LAND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY THEODORE ROBERTS ALTER 1976 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIII “a 1293 10466 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Land Policy Implementation presented by Theodore Roberts Alter has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of .EhilennhsLdegree in Resmmnwelopment // /(-\QL/lgéc¢fi/L $6114?” \ Major professor Date W 0—7 639 ABSTRACT LAND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION By Theodore Roberts Alter We tend to assume that public policy objectives will be achieved once proposed policy alternatives are enacted into law. In many in- stances, experience shows otherwise. Public policies often fail to meet publicly Specified objectives. Difficulties encountered during the process of policy administration or implementation are one important reason for such failure. Despite its importance, policy implementation has yet to receive adequate attention in most policy areas. This study focuses on policy implementation in the context of state land policy. As defined here, state land policies have two dis- tinguishing characteristics. First, they are policies that have a primary objective of influencing land use decisions. Second, they are policies initiated at the state level of government and implemented by state or state and local governmental units. _ Three specific objectives provide the focus for this study. The first objective is to investigate the treatment of policy implementa- tion in discussions of land policy, particularly state land policy. The second objective is to develop one conceptual approach for ana- lyzing the process of implementing state land policy. The last objec- . tive is to develop in some detail the third component of this Theodore Roberts Alter conceptual approach--a framework of activities or functions that should be performed during the state land policy implementation process. The research approach used for achieving these objectives con- sists of three components. The first component involves a wide-ranging literature review. The literature review focuses on the following sub- ject areas: public administration, organizational theory, community develOpment, political science, and land policy. The second component involves a review of Michigan land policy legislation. A sample of proposed bills, existing statutes, and the administrative rules pertain- ing to some of the existing statutes are reviewed. The third component involves a series of forty-one interviews with individuals having a working knowledge of state land policy. This study shows that the policy implementation process and planning for that process are crucial to policy performance in all policy areas. It also shows, however, that these issues have been relatively neglected --at least not effectively dealt with--in studies of public policy. In the specific context of state land policy, implementation is- sues are recognized as being important. One cannot argue, however, that these issues have been discussed systematically or comprehensively. More specifically, there is little evidence to suggest that the process of implementing state land policy has been dealt with as a whole or in terms of how its details affect land policy performance. There are few indications that anyone has tried to develop any framework that would facilitate comprehensive and systematic analysis of the details of the implementation process. Moreover, there are few indications that anyone has been concerned with integrating analysis of the implementa- ion process into>our concern with the assessment of pr0posed and on- going land policies. Theodore Roberts Alter The conceptual approach for analyzing the success of the state land policy implementation process outlined in this study has four com- ponents. The first component focuses on the implementation process as part of the total policy process. The second component identifies three important types of public policy assessment--policy analysis, policy or program evaluation, and policy implementation analysis--and their rela- tionship with each other and the total policy process. The third com- ponent emphasizes a framework of activities or functions necessary for implementing state land policies. This framework is viewed as a way of focusing policy implementation analysis. The fourth component consists of several question-generating criteria useful for analyzing individual implementation functions and, thus, the implementation process as a whole. These criteria involve l) organizational and administrative considerations, 2) economic considerations, 3) social-cultural consider- ations, 4) political considerations, 5) temporal considerations, and 6) technological considerations. This approach to state land policy implementation analysis pro- vides conceptual insight regarding the policy implementation process and analysis of that process. Since it comes in part from the exper- ience of those working directly with land policy applications, it should be highly relevant to operational conditions. Its utility under these conditions, however, has yet to be proven. The third component of this conceptual approach is based on the hypothesis that certain functions should be performed during the pro- cess of implementing state land policies. The review of literature and legislation as well as the "elite" interviews indicated that there is a framework of at least eighteen important implementation functions. Theodore Roberts Alter The functions making up this framework include: l) organizing, 2) fund- ing, 3) staffing, 4) detailed record-keeping, 5) developing a data and information base, 6) citizen participation, 7) administrative rule-making, 8) integrating state, regional, and local concerns, 9) establishing policy guidelines, 10) coordinating, ll) information-education programming, l2) providing technical assistance, 13) review, 14) monitoring, l5) enforce- ment, 15) appeals, l7) evaluation, and l8) feedback. It must be stressed that these functions are necessary for the success of the state land pol- icy implementation process; they are not necessarily sufficient. LAND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION By Theodore Roberts Alter A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Resource Development 1976 PREFACE We often make the mistake of designing new policies based on the assumption that our policy goals--if we've thought them through at all-— will automatically be met once the new policies are enacted into law. In many instances, however, our policy goals are not met. The reasons for this are numerous. The definition of the problem toward which a policy is directed may not be based on reliable data and information. The theory underlying the policy may be inappropriate or unsound. It may also be that circumstances occurring during the process of admin- istering or implementing a policy after it is signed into law hinder the achievement of policy goals. In the past, we have tended, for the most part, to neglect the policy implementation process. At least, we have not adequately ana- lyzed it as part of the total policy process. A recent upsurge of interest in the policy implementation process indicates that research related to it is a crucial area of policy research. Research focusing on the policy implementation process can make a valuable contribution to both the planning of new policy initiatives or the modification of on-going policies or programs. Such research is probably needed in all policy areas. This study suggests an approach for analyzing the policy implementation process in the context of state land policy. State land policies, as defined in this study, have two distinguishing characteristics. First, they are policies that have a primary objective of influencing land use decisions. Second, they 11' are policies initiated at the state level of government and implemented by state or state and local governmental units. The study was conducted in the context of state land policy for two key reasons. First, state land policy is one of my major areas of expertise and interest. Second, state land policy considerations have been a significant part of the National Science Foundation research project conducted at Michigan State University which sponsored this study. That research project had as its focus the design and manage- ment of rural ecosystems at the sub-state regional level. Studies con- ducted under this research project dealt with aspects of--and inter- relationships between--natural systems (energy, materials, and natural resources), production and consumption activities which utilize these natural systems, and societal institutions which influence the utiliza- tion of natural systems by production and consumption activities. This study of state land policy implementation explores one dimension of those societal institutions. It is impossible in this short space to adequately convey my appreciation to all of the individuals who contributed to the comple- tion of this study. Mention can be made only of those who contributed the most. My wife, Christie, and my Mother have provided constant support and encouragement throughout the past year when this study was being conducted. I am grateful to Professor Herman Koenig, Chairman of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science at Michigan State University and director of the N.S.F. research project, for tak- ing me on as a project member and providing financial support for this study. Two other project members, Professor Raymond D. Vlasin, Chairman of the Department of Resource Development at Michigan State University, and Peter T. Paluch, graduate research assistant, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, deserve special recognition. Professor Vlasin gave unsparingly of his time and mind throughout all phases of the study. Peter assisted me during the interviewing phase of the study and was always available as a sounding board for ideas. Raleigh Barlowe, my major professor and Professor of Resource Develop- ment at Michigan State University, and the other members of my research guidance committee have offered many valuable criticisms. Mrs. Patricia Friday was reSponsible for typing the initial and final drafts of the study. She did an excellent job despite my handwriting and propensity for revisions. I alone, of course, am responsible for the final shape and sub- stance of this study. iv ‘1" TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .......................... ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ....................... T Key Definitions and Distinctions ............ 3 Problem Statement ................... 7 Decision-makers ................... 8 Decision-maker Objectives .............. 8 Strategies for Analyzing the Policy Implementation Process ...................... 9 Environment of the Policy Implementation Process . 12 Specific Study Objectives ............... l3 Study Components .................... 14 II. RESEARCH APPROACH .................... 15 Research Approach ................... 16 Literature Review .................. l6 Review of Michigan Land Policy Legislation ...... l7 Interviews ...................... 18 The "Elite" Interview ............... l9 The Field Work ................... 20 Strengths and Weaknesses of "Elite" Interviewing. . 23 Strengths .................... 23 Weaknesses. ................... 25 Summary ........................ 27 III. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION LITERATURE ............. 28 Implementation in Policy Research Literature ...... 29 Summary ....................... 43 Implementation in Land Policy Literature ........ 44 Summary ....................... 58 Supporting Observations Based on the "Elite” Interviews ...................... 59 Summary ........................ 6O CHAPTER IV. V. VI. ANALYSIS OF STATE LAND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH .................. The Total Policy Process ................ Policy or Program Assessment .............. Important-Activities or Functions in the Policy Implementation Process ................ Criteria for Analyzing the Implementation of State Land Policies ................. Organizational and Administrative Considerations. . . Economic Considerations ............... Social-Cultural Considerations ............ Political Considerations. . - ............ Temporal Considerations ............... Technological Considerations ............. Summary ........................ IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING STATE LAND POLICY. ........................ Important Functions (Activities) for Implementing State Land Policy .................. Literature Review .................. Organizing ..................... Funding ...................... Staffing ...................... Devel0ping a Data and Information Base ....... Integrating State, Regional, and Local Concerns . . Coordinating .................... Information-Education Programming ......... Establishing Policy Guidelines ........... Providing Technical Assistance ........... Monitoring ..................... Enforcement .................... Appeals ...................... Evaluation ..................... Feedback ...................... Detailed Record-keeping ............. _. Citizen Participation ............... Legislation Review .................. Administrative Rule-making ............. Review ................. ' ...... Confirmation of Other Previously Identified Functions .................... “Elite" Interviews .................. Summary ........................ SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ Summary ........................ Conclusions ................ ' ...... Policy Recommendations ................. Future Research Recommendations ............ vi Page 97 98 102 102 106 108 . ‘17- mar! , I ,maqg Page APPENDIX A MICHIGAN LAND POLICY LEGISLATION ............. 115 B "ELITE'I INTERVIEWEES ................... 117 C "ELITE" INTERVIEWEE LETTER ................ 121 D "ELITE" INTERVIEW GUIDE ................. 123 E IMPLEMENTATION FUNCTIONS IN MICHIGAN LAND POLICY LEGISLATION ...................... 128 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 131 vii LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Implementation Functions Identified During the "Elite" Interviews .......................... 99 2. Framework of Functions Necessary for State Land Policy Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 100 3. Implementation Functions in Michigan Land Policy Legislation ......................... 129 viii LIST OF FIGURES The Policy Decision-Making Process: A Major Component of the Total Policy Process ................. The Policy Implementation Process: A Major Component of the Total Policy Process ................. The Total Policy Process .................. The Relationship Between Policy Analysis, Policy or Program Evaluation,and Policy Implementation Analysis. . . The Relationship Between Policy Analysis, Policy or Program Evaluation, and Policy Implementation Analysis--An Alternative View .............. ix Page 64 65 65 67 68 “HAW. '1——x —' . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Interdependence is the single most important characteristic of our society. The activities of every individual influence, and are influ- enced by, the activities of other individuals. This system of interde- pendence generates many problems that we attempt to resolve through public policies. Our experience often shows that many public policies are failures. Policy objectives are not met, and, thus, perceived problems are not resolved adequately. We become concerned; we wonder why our policies floundered. Typical responses are to restructure on-going policies or to develop new policies for meeting our objectives. These responses are based on our belief that problems will be resolved once properly de- signed public policies become law. It is an obvious fact, however, that "policy is enunciated in 1 This obvious fact is often over- rhetoric; it is realized in action." looked. There is a general failure, both conceptually and analytically, to integrate the "action" or implementation process into our thinking about public policy. From a conceptual perspective, the failure to integrate the public policy implementation process into our thinking is a paradox. The 1Herbert Kaufman, The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1960), p. 3. 71 2 importance of this process is quite clear. First, it is necessary to carry out or to implement public policies before desired results can be achieved. Second, what happens during the implementation process can affect materially whether or not desired results are, in fact, achieved. Third, the policy implementation process provides fertile ground for different publics to lobby for their particular interests and against the competing interests of other publics. Despite these obvious points, the policy implementation process is not fully integrated into our think- ing about public policy. The failure to focus analytical attention on the policy implementa- tion process is also paradoxical given the potential practical signifi- cance of implementation analysis. Integrating implementation analysis into analyses of proposed policy alternatives would improve policy decisions by identifying policies that have a good chance of being success- fully executed. Integrating implementation analysis into the evaluation of policies being executed could illuminate reasons for policy success or failure; it could, assuming adequate feedback, foster improvement in the administration and design of on-going policies as well as facilitate the design of new, improved policies. Implementation analysis could also help pinpoint how the interests of various publics are affected dur- ing the implementation process. This knowledge would allow different publics to make more informed public policy decisions. Despite the practical significance of these considerations for policy-makers, program administrators, and private interest groups, our thinking about public policy has not fully recognized the potential of implementation analysis. This study focuses on public policy implementation in the particu- lar context of state land policy. Historically, scant comprehensive or A.“ Ell-II. ‘f L". f “13' ‘— I 3 systematic attention has been focused on public policy implementation; few theoretical and empirical guidelines exist in the literature. Even though a few studies have been completed and academic researchers are recently giving increased emphasis to policy implementation, new re- search efforts in this area must start essentially from scratch. There- fore, this study of state land policy implementation is, in many ways, an exploratory effort. Key Definitions and Distinctions At the outset, it is important to define policy implementation and the policy implementation process. According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the word "hnplement" has the fol- lowing meanings: "to put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure" and "to fulfill; perform; carry out.“2 Implementation, then, involves both the determination of an implementa- tion strategy or plan and the execution of that strategy or plan. Policy_implementation refers to planning for the execution of a policy and executing a policy. Planning for policy execution overlaps with the policy decision process; and although their concern is often shal- low, policy-makers are concerned most with this aspect of implementa- tion.3 Despite its importance for planning policy execution, the process of executing a policy once legislation is signed into law receives much less attention from policy-makers. This process is in the hands of 2The Unabridged Edition (1970), cited by Erwin c. Hargrove, _1_'_h_e_ Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation of Social Policy (Wash- ington, 0.0.: The Urban Institute, 1975), p. l. 3Hargrove, The Missing Link, pp. 2-3. 4 administrators in the executive agencies of government.4 It is this process that will be referred to as the policy implementationprocess in this study. The policy implementation process encompasses all acti- vities oriented toward achieving objectives specified in prior policy decisions. Contrary to several other definitions in the literature, the policy implementation process includes the initial commitment of funds and the actual administration (the operational phase) of a policy direc- tive.5 The close relationship between the concepts of policy implementa- tion and the policy implementation process often makes the use of the terms associated with these concepts confusing. When speaking of policy implementation, one could be referring to the process of planning for policy execution, the process of actually executing a policy (the policy implementation process), or both of these processes. In this study, the term policy implementation is sometimes used in its broadest meaning which encompasses both of these processes. The term is often used, how- ever, in referring solely to the policy execution or implementation 41bid., p. 3. 5Pressman and Wildavsky argue that implementation begins after the setting of "initial conditions." Their "initial conditions" include the passage of legislation and the commitment of funds. They argue that "lack of implementation should not refer to failure to get going but to inability to follow through." But follow through after what? It seems that follow through starts after the passage of legislation, and the commitment of funds is the first crucial implementation step. Many policies are not implemented because funds are not committed. See Jeffery L. Pressman and Aaron B. Wildavsky, Implementation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), p. xiv. Williams argues that implementation is the "stage between a decision and operations." "Implement," however, means to carry out, perform, and fulfill. Thus, the implementation process must include operations. See Walter Williams, "Implementation Analysis and Assessment," Policy Analysis 1 (Summer 1975): 532. nan-r-" ..4 ‘ ‘- "V ‘3, 3 | 5 process. An attempt has been made to indicate clearly where this narrow usage is applicable by the context within which the term appears. Several other key definitions and distinctions are important for understanding and interpreting this study of policy implementation. First, a distinction must be made between policy and program. A policy_ is "a definite course or method of action selected (as by a government, institution, group or individual) from among alternatives and in the light of given conditions to guide and usually determine present and 6 This definition describes policy as the word is future decisions." used in this study. A program involves "the provision of . . . funds and administrative direction to accomplish a prescribed set of objectives through the conduct of specified activities."7 Policies become programs with the commitment of funds and administrative direction. The policy implementation process can be thought of as the process of implementing a policy through a program. This study focuses on state land policies and programs. Land policy can be interpreted very broadly. For instance, one could cate- gorize most of transportation policy, housing policy, and economic development policy as land policy. While policies within each of these classifications will have impacts on the use of land resources, their focus may be on objectives other than land use objectives. Landgpolicy, as it is used in this study, refers to policies focusing directly on 6Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged Edition (1961), p. 1754. ' 7Joseph S. Wholey et a1., Federal Evaluation Policy: Analyzing the Effects of Public Programs (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1970), p. 24. 6 land use objectives. State land policy_refers to those policies initi- ated at the state level of government and implemented by state or state and local governmental units. Michigan's Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act8 and Wilderness and Natural Areas Act9 are two examples of what is meant by state land policy in this study. A third important set of distinctions involves the difference be- tween policy or program inputs, outputs, and outcomes. It is also im- portant to note how these concepts relate to the policy implementation process. Input§_refer to specific elements or characteristics of a program. Inputs include factors such as funding, staffing, materials, capital investment, and technology. Outputs refer to the immediate consequences of a policy or program. For instance, the number of acres and farms taking part in a farmland preservation program are outputs of that program. Outcomes are farther down the line than outputs. They refer to the ultimate impact of a policy or program; they include conse- quences not necessarily related to program objectives. In evaluating the intended outcomes of a farmland preservation program, one would be interested in whether the spatial and temporal preservation of farmland is consistent with initial policy objectives. The policy implementation process makes the link between inputs and outputs. Its impact on out- comes is more tenuous: preserving a desired number of farmland acres does not mean that the spatial and temporal preservation of those acres is desirable. Desired outputs are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for achieving desired outcomes.10 81974 PA 115. 91972 PA 241. 10See the following discussions: Williams, "Implementation Analysis and Assessment," 537-38 and Donald S. Van Meter and Carl E. Van Horn, 7 Problem Statement Available evidence suggests that policy implementation--planning for policy execution and actual policy execution--has not been subjected to adequate comprehensive or systematic analysis in most policy areas. This assertation appears to hold true for state land policy. In dis- cussions of state land policy, considerable emphasis and work, much of which seems ill-conceived and piecemeal, is oriented toward identifying land useproblems and laying out land policy objectives. Politicians and others bombard us with glowing rhetoric describing the relative suitability of particular policies or combinations of policies for meeting specified land policy objectives. Discussion of implementation is often couched in terms of which policy or combination of policies appears to be "best" for meeting a specific policy objective. Scant attention is paid to the problems of implementing specific state land policies, to how well on-going state land policies are being implement- ed, and to how various publics are impacted by alternative implementa- tion practices. It is obvious, however, that the implementation of state land policies should be an important concern. First, state land policy has significant implications for the ecological stability of local and regional ecosystems. It also influences the social and economic wel- fare of regions, localities, and their human inhabitants. Second, achieving intended policy performance--outputs and outcomes--requires close attention to policy implementation considerations. Identifying “Studying Implementation," paper delivered at the 1975 Annual Meeting (If the American Political Science Association, San Francisco Hotel, Sari Francisco, California, September 2-5, 1975, pp. 4-5. 8 land use problems, specifying policy objectives related to these pro- blems, and formulating and selecting specific policies designed to meet these objectives is not sufficient to ensure that state land policy will generate intended performance. Decision-makers The issue of state land policy implementation should be of inter- est to several groups of individuals or decision-makers. The following groups should probably have the greatest interest in this issue: 1) top- level land policy decision-makers in the executive and legislative branches of state government, 2) state governmental and academic policy analysts, 3) land policy administrators at state and local levels of government, and 4) special interest groups and individual citizens di- rectly influenced by state land policies and programs. This issue should also be of interest to the general public which is supposed to benefit from enacted state land policies. Policy implementation will be one important determinant affecting the achievement of decision-maker state land policy objectives. Decision-maker Objectives These decision-makers have an objective of "better" state land policy performance. "Better" performance may be defined in terms of achieving publicly specified land policy objectives. "Better" perform- ance may also be defined in terms of achieving specific policy objec- tives that are "acceptable" on the basis of the personal selective per- ception and interest of an individual decision-maker. Publicly speci- fied state land policy objectives will not necessarily coincide with statee land policy objectives that are "acceptable" from the personal (.55.. .1 '1'? i r] gr ,I .1, x' 1.! r 9 perspective of the individual decision-maker regardless of his public sector role. This study focuses on "better" state land policy perform- ance defined in terms of achieving publicly specified land policy objectives. All available evidence suggests that successful policy implementa- tion--planning for policy execution and actual policy execution--is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for achieving the decision- maker objective of "better" state land policy performance. It clearly follows, then, that a second important decision-maker objective should be successful policy implementation. Policy implementation is success- ful when it facilitates the achievement of publicly specified policy objectives by particular policies or programs. The objective of successful state land policy implementation sug- gests a third important decision-maker objective. This is the objective of analyzing the probable or, in the case of on-going policies or pro- grams, the pg§t_success of the policy implementation process. Such analysis would contribute to successful policy implementation: it would help inform decision-maker public policy decisions during both policy execution planning and actual policy execution. Strategies for Analyzing the Policy Implementation Process Analysis of the state land policy implementation process requires a strategy for viewing that process. The sparse implementation litera- ture suggests that analysis of the process can be approached from a number of different, yet interrelated perspectives.n 1]The list of approaches or perspectives contained in this section is not meant to be comprehensive, only representative. Other approach- es, some of which would probably be variants of the ones suggested here, would no doubt be appropriate. 10 First, this process could be approached from the perspective of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular policy or program. It may be that the theory underlying a particular policy or program is inap- propriate and thus hinders implementation. Theoretical problems may exacerbate administrative problems. The suggestion that policy imple- mentation may be affected by the basic theory underlying a policy or program is an important point for decision-makers to keep in mind when analyzing the policy implementation process.12 Second, understanding the policy implementation process can be approached from the perspective of the "blame theory." Using this ap- proach, blame is levied on some individual, some organization, or some set of circumstances for difficulties encountered during policy or pro- gram implementation. The "blame theory," although negative, constitutes a second potentially useful perspective for the decision-maker in analyz- ing the policy implementation process.13 The problem of analyzing the policy implementation process could also be approached from the perspective of interpersonal motivational factors. This third perspective places emphasis on the dynamic inter- action of individuals and the ability of leaders to motivate other individuals to carry out actions required to implement a particular policy instrument.14 12Pressman and Wildavsky, Implementation. chap. 7- 13Jerome T. Murphy, State Education Agencies and Discretionary Funds (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Company, 1974), pp. 12-13. 14Walter Williams, Social Policy Research and Analysis (New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), p. 145. 11 Fourth, another perspective for approaching the analysis of the policy implementation process focuses on impersonal incentives to guide and influence individuals responsible for policy implementation. This perspective emphasizes "market-like and bargaining systems that combine the workable features of decentralization, self-administration, personal economic or political motivation, and the gross application of public 15 detailed, highly managed policy or program admin- policy rather than" istration. Fifth, analysis of the policy implementation process can be ap- proached from the perspective of organizational theory. In general, this perspective suggests that policy implementation is impacted by inter- and intra-organizational behavioral attributes and soundness of organizational structure defined in terms of the administrative and technical requirements necessary to implement particular policies.16 Sixth, another useful perspective for approaching the analysis of the policy implementation process centers on the politics of implementa- tion. From this perspective, the policy implementation process is view- ed in the context of different publics competing for control of the process to foster and protect their individual interests.17 A seventh possible perspective for approaching analysis of the policy implementation process focuses on a framework of important policy 15Robert Levine, Public Planning: Failure and Redirection (New York: Basic Books, 1972), pp. 23-24. 16Williams, Social Policy Research and Analysis, p. 145; Murphy, State Education Agencies, pp. l3-l6; and Hargrove, The Missing Link, pp. 79-93. 17Hargrove, The Missing Link, pp. 69-79. 12 implementation activities or functions. A clearly articulated set of important functions that public agencies should perform in implementing public policies would provide decision-makers with a useful framework for viewing the policy implementation process and analyzing policy im- plementation success.18 All of the perspectives listed above for viewing the policy im- plementation process overlap to some extent. Each of the seven perspec- tives, however, is relevant and can probably yield valuable information regarding that process. For decision-makers concerned with policy implementation analysis, the perspectives likely would be mixed or con- fused. The choice of a perspective likely would not be clear cut; con- siderable doubt may exist as to the usefulness of one perspective rel- ative to another. This study focuses directly on developing and refin- ing the seventh perspective and showing its usefulness in analyzing the process of state land policy implementation. Environment of the Policy Implementation Process The context or environment of the policy implementation process makes analyzing the success of that process a difficult and complex task. In our system of government, state land policy implementation occurs through the actions of public agencies operating within the dy- namic context of interdependent political, economic, and social pres- sures. The following factors are important aspects of this dynamic environment that complicate decision-maker analysis of the success of state land policy implementation. First, decision-makers, especially 18This particular perspective is not explicitly identified in the literature. It was suggested by Professor Raymond D. Vlasin, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University. 13 individual citizens and special interest groups, may lack adequate access to public agencies and officials responsible for implementing specific policy alternatives. Second, decision-makers may lack adequate data and information relevant to the implementation of a particular policy or program. Third, decision-makers, for various reasons, may be unclear as to the entire scope of the policy implementation process in- cluding important decision points. Fourth, decision-makers may not know or clearly understand all of the formal or informal rules and procedures that affect the policy implementation process. As another important problem, decision-makers may not know all, or even some, of the important factors that should be taken into account in implementing a state land policy. Each aspect of the policy implementation environment noted above adds a significant complicating element of uncertainty to any attempt to understand the state land policy implementation process and to analyze the success of any particular policy implementation effort. Decision- makers must deal with these complicating elements in their analysis of policy implementation. A framework of important policy implementation activities or functions would serve to augment their difficult, but necessary analysis efforts. Specific Study Objectives This study focuses on state land policy implementation. The specific objectives of this study are to: l) investigate the treatment of policy implementation issues. in discussions of land policy, particularly state land policy. 2) outline one conceptual approach for analyzing the success of the state land policy implementation process. l4 3) develop and refine, in detail, one component of this conceptual approach-~a framework of important activities or functions for implementing state land policy. Study COmponents The following topics are the focus of the remaining chapters of this study. The research approach used in this study is discussed in Chapter II. A review of significant literature pertaining to policy implementation is presented in Chapter III. Special attention focuses on the treatment of the policy implementation issue in literature relat- ing to land policy, particularly state land policy. This literature review is supplemented with observations by land policy "experts" gath- ered during a series of interviews conducted as a part of this research. One conceptual approach for analyzing the success of the state land policy implementation process is outlined in Chapter IV. A framework of important state land policy implementation activities or functions is developed in Chapter V. Chapter VI presents a study summary, conclusions, and several policy and future research recommendations. d 3- ' 1“? 1 V CHAPTER II RESEARCH APPROACH Policy implementation--planning for policy execution and actual policy execution-~is a crucial component of the public policy process: it forms the link between policy alternatives and policy performance. It should have high research priority. Yet, little research effort has focused directly on public policy implementation. One reason for this paucity of research may be the gen- eral failure to integrate the policy implementation process into our conceptual and analytical thinking about public policy. Another reason is probably related to the difficulty of doing policy implementation research. The policy implementation process is complex; it involves many actors, each with his own perceptions and values, located at dif- ferent levels of government. Existing research methods are inadequate to permit clear, analytical statements about causative relationships in this complex process. As a consequence, it may be that the potential payoffs of policy implementation research appear not to be worth the necessary effort. In dealing with applied, real-world problems, however, substance 1 Paul Baran has stated that must take precedence over research method. it would certainly seem desirable to break with the time-honored tradition of . . . sacrificing the relevance of subject matter to the elegance of analytical method; it is better to deal imperfectly 1Van Meter and Van Horn, "Studying Implementation," p. 10. 15 16 with what is important than to attain virtuoso skill in the treatment of that which does not matter.2 It would be a mistake to emphasize analytical elegance and quantitative precision at the expense of policy relevance. These statements underly the research approach adopted in this study. This approach is not quantitatively sophisticated. One might argue that it is "soft" and too qualitative to yield hard, definitive data and information regarding the process of implementing state land policy. Yet, it was judged adequate for the purposes of this study. The remainder of this chapter will outline this research approach in some detail. Research Approach The research approach used in conducting this study consists of three major components. These components include a review of pertinent literature, a review of Michigan land policy legislation, and a series of interviews with land policy "experts." Literature Review The literature review focused on the following major subject areas: public administration; organizational theory; community development; political science, especially literature relating to legislative process, government administrative process, and public policy asSessment; and land policy. Given the breadth of these subject areas, it was possible to sample only a portion of literature in each area. Special emphasis 2Paul Baran, The Political Economy of Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), p. 22. 17 was given to literature focusing on public policy assessment and land policy. The overall purpose of the literature review was threefold. The first purpose was to find and to review materials relating to public policy implementation. A second purpose was to review materials focus- ing on public policy assessment for indications of concern with policy implementation. In both instances, a special effort was made to find and to review materials focusing on land policy, especially state land policy. A third purpose was to search for examples of activities or functions important in the policy implementation process in literature from each major subject area. This literature review generated a wealth of valuable information, but it is subject to one major limitation. Each of the major subject areas reviewed contains many sources that have some relevance to the issue of public policy implementation. Because of the magnitude of this body of literature, it is likely that some worthwhile materials were overlooked. In addition, it is possible that important insight was overlooked in the materials that were reviewed. Review of Michigan Land Policy Legislation A sample of Michigan land policy legislation was reviewed. The sample included proposed bills pending in the State legislature and existing land policy statutes. The administrative rules relating to some of the existing statutes also were reviewed. A listing of the legislation in the sample is provided in Appendix A. This sample of legislation was selected on the basis of convenience and judgment. Proposed legislatibn for review was selected from the "resource and conservation" and "land use" sections of the "contents of 18 status" listing available during mid-March 1976 at the State of Michigan Legislative Service Bureau. Existing statutes for review were selected 3 and State of Michigan Natural from Michigan Laws Related to Planning Resources Laws.4 The Michigan land policy legislation was reviewed for a single purpose. This purpose was to isolate examples of activities or functions important in the state land policy implementation process. The review of legislation is subject to two important limitations. First, only Michigan land policy legislation was reviewed. Second, only a sample of this legislation was reviewed. As a consequence, the infor- mation developed regarding implementation activities or functions is not representative for other states or comprehensive for Michigan. Interviews A crucial component of the research approach used in this study was a series of interviews with land policy "experts." During an eight- week period, forty-one interviews were conducted with individuals hav- ing a working knowledge of land policy, particularly state land policy. This sample of "experts" consisted of individuals associated with Michigan State University, various departments and offices in Michigan state government, and various private sector interest groups. These interviews had three primary purposes. The first purpose was to explore the general issue of public policy implementation. A iCoordinated by the State Board of Registration for Professional Community Planners (East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Community Development and Services, Continuing Education Service, Michigan State University, 1975). 4Michigan Department of Natural Resources, comp., (1972). 5Appendix 8 lists the individual interviewees and the organiza- tions with which they are associated. 19 second purpose was to explore the issues of E! gptg_policy or program analysis and §x_pp§t_policy or program evaluation in the context of Michigan state government experience. The possibility of relating these issues with systematic policy or program implementation analysis was also explored. In each of these first two cases, special attention was given to land policy, particularly state land policy. Third, inter- viewee perceptions of important functions for implementing state land policies were solicited. A specialized technique--"elite interviewing"--was used in con- ducting these interviews. Lewis A. Dexter provides an excellent detail- ed discussion of this technique in his book entitled Elite and Spec- ialized Interviewing.6 Precedent for the use of this technique, or a similar technique, includes the interviewing work of Dexter as well as studies completed by Herbert Kaufman, Jerome T. Murphy, and Gene E. Willeke and F. William Kroeck.7 The "Elite" Interview The "elite" interviewing technique has certain important charac- teristics. An "elite" is any interviewee who, because of the objectives of the interviewer, is given special, nonstandardized treatment. Spe- cial, nonstandardized treatment means: 1. stressing the interviewee's definition of the situation. 2. encouraging the interviewee to structure the account of the situation. 6(Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1970). 7Kaufman, The Forest Ran er; Murphy, State Education Agencies; and Willeke and Kroeck, A Program for Metropolitan Water Management (Atlanta, Georgia: Environmental Resources Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1972). 20 3. letting the interviewee introduce to a considerable extent (an extent which will of course vary from project to project and interviewer to interviewer) his notions of what he regards as relevant, instead of relying upon the investigator's notions of relevance. The essence of the "elite" interview, as Dexter points out, is that "the investigator is willing, and often eager to let the interviewee teach him what the problem, the question, the situation, is--to the limits, of course, of the interviewer's ability to perceive relation- ships to his basic problems, whatever they may be."9 This interviewing technique emphasizes the unique perceptions, ex- periences, and opinions of the individual interviewee. Deviations from the typical response pattern are handled statistically in the usual sur- vey interview approach. "Elite" interviewing, however, probes for the unusual response. Such a finding helps the investigator to define his basic problem and to understand the relevant issues. New and unusual interpretations may, in fact, lead the investigator to insightful solu- tions of his problem. The Field Work The "elite" interviewing process consisted of a number of important steps. These steps included the selection of the "elites," the initial contact with the interviewee, the development of a discussion guide, the interview appointment, and the interpretation of the interviewee's dis- cussion. A non-probability sample of "elites" or interviewees was selected on the basis of experience and knowledge regarding public policy, 8Dexter, Elite and Specialized Interviewigg, p. 5. 9Ibid., pp. 50 and 56. 21 particularly land policy. Judgments were made, in consultation with key ‘0 concerning the usefulness of meeting with particular indi- colleagues, viduals. In addition, the recommendations of several interviewees re- sulted in worthwhile interviews with individuals not identified initially. Non-probability, as opposed to probability, sampling techniques normally do not sample a representative cross section of the total uni- verse and, thus, are biased and result in inferior quality in terms of 1] Given the subject matter and purposes information per interview taken. of this study, however, a non-probability sampling approach was judged to be adequate for selecting the interviewees. Each selected interviewee was contacted initially by letter (Appendix G contains a sample letter). These letters described the study in general terms and indicated a desire to meet personally with the interviewee. Approximately one week after mailing, these letters were followed-up with telephone calls to the selected interviewees. During the telephone conversations, questions were answered concerning the study and a time was arranged for an interview appointment with the selected interviewees. In conducting "elite" interviews, Dexter recommends the use of an interview plan or guide. An interview plan is quite distinct from the 10These key colleagues included my major professor and other faculty members in the Department of Resource Development at Michigan State University. 1"John B. Lauring and James N. Morgan, Economic Survey Methods (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 1971) pp. 59-61; Russell L. Ackoff, Scientific Method: Opti- mizing Applied Research Decisions (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), pp. 232-34; and Julian L. Simon, Basic Research Methods in Social Science (New York: Random House, 1969), pp. 262-65. 22 interview schedule utilized in the typical survey interview approach. An interview schedule is a rigidly structured instrument allowing the interviewer little opportunity to stray from the designated series of questions and follow-up on interesting points made by the interviewee. An interview plan or guide outlines the general issues and questions the interviewer wants to pursue but does not prohibit the interviewer and interviewee from pursuing other more relevant points. The inter- view plan or guide permits, and even encourages, an unstructured, free- wheeling discussion.12 Appendix 0 displays the interview guide used for this study. Be- fore actual interviewing began, an initial draft of this guide was prepared. The first draft was "pretested" on a number of individuals closely related with this study. Based on their recommendations, a revised interview guide was prepared. Adaptations of the basic inter- view guide were made during the interviewing process whenever it appear- ed useful to follow-up on particular aspects of an interviewee's discussion. Sometimes entire sections of the interview guide were eliminated and others were expanded depending on the interests and attitudes of the interviewee. It is important to stress that the pur- pose of the interview guide is to provide the basic outline for the "elite“ interview; it is not meant to be followed slavishly. Each interview appointment lasted from forty-five minutes to one and a half hours. After the necessary introductory remarks, including a statement regarding the confidentiality of the interview, the inter- views generally turned into free-wheeling discussions. While it was 12Dexter, Elite and Specialized Interviewipg, pp. 83-89. 23 usually possible to focus discussion on the highlights of the interview guide, in many instances discussion focused on relevant issues not ex- plicitly identified in the guide. It was anticipated that it would be difficult to concentrate on these discussions and, at the same time, take accurate notes. Arrange- ments were made for an assistant to aid in recording the discussions.13 The role of the assistant was to record full and precise notes of the entire interview discussion that would supplement my own note-taking efforts. Immediately after the completion of each interview, a brief sum- mary of the discussion, including an interpretation of that discussion, was written. An attempt was made to assess each interviewee's comments and to identify those points most pertinent to the objectives of the study. This time was also used to evaluate the handling of the inter- views and to make any necessary changes in the interview procedures. Strengths and Weaknesses of "Elite" Interviewing The "elite" interviewing technique has some very important strengths, but it is also subject to several significant weaknesses. The major strengths and weaknesses of this interviewing technique are listed below. Strengths 1. Within the general context of a problem, the "elite" interview- ing technique allows flexibility for the interviewer and inter- viewee to pursue one or several interesting and important '\ 13Peter T. Paluch, a graduate research assistant in the Department 31’ Resource Development at Michigan State University, served as the elite" interview assistant for this study. 24 issues. The interview participants are not constrained by a formal interview schedule. 2. This interview technique is most useful for exploratory studies where a situation or a meaning are somewhat problematical. The technique permits the interviewer to extract perceptive com- ments from the interviewee that may lead to better understand- ing of the problem and related issues or to a resolution of the problem.14 3. The logistics of "elite" interviewing tends to reduce the num- ber of interviews completed in any study, but this technique does allow the interviewer to focus his efforts in a concen- trated, in-depth way on the ideas, attitudes and observations of interviewees with particularly relevant knowledge, expert- ise, and experience. For exploratory studies such as this one in which the main issues are somewhat problematical, thiS‘ interviewing technique has great value as opposed to an approach that concentrates on a cross-section of a larger but probably less knowledgable sample. 4. "Elite" interviewing provides the interviewer with an invalu- able learning experience. This interviewing technique allows the interviewer to gain insights regarding the behavior of individuals, the conduct of activities, and the circumstances surrounding these activities that are not available using alternative research methods. 14Dexter, Elite and Specialized Interviewigg, pp. 18-19. 25 5. This technique allows the interviewer to focus on interrelation- ships between the individual "attributes" that constitute the on-going process of human activity. As Salter observes, "these attributes are not important in themselves, but only insofar as their combination within an action unit helps to explain the behavior of it."‘5 Weaknesses 1. "Elite" interviewing is an intense experience; it requires continual analysis and ingenuity by the interviewer throughout the interview. As a consequence, the interviewer is under great stress which undoubtedly leads to errors in data record- ]6 In the context of this study, the use of ing and analysis. an assistant to take supplementary notes should have helped to alleviate the recording problem. There is still, however, the possibility of error in the assistant's recording efforts. . Determining the credibility of interviewee statements can be a problem. It is important that the interviewer has enough rel- evant background to judge the plausibility and to make some sense out of what the interviewee is saying.]7 . "Elite" interviews are much more difficult to interpret than the typical survey interview. A premium is placed on the 15 Leonard A. Salter, Jr., "Cross-Sectional and Case-Grouping Procpdures in Research Analysis,” Journal of Farm Economics 24 (November 1942 : 792. 16 17 Willeke and Kroeck, Metropolitan Water Management, pp. 20-24. Dexter, Elite and Specialized Interviewing, pp. 14-17. 26 interviewer's ability to perceive and understand the inter- viewee's frame of reference.18 4. Interviewee responses reflect a very subjective "view of the world" based on a single individual's perceptions, experiences, and opinions at a particular point in time.19 5. The interview situation may also influence interviewee subjec- tive responses. The interviewer must be attuned to interviewee ulterior motives for interviewing, bars to spontaneity inhibit- ing interviewee response, interviewee desires to please the interviewer, and idiosyncratic factors causing the interviewee to express only part of his experiences and opinions.20 6. When using the "elite" interviewing technique, care must be taken to separate the interviewee's subjective perceptions of reality from his objective descriptions of actual events and circumstances. Care must be taken also to adjust for distor- tions in interviewee objective descriptions. The major sources of possible distortions are these: 1. The respondent just did not observe the details of what happened or cannot recall what he did observe, and reports instead what he supposed happened. Data below the informants' observation or memory threshold cannot of course be reported. 2. The respondent reports as accurately as he can, but because his mental set has selectively perceived the situation, the data re- ported give a distorted impression of what occurred. 18Ibid., p. 19. 19Ibid., pp. 19 and 120. 20John P. Dean and William Foote Whyte, "How Do You Know if the Informant is Telling the Truth?" Human Organization 27 (1958), reprint- ed in Dexter, Elite and Specialized Interviewipg, pp. 122-23. ‘_.————_ ___._———-—-—' __.._-—-—v- 27 3. The informant unconsciously modifies his report of a situation because of his emotional needs to shape the situation to fit his own perspective. Awareness of the "true" facts might be so un- comfortable that the informant wants to protect himself against this awareness. 4. The informant quite consciously modifies the facts as be per- ceives thgm in order to convey a distorted impression of what occurred. Summar This chapter has described the research approach used for this study of state land policy implementation. Emphasis has been on each important component comprising this approach, its purpose, and its major strengths or weaknesses. The next chapter relates some of the findings of one component--the literature review. Its focus is on pol- icy implementation literature. 2‘Ibid., pp. 125-26. hb_."'l._-..‘ 5 CHAPTER III POLICY IMPLEMENTATION LITERATURE Policy implementation is coming to the forefront as an important and challenging area of policy research. Political scientists and pol- icy analysts in schools of public policy are primarily responsible for the upsurge of interest in this issue. They have recognized that pol- icy implementation is an important determinant of the success or failure of public policies. Yet the policy implementation literature is still relatively sparse. A brief review of this literature is presented here. The purpose of this review is twofold. First, it emphasizes the importance of the policy implementation process and planning for that process as determi- nants of policy performance. Second, it emphasizes the relative neglect of the policy implementation process as a specific focus, both concep- tually and analytically, in most policy areas including the area of state land policy. The literature review is presented in two sections. The first section, while not comprehensive, highlights major research contribu- tions expressing specific concern for policy implementation. This section concentrates on those contributions made since the late 1960's. Prior to this time, there is little work with an explicit focus on pol- icy implementation. Special emphasis is given to the proliferation of studies completed during the last two years. The second section singles 28 29 out for special attention the treatment of policy implementation issues in land policy literature; particular emphasis is given to its treat- ment in discussions of state land policy. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of some of the informa- tion gathered during the "elite" interviewing process. Information summarized in this concluding section supplements conclusions drawn from the literature review. Implementation in Policngesearch Literature Policy implementation has been generally neglected as a specific focus of policy research. This observation is not meant to imply that valuable research related to policy implementation has not been com- pleted. Relevant research has been generated in many different disci- plines. One can find examples of useful studies in political science, economics, public administration, and organizational theory. For the most part, however, past work in these areas, while useful, has been peripheral to the study of policy implementation. At best, it has focused only on different, detailed components of the policy implemen- tation process. Until recently, it was difficult to find research studies expressing specific concern for the public policy implementa- tion process as a whole and the importance of planning for that process. This section focuses only on such studies. Suchman's 1967 work on evaluative research focuses on the assess- ment of on-going public policies or programs.1 In this study, he 1Edward Suchman, Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967; reprint ed., March 1974), p. 61. 3O acknowledges the importance of the policy implementation process. He argues that there are five useful criteria for evaluating program success or failure. These criteria are: 1) effort, 2) performance, 3) adequacy of performance, 4) efficiency, and 5) process.2 By "process“ Suchman means the way or the procedures whereby a program produces the results it does. He says that an analysis of process can be administratively and scientifically significant, particularly when it is determined that a program is not achieving expected results. Suchman emphasizes, how- ever, that "strictly speaking, [the analysis of process] is not an in- herent part of evaluative research."3 While stressing its importance for policy or program performance, Suchman does not provide an in-depth, detailed examination of "process." In 1968, Dror published a book focusing on public policymaking.4 The primary emphasis of Dror's work is "to analyze and evaluate con- temporary public policymaking and to identify its main weak spots by comparing it with a proposed optimal model."5 One component of his model of optimal policymaking focuses on policy execution.6 Dror pin- points the importance of the policy execution or implementation pro- cess and assessment of that process as important components of the total policymaking process. His discussion, however, provides few suggestions 21bid., p. 66. 3 4Yehezkel Dror, Public Policymaking Reexamined (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1968). 5 Ibid. Ibid., p. xi. 51bid.. pp. 188-93. 31 on how one might systematically approach assessment of policy execution or implementation. One of the first detailed discussions of the relevance of policy implementation for policy performance appeared in Walter Williams' Social Policy Research and Analysis. Williams discusses the problems faced by a central analytical office in using policy analysis, particularly in terms of utilizing social science research results, within the context of a federal social agency's decision-making and implementation process to improve program outcomes, with a main purpose of offering some suggestions for making policy analysis more effective as a social policymaking technique. In a chapter on "The Agency Implementation Process," Williams discusses: l) a definition of the policy implementation process, 2) the nature of that process, 3) the importance of policy implementation as one determi- nant of policy or program performance, 4) the lack of emphasis on out- come-oriented implementation by program analysts and operators, 5) implementation as a research question, and 6) the obvious need to do something about implementation.8 Williams' discussion of policy imple- mentation is one of the first important conceptual contributions to the policy implementation literature. It provides an excellent starting point for consideration of this issue. Two important case studies focusing on the policy implementation process were published in 1971. One of these studies, completed by Jerome T. Murphy, focused on the "intergovernmental problems of imple- "9 menting education reform in a federal system. His investigations 1 7(New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), p. . 8 9"Title I of ESEA: The Politics of Implementing Federal Education Reform," Harvard Educational Review 41 (February l97l):35-63. Ibid., Chapter Eight, PP. 131-49. 32 reveal that political and bureaucratic obstacles are important factors capable of frustrating policy or program implementation efforts. A second study, by Harrison Wellford, examines and analyzes the regulation of the technology and corporate practices of food production.10 Wellford points out that "the concept of the public interest is given a procedur- n11 a1, rather than a substantive meaning. He argues throughout his study that "consumer. . .victories which the public wins with the power of the ballot are often lost when they are interpreted [implemented] by 12 the regulatory bureaucracy." Both the Murphy and Wellford case stud- ies illustrate vividly the crucial importance of the implementation process for achieving policy objectives. Another case study focusing directly on the policy implementation ‘3 It examined the process was completed in 1972 by Martha Derthick. federally sponsored new towns in-town program of the late 1960's. It tells the story of glowing federal promises concerning the potential performance of this social program that were never realized. The author describes how this effort foundered on the politics of program imple- mentation. Robert A Levine also published an important policy implementation study in 1972.14 Levine points out that neither past nor present 10Sowing the Wind (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1972; Bantam Books, 1973). This report was completed for Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law in 1971. 11 Ibid., p. xxii. 12Ibid. 13New Towns In-Town: Why a Federal Program Failed (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1972)} 14 1972). Public Planning, Failure and Redirection (New York: Barie Books, 33 public programs have worked well in the United States. The main reason for such program failure, according to Levine, is the rigid hierarchy of rules governing all levels of the policy or program implementation process. He argues: The planners and administrators at the top lay out the basic rules as general guidelines; the middle-level administrators make them into detailed rules of procedure; the operators at the bottom must ‘14 apply them by interpretations based on administrative discretion. I? In this process of interpretation the original policy objectives more often than not get lost or even reversed.I To improve policy or program performance, Levine recommends the use of "individual and organizational incentives to interpret policies down to ..16 ii While Levine's discussion focuses on alternative systems for operating levels, using rules much less than is done now. carrying out policies or programs, his main point is much broader. He argues that policy planning must be linked closely with policy imple- mentation. More precisely, Levine states that "planning for implemen- 17 if intended policy objectives are to be accom- tation is crucial" plished. In 1973 Jeffery Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky published a policy implementation case study regarding economic development. Their work focuses on the implementation problems that stymied the Economic Devel- opment Administration (EDA) program to provide permanent new jobs for minority groups in Oakland, California, through the provision of public works and building loans to existing business enterprises.18 They 15Ibid., p. v. I6Ibid. 17Ibid., p. 167. 18Implementation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973). 34 discovered that the EDA program was frustrated by "the difficulties of translating broad agreement into specific decisions, given a wide range of participants and perspectives; the opportunities for blockage and delay that result from a multiplicity of decision points; and the eco- 19 The authors point nomic theories on which the program was based." out that these implementation considerations were virtually ignored during the development of the EDA program. On the basis of these find- ings, they argue that implementation considerations should be an inte- gral part of the initial formulation of policy: "implementation should not be divorced from policy."20 Recognizing the significance of implementation considerations, Pressman and Wildavsky conducted a review of the pre-1973 social science literature for some trace or mention of concern for policy implementa- tion. The thrust of their findings was that "except for the few pieces mentioned in the body of this book, we have been unable to find any 21 significant analytic work dealing with implementation." They state further that the literature "does not use 'implementation' at all, or the concept is undefined, or the word is mentioned in passing."22 Pressman and Wildavsky base their conclusion on what was apparently an exhaustive search of the social science literature. Their summary of this search indicates that they reviewed periodical indexes and existing literature related to poverty, civil rights, operations research, and public administration. 19Ibid., p. 6. 20Ibid., p. 143. 2‘Ibid., see Appendix Two, p. 166. 22ibid., p. 167. 35 Murphy published a case study in 1974 that examined the political and organizational obstacles blocking effective implementation of Title 23 His findings V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. indicate that the following factors were partially responsible for the failure of Title V: lack of vigorous, imaginative, and forward-looking action on the part of state education agencies; uncooperative state P‘ school officials; lack of aggressiveness in approving grants by the - V3 United States Office of Education; late and inadequate support by Con- gress; failure of state legislatures and state employment commissions to support state education agency operations under Title V; and nega- i tive views of planning.24 Murphy classifies these factors under the "blame theory" (see p.10 above) in explaining why the Title V programs did not live up to expectations. His primary focus in this study, however, is on utilizing organizational theory to explain the implementation problems associated with the Title V programs. He ar- gues that many of these problems developed because of "the enduring "25 While the details of Murphy's study attributes of organizations. are interesting, his main contribution is emphasizing the importance of the implementation process for policy or program performance and pointing out our limited understanding of that process. Brezina and Overmyer published a book in 1974 that deals with 26 policy implementation. Their study follows the course of the federal Environmental Education Act through its legislative development, the 23State Education Agencies. 24 25 Ibid., PP. 12-13. Ibid., p. 13. 26Dennis W. Brezina and Allen Overmyer, Congress In Action: The Environmental Education Act (New York: The Free Press, 1974). 36 the congressional appropriations process, and congressional oversight proceedings focusing on executive agency implementation of the act. In their discussion of congressional oversight of the implementation pro- cess, the authors illustrate the potential for frustrating policy or program objectives during that process. This study illustrates the crucial significance of the policy implementation process as a part of the total policy process. At least five useful studies related to the policy implementation process appeared in 1975. Two of these studies were done by Donald S. Van Meter and Carl E. Van Horn from Ohio State University.27 The authors indicate that the policy implementation process has received less than adequate attention by policy researchers. They stress the importance of studying the implementation process since this process is the crucial link between a policy decision and policy performance. It is during this process, they argue, that many obstacles develop which hinder the achievement of expected policy or program results. Yet, as is pointed out, it is these obstacles that we most often ignore when assessing policy or program effectiveness. Van Meter and Van Horn favor integrating implementation analysis into policy evaluation which has traditionally focused only on the consequences or impacts of on-going policies or programs. They expect that this integration would provide more, useful detailed information to decision-makers that would be helpful in modifying on-going programs. 27"Studying Implementation," paper delivered at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, California, September 2-5, 1975; and "The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework," Administration and Society 6 (February 1975): 445-88. 37 In addition to these observations, Van Meter and Van Horn provide another useful contribution in the form of a model of the policy imple- mentation process. Their theoretical framework emphasizes several im- portant variables as causal factors in this process. The variables include: program standards and objectives; resources; interorganizational communication; interorganizational enforcement and follow-up; character- istics of the implementing agencies; economic, social, and political conditions within the implementing jurisdictions; and the dispositions of the implementors. This model represents a major first attempt to comprehensively and systematically conceptualize the policy implementa- tion process. It provides one potential framework for integrating implementation considerations into the analysis of new policies and the evaluation of on-going policies. Another important 1975 study dealing with policy implementation by Baker, Michaels, and Preston has the broader issue of public policy development as its primary focus.28 The main concern in this study is the development of a public policy process that would provide informa- tion useful for understanding the impacts of social choices. The authors stress the importance of policy development or analysis as'a part of the total policy process. Policy development is defined as the process of identifying goals, identifying policy alternatives for achieving these goals, and evaluating these alternatives. Evaluation of policy alternatives, it is argued, involves assessing both the effectiveness 28Robert F. Baker, Richard M. Michaels, and Everett S. Preston, Public Policy Development: Linking the Technical and Political Pro- cesses (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975). 38 of proposed alternatives in achieving the specified objectives and the feasibility of implementing each of the proposed alternatives.29 This study emphasizes two points that are of particular signifi- cance here. First, the model of the policy process which forms the basis of this study explicitly identifies the policy implementation process (and some general activities encompassed in that process) as an important model component. Second, policy implementation analysis is explicitly integrated into policy development or analysis.30 Unfortu- nately, while the authors recognize the importance of analyzing the policy implementation process and suggest some criteria for conducting that analysis, they do not provide an in-depth discussion of the issue. Discussion of the policy implementation issue was supplemented further by the 1975 summer issue of the new journal of Policy Analysis.31 This entire issue was devoted to policy implementation. In the Editor's Comments, Walter Williams makes the point that very little has been done to investigate the policy implementation process. Yet, his experience leads him to conclude: In short, the major problem of social policy analysis concerns not what is set out explicitly in support of policy recommendations but what is not said in terms of the feasibility of implementing those recommendations.32 291bid.. pp. 23-28. 3°Ibid., see Figure 2.2 on p. 28. 31The papers included in this issue of Poligy Analysis are Richard F. Elmore, "Lessons from Follow Through;" DavidiP. Weikart and Bernard A. Banet, "Planned Variation from the Perspective of a Model Sponsor;" Edward M. Gramlich and Patricia P. Koshel, "Is Real-World Experimenta- tion Possible? The Case of Educational Performance Contracting;" and Walter Williams, "Implementation Analysis and Assessment.“ 32 Policy Analysis 1 (Summer 1975):453. 39 The major point of this entire issue of Policy Analysis is "that the lack of concern for implementation is currently the crucial impediment to improving program operations, policy analysis, and experimentation in social policy areas."33 Perhaps the most useful paper in this issue of Policy Analysis is 34 Williams' own contribution. He emphasizes that the process of policy implementation is complex; that little is known about it; and that it has been neglected in analyses of proposed policy alternatives--policy analysis. Williams discusses some important definitions and key dis- tinctions useful in studying implementation. An excellent discussion of the important distinction between the policy decision-making process and the policy implementation process is presented in this section (see pp. 63-65 below). Williams also addresses the problem of conducting research on the policy implementation process in discussing techniques for analyzing and assessing implementation. Williams concludes by stating: We must recognize both that implementation is where the research action ought to be and that progress is likely to be slow. I would offer this as a single guiding rule: Always think about implementation problems, and always worry that others are not thinking about them, but do not expect major improvements to come quickly.35 Probably the best study of policy implementation to date was pub- lished during the summer of 1975 by the Urban Institute. This is Erwin C. Hargrove's monograph on implementation as the "missing link" 33"Implementation Analysis and Assessment," 531. 34Ibid., 531-66. 35Ibid., 565-66. 4O 36 Hargrove documents the past neglect on in the study of social policy. the part of policy researchers to integrate policy implementation con- cerns into both their analyses of proposed policies (policy analysis) and evaluations of on-going policies (performance evaluation). He emphasizes, however, the fundamental importance of policy implementa- tion and its growing acceptance as a challenging and useful area of research. He points out that political scientists, educators in schools of public policy, and operations research analysts are beginning to emphasize policy implementation in their work. Political scientists are interested in policy implementation as a political process: They begin with a policy as it was initially shaped by the politics of reaching agreement and then chart the continuing politics of program administration in which politicians, bureaucrats, interest groups and publics vie for control over direction of the program.37 Educators in schools of public policy are becoming interested in the feasibility of developing "implementation estimates" of alternative policy implementation strategies to complement their more traditional 38 policy analysis work. Operations research analysts are concerned with implementation from the perspective of trying "to get a manager to give up organizational practices or codes which are counterproductive and adopt new ones more in line with the OR analysis of a problem. Advising the manager and improving the organization are thus part of a 1139 single continuous process. Hargrove emphasizes the importance of this "convergence upon program [policy] implementation as a problem."40 36Hargrove, The Missing Link. 37Ibid., p. 3. 38Ibid., p. 4. 391bid.. pp. 4-5. 40Ibid., p. 5. 41 He sees the potential for research efforts on this problem to improve the performance of public policies or programs designed and administered through our public institutions.41 The purpose of Hargrove's study is to stress the need for policy implementation research and "to suggest the kinds of research knowledge which could be joined to decisions in government about the designing and Operating 0f programs."42 His "central argument is that greater knowledge of how institutions actually work in implementation processes could improve the initial design of program strategies and enhance the successful administrative operation of programs."43 Hargrove empha- sizes the need for relating three kinds of knowledge in order to gain a useful and comprehensive perspective on the policy implementation pro- cess.44 These three kinds of knowledge include: 1) policy implementa- tion analysis emphasizing "implementation estimates"--analyses of implementation strategies; 2) policy research directed toward any issue that may improve policy or program decisions; and 3) social science research directed toward improving our understanding of how institu- tions function within a dynamic social, political, and economic environ- ment. Hargrove suggests that by advancing and relating knowledge in these three areas, we can achieve a better understanding of the policy implementation problem and, hopefully, increase the effectiveness of our policy implementation processes. 4IIbid., p. 8. 42 43 44 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 9-11. 42 Hargrove's study also provides an up-to-date comprehensive review of the policy implementation literature. His work reiterates the pre-l973 findings of Pressman and Wildavsky (see p. 34 above) and also reviews the growing volume of important contributions to the implementa- tion literature since that date. This trend is especially evident with respect to more theoretical or conceptual studies. Many of these stud- ies have been cited here, but there are two as yet unpublished studies cited by Hargrove that appear particularly interesting. In one, Eugene 45 His ap- Bardach focuses on the politics of policy implementation. proach emphasizes the attempts of different publics to gain control over what they perceive as important components of the policy imple- mentation process. Bardach also emphasizes the potential of various accountability mechanisms to help ensure effective policy implementa- tion. Martin Rein and Francine Rabinovitz focus on the importance of three specific variables as determinants or causal factors of effective 46 They emphasize clearly stated and agreed upon policy implementation. policy objectives, limitations imposed upon the implementation process by the availability of resources, and the complexity--in terms of the number of actors involved--of the implementation process. The latest expression of concern for policy implementation appears in a study published by the Urban Institute in early 1976 which presents program (policy) analysis techniques useful for state and local 45The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes Law, unpublished manuscript, n.d., cited by Erwin C. Hargrove, The Missing_ Link: The Study of the Implementation of Social Policy_(Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1975), p. 69. 46"Implementation: A Theoretical Perspective," unpublished manu- script, February 1974, cited by Erwin C. Hargrove, The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation of Social Policy (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1975), pp. 1 and 7. 43 47 The authors indicate that "program analysis is, in its governments. simplest terms, the systematic, explicit examination of alternative ways to reach public objectives."48 Program analysis is a future oriented activity devoted to estimating the future costs, effectiveness, and other impacts of policy or program alternatives. This study indicates that while the implementation process is crucial for achieving policy or program goals, there is little precedent for systematic analysis of that proCess in past program analysis activities.49 Summary While this review of important literature focusing on policy im- plementation has not been comprehensive, it does highlight several significant points. First, it is clear from the few studies reviewed here that the policy implementation process and planning for that pro- cess are important factors influencing policy success or failure. Despite this fact and our concern with public policy, these studies in- dicate that we have generally neglected policy implementation consider- ation as an explicit focus of our concern. Such failure reflects inad- equate conceptual recognition of the policy implementation process as 47Harry Hatry et a1., Program Analysis for State and Local Govern- ments (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1976). 48 49Ibid., see Chapter 7. In a companion piece, Hatry, Winnie, and Fisk imply, as have others cited in this literature review, that imple- mentation analysis has not been a major item of interest in program evaluation studies. Program evaluation, the counterpart of program analysis, focuses on assessing the impacts of on-going or completed programs. See Harry P. Hatry, Richard E. Winnie, and Donald M. Fisk, Practical Program Evaluation for State and Local Government Officials (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1973): p. 8. Ibid., p. 1. 44 an integral portion of the total policy process. Second, there has recently been a growing awareness of policy implementation as one impor- tant determinant of policy performance. Political scientists and public policy educators have been primarily responsible for this upsurge of interest. It is evidenced in the proliferation, particularly in the last two years, of literature focusing explicitly on the policy imple- mentation process. Third, most emphasis in the literature has been on documenting the significance of the policy implementation process; our conceptual neglect of the process, despite its importance; and our failure to systematically integrate a concern for the implementation process into our assessments of proposed policies (policy analysis) and on-going or completed policies (performance evaluation). Fourth, the most recent policy implementation research contributions have concen- trated on how the policy implementation process can be conceptualized and analyzed. This work suggests that policy implementation analysis could make a useful contribution to both the design and selection of new policies as well as the modification of on-going policies. There is still much, however, that we don't know about the policy implementation process. Presently, we really don't have any good han- dles for dealing with this process. Research progress to date has been slow; it will probably be slow in the future. Yet, there is a crucial need for additional research. Implementation in Land Policy Literature This section focuses on the treatment of policy implementation issues in land policy literature, particularly those sources dealing with land policies or programs initiated at the state level. The pur- pose of this review is twofold. First, it attempts to illustrate the 45 relative importance of policy implementation issues in past land policy discussions. Second, where policy implementation issues have been identified as important, it attempts to assess how completely and sys- tematically these issues have been treated. This review of land policy literature is selective. A fully comprehensive review of all land policy literature would be a massive undertaking beyond the scope of this study. The brief summary of important sources presented here, however, highlights treatment of policy implementation issues in the land policy literature. Evidence of concern for policy implementation issues can be found in land policy literature published during the 1950's. Steele and Muehlbeier "review some of [the] institutional and organizational adap- tations that have been made to achieve resource development under the 50 In reviewing conditions peculiar to the [Northern Great] Plains." important public resource development programs of the 1930's and 1940's, they stress the problems of these programs and the things that could be done to meet these problems. They point out two implementation related issues as especially important: 1) inadequate organizations and methods for resource management and 2) coordination of large resource develop- ment programs.51 This article expresses both a concern for policy or program implementation considerations and a feeling that these issues g . 50Harry A. Steele and John Muehlbeier, "Land and Water Programs {35the Northern Great Plains," Journal of Farm Economics 32 (August 0 : 431. 51Ibid., 444. 46 were not adequately dealt with in the context of public programs for resource development in the 1930's and 1940's. Charles M. Hardin discusses some important implementation issues related to federal agricultural programs in a 1950 article on the poli- tics of agriculture. He stresses the political significance of the large number of former farmers holding important positions in all levels --1ocal, state, and federa1--of the organization responsible for admin- 52 Hardin's istering agricultural price supports and production controls. discussion suggests the importance of the policy or program implementa- tion process and the exercise of influence within that process as signifi- cant factors affecting program performance. One of W. Robert Parks' articles in the early 1950's also stresses the importance of implementation issues in the context of land policy. He points out that economic soundness is not sufficient for developing public agricultural programs. Parks argues that "political and admin- istrative theory also throws out guide-lines which cannot be overlooked if appropriate agricultural policy is to be developed and implemented."53 Parks stresses that an agricultural program's effectiveness depends upon its social, political, and administrative feasibility as well as its organic relationship to the problems to which it is addressed.54 In 52Charles M. Hardin, "The Politics of Agricultural in the United States,"Journal of Farm Economics 32 (November l950):578-79. 53w. Robert Parks, "Political and Administrative Guide-lines In Developin Public Agricultural Policies," Journal of Farm Economics 33 (May 1951? 157. 54Ibid., 158. -H 4....- ...— n— 47 this article, Parks notes the close ties between social, political and administrative feasibility; he also stresses the importance of know- ledge, resources, personnel, and organization as crucial for adminis- trative feasibility.55 This article provides an excellent discussion of the importance of the policy implementation process and planning for that process as important factors in achieving expected policy perform- ance. In 1952, two books were published that expressed concern for pol- icy or program implementation issues in the context of land policy. One of these books, written by W. Robert Parks, deals with soil conservation districts as administrative units. It is a detailed "case study of inter-governmental relations and of the problems and potentialities of lay farmer participation in agricultural administration."56 The second book, written by Charles M. Hardin, emphasizes the role of politics in the development and administration of agricultural policies in the United States. In discussing politics and administration, Hardin stresses the importance of influence on administrative operations in determining the development of agricultural policies as well as the potential of these policies to achieve stated objectives when they are 57 executed. Both of these books illustrate a recognition of policy 55Ibid., 161. 56W. Robert Parks, Soil Conservation Districts In Action (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, 195-), p. vii. 57Charles M. Hardin, The Politics of Agriculture (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952), pp. 263-66. 48 implementation issues and their importance for achieving expected policy objectives. Steele and Regan published an excellent article in 1955 that em- phasizes the significance of implementation issues for achieving an effective water policy. They state that "organization and administra- tive arrangements are of strategic importance both in formulating policy 58 goals and in effectuating their attainment." The authors also state that "despite the many commission and committee studies and reports in recent years, progress toward the crystallization of thinking on the nature of the organizational arrangements needed to deal with water 59 In their discussion, Steele and Regan resources has been slow." suggest several management functions that they feel are important for achieving water resource policy goals. These functions include: 1) re- source planning and evaluation, 2) supervision of construction and installation, 3) operations management, 4) resource budgeting, 5) financial management, 6) coordinating between related resource developments and activities with water-management projects, and 7) integration of functions and responsibilities.60 While these func- tions do not apply strictly to the actual policy implementation process --they also encompass concerns related to policy or program formulation--, they suggest activities that would be important in that process. —_ 58Harry A. Steele and Mark M. Regan, "Organization and Adminis- trative Arrangements For An Effective Water Policy," Journal of Farm Economics 37 (December l955):886. 59 Ibid. 601bid.. 887-88. 49 Each of the works cited above indicates a concern for policy im- plementation issues in the context of land policy. As a whole, they indicate a recognition of the crucial importance of policy implementa- tion issues for achieving policy objectives. They do not, however, adequately stress--with the possible exception Parks' 1951 Journal of Farm Economics article--the systematic and comprehensive analysis of the policy implementation process as an aid in formulating new policies and modifying on-going policies. The 1960's also saw several works published that focused on policy implementation issues. One of these was Herbert Kaufman's study of the 61 Kaufman points out that it is too often assumed U.S. Forest,Service. that the directives of top-level decision-makers in government agencies will be automatically carried out, and that this issue (implementation) does not warrant study. Kaufman argues to the contrary: It does not 'just happen' that the decisions and actions of the lower echelons make concrete realities of policy statements and declared objectives of the [Forest Service] leadership; this takes planning and work.6 Kaufman's study focuses on why the U.S. Forest Service seems to have little trouble with this problem. While this study does not focus on the policy implementation process as a whole, it does have an explicit focus on one aspect of this process: that aspect dealing with "the often neglected relationship between the broad pronouncements at the top levels and the day-to-day activities of those who perform the physical tasks of an agency."63 6IThe Forest Ranger (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1960)- 62 Ibid., p. x. 63Ibid., p. xi. 50 Regan published an article in 1960 that emphasized the implemen- tation of land resources policy.64 Regan gives primary emphasis to measures and organizational arrangements for policy implementation. His discussion of measures for policy implementation focuses on regulatory tools (zoning and other land use regulations), inducement or incentive. measures such as cost-sharing and payments, and resource education. Regan's discussion of organizational arrangements is a recapitulation of Steele and Regan's 1955 Journal of Farm Economics article (see p. 48 above) that emphasizes certain functions as important for achieving land policy goals. The information in this article is highly relevant to the consideration of policy implementation--both planning for execution and actual execution. Regan does not clearly suggest, however, how the policy implementation process might be systematically analyzed and how such analysis might fit in with other policy assessment concerns. Morgan's 1965 book on the planning and administration of soil conservation programs discusses the importance of program or policy im- 65 His primary emphasis is on the Soil Conserva- plementation issues. tion Service and soil conservation districts. He stresses how the dis- tricts have functioned to help or hinder the achievement of program objectives over the years drawing special attention to the politics of 64Mark D. Regan, "Implementing Land Resources Policy," in Modern Lghd Policy, Papers of the Land Economics Institute (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1960), pp. 269-82. 65Robert J. Morgan, Governing Soil Conservation: Thirty Years of Ib§_New Decentralization (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965). 51 66 Morgan's study clearly emphasizes the importance of administration. policy implementation issues for policy or program performance. George Hall published a study in 1967 stressing the importance of 67 He considers the interdependence be- policy implementation issues. tween public land policies and those federal government organizations responsible for policy administration. Hall argues: . Certainly, the study of relationships between policy and public administration is both difficult and a source of despair. Never- theless, such study is a vital necessity. More and more our ability to improve natural resource policy and management will depend upon our ability to create a governmental framework with the desire and ability to implement policy changes.68 While Hall obviously recognizes the importance of policy implementation issues and the study of these issues, his article addresses these issues only from the limited perspective of federal executive branch reorgani- zation. A forest policy study with emphasis on policy implementation issues was published in 1970 by Worrell.69 This study emphasizes two dimensions of implementation in the context of forest policy. First, Worrell discusses "means" or "techniques" for implementing forest policy goals. In this category, he considers such factors as public ownership and regulation of the use of private forests; public stimulation, guidance, and assistance to private forest management; and private implementation 661bid., pp. v-ix. 67George Hall, "Strategy and Organization In Public Land Policy," Natural Resources Journal 7 (April l967):162-82. 68Ibid., 182. 69Albert C. Worrell, Principles of Forest Policy(New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1970). 52 70 Second, Worrell discusses the execution or imple- of forest policies. mentation of forest policies once they have been agreed upon. In this discussion, he is concerned about organizations, administration, the politics of forest policy, and evaluation as important factors in the policy implementation process. Worrell emphasizes two points that are particularly relevant for this study. First, his discussion of evaluation, while admittedly in- complete and unsatisfactory, demonstrates that forest policy decision- makers have shown an interest--through financial and various types of administrative audits--in analyzing the administrative execution or im- 7] Second, his discussion of plementation of on-going forest policies. administration indicates that agencies responsible for forest policy implementation must pay attention to certain important functions or ac- tivities such as staffing, financing, and coordination.72 Concern for policy implementation also surfaces in other land pol- icy studies during the first half of the l970's. Hengert published a paper dealing with some of the legal aspects of land use policies, plans, and implementation. His discussion of implementation focuses mainly on tools (e.g., zoning and subdivision control regulation) for 73 achieving policy or plan objectives. Implementation was also raised 7O 71 Ibid., p. 77. Ibid., PP. 216-23. 721bid., pp. l54-65. 73Norman Wengert, "Legal Aspects of Land Use Policies, Plans, and Implementation," in National Land Use Policy: Objectives,.Components, Im lementation (Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America, 9 3 . PD. -60. 53 as an important land policy research area in a 1973 National Science Foundation study. This study stresses the need for research relating to the preparation of plans and policies and the implementation of these plans and policies. It does not, however, provide much in-depth dis- cussion of these research problems.74 Neil E. Harl, in an article dealing with economic and legal as- pects of land use control, discusses policy implementation but only in terms of tools or policy instruments for achieving broad objectives.75 Bultena and Rogers argue that it is imperative for private citizens to have a greater role in the formulation and implementation of land use 76 policies and programs. A U.S. Department of Agriculture report states that additional research is needed to strengthen the studies on land use planning, and show how comprehensive land use plans can be formulated and implemented. More specifically, studies should be undertaken to . . .; devise local community decision-models and institutions to facilitate implementation of selected plans."77 Schaller emphasizes the need for research on the important question of 74Donald M. McAllister, ed., Environment: A Nevaocus for Land Use Planning (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 19737: see,for instance,the report of the Working Committee on Institution, pp. 309-14. 75"Economic and Legal Development and Analysis to Guide Land Use Planning and Control," in Land Use Planning Seminar: Focus on Iowa, ed. L. R. Whiting (Ames, Iowa: Center for Agricultural and Rural Devel- opment, l973), pp. 330-32. 7GGordon L. Butlena and David L. Rogers, "Studies of Public Prefer- ences and Group Interactions to Guide Land Use Planning and Control," in Land Use Planning Seminar: Focus on Iowa, ed. Larry R. Whiting (Ames, Iowa: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, l973), p. 358. 77U.S. Department of Agriculture, Research and Data Needs for Land Use Planning, a report prepared by the Basic Data and Research Subgroup to the Committee on Planning and Policy for Land Use and Land Conserva- tion (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, l974), p. 3l. 54 whether or not "ways should be found to expand post-legislative involve- '78 in the land use policy porcess. Schaller is sug- ment of citizens' gesting that citizen participation in the policy implementation process is an important research question. Clawson addresses the implementation issue when he emphasizes the importance of assessing a proposed forest policy or program in terms of its operational or administrative practi- cality. He alludes to several agency administrative functions important 79 in the land policy implementation process. In its draft report, the National Commission on Water Quality raises several questions concerning the implementation of the l972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act.80 In a portion of his recent book focusing on the U.S. Forest Service, Robinson discusses the organization, decision-making process, and man- 8] These factors have relevance agement responsibilities of the Service. for Forest Service policy or program implementation efforts. The literature cited to this point has not dealt explicitly with state land policy or its implementation. It has been concerned mostly with executive agency administration, policy instruments or tools for achieving policy objectives, and the need for research relating to the implementation of land policies in general. This review indicates that 78W. Neil Schaller, "Rural Land Use Policy In the Northeast: Consensus, Directions, and Issues," Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Land Use Policy in the Northeast (Ithaca, New York: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, October 2—4, 1974), p. 258. 79Marion Clawson, Forests For Whom and For What? (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1975), pp. 23-24. 80National Commission on Water Quality, Issues and Findings: Staff Draft Report (Washington, D.C.: 1975), pp. 1-58 and I-59. 8lGlen 0. Robinson, The Forest Service, A Study in Public Land Management (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, l975). 55 emphasis on land policy implementation studies have not, for the most part, systematically focused on the policy implementation process and analySis of that process in a comprehensive fashion. It also indicates, however, that land policy implementation issues have not been an entire- ly neglected issue. Looking now at literature focusing specifically on state land policy, one also finds evidence of concern for policy implementation issues. In most cases, discussions focus on tools or policy instruments for achieving specific policy objectives and broad issues relating to the implementation of state land policies. A section of a special Mich- igan land use report focuses on specific measures for implementing land use policy. This section emphasizes alternative policy tools falling under the taxing, police, spending, and proprietary powers for achiev- 82 ing land policy objectives. Implementation is also discussed in terms of policy tools in a recent report by the Michigan State Office of Land 83 Use. Land Use and the States by Robert G. Healy has a section on broad issues in implementing state land use controls. Healy does not explicitly deal with the implementation process: his focus is on broad political, economic, and social issues relating to the implementation of state land policies.84 82Governor's Special Commission on Land Use Report, Appendix A, Reports of the Task Force, (Lansing, Michigan: January 1972.) See the report of Task Force 4, pp. l5-24. 83Office of Land Use, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan's Future Was Today. . ., September l974, pp. 33-35. 84(Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, l976), Chapter 7. 56 Some studies focusing on state land policy have dealt with the im- plementation process. Brewer and Bordner focus on "the decision-making mechanism at the level of state government that promulgates and imple- ments policies and programs through which recreational opportunities 85 They stress the importance are made available to the general public." of the planning, programming, and implementation processes for achieving policy objectives in recreation resource management. Unfortunately, Brewer and Bordner only mention the implementation process in passing. They make no attempt to consider implementation issues in any detail. Another study, published in 1973, provides some particularly good dis- cussion on the process of implementing state and sub-state land poli- cies. This source suggests several important activities such as moni- toring and feedback that should be carried out during the policy imple- 86 A recent Council of State Governments publication mentation process. provides a wide-ranging discussion of important land policy implementa- tion issues. One part of this book emphasizes a useful listing of activities, and their allocation among federal, state and local gov- ernments, for carrying out land use planning and programs.87 This 85Michael F. Brewer and Betty Bordner, "Organizational Alterna- tives for Recreational Resources Management: An Analysis of State Agencies," Natural Resources Journal 6 (October 1966): 561. 86See Edward J. Kaiser et a1., "Integrating Promising Approaches pin a Guidance Systems Framework," pp. 100-01; Richard H. Slavin, "To- ward a State Land Use Policy: Harmonizing Development and Conservation,” pp. 135-38; and Philip M. Savage, "Toward a State Land Use Policy, The Maine Experience," pp. 144-48 in Land Use and the Environment: An Antholo of Readin 5, ed. Virginia Curtis (Chicago: American Society of Planning OffiCials, 1973). 87Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Management (Lexington, Kentucky: The Council of State Governments, 1975). 57 source is probably the most useful piece presently available that dis- cusses the implementation of state land policies. Barlowe emphasizes that the effectuation phase of the land use planning process is equally as important as the phase where policy or program alternatives for achieving land use objectives are identified. He points out that one important determinant of successful land use planning is the successful administration (implementation) of land use policies or programs.8 Barlowe and Alter stress the crucial importance of the implementation or administrative process for successful application of state use-value assessment legislation.89 Several other state land policy sources focus to some extent on 90 These sources deal primarily with the policy implementation process. a particular aspect of implementation, such as assessment procedures under use-value legislation; broad economic and political problems in implementing state land policy; and one or two functions or activities that are important in the state land policy implementation process. 88Raleigh Barlowe, "Land Use Planning and You," Proceedings of the Kansas Conference on Land Use, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas: May 28, 1975, pp. ll-14. 89Raleigh Barlowe and Theodore R. Alter, Use-Value Assessment of Farm and Open Space Lands (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, RR-308, 1976), 90A. Robert Koch, Harriet H. Morrill, and Arthur Hausamann, Imple-- mentation and Early Effects of the New Jersey Farmland Assessment Act. Rutgers University Experiment Station Bulletin 830; Wisconsin Land- Resources Committee, Progress Report, March 1972, pp. 59-79 and 81-83; John F. Timmons, "Guidelines for Developing State and National Public Land Use Policies," Conference Proceedipgs, Toward an Effective Land Use Policy for Michigan, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, May 17-18, 1973, pp. 13-14; Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands, August 1973, pp. 1l9-21; Phyllis Myers, Slow Start in Paradise (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1973); and’Gregory C. Gustafson and L. T. Wallace, "Differential Assess- ment as Land Use P01icy: The California Case," Journal of the American Institute of Planners 41 (November 1975): 385-86. 58 Summary This review of land policy literature relating to policy imple- mentation has been selective. It shows, however, that policy implemen- tation issues have been a concern in land policy discussions including those focusing on state land policy. One cannot really argue that these issues have been entirely neglected. Land policy implementation has been discussed or alluded to in terms of specific policy tools for meeting land policy objectives; dissection of public land resource agen- cy administrative structure and operations; special implementation pro- blems, such as assessment procedures, in the context of a specific land policy tool; and functions or activities that should be performed dur- ing the implementation process. It is difficult to conclude, however, that the emphasis on land policy implementation issues has been comprehensive and systematic. In particular, the land policy literature, for the most part, has not dealt in a comprehensive fashion with the implementation process and how the details of that process affect land policy performance. The emphasis on land policy implementation functions, for instance, has been piecemeal. More specifically, no one has developed an aggregate framework of functions that should be performed during the land policy implementation process. In fact, there is little evidence to suggest that anyone has tried to develop any framework that would facilitate comprehensive and systematic analysis of the details of the implementa- tion process. Moreover, there is little evidence indicating that we have been concerned with integrating analyses of the implementation process into our broader concern with the assessment of proposed or on-going land policies. This failure to focus analytical attention on 59 the land policy implementation process may be a reflection of our lack of knowledge 1) about that process, 2) about how that process might be analyzed, and 3) about how analysis of that process might be integrated into our policy assessment frameworks. The review of literature suggests that these assertions hold gen- erally for land policy and specifically for state land policy. Sppporting Observations Based on the "Elite“iInterviews The following general observations based on "elite" interviews supplement and support the conclusions derived from the review of pol- icy implementation literature. The observations are applicable to all policy areas including state land policy. 1) In the context of Michigan state government, there is some concern with policy implementation--both planning for policy execution and actual policy execution. This concern is evidenced most in agency assessment of the cost impacts of proposed legislative programs and the attention given to the preparation of administrative rules. In general, however, interviewees emphasized that policy implementation issues, even though they are important, if not crucial, are neglected; at least they are not dealt with adequately or effectively. 2) Little in-depth assessment of either proposed or on-going pol- icies occurs in Michigan state government. There is virtually no ef- fort to systematically integrate analysis of the policy implementation process into the assessment that does occur. One of the difficulties hindering this integration appears to be the lack of a framework for systematically viewing and assessing that process. 6O 3) Interviewees stressed that top-level decision-makers and legis- lators in Michigan state government have the least awareness or under- standing of the intricacies of the policy implementation process. On the other hand, administrators, particularly mid-level executives or program managers, are more cognizant of the importance of the implemen- tation process for achieving policy objectives. Again by contrast, lower-level administrators tend to be oriented to specific tasks and, thus, do not have the sensitivity to policy implementation issues pos- sessed by program managers. The "elite" interviews produced the following observations about land policy literature: 1) Policy implementation issues have been generally neglected in the land policy literature. At least, the treatment of these issues has not been systematic or comprehensive. 2) Most of the emphasis on implementation has been in terms of policy tools for achieving policy objectives; little emphasis has fo- cused on the policy implementation process as a whole, including func- tions that must be performed for implementation to occur. 3) In the last several years, policy implementation issues have received greater attention in land policy literature. Summar This literature review, supplemented by observations from the "elite" interviews, emphasizes several key points. First, it indicates that the policy implementation process and planning for that process are important determinants of policy performance. Second, it indicates that, despite their importance, policy implementation issues related to 6l these processes have not received adequate attention in general or in the specific context of state land policy. Third, it indicates, in particular, that while the importance of the policy implementation pro- cess is recognized, there has been little emphasis on dealing with it as a whole. In addition, little emphasis has been placed on how this process might be systematically analyzed and how that analysis fits in with our broader concern for assessing the effectiveness of public pol- icies. Such analysis would facilitate planning for the execution or implementation of proposed policies as well as the modification of on- going policies. The next chapter, in the specific context of state land policy, outlines one possible approach for handling these questions. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE STATE LAND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH The preceding literature review, supplemented with observations from the "elite" interviews, indicates the importance of the policy implementation process for achieving policy or program objectives. It indicates also that the policy implementation process, while not com- pletely neglected, has not been studied with thoroughness. iMost study of this process has been, until very recently, piecemeal, not compre- hensive and systematic. Moreover, little emphasis has focused on how concern for the implementation process might be integrated into analy- ses of either proposed policies or on-going policies. The objective of this chapter is to suggest one possible concep- tual approach for accomplishing this integration in the special context of state land policy. As defined in this study, land policy includes those policies having specific emphasis on land use objectives. State land policy is a subset of land policy in general that encompasses those land policies initiated at the state level of government and im- plemented by state or state and local governmental units. In the Michigan context, examples of state land policies would include the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act1 and the Natural Rivers Act2 11972 PA 374. 