and Furlong, 2007). The rational choice, also called public choice theory, focuses on public or collective choices as opposed to the private choices of individuals analysed by conventional micro-economic view (Buchanan, 1999). The foundational assumption of the rational choice theory is the underlying belief that homo economicus equals homo politicus. The rational choice theory states that self-interest is the cornerstone of political behaviour where economics can provide rules for rational consumers and producers (Downs, 1957). Economic and financial aspect plays an important role in the design and implementation of PPPPs, whereas execution of PPPPs including costs for qualified human resources is critically dependent on available funding (Laforet, 2011). Financial capital is one of the resources required by organisations (government institutions) to start, operate or grow and one of the main prerequisites for technological innovation (Lecerf, 2012). In the area of economic/financial factors, we are largely interested in how the structure and financial resources influence the performance of public policy design and implementation. Further, we are interested whether the economic/financial factors are predominant in pursuing individual development policy strategic objectives.

Having available expert human resources within public organisations, combined with adequate human resource strategy is crucially important for the public policy-making process. Human resource management addresses the people-flow subsystem, its objectives, human resources structure, competences, rewarding and interpersonal relations among others (Bamberger, Meshoulam and Biron, 2014). Human factors have also proven to be a significant force for or against the successful implementation of policies (Al-Mamari, Corbitt and Oyaro Gekara, 2013). On the other side, for reaching the maximum potential of human resources, it is important that the entire public policy-making cycle is well arranged, streamlined and controlled (Minor, Bergmann and Görg, 2014), which depends on organisational factors. Another important factor is the availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to support design, implementation and execution of public policies (Woolthuis, Lankhuizen and Gilsing, 2005). Literature review (Gichoya, 2005) demonstrates a large deficit concerning ICT support in the processes of public policy-making. Organisational/human resources/ICT support factors were combined into one multifaceted factor in our analysis.

Attempts to draft a roadmap for design and implementation of public policies have raised numerous questions about the appropriate government strategy, organisational structure, the role and power of the government, financial appropriations, and suitable methodology framework that does the job. Those areas remain some of the most interesting questions in public policy research. Scholars in the field have largely borrowed theoretical themes from political, law, social, organisational, economic, and management sciences to explore and clarify the phenomenon of public policy design and policy-making through the lens of such established theories. Since there is no unified overarching theory to cover all the relevant factors for successful design and implementation of PPPPs, the paper presents a selection of relevant public policy theories that in our understanding most suitably embrace the nature, role, significance and interdependence of the observed factors. In this paper, we applied these public policy theories to examine the entire notion of design and implementation of PPPPs in Slovenia. On this theoretical basis, we have defined strategic, institutional, normative, economic/financial, organisational/human resources/ICT support and methodological/procedural factors, which according to underlined theories; have an effect on the design and implementation of public policies, and development of programs, and projects (Table 1).

The list of selected key factors affecting PPPPs cycle is based on the political and economic position of Slovenia and its membership in the EU (since 2004), relatively small size of the country, its transitional context including the post-socialist legacy and Rechtsstaat, and consequent policy gaps in the implementation thereof, etc. (Kovač and Bileišis, 2017; Raadschelders, 2011; Vintar, Aristovnik and Klun, 2018). Nevertheless, as explained further in the methodology section, we have kept open the possibility to discover and identify potential new factors, which could have a critical impact on policy-making cycle.

The paper employs an explanatory and exploratory content analysis research design supported by the broad review of the literature and investigation of numerous sources containing problem-related content. Content analysis method was applied on structured interviews and object-oriented discussions with the prominent experts in the field. The research on the role and significance of the selected factors for successful design and implementation of public policies in Slovenia, and their interdependence and impact on the performance of public policies was conducted from February to September 2017. A selection of the research method was adapted to the particularities of the research problem and their implications (Kotnik and Kovač, 2018; Thomas, 2006; Yin, 2017). Since this research is largely exploratory in nature, quantitative empirical methods could not yield satisfactory results. Accordingly, the content analysis was considered the most favourable methodological approach in understanding this complex field of research. Structured interviews were used as the main data collection technique during the formative research phase.

Selection of the potential interviewees was based primarily on their expertise and experience. Hence, the selection process (Mencinger, Kovač, Jukić and Vintar, 2017; Yin, 2017) itself was predominantly focused on: (1) covering the most relevant public policies for the operation of the Slovenian public administration and beyond (using the classification of PPPPs, defined by the Ministry of Finance), (2) long-term professional experience in developing, enforcing and implementing changes in public policies. Good knowledge of structural, organisational and contextual characteristics of public policy-making process in Slovenia by the selected interviewees was supposed to ensure credibility and validity of their views, and recommendations as well as to facilitate constructive participation in the research. In order to obtain the dependable results, the participants had to meet very high professional standards. A non-random stratified sampling approach was used to ensure a representative sample of experts that satisfy the required conditions. The final sample size comprised 22 prominent experts from cross-sectional areas strongly related to public policy-making concept, which have already been engaged in the similar undertakings over the past years. 22 interviewees were chosen from 15 key areas (spatial planning policy, labour and social policy, science and research, traffic policy, migration and asylum policy, budget policy, environmental protection, consumer protection, administrative law and policy, education (primary, tertiary), tax policy, local self-government, health policy, digital policy, cultural policy). Participating expert were typically senior officials affiliated with different institutions: most of them from ministries (15), non-governmental organization (3), inspectorate (2), institutes (1) and agency (1). Most of the interviewees were directors (of directorates, agencies, and institutes), state secretaries, and former ministries. The number of potential participants has not been previously specified. Quotas of experts in each area, totalling to 22, were determined after reaching saturation point. The experts involved in the interviews are currently occupying the top positions on different levels of the administrative-political system. The participants were aged between 39 to 70 years, whereas the ratio between men and women was 12:10 (12 men (55%) and 10 women (45%)).

Before the actual start of the interviewing process, pilot interviews were carried out, including certain number of experts from designated areas. The final set of questions was revised in line with their comments and suggestions, which helped to resolve some conceptual weaknesses and ambiguities. Interviews were conducted in the period from February to September 2017. The response rate was about 70%, namely out of about 35 invited experts 22 responded to the invitation and ultimately participated in the interviews. The interviews, which lasted approximately 90 to 120 minutes, were conducted by the authors in person at the official premises of the interviewees. All participants were explained the purpose and objectives of the study to clarify the last details and potential uncertainties pertaining to their assignments. All participants in the interviews gave informed consent and were provided anonymity and assured confidentiality of the information obtained. Given the active role of the participating experts in the interviewing process, special authorization of their responses was not required.

The role of the participating experts within the proposed interviewing process was twofold. First, they had to participate in the analysis of the nature, role and significance of the selected factors for the successful implementation of public policies in Slovenia. Second, drawing from their own experience and knowledge of the administrative-political system in Slovenia they had to provide their vision of the interdependence of factors and their impact (rank by relevance) on the performance of public policies. The aim was to analyse and explore how changes in those critical factors facilitate or inhibit the policy process in all of its stages (i.e. agenda-setting, ex-ante evaluation, policy formulation, decision-making, policy implementation, and ex-post evaluation). Unresolved issues and existing dilemmas regarding the interviewees’ responses were further analytically discussed within the authors’ group in the iterative manner.

The interviews consisted of seven compound sections of in-depth questions. The first section contained general information and explored which instruments for designing public policies are being typically used in the Slovenian public administration. The remaining sections of questions were used for the analysis of six interrelated factors (strategic, institutional, normative, economic/financial, methodological/procedural, organisational/human resources/ICT support) in terms of their impact on the decision-making process in the shaping of PPPPs in Slovenia. Questions in the interviews included several different formats, namely: close-ended questions with numerical estimates, and open-ended questions. Responses of the interviewees were voice-recorded, the answers were later converted into transcripts and data tables, and finally the transcripts were documented and archived. The data collected allow the execution of qualitative as well as quantitative analyses.

After an extensive review of the literature and investigation of primary and secondary sources containing problem-related content, the empirical part of the research was carried out. In this way, primary quantitative empirical analysis (Mencinger et al., 2017) has been extensively upgraded with new approaches. The data obtained through the empirical qualitative research, have been analysed in accordance with the guidelines proposed by the content analysis methodological framework. Analysis of the data obtained and their interpretations was carried out using the qualitative analysis software – Atlas.ti, which is frequently used in academia, especially for social science research. It is a powerful tool, which can be applied for the analysis of large bodies of textual, graphical, audio and video data (Atlas.ti, 2018). Implementation of the content analysis using Atlas.ti is based on the codifying process of the key concepts of each dimension explored within the textual transcripts. The coding categories were derived from the preliminary theoretical research and directly from the interview transcripts (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). The basic idea behind the codifying process is to test arguments and assertions of the interviewees by finding the affirmative material quotations and/or references in their responses (interview transcripts). In order to increase the objectivity and credibility of the findings obtained, the final content analysis of the interview transcripts was carried out independently by several coders (authors), whereas all identified inconsistencies were re-evaluated by the coders in a collaborative manner (Iacovino, Barsanti and Cinquini, 2017).

The application of the proposed research design, sampling and the respective data collection technique have been instrumental for the overall data analysis. The latter provided a functional platform for the synthesis and interpretation of data obtained, and ultimately facilitated the development of comprehensive and evidence-based conclusions.

The networks in figures presented below substantially summarise the claims that confirm the abovementioned hypothesis. The claims are more extensively analysed and elaborated in the continuation, whereas other circumstances, contexts and opinions that could influence the argumentations expressed are outlined as well.

The central node in Figure 1 has four neighbouring nodes (Atlas.ti codes). The number of nodes is designated as “density” in graphic representations. It means that we identified four main grounds that support H1. The frequencies “grounded” indicate the explanation power of each code. The Figure 1 shows that the codes “following regulations” and “following guidelines” are supported by six quotations, “gaining EU funds” by two quotations, and “main direction of progress” by one quotation. In other words, the impact of EU stakeholder on implementation and evaluation of PPPPs is mostly reflected in terms of following regulations and guidelines. To illustrate this finding, we selected two direct quotations from the interviews. “EU policies are the main directions of development. Adopting legislation at EU level imposes a high degree of unification of different policies.” and “In the field of labour, family and social affairs, the EU rules are fully implemented in practice.”

Figure 1

These findings were confirmed by the quantitative analysis as well (see Mencinger et al., 2017). Most of the interviewees (65%) agreed that PPPPs are strongly related to EU or other international organisations (OECD, WHO). The PPPPs are either a part of the implementation of European and other international regulations (27.5%), or a part of the European or international development policies (37.5%), where the recommendations are (at least formally) non-binding. Similarly, 38% of the interviewees find EU regulations as one of the key instruments in designing (planning, execution, evaluation) of public policies.

Figure 2 shows that evaluation of public policies in Slovenia should be more systematically performed. There are nine codes supporting this claim. The code that is grounded by most quotations (six) is “reporting without analysis” which clearly indicates the absence of clearly defined and practical evaluation process. An illustrative example of such quotation is: “We report a lot to the EU, but no real evaluation is carried out.”

Figure 2

Other codes, like “absence of impact analysis” or “ad-hoc analyses” suggest that “some kind of evaluation” is carried out, but it should be more thorough and methodical. Each of them is supported by three quotations, for instance: “We did not even ask officials or the public. No one asked what the effects of the implementation of public policy are.” In several situations, the officials would like to evaluate policies, but there exist certain obstacles, in terms of lack of indicators (three supporting quotations), lack of human (two quotations) of financial resources (one quotation). The quotation: “We do not have enough employees. When one job is done, the employee is assigned to a completely different project.” illustrates such situation.

The findings of qualitative analysis are consistent with the results of the quantitative analysis. Namely, 43% of the interviewees think that evaluations are systematically performed in implementation of PPPPs, while the opinion of 38% of the interviewees is neutral.

In the last decade, there were four parliamentary elections in Slovenia. The changes of government were therefore frequent, which resulted (according to network in Figure 3) in “unstable environment” and “backlog of work”. These two codes are supported by five quotations, for instance: “We had several organisational changes due to change of government in the last five, six years”. Another problem when government changes is reflected in the quotation: “Change in government announces a change in tax legislation (the impact of politics on the structure of the institution itself).” This is an example of change of focus, another code from the network (supported by two quotations).

Figure 3

The findings of qualitative analysis are in accordance with the results of the quantitative analysis. Namely, 70% of the interviewees report that changes of government – especially from the left- to the right-wing one or vice versa – have a significant impact on the implementation of PPPPs in Slovenia. This percentage would probably be even higher if all policies followed a strategic plan. One of the interviewees graphically described: “We have no strategy, therefore the change of government has no influence.” Although this quotation seems to contradict the hypothesis, the actual situation might be opposite: the presence of strategy forces new governments to continue with the execution of the existing policies.

Most interviewees (55%) believe that the current institutional organisation allows adequate implementation of public policies. However, they are mostly sceptical about the quality of collaborations between various departments. As shown in Figure 4, there exist many grounds why such collaboration is insufficient. Although our study pointed out eight grounds (eight codes) two of them play a significant role (grounded by five quotations). The codes grounded by five quotations are “no coordination on the horizontal level” and “following their own interests”. For instance: “There is no proper regulatory framework to change a number of laws/regulations – there is a lack of a horizontal dimension.”

Figure 4

The other codes are supported by fewer citations – the reasons why collaboration between various departments is not sufficient, include: lack of regulatory framework, monopolistic area, problems with authority, and too many other factors that have influence on such collaboration. Some interviewees indicated minimal level of collaboration within the same department: “There are no steps forward in interdepartmental cooperation, despite the fact that science and higher education belong to the same ministry.”

We can deduce from Figure 5 that six quotations confirm the claim that “consultation with public is not carried out systematically”. The strongest reason is in impact of other stakeholders (grounded by five quotations) and existing politics (three quotations). These eight quotations are related to opinion that public has weak power (two quotations). Additional reasons might be related to poor informing (three quotations) or inconsistency with political goals (two quotations). For illustration, a quotation from the interview expressed: “Non-governmental organisations often take over the role of public. Their influence is therefore stronger.”

Figure 5

The consultations with various stakeholders concerning the development of public policies was also a part of quantitative analysis (Mencinger et al., 2017). The interviewees ranked four stakeholders (“general” public, economy, professional public (e.g. academic sphere), and non-governmental organisations) in terms of their contribution to better preparation, design and development of policies. The “general” public was ranked on average third place (average rank was 3.0) of importance with 37% of the interviewees found its contribution least significant. Contrary, the average rank for “professional” public was 1.7 with almost half of the interviewees (48%) that found its contribution the most significant. The Figure 5 is therefore consistent with the quantitative analysis when the word “public” refers to “general public”.

From the Figure 6 we can conclude that five grounds confirm hypothesis 6. The lack of professional competences plays the most important role since it is supported by four quotations. For illustration, we provide a quote related to the scientific research policy: “We are relatively weak at managing public policies in accordance with our national specifics, as there is no horizontal integration.” Predominance of other countries is also an important reason why Slovenia insufficiently enforces its national specifics. It is supported by three quotations, for instance: “Austria maintains internal border control (among five countries) and insists that it is the last state to defend the Schengen area. Slovenia lost this border dispute due to political interest of other countries.”

Figure 6

The findings of qualitative analysis are partially in accordance with the results of the quantitative analysis. Namely, 44% of the interviewees think that the implementation of PPPPs in Slovenia follows the national interest, while 28% think the opposite (28% are neutral). An example of such policy (neutral opinion) is the cultural policy, which is autonomous with respect to the EU.

From the Figure 7 we can identify six situations where in the absence of an official strategy, decisions are moved from the political to the administrative level. Nevertheless, such decisions need a political support from the current minister or the whole government (code with 12 quotations). The role of professional service is also important (5 quotations) since such services sometimes substitute inactive political decision makers (2 quotations). These views and opinions illustrate an important role of the public administration (bureaucracy) in the process of policy-making. Although public administration should be politically independent from the politics in the policy implementation, the strong connections, interdependences and even conflicts still exist. As one of our interviewees illustrated: “The Directorate can prepare a document, but the minister must confirm it, and his/her support needs to be obtained. In the end, the minister is always the one who says yes or no”.

Figure 7

Hypothesis 7 has not been evaluated previously within quantitative analysis since there was no direct question in the interview that could verify it. In the beginning of this section we mentioned that H7 was set as a hypothesis, which covers the impacts of all six factors we analyse in the paper. The quotations confirming H7 were therefore found and confirmed in various parts of the interviews.