Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:44:24.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improbable Implementation: The Pressman–Wildavsky Paradox Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ernest R. Alexander
Ernest R. Alexander
Affiliation:
Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Pressman–Wildavsky model of implementation finds a paradox in the success of any federal programs, based on their low probability of approval. Bowen relaxed this model's independence assumption to improve implementation. Here the model is reexamined: a. its sensitivity is tested; b. the empirical base for the probability range is reviewed; and c. its fit with implementation processes in general is checked. The conclusions are (1) the model's ‘proof’ depends on its assumptions and computations, (2) there is no empirical basis for the probability estimates, and (3) the model only fits one special case of implementation processes. Better models can be developed, and successful implementation may require organizational interdependencies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , October 1989 , pp. 451 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, Howard, and Whetten, David (1981) Organization Sets, Action-Sets and Networks: Making the Most of Simplicity. In Nystrom, and Starbuck, (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Ernest R. (1981) Effectiveness in Interorganizational Coordination: A Comparative Case Analysis. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Architecture & Urban Planning Research Report RP 81–4, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Google Scholar
Alexander, Ernest R. (1985) From Idea to Action: Notes for a Contingent Theory of the Policy-Implementation Process. Administration and Society, 16, 4, 403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Ernest R. (1990) Sharing Power Among Organizations: Coordination Models to Link Theory and Practice. In Bryson, and Einsweiler, (eds.) Shared Power: What is It? How Does it Work? How Can We Make it Work Better?, Lanham MD: University Press of America (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Bowen, Elinor R. (1982) The Pressman-Wildaysky Paradox: Four Addenda or Why Models Based on Probability Theory Can Predict Implementation Success and Suggest Useful Tactical Advice for Implementers. Journal of Public Policy, 2, 1, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, , Bernard, L., and I-Sing Lee (1979) A Catalog of Risks. Health Physics, 36, 6, 707–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisner, H. S. (1979) Hazard Assessment: Experience and Expectation. Science and Public Policy, 6, 3, 146–50Google Scholar
Eimaghraby, Salah E. (1977) Activity Networks. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Faludi, Andreas (1987) A Decision-Centred View of Environmental Planning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, Baruch, Lichtenstein, Sarah, Slovic, Paul, Derby, Stephen L. and Keeney, Ralph L. (1981) Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hjern, Benny, and Porter, David O. (1881) Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis. Organization Studies, 2, 3, 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoos, Ida R. (1962) Systems Analysis in Public Policy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Masuch, Michael, and Potin, Perry La (1989) Beyond Garbage Cans: An AI Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 1, 38–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, Henry, Darius Raisinghani and Andre Theoret (1976) The Structure of Unstructured Decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 2, 246–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Wildaysky, Aaron (1984) Implementation (Third Edition Expanded), Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard and Page, Edward C. (forthcoming) ‘Action in Adversity: Responses to Unemployment in Britain and Germany’, West European Politics.Google Scholar
Rowe, William D. (1977) An Anatomy of Risk. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. (1985) What Can We Learn from Implementation Research. In Kaufman, Majone, Ostrom, and Wirth, (eds.) Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector (The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project), Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ting, Wenlee (1988) Multinational Risk Assessment and Management: Strategies for Investment and Marketing Decisions, New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar