UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 

 

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jaana Oikarinen 

 

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION: 

The Case Study of United Nations in Mozambique 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Master Thesis 

In Public Management 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VAASA 2018  



1 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

           page 

 

LIST OF FIGURES         3 

 

ABSTRACT          4

         

1. INTRODUCTION        6

        

1.1. Background         6 

1.2.  Research question        8 

 1.3. Development of implementation research     8 

1.4. United Nations system and mandate      11 

 1.4.1. United Nations Development Assistant Framework   14 

1.5.  Structure of the thesis        16

   

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK      18 

2.1. Definitions         18

 2.1.1 Implementation        18 

 2.1.2 Public policy        19 

 2.1.3. Global public policy       21 

 2.1.4. International organization      21 

2.2. Top-down approaches to policy implementation    22 

2.3. Approaches to policy implementation in developing countries  24 

2.4. Framework for policy implementation by Mazmanian and Sabatier  26 

2.4.1. Relationship between policy formulation and implementation 27 

2.4.2. Perspective        27 

2.4.3. Variables         28 

  2.4.3.1. Independent variables     29 

  2.4.3.2. Dependent variables      32 

2.4.4. Six conditions of effective implementation    33 

 



2 

 

 

3. METHODOLOGY        34 

 3.1. Qualitative research method and justification     34 

 3.2. Data collection        37 

 3.3. Semi-structured interviews       38

     

4. DATA ANALYSIS        39 

4.1. Background information on Mozambique     39 

4.2. United Nations in Mozambique      42 

4.3. Perceived role of the United Nations in Mozambique and  

United Nations Development Assistance Framework   44 

4.4. Perspectives of the implementation analysis in UN Mozambique  46 

4.5. Independent variables affecting the Implementation of UNDAF and  

Outcome          46 

4.5.1. Tractability of the problem      47 

4.5.2. Ability of Statute Structure Implementation    48 

4.5.3. Nonstatutory Variables Affecting Implementation   55 

4.6. Dependent variables affecting the Implementation of UNDAF and  

Outcome 2         61 

4.7. Implementation of UNDAF in a developing country    63 

4.7.1. Policy content        63 

4.7.2. Policy context        65 

 

5. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION    68 

5.1. Main findings         68 

5.2. Conclusions         71 

5.3. Recommendations        73 

 

 

REFERENCES         75 

 

    



3 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 

Figure 1. Scholars of top-down, bottom-up and hybrid theories 

Figure 2. UN system chart 

Figure 3. Variables Involved in the Implementation Process



4 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 

School of Management 

Author: Jaana Emilia Oikarinen 

Master’s Thesis: Policy Implementation in International Organization: 

 The Case Study of United Nations in Mozambique 

Degree: Master of Administrative Sciences 

Major Subject: Public Administration 

Supervisor: Esa Hyyryläinen 

Year of Graduation: 2018 Number of pages:  81 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

ABSTRACT: 

 
Policy implementation is a complicated process. Depending on the approach adapted, there are several, 

interlinked factors affecting it. The policy implementation has been studied, as such, since 1970´s and 

approaches that scholars have adapted are categorized as top-down, bottom and hybrid. Each approach has 

identified the main factors that affect the policy implementation, emphasizing different aspects, stages and 

roles of actors in the implementation process. It is recognized that policy implementation has specific 

characteristics in the developing countries, due to the scarce resources, structure of political systems and 

the extent of the challenges. 

 

United Nations implements public and global policies in developing countries, in cooperation with local 

governments and other actors. In Mozambique, UN has functioned since the independence, 1975, and have 

had great importance in the reconstruction of the independent state after wars. Since 2008, UN Mozambique 

has gone through a reformation after “Delivering as One” initiative, which aims at integrating the UN 

activities in the county under the ONE UN organization. The joint efforts for the development of the country 

are collected under United Nations Development Assistant Framework (UNDAF), which determines the 

priorities and strategic direction. The study aims at identifying the approach the UN has to policy 

implementation and factors that affect the achievement of the goals in UNDAF 2017-2020. 

 

The central theoretical framework for the study is chosen from one of the classical top-down scholars; 

Mazmanian´s and Sabatier´s framework for implementation analysis, which incorporates 16 different 

independent variables that affect the policy implementation process as a whole and dependent variables as 

stages in the implementation process. It is noted that policy implementation in a developing country, 

generally follows the principles of the top-down approach, but there are also specific factors that affect the 

implementation due challenging socioeconomic conditions. 

 

Methods used in the study are qualitative and the data is collected among the UN officials in Mozambique 

by using semi-structured interviews. In addition, relevant UNDAF documents are used for studying the 

UNDAF implementation process. The data is analysed by using Mazmanian´s and Sabatier´s framework 

for the identification of the main factors that affect the implementation process. 

 

Findings indicate that there are major challenges in the implementation of the UNDAF, and factors that 

affect the process are related to the coordination, leadership, commitment of the implementing officials and 

agencies, engagement of other stakeholders, monitoring and local socioeconomic conditions. Deduced from 

the main findings, for successful goal achievement, UN Mozambique should revise the objectives in 

UNDAF, improve coordination among the agencies and other actors, increase the participation of the civil 

society and develop effective communication and monitoring system among the agencies. Despite of the 

many challenges that UN Mozambique has in the implementation of UNDAF, there are strengths that 

enable corrections to be done; UN still has authority and clear mandate in the country. 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
KEYWORDS: implementation, public policy, global policy, international organization



 

 

 

 



6 

 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

 

 

1.1. Background 

 

Policy implementation has been deliberately studied since 1970´s. Since the research 

started, researchers have established various approaches to the implementation and 

studied variety of factors that affect to implementation of public policies. Grindle 

(1980:2) mentions generally some factors; availability of sufficient resources, structure 

of intergovernmental relations, commitment of officials, reporting mechanisms within the 

bureaucracy, political leverage, opponents of the policy, timing, accidents, luck and 

unrelated events.  

 

Implementation process is a complex process that involves much more than mechanical 

translation of the goals into routine procedures; conflicts, decision making and “who gets 

what in society” are fundamental for the process. (Grindle 1980:3) Implementation 

analysis is the identification of those variables which affect the achievement of legal 

objectives throughout the implementation process (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:21). 

 

United Nations implements many kinds of policies that can be defined public in the local 

and global level, in developing countries. In Mozambique, for example, a part of the aid 

for the public services, is channelled through UN agencies. Although, aid agencies have 

been observed, not to have significant impact in addressing global challenges; They are 

important in informing the debate and to initiate pragmatic support for developing 

countries by producing information and interacting with local administration, civil 

society, public at large and to an increasing extent, with private sector (Mordasini 

2012:6). 

 

The problems connected with public policy implementation in developing countries are 

intertwined with basic economic and political conditions. Governments conducting public 

policies, to improve the quality of life, find that they are restricted by the weak extractive 

capacity of the state in relation to the economy as well as by the dissipation of any 

resources through corruption. Thus, the basic equation that regulates what governments 



7 

 

can do to improve the human predicament includes the negative impact from a low GDP 

as well as from political instability. (Lane & Ersson 1999:1) 

 

More than 30 years ago, Smith (1985:129) pointed out that most issues and methodologies 

of programme evaluation has been developed in Northern America, in an open and 

competitive political process, unlike in Third World nations, which generally have a 

closed system with little consultation from target groups, suppression of criticism and 

severe weaknesses in policy implementation. He suggests that most useful form of 

evaluation is implementation analysis, which gives the answers for why policies succeed 

or fail. (Smith 1985: 129) 

 

Grindle (1980:15) suggests that process of implementing public policies have a greater 

focus in political participation and competition in Third World countries than in United 

States and Western Europe. She justifies her claim by the characteristics of the political 

systems of themselves, like remoteness, inaccessibility of the policymaking process to 

the most individuals and the extensive competition caused by widespread need and lack 

of resources. She also points out that normally in Third World countries political activity, 

such as individual and collective demand making, the representation of interests, and the 

emergence of conflicts, occurs at the output stage, whereas in United States and Western 

Europe it focuses at on the input stage of the policy process. (Grindle 1980:15) 

 

The studies from Third world countries indicate that local governments may be subject 

to special conditions that influence how program and policy goals are achieved.  

“Most are in a position of having to promise much to their citizens. The enormity 

of human and physical needs in poor countries, the desire to establish the 

legitimacy of the political regime by providing tangible evidence of improving 

conditions, the feeling that the deprivations of the colonial or neo-colonial past 

must be obliterated, the commitment to indigenous or “Third World” ideologies, 

the need for rapid development – all create a situation in which political leaders 

are likely to espouse policies that will lead to radical and rapid improvement in the 

conditions of life.” (Grindle 1980:22) 

 

 



8 

 

1.2. Research question 

 

The aim of this study is to analyse policy implementation in the UN system in 

Mozambique; which are the bottle necks, why they are there, and what could be the 

solutions to the challenges. The objective is to study the implementation from the 

perspective of practitioner and in the case of UN Mozambique, to understand which levers 

are needed to be pulled in order to make program work (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:18). 

 

In other words, the aim of the study is to understand and explain what are the factors that 

affect the implementation. This information is potentially useful for UN to design and 

execute implementation strategies that aim to change relevant determinants in 

Mozambique. 

 

The research questions for the study are exploring the implementation of the policies in 

the UN Mozambique system: 

 

Question 1: 

What is the approach that UN Mozambique has to policy implementation? 

 

Question 2: 

What are the variables that affect the achievement of objectives through policy 

implementation in UN Mozambique system? 

 

 

1.3. Development in implementation research 

 

As Cairney (2012:34-35) suggests, implementation research is based on the simple point 

that policies formed by policymakers may not be carried out successfully. The common 

aim of the research is to identify and analyse the conditions that must be met to ensure 

success of the implementation. 

 

By Schofield and Sausman, (2004: 235) implementation research is a study at the 

intersection of public administration, organizational theory, public management research, 



9 

 

and political science studies. Winter (2003: 206) proposes that implementation studies 

are part of two sub-disciplines of political science public policy/policy analysis and public 

administration. By Jenkins (1978: 203) they can be characterized as study of policy 

change. 

 

Winter (2003:205) suggests that implementation studies grew out of evaluation research, 

when researchers realized that the failures and problems in goal achievement might not 

be because of the wrong causal theory behind the policy, but the implementation might 

not have taken place as planned. This developed an interest to study relation between 

planned and actual implementation. 

 

Hill and Hupe (2002: 42) propose that before end of 1960´s political mandates were 

thought to be clear and that administrators implement policies according the initial 

intentions of decision makers. The issue of implementation of the public policies got more 

attention when policies seemed to fail in goal achievement (Barret 2004: 251). In the 

emergence of the implementation studies, researchers in United States started to give 

more attention to the implementation also due to concerns of the effectiveness of reform 

programs. 

 

Even though the work of Pressman and Wildawsky in the 1970´s, has been seen as 

foundation to the implementation research, Hill and Hupe (2002:18-20) argue that 

implementation studies were carried out also before, just with other terms. In 1956, 

Harold Lasswell suggested that policy implementation should be one of the necessary 

steps in policy process and even he was not the first who highlighted implementation, he 

entered the term into public policy lexicon. From those times policy implementation has 

been a field of scholarly research. (deLeon & deLeon 2002: 467) 

 

Goggin, Bowman, Lester and O’Toole (1990: 13), distinguish three generations in the 

implementation research; the first generation of research started from the early 1970s to 

the ’80s; the second generation from the 1980s to the 90s; and the third generation 

research from 1990 and onwards. The scholars of each generation and their approach to 

implementation analysis are listed in Figure 1.  

 



10 

 

 

Figure 1. Scholars of top-down, bottom-up and hybrid theories (Pülzl & Treib 2007: 91) 

 

 

The first generation of implementation research concentrated to number of case studies 

that were thought as an implementation failure and therefor also the research had a 

pessimistic undertone during 1970´s (Fischer, Miller, & Sidney 2007:89). The most 

influential researchers of the first-generation scholars were Derthick, Pressman and 

Wildawsky, and Bardach. Their achievement was to raise awareness of the issue to the 

wider audience. As said, the first generation, concentrated to demonstrate implementation 

processes by case studies rather that theory elaboration.  

 

The second generation of implementation studies aimed to form theoretical frameworks 

and hypothesis. Debate between top-down and bottom-up approaches starter between 

different scholars, during the second generation. Top-down scholars emphasized policy 

implementation as hierarchical execution of centrally defined policies and bottom-up 

scholars saw implementation as everyday problem-solving strategies at the “street level 

bureaucrats”. The representatives of the top-down scholars include, for example, Van 

Meter and Van Horn, Nakamura and Smallwood, and Mazmanian and Sabatier. Scholars 



11 

 

from bottom-up approach include Lipsky, Ingram, Elmore, and Hjern and Hull. (Pülzl & 

Treib 2007: 89). 

 

Third generation of the implementation studies tried to compound the top-down and 

bottom-up approaches by combining ideas from both camps into theoretical models. 

Typical for third generation scholars is to emphasize clear hypothesis and find 

operationalisations and producing adequate empirical observations to test these 

hypotheses (Pülzl & Treib 2007: 89-90). 

 

Winter (2003: 206) points out that implementation research is diverse and general 

implementation theory hasn´t emerged. The research is also characterised by many 

different approaches.  

 

 

1.4. United Nations system and mandate 

  

Since the foundation of United Nations 1945, after II World War, the organization has 

expanded and developed into complex and fragmented institution (see Figure 2.), which 

is present globally (Müller 2010: 2.). The United Nations was formed on the foundations 

of the one of the oldest International Organizations, The League of Nations, which did 

not survive the II World War (Barkin 2006:5). 

 

From initial 51-member states, UN has now 193 member states and is one of the biggest 

international coalitions in the world and has pre-eminent role and responsibility to steer 

the political process to reach international consensus on global public policies and norms.  



12 

 

 

 

Figure 2. UN system chart (United Nations 12.9.2018) 

 

 

Hanhimäki (2008: 33) describes UN as “structural monstrosity” for its different clusters 

of organizations, divisions, bodies and secretariats (see Figure 2.). The founders of the 

organization were faced with the dilemma of how to match the national interests with 

international ones. Although, Hanhimäki stresses out that the rationale behind the creation 

of this hybrid organization is simple; the UN system is established by people from many 

nations, with different background and goals. (Hanhimäki 2008: 33) 

 



13 

 

Since beginning, UN´s central mission was to secure international peace and security, to 

develop friendly relations among the nations, to achieve international co-operation in 

solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character 

and promote human rights. (The Charter of United Nations) 

 

Whittaker (2002: 7) remarks that after UN was set up, two thirds of mankind have born 

and since more and more developing countries have joined the UN, the gulf between 

economic situation of member states became obvious and therefor dependence of the one 

on the other also grew more significant. This development made necessary the promotion 

of human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as shelter, food, fresh water, hygiene 

and health through development and relief programs. (Whittaker 2002:7) Also Müller 

(2010:6) recognizes that after states from Africa and Asia have joined the UN, 

development issues have become more important, resulting increasement of the technical 

co-operations programmes. 

 

As said, UN is known from its peace keeping missions and from humanitarian aid 

organizations, during the emergencies. Because of the expansion of the organization to 

the developing countries, UN implements also programs from various aspects of life, 

heading to sustainable development. International, regional and national policies are 

formed in the international negotiations among the UN member states, including the 

participation of variety of stakeholders from non-governmental and civil society 

organizations and other actors, who attend and, in some cases, contribute to UN decision-

making processes (NGLS & Sidhu 2007:3) 

 

Fundamental characteristics of UN development work are universality, neutrality and 

multilateralism as well as flexibility to respond the development needs of each country. 

(Müller 2010:49.) Therefore, UN country teams have to work closely with the local 

governments and other actors in the development field. 

 

The UN has gone through many reform attempts, and many of them have failed or 

partially failed. The complexity of the UN system generates various challenges in all 

levels of the system, including in the implementation of the policies.  

 



14 

 

Mozambique was one of the pilot countries, where UN started the accelerated reform of 

“Delivering as One”, with the objective to overcome fragmentation and improve joint 

delivery through a stronger commitment and working together on the implementation of 

one strategy. (United Nations 2006) When studying policy implementation in UN 

Mozambique, this reform that was initiated 2006, plays significant role and strengthens 

the need of implementation analysis for the achievement of the policy goals.  

 

1.4.1. United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 

 

Formulation of the UNDAF -process was result of the reform that Secretary General, Kofi 

Annan, initiated in 1997. The aim of the reform was to establish a new leadership and 

management structure, and greater unity among the UN, coherence in efforts and capacity 

to respond to the policy and programme goals. The key outcomes of the reform were 

UNDAF, enhanced harmonization of the procedures, strengthened resident coordination 

system and rationalization of administrative processes. (Balogun 2012:9) 

 

The role of the UNDAF was described as follow: 

 “In order to achieve goal-orientated collaboration, programmatic coherence and 

mutual reinforcement, the United Nations programmes of assistance will be 

formulated and presented as part of a single United Nations Development 

Assistance Framework with common objectives and time-frame. Programme funds 

managed by each of the programmes and funds will be included in the document 

but remain clearly identifiable. Preparation would entail collaborative 

programming and close consultation with Governments, including compatibility 

with country strategy notes wherever they exist.” (Balogun 2012:9-10) 

 

United Nations Development Assistance Framework for Mozambique (UNDAF 

Mozambique) 2017 – 2020 is statement of the Government of Mozambique´s and the 

United Nations’ priorities and strategic direction to support national development. It is 

aligned with national and international development instruments, particularly the 

Government’s Five-Year Programme, 2015-19 and the Sustainable Development Goals 

(Agenda 2015-2030). (UN Mozambique 2016) 

 



15 

 

The aim of the framework is to improve efficiency and coherence of the development 

work of the 21 UN agencies active in the country and complement the support of bilateral 

and other multilateral partners. The UNDAF represents exclusively the whole of the UN´s 

activities in Mozambique and is the UN´s One Program for Mozambique. (UN 

Mozambique 2016) 

 

The UNDAF has been developed jointly among UN agencies and with Government 

institutions and partners in line with the principle of “Delivering as One” and Global 

Partnership for Effective Cooperation. The framework is based on a situation analysis of 

the main development issues in the country, reflection on UN’s comparative advantages 

and lessons learnt from the implementation of the previous UNDAFs. (UN Mozambique 

2016) 

 

The UNDAF is divided to four results areas:  

• Prosperity: contributes to economic development 

• People: assists and develops systems and capacities for sustainable human 

development 

• Peace: supports national unity, peace and sovereignty 

• Planet: supports changes for sustainable management of natural and 

environmental sources 

 

These result areas are divided into 10 outcomes, which are high level for better alignment 

between UN support and government´s goals. The 10 outcomes are Food Security and 

Nutrition, Economic Transformation, Education, Empowering Women & Girls, Social 

Protection, Health, Water & Sanitation, Youth, Governance, Peacebuilding, Justice & 

Human Rights, Management of Natural Resource and the Environment, Climate Change 

and Disaster Management. (UN Mozambique 2016) 

 

 

 

 

 



16 

 

1.5. Structure of the thesis 

 

The intention of this study paper is to examine the implementation theories and 

frameworks to find the answers to the research questions and further some proposals for 

recommendations. The study is focused on semi-structured interviews with UN staff 

members in Mozambique and relevant policy documents (UNDAF). Data analysis has 

been done by using Mazmanian´s and Sabatier´s framework for implementation analysis 

and Grindles notions on implementation in the developing countries. 

