Structures for Policy Implementation

Public administration has long considered the administrative agency as the core institution shaping action. But specialists in policy implementation, in particular, have suggested that networks spanning multiple organizations may be important phenomena. National legislation from two Congresses is analyzed to determine the kinds of structures explicitly stipulated or encouraged for new or amended programs. The most important questions have to do with the extent to which single-agency or networked (multiactor) structures are used and the relative degree to which intergovernmental versus intragovernmental programs are prominent. The evidence shows that the great majority of legislation requires multiactor structures spanning governments, sectors, and/or agencies; intergovernmental programs are especially prominent; and the multiactor character of the structures has remained relatively constant. These findings carry implications for the study and practice of public administration.

[1]  F. Stokman.  Regels en sturing in netwerken , 1998 .

[2]  Peter Bogason,et al.  Introduction: Networks in Public Administration , 1998 .

[3]  Donald F. Kettl.  Government by proxy : (mis?)managing federal programs , 1987 .

[4]  G. Wamsley.  Refounding Public Administration , 1990 .

[5]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[6]  Joop Koppenjan,et al.  Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector , 1997 .

[7]  R. Stoker,et al.  Reluctant Partners: Implementing Federal Policy , 1992 .

[8]  D. Marsh,et al.  Policy networks in British government , 1992 .

[9]  D. Kettl.  The Perils-And Prospects-Of Public Administration , 1990 .

[10]  John Walker.  Implementation , 2001, Kant, Applied.

[11]  Timothy J. Conlan.  From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-Five Years of Intergovernmental Reform , 1998 .

[12]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Public management : the state of the art , 1993 .

[13]  R. Mayntz,et al.  Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence And Theoretical Considerations , 1991 .

[14]  Todd R. La Porte,et al.  Shifting Vantage and Conceptual Puzzles in Understanding Public Organization Networks1 , 1996 .

[15]  L. O'toole.  Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration , 1997 .

[16]  William G. Howell,et al.  Divided Government and the Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1945-94 , 2000 .

[17]  H. Rainey.  Understanding and Managing Public Organizations , 1991 .

[18]  Benny Hjern,et al.  Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis , 1981 .

[19]  F. Scharpf,et al.  Games in Hierarchies and Networks: Analytical and Empirical Approaches to the Study of Governance Institutions , 1994 .

[20]  Benny Hjern,et al.  Implementation Research — The Link Gone Missing , 1982, Journal of Public Policy.

[21]  Donald F. Kettl,et al.  Government by proxy : (mis?)managing federal programs , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[22]  K. Provan,et al.  A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems , 1995 .

[23]  H. Brinton Milward,et al.  Symposium on the Hollow State: Capacity, Control, and Performance in Interorganizational Settings , 1996 .

[24]  Michael McGuire,et al.  Multinetwork Management: Collaboration and the Hollow State in Local Economic Policy , 1998 .

[25]  Daniel A. Mazmanian,et al.  Implementation and public policy , 1983 .

[26]  Donald F. Kettl,et al.  Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets , 1993 .

[27]  Grant Jordan,et al.  A preliminary ordering of policy network labels , 1992 .

[28]  L. O'toole,et al.  Networks for water policy : a comparative perspective , 1994 .

[29]  L. O'toole,et al.  Interorganizational Policy Implementation: A Theoretical Perspective , 1984 .

[30]  L. O'toole,et al.  TOWARD A THEORY OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: AN ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE , 1979 .