Abstract
This article identifies key elements of the “theory of action” embodied in reconstitution reforms and examines them in light of findings acquired from a two-year study that documents what happened when a particular rendition of reconstitution was enacted and implemented. The evidence from this study suggests that the “theory of action” embedded in reconstitution reforms may be seriously, if not fatally flawed. On every critical count, the dominant patterns of implementation ran counter to the major premises (and promises) of the policy. This article considers alternative interpretations of the data and suggests directions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.