Suchergebnisse

Expertise is a common rational for relying on third-party intermediaries in the administration of regulatory standards. Yet, little is known regarding how perceived competence varies across the diversity of intermediaries observed in empirical regulatory settings. This article offers a better understanding of perceived intermediary expertise through an examination of regulatee perceptions of certifier competence in the administration of U.S. organic regulations. From the results of a nationwide organic producer survey, the article concludes that what intermediaries look like matters less than how they fulfill their regulatory functions. These results suggest that diverse intermediaries have the potential to be similarly effective at supporting regulatory program goals, and that program credibility is not inherently threatened by an administratively diverse third-party landscape.

AbstractThe complexity of decentralized regulatory contexts can threaten program fidelity, particularly if it results in divergence between program goals and the intents of regulatory inspectors. This paper investigates how inspectors negotiate the conflicting demands of a decentralized program by examining how they perceive their regulatory roles – the primary responsibilities that inspectors ascribe to their functions and the entities to which they feel responsible – and how these role orientations are related to inspectors' attitudes toward the use of discretion. The study findings indicate that in the decentralized administration of United States organic food regulations, inspectors experience multiple, and sometimes conflicting, role orientations. The presence of multiple role orientations, however, does not seem to affect how inspectors approach their responsibilities. The combined strengths of quantitative and qualitative data are leveraged to offer explanations for the study findings and identify avenues for future research.

AbstractVoluntary regulatory programmes embody the complex interactions that exist between public organizations and nongovernmental entities in contemporary public administration. This article draws attention to 'regulatee choice' in certification programmes, in which programme participants choose from among certifier alternatives. In the context of US organic regulation, regulatee choice is examined through the factors that farmers weigh when selecting from among public, nonprofit, and private certifier options. Drawing on a nation‐wide survey of organic farmers, regulatee choice between public, nonprofit, and private certifiers is found to be differentiated by the importance that regulatees ascribe to certifier reputations and service offerings, as well as regulatee desires to support the organic movement through certification. Regulatee choice between public and nonprofit certifiers is further differentiated by the importance regulatees place on certifiers' perceived regulatory expertise. The article discusses explanations for the findings and the contribution of regulatee choice research.

AbstractThis article extends the study of regulatory compliance motivations from "traditional" regulatory settings to a government‐sponsored voluntary one. We argue that the rationale(s) which motivate participants to engage a voluntary program likely shape which motivations drive them toward (or away from) program compliance. Our study examines the possible influence of program participation rationales alongside that of regulatory agents' enforcement styles and strategies. Leveraging a national survey of certified United States Department of Agriculture organic producers, we find that the more a producer pursues organic certification to increase profits, the more likely they are to report deterrent fears as an important compliance motivation. In contrast, the more a producer becomes certified to support the organic movement, the more heavily they weigh a personal sense of duty to comply. We discuss the implications of these, and other, study findings for compliance motivations theory and voluntary program integrity.

AbstractA key question in understanding regulation through independent intermediaries is the extent to which intermediary actions are either coordinated, thereby supporting consistency in regulatory application, or uncoordinated, leading to monitoring and enforcement disparities. This paper examines professional associations as one mechanism by which policy action may be coordinated in decentralized arrangements. Professional associations provide means and venues for members to interact, offer training and education that develops shared understanding of policy directives, are collective representation bodies for professional members, and may play an important role in establishing and enforcing collective standards for appropriate behavior. We examine these functions in the decentralized administration of United States organic food certification, focusing on two relevant professional associations – the Accredited Certifiers Association and the International Organic Inspectors Association. Drawing on multiple methods, including interviews and survey data, our findings indicate that professional organic certification associations provide valuable education and training, disseminate information, and facilitate knowledge sharing among administrative entities and with regulatory authorities. We conclude with a discussion of the prospects and limitations of professional associations for third‐party regulation, and how accounting for professional association functions can improve our understanding of regulatory intermediary coordination and conduct.

Whether public services are better delivered through centralized or decentralized administrative systems is one of the most enduring debates in public administration. This article contributes to the debate with a study of program outcome achievement in U.S. child welfare services. We examine whether centralized state‐administered or decentralized county‐administered systems are more successful at realizing desired outcomes, which exhibit greater performance equity, and which are more successful at securing program outcomes in rural settings. Using a coarsened exact matching approach to quasi‐experimental research, we find that centralized child welfare systems exhibit greater success at achieving desired outcomes—in both rural contexts and overall. No discernible difference is found in centralized and decentralized systems' performance equity; outcome disparities exist under both structures. The study thus lends credence to centralization arguments, but at the same time cautions that centralized administration is not a structural panacea.

A scholarly nexus is defined as identifiable spheres of theoretical and empirical overlap between academic fields or disciplines. This article explores the nexus between policy process research, public management scholarship, and nonprofit and voluntary action studies, oriented from the perspective of policy process scholars. The article begins with a description of policy process research, including some of its major thematic emphases regarding governance problems and processes. It next discusses limitations of policy process research imposed by its scope of inquiry, theoretical black boxes, and omitted factors. Three strategies—filling, zooming, and linking—for addressing these limitations are introduced. The article ends with rationales for leveraging research at the nexus to advance both specialized and general knowledge about public policy processes and governance issues.