Abstract
Twenty existing case studies of state decision making on education issues from 1971 to 1991 are analyzed to portray the changing nature of Minnesota’s education policy system and to consider whether Iannaccone’s oft-used “structural linkage” typology retains explanatory power. Minnesota’s system has become more pluralistic, politicized, and bureaucratized. It is buffeted by state revenue fluctuations and by national—and global—forces. But its reformist tradition continues as does its considerable capacity for policy innovation. Reformulations of the Iannaccone typology find some support in Minnesota data. Other perspectives, however, clearly hold more promise for policy process research in education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.