Systemic Impacts of Policy Formation on Street-Level Bureaucracy in Nigeria: A Multi-Level Analysis

Systemic Impacts of Policy Formation on Street-Level Bureaucracy in Nigeria: A Multi-Level Analysis

Tochukwu S. Ezeudu.¹, Chekwume Anthony Okolie²

¹Department of Public Administration, Federal University Gusau, Nigeria

²Depaertment of Public Administration, University of Nigeria, Nsukka

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300201

Received: 15 January 2025; Accepted: 25 January 2025; Published: 07 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines the systemic impacts of policy formation on street-level bureaucracy in Nigeria, with a focus on understanding the challenges and opportunities associated with multi-level governance. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data, the study explores the experiences of street-level bureaucrats and the effectiveness of policy processes across federal, state, and local levels. The findings reveal significant gaps in resource allocation, stakeholder engagement, and alignment of policies with local realities. Street-level bureaucrats reported increased workloads, operational inefficiencies, and diminished job satisfaction due to inadequate funding, unclear guidelines, and limited capacity-building opportunities. Qualitative data highlighted the disconnect between top-down policymaking and the actual needs of local communities.

The study recommends enhancing stakeholder engagement, tailoring policies to local needs, increasing resource allocation, and promoting decentralized governance to improve policy implementation. Regular training programs and stronger accountability mechanisms are also emphasized as critical strategies for addressing systemic challenges. By fostering a collaborative and inclusive approach to policymaking, Nigeria can enhance the efficiency of its public administration and empower street-level bureaucrats to deliver more effective public services.

Keywords: Policy formation, street-level bureaucracy, public administration, multi-level governance, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

Policy formation is a critical element of governance, setting the framework within which public institutions operate and services are delivered. Effective policies are essential to achieving societal goals such as economic development, social equity, and the efficient delivery of public services (Dye, 2013; Hill & Hupe, 2014). In Nigeria, the implementation of policies often rests on the shoulders of street-level bureaucrats, such as teachers, police officers, and healthcare workers. These individuals are at the frontline of public service delivery, bridging the gap between policy intentions and their actualization (Lipsky, 1980; Ayee, 2013).

Street-level bureaucrats play a pivotal role in transforming policy decisions into tangible outcomes. Their discretionary power allows them to adapt policies to fit local realities (Tummers et al., 2015; Hupe, 2019). However, this discretion also introduces variability in how services are delivered, which can either enhance or hinder policy effectiveness (Evans, 2020; Brodkin, 2011). In Nigeria, the contextual challenges of limited resources, systemic corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiency exacerbate the difficulties faced by street-level bureaucrats (Okeke, 2020; Akinola, 2019).

A top-down approach to policy-making characterizes the Nigerian public administration landscape, often neglecting the input of frontline implementers (Eze, 2022; Adeola, 2017). This disconnect between policy formation and implementation leads to unintended outcomes, including poor service delivery and public dissatisfaction (Nweke, 2014; Agbaje, 2020). Furthermore, the socio-political environment in Nigeria, marked by ethnic diversity and regional disparities, adds complexity to policy implementation (Ikeanyibe, 2016; Olowu & Akinola, 2010).

This study explores the systemic impacts of policy formation on street-level bureaucracy in Nigeria, adopting a multi-level analytical approach. The multi-level perspective is essential for understanding how macro-level policy decisions, meso-level administrative structures, and micro-level individual behaviors interact to shape outcomes (Ostrom, 2005; Sabatier, 2007). By examining these interactions, the study seeks to identify the factors that enhance or impede the effectiveness of street-level bureaucrats in delivering public services.

Research has shown that participatory policy-making processes can lead to more effective implementation by incorporating diverse perspectives and fostering ownership among implementers (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Fung, 2015). Yet, in Nigeria, the marginalization of street-level bureaucrats in the policy design process remains a persistent issue (Adebayo, 2001; Ogbu, 2018). This exclusion often results in policies misaligned with the realities of frontline service delivery (Onyeozili, 2005; Ukwueze, 2016).

Addressing these challenges requires a holistic approach that considers the institutional, organizational, and individual dimensions of policy implementation (Hill & Hupe, 2014; Peters, 2021). The institutional dimension involves the rules and norms governing policy-making and implementation (North, 1990; Ostrom, 2005). The organizational dimension focuses on the capacity of public institutions to support street-level bureaucrats (Mintzberg, 1979; Eneh, 2011). Finally, the individual dimension examines the motivations, competencies, and discretion of frontline workers (Lipsky, 1980; Evans & Harris, 2004).

This article contributes to the growing body of literature on street-level bureaucracy by providing a context-specific analysis of Nigeria’s public administration system. It highlights the systemic challenges that undermine policy implementation and proposes actionable recommendations for bridging the gap between policy formation and frontline service delivery. By doing so, it aims to enhance the effectiveness of public service delivery in Nigeria, ultimately contributing to broader societal development (World Bank, 2017; UNDP, 2019).

Objectives of the study

1. To examine the influence of macro-level policy decisions on the operational efficiency of street-level bureaucrats in Nigeria. This objective focuses on understanding how high-level policy frameworks impact the daily activities and decision-making processes of frontline service providers.
2. To identify the organizational and systemic barriers that hinder effective policy implementation by street-level bureaucrats. This includes exploring challenges such as resource limitations, bureaucratic inefficiency, and institutional misalignment that affect service delivery outcomes.
3. To propose actionable strategies for bridging the gap between policy formation and implementation in Nigeria’s public administration system. This aims to provide practical recommendations for enhancing the alignment between policy goals and the realities of frontline service delivery.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Framework: Conception of Street-Level Bureaucracy  

Street-level bureaucracy refers to the roles performed by frontline public service workers who interact directly with citizens and have significant discretion in implementing public policies. These workers, such as police officers, teachers, social workers, and healthcare providers, are critical in shaping how policies are experienced by the public.

The term was popularized by Michael Lipsky in his seminal work Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (1980). Lipsky highlights that these bureaucrats operate under challenging conditions, such as resource constraints and conflicting demands, which require them to exercise discretion to make decisions in real-time. Their actions significantly influence the outcomes of policies, often bridging the gap between policy design and its practical implementation.

Key characteristics of street-level bureaucracy include:

Direct Interaction with Citizens: These bureaucrats serve as the primary link between the government and the public.

Discretionary Power: They interpret and adapt policies to suit specific contexts, often determining how services are allocated or rules enforced.

Resource Constraints: They work within environments of limited resources, which can affect the quality and consistency of service delivery.

Impact on Policy Outcomes: Their decisions and behavior often shape the actual impact of policies, highlighting their crucial role in governance.

For example, in Nigeria, street-level bureaucrats such as primary school teachers and healthcare workers are pivotal in delivering essential public services, yet they frequently face challenges like inadequate training, limited resources, and bureaucratic inefficiencies, which affect their ability to implement policies effectively.

Policy formation and implementation are two interconnected processes within the governance framework. The conceptual underpinning of this study is rooted in the interplay between policy design at the macro level and its practical application at the street level. Lipsky’s (1980) seminal work on street-level bureaucracy emphasizes the discretionary power of frontline workers in adapting policies to local contexts. This framework is complemented by institutional theories, which highlight how rules, norms, and organizational structures influence policy outcomes (North, 1990; Ostrom, 2005). Additionally, multi-level governance theories underscore the importance of interactions across various levels of governance—macro, meso, and micro—in shaping policy implementation (Hill & Hupe, 2014; Sabatier, 2007).

Policy Formation: A Macro-Level Perspective

Policy formation involves the development of guidelines and decisions that direct public administration. Scholars argue that effective policy formation requires inclusivity, evidence-based planning, and alignment with societal needs (Dye, 2013; Sabatier, 2007). In Nigeria, however, policy formation often reflects the interests of political elites, leading to gaps between policy goals and societal realities (Eneh, 2011; Agbaje, 2020).

Adebayo (2001) highlights that Nigeria’s top-down approach to policy formation marginalizes key stakeholders, including street-level bureaucrats. This exclusion results in policies that lack feasibility during implementation. Similarly, Onyeozili (2005) asserts that the disconnect between policymakers and implementers leads to inconsistencies and inefficiencies in service delivery. Effective policy formation should integrate input from diverse stakeholders to ensure that policies are practical and address grassroots challenges (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Fung, 2015).

Street-Level Bureaucracy and Discretion

Street-level bureaucrats, as frontline workers, play a critical role in the implementation of public policies. Lipsky (1980) describes these actors as the ultimate arbiters of policy outcomes, given their direct interaction with citizens. Their discretion allows them to adapt policies to fit contextual realities, but it can also introduce variations that undermine consistency (Evans & Harris, 2004; Brodkin, 2011).

In Nigeria, the challenges faced by street-level bureaucrats are compounded by systemic issues such as inadequate resources, corruption, and political interference (Ogbu, 2018; Akinola, 2019). Research by Okeke (2020) emphasizes that these bureaucrats often resort to coping mechanisms, such as rationing services or bending rules, to navigate these challenges. While these strategies may ensure short-term service delivery, they can erode trust in public institutions over time (Tummers et al., 2015; Hupe, 2019).

Challenges of Policy Implementation in Nigeria

The implementation of policies in Nigeria is fraught with challenges that stem from institutional, organizational, and individual factors. Institutional barriers include weak governance structures, poor inter-agency coordination, and limited accountability mechanisms (Olowu & Akinola, 2010; Peters, 2021). Organizational challenges, such as inadequate training and capacity-building programs, hinder the ability of street-level bureaucrats to execute their duties effectively (Adebayo, 2001; Adeola, 2017).

Moreover, individual-level challenges, such as low motivation and poor working conditions, further undermine policy implementation. Evans (2020) notes that street-level bureaucrats are often overburdened and underpaid, leading to burnout and reduced effectiveness. In Nigeria, these issues are exacerbated by socio-political factors, including ethnic tensions and regional disparities (Ikeanyibe, 2016; Agbaje, 2020).

Multi-Level Governance and Policy Implementation

Multi-level governance theories provide a useful lens for understanding the interactions between macro-level policy formation and micro-level implementation. Hill and Hupe (2014) argue that effective governance requires seamless coordination across different levels of government. In Nigeria, however, the lack of synergy between federal, state, and local governments creates gaps in policy implementation (Onyeozili, 2005; Ukwueze, 2016).

Fung (2015) highlights the importance of participatory governance in bridging these gaps. By involving street-level bureaucrats and other stakeholders in the policy-making process, governments can enhance the alignment between policy goals and implementation realities. Ansell and Gash (2008) further emphasize that collaborative governance fosters trust and accountability, which are critical for effective policy implementation.

Strategies for Enhancing Policy Implementation

Addressing the challenges of policy implementation in Nigeria requires a holistic approach that considers institutional, organizational, and individual dimensions. Institutional reforms should focus on strengthening governance structures, enhancing inter-agency coordination, and promoting accountability (North, 1990; Ostrom, 2005). Organizational strategies, such as capacity building and resource allocation, can empower street-level bureaucrats to perform their roles more effectively (Mintzberg, 1979; Eneh, 2011).

At the individual level, improving the working conditions and motivation of street-level bureaucrats is essential. Research suggests that fair remuneration, professional development opportunities, and supportive work environments can enhance the effectiveness of frontline workers (Tummers et al., 2015; Evans, 2020). Furthermore, fostering a culture of ethics and professionalism can mitigate issues such as corruption and rule-bending (Akinola, 2019; Ogbu, 2018).

Theoretical Framework

Institutional Theory

Institutional theory focuses on the role of formal and informal rules, norms, and organizational structures in shaping behavior and decision-making within organizations and societies. As articulated by North (1990) and Ostrom (2005), institutions are the “rules of the game” that guide how individuals and groups interact, influencing governance, policy-making, and implementation. This theory is particularly relevant in examining the systemic impacts of policy formation on street-level bureaucracy in Nigeria, where institutional inefficiencies and structural challenges significantly shape public administration.

Key Components of Institutional Theory

Formal and Informal Institutions

Institutions can be categorized into formal and informal structures. Formal institutions include laws, regulations, and policies that define the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Informal institutions, on the other hand, consist of cultural norms, traditions, and practices that guide social interactions outside formal regulations (North, 1990). In Nigeria, the interplay between these two types of institutions significantly affects the implementation of public policies. For instance, while formal rules might mandate transparency and accountability, informal norms such as patronage systems and corruption undermine these goals (Olowu, 1999; Ikeanyibe, 2016).

Institutional Capacity

The capacity of institutions to provide resources, training, and support is critical for effective governance. Weak institutional capacity often results in poorly implemented policies, inefficiency, and citizen dissatisfaction. Studies have highlighted that many Nigerian public institutions lack the financial, human, and technological resources necessary for effective policy execution (Adeola, 2017; Agbaje, 2020). This deficit impacts street-level bureaucrats, who are often left to navigate resource scarcity while meeting public expectations.

Path Dependence and Institutional Inertia

Institutional theory also highlights the concept of path dependence, where past decisions and practices influence current institutional behavior. Once certain practices become entrenched, they are difficult to change, even if they are inefficient or outdated (Pierson, 2000). In Nigeria, colonial legacies, centralized governance structures, and entrenched corruption continue to shape contemporary public administration, often creating systemic barriers to effective policy implementation (Ekeh, 1975; Ake, 1981).

Institutional Reforms and Adaptability

Ostrom (2005) emphasizes the importance of adaptability in institutional arrangements. Institutions must be capable of evolving to meet changing societal needs and challenges. However, in Nigeria, institutional reforms are often stalled by political interference, bureaucratic resistance, and a lack of consensus among stakeholders (Onyeozili, 2005; Agbaje, 2020). These challenges hinder the ability of street-level bureaucrats to adapt policies to local contexts effectively.

Implications for Policy Implementation in Nigeria

Institutional theory underscores that policy implementation does not occur in a vacuum. Instead, it is deeply influenced by the broader institutional environment. In Nigeria, systemic issues such as poor inter-agency coordination, weak accountability mechanisms, and corruption hinder effective policy execution. Street-level bureaucrats, who operate at the interface between policy and citizens, are particularly affected by these institutional weaknesses. They often resort to improvisation, rule-bending, or selective implementation to cope with systemic challenges (Lipsky, 1980; Ogbu, 2018).

Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach to institutional reform. Strengthening formal institutions, such as governance structures and regulatory frameworks, while addressing informal norms that perpetuate inefficiency and corruption, is essential. Additionally, capacity-building initiatives, adequate resource allocation, and the promotion of ethical practices can enhance institutional effectiveness and improve policy outcomes.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study employs a descriptive survey research design, which is suitable for exploring the systemic impacts of policy formation on street-level bureaucracy in Nigeria. This design allows for the collection of data from a representative sample of street-level bureaucrats, policymakers, and other stakeholders to understand their perceptions, challenges, and experiences. A mixed-methods approach, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data, ensures a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Quantitative data will provide measurable insights, while qualitative data will offer nuanced perspectives on policy impacts and implementation dynamics.

Study Area

The study is centered on Nigeria, a nation with a federal governance system comprising three levels: federal, state, and local government. This structure supports diverse socio-political and economic systems, making it an ideal setting to examine governance and policy implementation challenges.

Urban Centers:

Abuja (Federal Capital Territory):

As Nigeria’s political and administrative center, Abuja provides insights into federal-level policymaking and implementation. The city hosts critical government institutions and agencies, allowing the study to examine the nexus between federal policy directives and their impact on street-level bureaucrats.

Lagos (Economic Hub): Lagos, as Nigeria’s largest city and a major economic powerhouse, offers a lens into how policy frameworks are implemented in highly urbanized and densely populated environments. Its unique challenges, such as urban congestion and infrastructure deficits, highlight the demands on street-level bureaucracies in managing economic activities and service delivery.

Kano (Regional Center): Kano, a key city in northern Nigeria, represents a significant cultural and commercial hub. Its inclusion ensures an understanding of policy impacts in a region marked by cultural diversity and socio-economic disparities.

Rural Localities: To provide a balanced perspective, the study incorporates rural areas where governance challenges differ significantly from urban centers. These localities allow the exploration of issues such as limited infrastructure, lower bureaucratic capacity, and unique socio-economic contexts.

This multi-faceted approach ensures that the study captures the dynamics of governance and policy implementation across Nigeria’s varied administrative, cultural, and economic landscapes.

Sampling Techniques

A multi-stage sampling approach was used to ensure a diverse and representative study population, combining purposive, stratified, and random sampling methods.

Purposive Sampling:

This initial stage involved the deliberate selection of states and local government areas based on specific criteria:

Economic Significance: Areas like Lagos (economic hub) and Kano (regional trade center) were chosen to capture insights from economically active regions.

Governance Challenges: Locations with well-documented governance and infrastructural issues were prioritized to explore policy implementation barriers.

Presence of Street-Level Bureaucracies: Areas with active public institutions such as schools, hospitals, and local government offices were selected to study bureaucratic operations.

Stratified Sampling:

Within the selected states and local government areas, respondents were divided into strata based on professional groups to ensure diverse sectoral representation:

Healthcare Workers: Representing public health service providers.

Teachers: Reflecting the education sector.

Police Officers: Highlighting law enforcement perspectives.

Local Government Administrators: Providing insights into grassroots governance.

This stratification ensured that key sectors involved in service delivery and governance were included in the study.

Random Sampling:

Within each stratum, respondents were randomly selected to minimize bias and enhance the generalizability of findings. Random sampling ensured equal opportunities for participation across the identified groups.

Sample Size:

The study targeted 500 respondents:

300 Street-Level Bureaucrats: To provide firsthand accounts of policy implementation challenges.

100 Policymakers: To understand the formulation and oversight processes.

100 Members of the Public: To gather perceptions from those who interact with bureaucracies regularly.

This method ensured a comprehensive and inclusive approach, capturing perspectives from all relevant stakeholders involved in policy implementation across Nigeria.

Method of Data Collection

Data collection involved both primary and secondary methods:

Primary Data: Structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were employed. The questionnaires consisted of closed-ended questions for quantitative data and open-ended questions to gather qualitative insights. Interviews with key informants, such as policymakers and senior bureaucrats, provided additional depth.

Secondary Data: Relevant literature, policy documents, and government reports were reviewed to contextualize findings and establish a theoretical foundation. To ensure accuracy and reliability, pilot testing of the questionnaire was conducted with a small sample before full deployment.

Method of Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using a combination of statistical and qualitative techniques:

Quantitative Data: Responses from questionnaires were coded and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, and means, were used to summarize the data, while inferential statistics (e.g., chi-square tests, and correlation analysis) examined relationships between variables.

Qualitative Data: Content analysis was applied to interview transcripts and open-ended questionnaire responses. Emerging themes were identified and categorized to provide insights into the systemic challenges and experiences of street-level bureaucrats.

Triangulation: Findings from quantitative and qualitative data were compared to validate and enrich interpretations, ensuring robust conclusions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Source field survey 2024

Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Out of the 500 respondents, 54% (n = 270) were male, while 46% (n = 230) were female, indicating a relatively balanced gender distribution. The majority of respondents fell within the age range of 30–39 years (42%), followed by those aged 40–49 years (28%), 18–29 years (24%), and 50 years and above (6%).

Gender Distribution

The near-balanced gender distribution, with males constituting 54% and females 46%, reflects inclusivity and diversity within the respondent pool. This balance is critical as it allows for gender-sensitive insights into the workings of hybrid public management models, particularly in Nigeria, where gender dynamics often influence workplace interactions and policy outcomes The slight male dominance aligns with broader workforce patterns in Nigeria, where males often outnumber females in certain sectors due to cultural and socio-economic factors Age Composition

The predominance of respondents aged 30–39 (42%) suggests that the sample includes individuals likely to be in their career prime, and actively engaged in public sector roles. This age group often represents dynamic contributors to organizational change, possessing both the experience and adaptability required to implement hybrid management practices. The notable proportion of individuals aged 40–49 (28%) adds a layer of institutional memory, while the younger age bracket (18–29, 24%) introduces a perspective influenced by contemporary practices and digital fluency. The relatively small representation of respondents aged 50 and above (6%) highlights a potential gap in senior-level participation, which may impact strategic decision-making insights.

Educational Attainment

The high educational level among respondents, with 64% holding Bachelor’s degrees and 24% possessing postgraduate qualifications, underscores the intellectual capacity of the sample. This suggests that respondents are well-equipped to critically evaluate governance systems and the integration of hybrid public management models. The 12% with only secondary education may represent entry-level staff or those in non-technical roles, offering a broader perspective on how policies affect various organizational tiers Workforce Implications

This demographic structure—dominated by educated, middle-aged individuals—mirrors the composition of Nigeria’s public administration workforce. Such a profile suggests that respondents are positioned to engage meaningfully with hybrid models, balancing traditional bureaucratic principles and New Public Management (NPM) practices. The age and education profile also indicate that the workforce is ripe for capacity-building interventions, particularly in adopting digital tools and innovative approaches to governance.

Representation of Street-Level Bureaucrats

The demographic data highlights a well-rounded sample of street-level bureaucrats, crucial to understanding policy implementation challenges. These individuals often mediate between policymakers and citizens, making their perspectives invaluable for assessing hybrid models’ efficacy in improving service delivery and accountability.

The demographic analysis reveals a workforce that is diverse in gender and relatively homogeneous in educational attainment and age. This suggests a promising foundation for implementing hybrid management systems in Nigeria, provided that targeted interventions address the underrepresentation of older and potentially more experienced personnel and leverage the educational strengths of the younger demographic for systemic reform.

Table 2: Perceptions of Street-Level Bureaucrats on Policy Implementation Challenges

Source field survey 2024

Table 2 highlights the perceptions of street-level bureaucrats regarding key challenges in policy implementation. The majority of respondents strongly agreed that inadequate funding for public services (65%) and poor infrastructure (70%) were significant barriers to effective policy implementation. An additional 25% and 20% of respondents, respectively, agreed with these challenges, indicating widespread recognition of these issues.

Inadequate Funding for Public Services (65% Strongly Agree, 25% Agree)

The data reveal that 90% of respondents (combining “strongly agree” and “agree”) perceive inadequate funding as a critical impediment to effective policy implementation. This result aligns with existing literature emphasizing the chronic underfunding of Nigeria’s public sector. Poor funding limits the ability of agencies to procure essential resources, maintain facilities, and sustain operational capacity. Insufficient funding particularly affects sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure, undermining service delivery and creating public dissatisfaction. Addressing this issue requires increased budgetary allocations, stricter fiscal oversight, and improved revenue generation mechanisms.

Poor Infrastructure (70% Strongly Agree, 20% Agree)

A significant 90% of respondents also recognize poor infrastructure as a substantial challenge. Weak infrastructural support, such as outdated facilities, insufficient technology, and poor transport networks, hinders the execution of public policies, especially in rural areas. These challenges exacerbate delays, inefficiencies, and unequal access to services, further entrenching socio-economic inequalities. Modernizing infrastructure, particularly through public-private partnerships (PPPs), is vital to creating a conducive environment for implementing hybrid public management practices.

Political Interference (50% Strongly Agree, 30% Agree)

The finding that 80% of respondents view political interference as a barrier highlights the politicization of governance processes in Nigeria. Political interference often manifests as undue influence over appointments, resource allocation, and policy priorities, which undermines the autonomy of public institutions. This problem is particularly acute in Nigeria’s federal structure, where state and local governments are heavily influenced by political elites. Strengthening institutional frameworks and ensuring greater autonomy for street-level bureaucrats are essential to mitigate this challenge.

Insufficient Training and Capacity (60% Strongly Agree, 25% Agree)

Eighty-five percent of respondents identified insufficient training as a critical challenge, suggesting a gap in the skills and knowledge required to adapt to modern governance demands. Hybrid public management models often require competencies in digital tools, performance management, and innovative service delivery approaches. Without continuous professional development, public servants are ill-equipped to implement reforms effectively. Structured capacity-building programs, supported by donor agencies and government funding, are necessary to address this deficit.

Neutral and Disagreement Responses

Neutral responses ranged between 5% and 10%, suggesting a minority of respondents either lacked sufficient information or perceived the challenges as less relevant in their context. Disagreement responses (under 7% for all challenges) were minimal, reinforcing the consensus that these challenges are systemic and pervasive. However, exploring the perspectives of these outliers may offer insights into specific organizational or regional contexts where barriers are less pronounced.

Interconnections Among Challenges

The challenges identified are interlinked. For instance, inadequate funding exacerbates poor infrastructure and limits training opportunities, while political interference can skew resource allocation and undermine accountability measures. These findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to reforming Nigeria’s governance system, with a focus on addressing root causes rather than symptoms.

Table 3: Responses on the Effectiveness of Policy Formation Processes

Source field survey 2024.

Table 3 presents respondents’ views on the effectiveness of policy formation processes based on four key criteria. The involvement of stakeholders in policy formation was rated as “Very Effective” by only 15% of respondents and “Effective” by 25%, while a significant portion (30%) found it “Ineffective” and 10% rated it as “Very Ineffective.” This indicates a perceived lack of adequate stakeholder engagement in the policy formation process.

Stakeholder Involvement (15% Very Effective, 25% Effective)

Only 40% of respondents rated stakeholder involvement as “Very Effective” or “Effective,” indicating that this aspect of policy formation in Nigeria is perceived as suboptimal. A notable 40% collectively rated stakeholder involvement as “Ineffective” or “Very Ineffective.” This highlights the exclusion of critical stakeholders, such as community representatives, non-governmental organizations, and private sector actors, in the decision-making process. Such limited involvement undermines the inclusiveness and legitimacy of policies, leading to resistance during implementation. Improved participatory frameworks that actively engage diverse stakeholders are essential for enhancing the inclusiveness and responsiveness of policies.

Clarity of Policy Goals (10% Very Effective, 35% Effective)

Although 45% of respondents found policy goals to be clear, a significant 30% rated them as either “Ineffective” or “Very Ineffective.” This discrepancy suggests inconsistencies in how policy objectives are communicated and understood across different levels of governance. Unclear goals can result in fragmented implementation, inefficiency, and misalignment with broader development priorities. A structured approach to drafting and disseminating well-defined goals, possibly through policy briefs or stakeholder workshops, could address this issue.

Alignment with Local Realities (5% Very Effective, 20% Effective)

Only 25% of respondents believed policies were effectively aligned with local realities, while 45% rated this aspect as “Ineffective” or “Very Ineffective.” This result underscores a significant disconnect between policy formulation at higher administrative levels and the realities faced by local communities. Policies that fail to reflect socio-economic, cultural, and geographic contexts often encounter resistance and fail to achieve intended outcomes Strengthening decentralization and involving local governments in the policy design phase could bridge this gap.

Implementation Monitoring and Feedback (10% Very Effective, 20% Effective)

With only 30% rating monitoring and feedback mechanisms as effective, this aspect appears to be a critical weakness. Implementation monitoring ensures accountability, tracks progress, and provides insights for mid-course corrections. However, the findings suggest that monitoring frameworks are either weak or inconsistently applied, limiting their effectiveness. This aligns with earlier findings of resource constraints and political interference, which hinder systematic monitoring and evaluation Investing in digital monitoring systems and fostering independent oversight bodies could significantly improve feedback mechanisms.

Interrelationships Among the Criteria

The ineffectiveness of stakeholder involvement, alignment with local realities, and monitoring mechanisms are interlinked. Limited stakeholder involvement often results in policies that are misaligned with the needs and expectations of local communities. Similarly, poor monitoring frameworks exacerbate these challenges by failing to provide corrective feedback during implementation. For example, without robust engagement or monitoring, policies may be perceived as top-down mandates, lacking legitimacy at the grassroots level.

Table 4: Perceptions of Policy Implementation Challenges by Governance Level

Source: field survey 2024

The data in Table 4 provides a comparative view of how policy implementation challenges are perceived across federal, state, and local levels of governance in Nigeria. The findings reveal critical variations, with the intensity of challenges increasing at the local government level. This highlights systemic disparities and structural weaknesses that disproportionately affect grassroots governance.

Inadequate Funding

• Federal Level (50% Strongly Agree): While funding challenges are recognized at the federal level, the relatively lower percentage suggests that federal institutions might have better access to centralized resources and allocations. However, bureaucratic inefficiencies and competing national priorities may still create funding gaps.
• State Level (65% Strongly Agree): State governments experience heightened funding challenges, as they often rely on federal allocations while managing larger populations and regional projects. The dependency on statutory allocations from the federal government may limit financial autonomy, exacerbating resource constraints.
• Local Level (75% Strongly Agree): The funding challenge is most pronounced at the local level, reflecting limited budgetary allocations, irregular disbursements, and over-reliance on state governments. Local governments often have insufficient internally generated revenue, leaving them unable to meet the growing demands of local communities

Poor Infrastructure

• Federal Level (60% Strongly Agree): Federal institutions acknowledge infrastructure deficits but may benefit from higher funding levels and better access to centralized resources for maintaining critical infrastructure.
• State Level (70% Strongly Agree): The higher percentage reflects the struggle of state governments to manage the infrastructure needs of diverse and growing populations. Inadequate infrastructure at this level often hampers regional development.
• Local Level (80% Strongly Agree): Infrastructure deficits are most acute at the local level, where basic amenities such as roads, schools, and healthcare facilities are lacking. These deficiencies severely undermine service delivery and policy implementation, leaving rural and marginalized communities particularly disadvantaged

Political Interference

• Federal Level (55% Strongly Agree): Political interference is significant but somewhat lower at the federal level, possibly due to more structured administrative processes and oversight mechanisms. Nonetheless, political patronage and partisan interests can still influence federal policy priorities.
• State Level (50% Strongly Agree): At the state level, political interference remains prevalent, often driven by regional power dynamics and political competition. Such interference can derail policy focus and lead to inefficiencies in implementation.
• Local Level (45% Strongly Agree): Although lower than at the state and federal levels, political interference at the local level reflects the influence of state governments and local political actors. This can result in favoritism, corruption, and misallocation of resources, further weakening local governance

Insufficient Training and Capacity

• Federal Level (45% Strongly Agree): Federal institutions have better access to training and capacity-building initiatives, explaining the relatively lower percentage. However, gaps persist due to underinvestment in continuous professional development and reliance on outdated administrative systems.
• State Level (60% Strongly Agree): State-level respondents highlight greater capacity challenges, as resources for staff training are often limited. Inconsistent investments in human resource development affect the ability of state bureaucrats to implement policies effectively.
• Local Level (75% Strongly Agree): Local governments face the greatest capacity challenges, with staff often lacking the technical skills and expertise needed to handle complex governance tasks. This reflects systemic neglect of capacity building at the grassroots level, which undermines effective service delivery and policy implementation (Olowu & Ayo, 2021).

Broader Implications

The analysis highlights a clear hierarchy of challenges, with local governments bearing the brunt of systemic weaknesses. The findings suggest the need for targeted reforms to address disparities across governance tiers:

1. Decentralization of Resources: Increasing financial autonomy for local governments could mitigate funding constraints and improve service delivery at the grassroots level.
2. Infrastructure Investment: Prioritizing infrastructure development in rural and underserved areas is critical for reducing disparities and enhancing policy effectiveness.
3. Capacity Building: Strengthening training programs at all levels, particularly for local government staff, would improve implementation outcomes.
4. Reducing Political Interference: Establishing transparent governance mechanisms and independent oversight bodies could help minimize undue political influence and ensure accountability.

The challenges of inadequate funding, poor infrastructure, political interference, and insufficient capacity disproportionately affect local governance in Nigeria. Addressing these systemic issues requires a comprehensive and multi-level approach, emphasizing resource equity, capacity building, and accountability. By prioritizing reforms at the local level, Nigeria can create a more balanced and effective governance framework capable of meeting the needs of its diverse population.

Table 5: Effectiveness of Policy Formation Processes by Governance Level

Source: field survey 2024.

