The implementation of wastewater treatment policy in American municipalities provides a particularly useful context for the exploration of important issues in implementation research. Recent developments at the national level have stimulated the innovation of capital-intensive privatization in this sector. How this structure for implementation compares with alternatives, especially the conventional federally grant-funded route, is a question that can be explored through the use of implementation theory and can in turn help clarify and advance that theory. For instance, although top-down implementation research suggests the importance of hierarchically integrated structures for implementation success, this study shows that integration can be induced without hierarchy (as capital-intensive privatization) and that hierarchically managed structures (like the grant setting) may lack integrative capacity. Empirical research provides evidence for theoretically derived expectations that privatization can assist implementation processes in this field without sacrificing clean water output. Theoretical and practical implications of the analysis are sketched.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. Cambridge: MIT Press.
2.
Barrett, S. , & Fudge, C. (Eds.). (1981). Policy and action: Essays on the implementation of public policy. London and New York: Methuen.
3.
Bendor, J. (1985). Parallel systems: Redundancy in government. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro- and micro-implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 157-184.
5.
Bowen, E. (1982). The Pressman-Wildavsky paradox: Four addenda on why models based on probability theory can predict implementation success and suggest useful tactical advice for implementers. Journal of Public Policy, 2(1), 1-21.
6.
Brooks, H. , Liebman, L., & Schelling, C. S. (Eds.). (1984)s Public-private partnerships: New opportunities for meeting social needs. Cambridge. MA: Ballinger.
7.
Bullock, C. S., III. (1980). Implementation of equal education opportunity programs: A comparative analysis. In D. A. Mazmanian & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Effective policy implementation (pp. 89-129). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
8.
Conlan, T. J. (1985). Federalism and competing values in the Reagan administration. In L. J. O'Toole, Jr. (Ed.), American intergovernmental relations (pp. 265-280). Washington, DC: CQ Books.
9.
Durant, R. F. (1984). EPA, TVA and pollution control: Implications for a theory of regulatory policy implementation. Public Administration Review, 44(4), 305-315.
10.
Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-616.
11.
Friend, J. K. , Power, J. M., & Yewlett, C.J.L. (1974). Public planning: The intercorporate dimension. London: Tavistock.
12.
Goggin, M. L. (1986). The "too few cases/too many variables" problem in implementation research. Western Political Quarterly, 38, 328-347.
13.
Heilman, J. G. , & Johnson, G. W. (1988). System and process in capital-intensive privatization: A comparative case study of municipal wastewater treatment works. Unpublished manuscript.
14.
Hjern, B. , & Hull, C. (1985). Small firm employment creation: An assistance structure explanation. In K. Hanf & T.A.J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems (pp. 131-156). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
15.
Hjem, B. , & Porter, D. O. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211-237.
16.
Hogwood, B. W. , & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
Hull, C. , with Hjern, B. (1987). Helping small firms grow: An implementation approach. London: Croom Helm.
18.
Johnson, G. W. , & Heilman, J. G. (1987). Metapolicy transition and policy implementation: New federalism and privatization. Public Administration Review, 47(6), 468-478.
19.
Kaufmann, F. X. , Ostrom, V., & Majone, G. (Eds.). (1986). Guidance, control, and evaluation in the public sector. Berlin: deGruyter.
20.
Kelman, S. (1981). Regulating America, regulating Sweden: A comparative study of occupational safety and health policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21.
Kettl, D. F. (1987). Government by proxy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
22.
Lester, J. P. , Bowman, A. O'M., Goggin, M. L., & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1987). Public policy implementation: Evolution of the field and agenda for future research. Policy Studies Review, 7(1), 200-216.
23.
Mazmanian, D. A. , & Sabatier, P. A. (Eds.). (1981). Effective policy implementation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
24.
Mazmanian, D. A. , & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
25.
Moe, R. C. (1987). Exploring the limits of privatization. Public Administration Review, 47(6), 453-460.
26.
Montjoy, R. S. , & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1979). Toward a theory of policy implementation: An organizational perspective. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 465-476.
27.
O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1983). Interorganizational co-operation and the implementation of labour market training policies: Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany. Organization Studies, 4(2), 129-150.
28.
O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181-210.
29.
O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1988). Strategies for intergovernmental management: Implementing programs in interorganizational networks. International Journal of Public Administration, 11(4), 417-441.
30.
O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (in press). Goal multiplicity in the implementation setting: Subtle impacts and the case of wastewater treatment privatization. Policy Studies Journal.
31.
O'Toole, L J., Jr. , & Montjoy, R. S. (1984). Interorganizational policy implementation: A theoretical perspective. Public Administration Review, 44(6), 491-503.
32.
Porter, D. O. (1976). Federalism, revenue sharing, and local government. In C. Jones & R. Thomas (Eds.), Public policy making in the federal system (pp. 81-101). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
Pressman, J. L. , & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
Rosenbaum, N. (1980). Statutory structure and policy implementation: The case of wetlands regulation. In D. A. Mazmanian & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Effective policy implementation (pp. 63-85). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
35.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
36.
Sabatier, P. A. , & Mazmanian, D. A. (1979). The conditions of effective implementation: A guide to accomplishing policy objectives. Policy Analysis, 5(4), 481-504.
37.
Thompson, F. J. (1982). Bureaucratic discretion and the National Health Service Corps. Political Science Quarterly, 97(3), 427-445.
38.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . (1987a) 1986 needs survey report to congress: Assessment of needed publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities in the United States. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Municipal Pollution Control.
39.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . (1987b, October) NMP highlights. Washington, DC: EPA, Enforcement Division, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.
40.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1988). [Unpublished internal analysis.]
41.
Weber, M. (1949). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.