21970 PA 231. 62 63 (see p. 6 above for other examples). Given the significant implications of state land policies for achieving environmental policy objectives re- lated to the ecological stability of regional and local ecosystems, it is crucial that the implementation of those policies be assessed. The conceptual approach suggested here will hopefully contribute to both planning the execution of proposed state land policies and improving the execution--and performance--of on-going state land policies. The conceptual approach developed in this chapter has four com- ponents. The first two components are quite general; they are applicable to any specific policy area. These two components focus on 1) the im- plementation process as part of the total polipy process, and 2) three important types of policy oriprpgram assessment and their relationship with each other and the total policy process. The third component of this approach is quite specific: it applies to the implementation of state land policy. This component focuses on a framework of functions or activities for focusing one of the three types of policy assessment-- analysis of the policy implementation process. The fourth component, like the first two components, is more general. It focuses on several important criteria that suggest useful questions for analyzing the pol- icy implementation process. Taken together these four components out- line one approach for analyzing the implementation of state land pol- icies. The Total Policy Process All components of the total policy process have implications for the performance--outputs and outcomes--of state land policies. This section presents a description of the important components of the total policy process. 64 Conceptually, the total policy process is segmented into two major components. The first major component is called the policy decision- making process. This major component includes the following sub- components: 1) identification of a problem, 2) gathering data and in- formation pertaining to the identified problem, 3) determination of goals or objectives, 4) development of alternative policies for achiev- ing the stated goals or objectives, 5) analysis of the relative ability of various policy alternatives for achieving the stated goals or objec- tives, and 6) a "key policy decision" involving the selection, by the chief of the executive branch of government--the governor in the context of state government--when legislation is signed into law or by the leg- islative branch of government when it overrides an executive veto, of a . policy alternative to be implemented. Diagramatically, the policy decision-making process can be viewed as follows: Problem Data and Goal Development Key Identifi- Information Deter- of Policy Policy Policy cation Gathering mination Alternatives Analysis Decision l l l L. J L I Figure l.--The Policy Decision-Making Process: A Major Component of the Total Policy Process The second major component of the total policy process is called the policy implementation process. This is the process of executing or carrying out a policy through a program once legislation is signed into law. Important subcomponents of the policy implementation process include: 1) budgeting, 2) organization, 3) policy or program evaluation, and 4)“feedback.3 The policy implementation process can be viewed as 3Baker, Michaels, and Preston, Public Policy Development, Figure 2.2, p. 28. 65 follows: Organization Policy or Budgeting and Program Feedback Administration Evaluation L 1 l l J J Figure 2.--The Policy Implementation Process: A Major Component of the Total Policy Process Putting this all together, the total policy process can be viewed as in Figure 3: The Policy : The Policy Decision-Making . Implementation Process : Process T» Key Policy Decision Figure 3.--The Total Policy Process In this approach, the policy decision-making process ends and the policy implementation process begins as soon as the "key policy decision" is made. The dashed line in Figure 3 represents this point of separation. Policy or Program Assessment In assessing proposed or on-going policies and programs, three conceptually distinct, but related types of assessment are important. The first important type of assessment is policy or program analysis. Policy analysis "is a means of synthesizing [available] information [including the results of research] to draw from it policy alternatives and preferences stated in comparable, predicted quantitative and qualitative cost-benefit type terms as a format for decision-making; . conceptually it does not include the gathering of information."4 4Williams, Social Policy Research and Analysis, pp. 12-13. Also see Walter Williams, "The Organization of theTVolume and Some Key 66 Emphasis is placed on performance--output and outcome--estimates. Pol- icy analysis takes place during the policy decision-making process be- fore the "key policy decision" is made: it is §x_ppi§_analysis (see Figure l). The second important type of assessment is policy or program evaluation. Program evaluation "is the systematic examination of spec- ific government activities to provide information on the full range of the program's short and long term effects on citizens. . .its chief "5 6 focus is on measuring the program's impact or effects. This type of assessment is what Williams calls "outcome evaluation." Program eval- uation, as part of the policy implementation process, occurs after the "key policy decision" is made: it is px_pp§i_analysis (see Figure 2). A third important type of assessment is policy implementation analysis. . Policy implementation analysis focuses on the details of the policy im- plementation process. It should occur during both the policy decision- making and implementation processes: it is both p5 ante and gx_post analysis. Definitions," Chapter One in Evaluating Social Prpgrams: Theory, Prac- tice, and Politics, ed. Peter H. Rossi and Walter Williams (New York: Seminar Press, 1972), pp. 3-5; and Hatry et a1., Program Anaiysis for State and Local Governments, pp. 1-2. 5 Hatry, Winnie, and Fisk, Practical Program Evaluation, p. 8. 6Williams defines outcome evaluation as an assessment of "the effects of an organization's existing projects or programs on their direct participants, other designated groups, and/or specific institu- tions (e.g., as relationship between benefits and costs)." He lumps outcome evaluations with field experiments, which "assess the merits of new ideas with programmatic implications in terms of outcomes in a set- ting corresponding at least in part to actual field operating condi- tions,“ under evaluation or evaluation research. See ". . .some Key Definitions," in Evaluating Social Programs, p. 4. 67 Because policy implementation analysis overlaps both major compo- nents of the total policy process, it has, in this conceptual approach, an intimate relationship with both policy analysis and program evalua- tion. This postulated relationship requires an expansion of the defini- tions of policy analysis and program evaluation noted above. In this approach, policy implementation analysis (px_ppip) is viewed as an inte- gral part of policy analysis. Policy implementation analysis (gx_pp§t) is viewed as integral part of program evaluation.7 Thus, policy analy- sis and program evaluation are expanded to include assessment of the implementation process as well as policy or program performance. These relationships are expressed diagrammatically as follows: Policy Implementation Analysis L (game) ; (e—_xpost) I I l I | L LPolicy Analysis Program Evaluation] Key Policy Decision Figure 4.--The Relationship Between Policy Analysis, Policy or Program Evaluation,and Policy Implementation Analysis. Figure 5 provides another illustration of the postulated relation- ship between policy analysis, policy or program evaluation, and policy implementation analysis suggested in this approach. This illustration shows that policy analysis includes estimation of policy performance-- outputs and outcomes--and §x_ante policy implementation analysis. It is 7One interesting dimension of this relationship needs clarifica- tion. Program evaluation is a subcomponent of the policy implementation process which is the focus of policy implementation analysis. Policy implementation analysis, in assessing the policy implementation process, should assess program evaluation of which it is postulated to be an integral part. Thus, a portion of policy implementation analysis is the assessment of policy implementation analysis. 68 Type of Proposed On-going Policies Assessment Policies or Programs Performance Estimates U) 3‘: -_-____-_ :23: 8 ‘2 _e_>_<_ ante “ Impl ementat1 on Analysis Performance : Measurements E o (6'!- s. +4 cncu --------- O 3 "E °' > _e_x_ post “‘ Implementation Analysis Figure 5.--The Relationship Between Policy Analysis, Policy or Program Evaluation,and Policy Implementation Analysis--An Alterna- tive View. The shaded areas in this figure indicate where a particular type of assessment is ppi_applicable. 69 applicable only to proposed policies. Policy or program evaluation in- cludes the measurement of policy performance and px_pp§i_implementation analysis. It is applicable only to on-going policies or programs. Important Activities or Functions in the Polipy Implementation Process Policy implementation analysis, either gx_§pig_or gx_pp§i, re- quires a systematic method for assessing the implementation process. This component, together with the fourth component, suggests one such method for analysis of state land policy implementation. The first chapter of this study suggested several different per- spectives for approaching the analysis of state land policy implementa- tion. One of these perspectives involved important functions or acti- vities that should be performed during the policy implementation process. The review of land policy literature indicated that a compre- hensive, systematic, and in-depth investigation of such functions has not been pursued. Moreover, a carefully prepared framework of required functions has not been developed. Such a framework would be useful for focusing analysis of the state land policy implementation process. Two basic hypotheses underlie this portion of the conceptual approach for state land policy implementation analysis. One hypothesis is stated as follows: Certain functionsiactivities) should be performed during the state land policy implementationiprocess. Further, they can be aggregated into a framework of functions. The aggregate of functions constituting this framework is one important determinant of successful state land policy implementation. This hypothesis can be stated in the following implicit functional form: successful state land policy implementation = f (A, B, C, ...) 70 where A = functions (activities), a, ..... an, that should be performed when implementing state land policy 8 C - = other variables important in the state land policy implemen- tation process8 The second basic hypothesis underlying this component can be stated as follows: The framework of important state landipolicy imple- mentation functions can be a useful tool for focusing both ex ante and ex post analysis of the state land policy implementation process. Conceptually, by investigating appropriate analytical questions in the context of each important implementation function, decision-makers can assess the potential implementation success of a proposed policy or the actual implementation success of an on-going policy or program. Criteria for Analyzing the implementation of State Land Policies Analysis of the state land policy implementation process must be based on a set of question-generating criteria. This section outlines several general criteria that are useful for this purpose. These gener- al criteria focus on 1) organizational and administrative considera- tions, 2) economic considerations, 3) social-cultural considerations, 4) political considerations, 5) temporal considerations, and 6) techno- logical considerations. 8Other possible independent variables are mentioned in the work of Van Meter and Van Horn (see pp. 36-37 above) and Rein and Rabinovitz (see p. 42 above). 71 Each of these criteria generate questions that are useful for analyzing, both §x_gpig_and gx_pp§i, one or more of the important func- tions or activities comprising the state land policy implementation process. If the results of such analyses were summarized for all im- portant implementation functions, this analytical approach would shed light on the potential or actual success of the land policy implementa- tion process. The following examples, while by no means exhaustive, indicate some of the questions that could be investigated under each general criterion. These questions are stated, unless specifically indicated, as though they were applicable to px_ppig_policy implementa- tion analysis. They could just as easily, however, be stated as though they were being used in gx_post implementation analysis. Organizational and Administrative Considerations The questions under this criterion focus on the structure--both anatomical and operational--of implementing organizations as they relate to the performance of state land policy implementation functions.9 Key operational questions might include: 1) Will all important implementa- tion functions be performed? If not, the success of the implementation effort may be in jeopardy. 2) How good is the operational structure as it relates to the performance of specific implementation functions? Are there clear cut channels for exercise of authority, communication of information, and control of activities? 3) Do individuals on the staff 9The conceptual approach developed in this chapter takes as given the existing anatomical structure--size, shape, dispersion, and com- plexity--of local governmental units and state executive and legislative branch units responsible for state land policy implementation. This criterion addresses the adequacy of the anatomical structure as well as the operational or activity structures of these organizations. ' 72 of the implementing organization(s) have adequate technical and adminis- trative skills for performing implementation functions? 4) Do imple- menting organizations have space, facilities, and materials to effec- tively carry out important implementation functions? What additional resources would be needed? Key anatomical questions might include: 1) Will the dispersion of implementing units affect--favorably or unfavorably--the performance of implementation functions? 2) Will the size of an implementing organiza- tion, or the totality of implementing organizations, affect the attitude and work of implementors responsible for performing various functions?10 Economic Considerations Important questions under this criterion might include the follow- ing: If additional resources--personnel with special skills, space, facilities, materials--are needed to perform implementation functions, what will these resources cost? Will funds be available to meet these additional needs? Who will bear the burden of providing additional needed funds? Will the implementation process as a whole, or the per- formance of individual implementation functions, place a cost burden on specific implementing organizations (public agencies or units of govern- ment) that they cannot bear.]] 10For further discussion see Clawson, Forests For Whom and For What, PP. 130-34; Williams, "Implementation Analysis and Assessment," 558-59; and Lyman W. Porter, Edward E. Lawler III, and J. Richard Hack- man, Behavior in Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975), pp. 247-73. 1]This criterion is suggested by Baker, Michaels, and Preston, Public Policy Development, p. 102. 73 Social-Cultural Considerations Social-cultural considerations play an important role in the pol- icy implementation process. In examining the performance of specific implementation functions, it is important to know which actors are in- volved and their beliefs, attitudes, motivations, and values. It is important to determine if the performance of implementation functions will threaten the job, power, prestige, privileges or require a change in behavior for any individuals involved in the implementation process.12 Political Considerations The social-cultural considerations noted in the last section are important in the policy implementation process because they translate into political implications for that process. They will generate polit- ical behavior on the part of individuals involved in the implementation process that will be either beneficial or harmful to the performance of particular implementation functions. As a consequence, the success of the whole implementation process may be affected. It is also important to consider how the rules and procedures, both informal and formal, governing the performance of individual imple- mentation functions constituting the policy implementation process, deter- nfihe which interests or publics have influence in that process.13 The structure of opportunities created by various rules and procedures may allow publics either strongly supporting or vigorously opposing a leee Arnold J. Meltzner, "Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis," Public Administration Review 32 (November/December 1972): 861-62; and Hatry et a1., Program Analysis for State and Local Govern- ments, pp. 100-01. 13A. Allan Schmid, "Analytical Institutional Economics: Challeng- ing Problems in the Economics of Resources for a New Environment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54 (December 1972): 899-900. 74 particular policy to exert greater influence on the performance of indi- vidual implementation functions. This situation has important political implications for the success of the policy implementation process and ultimate policy performance. Temporal Considerations Temporal considerations are also important in analyzing the policy 14 For example, will the implementation process implementation process. --the performance of individual functions--lead to the achievement of stated policy objectives within a reasonable period of time? Or, will the time period necessary for performing any individual function frus- trate the achievement of policy objectives? Technological Considerations15 Under this criterion, the following question is basic. Is the technical capability available to adequately perform important policy implementation functions? For example, is it possible to gather and expeditiously process all data and information necessary to perform particular functions? Is some monitoring system required that cannot readily be created? Is a knowledge of functional relationships required for which no research exists? These six general analytical criteria constitute the final portion of this conceptual approach for analyzing the process of implementing state land policy. Regarding these criteria, two important points must 14See Baker, Michaels, and Preston, Public Policy Development, pp. 87-88 and 102. 15Ibid., p. 101. 75 be emphasized. First, it is likely that considerations under each cri- terion noted in this section will not be equally applicable to all important functions that should comprise the policy implementation process. Second, a systematic and comprehensive analysis of an individ- ual implementation function may require the integration of several or all of these criteria as well as analysis of other policy implementation functions. Summar A conceptual approach for analyzing the state land policy imple- mentation process was presented in this chapter.l This approach, as developed, consists of four components. The first component is the total policy process. This component was broken down into two major subcomponents--the policy decision-making process and the policy imple- mentation process. The second component focused on several types of important policy assessment--policy analysis, policy or program evalua- tion, and policy implementation analysis. These types of assessment were related to the total policy process and to each other. The third com- - ponent suggested a way of focusing analysis of the state land policy im- plementation process in terms of a framework of functions or activities that should be performed if a state land policy is to be successfully carried out. Finally, the fourth component dealt with several question- generating criteria useful for analyzing individual implementation functions and, thus, the state land policy implementation process as a whole. The next chapter of this study deals with the first basic hypothesis underlying the third component of this conceptual approach. It focuses on developing and refining a framework of important functions that should be performed during the state land policy implementation process. CHAPTER V IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING STATE LAND POLICY One could approach the process of implementing state land policies from several different perspectives. Each of these perspectives would no doubt increase our appreciation and understanding of this complex process. As noted in earlier chapters, one perspective involves func- tions or activities that are necessary or that need to be perfbrmed during the implementation process. In this view, functions are crucial building blocks of the implementation process. This chapter focuses on functions or activities. Its purpose is to develop a framework of im- portant functions for implementing state land policy. Before continuing, several caveats must be made explicit. First, the emphasis here is not on creating "unique" implementation functions. Rather, the emphasis is on designing a framework of common organiza- tional or administrative functions as a way of systematically focusing attention on the process of implementing state land policy. It is this design of a systematic framework of functions that is unique. Second, this approach does not imply that satisfactory performance of all im- portant implementation functions will alone ensure the achievement of state land policy objectives. The main argument is much less ambitious. Rather, the argument is simply that the performance of certain functions is important for successful implementation which, in turn, is a 76 77 necessary, but not sufficient, condition for achieving policy objectives. Third, the discussion in this chapter is not as detailed as it could be. One could devote entire monographs to specific implementation functions. It does present, however, the most current, systematic, and comprehen- sive "cut" at functions important for the entire process of implementing state land policy that exists today in land policy literature. important Functions (Activities) for Implementing State Land Policy This section describes a framework of important functions for im- plementing state land policy. In developing this framework, three sources of information were used. First, selected literature from the subjects of organizational theory, public administration, political science, community development, and land policy was reviewed. Second, selected proposed and on-going Michigan land policy statutes were re- viewed. Some of the administrative rules for on-going statutes were also reviewed. Third, during the "elite" interviewing process, inter- viewees were probed for their perceptions of important implementation functions. The results of each effort are reported below in separate subsections. Literature Review Of the literature reviewed, few sources dealt explicitly with the process of implementing state land policy or functions that ought to be performed during that process. Most sources dealt with functions that should be performed in other contexts: for example, carrying out a 78 community development program, administering a public agency, managing a private business firm, or planning for land resource use.1 These several sources suggest, however, that many of these gen- eral functions are applicable to the state land policy implementation process. These general functions are incorporated into the framework of specific functions explicitly identified for policy implementation. Based upon the literature review, sixteen implementation functions were identified. These functions are set forth below with brief de- scriptions or elaborations. Organizing A first curcial function, suggested by the organizational theory literature, is organizing for state land policy implementation. The organizing function involves: The establishment of a structure to carry out those operations [functions] of the organization that are intended to achieve the objectives of the organization (such a structure groups these op- erations, assigns them to a manager, delegates authority to im- plement them, and provides for communication and coordination of these opgrations vertically and horizontally throughout the organi- zation . . 1The literature focusing on organizational theory is particularly useful for suggesting various policy implementation functions. However, this literature never really deals with the public policy implementa- tion process. It emphasizes general functions for managing or adminis- .tering different types of organizations. The general func- tions receiving the most attention in this literature are planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling. (See Richard M. Hodgetts and Max S. Wortman, Jr., Administrative Policy: Text and Cases in the Policy Sciences (New York: J6hn Wiley and Sons, Inc., T975), pp. 39—42. Since organizations implement state land policies, these general functions are important to note. But they suggest only several, not all, of the important state land policy implementation functions. Further, the level of generality represented by the broad functions of planning, organ- izing, staffing, directing, and controlling alone do not lend themselves to clear operational treatment. More specific functions are required, in addition to or in place of these general functions, if a meaningful framework of functions is to be understood and used. 2Hodgetts and Wortman, Administrative Policy, p. 39. Also see Ernest Dale and L. C. Michelson, Modern Management Methods (New York: 79 This function would only involve a single or several state executive agencies if the land policy implementation responsibility resides solely at the state level. Implementation responsibility may, however, cut across state and sub-state governmental units. In this latter case, the organizing function becomes more diffuse and complex. In either case, successful state land policy implementation requires a solid organiza- tional structure. Funding A second important function for successful state land policy im- plementation is the funding function. This function is an obvious one, and it is probably more important than any other function. For achiev- ing policy objectives, it is necessary to have adequate funding for? acquiring materials, facilities, and staff with appropriate skills. Yet, this function is often overlooked, inadvertently or deliberately, as part of the policy implementation process by individuals--legislators, administrators, and private citizens--concerned with state land policy. When the funding function is overlooked inadvertently it is usually be- cause the assumption is made that once laws are enacted they will be implemented. Deliberate disregard for the funding function may simply be a political ploy on the part of legislators or bureaucrats. By supporting the enactment of a particular state land policy into law, these individuals may be able to satisfy one group of their The World Publishing Company, 1966), p. 6. Worrell brings discussion of the organizing function somewhat closer to the context of implementing state land policy when he discusses its importance for forest policy execution. See his Principles of Forest Policy, pp. 149-50. This function is also suggested in the 1955 Journal of Farm Economics article by Regan and Steele on "Organization and Administrative Arrangements for an Effective Water Policy," 888. 80 constituents; but, by failing to support the crucial appropriation of funds for the enacted law, they may satisfy some other important con- stituents. The funding function and its significance as a crucial component of the state land policy implementation process is suggested in a number of sources. Sources of particular interest include the works of Claw- 3 son, Worrell, and the Council of State Governments. Wildavsky's study of the budgetary process also suggests the crucial importance of bud- 4 His study focuses geting and, thus, funding for policy implementation. on the executive and legislative budgetary roles and the intensely pol- itical nature of the budgetary process. In the context of state land policy, this study suggests the importance of approaching the funding function for analytical purposes from the perspective of the entire budgetary process, including the appropriations process. It is during this process that critical barriers or aids to funding and, therefore, to implementation occur. Identification of these factors is important for either gx.gpip_or gx_pp§i_policy implementation analysis. Attention must also be given to the funding function when part or all of the funding responsibility for implementing a state land policy rests with sub-state units of government. These governmental units may lack adequate revenue generating tools. If they have the tools, they may lack the base for generating revenues sufficient to cover their im- plementation responsibilities. Sub-state governmental funding 3Forests for Whom and for What?, p. 131; Principles of Forest Policy, pp. 156-59; and Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Management, pp. 46-47. 4Aaron‘Wildavsky, The Politics of the Budgetary Process 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974). See, in addition, Steele and Regan, "Organizational and Administrative Arrangements," 888. 81 capability can also be an obstacle to successful land policy implementa- tion. Staffing The staffing function is also important for successful state land policy implementation. This function, along with funding and organizing functions, is one of the most crucial implementation functions. Success- ful implementation requires sufficient numbers of personnel with appro- priate skills. The staffing function involves comparing existing agency personnel and skill levels with those required by a particular state land policy. When additional personnel are required, those units re- sponsible for carrying out the staffing function must interview and hire needed personnel. The individuals involved in the staffing function may include implementing agency personnel as well as individuals from state or local employment commissions. Ineffective performance of this function can frustrate successful state land policy implementation.5 Developing a Data and Information Base Successful implementation of state land policies requires a sound base of data and information. Both gx_ppig_analyses and gx_pp§§ evaluations require it, as do on-going program decisions. Data must be gathered, analyzed, and presented as information that is useful to officials at all governmental levels who have decision- making responsibility in policy implementation. While exact needs are 5The general importance of the staffing function is stressed in the organizational theory literature: see Hodgetts and Wortman, Admin- istrative Policy, p. 40 and Dale and Michelson, Modern Management Methods, pp. 607. Worrell indicates its importance for forest policy execution or implementation in his Principles of Forest Policy, pp. 154-56. These sources suggest that the staffing function is important for state land policy implementation. 82 dependent upon specific policies and their objectives, data and informa- tion pertaining to economic considerations, the physical and biological nature of specific land resources, the location of these resources, land use patterns and trends, population growth trends, social-cultural fac- tors, and political considerations are pertinent. The importance of the provision of data and information for state land use planning sug- gests its importance for implementing individual state land policies.6 Integrating State, Regional, and Local Concerns Another important function for implementing state land policies involves weighing the needs of particular localities against regional and state-wide needs. In land use situations with only local signifi- cance, implementation decisions are best left to local implementors. These individuals have first hand knowledge of the needs and prefer- ences of their locality. Other situations, however, may have regional or statewide significance. In these situations, regional and statewide needs must be integrated (they are often ignored) into implementation decisions. It is important that "the state should have the responsibi- lity to exercise its inherent land management authority to ensure pro- tection of essential land resources of concern to all citizens and res- olution of issues that have more than local significance."7 6See Raleigh Barlowe, "Public Land Policy: Inputs and Conse- quences," Conference Proceedings: Toward An Effective Land Use Poligy_ for Michi an, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, May I7-l8, l973),pp. 87-88; Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Man- a ement. pp. 81-85; Wisconsin Land Resources Committee, Progress Report, March 1972, pp. 65-66; Raymond D. Vlasin, "Conservation, Use, and Re- tention of Agricultural Lands for All-Out Food Production," Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article No. 7085, p. 5l; and U.S.D.AZ, Research and Data Needs for Land Use Plannipg, 1974. 7Michigan's Future Was Today. . ., p. iii. 83 Conflicts between local and regional or statewide concerns can arise during the implementation of most state land policies including those that deal with the preservation of agricultural and open space lands, control of sedimentation in streams and drains, development of residential areas and industrial parks, or designation and control of critical environmental areas such as wetlands, coastal areas, or wild- erness areas. Failure to systematically and effectively integrate state, regional, and local concerns during the implementation of state land policies designed to deal with the land use issues mentioned above can frustrate the achievement of stated policy objectives.8 Coordinating Coordination is also an important state land policy implementation function. Structural provision for coordination should be made as part of the organizing function, but provisions are not sufficient. The coordination function must be performed if state land policies are to be successfully implemented. The fragmentation--or lack of coordination-- in public policy execution is a serious problem for most policy areas' including state land policy. The growing number of policies or programs directly or indirectly affecting land use, the many public agencies, and the different levels of government involved are all responsible for gen- erating and accentuating the problem of coordination. Effectively dealing with the coordination problem in implementing state land policies requires attention to two aspects of that problem. 8Other sources suggesting the importance of this function include: Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Management, p. 17 and the GovernorTs Special Commission on Land Use Report, Summary, (Lansing, Michigan: January 1972), p. 15. 84 First, attention must focus on coordinating the implementation efforts of agencies at the same and different levels of government with respon- sibilities for implementing the same state land policy. This includes the difficult task of identifying and clarifying objectives toward which the coordination can and will occur.9 Second, attention must focus on coordinating the implementation efforts of agencies at the same and different levels of government with responsibility for implementing different but interrelated state poli- cies which influence land use. In each case, the "implementing machin- ery must be responsive to the decisions made and be capable of integrat- ing the components of interrelated activities so as to take into account 10 their impact upon one another." Failure to pursue these considera- tions can lead to less successful implementation of state land poli- cies.11 Information-Education Programmipg‘ An information-education function should be a component of the process of implementing state land policy. Information-education 9Raymond D. Vlasin, "Planning and Implementing Rural Development," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 29 (January-February 1974): 32. 10Irving K. Fox, "Programming Areas for Research on Institutional Design for Water Resources Management," in Implementation of Regional Research in Water-Related Problems, ed. by Dean T. Massey (Madison: Department of Law, University Extension, University of Wisconsin, 1970), p. 31. HSources suggesting the importance of the coordination function for the implementation of state land policy include: Worrell, Principies of Forest Policy, pp. 161-63; Wisconsin Land Resources Committee, Egg- gress Report, p. 59; Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Managg- ment, pp. 44-46; Gregory and Wallace, "Differential Assessment as Land Use Policy: The California Case," 386; and Steele and Regan, "Organiza- tional and Administrative Arrangements," 888. 85 programs must encompass both implementors and private citizens who might directly or indirectly be affected by state land policy legislation. These programs should deal with many topics including the following: 1) the exact provisions of particular pieces of state land policy legis- lation, 2) the nature of the land resources dealt with by a piece of legislation, 3) trends with respect to the use of that resource, 4) the roles and responsibilities of various implementors and how they might better perform these duties, 5) the expected consequences of particular state land policies, 6) the changing nature of individual private citi- zen rights in land resources, and 7) the identification of research re- sults and their interpretation. The substance of information-education efforts must be clearly and effectively communicated utilizing the com- munication structure established as a part of the organizing function.12 Establishing Policy Guidelines Another important function necessary for implementing state land policies involves establishing policy guidelines. Guidelines are neces- sary to insure that the broadly designed directives of state land pol- icies are carried out by all levels of government and impacted indivi- duals. Barlowe states: 12While not all of the following sources focus explicitly on pol- icy implementation or even state land policy, all of them suggest that an information-education function is important for the state land pol- icy implementation process: Williams, Social Policy Research, p. 133; Governor's Special Commission on Land Use Report, Summary, p. 11; unpub- lished description of local development education program for Lenawee County, Michigan (East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Community Deve- lopment, Michigan State University, 1976); and Raleigh Barlowe, ”Need for a Land Resource Policy Education Program," statement prepared by Professor Barlowe, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University for submission at Hearings on S. 984 before the Environmental and Land Resources Subcommittee of the U. 5. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, April 22- 24, 1975. 86 Another necessary input for a successful state land policy calls for the development of state guidelines. Guidelines are needed on standardized land use mapping and data reporting procedures, for the structuring of state policies, and for providing guidance and leadership in the development of policies that will be admin- istered by local planning agencies. 3 While Barlowe's comments focus directly on guidelines for a general state land policy, their general thrust--concern for policy guidelines-- is equally applicable to the implementation of specific, individual state land policies. The importance of state guidelines can be illustrated in the con- text of a state land policy for preserving agricultural lands. Govern- ment officials and other individuals involved in the implementation of such legislation need clearly articulated guidelines covering all as- pects of the law including the following: 1) the contribution of local areas to the statewide preservation program, 2) eligibility requirements --or what is "prime" agricultural land, 3) processing applications, 4) land assessment procedures, 5) enforcement activities, and 6) appeals procedures. Explicit guidelines help clarify the meaning of state land policy legislation and, thus, contribute to its successful implementa- tion.14 13 88-90. ‘4The importance of guidelines for implementing state land pol- icies is suggested in the Michigan Governgr's Special Commission on Land Use Report, Appendix A, Task Force 3 Report, p. 17 and‘Micnigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimenta- tion Control Handbook (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Beckett Jackson Raeder, Inc., Land Planning, Landscape Architecture, Applied Research, 1975), p. l. The organizational theory literature suggests the importance of guidelines in the context of the general managerial function of direct- ing. According to Hodgetts and Wortman, “directing involves the uid- ance [emphasis added] andsupervision of subordinates to carry out the purpose of the organization." See Administrative Poligy, p. 40. This general managerial or administrative function suggests that guidelines Barlowe, "Public Land Policy: Inputs and Consequences," pp. 87 Providing Technical Assistance Another important function for implementing state land policy involves the provision of technical assistance in support of the imple- mentation efforts of all governmental levels and individual landowners. A Council of State Governments report argues that "the States have pro- vided very little to their local governments by way of. . .technical ‘5 "They must provide substantial technical. . .support to 16 assistance." localities generating a join state-local land use program or policy." Technical assistance might take the form of 1) help in identifying par- ticular types of critical lands, 2) gathering and processing data, 3) setting up necessary administrative and planning procedures, 4) esti- mating the consequences for tax revenues and public expenditures if 17 Ideally, providing for technical as- particular actions are taken. sistance encompases more than the state level of government assisting local governmental units. It may also include state government agencies (guidance) should be important to public agency implementation of state land policy. 15 16 17Discussion of state to local government technical assistance often occurs in the context of land use planning. These discussions suggest, however, that this function is also important for the imple- mentation of individual state land policies. See A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands, p. 121 and Wisconsin Land Resources Committee, Progress Report, pp. 66-67. The importance of technical assistance in carrying out programs (or state land policies) is also suggested in the community development literature. See H. Curtis Mial, "Models of Community Deve- lopment," reprinted by special permission of the author from material presented by [Mial] at the First Annual Laboratory in Community Leader- ship Training, Bethel, Maine (1960), p. 3 and Carl C. Taylor, "Community Development Programs,“ Community Development Review, no. 3 (1956). Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Management, p. 8. Ibid., p. 29. 88 helping other state government agencies as well as state and local gov- ernmental units helping individual landowners. Monitoripg Monitoring is also a crucial function for the implementation of state land policies. Mechling, in a case study of program innovation and implementation in the New York City Environmental Protection Admin- istration, indicates that monitoring is a critical implementation func- tion. He argues that this function is important for "helping re- - F 18 solve the conflicts and problems of implementation." In the context of forest policy, Clawson points out that successful policy administra- E tion requires “some mechanism for continuing supervision, for inspec- tion of operations and of results, and for review of procedures."19 These sources imply the significance of a monitoring function for state land policy implementation. The monitoring function should involve the continuous observation of the entire implementation process. This function should be performed through legislative and executive branch supervision. Legislative over- sight will likely be sporadic and not comprehensive; executive oversight should be continuous, systematic, and very comprehensive. In either case, however, the focus of the monitoring function should be on gather- ing facts and information relating to operations, procedures, and people involved in carrying out all important policy implementation functions; 18d. E. Mechling, "The Policy Analyst As Analyst, General Staff, and Change Agent: A Case Study of Program Innovation and Implementation in the New York City Environmental Protection Administration, 1968-1971" (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1974), p. 358. 19Clawson, Forests For Whom and For What?, p. 131. The monitoring function is also stressed in Kaiser et a1., “Integrating Promis1ng Ap- proaches in a Guidance Systems Framework," pp. 100-01. 89 compliance with the provisions of a state land policy statute; and pol- icy performance--outputs and outcomes. Enforcement The enforcement function is a crucial component of any effort to implement state land policies. It involves imposing warnings and man- dates for compliance, financial penalties, or instigating court pro- ceedings against violators of state land policy legislation. Enforce- ment may be a local government responsibility carried out with state government assistance, or it may be primarily a state-level responsibi- lity. The enforcement function could also be initiated by private indi- viduals or groups through judicial action such as that possible under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) or, in the Michigan context, The Michigan Environ- mental Protection Act of 1970 (PA 127). While this implementation function is perhaps an obvious one, it is one that is often not perform- ed effectively at either the state or local level of government. Suc- cessful state land policy implementation and analysis of implementation success requires close attention to this function.20 Appeals Successful implementation of state land policies requires an appeals function. This function should allow for the objective review of decisions made by state and local government administrators when such a review is requested by an adversely impacted individual or group. Appeals can focus on decisions concerning the approval or rejection of ZOGovernor's Special Commission on Land Use Report, Appendix A, Report of Task Force 3, p. 9; Governor's Special Commission on Land Use Report, Summary, p. 3; and Land: State Alternatives for Planning and management, p. 68. 90 applications or the levying of monetary penalties. Appeals may also occur when some individual or group feels that state and regional inter- ests have not been adequately taken into account in a local level deci- sion. The appeals body may be an executive branch agency or group in- dependent of the policy implementation process; it might be an executive agency involved in the implementation process, but at a higher level of government; or it might be the appropriate local or state court. While an effective appeals function is crucial for successful state land policy implementation, an ineffective appeals function can frustrate the achievement of state land policy goals. Analysis of the state land policy implementation process requires attention to this important ap- peals function.2] Evaluation An effective evaluation function is necessary for the successful implementation of state land policies. The evaluation function should have two components. One component deals with the evaluation of the implementation process (policy implementation analysis). Evaluation of implementation would be based on the facts and information gathered through performance of the monitoring function. The second component of the evaluation function deals with evaluation of policy performance-- outputs and outcomes. Evaluation of policy outputs and outcomes also should be based on facts and information gathered through performance of the monitoring function. -21Wisconsin Land Resources Committee, Progress Report, pp. 75-76; and Land: State Alternative for Planning and Management, p. 28. 91 The crucial significance of the evaluation function as part of the process of implementing state land policies is obvious. While most of the discussion does not focus explicitly on state land policies, there is ample support for the importance of this function in the literature. There is a whole body of literature, some of which was mentioned in chapter III, stressing the importance and techniques of policy or pro- gram performance evaluation. The public administration literature indi- cates the importance of evaluation. The public administration litera- ture indicates the importance of evaluating both policy implementation and performance. Nicholas Henry states that "[an] assessment in public administration [involves] the evaluation of administrative routines and 22 policy outcomes." In his study of forest policy, Worrell emphasizes theevaluation of policy administration as well as policy performance.23 The importance of the evaluation function is also stressed by Timmons and the Council of State Governments in works more closely related to state land policy.24 These sources all imply that evaluation focusing on implementation and performance should be an important component of the state land policy implementation process. 22Public Administration and Public Affairs (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), p. 222. 23 Principles of Forest Policy, chapter 13. 24John F. Timmons, "Guidelines for Developing State and National Public Land Use Policies, Conference Proceedings: Toward An Effective Land Use Policy For Michi an (East Lansing: Michigan; Michigan State University, May 17-18, 1973 , p. 13; and Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Management, pp. 47 and 68. 92 Feedback If evaluation is to be meaningful, it is necessary that a feedback function be performed. This function is also crucial for successful state land policy implementation. Fox states that, "information generated in the course of operating experience should feedback into the decision-making system so that ini- tial decisions can be modified, if necessary, in response to such new information."25 Clawson stresses the necessity of having feedback on policy implementation and policy performance. This feedback is neces- sary to adjust or modify both the structure and operations of on-going 26 policies as well as to effectively develop new policies. It is clear that the feedback function should be an integral component of the state land policy implementation process.27 Detailed Record-keeping Administrators at all governmental leVels should be required to maintain detailed records on the full range of their implementation acti- vities. Records should be maintained on such matters as l) the acquisi- tion and use of funds; 2) application review processes, including spe- cific findings and reasons for these findings; 3) discussions held at 25"Promising Areas for Research on Institutional Design for Water Resources Management," p. 31. 26Forests for Whom and For What?, p. 131. The importance of feed- back is also stressed by Kaiser et a1., "Integrating Promising Approaches in a Guidance Systems Framework," pp. 100-01. 27The four implementation functions--monitoring, enforcement, evaluation, and feedback--are all suggested, in general terms, by the broad managerial function of control. The control function is discussed in Hodgetts and Wortman's Administrative Policy, p. 40 as well as Dale and Michelson's Modern Management Methods, pp. 7-8. 93 public meetings and hearings; 4) the results of policy or program moni- toring activities, including on-land positive and negative impacts; and 5) the findings of policy evaluation activities. During the implementa- tion of state land policy, the keeping of detailed records is often neg- lected, or not adequately performed, particularly at local levels of government. Performance of this function by administrators is crucial, however, to the successful implementation of state land policies. These records facilitate official and private citizen analysis of policy implementation as well as ultimate policy performance. They also provide an important source of data and information for use in legal proceedings.28 Citizen Participation Provision for citizen participation in all phases of the imple- mentation process is another function important for the successful im- plementation of state land policies. Bultena and Rogers argue that "citizens have an unalienable right to be involved in the. . .imple-. mentation of [state land policies] and that their participation should not be viewed as merely a privilege to be extended and withdrawn at the 29 The rationale for citizen participation in whim of public agencies." the implementation process is manyfold. The following reasons are par- ticularly important: 1) Citizen involvement in the policy implementation helps program administrators maintain statewide support for their 28The importance of this function is suggested in Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Management, p. 61. 29"Studies of Public Preferences and Group Interactions to Guide Land Use Planning and Control," p. 358. 94 implementation efforts. 2) Citizen involvement encourages policy imple- mentors to be responsive to the needs and issues in particular locali- ties. 3) When citizens are fully involved in the implementation pro- cess, they are able to keep a close watch over the actions of imple- mentors as well as the activities of opposing special interest groups. 4) Citizen involvement in the implementation process would encourage and facilitate evaluation--perhaps even more objective evaluation--of pol- icy performance.30 Legislation Review In addition to reviewing a wide range of literature, a sample of Michigan land use legislation--both proposed and on-going statutes--was also reviewed in an attempt to identify important state land policy im- plementation functions. The administrative rules relating to some of the on-going statutes also were examined for implementation functions. This search disclosed some functions not identified in literature sources. It also confirmed many of the functions suggested in the lit- erature. Two previously unidentified functions were identified as impor- tant for the implementation of state land policy. They were the admin- iStrative rule-making function and the review function. Administrative Rule-making Administrative rule-making is a crucial function for implementing state land policy. An administrative rule is "an agency regulation, 30Other sources suggesting the importance of citizen participation in the state land policy implementation process include: Ernest E. Mel- ' vin, "The Planner and Citizen Participation," Journal of the Community Development Society 5 (Spring 1974): 40-48; Raleigh Barlowe, "Land Use Planning and You," p. 18; and Michigan's Future Was Today. . ., p. 20. 95 statement, standard, policy, ruling or instruction of general applicabi- lity which implements or applies law enforced or administered by the agency, or which prescribes the organization, procedure or practice of the 3] These rules determine who makes decisions and who has in- agency." fluence in the policy implementation process. At the state level, an implementing agency would receive guidance in preparing its administrative rules from an administrative procedures act of the state legislature. In Michigan, for example, the Administra- tive Procedures Act of 1969 requires that proposed rules be subject to public hearings and approval by the state legislature and the attorney d.32 Further, this act general's office before they can be promulgate provides for appeal and judicial review of findings in cases where in- dividuals contest the application of an agency's rules.33 The making of administrative rules and procedures is also an important function for local units of government with state land policy implementation responsibilities.34 Review Another important state land policy implementation function is a review function. The review function may involve examination of 31 32 1969 PA 309. Ibid. 33This provision generalizes the appeals function to all Michigan state land policy legislation for which PA 309 (1969) is applicable. 34This implementation function was explicitly identified in the following pieces of state land policy legislation: H. 4234, H. 4618, 1964 PA 253, 1970 PA 231, 1970 PA 245, 1972 PA 106, 1972 PA 241, 1972 PA 286, 1972 PA 346, 1972 PA 347, and 1974 PA 116. 96 landowner applications for coverage under or withdrawal from a state land policy program. It may involve examination of a landowner appli- cation for a permit to undertake some land use related activity. This function may also involve the examination of an existing or proposed local land use ordinance. Michigan's 1972 Soil Erosion and Sedimenta- tion Control Act, for example, requires local ordinances governing soil erosion and sedimentation control on public and private lands to be reviewed by the State Water Resources Commission. In each of these cases, the review function is necessary to ensure that all of the pro- visions and standards of a state land policy are met.35 Confirmation of Other Previously Identified Functions The review of Michigan land use legislation also confirmed or sug- gested the significance of a number of the other state land policy im- plementation functions identified during the literature review. These functions included: organizing; funding; staffing; developing a data and information base; integrating state, regional, and local con- cerns; coordinating; information-education programming; establishing policy guidelines; providing technical assistance; monitoring; enforce- ment; appeals; evaluation;36 detailed record-keeping; and citizen par- ticipation. Some of the functions in this list--citizen participation, developing a data and information base, and enforcement--were identified 35The following pieces of Michigan land policy legislation expli- citly identified or suggested the importance of a review function: H. 4234, H. 4618, H. 5018, 1964 PA 253, 1966 PA 345, 1967 PA 288, 1970 PA 231, 1970 PA 245, 1972 PA 106, 1972 PA 241, 1972 PA 286, 1972 PA 346, 1972 PA 347, and 1974 PA,ll6. 