A Comparative Analysis of How Actors Implement: Testing the Contextual Interaction Theory in 48 Cases of Wetland Restoration

Abstract

This paper applies a two-actor, causal, deductive theory of implementation (the contextual interaction theory) to analyze 48 wetland restoration cases. The theory uses motivation, information, and power of the policy implementer and target to predict the nature of the implementation process (e.g. cooperation, obstruction, etc.). The research question centers on the predictability potential of the contextual interaction theory. It asks if the theory accurately predicts process interactions, based on the quantification of actor motivation, information, and power. In the analysis, a strong correlation was found between expected and observed results, or a high predictability potential. To overcome limitations, a formula version was also tested using a correlation design. These results did not produce an equivalent fit. One explanation is that implementation entails threshold values in the core variables, and a broad neutral category that fails to influence action in the same manner. This theory is found to be a useful tool for consistent, comparative, and replicable analyses that should be applied more broadly in implementation studies to better understand its strengths and limitations.

Education Policy Implementation from the Perspective of Pupils and Students with Disabilities / Provedba obrazovne politike iz perspektive učenika s teškoćama u razvoju i studenata s invaliditetom

“…Cognition, in terms of the cognition of policy goals and measures and of the methods of participation and communication between actors, is crucial for the formulation of the problem and its potential solutions. Power, which guarantees actors a greater influence on policy implementation, depends on resources (human resources, cognition and finances) owned by actors (Bandura, 1986;Bressers, 2007;Bressers, Bressers, & Larrue, 2016;Owens & Bressers, 2013;Spratt, 2009;Vinke-de Kruijf, Bressers, & Augustijn, 2014). Ostrom (1999) defines actor characteristics as the drivers of the process, independent variables influencing the dependent variable, that is, interaction types (cooperation, opposition and joint learning).…”

Institutions and the Environmental Management of Contaminated Sites: A Theoretical Framework

“…In order to understand how, and under what conditions, institutions might be able to steer decision processes towards environmentally sustainable outcomes, it is necessary to focus on the actor level, and to dig into the process by which institutions are reinterpreted by actors and materialized into actions and non-actions, and how (Bachrach & Baratz, 1963 ). This endeavor notably allows understanding why the intentions to protect the environment that can be found in many policy documents often stay on the paper: actors may resist or circumvent the various rules and behavioral norms that emanate from environmental rules and laws, which results in the phenomenon of the implementation defi cit (Hupe, 2011 ;Owens & Bressers, 2013 ). Moreover, actors are not only capable of emancipating themselves from existing rules and norms, but can also produce innovation by engaging in a process of new rules creation (Laesslé, in press ;Schweizer, Dupuis, & de Buren, 2013 ).…”

Incorporating Air Quality Improvement at a Local Level into Climate Policy in the Transport Sector: A Case Study in Bandung City, Indonesia

“…The implementer is the actor who is "officially commissioned to promote the envisaged measures". The target is the "actor necessary to realize (the measures)", such as citizens or companies [54]. Figure 1 is a schematic of how the interaction process occurs between actors.…”

“…CIT was developed as a theory of implementation and has been used mainly in studies analysing policy in the environmental context and sustainable development, mostly in developed countries [52]. Lately, this framework has been more widely used in developing countries [53,54]. The implementer is the actor who is "officially commissioned to promote the envisaged measures".…”