Table 1.

Ambiguity-Conflict matrix: Policy implementation processes ([28, 32] p. 230)

	Low Conflict	High Conflict
Low Ambiguity	Administrative Implementation	Political Implementation
	• Goals are given and a means for problem-solving is known • A central authority has the information, resources, and sanction capability to enact the desired policy • Implementation is hierarchically ordered with each link receiving orders from the level above • The policy is spelt out explicitly at each level and there is agreement on responsibilities and tasks • Relatively uniform outcomes at the micro-level across many sites	• There is conflict over both goals and means • The implementation process is a key arena for conflict • Implementation outcomes are determined by the distribution of power • Compliance is not automatically forthcoming • Low ambiguity ensures that monitoring of compliance is relatively easy
High Ambiguity	Experimental Implementation	Symbolic Implementation
	• Outcomes depend largely on which actors are involved • Variation in outcomes from site to site • Outcomes are hard to predict • Opportunities for local entrepreneurs to create local policies • Compliance monitoring mechanisms are of limited relevance • The policy may become a low priority	• Ostensibly implausible combination • Salient symbols can produce high levels of conflict even when the policy is vague • Outcomes will vary across sites • Outcomes will depend upon the balance of local coalition strength • Policy ambiguity makes it difficult to monitor activities