Suchergebnisse

THE POLICY ANALYST IS CONCERNED WITH EFFICIENCY AND OUTPUTS, & IGNORES SUNK COSTS; THE POLICY POLITICIAN IS CONCERNED WITH DISTRIBUTION & INPUTS, & SEEKS TO JUSTIFY SUNK COSTS. THESE DIFFERENCES CAN BE DERIVED FROM THE ANALYST'S INDIFFERENCE TO CONSTITUENCIES & THE POLITICIAN'S DEVOTION TO THEM, SAYS THE AUTHOR, WHO SUGGESTS WAYS FOR POLICY ANALYSIS TO INCREASE THEIR POLITICAL INFLUENCE.

The evolution of public policies in the US has been characterized as a process involving long periods of stability followed by abrupt episodes of substantial change. In this project, we identify strands in the literature & synthesize policy theories into a policy regime model useful in explaining both stability & change. This model focuses on power arrangements, policy paradigms, & organization factors that operate to maintain long periods of stability. We demonstrate how stressors -- catastrophic events, economic crises, demographic changes, shifts in modes of production, & others -- impact policy regimes & create pressures for change. We argue that the process of policy regime change -- the abrupt episodes of substantial change -- occurs with changes in the policy paradigm, alterations in patterns of power & shifts in organizational arrangements. The old policy regime disintegrates & the new one emerges with a new policy paradigm, new patterns of power & new organizational arrangements that operate to maintain long periods of stability. 68 References. Adapted from the source document.

An empirical analysis of individuals in policy formulating & policy implementing roles is presented. The data are generated by interviews with a random sample of 119 middle-level public administrators working in the home offices of 27 New Zealand government dept's. Interviews of about 1.5 hours in length were conducted in mid-1972. Those interviewed were in the generalist Executive Occupational Class & were in the grades from Class 04 through Class 10. The individuals in the policy formulating roles were slightly younger; although those in the formulating & implementing roles varied little from each other in terms of social background, educational attainment & career patterns. Few differences were noted in regard to job satisfaction, decisional authority, & hierarchical relations. Significant differences between policy formulators & policy implementors were discovered in terms of work load, career aspirations, & awareness of political influences in governmental policymaking. The results show that the New Zealand administrative system does not allocate policy formulating roles to individuals different from those who implement policies. Differences between formulators & implementors in the New Zealand administrative system seem to stem from the nature of work of the 2 policy roles. 9 Tables. Modified HA.

This article reviews the concept of policy entrepreneurship and its use in explaining policy change. Although the activities of policy entrepreneurs have received close attention in several studies, the concept of policy entrepreneurship is yet to be broadly integrated within analyses of policy change. To facilitate more integration of the concept, we here show how policy entrepreneurship can be understood within more encompassing theorizations of policy change: incrementalism, policy streams, institutionalism, punctuated equilibrium, and advocacy coalitions. Recent applications of policy entrepreneurship as a key explanation of policy change are presented as models for future work. Room exists for further conceptual development and empirical testing concerning policy entrepreneurship. Such work could be undertaken in studies of contemporary and historical policy change.

Policy scholars generally agree that greater coherence of policies is desirable, but the concept is under‐theorized and has received little empirical examination. This research examines the policy coherence of 18 policy domains and considers institutional factors that affect variation among them. There is considerable variation in coherence among substantive, regional, and identity‐based policy domains. Greater degrees of policy coherence exist for policy domains that have dominant congressional committees or have more involvement of lead federal agencies. These findings extend what policy scholars know about policy subsystems in American policymaking to consideration of the coherence of policy domains.