The data from Table 5 reveals significant differences in how federal, state, and local-level respondents perceive the effectiveness of policy formation processes. Federal respondents consistently rated these processes as more effective compared to state and local respondents, highlighting a disconnect between policy formation at the federal level and its implementation across lower governance tiers. Below is a detailed analysis of these findings:

Involvement of Stakeholders

• Federal Level (30% Effective): Stakeholder involvement was rated highest at the federal level. This may reflect better access to resources, platforms, and engagement mechanisms for consulting various actors, such as NGOs, private sector entities, and international partners. However, the effectiveness rating still falls short of a majority, indicating that federal processes also have room for improvement in inclusivity and consultation.
• State Level (20% Effective): The drop in effectiveness at the state level highlights limited stakeholder engagement mechanisms. State governments may struggle with logistical and structural challenges in involving diverse groups, particularly from rural and marginalized areas.
• Local Level (15% Effective): Local governments reported the lowest ratings for stakeholder involvement. This suggests that grassroots voices are often excluded from policy discussions, leading to policies that do not adequately address local needs. The lack of participatory governance at this level weakens the credibility and effectiveness of policies.

Clarity of Policy Goals

• Federal Level (40% Effective): Federal respondents rated clarity of policy goals as relatively high. This reflects the structured and centralized nature of policy formulation at the federal level, where goals are often clearly articulated in national development plans or sectoral strategies.
• State Level (35% Effective): State-level respondents reported slightly lower ratings, indicating potential communication gaps between federal authorities and state actors. Misalignment or vagueness in translating national goals into actionable state-level policies may contribute to this perception.
• Local Level (30% Effective): The decline in ratings at the local level highlights difficulties in operationalizing broad policy goals within specific local contexts. Policies may be perceived as abstract or irrelevant, leading to challenges in implementation

Alignment with Local Realities

• Federal Level (25% Effective): Federal respondents acknowledged moderate alignment of policies with local realities, which may stem from a limited understanding of regional and grassroots challenges during the policymaking process. Federal policies often take a top-down approach, emphasizing national priorities over local needs.
• State Level (20% Effective): At the state level, respondents reported lower alignment, suggesting that state governments struggle to adapt federal policies to regional dynamics. Bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of autonomy may exacerbate this issue.
• Local Level (15% Effective): Local respondents provided the lowest ratings, underscoring a significant disconnect between policy design and implementation realities at the grassroots level. This misalignment often results in policies that fail to address pressing local concerns, such as access to basic infrastructure and social services.

Implementation Monitoring

• Federal Level (30% Effective): Federal respondents perceived monitoring mechanisms as moderately effective. This reflects the existence of national oversight frameworks, such as performance audits and reporting systems. However, implementation monitoring often lacks consistency and follow-up, leading to gaps in accountability.
• State Level (20% Effective): The state-level rating highlights challenges in institutional capacity and resource availability for monitoring policy outcomes. States often lack robust data collection and evaluation systems to track implementation progress effectively.
• Local Level (10% Effective): The lowest ratings at the local level reveal significant deficiencies in monitoring and feedback systems. Local governments often lack the technical expertise, tools, and funding to track the effectiveness of implemented policies. This creates a feedback vacuum, hindering evidence-based adjustments to policies.

Key Implications

1. Top-Down Disconnect: The higher ratings at the federal level and declining perceptions at the state and local levels reflect a disconnect between top-down policy formation and grassroots realities. This disconnect undermines the ability of policies to effectively address context-specific challenges.
2. Exclusion of Local Voices: Low stakeholder involvement at the local level highlights the need for greater participatory governance. Incorporating input from grassroots actors can improve policy relevance and acceptance.
3. Monitoring and Feedback Deficiencies: The lack of effective monitoring mechanisms, especially at the local level, limits accountability and the ability to make informed policy adjustments.

Table 6: Recommendations by Respondents for Improving Policy Implementation by Governance Level

Source: field survey 2024

The data from Table 6 reveals a broad consensus on key areas requiring improvement to enhance policy implementation in Nigeria, though the priorities differ across governance levels (federal, state, and local). Below is a detailed analysis of each recommendation:

Increase Funding for Public Services

• Local Level (80%): Local respondents emphasized funding as the most critical need, likely reflecting their firsthand experience of resource constraints and inadequate budgets. Local governments often face the dual burden of implementing policies and providing services without sufficient financial support from higher tiers of government. This funding gap exacerbates the challenge of delivering basic services, particularly in underserved rural areas.
• State Level (70%): State governments also prioritized increased funding, indicating a reliance on federal allocations that may not adequately meet regional needs. The centralized revenue-sharing structure in Nigeria limits states’ fiscal autonomy, leading to persistent funding challenges.
• Federal Level (60%): While funding was a concern at the federal level, its relative importance was lower compared to other tiers. This could reflect the federal government’s access to broader revenue streams and resources but also underscores the need for equitable resource distribution.

Provide Regular Training for Staff

• Local Level (66.7%): Local respondents highlighted training as essential for improving administrative capacity. Local governments often lack well-trained personnel, which hinders effective service delivery. Training programs tailored to grassroots challenges could address this gap and empower local officials.
• State Level (63.6%): At the state level, the emphasis on training aligns with their intermediary role in policy implementation, requiring skilled staff to manage diverse responsibilities. Regular training could enhance technical competencies and policy execution efficiency.
• Federal Level (50%): Federal respondents placed relatively less emphasis on training, potentially reflecting the higher level of specialization and expertise already present at this governance tier. However, ongoing training remains essential for adapting to evolving policy challenges.

Strengthen Accountability Frameworks

• State Level (63.6%): Accountability was a key concern at the state level, reflecting widespread issues of governance, transparency, and oversight. Strengthened accountability mechanisms can help curb corruption and ensure that allocated resources are utilized effectively.
• Local Level (60%): Local respondents also prioritized accountability, likely due to the proximity of local governments to citizens and the pressure to demonstrate transparency. However, weak institutional frameworks often hinder effective monitoring and enforcement at this level.
• Federal Level (45%): While accountability was less emphasized at the federal level, it remains a critical area for ensuring that national policies are effectively monitored and evaluated.

Enhance Stakeholder Involvement

• Local Level (73.3%): Local respondents rated stakeholder involvement as particularly crucial, emphasizing the importance of grassroots participation in policy decisions. Including local communities in the policy cycle can ensure that policies address real needs and build trust in government initiatives.
• State Level (63.6%): State governments also saw stakeholder engagement as a priority, reflecting their role in mediating between federal directives and local implementation. Increased engagement with civil society and private sector actors at this level could improve policy relevance.
• Federal Level (55%): Federal respondents viewed stakeholder involvement as less pressing, possibly due to the centralized nature of policy formation at this level, where broader, macro-level goals dominate over localized considerations.

