Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:00:27.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving Implementation Through Framing Smarter Statutes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Helen Ingram  and
Anne Schneider
Helen Ingram
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and School of Public Administration and Policy University of Arizona
Anne Schneider
Affiliation:
College of Public Programs Arizona State University, Tempe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Statutory design is the source of many problems encountered in implementation, yet policy scholars have not made much headway in providing coherent and consistent advice for framing smarter statutes. There is a great deal of disagreement about how much discretion statutes should leave to implementers, and four distinct and conflicting schools of thought have emerged. This article advises that none of the perspectives is always correct and patterns for allocating discretion should take into account the implementation context. Contexts vary from statute to statute and may change for different policy elements within particular policies. The core elements in policy content are identified and linked in a scheme that is more comprehensive and relevant to policy results than previous work. The article also provides a ‘value-added’ conception of implementation in which the extent of discretion exercised by implementers is measured by changes they make in the core elements of policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 67 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Alexander, Ernest R. (1982). ‘Design in the Decision-Making Process,’ Policy Sciences, 14, 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, James E. (1984). Public Policy Making. CBS College Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Bardach, Eugene (1979). The Implementation Came. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Berman, Paul (1978). ‘The Study of Macro-and Micro-Implementation,’ Public Policy 26, 157–184.Google Scholar
Berman, Paul (1980). ‘Thinking About Programed and Adaptive Implementation: Matching Strategies to Situations,’ in Ingram, Helen and Mann, Dean, (Ed) Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Beverly Hills, Sage.Google Scholar
Bickman, Leonard (1987). Using Program Theory in Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Davis B. and Dryzek, John S. (1987). Policy Analysis by Design. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Bowen, Elinor (1982). ’The Pressman-Wildavsky Paradox: Four Addenda on Why Models Based on Probability Theory Predict Implementation Success and Suggest Useful Tactical Advice for Implementers,’ Journal of Public Policy, 2, 1, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerych, Ladislav and Sabatier, Paul (1986). ‘Great Expectations and Mixed Performance: The Implementation of Higher Education Reforms in Europe.’ Trentham U.K.: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
Dexter, Lewis A. (1981). ‘Undesigned Consequences of Purposive Legislative Action: Alternatives to Implementation,’ Journal of Public Policy, 1, 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, Yehezkel (1971). Design for Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. (1983). ‘Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design,’ Journal of Public Policy, 3, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, Richard (1982). ‘Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions,’ in Williams, Walter (Ed), Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Goggins, Malcolm L. (1987). Policy Design and the Politics of Implementation. Knoxville; University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Gormley, William T. Jr. (1987), ‘Bureau-Bashing: A Framework for Analysis,’ presented at the 1987 meetings of the American Political Science Association,Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Heclo, Hugh, and Adams, Carolyn Teich (1983). Comparative Public Policy. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I. (1986). ‘Policy Evaluation, Democratic Theory, and the Division of Scholarly Labor,’ Policy Studies Review, 5, 3, 3, 511–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, Christopher C. (1986). The Tools of Government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Ingraham, Patricia (1987). ‘Toward More Systemic Consideration of Policy Design,’ Policy Studies Journal, 15, 4, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, Helen and Schneider, Anne (1990). ‘Choosing Target Populations.’ Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen (1977). ‘Policy Implementation Through Bargaining: The Case of Federal Grants-in-Aid,’ Public Policy, 25, 499–526.Google ScholarPubMed
Ingram, Helen M. and Mann, Dean E. (1980). Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication Inc.Google Scholar
Katzmann, Robert (1989). ‘The American legislative process as a signal.’ Journal of Public Policy, 9:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Guy Peters, B. (1985). ‘From Social Theory to Policy Design, ‘Journal of Public Policy, 4, 3, 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, Stephen and Guy Peters, B. (1988). ‘The Design of Instruments for Public Policy: A Preliminary Design for Modeling How Experts and Policymakers View Government's Tools,’ prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in Chicago, April, 1988.Google Scholar