 

First chapter introduces policy implementation and more precisely, policy 

implementation in developing countries and the development in implementation research 

since 1970´s. For better understanding the conditions of implementation environment, the 

chapter gives also background information on United Nations mandate and relevant 

reform, as well as the policy examined in the study: United Nations Development 

Assistant Framework. 

 

Second chapter is about the theoretical framework that is used to analyse the policy 

implementation case by first exploring the definitions from relevant literacy for 

implementation, public policy and global public policy. The chapter includes closer look 

to the top-down approach that is used in the analysis and approach to the policy 

implementation in developing countries. 

 

Third chapter explains what kind of methodologies are used normally in the 

implementation research and which methodology is used in this study. There are 

definitions of qualitative research and justification, why it is used in the study. The 

chapter explains how data is collected, who were interviewed and how the interviews 

were constructed. 

 

Fourth chapter is about data analysis based on the theoretical framework of the study and 

the data collected from the interviews. This chapter includes also background information 

on Mozambique and UN system in the country, for support of the data analysis. 

 



17 

 

Finally, the fifth chapter summarizes the main findings and how data responses to the 

research questions. There are also samples of solutions to the implementation and 

recommendations for better goal achievement. 

  



18 

 

 

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

 

2.1. Definitions 

 

2.1.1. Implementation 

 

One of the founding fathers of implementation studies, Pressman and Wildawsky (1984: 

xxi) define implementation as what it does: to carry out, accomplish, fulfil, produce, 

complete. According to them policy means a statement of goals and objectives as well as 

means for achieving them, in other words policy is a hypothesis containing initial 

conditions and predicted consequences. (Pressman & Wildawsky 1984: xxii) Further, 

Pressman and Wildawsky (1984): xxii-xxiii) describe implementation as ability to 

achieve the predicted consequences after the initial conditions have been met and can be 

viewed as a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions for achieving 

them. 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:4) define policy implementation as follows: 

“…those events and activities that occur after the issuing of authoritative public 

policy directives, which include both the effort to administer and the substantive 

impacts on people and events.” 

 

They (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:20-21) formally define policy implementation 

process as carrying out of a basic policy decision, which is usually incorporated in a 

policy. They also identify that ideally the policies should identify the problems to be 

addressed, sets the objectives to be achieved and structures the implementation process, 

which consists of number of stages: 

“The process normally runs through a number of stages beginning with passage of 

the basic statute, followed by the policy outputs (decisions) of the implementing 

agencies, the compliance of target groups with those decisions, the actual impacts 

– both intended and unintended – of those outputs, the perceived impacts of agency 

decision, and, finally, important revisions (or attempted revisions) in the statute.” 

(Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:20-21) 



19 

 

 

Van Meter and Van Horn (1975:447) see that policy implementation encompasses those 

actions by public and private individuals or groups that are directed at the achievement 

of objectives in the policy. This includes both one-time efforts to transform decisions into 

operational terms and continuing efforts to achieve the large and small changes mandated 

by policy decisions.  

 

From the later scholars Hill and Hupe (2014:1) emphasize context, in which policies are 

formed:  

“…implementation inevitably takes different shapes and forms in different cultures 

and institutional settings.”  

 

Therefor from their view implementation should be always connected to the specific 

policies, which are responses to the problems in society. This means the contextualization 

of the implementation depends on how public policies are defined. (Hill & Hupe 2014:5) 

 

Cairney (2012: 33) defines implementation as a part of policy cycle:  

“Establishing or employing an organization to take responsibility for 

implementation, ensuring that the organization has the resources (such as staffing, 

money and legal authority) to do so, and making sure that policy decisions are 

carried out as planned.” 

 

2.1.2. Public policy 

 

As well as implementation can be defined many ways according different scholars, so can 

be policy. Cairney (2012:22) explains that the problem of finding definition for public 

policy is more that semantic and affects how policy issues are analysed and understood. 

Different definitions, made from different aspect of policy process, give multiple 

perspectives (Cairney 2012:22). 

 

Hogwood and Gunn (1984:13-19) propose different ways that policy can be defined: a 

label for a field of activity, an expression of intent, specific proposals, decisions of 

government, a programme, package of legislation, staffing and funding, intermediate and 



20 

 

ultimate outputs, outcomes and process. They also identify elements when using term 

“public policy”: 

“…policies involve behaviour as well as intentions, and inaction as well as action. 

The elements include unexpected outcomes, changes in the purpose of the policy 

during the action, intra- and inter-organizational relationships, public agencies as 

main actors and subjectively made definitions.” (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984: 19–23). 

 

Anderson (2003: 2) defines public policy as follows: 

“…a relatively stable, purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of 

actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern. This definition focuses on 

what is actually done instead of what is only proposed or intended; differentiates a 

policy from a decision, which is essentially a specific choice among alternatives; 

and views policy as something that unfolds over time.” 

 

Birkland (2016: 8) lists the key attributes that can be distinguished from the various 

definitions of policy:   

- “Policy is made in response to some sort of problem that requires attention. 

- Policy is made on the “public’s” behalf. 

- Policy is oriented toward a goal or desired state, such as the solution of a 

problem. 

- Policy is ultimately made by governments, even if the ideas come from outside 

government or through the interaction of government and nongovernmental 

actors. 

- Policy is interpreted and implemented by public and private actors who have 

different interpretations of problems, solutions, and their own motivations. 

- Policy is what the government chooses to do or not to do” 

 

Hill and Hupe point out that public policy is defined with the purposive character what 

they are expected to have, and the way they relate to (societal) problems. Therefore, the 

contextualization is important because the implementation is always connected to specific 

policies which address the specific challenges in the society. (Hill & Hupe 2014:5) 

 

 



21 

 

2.1.3. Global public policy 

 

Barkin (2006:3) points out that globalization is a result of changes in the society, for 

example changes in the technology, communications, and economics that make states 

more interdependent; this means that states need to do policy options that are more 

constrained by the policy choices made by other states. 

 

The term “global public policy” has been used increasingly, but it is still under-specified 

and used without definition. Frequently, global public policy relates to the concepts of 

global governance, global public-private partnerships and equated with finance and 

delivery of global public goods. (Stone 2008:8) 

 

Global policy processes have emerged among the governments, international 

organizations and non-state actors. The policies formed globally are trying to respond 

different types of global problems, such as transboundary problems, common property 

problem and simultaneous problem. (Stone 2008:12) 

 

Globalization has led to the establishment of and expansion of collaboration among states 

and permanent intergovernmental organizations. The difference for the transnational 

organization is, that international organizations have their own offices, budget, staff and 

legal personality, separate from those of the participating states. Over time these 

institutions have acquired a relative autonomy from the states that first created them. 

United Nations is one of the intergovernmental organizations and addresses large scale 

of global public policy issues. (Scholte 2010:464) 

 

2.1.4. International organization 

 

Barkin (2006:1) defines international organization as inclusive, intergovernmental 

organization that are created by the agreement among states, rather than by private 

individuals. The United Nations is one of the international organizations that were created 

by treaties signed by the states. There are exclusive and inclusive international 

organizations, and United Nations is inclusive because all states can join it. (Barkin 

2006:2) 



22 

 

 

International organizations can be seen as agents, which states use to promote the issues 

of globalization or to protect themselves from the broader forces of globalization. 

International organizations are ways that states deal with the interdependence that has 

occurred due the globalization. (Barking 2006:2-3) 

 

Brühl and Rittberger (2002:7) remind that during the last decades, the demand for 

international cooperation and international governance has increased and therefor also 

international and intergovernmental organizations and international regimes have been 

established. While these international institutions have become more important, they have 

also become part and parcel of the international system and have constrained the states´ 

behaviour. (Brühl & Rittberger 2002:7) 

 

Müller (2014: 95) distinguishes the basic challenges for the international organizations 

are concerning the difficulties of aligning the different priorities, national interests. There 

can also be differences between the contributions and abilities of the members of the 

organization. (Müller 2014: 95) 

 

 

2.2. Top-down approach to policy implementation 

 

Top-down approaches, in policy implementation research assume that the policy 

implementation starts with a decision made by central government. Top-down studies are 

based on “Blackbox model” of the policy process, systems analysis (Parsons 1995: 463).  

Palumbo and Calista (1990:6) explain that implementation research has opened that black 

box, by explaining that the success or failure is part of the whole policy making process 

rather than administration alone. 

 

Matland (1995) summons up the top-down models by explaining that they “…see 

implementation as concern with the degree to which the actions of implementing officials 

and target groups coincide with the goals embodied in an authoritative decision.” 

(Matland 1995:146) 

 



23 

 

Cairney (2012: 37) argues that the approach is labelled top-down because of descriptive 

and prescriptive assumptions: decisions are and should be made at the top and 

implemented at the bottom. 

 

Palumbo and Calista point out that viewpoint that stresses the top-down approach to 

implementation, suggests that by giving importance to implementation in policy making 

process undermines the foundations of demographic politics. In this viewpoint, also the 

elected representatives are the only ones who can legitimately make policy, despite the 

problems implementers are facing. (Palumbo & Calista 1990:xiii) 

 

The top-down scholars tend to think that there is direct causal link between policy and 

observed outcomes and that the implementers have no impacts on policy delivery. They 

also see the policy as an input and the implementation as an output factor. The most 

known scholars of top-down approach are Pressman and Wildavsky (1973), Van Meter 

and Van Horn (1975), Bardach (1977), as well as Sabatier and Mazmanian (1979, 1980 

and 1983). (Pülzl & Treib 2007: 91) 

 

By Pressman and Wildavsky (1973, xv). the policy objectives are set out by central policy 

makers and the implementation research concentrates to analyse the difficulties in 

achieving policy objectives. They see implementation as an “interaction between the 

setting of goals and actions geared to achieve them”. In their book “Implementation” they 

highlighted the importance of the number of agencies involved in the policy 

implementation. 

 

Van Meter & Van Horn (1975) studies concerned the outcomes of the implementation 

and if they are corresponding to the policy objectives. Their model includes six variables, 

which describe the relationship between policy and performance. The variables they use 

are very like that other top-down scholars use, concerning for example organizational 

capacities and hierarchical control. Although, couple factors, they use, do depart the 

approach like; extent of policy change and degree of consensus. (Pülzl & Treib 2007:91- 

92) 

 



24 

 

Another top-down scholar, Bardach, published his book 1977, suggested that successful 

implementation was possible only if policy makers structured thoughtfully the” 

implementation games”, as he called the action plans for the policy. Bardach 

acknowledged the political character of implementation and suggested usage of game 

theoretic tools for explaining implementation. (Pülzl & Treib 2007: 92) 

 

One of the central scholars Mazmanian and Sabatier published their work in the end of 

1970´s, like other top-down approaches they separate clearly policy formation and 

implementation. (Pülzl & Treib 2007: 92) Their framework for implementation analysis 

incorporates factors that are deemed for determining the capacity for and constraints on 

social change. These factors include available resources economic capacities, 

technological know-how and prescribed political rules. (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:19) 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier believed that policy makers could secure successful policy 

implementation by adequate program design and planned structuration of the 

implementation process. Although they did recognize that achievement of perfect 

hierarchical control over the implantation process was hard in practise. (Mazmanian & 

Sabatier 1979: 489-492, 503-504) 

 

 

2.3. Approach to policy implementation in developing country 

 

Considering that the pioneering research of the implementation is mainly made in United 

States and Western Europe, it is necessary to take into consideration characteristics of the 

policy implementation in developing countries, which Mozambique also is.  Lane and 

Ersson (1999:1) propose that in the case of Third World countries, it is not always clear 

whether to use top-down or bottom-up approaches, but if the country hasn´t reached 

sustainable economic growth, the top-down approaches might be the only realistic way 

to analyse policy implementation.  

 

Mordasini (2012:22) points out that allocation of scarce public funds and foreign aid in 

the poor country is sometimes difficult; many governments choose to allocate funds to 



25 

 

short-term, pro-poor needs rather than more sustainable future growth. This affects into a 

further constraint for successful implementation of global public policies. 

 

Grindle (1980: 8-10) mentions factors that have an impact to the policy implementation 

that are connected to the content, context and other factors especially in Third World 

countries. She points out that issues in the policy content that can affect to the 

“implementability” of the policy, are the extent that the policy seeks to introduce changes 

to social, political and economic relationships; character of the benefits 

(collective/divisible), degree of behaviour change needed, timeframe of the objectives to 

be achieved (long-range/short-range), number and dispersion of key decision units in the 

process.  

 

Grindle (1980: 10) argues that decisions during the policy formulation about executing 

agencies of the programs, can affect to the implementation, due the different standpoint 

of each agency. There is also impact of how the goals are stated in the policy: 

“Whether goals are stated clearly or ambiguously and whether political and 

administrative officials are in agreement about what the goals are will be shown to 

have been decisive for the implementation of specific programs…” (Grindle 

1980:10) 

The impact of the policy context to the implementation, depends also if the policy is made 

in the social, political or economic settings, what are the “power capabilities” and the 

compliance of the different actors, responsiveness of the officials (flexibility, support and 

feedback) and the structure of political system (centralized/decentralized) and type of 

regime (authoritarian/open system), where policy is implemented. Other factors that 

Grindle mentions are ideology, culture, political alliances and payoffs, international 

events and other programs implemented at the same time. (Grindle 1980: 8-15) 

 

Grindle (1980:16) distinguishes also some characters that have impact on policy 

implementation in Third World countries; The regimes especially single or dominant 

political party in power tend to have weak interest aggregating structures and exclusive 

elite controls the policy processes. Politicians can also use the parties as vehicles for the 

personal ambitions. She mentions that interest groups may also be ineffective, by 

concentrating single purposes, with limited communication facilities, dispersed potential 



26 

 

membership possibilities and lack of education as well as experience. The few 

organizations that can represent the interest of broad categories of citizens, are normally 

formed and run by wealthy and powerful members of elite. 

 

According to Grindle (1980:37), what influences on the implementation, particularly in 

Third World countries, starts already when policies are initially defined.  If there is 

disagreement among the political community about the fundamental goals and beliefs, 

the implementation has greater risks to fail. The guidance from leadership is important; 

They can also provide general guidelines about priorities among policies. (Grindle 

1980:37) 

 

Hoole (1979:129) notions on policy implementation in developing countries are similar; 

He mentions some factors that affect to implementation: high turnover of office-holders 

and bureaucrats, domestic conflict and strife, an inflationary economy, uncertain funding 

for the budget, changes in the international economic order, famines, and unemployment. 

These factors can affect to the process the way that development plans are not relevant, 

activities are not implemented as planned or changes are made during the implementation 

or the activities are not implemented at all. 

 

 

2.4. Framework for policy implementation by Mazmanian and Sabatier 

 

The analysis framework of Mazmanian and Sabatier examines implementation 

performances by the dependent variable to be explained by process and organizational 

variables. (Winter 2003:207) Matland (1995:146) describes their framework for 

implementation analysis as the most fully developed top-down model.  

For Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:19), it is important for implementation analysis to be 

aware of the characteristics of the society, know the range of access points and recognize 

the overarching social and institutional factors that affect implementation. Their 

framework combines factors that determine the capacity for, and constraints on, self-

conscious social change. (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:19) 

 



27 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:19) bring up also the idea of Eulau and Prewitt that 

community´s socioeconomic and other background characteristics can establish the 

boundaries for possible action. Therefor in their framework for implementation analysis 

are incorporated these broad social, economic, and cultural factors. (Mazmanian & 

Sabatier 1989:19) 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:39) see the implementation process as dynamic and 

complicated process, where number of independent variables interact throughout the 

process. In their framework the stages of the implementation process represent the 

dependent variables (Mazmanian &Sabatier 1989:25). 

 

2.4.1. Relationship between policy formulation and implementation 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:7), as most of the scholars of the implementation analysis 

at the time, made distinction between formulation/adaptation of a policy, implementation 

and reformulation. Whereas “adaptive” or “interactive” approach emphasizes the 

adjustments made to the goals during the implementation process and therefor makes 

formulation-implementation distinction meaningless. Mazmanian and Sabatier justify 

their approach to distinct the formulation and implementation by the arguments that the 

problematic cases are rather exception than rule, continuously evolving policy objectives 

make evaluation impossible and that division of authority among elected and appointed 

officials obscures if the policymaking is viewed as seamless web. (Mazmanian & Sabatier 

1989:7-8) 

 

2.4.2. Perspective 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier suggest that the policy implementation can be viewed from three 

different perspectives: the center, the periphery or target group. The perspective of center 

is the view of initial policymakers, where the implementation involves the efforts of 

higher-level officials. Second perspective, the periphery view, implementation focuses on 

the way local implementing officials and institutions respond to the disruptions in their 

environment that are caused by the efforts of the outside officials to achieve the new 

policy. Third perspective, the target group view, are the private actors at whom the 



28 

 

policies and programs are directed and seeks information whether the services make any 

real difference in target groups lives. The perspective of target group is important to 

central authorities, because it enables them to anticipate political feedback and to be 

aware of behavioural assumptions. (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:12-13). 

 

2.4.3. Variables 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:21) suggest that it is important to identify the variables 

which affect the achievement of the objectives throughout the entire process. There are 

three general sets of variables or factors; the tractability of the problem being addressed, 

the ability of the statute to structure implementation and the net effect of variety of 

political variables on the balance of support for statutory objective, so called nonstatutory 

variables affecting implementation. These variables are independent variables of the 

framework model and are developed into a set of sixteen variables under the three general 

sets. The dependent variable in the framework are the stages of the implementation. All 

variables are presented in the Figure 3. (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:21-22)  

  



29 

 

 

Figure 3. Variables Involved in the Implementation Process (Mazmanian & Sabatier 

1989:22) 

 

 

2.4.3.1. Independent variables 

 

Tractability of the problems  

Variables in the category of tractability of the problems are connected to the fact that 

some social problems are easier to resolve than others and therefor create different kind 

of challenges to the implementation.  



30 

 

Technical difficulties: can be difficulties in ability to develop relatively inexpensive 

indicators and an understanding of the principal causal linkages affecting the 

development issue, difficulties in monitoring ambient, difficulties in availability or 

development of requisite technology.  

Diversity of target group behaviour: Major differences in targets group behaviour 

being regulated or the service being provided brings more difficulties for framing the 

regulations and the field level implementors must be given more discretion. Because of 

the differences in implementers commitment to the objectives of the program, there can 

be considerable variations in the performance. 

