Policy Sciences

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 69–98 | Cite as

Understanding micro-processes of institutionalization: stewardship contracting and national forest management

Article

Abstract

This paper examines micro-processes of institutionalization, using the case of stewardship contracting within the US Forest Service. Our basic premise is that, until a new policy becomes an everyday practice among local actors, it will not become institutionalized at the macro-scale. We find that micro-processes of institutionalization are driven by a mixture of large-scale institutional dynamics and how frontline decision-makers understand and interpret these dynamics, given the local social and ecological context in which they operate. For example, this paper suggests that a new policy may become institutionalized when it is understood to solve problems that old institutions at once create and demand to be solved. Agency actors cannot be conceptualized as untethered from the institutions in which they operate. Yet, within larger institutional dynamics, field personnel make key choices about whether to adopt a new policy, making them important players in the micro-processes of policy institutionalization. The interplay of actors and institutions turns agencies, such as the Forest Service, into complex systems that cannot be understood as artifacts of their own history or as a sum of the decisions of individual actors. This dynamic also implies that macro-level institutional change will be uneven, incomplete, and gradual, mirroring uneven, contingent micro-level processes.

Keywords

Policy implementation Political change Institutions Institutionalism Stewardship contracting Forest Service Actors 

References

  1. Abers, R. N., & Keck, M. (2013). Practical authority: Agency and institutional change in Brazilian water politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman, S. (1990). Observations on the transformation of the Forest Service: The effects of the National Environmental Policy Act on US Forest Service decision making. Environmental Law, 20(3), 703–734.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berk, G., & Galvan, D. (2009). How people experience and change institutions: A field guide to creative syncretism. Theory and Society, 38, 543–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cashore, B., & Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equlibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheek, K. A. (1996). Community well-being and Forest Service policy: Re-examining the sustained yield unit. A Thesis submitted to Oregon State University, Forest Resources in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science. Corvallis: Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  9. Deeg, R. (2001). Institutional change and the uses and limits of path dependency: The case of German finance (p. 39). Koln, Germany: Max Planck Institute fur Gesellschaftforschung MPIfG.Google Scholar
  10. DeLeon, P., & DeLeon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 467–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Golden, M. M. (2000). What motivates bureaucrats?. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. Government Accountability Office. (2008). Use of stewardship contracting is increasing, but agencies could benefit from better data and contracting strategies (p. 71). Washington, D.C.: Governmental Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  14. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hausbeck, K. (2007). The Little Engine that could: The success of the Stewardship Contracting Authority. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 32, 33.Google Scholar
  16. Hirt, P. W. (1994). A Conspiracy of optimism: Management of the national forests since World War Two. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  17. Huber, J. D., & McCarty, N. (2004). Bureaucratic capacity, delegation, and political reform. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnston, J. M., & Girth, A. M. (2011). Government contracts and “managing the market”: Exploring the costs of strategic management responses to weak vendor competition. Administration and Society. doi:10.1177/0095399711417396.Google Scholar
  19. Keele, D. M., Malmsheimer, R. W., Floyd, D. W., & Perez, J. E. (2006). Forest Service land management litigation 1989–2002. Journal of Forestry, 104(6), 196–202.Google Scholar
  20. Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keiser, L. R., & Soss, J. (1998). With good cause: Bureaucratic discretion and the politics of child support enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerkvliet, J. (2010). The practice and economics of stewardship contracting: A case study of the Clearwater Stewardship Project. Forest Products Journal, 60(3), Article no. 10686.Google Scholar
  23. Khademian, A. M. (2002). Working with culture: How the job gets done in public programs (Public affairs and policy administration series). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  25. Klamath Tribes. (2013). The Klamath tribes: Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin. http://klamathtribes.org/.
  26. Koontz, T., Steelman, T., Carmin, J., Korfmacher, K., Moseley, C., & Thomas, C. (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government?. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lindblom, C. E. (1968). The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mattor, K. (2011). The state of stewardship contracting: Its use and implementation on US National Forests. In Paper presented at the international symposium on society and resource management, Madison, WI. July 7.Google Scholar
  32. May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2007). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences of policy on implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,. doi:10.1093/jpart/mom030.Google Scholar
  33. Mayhew, D. R. (2002). Electoral realignments: A critique of an American genre. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. McCrudden, C. (2004). Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural Resources Forum, 28, 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 10(2), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Minstrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 739–770.Google Scholar
  38. Moseley, C. (1999). New ideas, old Institutions: Environment, community, and state in the Pacific Northwest. Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
  39. Moseley, C., & Davis, E. J. (2010). Stewardship contracting for landscape scale restoration. EWP Working Papers #25. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  40. Moseley, C., & Kauffman, M. (2000). A review of the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit, 1992–2000, Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR: Sustainable Northwest.Google Scholar
  41. Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (2004). The search for American political development. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. (2012). Role of communities in stewardship contracting: FY 2011 Programmatic monitoring report to the USDA Forest Service (p. 131). Washington, D.C.: Pinchot Institute for Conservation.Google Scholar
  44. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. (2013). The role of communities in stewardship contracting: FY 2012 programmatic monitoring report to the USDA Forest Service (p. 125). Washington, D.C.: Pinchot Institute for Conservation.Google Scholar
  45. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland : or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (The Oakland Project series). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sabatier, P. A., Loomis, J., & McCarthy, C. (1995). Hierarchial controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: An analysis of Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 204–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schick, A. (2000). Federal budget process: Politics, policy, and process. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shannon, M. A. (2003). The Northwest Forest Plan as a learning process: A call for new institutions bridging science and politics. In K. Arabas & J. Bowersox (Eds.), Forest futures: Science, politics and policy for the next century (pp. 256–279). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  49. Sheingate, A. (2007). The terrain of the policy entrepreneur. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sheingate, A. (2010). Rethinking rules: Creativity and constraint in the US House of Representatives. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change (pp. 168–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state: The expansion of national administrative capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skowronek, S., & Glassman, M. (2007). Formative acts. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making (pp. 1–9). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  54. Stankey, G. H., & Shindler, B. (1997). Adaptive management areas: Achieving the promise, avoiding the peril (p. 21). Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
  55. Steelman, T. (2010). Implementing innovation: Fostering enduring change in environmental and natural resource governance. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sunquist, J. L. (1983). Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States (Revised ed.). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  57. Thomas, J. W. (2009). Increasing difficulty of active management on national forests—Problems and solutions. In T. A. Spies & S. L. Duncan (Eds.), Old growth in a new world (pp. 189–200). San Francisco, CA: Island Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tomkin, S. L. (1998). Inside OMB: Politics and process in the President’s Budget Office. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  59. USDA Forest Service. (2007). Stategic plan FY 2007–2012 (p. 32). Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2014/FY2014ForestServiceBudgetJustificationFinal041613.pdf.
  60. USDA Forest Service. (2013a). FY2014 budget justification. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  61. USDA Forest Service. (2013b). Stewardship end results contracting. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/Stewardship_Contracting/index.shtml [accessed 9/30/13].
  62. USDA Forest Service, & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994). Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  63. Valelly, R. M. (2007). Partisan entrepreneurship and policy windows: George Frisbie Hoar and the 1890 Federal Elections Bill. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making (pp. 126–152). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  64. Vaughn, J. S., & Cortner, H. J. (2005). George W. Bush’s healthy forests: Reframing the environmental debate. Boulder, Colo.: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for a Sustainable EnvironmentUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research StationPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations