Why Have Policies Often Remained Symbolic? Understanding the Reasons for Decoupling between Policy and Practice

Why have policies that are unquestioningly accepted as appropriate remained symbolic? To answer the research question, I suggest two possible reasons for decoupling between policy and practice: the characteristics of normative pressure as “the weak enforcement mechanism of law” through the implementation stage and jurisdictions’ capacity to infuse the stories of success based on others’ use to their own day‐to‐day realities. In this article, I seek to reintroduce a seminal contribution of the early institutionalists by challenging the assumption that dimensions of adoption and implementation are synonymous or positively correlated. Empirical findings contribute to provide scholars and practitioners with a larger picture of policy diffusion and support the arguments by Nicholson‐Crotty and Carley that policy learning takes place based on policymakers’ assessment of both “policy actions” and “outcomes” in previously adopting jurisdictions.