Suchergebnisse

AbstractPublished in 1997, the article "Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research‐Based Agendas in Public Administration" outlined the importance of networks for the field of public administration and suggested a series of research agendas that should be pursued. That argument has received substantial attention in the years since. Research on networks and networking has made substantial progress, particularly on some questions—the descriptive agenda, for instance, and some aspects of the practical agenda. However, considerable work remains to be done. More needs to be known about the ways in which networks and networking behavior can shape performance and affect the most salient values in our governance systems; better empirical theory is also needed in this regard. Such further developments would be of immense value to the practice of public administration. The world of public administration has for some time been treating networks seriously, but the work is far from complete.

Applying implementation theory to practice has been rare. Reasons include the difficulty of the theoretical challenge, the varied needs of practitioners & the complicating normative issues at stake. Nonetheless, several approaches can contribute to the efficacy of implementation action. Building on points of theoretical consensus is one strategy. A second is the systematic probing of points in theoretical dispute, to sketch out practical implications. A third is the development of a contingency perspective to determine which theoretical strands may be appropriate in a given case. Finally, tapping the emerging ideas built on a synthesis of partial perspectives is ultimately likely to be the most useful approach. New methodological tools can help select out valid high-performing instances for systematic inspection & possible emulation. Some of the synthetic perspectives now available are amenable to heuristic application; these include approaches based upon reversible logic, game-theoretic notions, & contextual interaction theory. 47 References. Adapted from the source document.

While policy implementation no longer frames the core question of public management and public policy, some scholars have debated appropriate steps for revitalization. And the practical world stands just as much in need now of valid knowledge about policy implementation as ever. Where has all the policy implementation gone? Or at least all the scholarly signs of it? And why? What has the field accomplished? Should a resurgence of attention to the subject be exhorted? And if so, in what directions? This article considers these questions as foci of an assessment of the state of the field, and the argument reaches somewhat unconventional conclusions: There is more here than meets the eye. While modest to moderate progress can be noted on a number of fronts, an initial assessment is likely to understate the extent of work underway on matters quite close to the implementation theme. Research on policy implementation-like questions has partially transmogrified. One has to look, sometimes, in unusual places and be informed by a broader logic of intellectual development to make sense of the relevant scholarship. Policy implementation work, in short, continues to bear relevance for important themes of policy and management. But some of the discourse has shifted, the questions have broadened, and the agenda has become complicated. Research on implementation, under whatever currently fashionable labels, is alive and lively.

Where has all the policy implementation gone? Or at least all the scholarly signs of it? And why? What has the field accomplished? Should a resurgence of attention to the subject be exhorted? And if so, in what directions? This article considers these questions as foci of an assessment of the state of the field, & the argument reaches somewhat unconventional conclusions. While modest to moderate progress can be noted on a number of fronts, an initial assessment is likely to understate the extent of work underway on matters quite close to the implementation theme. Research on policy implementation-like questions has partially transmogrified. One has to look, sometimes, in unusual places & be informed by a broader logic of intellectual development to make sense of the relevant scholarship. Policy implementation work, in short, continues to bear relevance for important themes of policy & management. But some of the discourse has shifted, the questions have broadened, & the agenda has become complicated. Research on implementation, under whatever currently fashionable labels, is alive & lively. 104 References. Adapted from the source document.

Practitioners and scholars have devoted considerable attention in recent years to initiating public innovations-to the relative neglect of how to ensure the implementation of such efforts. Executing innovations over the longer term, particularly in complex networksettings, can be expected to be problematic. And yet networks are likely to be crucial institutional settingsfor the implementation ofpublic innovations. The analytic approach of game theory, used heuristically, can identify a set of actions useful to public managers in enhancing prospects that sound innovations will succeed. The implications of this inquiry run counter to some of the themes used as mantras in the recent reinvention discussion andfocus attention on the centrality of institutional infrastructure, trust, and obligation for innovative success into the future.

Dwight Waldo wrote nearly fifty years ago that democracy is very much more than the political context in which public administration is carried out. Public administration is now less hierarchical and insular and is increasingly networked. This has important implications for democracy, including changing responsibilities for the public interest, for meeting public preferences, and for the enhancement of political deliberation, civility, and trust. Networked public administration can pose a threat to democratic governance and it can open possibilities for strengthening governance, depending on the values and actions of public administrators.

How well equipped are today's public administrators to face the challenges they confront from the involvement of businesses, not-for-profits, other units of government, and even clients in complex patterns of program operations? Not very well, if judged by the extent to which practitioners and scholars have incorporated the network concept and its implications into their own work. Discussions in the field contain little to help practicing managers cope with network settings. In fact, conventional theory may actually be counterproductive when applied inappropriately to network contexts. And yet, these arrays are now consequential and becoming increasingly so. Practitioners need to begin to incorporate the network concept into their administrative efforts. The challenge for scholars is to conduct research that illuminates this neglected aspect of contemporary administration. The author sketches a set of agendas that offer prospects for helping to address this need.

Interview & other field data gathered 1994-1996 in Hungary are used to explore networks in terms of Fritz W. Scharpf's (1977) deviant case approach, using Hungary's acidification policy, an atypical example because of recent political, social, & economic change; absence of a mesolevel institution linking technical & political actors; & the wide dispersion of the network's main actors. The emerging network suffers from implementation failure, structural gaps, & the exclusion of significant players. Implications for public management theory are considered. 31 References. P. Schlachte

Research on interorganizational policy implementation continues to be characterized by diverse theoretical approaches. It is perhaps surprising to observe, however, that formal and especially rational-choice approaches have been essentially neglected in the study of policy implementation processes. This article focuses on this matter and reaches mixed conclusions. An examination of how rational-choice approaches such as game theory might contribute to the enhancement of interorganizational management shows that serious limitations constrain what may be possible theoretically through the formal rational-choice representation and analysis of many interorganizational implementation settings. Nevertheless, and somewhat paradoxically, exploring these qualifications suggests a set of practical implications for the actual conduct of management in policy network settings.