36Evaluation was identified in the administrative rules for Mich- igan's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972. “ "¢L\fa 97 in almost every piece of legislation reviewed. Other functions in this list were identified or suggested in only a few pieces of legislation. One function--feedback--was not identified at all. Appendix 0 indicates various legislative acts supporting the significance of each of these implementation functions. "Elite" Interviews During the "elite" interviews, interviewees were asked for their perceptions of important functions for implementing state land policies. Several of the interviewees were quite conversant with the concept of policy implementation and seemed comfortable in discussing the policy implementation process as a whole. These individuals were able to id- entify one or several implementation functions based on their experience and perceptions. Many interviewees, however, did not seem conversant with the notion of policy implementation as it is used in this study. It was apparent that they had not thought comprehensively about the policy implementation process. As a consequence, they had difficulty pinpointing implementation functions. In these situations, the investi- gator (interviewer) gave examples of functions mentioned elsewhere. After several examples, interviewees usually were able to identify at least one other function they thought was important for policy imple- mentation.37 The following state land policy implementation functions were either explicitly identified or suggested by the "elite" interviewees: organizing; funding; staffing; developing a data and information base; 37A full account of each "elite" interview is available in the investigator's research files. 98 integrating state, regional, and local concerns; coordinating; informa- tion-education programming; establishing policy guidelines; providing technical assistance; monitoring; enforcement; appeals; evaluation; feedback; detailed record-keeping; citizen participation; administrative rule-making; and review. Interviewees usually described these functions --often with some probing--as they were described earlier in this chap- ter. The functions most often mentioned as important for state land policy implementation included coordinating, information-education pro- gramming, and evaluation. The least mentioned functions included ap- peals; detailed record-keeping; integrating state, regional, and local concerns. The discussion of implementation functions during the inter- views confirmed the importance of all the functions identified in the literature and legislation reviews. Table 1 summarizes the number of "elite" interviews during which the importance of particular implemen- tation functions was specified or suggested.38 m In this chapter a framework of eighteen important functions for implementing state land policy was developed. The implementation func- tions forming this framework were identified and described on the basis 38One interviewee identified an implementation function not noted above. He suggested carrying out experimental trials with state land policies and making necessary modifications in these policies before full implementation state-wide. This function could be performed either before or after the key policy decision is made enacting a particular policy alternative into law. In the former instance, this suggested function would be part of policy analysis occurring during the policy decision process; it would not be part of the policy implementation pro- cess. In the latter instance (after the key policy decision), temporal considerations seem to dictate that this function would not be generally practical. It is more easily incorporated into the functions of moni- toring, evaluation, and feedback to policy implementation and develop- ment identified and described in this chapter. 99 Table l.--Imp1ementation Functions Identified During the "Elite" Interviews. Number of Interviews Function 1. Organizing 2. Funding 3. Staffing 4. Developing a Data and Information Base 5. Integrating State, Regional and Local Concerns 6. Coordinating 7. Information-Education Programming 8. Establishing Policy Guidelines 9. Providing Technical Asisstance 10. Monitoring ll. Enforcement 12. Appeals 13. Evaluation 14. Feedback 15. Detailed Record-keeping 16. Citizen Participation 17. Administrative Rule-making 18. Review Gib-£501 10 10 bongomxow 100 of information gleaned from a review of pertinent literature, a review of Michigan state land policy legislation, and series of "elite" inter- views. Table 2 summarizes these functions. They are arranged in this Table 2.--Framework of Functions Necessary for State Land Policy Imple- mentation ' . Organizing Funding Staffing . Detailed Record-keeping . Developing a Data and Information Base Citizen Participation . Administrative Rule-making Integrating State, Regional, and Local Concerns Establishing Policy Guidelines 10. Coordinating ll. Information-Education Programming 12. Providing Technical Assistance 13. Review 14. Monitoring 15. Enforcement 16. Appeals 17. Evaluation 18. Feedback tomVONU‘l-DWN-i table with directly complementary functions being in close proximity to one another. Several caveats, in addition to those indicated at the beginning of this chapter, must be stressed. First, there are probably additional equally insightful sources that could be cited as evidence for various implementation functions. Second, another investigator with a different perspective and understanding of the state land policy implementation issue would likely perceive another set of implementation functions. Another set of implementation functions might be either more general or more detailed than the set identified here. Third, this study does not attempt to definitively allocate the identified implementation functions 101 among levels of government. If responsibility for implementing a state land policy is located solely at the state level, the functions, obvi- ously, would need to be performed at that level. If responsibility for implementation is a state and local concern, some functions, such as providing technical assistance and establishing policy guidelines, would primarily be a state government concern, but most other functions would be a concern to all governmental levels. The individual implementation functions identified and described in this study are not in themselves unique. They are familiar; most have applicability in other contexts. When aggregated into a framework of functions, however, they provide a unique way of looking at the pro- cess of implementing state land policies. This framework of functions is no doubt limited, but it represents the most current "best cut" at significant state land policy implementation functions available. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Our society is characterized by interdependence among the activi- ties of all individuals. We attempt to resolve many of the problems generated by this system of interdependence through public policies. There is a tendency to assume that once policies are enacted into law the problems toward which they are directed will, in fact, be eliminated. Experience shows otherwise, however. Our public policies are often failures. The reasons for failure are numerous. They might involve poor assessment of the problem, lack of adequate technical capability for dealing with the problem, or an inappropriate theoretical base underlying the policy itself. Policy failure also may be the result of difficulties occurring during the process of policy administration or implementation. Until recently, we have generally neglected--at ' least we have not dealt effectively with-—the policy implementation process and its relevance for policy performance. As a broad generali- zation, this assertion is valid with respect to most policy areas, in- cluding the area of state land policy. Research on the process of implementing state land policy is im- portant. The interaction between population growth, with its accompany- ing expansion of industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational 102 103 developments, and a finite natural resource base causes land use pro- blems that are important at the state as well as the local, interstate, national, and international levels. State land policies are directed toward resolving those land use problems that are important at the state level. If the publicly specified objectives of those policies are to be achieved, it is curcial to focus attention on their implementation. A necessary, although not sufficient, condition for achieving publicly specified state land use objectives is successful policy implementation --planning for policy execution and actual execution. Successful pol- icy implementation, in turn, requires some strategy for analyzing the success of the state land policy implementation process that will pro- vide useful information to decision-makers both before and after a policy is enacted into law. This study focused on state land policy implementation. It was an exploratory study based on the philosophy that dealing imperfectly with matters of substance is better than attaining virtuoso skill in that which does not matter. The study had three specific objectives. The first objective of the study was to investigate the treatment of policy implementation issues in discussions of land policy, par- ticularly state land policy. A twofold research approach was used for achieving this objective. The first component of this approach in- volved a wide-ranging literature review. The literature review focused on materials relating to public policy implementation and public policy assessment. A special effort was made to find and to review materials focusing explicitly on land policy, especially state land policy. 'The second component involved a series of forty-one "elite" interviews. These interviews were carried out, with the help of an assistant, over 104 an eight week period. The individuals chosen to be interviewed were selected on the basis of their expertise in the area of land policy. This sample of "elites" or "experts" consisted of individuals associated with Michigan State University, various departments and offices in Mich- igan state government, and various private sector interest groups. Ob- servations made during these interviews supplemented the conclusions‘ drawn from the literature review with respect to the first study objec- tive. A second study objective was to outline a conceptual approach for analyzing the success of the state land policy implementation process. In Chapter IV, one such conceptual approach was developed. As postula- ted, this approach has four important components. The first component 1 focuses on the implementation process as one of the two major parts of the total policy process. The second component identifies three impor- tant types of public policy assessment--policy analysis, policy or pro- gram evaluation, and policy implementation analysis--and their relation- ship with each other and the total policy process. The third component emphasizes a framework of activities or functions that are necessary for implementing state land policies. This framework is viewed as a way of focusing policy implementation analysis. The fourth component consists of several criteria that suggest useful questions for analyzing the policy implementation process. These criteria involve l) organiza- tional and adminiStrative considerations, 2) economic considerations, 3) social-cultural considerations, 4) political considerations, 5) temporal considerations, and 6) technological considerations. Conceptually, by investigating these criteria in the context of indi- vidual implementation functions, it would be possible to assess the 105 the potential implementation success of a proposed state land policy or the actual implementation success of an on-going state land policy. The third objective of this study was to develop and refine, in detail, one component of this conceptual approach--the framework of state land policy implementation functions. It was hypothesized that there exist certain necessary functions that should be performed during the implementation process, and that these functions can be aggregated into a framework of functions. A threefold research approach was used to see if such a framework could be developed. One component of this approach involved a review of literature in the areas of organizational theory, public administration, political science, community development, and land policy. A second component involved reviewing selected Michigan state land policy legislation. Both proposed and on-going legislation as well as administrative rules pertaining to some pieces of on-going legislation were reviewed. The third component was the "elite" inter- viewing process. "Elite" interviewees were asked for their perceptions of important functions for implementing state land policies. Based on these research efforts, a framework of eighteen functions important for the process of implementing state land policies was devel- Oped. The functions making up this framework included: 1) organizing, 2) funding, 3) staffing, 4) detailed record-keeping, 5) developing a data and information base, 6) citizen participation, 7) administrative rule-making, 8) integrating state, regional, and local concerns, 9) establishing policy guidelines, 10) coordinating, 11) information- education programming, 12) providing technical assistance, 13) review, 14) monitoring, 15) enforcement, 16) appeals, 17) evaluation, and 18) feedback. 106' Conclusions The policy implementation process and planning for that process are crucial to policy performance--outputs and outcomes--in all policy areas. Yet, these issues have been relatively neglected--at least not effectively dealt with--in studies of public policy. Only in the last two to three years has policy implementation been singled out for de- tailed study. Political scientists and policy analysts in schools of E public policy are primarily responsible for the upsurge of interest in this issue. In the context of land policy, including state land policy, im- plementation issues are recognized as being important. They have been discussed or alluded to in terms of specific policy tools for meeting land policy objectives, public land resource agency administrative structure, Special implementation problems suCh as assessment proce- dures, and some functions or activities that should be performed in implementing land policies. One can argue, however, that policy implementation issues have not been assessed systematically or comprehensively in discussions focusing on land policy in general or state land policy in particular. More specifically, these discussions have not dealt with the implemen- tation process as a whole and how the details of that process affect land policy performance. There is little evidence to indicate that anyone has tried to develop any framework that would facilitate com- prehensive and systematic analysis of the details of the implementation process. Moreover, there is little evidence suggesting that we have been concerned with integrating analysis of the implementation process 107 into our broader concern with the assessment of proposed and on-going land policies. Such analysis would help inform decision-maker public policy decisions during both policy execution planning and actual policy execution. This situation suggests that there is still much we don't know about the process of implementing land policies. Presently, we lack adequate handles for dealing with this process. Increased emphasis should be placed on policy implementation research. However, we should not expect too much, too fast from additional research. Research pro- gress to date has been slow; it Will probably be slow in the future. The policy implementation process is too complex and too dynamic to yield easily to our research efforts. One conceptual approach to policy implementation analysis was developed as part of this research effort. It was developed with the process of implementing state land policies in mind. However, it prob- ably could be generalized and applied, perhaps with minor modifications in the third component, to federal and local land policies as well as other policy areas. In the context of state land policy, this approach definitely provides conceptual insight regarding the policy implementation process and analysis of that process. The extent of the usefulness of this ap- proach is yet to be proven in specific applications. Since it comes in part from the experience of those working directly with land policy applications, it should be highly relevant to operational conditions. This research verifies the first basic hypothesis underlying the third component of this conceptual approach. The review of literature and legislation as well as the "elite" interviews indicate that there 108 are a number of necessary functions--a framework--important in the pro- cess of implementing state land policy. Care must be taken, however, in interpreting and using this framework. The research indicates only that the functions constituting this framework are necessary for the success of the state land policy implementation process; they are not necessarily sufficient. Effective performance of all these functions will not une- quivocably ensure successful implementation in any one instance. The research approach used in this study of policy implementation warrants comment. The three components of this approach--1iterature review, legislation review, and "elite" interviewing--are all "soft" qualitative procedures. Findings generated by these procedures are all subject to one major constraint: the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the investigator. As a consequence, a different investigator looking at the same issues and problems might arrive at a somewhat different set of findings. In this research, that constraint was recognized from the beginning. However, research on policy implementation, which is complex and, as yet, problematical, requires an approach that allows the inves- tigator to pursue interesting leads and emerging new insights. The re- search procedures used in this study permitted such a research approach. Policy Recommendations It has been argued in this study that the process of implementing state land policy is important for policy performance and that both gx pnig_and gx_pg§i_analysis of that process shouldbe integrated into the . total policy process. This section outlines several policy recommenda- tions regarding how such integration might be formalized in state gov- ernmental activities. While the recommendations are couched in terms of a concern for formalizing analysis of the state land policy 109 implementation process, they are generally applicable to other policy areas at all levels of government. One possible way of formalizing analysis of the state land policy implementation process would be through a legislative requirement stat- ing that each new state land policy statute must include a section re- quiring periodic policy implementation analysis. The language of such a section might read as follows: To heip ensure that the objpctives of this legislation are met, a complete analysis of its administration must be conducted py the administering pgency(ies) every threeiyears in accordance with the provisions of PA) . The results of this analysis must be made available to all interested individuals and groups. The law requiring policy implementation analysis would also have to lay out in some detail an approach, such as the one suggested in this study, for analyzing the implementation process. Several additional points should be stressed with respect to this recommendation. This approach for formalizing policy implementation analysis would probably go a long way toward encouraging qreater concern for the importance of implementation considerations. It would facili- tate executive and legislative oversight of the implementation process by providing a framework for comprehensive and systematic analysis of that process. Such a framework would also allow and encourage private citizens and interest groups to keep continuous watch over the process of implementing state land policies. There are, however, some limitations to this recommendation. It would only facilitate gx_pg§i_implementation analysis of state land policies. Pursuing this recommendation would not ensure that pg ppig implementation analysis would occur during the policy planning or Y-L llO decision-making phase of the policy process. Moreover, since this rec- ommendation leaves the reSponsibility for implementation analysis in the hands of the administering agency(ies), it does not ensure that the personnel, skills, materials, or will exist to carry out that responsi- bility. Another possible way of formalizing analysis of the process of implementing state land policy would be through an executive directive that assigns responsibility for policy implementation analysis to some unit of the executive branch of state government. This responsibility might be assigned to a department or office with management and budget responsibilities. It could also be assigned as a part of the policy assessment responsibilities of a special policy analysis and evaluation unit preferably located in the executive office of the state governor. This location of such a unit should facilitate a more objective assess- ment of the administrative activities of all state governmental depart- ments. Such an executive directive would also have to detail the ap- proach suggested in this study--or some other approach--for analyzing the state land policy implementation process. Certain advantages are inherent in this recommendation. First, this method of formalizing policy implementation analysis could en- sure that both gx_pnig policy implementation analysis--at least with respect to policy proposals originating in the executive branch--and periodic gx.pg§i_policy implementation analysis are performed. This method could contribute to both policy execution planning and actual policy execution. Second, a clear statement and delegation of responsi- bility for implementation analysis would increase the probability that such analysis will be performed adequately. Third, private individuals 111 and interest groups could more easily keep abreast of how their concerns are being affected during the process of implementing state land policy. Negative aspects of this recommendation must be stressed too. As with the first recommendation outlined above, this approach is subject to the availability of personnel, skills, materials, and will in the governmental unit with responsibility for policy implementation analysis. In addition, under the arrangement described here, cooperation between the analysis unit and other units in the executive branch of state gov- ernment is crucial. The governmental unit with implementation analysis responsibilities will require access to data and information in the files of those units actually administering state land policy. Such cooperation may not be forthcoming if the administering unit feels threatened by policy implementation analysis. This discussion has not exhausted all of the policy options for formalizing analysis of the state land policy implementation process. It has, however, suggested several recommendations that may prove viable starting points for the detailed development of additional options. Future Research Recommendations This study of state land policy implementation clearly emphasizes our lack of adequate knowledge and understanding of the public policy implementation process. There are a whole host of research questions, from the perspective of many different disciplines, that could be pur- sued. It is impossible to accurately and comprehensively catalog all of these potential research questions here. The remainder of this chap- ter, however, summarizes several prospective research questions gener- ated during the course of this study. 112 The approach outlined in this study for analyzing the process of implementing state land policy is conceptually useful. Improvements could be made in this approach, however, by refining its third and fourth components. Regarding the third component dealing with implementation functions, the following research questions are pertinent. Are there additional nec- essary functions for implementing state land policy not identified in the framework of functions? Are there some functions that should be removed or substituted in this framework? Are the functions properly defined? How useful is this framework of functions or some other framework for investigating federal and local land policy implementation in selected specific instances? How useful is this framework or some other frame- work for investigating implementation in policy areas other than land policy? The following research questions are relevant with respect to the fourth component focusing on analytical criteria. Are all the important criteria identified? Are some of the identified criteria more important than others? Are some not important at all? Do these criteria need to be developed more fully; that is, what is the full range of analytical questions that can and should be addressed under each criterion? Another major research question is whether or not this proposed conceptual approach to state land policy implementation analysis can be made operational. That is, can it really help us perform both gx_ gnig_and gx_pp§i_policy implementation analysis? Will such analysis provide public and private decision-makers with information useful in their efforts focusing on policy execution planning and actual policy execution? A series of case studies to test the utility of this approach 113 seems to be a next logical step. Case studies also would provide answers to many of the questions raised above. Case studies could be comprehensive in their application of the conceptual approach. They could also investigate a single implementa- tion function or a small number of functions with respect to a single or several analytical criteria. A particularly interesting set of questions revolves around the criterion dealing with political consid- erations. One could ask, in this instance, how the existing structure of informal and formal rules or procedures relating to the performance of a given function determines who--which publics--has influence over the performance of that function. A follow-up question involves in- vestigating how a change in the structure of these rules or procedures would change that pattern of influence. These are key issues for deter- mining the success of the state land policy implementation process from the perspective of particular publics. Another important future research question was broached in the preceding section of this chapter. That is the question of formalizing the integration of state land policy implementation analysis into state governmental activities. An investigation of the positive and negative aspects of various organizational arrangements for achieving such inte- gration would be an interesting and worthwhile research study. Research on public policy implementation issues is a complex and trying task. With few theoretical and empirical guidelines from the literature, it is difficult to know where to start or what to start with. Progress in policy implementation research requires exploratory efforts by investigators from many different disciplines to help define the key parameters of the policy implementation process. Better knowledge of 114 the institutional factors governing that process may permit clearer understanding and analysis of potential and actual performance of all public policies and programs. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MICHIGAN LAND POLICY LEGISLATION APPENDIX A MCIHIGAN LAND POLICY LEGISLATION Proposed Legislation--l975 and 1976 Legislative Sessions Senate Bill No. 537 Senate Bill No. 658 Senate Bill No. 1258 Substitute for House Bill No. 4234 House Bill No. 4618 House Bill 5018 House Bill 6003 House Bill 6053 115 A bill to amend section 194 of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967. A bill to amend section 5 of the Inland Lake Improvement Act of 1966. A bill to create a state recre- ational land acquisition trust fund. This bill outlines a "state land use planning act." A bill to regulate the uses and developments of wetlands. A bill to authorize the adop- tion of plans for the rehabili- tation, redevelopment, renewal, or conservation of blighted areas of municipalities. A bill to amend section 5 of the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act of 1974. A bill to amend sections 222, 226, 227, 256, and 257 of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967. Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act Act 253, 345, 288, 127, 231, 245, 106, 241, 286 ,_ 346, 347, 184. 116, PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 1964 1966 1967 1970 1970 1970 1972 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1974 116 Statutes Local River Management Act Inland Lake Improvement Act Subdivision Control Act Environmental Protection Act Natural Rivers Act Shorelands Protection and Management Act Highway Advertising Act Wilderness and Natural Areas Act Land Sales Act Inland Lakes and Streams Act Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act An act to amend the Land Sales Act of 1972 Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act g. r’—_— -._._——_ ._ .-_I"l'l|1 -"".a APPENDIX B "ELITE" INTERVIEHEES APPENDIX B "ELITE" INTERVIEWEES Professor Edmond W. Alchin Institute for Community Development Michigan State University Mr. Al Almy Legislative Counsel Public Affairs Division Michigan Farm Bureau Mr. Eric Berry Office of Intergovernmental Relations Department of Management and Budget State of Michigan Professor James T. Bonnen Department of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University Mr. John Calkins Assistant to the Director Department of Agriculture State Of Michigan Professor Daniel E. Chappelle Departments of Resource Development and Forestry Michigan State University Professor Rupert Cutler Department of Resource Development Michigan State University Mr. John B. Czarnecki Office of Intergovernmental Relations Department of Management and Budget State of Michigan Professor Eckhart Dersch Department of Resource Development Michigan State University 117 F - - _ __.~¥3!'m' 1:55; 118 Mr. Edward Dore Michigan Municipal League Mr. Larry Folks Assistant Chief Office of Land Use Department of Natural Resources State of Michigan Mr. Ray B. Gummerson District Extension Leader Resource Development Cooperative Extension Service Michigan State University Mr. Dennis Hall Office of Land Use Department of Natural Resources State of Michigan Mr. James Mark Hargitt Shorelands Management and Water Resources Planning Section Department of Natural Resources State of Michigan Professor Keith M. Honey School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture Michigan State University Mr. Karl Hosford Chief, Office of Land Use Department of Natural Resources State of Michigan Professor Robert B. Hotaling Institute for Community Development Michigan State University Professor Alvin E. House Department of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University Mr. Charles R. Kaufman District Extension Leader (retired) Resource Development Cooperative Extension Service Michigan State University 119 Professor Leighton L. Leighty Department of Resource Development Michigan State University Professor Lawrence W. Libby Departments of Agricultural Economics and Resource Development Michigan State University Professor Robert S. Manthy Departments of Forestry and Resource Development Michigan State University Professor Robert J. Marty Departments of Forestry and Resource Development Michigan State University Mr. James E. Neal District Extension Leader Resource Development Cooperative Extension Service Michigan State University Mr. Einer Olstrom Project Director Natural Resources and Public Policy Cooperative Extension Service Michigan State University Mr. Dick O'Neil Executive Vice President Michigan Association of Realtors Mr. Dean Pridgeon Natural Resources Commission State of Michigan Mr. Stanley R. Quackenbush Chief, Soil and Water Management Division Department of Agriculture State of Michigan Mr. Merle Raber Office of Land Use Department of Natural Resources State of Michigan Mr. Dean R. Rhoads District Extension Leader Resource Development Cooperative Extension Service Michigan State University 120 Mr. William R. Rustem Special Assistant Special Counsel to the Governor for Programs, State Affairs and Public Affairs Executive Office of the Governor State of Michigan Mr. Donald J. Schaner Head, Soil and Water Conservation Soil and Water Management Division Department of Agriculture ..2 State of Michigan “in '. -‘-. 1 Professor A. Allan Schmid Departments of Agricultural Economics and Resource Development Michigan State University 4—‘1 I Professor James Shaffer U Department of Agricultural Economics Michigan State University Professor Ronald L. Shelton Department of Resource Development Michigan State University . Professor Milton Steinmueller Department of Resource Development Michigan State University Mr. Robert Stockman Executive Director Western Michigan Regional Planning Commission Dr. Emmanuel Van Nierop Environmental Advisor Office of Agricultural Affairs Department of Agriculture State of Michigan Professor Raymond D. Vlasin Department of Resource Development Michigan State University Professor Kenneth VerBurg Institute for Community Development Michigan State University Mr. Boyd C. Wiggins District Extension Leader Resource Development Cooperative Extension Service Michigan State University APPENDIX C "ELITE" INTERVIEWEE LETTER 11f. APPENDIX C "ELITE" INTERVIEWEE LETTER The letter on the following page was used to make the initial contact with potential interviewees. The blank space in the first paragraph was filled in with the name of the individual or individuals who recommended the potential interviewee as a useful contact. 121 rum. fl W . I. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING L1 '7.‘ my 4‘ Dear I am involved in a research effort focusing on the issue of public policy implementation. Available evidence indicates that policy implemen- 7‘“ tation is a neglected component of public policy research. This assertion b appears to hold true for state land policy as'well as other policy areas. urged that I discuss the state land policy imple- mentation issues with you. Implementation is recognized as important fbr successful state land policy. Discussions of policy implementation that do occur often center on alternative policy instruments for achieving specific land policy ob- jectives. Usually missing is a focus on the details of carrying out a given policy instrument selected to achieve a specific policy objective. My concern is with the latter meaning of implementation. One can approach land policy implementation from many different per- spectives. I have chosen one perspective for detailed study. This per- spective deals with important implementation tasks or functions that should be performed when putting any state land policy instrument into effect. My literature review indicates that comprehensive and detailed attention has not been focused on policy implementation functions. I would like to meet with you to discuss your views of land policy implementation and your perceptions of important implementation functions. In a few days, I will contact you to see if we can arrange a meeting time. Respectfully, Theodore R. Alter TRA:pab APPENDIX D "ELITE" INTERVIEW GUIDE APPENDIX D "ELITE" INTERVIEW GUIDE I. Personal Introduction A. Name 8. I am involved with a research effort that is part of a N.S.F. sponsored project entitled Design and Management of Rural Ecosystems. C. Very generally, the project is concerned with ecologic and thermodynamic constraints that impinge upon consumption and production activities in rural areas. I am working on a phase of the project concerned with the policy implications of the research results relating to ecological and thermodynamic considerations. 0. My main concern is with the issue of policy implementation. In particular, I am concerned with state land policy implementation. E. I would like to discuss this issue with you and record your opinions and perceptions. I have some specific questions for you to consider, but I don't intend for our discussion to be structured. Please feel free to lead me where you think it is useful. F. You are one of a number of individuals from the university community, state and local government, and the private sector with whom I am speaking in an attempt to get a better feel for 123 124 this issue of policy implementation. My interpretation of these discussions will, of course, be quite general and not single out or highlight the views of any individual. II. Policy Implementation--General A. Introductory Remarks 1. By implementation I mean the actual carrying out, operational- izing, or administration of a policy instrument. I perceive the implementation process as beginning after a particular policy instrument is enacted into law. 2. I want to discuss implementation in the specific context of state land policy, but let me first ask you some questions about policy in general. My reading of the literature sug- gests that (a) implementation is very important in determin- ing the "success" or "failure" of particular policy instru- ments; and (b) that, despite this fact, implementation issues have generally been neglected by academics, top decision- makers, and analysts, all of whom seem more concerned with the formulation and development of policy alternatives and the g§_pg§i_evaluation of policy outcomes. Implementation issues are seldom integrated into these other analyses. 8. What are your observations with respect to this assessment? 1. Has policy implementation been neglected generally by analysts, top decision-makers, and academic researchers? 2. What aspects of policy implementation have these groups neglected? What aspects have they not neglected? 3. 4. 125 Would you say that there has been a failure to adequately integrate implementation issues into policy analysis and outcome evaluation studies? What about administrators concerned with day-to-day operations in public agencies? Are these individuals concerned with pol- icy implementation in the context of its importance for policy performance? III. State Land Policy Implementation A. Do your general observations about policy in general hold for state land policy? B. How has state land policy implementation been treated in the land policy literature? 1. To what extent has policy implementation been addressed in the land policy literature? . What would you say has been the focus with respect to pol- icy implementation in the land policy literature? . Has attention to state land policy implementation been sys- tematic and comprehensive? . Is it accurate to say that state land policy implementation has been neglected in the literature? . Is implementation addressed in any body of literature that you are familiar with? C. Citizen interest in state land policy implementation. 1. To what extent have citizen groups expressed an interest in state land policy implementation? . To what extent do citizen groups perceive implementation as an important element in state land policy "success" or "failure"? 126 3. What dimensions of state land policy implementation have citizens focused on? 4. Do you have any other comments? D. We have discussed state land policy implementation in the con- text of the land policy literature, public agencies concerned with land policy, and citizen interest in policy implementation. Are there any other other aspects of state land policy implemen- tation that you perceive as important? E. Are you aware of any framework for dealing with state land policy implementation? Should there be one? IV. State Land Policy Implementation Activities or Functions A. Introductory Remarks 1. There are many approaches to land policy implementation. (Give some examples.) 2. One approach focuses on specific activities or functions that should always or usually be performed in implementing a given land policy instrument. 3. An often mentioned example: citizen participation. 8. Based on your experience, can you identify state land policy implementation functions that should generally or usually be performed? Can you provide more detail on these functions? What do they entail? C. Are there functions that are important only under Special cir- cumstances? What are the functions and what are the circum- stances? 127 0. Do you have any other comments with respect to state land policy implementation functions? E. I am going to attempt to structure a framework of important state land policy implementation functions based on this dis- cussion, other discussions, and a review of pertinent litera- ture and land policy legislation. Once I develop my initial framework, would you be willing to go over it with me so that I can benefit from any further comments you might make? APPENDIX E IMPLEMENTATION FUNCTIONS IN MICHIGAN LAND POLICY LEGISLATION - ..' L-.. o b F.--— APPENDIX E IMPLEMENTATION FUNCTIONS IN MICHIGAN LAND POLICY LEGISLATION As one component of this study, Michigan land policy legislation was reviewed for specific indications or suggestions of important im- plementation functions. Table 3 summarizes the results of that review. Emphasis focuses on 1) which pieces of the reviewed legislation specified or implied the significance of particular functions and 2) how many (Number) pieces of legislation indicated the significance of a parti- cular function. 128 129 Table 3.--Implementation Functions in Michigan Land Policy Legislation. Function Legislation Number 10. 11. Organizing Funding Staffing Developing a Data and Information Base Integrating State, Regional, and Local Concerns Coordinating Information-Education Programming Establishing Policy Guidelines Providing Technical Assistance Monitoring Enforcement S. 1258, H. 4234, H. 5018, 1964 PA 253, 1966 PA 345, 1967 PA 288, 1972 PA 241, 1972 PA 286, and 1972 PA 347. S. 1258, H. 4234, H. 5018. 1964 PA 253, 1966 PA 345, 1970 PA 231, and 1972 PA 241. S. 1258, H. 4234, H. 5018, 1964 PA 253, 1966 PA 345, and 1972 PA 241. H. 4234, H. 4618, H.5018, 1964 PA 253, 1966 PA 345, 1967 PA 288, 1970 PA 231, 1970 PA 245, 1972 PA 346, 1972 PA 347, and 1974 PA 116. H. 4234, H. 4618, 1966 PA 345, 1970 PA 127, 1970 PA 231. 1972 PA 346. and 1974 PA 116. H. 4234, H. 5018, 1967 PA 288, 1970 PA 231, 1970 PA 245, and 1974 PA 116. H. 4234. H. 4234 and 1970 PA 231. H. 4234, H. 5018, 1970 PA 231, and 1972 PA 347. H. 4234, 1967 PA 288, 1972 PA 286, 1972 PA 346, and 1972 PA 347. H. 4234, H. 5018, 1966 PA 345, 1967 PA 288, 1970 PA 231, 1970 PA 245, 1972 PA 106, 1972 PA 241, 1972 PA 346, 1972 PA 347, and 1974 PA 116. 9 7 11 11 _——_— “a. ~— _ f- Table3.-(cont'd.) 130 Function Legislation Number 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Appealsa Evaluation . Feedback Detailed Record- keeping Citizen Partici- pation Administrative Rule-making Review H. 4234, 1966 PA 345, 1970 PA 127, 1972 PA 106. 1972 PA 286. 1972 PA 346. 1972 PA 347, and 1974 PA 116. 1972 PA 347b S. 1258, H. 5018, 1964 PA 253, 1967 PA 288, and 1974 PA 116. S. 1258, S. 658, H. 4234, H. 4618, H. 5018, 1964 PA 253, 1966 PA 345, 1967 PA 288, 1970 PA 127, 1970 PA 231, 1970 245, 1972 PA 241, 1972 PA 346, and 1972 PA 347. H. 4234, H. 4618. 1964 PA 253, 1970 PA 231, 1970 PA 245. 1972 PA 106. 1972 PA 241, 1972 PA 286. 1972 PA 346, 1972 PA 347, and 1974 PA 116. H. 4234, H. 4618, H. 5018, 1964 PA 253, 1966 PA 345, 1967 PA 288, 1970 PA 231, 1970 PA 245, 1972 PA 106, 1972 PA 241, 1972 PA 286, 1972 PA 346. 1972 PA 347, and 1974 PA 116. 14 11 14 aRulings by a state government agency with responsibilities for implementing land policy in Michigan are subject to appeal under the 1969 Administrative Procedures Act (1969 PA 309). bThe evaluation function was identified in the administrative rules for PA 347. ~_.—"—— __._’_.. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ackoff, Russell L. Scientific Method: Optimizing Research Decisions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Baker, Robert F; Michaels, Richard M. ; and Preston, Everett S. Public Policy Development: Linking the Technical and Political Processes. New YorszJOEn Wiley and Sons, 1975. Baran, Paul. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957. Brezina, Dennis W. and Overmyer, Allen. Congress In Action: The Environ- mental Education Act. New York: The Free Press, 1974. Clawson, Marion. Forests For Whom and For What? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. Dale, Ernest and Michelson, L. C. Modern Management Methods. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1966. Derthick, Martha. New Towns In-Town: Why a Federal Program Failed. Wash- ington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1972. Dexter, Lewis Anthony. Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Dror, Yehezkel. Public PoligymakingiReexamined. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1968. Hardin, Charles M. The Politics of Agriculturg. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Hatry, Harry; Blair, Louis; Fisk, Donald; and Kimmel, Wayne. Pro ram Analysis for State and Local Governments. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1976. Hatry, Harry P.; Winnie, Richard E.; and Fisk, Donald M. Practical Pro- gram Evaluation For State and Local Government Officials. WaShing- ton, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1973. Healy, Robert G. Land Use and the States. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hapkins University Press, 1976. Henry, Nicholas. Public Administration and Public Affairs. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975. 131 - n "W 132 Hodgetts, Richard M. and Wortman, Max S., Jr. Administrative Policy; Text and Cases in the Policy Sciences. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,il975. Kaufman, Herbert. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1960. Land: State Alternatives for Planning and Management. Lexington, Ken- tucky: The Council of State deernments, 1975. Lauring, John B. and Morgan, James N. Economic Survey Methods. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, The University Michigan, 1971. Levine, Robert A. Public Planning: Failure and Redirection. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972. McAllister, Donald M., ed. Environment: A New Focus for Land Use Plan- ning. Washington, D.C.: National SCience Foundation, 1973. Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Beckett Jackson Raeder, Inc., Land Planning, Landscape Architecture, Applied Research, 1975. Morgan, Robert J. Governing Soil Conservation: Thirty Years of the New Decentralization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. Murphy, Jerome T. State Education Agencies and Discretionary Funds. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 0. C. Heath and Com- pany, 1974. Parks, W. Robert. Soil Conservation Districts In Action. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press,’1952. Porter, Lyman W.; Lawler, EdWard E., III; and Hackman, J. Richard. Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Pressman, Jeffery L. and Wildavsky, Aaron B. implementation. Berkley: University of California Press, 1973. Regan, Mark 0. "Implementing Land Resources Policy." In Modern Land Policy, pp. 269-82. Papers of the Land Economics Institute. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1960. Robinson, Glen 0. The Forest Service, A Study in Public Land Management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. Rossi, Peter H. and Williams, Walter. Evaluating Social Prqgrams: Theory, Practice, and Politics. New York: Seminar Press, 1972. .- -‘—_A. .' 133 Simon, Julian. Basic Research Methods in Social Science. New York: Random House, 1969. State Board of Registration for Professional Community Planners, Coordinators. Michigan Laws Related to Planning. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Community Development and Service, Con- tinuing Education Service, Michigan State University, 1975. Suchman, Edward. Evaluation Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs. New York: Russell Sage Foun- dation, 1967; reprint ed., March 1974. The Random House Dictionary of the English_ianguage, The Unabridged Edition. Cited by Erwin C. Hargrove, The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation of Social Poliry, p. 1. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1975. Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Languagg. Un- abridged Edition, 1961. Wellford, Harrison. Sowing_the Wind. New York; Grossman Publishers, 1972; Bantam Books, 1973. Wholey, Joseph 5.; Scanlon, John W.; Duffy, Hugh 6.; Fukumoto, James S.; and Vogt, Leona M. Federal Evaluation Policy: Anaiyzing the Ef- fects of Public Programs. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1970. Wildavsky, Aaron. The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974. Williams, Walter. Social Policy Research and Analysis. New York: Ameri- can Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., 1971. Worrell, Albert C. Principles of Forest Poliry, New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1970. Government‘Publications Governor's Special Commission on Land Use Report, Appendix A, Reports of the Task Force. Lansing, Michigan; January 1972. Governor's Special Commission on Land Use Rpport, Summary. Lansing, Michigan: January 1972. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A Plan for Michigan's Shore- lands. August 1973. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, comp., State of Michigan Natural Resources Laws. 1972. 134 National Commission on Water Quality. Issues and Findings: Staff Draft Report. Washington, D.C.: 1975. Office of Land Use, MiChigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan's Future Was Today. . .. September 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Research and Data Needs for Land Use Planning. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974. Wisconsin Land Resources Committee. Progress Report. March 1972. .c. i m I 1 Journal Articles 3 Brewer, Michael and Bordner, Betty. "Organizational Alternatives for Recreational Resources Management: An Analysis of State Agencies." Natural Resources Journal 6 (October 1966): 560-79. E Dean, John P. and Whyte, William Foote. "How Do You Know if the E Informant is Telling the Truth?“ Human Organization 27 (1958). Reprinted in Lewis A. Dexter, Elite and Specialized Interview-- ipg, pp. 119-31. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Elmore, Richard F. "Lessons From Follow Through." Policy Analysis 1 (Summer 1975): 459-84. Gramlich, Edward W. and Koshel, Patricia P. "Is Real-World Experimenta- tion Possible? The Case of Educational Performance Contracting." Policy Analysis 1 (Summer 1975): 511-30.- Gustafson, Gregory C. and Wallace, L. T. "Differential Assessment as Land Use Policy: The California Case." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 41 (November 19757? 379-89. Hall, George. "Strategy and Organization In Public Land Policy." Natural Resources Journal 7 (April 1967): 162-82. Hardin, Charles M. "The Politics of Agriculture in the United States." Journal of Farm Economics 32 (November 1950): 571-83. Meltzner, Arnold. "Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis." Public Administration Review 32 (November/December 1972): 859-67. Melvin, Ernest E. "The Planner and Citizen Participation." Journal of the Community Development Society 5 (Spring 1974): 40-48. Murphy, Jerome T. "Title I of ESEA: The Politics of Implementing Federal Education Reform." Harvard Educational Review 41 (February 1971): 35-63. ’_‘ "fl. *A-——_-' v 135 Parks, W. Robert. "Political and Administrative Guide-lines In Develop- ing Public Agricultural Policies." Journal of Farm Economics 33 (May 1951): 157-68. Salter, Leonard A., Jr. "Cross-Sectional and Case-Grouping Procedures in Research Analysis." Journal of Farm Economics 24 (November 1942): 792-805. Schmid, A. Allan. "Analytical Institutional Economics: Challenging Problems in the Economics of Resources for a New Environment." American JOurnal of Agricultural Economics 54 (December 1972): r 893-901. ”* I,m,wg Steele, Harry A. and Muehlbeier, John. "Land and Water Programs in the Northern Great Plains." Journal of Farm Economics 32 (August 1950): 431-44. Steele, Harry A. and Regan, Mark M. "Organization and Administrative ‘_r Arrangements For An Effective Water Policy." Journal of Farm .g Economics 37 (December 1955): 886-97. $1 Taylor, Carl C. "Community Development Programs." Community Develop- ment Review, no. 3 (1956), 34-42. Van Meter, Donald S. and Van Horn, Carl E. "The Policy Implementation Process: A Conceptual Framework." Administration and Society 6 (February 1975): 445-88. Vlasin, Raymond 0. "Planning and Implementing Rural Development." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 29 (January-February 1974): 28-33. Weikart, David P. and Banet, Bernard A. "Planned Variation From the Perspective of a Model Sponsor." PolicyiAnaiysis 1 (Summer 1975): 485-510. Williams, Walter. "Implementation Analysis and Assessment." Policy Analysis 1 (Summer 1975): 531-66. Research Reports and Bulletins Barlowe, Raleigh. "Land Use Planning and You." Proceedings of the Kansas Conference on Land Use. Manhatten, Kansas: Kansas State University, May 28, 1975. . "Public Land Policy: Inputs and Consequences." Conference Proceedings: Toward an Effective Land Use Policy for Michigan. .East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, May 17-18, 1973. 136 Barlowe, Raleigh and Alter, Theodore R. Use-Value Assessment of Farm and gpen Space Lands. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Agricul- tural Experiment Station, RR-308, 1976. Butlena, Gordon and Rogers, David L. "Studies of Public Preferences and Group Interactions to Guide Land Use Planning and Control.“ In Land Use Plannipg_Seminar: Focus on Iowa, pp. 351-75. Edited by L. R. Whiting. Ames, Iowa: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, 1973. Fox, Irving K. "Promising Areas for Research on Institutional Design for Water Resources Management." In Implementation of Regional Re- search in Water-Related Problems, pp.i29-40. Edited by Dean T. Massey. Madison: Department of Law, University Extension, Univer- sity of Wisconsin, 1970. Hargrove, Erwin C. The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementation of Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1975. Harl, Neil E. "Economic and Legal Development and Analysis to Guide Land Use Planning and Control." In Land Use Planning Seminar: Focus on Iowa, pp. 323-33. Edited by L. R. Whiting. Ames, Iowa: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, 1973. Kaiser, Edward J.; Elfers, Karl; Cohn, Sidney; Reichert, Peggy A.; Hufschmidt, Maynard M.; and Stanland, Raymond E. "Integrating Promising Approaches in a Guidance Systems Framework." In Land Use and the Environment: An Anthology of Readings, pp. 95-102. Edited by Virginia Curtis. Chicago: AmeriEan Society of Planning Officials, 1973. Koch, A. Robert; Morrill, Harriet H.; and Hausamann, Arthur. Implemen- tation and Eariy Effects of the New Jersey Farmland Assessment Ari, Rutgers University Experiment Station Bulletin 830, n.d. Myers, Phyllis. Slow Start in Paradise. Washington, D.C.: The Conser- vation Foundation, 1974. Savage, Philip M. "Toward A State Land Use Policy, The Maine Experience." In Land Use and the Environment: An Anthology of Readings, pp. 141-48. Edited by Virginia Curtis. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1973. Schaller, Neil W. "Rural Land Use Policy in the Northeast: Consensus, Directions, and Issues." Proceedings of the Conference on Rural Land Use Policy in the Northeast, pp. 255-6T177Ithaca, New York: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development, October 2-4, 1974. Slavin, Richard H. "Toward a State Land Use Policy: Harmonizing Develop- ment and Conservation." In Land Use and the Environment: An Antho- logy of Readings, pp. 131-39. Edited by Virginia Curtis. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1973. 137 Timmons, John F. "Guidelines for Developing State and National Public Land Use Policies." Conference Proceedings: Toward an Effective Land Use Policy for Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State university, May 17-18, 1973. Vlasin, Raymond 0. "Conservation, Use, and Retention of Agricultural Lands for All-Out Food Production." Michigan Agricultural Experi- ment Station Journal, Article No. 7085. Wengert, Norman. "Legal Aspects of Land Use Policies, Plans, and Im- plementation." In National Land Use Policy: Objectives, Components, implementation. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America, 1973. Willeke, Gene E. and Kroeck, F. William. A Program for Metropolitan_ Water Management. Atlanta, Georgia: Environmental Resources Center, Georgia Institute of Technology. 1972. pppublished Materials Bardach, Eugene. The Impiementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes Law. unpublished manuscript, n.d. Cited by Erwin C. Hargrove, The Missing Link: The Studyiof the Implementation of Social Policy, p. 69. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1975. Barlowe, Raleigh. "Need for a Land Resource Policy Education Program." Statement prepared for submission at Hearings on S. 984 before the EnvirOnmental and Land Resources Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, April 22-24, 1975. Mechling, J. E. "The Policy Analyst As Analyst, General Staff, and Change Agent: A Case Study of Program Innovation and Implementa- tion in the New York City Environmental Protection Administration, 1968-1971." Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1974. Mial, Curtis. "Models of Community Development." Presented at the First Annual Laboratory in Community Leadership Training, Bethel, Maine, 1960. Rein, Martin and Rabinovitz, Francine. "Implementation: A Theoretical Perspective." unpublished manuscript, February 1974. Cited by Erwin C. Hargrove, The Missing Link: The Study of the Implementa- tion of Social Policy, pp. 1 and 77. Washington, D.C.:The Urban Institute, 1975. Van Meter, Donald S. and Van Horn, Carl E. "Studying Implementation." Paper delivered at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the American Politi- cal Science Association, San Francisco, California, September 2-5, 1975. MICHIGQNI STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1111111111111111111”111111111111111111111" 31293104662097