Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-7vt9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T08:27:34.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy learning and science policy innovation adoption by street-level bureaucrats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Gwen Arnold
Gwen Arnold*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, USA E-mail: gbarnold@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the conditions under which government officials who implement policy integrate the best available science into regulatory practice. It examines the adoption of rapid wetland assessment tools, a type of science policy innovation, by street-level bureaucrats in six US Mid-Atlantic states. These bureaucrats operate in relatively opaque and discretion-laden institutional settings. The analysis of an original survey of state wetland officials shows that these officials are more likely to adopt tools when they have more opportunities to learn tool-related information and practice norms. Bureaucrats’ adoption of this class of science policy innovations appears facilitated by peer communication via network ties, on-the-job experience and incentives and disincentives associated with bureaucrats’ organisational contexts and operating environments.

Keywords

innovation diffusionpolicy adoptionpolicy learningscience policystreet-level bureaucracywetlands
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 34 , Supplement 3 , December 2014 , pp. 389 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2014 

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

Ainslie, W. B. (1994) Rapid Wetland Functional Assessment: Its Role and Utility in the Regulatory Arena. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 77(3–4): 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P. D. and Boettke, P. J. (2009) Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. and Clark, J. (1981) State Policy Adoption and Innovation: Lobbying and Education. State and Local Government Review 13(1): 18–25.Google Scholar
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (2011) Standard Definitions: Final Disposition of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th ed. Deerfield, IL: AAPOR.Google Scholar
Bartoldus, C. C. (1999) A Comprehensive Review of Wetland Assessment Procedures: A Guide for Wetland Practitioners. St. Michaels, MD: Environmental Concern.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. J. and Howlett, M. (1992) The Lessons of Learning: Reconciling Theories of Policy Learning and Policy Change. Policy Sciences 25(3): 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, J. K. (1982) A Framework for Policy Analysis. In Rogers D. L. et al. (eds.), Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 137–176.Google Scholar
Berglund, S., Gange, I. and van Waarden, F. (2006) Mass Production of Law: Routinization in the Transposition of European Directives: A Sociological-Institutionalist Account. Journal of European Public Policy 13(5): 692–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, F. S. (1994) Sizing Up State Policy Innovation Research. Policy Studies Journal 22(3): 442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, F. S. and Berry, W. D. (1990) State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. The American Political Science Review 84(2): 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, F. S. and Berry, W. D. (1999) Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research. In Sabatier P. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview, 169–200.Google Scholar
Boehmke, F. J. and Witmer, R. (2004) Disentangling Diffusion: The Effects of Social Learning and Economic Competition on State Policy Innovation and Expansion. Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohte, J. and Meier, K. J. (2000) Goal Displacement: Assessing the Motivation for Organizational Cheating. Public Administration Review 60(2): 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, J. and Gates, S. (1997) Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinson, M. and Rheinhardt, R. (1996) The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and Mitigation. Ecological Applications 6(1): 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
deLeon, P. and deLeon, L. (2002) What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12(4): 467–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilling, L. and Lemos, M. C. (2011) Creating Usable Science: Opportunities and Constraints for Climate Knowledge Use and Their Implications for Science Policy. Global Environmental Change 21(2): 680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) (2008) State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches. Washington, DC: ELI.Google Scholar
Evans, T. and Harris, J. (2004) Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion. British Journal of Social Work 34(6): 871–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiock, R. C. and West, J. P. (1993) Testing Competing Explanations for Policy Adoption: Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Programs. Political Research Quarterly 46(2): 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennessy, M. S., Jacobs, A. D. and Kentula, M. E. (2004) Review of Rapid Methods for Assessing Wetland Condition. EPA/620/R-04/009. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Fineman, S. (1998) Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Social Construction of Environmental Control. Organization Studies 19(6): 853–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gormley, W. T. (1986) Regulatory Issue Networks in a Federal System. Polity 18(4): 595–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, S. P. and Glick, H. R. (1997) The Role of Agenda Setting in Policy Innovation. American Politics Research 25(4): 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honig, M. I. (2006) Street-Level Bureaucracy Revisited: Front-Line District Central-Office Administrators as Boundary Spanners in Education Policy Implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 28(4): 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husbands Fealing, K., Lane, J. I., Marburger, J. H. III and Shipp, S. S. (2011) The Science of Science Policy: A Handbook. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D. (2002) Bounded Rationality and Public Policy: Herbert A. Simon and the Decisional Foundation of Collective Choice. Policy Sciences 35(3): 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerwin, C. M. (1994) Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Make Law and Write Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Kusler, J. (2006) Recommendations for Reconciling Wetland Assessment Techniques. Berne, NY: Association of State Wetland Managers.Google Scholar
Lavrakas, P. (2008) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Lubell, M. and Fulton, A. (2008) Local Policy Networks and Agricultural Watershed Management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 673–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. (1984) The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. The American Political Science Review 78(3): 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matland, R. E. (1995) Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5(2): 145–174.Google Scholar
May, P. J. (1992) Policy Learning and Failure. Journal of Public Policy 12(4): 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. C. (2003) Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, M. (1997) Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation. American Journal of Political Science 41(4): 738–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, M. and Vergari, S. (1998) Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms. Journal of Politics 60(1): 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitsch, W. and Gosselink, J. (2007) Wetlands, 4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Muth, R. M. and Hendee, J. C. (1980) Technology Transfer and Human Behavior. Journal of Forestry 78(3): 141–144.Google Scholar
Myers, R. H. (1990) Classical and Modern Regression Applications, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pavalko, E. K. (1989) State Timing of Policy Adoption: Workmen’s Compensation in the United States, 1909–1929. American Journal of Sociology 95(3): 592–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) (1997) Procedure for 401 Water Quality Certification. Section 400.2, 362-2000-001. Harrisburg, PA: PADEP.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York: Free Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, R. (1991) What is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1986) Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy 6(1): 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Wieble, C. M. (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 189–220.Google Scholar
Sapat, A. (2004) Devolution and Innovation: The Adoption of State Environmental Policy Innovations by Administrative Agencies. Public Administration Review 64(2): 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, K. B. (2001) Email Survey Response Rates: A Review. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 6: 2, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html Google Scholar
Shih, T.-H. and Fan, X. (2008) Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis. Field Methods 20(3): 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T. (2009) A Revised Review of Methods to Estimate the Status of Cases with Unknown Eligibility, NORC/University of Chicago working paper, Chicago IL, USA, http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1815 (accessed 15 February 2012).Google Scholar
Soss, J., Schram, S., Vartanian, T. P. and O’Brien, E. (2001) Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution. American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 378–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutula, M. A., Stein, E. D., Collins, J. N., Fetscher, A. E. and Clark, R. (2006) A Practical Guide for the Development of a Wetland Assessment Method: The California Experience. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(1): 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teodoro, M. P. (2009) Bureaucratic Job Mobility and the Diffusion of Innovations. American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teske, P. and Schneider, M. (1994) The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: The Case of City Managers. Public Administration Review 54(4): 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency (1990) The Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitigate.cfm (accessed 5 July 2012).Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) Application of Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program for Wetlands. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water, http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Wetland_Elements_Final.pdf (accessed 6 July 2011).Google Scholar
Valente, T. W. (1993) Diffusion of Innovations and Policy Decision-Making. Journal of Communication 43(1): 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. L. (1969) The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. The American Political Science Review 63(3): 880–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherley, R. and Lipsky, M. (1977) Street-Level Bureaucrats and Institutional Innovation: Implementing Special Education Reform. Harvard Education Review 47(2): 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimer, D. L. and Vining, A. R. (2005) Policy Analysis Concepts and Practice, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Winter, S. C. (2002) Explaining Street-Level Bureaucratic Behavior in Social and Regulatory Policies, paper prepared for the XIII Research Conference of the Nordic Political Science Association, Aalborg, Denmark, 15–17 August.Google Scholar
Winter, S. C. (2003) Political Control, Street-Level Bureaucrats and Information Asymmetry in Regulatory and Social Policies, paper prepared for the Annual Research Meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, 6–8 November.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Arnold supplementary material

Appendix

Download Arnold supplementary material(File)
File 51.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Arnold supplementary material

Table 1

Download Arnold supplementary material(File)
File 18.9 KB