Skip Navigation


Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance Access originally published online on December 16, 2004
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2005 15(3):325-351; doi:10.1093/jopart/mui018
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
15/3/325    most recent
mui018v1
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, B. D.
Right arrow Articles by Baumgartner, F. R.
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. 15, no. 3 © 2005 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.; all rights reserved.

A Model of Choice for Public Policy

Bryan D. Jones

University of Washington

Frank R. Baumgartner

Pennsylvania State University

Address correspondence to Bryan D. Jones at bdjones{at}u.washington.edu.

Punctuated equilibrium is supposed to be a viable alternative to incrementalism, and, indeed, the authors of the model have sometimes made such claims. But punctuated equilibrium was developed to explain change in policy subsystems and does not serve as a complete model of policy choice in the same way that incrementalism has served. This article develops a full-blown and viable model of choice for public policy based on disproportionate information processing. Its dynamics are based in the allocation of political attention to policy topics and the manner in which political systems process information. The model leads directly to outcomes that are consistent with punctuated equilibrium and are not generally consistent with incrementalism. Incrementalism, however, may be deduced from the model as a special case. The model is best tested using stochastic process approaches. Incrementalism logically must yield a normal distribution of outcomes, but disproportionate information processing yields leptokurtic outcomes. Adding institutional constraints only makes the stochastic process implications more severe. To support our arguments, we present both static and dynamic simulations of these processes. We also show that these simulations are consistent with observations of U.S. government budgets.


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
C. Breunig, C. Koski, and P. B. Mortensen
Stability and Punctuations in Public Spending: A Comparative Study of Budget Functions
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., November 6, 2009; (2009) mup028v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 American Politics ResearchHome page
C. Breunig and C. Koski
Punctuated Budgets and Governors' Institutional Powers
American Politics Research, November 1, 2009; 37(6): 1116 - 1138.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Public Adm Res TheoryHome page
S. C. Andersen and P. B. Mortensen
Policy Stability and Organizational Performance: Is There a Relationship?
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., May 14, 2009; (2009) mup005v1.
[Abstract] [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.