From “New Institutionalism” to “Institutional Processualism”: Advancing Knowledge about Public Management Policy Change

Barzelay, Michael; Calderón, Raquel Gallego

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00339.x

Cited by 130 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The 5-why technique pushes agents to identify a problem and then answer 'why' it is a problem five times. The rationale is that agents typically focus on issues and need to think beyond these to specify the problem that could 7 See Barzelay and Gallego (2006); Guldbrandsson and Fossum (2009);and Ridde (2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Escaping Capability Traps Through Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA)

Andrews¹,

Pritchett²,

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many reform initiatives in developing countries fail to achieve sustained improvements in performance because they are merely isomorphic mimicry-that is, governments and organizations pretend to reform by changing what policies or organizations look like rather than what they actually do. In addition, the flow of development resources and legitimacy without demonstrated improvements in performance undermines the impetus for effective action to build state capability or improve performance. This dynamic facilitates "capability traps" in which state capability stagnates, or even deteriorates, over long periods of time even though governments remain engaged in developmental rhetoric and continue to receive development resources. How can countries escape capability traps? We propose an approach, Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA), based on four core principles, each of which stands in sharp contrast with the standard approaches. First, PDIA focuses on solving locally nominated and defined problems in performance (as opposed to transplanting preconceived and packaged "best practice" solutions). Second, it seeks to create an authorizing environment for decision-making that encourages positive deviance and experimentation (as opposed to designing projects and programs and then requiring agents to implement them exactly as designed). Third, it embeds this experimentation in tight feedback loops that facilitate rapid experiential learning (as opposed to enduring long lag times in learning from ex post "evaluation"). Fourth, it actively engages broad sets of agents to ensure that reforms are viable, legitimate, relevant, and supportable (as opposed to a narrow set of external experts promoting the top-down diffusion of innovation).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Escaping Capability Traps Through Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA)

Andrews¹,

Pritchett²,

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Barzelay and Gallego (2006), the MSF is interpreted as allowing the analytical separation of the broader context from the analysis of particular situations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy

Ackrill¹,

Kay²,

Zahariadis³

2013

Journal of European Public Policy

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multiple streams framework draws insight from interactions between agency and institutions to explore the impact of context, time, and meaning on policy change and to assess the institutional and issue complexities permeating the European Union (EU) policy process. The authors specify the assumptions and structure of the framework and review studies that have adapted it to reflect more fully EU decision-making processes. The nature of policy entrepreneurship and policy windows are assessed to identify areas of improvement. Finally, the authors sketch out a research agenda that refines the logic of political manipulation which permeates the lens and the institutional complexity which frames the EU policy process.

show abstract

“…For instance, we may point to concerns that particular applications are relatively selective in their explanatory rigour (Barzelay and Gallego 2006). There have been questions as to the general validity of institutionalist explanations for understanding and exploring institutional and organizational change (Gorges 2000).…”

Section: Aq2mentioning

confidence: 99%