How does the dominant stakeholder strategically manage an innovative public policy? Evidence from the London congestion charge

Abstract

Abstract Prior studies have examined various economic, environmental, and social impacts of the London congestion charge (LCC). However, few studies have investigatedhowthe Transport for London (TfL) managed the LCC in all stages of its policy. Without active, strategic management of policies, stakeholders affected may doubt the policies’ legitimacy and reduce policy effectiveness. Thus, examining the means utilized to achieve effective policy management is critical and can potentially influence the development and management of future policies. This study adapts Mitchell et al.’s stakeholder typology to studyhowthe TfL, as part of the management of, and as the dominant stakeholder in, environmental regulations in London, strategically managed the LCC via their own efforts to exert power, establish legitimacy, and claim urgency. Relying on Yin, we analyze publicly available data to show how the TfL actively managed the LCC to ensure its sustainability as policy. The TfL primarily used tactics to maintain and enhance the LCC's legitimacy with authoritative power and fears of unproven urgency to influence other stakeholders. Results have practical implications for policymakers contemplating policy reforms and shed additional light on less‐discussed latent factors regarding policy management. This study contributes to the literature by applying stakeholder theory to the domain of policy reform, administration, and management. Our findings have policy implications as policymakers may benefit from learning the tactics examined in this study to assess their policy management and administration. Lastly, through our discussion and conclusions, we reflect on our findings to encourage research on policy management.

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 — 2 citations exist upstream.

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