Public Organization Review

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 275–291 | Cite as

Policy Learning Mechanisms and the Regulation of US Drinking Water

  • Michael ZarkinEmail author


Can regulatory agencies become learning organizations? The purpose of this article is to assert that they can when the right learning mechanisms are in place. This article utilizes the literatures on US regulatory politics, organizational learning, and policy learning to elaborate the concept of learning mechanisms and examine the circumstances under which they are most likely to be utilized within regulatory agencies. The second half of the article examines the utilization of learning mechanisms within US drinking water regulation during the years when the drinking water policy community was working to formulate and implement the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (1996–2015). The article concludes by summarizing the findings and offering some propositions for future research.


Policy learning Learning mechanisms Regulation Drinking water 


  1. Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for the Contaminants on the Third Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List, (2014) 79 Fed. Reg. 62716.Google Scholar
  2. Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for the Priority Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List, (2002) 67 Fed. Reg. 38222.Google Scholar
  3. Announcement of Regulatory Determinations for the Priority Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List, (2003) 68 Fed. Reg. 42898.Google Scholar
  4. Announcement of the Draft Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List, (1997) 62 Fed. Reg. 52104.Google Scholar
  5. Announcement of the Draft Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List, (1998) 63 Fed. Reg. 10274.Google Scholar
  6. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Armstrong, A., & Foley, P. (2003). Foundations for a learning organization: organizational learning mechanisms. The Learning Organization, 10(2/3), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: policy change after catastrophic events. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, M. L., Kenney, M., & Zarkin, M. (2006). Organizational learning in the global context. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Busenberg, G. J. (2001). Learning in organizations and public policy. Journal of Public Policy, 21, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, B. J. (1988). Bureaucratic politics and regulatory reform: the EPA and emissions trading. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284–295.Google Scholar
  15. Dekker, S., & Hansen, D. (2004). Learning under pressure: the effects of politicization on organizational learning in public bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Derthick, M., & Quirk, P. J. (1985). The politics of deregulation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  17. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2 – Final Notice, (2005) 70 Fed. Reg. 9071.Google Scholar
  18. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2 – Notice, (2004) 69 Fed. Reg. 17406.Google Scholar
  19. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3 – Draft, (2008) 73 Fed. Reg. 9628.Google Scholar
  20. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3 – Final, (2009) 74 Fed. Reg. 51850.Google Scholar
  21. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 4 – Draft, (2015) 80 Fed. Reg. 6076.Google Scholar
  22. Eisner, M. A. (1991). Antitrust and the triumph of economics: institutions, expertise, and policy change. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  23. Eisner, M. A. (2000). Regulatory politics in transition (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  24. Environmental Protection Agency (1996). The conceptual approach for contaminant identification. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water.Google Scholar
  25. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). SAB advisory on EPA’s draft third contaminant candidate list. Washington, D.C.: Science Advisory Board, Drinking Water Committee.Google Scholar
  26. Fiorino, D. (2001). Environmental policy as learning: a new view of an old landscape. Public Administration Review, 61, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: evidence from the everglades restoration program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 619–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glasbergen, P. (1990). Learning to manage the environment. In W. M. Lafferty, & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Democracy and the environment: problems and prospects (pp. 175–193). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Greener, I. (2001). Social learning and macroeconomic policy in Britain. Journal of Public Policy, 21(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Habicht II, F. H. (1994). EPA’s vision for setting national environmental priorities. In A. M. Finkel, & D. Golding (Eds.), Worst things first: the debate over risk-based national environmental priorities (pp. 33–46). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25, 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hazlett, T.W. (2011). Economic analysis at the Federal Communications Commission: a simple proposal to atone for past sins. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper #11–23.Google Scholar
  33. Heclo, H. (1974). Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden: from relief to income maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: lessons from public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 484–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science, 2, 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jasanoff, S. (1992). Science, politics, and the renegotiation of expertise at EPA. Osiris, 7, 194–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adversarial legalism: the American way of law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kerwin, C. M., & Furlong, S. R. (2010). Rulemaking: how government agencies write law and make policy (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lavey, W. G. (1993). Inconsistencies in applications of economics at the federal communications commission. Federal Communications Law Journal, 45, 437–490.Google Scholar
  40. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowi, T. J. (1979). The end of liberalism (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  42. May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243–277.Google Scholar
  44. Moe, T. M. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In J. E. Chubb, & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Can the government govern? (pp. 267–329). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  45. National Drinking Water Advisory Council (2004). Report on the CCL classification process to the US environmental protection agency. Washington, D.C.: National Drinking Water Advisory Council.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council (1999). Setting priorities for drinking water contaminants. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. National Research Council (2001). Classifying drinking water contaminants for regulatory consideration. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nilsson, M. (2006). The role of assessments and institutions for policy learning: a study on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation. Policy Sciences, 38(4), 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliver, M. J. (1997). Whatever happened to monetarism?: economic policy-making and social learning in the United Kingdom since 1979. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  50. Oliver, J. (2009). Continuous improvement: role of organisational learning mechanisms. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 26, 546–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oversight Hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Unregulated Drinking Water Contaminant Program: Hearing before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate, 112th Cong. (2011). (Testimony of Robert Perciasepe). Retrieved at
  52. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45, 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pontius, F. W. (2003). History of the safe drinking water act. In F. W. Pontius (Ed.), Drinking water regulation and health (pp. 71–103). New York: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(2), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raucher, R. S. (1996). Public health and regulatory considerations of the safe drinking water act. Annual Review of Public Health, 17, 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Regulatory Determinations Regarding Contaminants on the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List, (2008) 73 Fed. Reg. 44251.Google Scholar
  57. Regulatory Determinations Regarding Contaminants on the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List – Preliminary Determinations, (2007) 72 Fed. Reg. 24016.Google Scholar
  58. Request for Nominations of Drinking Water Contaminants for the Fourth Contaminant Candidate List, (2012) 77 Fed. Reg. 27057.Google Scholar
  59. Rose, R. (1993). Lesson drawing in public policy: a guide to learning across time and space. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. Rosenbaum, W. A. (2014). Environmental politics and policy (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.) (1993). Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  62. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. (1996). P.L. 104–182, August 6th, 1996.Google Scholar
  63. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. (1974). P.L. 93–523, December 16th, 1974.Google Scholar
  64. Shipan, C. R. (1997). Designing judicial review: interest groups, congress, and communications policy. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
  65. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). EPA should improve implementation of requirements on whether to regulate additional contaminants. Washington, D.C.: GAO Report 11–254.Google Scholar
  66. Williams, B. A., & Matheny, A. R. (1995). Democracy, dialogues, and environmental disputes: the contested languages of social regulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Zarkin, M. (2010). The FCC and the politics of cable TV regulation, 1952–1980: organizational learning and policy development. Amherst. NY: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
  68. Zarkin, M. (2015). Unconventional pollution control politics: the reformation of the US safe drinking water act. Electronic Green Journal, 1(38). Retrieved from;volume=1;issue=38.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Westminster CollegeSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations