Interorganizational Policy Studies: Lessons Drawn From Implementation Research

1993 Journal of public administration research and theory  
Contingency approaches to organizing suggest that policy objectives are more likely to be achieved if the structures employed for implementation mesh with the policy objectives being sought. Interorganizational arrangements are used increasingly in carrying out public programs, and contingency logic can be used to assess the degree of match between policy objective and interunit structure. Such a perspective would seem to offer an approach of practical significance. Here the contingency logic
more » ... applied to interorganizational implementation is reviewed and its assumptions identified. To probe these assumptions, empirical evidence is analyzed from one policy sector which would seem especially promising. The findings suggest that even under highly favorable conditions, a contingency perspective provides only limited help. The research demonstrates the need for additional conceptual clarification and theoretical care in reaching conclusions about the impact of interorganizational structures on policy settings. Complicated interorganizational arrangements are increasingly important in public management. How governance in the public interest may be possible in structures of high interdependence among public and nonpublic actors is a subject of considerable theoretical and practical significance. This article utilizes ideas developed in the study of interorganizational policy implementation to offer guidance regarding three matters: the agenda for interorganizational analysis; the link between analysis and prescription; and the role of the analyst of hnterorganizational arrangements. An important perspective found in the literature on organizations and policy implementation proposes that interunit structures be assessed for their degree of match, or mismatch, with policy objectives, and that practical suggestions can follow directly from such a contingency evaluation. This proposal is provocative and implies a great deal about interorganizational analysis. The strategy in the present article is to examine critically one version of this contingency approach as applied to multiunit systems. Special attention is given to a test of the assumptions undergirding this type of analysis. The intent is to suggest a set of issues and conclusions that extends beyond those discussed explicitly by contingency theorists or indeed by most interorganizational analysts. The argument draws from recently conducted empirical work to raise several general questions. The argument in outline form is that the assumptions of the contingency approach are open to question and that this point carries implications for the development of implementation theory, for the conduct of policy research, and for the role of the policy analyst. CONTINGENCY AND INTERORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES: THE ANALYTIC AGENDA AND RESEARCH STRATEGY Contingency approaches to the study of organization aim to relate structural attributes to various features of organizational context (see, for example, Greenwood and Hinnings 1976; Greenwood, Hinnings, and Ranson 1975; Pitt and Smith 1981). Typically, the effort links structural patterns with characteristics of organizational task environments. As Peters observes, these approaches have been particularly weak at prescribing matches between structure and environment (1988, 25; see also Hood 1979; Kaufman and Seidman 1970). Still, there are reasons to expect contingency theory linking policy characteristics with interorganizational structure-intergovernmental grant patterns, public-private partnerships, interunit contract arrangements, and so forth--to hold promise. Government structure and policy content are plausibly related, according to institutional theorists (Ashford 1977). Thus theoretical justifications for "local presence" or "adaptive" implementation networks are driven by contingency logic as applied to the interorganizational policy context (Porter 1976; Porter and Olson 1976; Berman 1978). Indeed, public choice theory itself is based on the idea that "for each particular problem or governmental task, there will be one 'ideal' decision making publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior. An earlier version of this argument is contained in O'Toole 1990.
doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037168 fatcat:ighyf7u4sjccpbv7viforxkbje