Lipsky, Michael (1978). ‘Standing the Study of Policy Implementation on Its Head,’ in Burnham, Walter and Weinberg, Martha, (ed.) American Politics and Public Policy. Boston, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. (1979). The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. (1964). ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory,’ World Politics, 16,677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, Lorraine (1987) ‘The Instruments of State Education Reform,’ paper presented at the Western Political Science Association Annual Conference,March 26-28.Google Scholar
McFarlane, Deborah (1989). Testing the Statutory Coherence Hypothesis: The Implementation of Federal Family Planning Policy in the States.’ Administration and Society, 20, 4, 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, Milbrey (1976) ‘Implementation as Mutual Adaptation,’ in Williams, Walter and Elmore, Richard (ed) Social Programs in Implementation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. (1987). Politics and Bureaucracy, 2nd ed., Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Miller, Trudi C. (1984) (ed.) Public Sector Performance: A Conceptual Turning Point. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, Lawrence B. (1987). Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. The Dorsey Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Vincent (1973). The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration, University: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1988). ‘Institutional Arrangements and the Commons Dilemma,’ in Ostrom, V.Feeney, David and Picht, Harmut eds, Rethinking Institutional Analysis and Development. San FranciscoInternational Centre for Economic Growth.Google Scholar
O'Toole, Laurence J. (1986). ‘Policy Recommendations for Multi-Actor Implementation: An Assessment of the Field.’ Journal of Public Policy, 6, 2, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, Laurence and Montjoy, Robert (1984). ‘Interorganizational Policy Implementation: A Theretical Perspective,’ Public Administration Review, 44, 6, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palumbo, Dennis, ed. (1980)., Evaluating and Optimizing Public Policy. LexingtonD. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Palumbo, Dennis and Harder, Marvin A., ed. (1981). Implementing Public Policy, Lexington: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1966. The Study of Policy Content: A Framework for Choice. In Ranney, , ed., Political Science and Public Policy. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall and Franklin, Grace (1982). Policy Implementation and Bureaucracy, 2nd ed.Chicago: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard (1988). ‘Comparative Policy Analysis: The Programme Approach’, in Dogan, Mattei (ed.), Comparing Pluralist Democracies, Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 219–41.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard (1986) Law as a Resource of Public Policy. Parliamentary Affairs, pp. 297–314.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. (1986). ‘Top Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis,’ Journal of Public Policy, 6, 2, 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. and Mazmanian, Daniel A. (1983). ‘Policy Implementation,’ in Nagel, Stuart S. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Policy Studies. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Salamon, Lester M. (1980). ‘The Rise of Third-Party Government,’ The Washington Post, 06 29.Google Scholar
Salamon, Lester M. (1981). ‘Rethinking Public Management: Third-Party Government and the Changing Forms of Government Action,’ Public Policy 29, 3, Summer.Google Scholar
Salamon, Lester M. (1989). Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert (1968). ‘The Analysis of Public Policy: A Search for Theory and Roles,’ in Ranney, Austin (ed.) Political Science and Public Policy. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The Key to Better Government. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen (1988). ‘Systematically Pinching Ideas: A Comparative Approach to Policy Design,’ Journal of Public Policy, 8, 1, pp. 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen (1990) ‘Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools,’ forthcoming, Journal of Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharkansky, Ira and Hofferbert, Richard (1969). ‘Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy,’ American Political Science Review, 63, 09, 872–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert, Dantzig, George, Hogarth, Robin, Plott, Charles, Raiffa, Howard, Schelling, Thomas, Shepsle, Kenneth, Thaler, Richard, Tversky, Amos, Winter, Sidney (1986). ‘Research Briefing Panel on Decision Making and Problem Solving,’ National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Smith, Paul A. (1989). ‘Policy and Science in Local Communities: The Adoption of Waste Recycling Programs,’ presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Atlanta,Georgia,September 3.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah (1988). Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Scott, Foresman, and Company, Glenview, IL.Google Scholar
Wholey, Joseph S. (1983). Evaluation and Effective Public Management. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Williams, Walter (1982). ‘The Study of Implementation: An Overview,’ in Williams, Walter (ed), Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar