This paper reviews the implementation literature over the past fifteen years, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of both 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches. It argues that the 4–6 year time frame used in most implementation research often overlooks critical features of public policy-making. The paper then proposes a conceptual framework that combines the best features of both approaches, incorporating insights from other literatures, to examine policy change over a 10–20 year period. The review highlights the evolution of implementation research, noting that early American studies were pessimistic about government effectiveness, while more recent work in Western Europe has been more nuanced. The paper critiques the 'top-down' approach, which starts with a policy decision and examines its implementation over time, and the 'bottom-up' approach, which begins with an analysis of local actors and their strategies. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, emphasizing the top-down approach's focus on legal structuring and the bottom-up approach's emphasis on actor strategies and learning. The paper suggests a synthesis that integrates the best features of both approaches, using an advocacy coalition framework to analyze policy change over longer periods. This framework starts with a policy problem or subsystem, examines the strategies of various actors, and incorporates both top-down and bottom-up perspectives. It emphasizes the importance of policy-oriented learning and the role of advocacy coalitions in shaping policy outcomes. The framework aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of policy change, addressing both the dynamics of local variation and the constraints imposed by socio-economic conditions and legal instruments.This paper reviews the implementation literature over the past fifteen years, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of both 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches. It argues that the 4–6 year time frame used in most implementation research often overlooks critical features of public policy-making. The paper then proposes a conceptual framework that combines the best features of both approaches, incorporating insights from other literatures, to examine policy change over a 10–20 year period. The review highlights the evolution of implementation research, noting that early American studies were pessimistic about government effectiveness, while more recent work in Western Europe has been more nuanced. The paper critiques the 'top-down' approach, which starts with a policy decision and examines its implementation over time, and the 'bottom-up' approach, which begins with an analysis of local actors and their strategies. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, emphasizing the top-down approach's focus on legal structuring and the bottom-up approach's emphasis on actor strategies and learning. The paper suggests a synthesis that integrates the best features of both approaches, using an advocacy coalition framework to analyze policy change over longer periods. This framework starts with a policy problem or subsystem, examines the strategies of various actors, and incorporates both top-down and bottom-up perspectives. It emphasizes the importance of policy-oriented learning and the role of advocacy coalitions in shaping policy outcomes. The framework aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of policy change, addressing both the dynamics of local variation and the constraints imposed by socio-economic conditions and legal instruments.