Target group as percentage of the population: The smaller and coherent the target 

group is, more likely the mobilization of the political support for the policy is and 

therefore more probable the achievement are the policy objectives. 

Extent of behaviour change required: The greater the amount of behavioural change, 

the more problematic will be successful implementation. (Mazmanian & Sabatier 

1989:21-25) 

 

Ability of policy decision to structure implementation  

The framework argues that original policymakers can significantly affect the success of 

policy implementation by utilizing the levers in hand to coherently structure the 

implementation process. There are seven variables defined in this category; 

• Clear and consistent objectives: If the policy provides precise and clear 

objectives to the implementing officials and other actors, it is more likely that the 

policy outputs and the behaviour the target group will be consistent. 

• Incorporation of adequate causal theory: Achievement of the objectives 

requires an adequate causal theory used in the policy formulation. Principal causal 

linkages between governmental intervention and the achievement of the 

objectives must be understood and implementing officials need to have 

jurisdiction over a sufficient number of the critical linkages. 

• Initial allocation of financial resources: Threshold level of funding is vital for 

the achievement of the objectives and the level of funding above this threshold is 

proportional to the probability of achieving those objectives. 



31 

 

• Hierarchical integration within and among implementing agencies: The 

degree that the work of implementing agencies is coordinated affects to the degree 

of behavioural compliance among implementing officials and target groups as 

each respond to the incentives for modification within their local setting. 

• Decision rules of implementing agencies: By stipulating the formal decision 

rules of the implementing agencies, the policy can influence the implantation 

process. Therefor it is crucial who is chosen for the implementation of the policy. 

• Recruitment of implementing agencies: Without a strong commitment of the 

implementing official of the policy, the achievement of the objectives is unlike. 

• Formal access by outsiders: Participation of external groups of actors, the 

potential beneficiaries and/or target groups of the program, and legislative, 

executive and judicial sovereigns of the agencies, is encouraged by liberalized 

rules of standing and provisions for independent evaluation studies. (Mazmanian 

& Sabatier 1989:25-30) 

 

Nonstatutory variables affecting implementation 

Nonstatutory variables in the framework are the major nonlegal variables that can affect 

the policy outputs. These variables can be external, intervening or directly affecting; 

• Socioeconomic conditions and technology: Social, economic and technological 

conditions are some of the principal variables that can affect the implementation 

process and achievement of the objectives. 

• Public support: Variations over time and jurisdiction in public support to the 

objectives of the policy, can affect the implementation at least in three ways; 

public opinion affects the political agenda, legislators are influenced by their 

general constituents and public opinion polls can be employed by administrators 

and sovereigns for the support of particular positions. 

• Attitudes and resources of constituency groups: Changes in the resources and 

attitudes of the constituency groups toward statutory objectives and the outputs of 

the policy affect the implementation process. 

• Support from sovereigns: Sovereigns of implementing institutions can provide 

support to the implementation process through amount and direction of oversight, 

provision of financial resources and extent of conflicting legal mandates. These 



32 

 

sovereigns normally include the legislature, chief executives, the courts, the 

intergovernmental programs and hierarchically superior agencies. 

• Commitment and leadership skills of implementing officials:  This variable 

includes two components; the direction and ranking of the objectives that are 

officials’ priorities and official´s skills in realizing those priorities. Generally, 

after initial period the degree of commitment tends to decline, and most 

committed officials become disillusioned with bureaucratic routine. Although, the 

commitment to the policy objectives will contribute little if the skills of using the 

resources are not adequate. Therefor the required leadership skills include 

political and managerial elements. (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:20-25) 

 

2.4.3.2. Dependent variables 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:25) suggest that the implementation should be seen as 

several stages: The policy outputs of the implementing agencies, the compliance of target 

group with those decisions, the actual impacts of agency decisions, perceived impacts of 

those decisions and the political system´s evaluation of a statute. They argue that each of 

the stages is an end point of dependent variable and also an input in to successive next 

stages. These stages are the dependent variables of the framework. 

 

• Policy outputs of implementing agencies: The objectives of the policy must be 

translated into more concrete outputs, which can be substantive regulations, 

standard operating procedures for processing individual cases and specific 

adjudicatory decisions. Discrepancies between the policy objectives and policy 

decisions can be reduced by taking account of the independent variables, 

mentioned earlier. 

• Target group compliance with policy outputs: Individuals assess the relative 

costs and benefits of the legal directives and based on that behavioural compliance 

forms. 

• Actual impacts of policy outputs: The main goal in policy implementation is to 

achieve the legal objectives defined in the policy, but implementation can have 

also substantive impacts that are not envisaged in the original policy and other 



33 

 

impacts that concerns long-term changes in the political strength of competing 

interests. 

• Perceived impacts of policy outputs: Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:39) argue 

that perceived impacts will be a function of actual impacts as mediated by the 

values of the perceiver. 

• Major revision in statute: The revision or reformulation of the policy should be 

seen as the culmination point of the whole process.  The amount and direction of 

the changes in the policy, depends of the perceived impacts of the past agency 

activities; changes in policy priorities among the general public and policy elites 

as a result of changing socioeconomic conditions, political resources of competing 

groups, and the strategic positions of supportive and opposing sovereigns. 

(Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:35-39) 

  

2.4.4. Six conditions of effective implementation 

 

In addition to the identification of the factors, the independent and dependent variables 

of the implementation process, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989: 41) suggest a checklist of 

specific factors that are important for effective implementation and achievement of the 

goals. They list six conditions that must be met: 

1. The enabling legislation or other legal directive mandates policy objectives, which 

are clear and consistent 

2. The enabling legislation incorporates a sound theory, which identifies the factors 

affecting policy objectives and gives implementing officials enough jurisdiction 

over target groups 

3. The legislation structures of the implementation process enable implementing 

officials and target groups perform as desired (adequate hierarchical integration, 

supportive decision rules, sufficient financial resources and adequate access to 

supporters) 

4. Adequate management skills and commitment of the leadership 

5. Supportive and organized constituency groups 

6. Independence from the conflicting public policies or changes in relevant 

socioeconomic conditions 

(Mazmanian & Sabatier 1989:41-42) 



34 

 

3. METHODOLOGY 

 

 

The study follows the qualitative research methods. This chapter discusses the qualitative 

methods and justifies the application in this study. It is noted that implementation analysis 

is dominated by individual case studies, by using several data sources, to study in detail 

complex issue of implementation (Winter 2003:206). Therefore, to study policy 

implementation in international organization, UN Mozambique and it´s most central 

policy, UNDAF, was chosen as a case study.  

 

There were 11 semi-structured interviews conducted among the United Nations 

Mozambique staff members. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and the data 

analysed by using the Mazmanian´s and Sabatier´s framework and Grindle´s approach to 

the implementation in developing countries. 

 

 

3.1. Qualitative research method and justification 

 

Denzin and Lincoln (2011:8) define qualitative as follows:  

“The word qualitative implies and emphasis on the qualities of entities and on 

processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured (if 

measured at all) in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. 

 

They argue that by using qualitative methods, the researcher stresses socially constructed 

reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and the object of the study, and 

the situational constraints that shape the inquiry. Qualitative researchers study how social 

experience is created and given meaning. (Denzin & Lincoln 2011:8) 

 

In the organizational studies, qualitative researchers study the social conditions under 

which the work is done in organizations and if it is done effectively: 

“Both the descriptions and explanations answer questions about the how and why 

of organizational outcomes. They also often make fundamental components of 



35 

 

organizational processes visible to outside stakeholders like regulators or other 

public policy agents. (Miller, Dingwall & Murphy 2004:326-327) 

Compared to qualitative research, instead of studying the process, quantitative research 

emphasizes measurement and analysis of causal relationship between variables. (Denzin 

& Lincoln 2011:8) When studying organizational work, the quantitative research is useful 

when examining relationships between inputs and outputs, because they provide detailed 

and reliable information on how successful action was. However, quantitative study tells 

the probability of the outcomes of certain activities, they can rarely tell how the outcome 

was achieved or why action was effective. (Miller, Dingwall & Murphy 2004:326-327) 

 

Van Maanen (1979: 9) described qualitative research as umbrella term for an array of 

interpretive techniques, which describe, decode, translate and otherwise explain the 

meaning, not the frequency, of the social phenomena. 

 

Bryman (2008:366) defines qualitative research as follows: 

“…Qualitative research tends to be concerned with words rather than numbers…” 

He distinguishes three features that qualitative research has: 

“1. An inductive view of the relationship between theory and research, whereby the 

former is generated out of the latter 2. The stress is on the understanding of the 

social world through an examination of the interpretation of the world by its 

participants 3. Social properties are outcomes of the interactions between 

individuals, rather than phenomena ´out there´ and separate from those involved 

in its construction.” (Bryman 2008:366) 

 

Denzin and Lincoln (2011:11) recognize three interconnected, generic activities that 

define qualitative research process: theory, method, analysis / ontology, epistemology and 

methodology. Behind these terms is the personal biography of the researcher, from the 

perspective of class, gender, race, culture, ethnicity and community: 

“The gendered, multiculturally situated researcher approaches the world with set 

of ideas, a framework (theory, ontology) that specifies a set of questions 

(epistemology), which are then examined (methodology, analysis) in specific ways” 

(Denzin & Lincoln 2011: 11) 



36 

 

Denzin and Lincoln (2011) emphasize that the history of qualitative research is complex 

and has been defined in diverse ways during each moment. Although, they do propose 

generic definition: 

“Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. 

Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make 

the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a 

series of representations, including fieldnotes, interviews, conversations, 

photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research 

involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world.” (Denzin & Lincoln 

2011:3-4) 

By this they mean that qualitative research studies phenomena in their natural settings 

and as also Bryman (2008) points out, qualitative research attempts interpret the 

phenomena in terms of the meanings people give to them. (Denzin & Lincoln 2011:3-4) 

 

Qualitative research can use variety of empirical materials: case studies, personal 

experiences, introspection, interviews, artefacts, cultural texts and productions etc. that 

describe routine and problematic moments and meaning in the persons lives. (Denzin & 

Lincoln 2011:3-4) 

 

Qualitative interviewing provides means for exploring the points of view of the research 

subject, while granting these points of view the culturally honoured status of reality. 

(Miller & Glassner 2004: 127) Brinkmann (2013:21) points out that qualitative 

interviewing is sometimes equated with semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured 

interviews can make use of knowledge-producing potentials of the interviews by allowing 

more leeway for following up on whatever approaches are important to the interviewee. 

In addition, semi-structured interview gives a chance to the interviewer to become 

knowledge-producing participant in the process and has greater chance to affect the focus 

of the conversation that is important for the research project. (Brinkmann 2013 :21) 

 

Qualitative research method is used in this study because of the aim to find how the 

policies are implemented and why the implementation is or is not effective. The research 

aims to understand how individuals, in this case the UN staff members, interpret the 

policy implementation process, what affects to it and if there is consistency from the 



37 

 

theoretic standpoint. By using qualitative research methods for studying the 

implementation process in UN system in Mozambique, the objective is also to make 

factors that affect the process, visible for all stakeholders for better understanding and 

enable improvements. 

 

 

3.2. Data collection 

 

The primary source of the data was collected during June and July 2018 in Mozambique, 

by interviewing 11 UN Mozambique staff members. The interviewees were chosen from 

one Outcome group of the UNDAF that concerns economic transformation.   

 

Since the work group of the outcome consists mostly programme officials, also senior 

officials of each agency that pertain to the group, were requested for the interview. The 

group that was interviewed, included 5 international and 6 local UN staff members, from 

which 1 was female and age distribution 37-60 years. 

 

All the interviews were recorded for transcription and accuracy purposes. The interviews 

were conducted in the premises of United Nations and took from 30-60 minutes, 

depending the interviewee. 

 

Additional source of the data for the study are the UNDAF policy documents. Several 

policy documents and reports of the current and previous UNDAF were obtained online 

and from the Residents Coordinator´s office in Maputo, Mozambique. 

 

The challenges for data collection became clear soon after the first requests for interviews 

were sent. Some of the agencies that belong to the chosen outcome group did not respond 

at all, were not available or did not manage to point a person who could give the interview. 

Some of the staff members who had been listed as a member of the working group, had 

already left and the agency hadn´t pointed a person to follow up the issue. Also, despite 

of many attempts, interview with Resident Coordinator was not possible at the time. 

 

 



38 

 

3.3. Semi-structured interviews 

 

The interviews were conducted by using semi-structured interview method. The themes 

and guiding questions were chosen by following the Mazmanian´s and Sabatier´s 

framework and the three sets of independent variables: tractability of the problem, ability 

of statute to structure implementation and nonstatutory variables affecting 

implementation. Not all 16 variables (See Figure 3.) were included as such to the guiding 

questions, but three main themes were introduced in order to get information, which 

variables the interviewees bring up and see as most effecting to the implementation and 

goal achievement.  

 

Firstly, the interviewees were asked to describe the UN Mozambique as work team and 

organization. The aim of this theme was to get information of the characters of the UN 

system in Mozambique that have impact to the implementation process. Additional 

guiding questions concerned the role of the UN generally in the country, for evaluation 

of the position and relationship of the UN compared to the other actors. 

 

Secondly, the interviewees were asked to describe the UNDAF process (formulation, 

implementation, monitoring and evaluation) in order to see how they evaluate the process 

and the policy itself, what affects to it and which perspective is used. 

 

Thirdly, the interviewees were asked to analyse Mozambique as an environment for 

implementation of the development programs. The aim was to find out the nonstatutory 

variables that they think affect most the implementation in the country. 

 

 

  



39 

 

4. DATA ANALYSIS 

 

 

In this chapter the collected data is analysed by using the implementation analysis 

framework of Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989). As background information for the 

analysis, the chapter includes short descriptions of Mozambique and UN in the country. 

 

Before analysing the factors affecting the implementation, the general views of the 

interviewees on the role of UN in Mozambique and the selected policy, United Nations 

Development Assistant Framework (UNDAF) are summoned up. In the end of the 

chapter, the data is contemplated by using Grindle´s (1980) list of characteristics of policy 

implementation in Third World countries.  

 

 

4.1. Background information on Mozambique 

 

Mozambique has boarder lines with Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, 

and Swaziland. It has long Indian Ocean coastline (of 2,500 kilometres). By the 

preliminary information of the latest census (to be published in October 2018), the 

population of Mozambique has reached to 28,9 million with the population growth of 

41% since last census in 2007 (Instituto Nacional Estatística 2018). 

About 70% of its population live and work in rural areas. The country has rich arable 

land, water, energy, as well as mineral resources and newly discovered natural gas 

offshore; three deep seaports. Mozambique is strategically located because it landlocks 

four of the six countries that has boarders with it and is therefore a conduit to the global 

markets. (World Bank 2018) 

The Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (Frelimo) and the Mozambican National 

Resistance (Renamo) are the country’s main political forces, followed by the 

Mozambique Democratic Movement (MDM). Frelimo won the most recent presidential 

elections in 2014 and has majority in parliament. Renamo, the biggest opposition party 

and former rebel group, has maintained the militia after the peace accord of 1992. 



40 

 

However, from time to time, in the parts of the central region there has been registered 

occasional armed conflicts. Peace talks are now underway, but no final resolution has 

been achieved. (World Bank 2018) 

Since 2016 Mozambique has suffered from the effects of the hidden debt crisis. In 2017 

the real gross domestic product (GDP) growth was 3.7%, which has declined from the 

average of the 7% GDP growth achieved between 2011 and 2015. The challenges in 

employment have increased since small and medium enterprises have fallen into 

problems and their capacity to generate jobs has been restricted even further. (World Bank 

2018) 

World Bank assesses that the biggest development challenges in Mozambique are 

restoring the whole macroeconomic stability and re-establishing the confidence through 

improved economic governance and increased transparency. Another challenge is to 

diversify the economy from capital-intensive mega projects and low-productivity, small 

scale agriculture towards more diverse and competitive economy and for all this 

strengthen the inclusion in social policies, such as education and health. (World Bank 

2018) 

Latest Human Development Index (HDI) report ranks Mozambique to place 181 out of 

188 countries with the HDI value of 0.418— which put the country in the low human 

development category, below the average in the Sub- Saharan Africa. The HDI assesses 

progress in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access 

to knowledge and a decent standard of living. (UNDP 2016) 

Life expectancy in Mozambique is only 55,5 years and many social problems are evident 

throughout the country especially among the youth and women. Less than 50% of the 

population has access to improved water sources and 79% of the population do not have 

proper sanitation facilities. The quality and adequacy of education is a big challenge, 

especially after the economic crisis and cuts in the government budget. The adult literacy 

rate is 56% reaching in some regions over 70%. Health services are also inadequate. 

Malaria remains the most common cause of death, responsible for 35% of child mortality 

and 29% for the general population. HIV prevalence among adults is relatively high, 

11.5%. (United Nations Mozambique 2016:3) 



41 

 

In 2018, Mozambique is still one of the ten countries in Africa that receives most Official 

Development Assistance, with the support of average 1,8 billion US dollars annually.  

(OECD 2018) Mozambique has attracted strong donor support for reconstruction and 

development after the independence and civil war (1977-1992) and continues to obtain 

high volumes of external aid (United Nations Mozambique 2016:2). However, due to 

Mozambique´s internal problems, including budget and financial crisis that emerged as 

result of an unsustainable level of debt over 2 billion dollars and revealing of the secret 

debt scandal of former government, there has been a reduction of foreign aid. (United 

Nations Mozambique 2017: 11) 

 

Weimer and Carrilho (2017) have analysed Mozambique from the perspective of political 

economy and in their analysis suggests that Mozambique doesn’t differ from other fragile 

African states in general: 

“…competitive political settlements between elites, weak public institutions, and 

dependence on rents in various forms (including foreign aid, mineral resources, 

commodities and trade), with a culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse and 

stratified population linked to the elites via patron–client relations in a patrimonial 

system.” (Weimer & Carrilho 2017: 10-11) 

 

The Government of Mozambique is the most important counterpart of the United Nations 

in the country, therefore the systems of public administration are vital to the 

implementation of the policies made in UN system globally and locally. Weimer and 

Carrilho (2017: 36-37) describe the Mozambican public administration system as an 

inherited, highly centralised, also called “colonial civic public”. Despite of the 

decentralisation system submitted in the 1990s, the centralized administration system 

follows the principles of subordination and delegation. In 2004, after the deconcentration 

reform, some parts of the management and planning responsibilities have been 

decentralised to the district level. The deconcentrated model of management, with little 

autonomy or resources for the subnational levels is comprehensive and includes also 

public enterprises which deliver public services. (Weimer and Carrilho 2017: 36-37) 

 

One of the biggest challenges for development in Mozambique, is corruption. Lawal 

(2007: 2) mentions that corruption is global phenomenon and especially in Africa, 



42 

 

relevant challenge for development. He argues that African countries must become more 

integrated into the global economy, to attract more investments and reduce poverty, and 

therefore there is a need for actions to limit and eradicate corruption is needed (Lawal 

(2007: 2). 

 

Weimer and Carrilho (2017:51) analyse that the way the country is managed, and political 

economy is “owned” has produced state fragility instead of consolidation of the state, 

despite of the various reforms and generous foreign aid. They also emphasize that the 

recent debt scandal has damaged the fragile state even more and brought it close to 

financial bankruptcy. (Weimer & Carrilho 2017: 51) 

 

For understanding the implementation challenges, it is also important to acknowledge 

other power relations that have an impact how changes happen in the society. In 

Mozambique, at the local level, there are visible, invisible and hidden forms of power, 

exercised by traditional and religious leaders or people who have gained power in the 

community due to beneficial incidents. Weimer and Carrilho describe them as follows: 

“They are powerful as autochthonic custodians of land and natural resources, and 

as institutions that maintain social and religious equilibria and relations of 

exchange with the outside world of the ‘civic public’ (i.e. the state and public 

administration, investors and traders). (Weimer & Carrilho 2017: 40) 

 

 

4.2. United Nations in Mozambique 

 

Mozambique joined the UN after independence in 1975 like many other African states 

when decolonization created rapid growth in UN membership.  

 

The UN in Mozambique carries out its mission through a programme of 

cooperation jointly developed and agreed with the Government of Mozambique, the 

UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), which is jointly implemented 

by the different UN agencies operating in the Country. (UNDAF 2017-2020:2) 

Currently there are 21 UN agencies in the country, combination of funds or programmes 

(UNHCR, UN Women, UNICEF, UNCTAD, UNDP, UNEP, UN-Habitat, UNODC, 



43 

 

UNFPA, WFP, UNCDF, ITC), specialized agencies (FAO, IFAD, ILO, UNESCO, 

UNIDO, WHO), related organizations (IOM) and other entities (UNAIDS, OHCHR). 

Altogether 673 staff members, from which 115 are international workers, located around 

the country, in 27 locations, most of them in the capital, Maputo, South Mozambique. 

Generally, the head of agencies are hired for 4 years at a time and by the staff regulations, 

the head of agencies can´t be national. (Records of the UN Resident Coordinator´s office 

in Maputo) 

 

The UN Resident Coordinator (RC) represents the UN system in the country. He/she is a 

chair of UN country team (UNCT) and provides overall leadership for the UN strategic 

initiatives and the operational framework for development. (UNDP web page) 

 

As a part of UN reforms, 2006, the High-level Panel gave in its report “Delivering as 

One” recommendations to make UN more effective and better to deliver results. The need 

for the reform stemmed from the systematic fragmentation of the UN system and lack of 

ownership at the country level. (Müller 2010: 50). Mozambique was one of the volunteer 

countries that participated the “ONE UN” pilot initiative. One of the specific reform areas 

was to establish One UN Country Programme that would reduce overlapping functions, 

poor co-ordination, duplicated activities, inadequate funding, weak management and lack 

of focus on results. (Müller 2010: 50, 53-54). 

 

The ‘Delivering as One’ initiative developed new operating principles through nine pilot 

projects starting in 2007. The reform involved institutionally primarily the Residence 

Coordinator (RC) and United Nations Country Team (UNCT) at the country level, 

UNDP/DOCO at the headquarters level and the UNDG, HLCP, HLCM and CEB.  

 

The ‘One Programme’ is fitted, in Mozambique within the United Nations Development 

Assistance Framework (UNDAF) -process, in cooperation of the local government and 

the UNCT based on national priorities. Other principles of the reform; ‘One Budgetary 

Framework’ is agreed on by the UNCT and describes the available and required resources 

of each organization in support of the ‘One Programme’; ‘One Leader’ principle is 

realized as joint exercise between the UNCTs and Resident Coordinator; ‘One Office’ is 

a recommendation of the Joint Office model. The reform also aims at achieving more 



44 

 

harmonized business processes and at presenting a unified communication at the country 

level. (Müller 2014: 93-94) 

 

The “Delivering as One” -initiative has had challenges, also in Mozambique. One of the 

challenges has been to change the mindset of different UN agencies to cooperate under 

Resident Coordinator (Müller 2014: 66). 

 

The initial assessment of the reform, made by the pilot countries was positive; increased 

the government leadership and ownership was aligning the UN´s and local priorities, 

increased participation of agencies to the joint activities. The problems reported in the 

assessment included difficulty of balancing the need for greater inclusiveness with greater 

strategic focus and aligning the initiative with ongoing government and UNDAF 

programme cycles, slowness of the reform process at the headquarters level, the heavy 

workload, high start-up costs and too ambitious expectations. (Müller 2014: 67) 

 

 

4.3. Perceived role of the United Nations in Mozambique and UNDAF 

 

One of the interviewees summoned up the three general roles that UN plays in the country 

from his point of view: 1) advocacy, policy development and resources mobilization 2) 

capacity building of implementing agencies and 3) monitoring and evaluation. He didn´t, 

however, evaluate the current performance of UN in these roles. 

 

Generally, most of the interviewees thought that UN is respected and known in the 

country but described the role of the UN as technical, instrumental, operational and 

“…More in the same line as NGOs are doing”, as one local staff member described. 

 

Three interviewees mentioned that the role of UN in Mozambique, after the civil war has 

changed significantly. A couple of officials described as follows: 

“And if I think about, what was the role of UN in this country after the civil war. I 

would say that it has changed a lot. We were more prominent, we played the key 

role in the peace process. While now we have been very silent in all the situation, 

in the tension, low intensity conflict between Frelimo and Renamo and most of the 



45 

 

time we are supporting the government that has questionable records of the 

democracy and respect of human rights.” 

 

“We feel that UN in Mozambique is having some challenges to keep that very good 

image that has created in the past and keep the leadership promptly to responding 

to the challenges like security and humanitarian challenges…UN is still providing 

significant technical assistance, so more over assistance than influencing decision 

making…”  

 

A couple of interviewees mentioned the financial role of the UN in the country is small 

compared to some other aid agencies like the World Bank and investments from private 

sector, therefore neither the government nor the public sector are that that committed to 

the policies and strategies that are implemented in the country. It was mentioned that there 

is need for an oversight of what is happening in the country, authoritative voice and vision 

that only UN can do. Despite of the lack of the political influence due to scarce financial 

resources, and fragmentation of the institution, the interviewees thought that UN has 

potential if the leadership is strong and the goals among the agencies coherent. 

 

One of the interviewees mentioned that in the case of UNDAF and the Outcome 2: 

Economic transformation, the role of the UN is even less than in other Outcomes, because 

there are more powerful actors involved, than in other Outcomes: “…in the economic 

arena, you have multinational companies coming here, you have all the financial 

situation international and the national, you have the region economic zone, the SADEC 

and you have different actors and many actors, and of course less power to us.” 

 

United Nations Development Assistance Framework for Mozambique (UNDAF) 2017 – 

2020 states that it is the “expression of the Government of Mozambique´s and the United 

Nations’ priorities and strategic direction to support national development.” 

Congruently, the policy was described by the interviewees as programmatic document 

between the UN system and the government, a policy document, document about the 

process transaction, platform or framework for the agencies and “just paperwork, 

precooked document”.  

 



46 

 

4.4. Perspectives of the implementation analysis in UN Mozambique 

 

Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) suggest three perspectives for the policy analysis: center, 

periphery and target group. In the case of UN these perspectives can be seen as the 

General Assembly and other principal UN organs where global policies are formed 

(center), the country teams and individual agencies at the field (periphery), and 

beneficiaries of the programs that are implemented in the country (target group). 

 

Most of the interviewed staff members assessed that the UNDAF is formed from the 

perspective of UN, in two levels: globally, at the UN main organs and headquarters who 

make the decisions and policies at international (Sustainable Development Goals, Agenda 

2030) level and locally, at national level in UNCT and individual agencies (UNDAF, joint 

programs, country programs, strategies). 

 

A couple of interviewees mentioned that the approach is more top-down than bottom-up 

and even though it was said that the civil society was participating the formulation 

process, none of the interviewees mentioned how and there is no evidence on that in the 

policy document either. 

 

 

4.5. Independent variables affecting the implementation of UNDAF and Outcome 2 

 

Implementation of the UNDAF and its outcomes is done individually by agencies, except 

some joint programs. Each agency has its own approach to the implementation: some are 

implementing directly, some through government and other implementing partners, like 

civil society organizations. Overall assessment of the implementation of the UNDAF, by 

the interviewees was not flattering, one described it even weak. The challenges mentioned 

most times, were connected to coordination internally in the UN system as well as with 

partners. This is also mentioned by the Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:27) as one of the 

best documented findings in implementation literature and one of the most important 

attributes. 

 

 



47 

 

4.5.1. Tractability of the problem 

 

The Mazmanian´s and Sabatier´s framework lists four factors connected to the tractability 

of the problem. The interviews showed that there are challenges connected to these factors 

and affect the “implementability” of the UNDAF and more precisely Outcome 2.  

 

“Technical difficulties” was the most mentioned problem in the interviews. About a half 

of the interviewees mentioned that there were problems collection of needed data which 

affects the usage of indicators. There is also missing data, collecting is difficult and 

existing data is weak, not accurate, updated nor reliable. The indicators in the policy were 

described inadequate and the formulation process complicated among the agencies. 

 

Other technical difficulties that came up in the interviews were connected to the 

availability of needed consultation in Portuguese and technology. While the internet 

including email, has been launched in Mozambique several years ago, the UN´s main 

counter partner, the government, has difficulties in introducing them effectively. 

 

The second listed factor, “Diversity of the target group”, can be traced from the 

interviews to the mentions that there are many different actors in the Economic sector and 

therefore there are diversity of objectives as well as behaviour that also has impacts to the 

other sectors under the UNDAF. Another factor that can be connected to the behaviour 

of the target group which was mentioned a couple of times by the interviewees, was the 

changes in the priorities of the government, for example: how the government´s priorities 

mentioned in the 5-year plan, have changed due to the financial crisis which has occurred 

since the plan was made. 

 

The third factor, in this set of independent variables of the framework, “Target group as 

a percentage of the population”, came up also in the interviews. It was mentioned that 

problems are big in Mozambique and affecting the majority of the population. Especially 

the issues connected to the economic transformation are touching the most vulnerable 

people, women (more that 50% of the population) and youth. 

 



48 

 

The fourth factor in the set of tractability of problem, “The extent of behavioural 

change”, was also mentioned couple of times. By the interviewees, the challenge is that 

the problems people are facing in the country are big, the needs are many and there is a 

lack of means for surviving. It was also mentioned that many social problems are 

connected to the cultural and social norms that are difficult and very slow to change, as 

well as many times connected to the economic problems. One specific challenge 

mentioned by an official who was well-oriented to the political system of the country, 

was the difficulty in understanding the political environment implementing the policies 

and the analysis of that environment is not done properly. For example, decisions in the 

public finance are made in very specific political circles in Mozambique, and 

understanding this, is important for effective policy implementation. 

 

4.5.2. Ability of Statute Structure Implementation 

 

As argued by Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989:25), the original policymakers can affect 

the achievement of policy objectives, by coherently structuring the implementation 

process. Independent variables under the set of Ability of Statute Structure 

Implementation describe the factors that affect implementation. 

 

First variable, “Clear and consistent objectives” came up in every interview. Most of 

the interviewees, except two, thought that the objectives of UNDAF, in Outcome 2 and 

generally, are clear. The goals were described as generic, ambitious and well aligned with 

the government 5-year plan. Even though they thought that UNDAF and Outcome 2 are 

consistent with the country´s own priorities, they recognized that since the government´s 

5-year plan was made, the priorities have changed due to the financial crisis. The most 

critical comment was that UN should have adapted those changes, too.  Other critical 

comment about the clarity and consistency of the UNDAF´s goals, was justified by the 

insufficient data that the goals are based on.  

 

Even though the goals were seen to be mostly clear, the interviewees thought that there 

are major challenges in the timeframe for the goals and how the goals are implemented. 

There was recommendation to simplify the goals more and to set them less ambitious. At 

least two interviewees brought up examples from the past in which cases the coordination 



49 

 

and implementation worked better when the goals were clear and aimed at responding to 

the actual needs of the beneficiaries, for example programs aiming at emergency relief 

and social protection. 

 

Issues that can be categorized under the second variable of the set of “Ability of Statute 

to Structure Implementation, “Incorporation if adequate causal theory”, were not 

mentioned many times in the interviews, but the interviewees were aware of the 

information that the policy was based on. In the policy document itself, it is mentioned 

that besides of aligning the objectives with the government’s 5-year plan and global 

policies, like Sustainable Development Goals, the development challenges are assessed 

from the human rights-based approach:  

“Nevertheless, aligning the UNDAF exclusively with government priorities and 

strategies, could limit the degree to which the UN family, in some areas, can 

critically assess development challenges from a human rights-based approach to 

programming. Thus, whilst the UNDAF gives primacy to national development 

goals, the United Nations must simultaneously frame its interventions and 

development work within the context of wider global commitments, goals, targets, 

and standards, focusing in particular on people living in vulnerable conditions and 

addressing growing inequality and exclusion, particularly for women and girls and 

young people. In this way the UN’s mandate and comparative advantages can be 

fully realized through resourcing, technical expertise, and strategic positioning for 

enhanced development results that are anchored in the 2030 Agenda for 

Sustainable Development, the SDGs and other global commitments. (United 

Nations Mozambique 2016) 

 

A couple of interviewees brought up that when forming the UNDAF, a consultant had 

been hired to compile Country Context Analysis that was guiding the process, but they 

did not assess if the analysis was sufficient and useful. Two other interviewees appraised 

that the analysis is not enough and should be strengthened as well as done more regularly. 

One brought up a critical point that tells more about the survival fight of the agencies but 

also generally lack of causal theory and therefore failure in the goal achievement and 

results:  



50 

 

“Unfortunately, a lot of agencies are concentrating on projects, because they have 

to pay the salaries of the people, so they prefer to have a project that are less 

relevant to the country, but are more relevant to their staff, so I can hire more 

people because I have that two million project. Even if that project doesn´t make 

sense and that´s the tricky part.” 

 

Third variable in the set is “Initial allocation of financial resources”. Outcome 2, 

“Economic transformation”, falls under result area of “Prosperity” in the studied policy, 

UNDAF. In the policy document, the overall summary of Resource Availability (UN 

Mozambique 2016:15) shows that the funding gap in this result area is about 29%. The 

annual progress report of the UNDAF 2017-2020 also mentions that one challenge was 

the scarcity of funding for some core Agency outputs which affected implementation (UN 

Mozambique 2017:22), although the disbursement of the funds was just 51% (UN 

Mozambique 2017:19). 

 

Only a couple of interviewees evaluated the UN funds for UNDAF insufficient, while 

others said that the activities are pretty much funded and that financial resources have 

never been limitations to the implementation. One interviewee thought that funds for 

Outcome 2 were low compared to other outcomes, but when viewed the first-year 

progress report, Economic Transformation has as much or even more funds than other 

Outcomes (except Food Security and Health). Although it was acknowledged also by 

other interviewees that resource mobilization for activities under the Economic 

Transformation, is more difficult than for many other Outcomes, such as Children or 

Education, which are easy to “sell” for donors. 

 

It was unanimous opinion among the interviewees, except one, that the activities that were 

funded, didn’t have enough resources for the monitoring of the UNDAF. One interviewee 

suggested that if the monitoring was coordinated jointly, the overall funding for the 

monitoring would be lower: 

“If you want to have good monitoring and evaluation, UNDAF is a process that 

reduces the funds on monitoring comparing the sum of all the monitoring that each 

agency supposed to have put.”  



51 

 

Here the challenge could be divergent monitoring requirement by the agencies, which 

have to report to their regional offices and headquarter level as well as different donors, 

and different communication the agencies need for their advocacy and reporting. 

 

It was brought up that generally, compared to other actors in the development field, UN 

is poor and therefor engagement with government is difficult; The government tend to 

give more attention to the organizations that have more financial resources. A Couple of 

interviewees mentioned experiences from previous programs, which have had joint 

funding, like ONE Fund, the implementation process has been more effective and better 

coordinated. 

 

Fourth variable in the set of “Ability of Statute to Structure Implementation” independent 

variables, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) list, “Hierarchical integration within and 

among the implementing agencies”, is the factor that is best documented in the 

implementation literature. UN staff interviewed for the study also brought up many 

challenges in coordination among the UN agencies and with other implementing 

agencies. All the interviewees mentioned that the coordination doesn´t work among the 

UN agencies; there is no coherence, the ideal of working together as ONE UN does not 

function in practice. 

 

Competition over resources and visibility was mentioned couple of times and the 

interviewees thought that it hinders coherence between the agencies, the implementation 

and achievement of the objectives. One interviewee also mentioned that because the 

issues and target groups are overlapping and lacking coordination, agencies are 

hampering the functions of ministries involved in the implementation. Coordination 

problems between agencies and other actors were seen as result of missing 

communication between the agencies and miscommunication with government agencies. 

 

At least three interviewees expressed clearly that there are leadership issues in the UN 

system in Mozambique that affect the coordination and eventually the implementation. 

One of the senior officials described the UNCT before the “Delivering as One” -reform 

as “very exclusive club” which after the reform was managed to change a bit, for more 

inclusive, due to the integration of smaller agencies;  



52 

 

“…fortunately, we managed to demystify, and we managed to change it from the 

club of representatives for the sake of representing to team of people who are 

coming together to brainstorm and to produce some sort of transformation.” 

 

The current role of Resident Coordinator was also seen problematic in terms of 

relationship with high level government officials and representation of UN as one 

organization in the country. This appeared also in another interview; individual agencies 

collaboration with relevant ministries is working very well but not as ONE UN. 

 

Most of the interviewees thought that the UNDAF formulation process started well, the 

group was together and strengthened the collaboration among the agencies. Couple of 

interviewees did mention that there were also fights over control, which created divisions 

among the agencies. One interviewee brought up that the formulation process didn’t 

include the implementing agencies and other suggested that UNDAF should be a more 

inclusive and democratic process. 

 

Even though the UNDAF process had a positive start, the interviewees agreed that the 

implementation of UNDAF is poorly coordinated; there is no implementation plan, how 

to achieve the objectives as ONE UN. There is no common ground for specific issues in 

the policy and each agency has its own approach. One interviewee did argue that more 

concrete implementation plan is not needed, because UNDAF is just process transaction. 

 

One reason for weak coordination that was brought up was differences in the 

administrative levels of different agencies and even though the “Delivering as One” -

reform did leave some good mechanisms for coordination, they still need to be 

strengthened. One interviewee suggested that UN needs more coherent visibility in the 

country and UN officials should understand that collaboration and achievement of more 

results means sometimes compromises over individual expectations. 

 

Monitoring the implementation of the UNDAF was also seen by the interviewees very 

problematic. In addition, to the lack of