Improve Infrastructure

• Local Level (93.3%): Local respondents overwhelmingly identified infrastructure improvement as a critical need. Poor infrastructure, such as inadequate roads, water supply, and electricity, directly impedes service delivery and policy implementation at the grassroots level. This disparity underscores the need for targeted investments in local infrastructure.
• State Level (76.4%): State governments also emphasized infrastructure, which is essential for enabling efficient service delivery and connecting communities to larger economic networks.
• Federal Level (70%): Federal respondents recognized infrastructure development as vital but saw it less urgently than local governments. This could reflect a focus on macro-level infrastructure projects rather than localized improvements.

Key Insights

1. Disparities Across Governance Levels: The data reveals significant disparities in priorities between governance levels, with local respondents emphasizing immediate, tangible needs such as funding, training, and infrastructure, while federal and state respondents focus more on broader structural issues like accountability.
2. Local Governments Face Greater Challenges: Local governments consistently rated all recommendations as more critical, reflecting their direct engagement with citizens and the acute challenges they face in delivering services under resource constraints.
3. Infrastructure as a Foundational Need: Infrastructure improvement emerged as the most universally recognized priority, highlighting its critical role in enabling effective policy implementation across all tiers of government.

Table 7: Key Themes and Sub-Themes from Qualitative Data

Source: field survey 2024

Table 7 presents key themes, sub-themes, and insights from qualitative data on policy formation and implementation challenges. Under the theme of Policy Formation Challenges, respondents highlighted issues such as the lack of stakeholder engagement, misalignment of policies with local realities, and political interference. For instance, some noted that “decisions are often made without consulting field officers,” reflecting a top-down approach to policymaking.

In the Resource Constraints theme, participants emphasized inadequate funding, poor infrastructure, and limited training opportunities as significant barriers. A respondent lamented that “facilities at our local office are inadequate and outdated,” illustrating the resource gaps that hinder effective implementation.

Regarding Recommendations, participants called for enhanced funding, regular training, and strengthened accountability mechanisms to improve policy outcomes. The need for better collaboration across governance levels was also stressed, as one participant remarked that “coordination between federal, state, and local levels is critical.”

Overall, the table underscores systemic issues in policy formation and implementation and highlights the urgent need for inclusive, well-resourced, and collaborative approaches to address these challenges.

Table 8: Perceived Effects of Policy Formation on Street-Level Bureaucracy

Source: field survey 2024.

Table 8 highlights the perceived effects of policy formation on street-level bureaucracy, revealing significant challenges faced by public servants during implementation.

The theme of Workload Intensification reflects the increased burden placed on bureaucrats without adequate support. Respondents noted that policies often add responsibilities but lack corresponding resources, with one stating, “We are expected to achieve targets with limited resources.” This demonstrates a mismatch between policy goals and operational capacity.

Under Diminished Job Satisfaction, participants expressed frustration with implementing policies deemed unfeasible and the lack of acknowledgment for their efforts. For instance, one respondent remarked, “It’s disheartening to implement policies that are bound to fail,” illustrating how unmet expectations impact morale and motivation.

The theme of Operational Inefficiencies underscores structural barriers such as redundant reporting systems and unclear guidelines. These inefficiencies divert attention from service delivery, as described by a respondent who stated, “We spend too much time on reporting instead of serving the public.”

Overall, the table highlights the need to address systemic challenges, such as providing adequate resources, streamlining processes, and offering recognition, to enhance the effectiveness and morale of street-level bureaucrats.

Table 9: Stakeholder Suggestions for Improving Policy Formation

Source: field survey 2024

Table 9 outlines stakeholders’ suggestions for improving policy formation, emphasizing inclusivity, relevance, and capacity development.

Under the theme of Stakeholder Engagement, participants advocated for participatory policy reviews, highlighting the importance of involving street-level bureaucrats in policy drafting. As one participant stated, “Involve street-level bureaucrats during the policy drafting stage,” indicating that such engagement would ensure practical and implementable policies.

The theme of Contextual Relevance calls for tailoring policies to local needs. A respondent stressed that “policies must align with community priorities,” suggesting that understanding the unique challenges of different regions is vital for effective implementation.

Capacity Building emerged as a critical recommendation, with participants emphasizing the need for regular training and workshops. One participant remarked, “We need training on new tools and procedures to perform better,” reflecting the necessity of equipping bureaucrats with the skills and knowledge to address emerging challenges.

Finally, the theme of Decentralization highlighted the importance of empowering local governments. A respondent noted, “Allow more autonomy at the local level for quicker decision-making,” underscoring the need for devolved authority to address issues promptly.

These suggestions collectively advocate for a more inclusive, localized, and well-supported policy formation process to enhance its effectiveness and sustainability.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study underscore the systemic challenges and opportunities associated with policy formation and implementation in Nigeria, particularly at the street-level bureaucracy. Quantitative results revealed significant disparities across governance levels in resource allocation, stakeholder engagement, and infrastructure development. Local-level bureaucrats consistently reported greater resource constraints and policy misalignment, emphasizing their unique challenges in addressing grassroots needs. This aligns with earlier studies highlighting the disconnect between centralized policymaking and local realities (Akindele & Olaopa, 2020).

Qualitative data reinforced these findings, shedding light on operational inefficiencies and the frustration of street-level bureaucrats. Participants cited inadequate funding, unrealistic expectations, and redundant reporting systems as critical barriers. These challenges reflect the limitations of top-down policy approaches, as noted in institutional theory, which emphasizes the importance of adapting policies to contextual and institutional dynamics (Scott, 2014).

Notably, stakeholder engagement and capacity building emerged as consistent recommendations. Respondents called for participatory policy reviews, enhanced training programs, and decentralized decision-making to improve policy relevance and efficiency. This echoes the need for a multi-level governance framework that fosters collaboration and accountability across federal, state, and local levels (Olowu & Ayo, 2021).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

This study has explored the systemic impacts of policy formation on street-level bureaucracy in Nigeria, revealing critical insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by public administrators. The findings highlight the disconnect between centralized policymaking and the realities at the local level, exacerbated by resource constraints, inadequate infrastructure, and limited stakeholder engagement. Street-level bureaucrats bear the brunt of these challenges, often facing increased workloads, operational inefficiencies, and diminished job satisfaction.

The study underscores the need for a multi-level governance approach that fosters collaboration among federal, state, and local authorities. Recommendations from respondents, including enhanced funding, tailored policies, regular training, and decentralized decision-making, emphasize the importance of inclusivity, contextual relevance, and capacity building in improving policy outcomes.

By addressing these systemic challenges, Nigeria can create a more supportive environment for street-level bureaucrats, enhancing their ability to implement policies effectively and improving public service delivery. Future research could further explore the specific mechanisms for fostering multi-level collaboration and measuring their impacts on policy implementation. Addressing these issues is critical for achieving sustainable development and responsive governance in Nigeria

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed to improve the effectiveness of policy formation and implementation in Nigeria:

1. Enhance Stakeholder Engagement: Policymakers should involve street-level bureaucrats, community leaders, and other relevant stakeholders during the drafting and review stages of policy formation. This participatory approach ensures that policies are practical, contextually relevant, and inclusive. To enhance stakeholder engagement in policy formation, practical steps should focus on inclusivity and collaboration:

• Organize Consultations: Conduct forums, town halls, and public hearings to gather input from community leaders, bureaucrats, and citizens. These meetings foster dialogue and ensure diverse perspectives are considered.
• Form Stakeholder Committees: Establish multi-stakeholder panels, including representatives from public agencies, community groups, and private sectors, to contribute to and review policy drafts.
• Use Technology: Leverage digital tools like surveys, social media, and apps to collect input and feedback from a broad audience, including those in remote areas.
• Capacity Building: Train participants, especially street-level bureaucrats, on policy analysis and communication, ensuring their contributions are informed and effective.
• Institutionalize Feedback Mechanisms: Implement continuous feedback systems, such as periodic evaluations, to refine policies and address implementation gaps based on real-world experiences.
• Legal Reforms: Enforce regulations that mandate stakeholder participation in governance to institutionalize inclusivity.

2. Tailor Policies to Local Realities: Policies should align with the unique needs and priorities of communities. Conducting local assessments and leveraging input from grassroots-level actors can help bridge the gap between policy design and implementation.
3. Increase Resource Allocation: Adequate funding, modern infrastructure, and necessary tools should be provided to enable effective implementation. This includes ensuring that local offices are equipped to handle the demands of public service delivery.
4. Strengthen Capacity Building: Regular training programs and workshops should be conducted for street-level bureaucrats to improve their skills and knowledge, particularly regarding new tools, procedures, and technologies.
5. Promote Decentralization: Empowering local governments with greater autonomy and decision-making capacity will enable quicker responses to community needs and reduce bureaucratic bottlenecks.
6. Establish Accountability Mechanisms: Strengthen monitoring and evaluation frameworks to ensure transparency in resource utilization and assess the effectiveness of implemented policies.
7. To effectively involve street-level bureaucrats in policymaking, the following targeted strategies can be implemented:

• Consultation Platforms: Establish structured consultation sessions where bureaucrats share their insights from daily interactions with citizens, ensuring that policies reflect on-the-ground realities.
• Pilot Testing: Involve bureaucrats in piloting new policies to identify practical challenges and propose adjustments before full-scale implementation.
• Feedback Systems: Develop mechanisms for bureaucrats to report on policy impacts regularly. For example, feedback portals or periodic review meetings can capture their experiences.
• Collaborative Workshops: Organize policy co-creation workshops where bureaucrats work with policymakers to draft initiatives, ensuring practicality and feasibility.
• Role in Policy Committees: Include bureaucrats in cross-sectoral policy committees to bring their frontline experience into decision-making processes.
• Training and Empowerment: Provide training to enhance their understanding of the policymaking process, empowering them to make informed contributions.
• Recognition of Input: Formally acknowledge bureaucrats’ contributions to policymaking, motivating active participation and fostering a culture of collaboration.

These measures integrate the insights and expertise of street-level bureaucrats, enhancing the relevance and effectiveness of policies while ensuring smoother implementation.

By adopting these recommendations, Nigeria can foster a more responsive and efficient public administration system that empowers street-level bureaucrats and enhances service delivery.

REFERENCES

1. Adebayo, A. (2001). Principles and practice of public administration in Nigeria. Spectrum Books.
2. Adeola, G. L. (2017). Public administration and governance in Nigeria: A reexamination. African Journal of Public Administration, 10(2), 45-61.
3. Agbaje, A. (2020). Policy implementation and public service delivery in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Public Administration, 15(3), 78-90.
4. Ake, C. (1981). A political economy of Africa. Longman.
5. Akindele, S. T., & Olaopa, O. R. (2020). Public administration in Nigeria: Evolution, challenges, and prospects. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 12(3), 15–27.
6. Akinola, S. R. (2019). The paradox of governance in Nigeria. Journal of African Development Studies, 11(4), 112-130.
7. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
8. Ayee, J. R. A. (2013). Street-level bureaucrats and their discretionary power. Public Administration and Development, 33(2), 165-179.
9. Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), i253-i277.
10. Dye, T. R. (2013). Understanding public policy (14th ed.). Pearson.
11. Ekeh, P. P. (1975). Colonialism and the two publics in Africa: A theoretical statement. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17(1), 91-112.
12. Eneh, O. C. (2011). Nigeria’s public service reform and development agenda. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(2), 101-115.
13. Evans, T. (2020). Discretion and street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 22(1), 48-66.
14. Evans, T. (2020). Discretion and street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 22(1), 48-66.
15. Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work, and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871-895.
16. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522.
17. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2014). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance (3rd ed.). Sage.
18. Hupe, P. (2019). The politics of street-level bureaucracy. Routledge.
19. Ikeanyibe, O. M. (2016). Federalism and public administration in Nigeria. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 8(3), 25-38.
20. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
21. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
22. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice Hall.
23. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
24. Ogbu, O. (2018). The challenges of public sector reforms in Nigeria. African Journal of Governance and Development, 7(1), 36-55.
25. Ogbu, O. (2018). The challenges of public sector reforms in Nigeria. African Journal of Governance and Development, 7(1), 36-55.
26. Okeke, C. (2020). Policy implementation and challenges in Nigeria. African Journal of Public Administration and Development Studies, 9(3), 52-67.
27. Okeke, C. (2020). Policy implementation and challenges in Nigeria. African Journal of Public Administration and Development Studies, 9(3), 52-67.
28. Olowu, D. (1999). Redesigning African civil service reforms. Journal of Modern African Studies, 37(1), 1-23.
29. Olowu, D., & Akinola, S. (2010). Governance and public administration in Nigeria. Journal of Policy Studies, 12(2), 89-105.
30. Olowu, D., & Ayo, S. B. (2021). Governance and policy implementation in developing countries: Lessons from Nigeria. African Journal of Governance, 9(2), 45–58.
31. Onyeozili, E. C. (2005). Obstacles to effective policy implementation in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Policy Studies, 11(1), 23-34.
32. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.
33. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267.
34. Sabatier, P. A. (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
35. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
36. Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099-1126.
37. Ukwueze, F. (2016). The impact of policy misalignment on development in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Development Studies, 8(1), 44-56.
38. UNDP. (2019). Human Development Report 2019. United Nations Development Programme.
39. World Bank. (2017). World development report 2017: Governance and the law. World Bank Publications.