Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cline, K. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 10, No. 3: 551-572 (2000)
© 2000 Public Management Research Association


research-article

Defining the Implementation Problem: Organizational Management versus Cooperation

Kurt D. Cline

Colorado State University

The purpose of this article is to determine which definition of the implementation problem, organizational management or cooperation, provides the best understanding of the implementation process. In order to do this, I will compare models of the implementation process that use different conceptions of the problem. The models that are used in this analysis are (1) Goggin et al's. communications model of intergovernmental policy implementation (CM) and (2) implementation regime framework (IRF). The CM conceives of the implementation problem as one of organizational management; the IRF conceives of the implementation problem as achieving cooperation. These models are evaluated using four criteria: the treatment of both the top-down and bottom-up approaches; the role of communication in the implementation process; the level of conflict/cooperation in the implementation process; and applicability to the concept of networks. The results of this analysis reveal that Stoker's IRF, which defines the implementation problem as achieving cooperation, provides a better understanding of the implementation process. The CM, which is based on the organizational management perspective, is much more limited. The implications this analysis has for future research of the implementation process are also discussed


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Public Adm Res TheoryHome page
K. Cline
Working Relationships in the National Superfund Program: The State Administrators' Perspective
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., November 28, 2008; (2008) mun023v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.