The Politics of Implementation

Abstract

This article examines how the public and private sector negotiate implementation of a controversial public policy, Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule. The Rule, adopted in 1991, originally called for all localities to create plans in compliance with goals of a 20 percent decrease in vehicle miles traveled and a 10 percent decrease in parking spaces over a 30-year period, which has presented a challenge to policy actors. This article places the implementation process within the context of a modified corporatist paradigm involving three actors: a directive state, the private sector, and litigious public interest groups. The authors examine how recent amendments to the Rule illustrate tensions among these actors and conclude that three important factors account for the successes and failures in the Rule’s implementation: persistent negotiation, threat of lawsuit, and a shared commitment among all involved to “do the right thing.”

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.