Administrative Overload and Policy Triage: Causal evidence from the Introduction of the Acid Rain Program in the United States

IF 5.2 1区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Constantin Kaplaner, Christoph Knill, Yves Steinebach
{"title":"Administrative Overload and Policy Triage: Causal evidence from the Introduction of the Acid Rain Program in the United States","authors":"Constantin Kaplaner, Christoph Knill, Yves Steinebach","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muaf020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent research suggests that additional public policies can sometimes decrease overall policy effectiveness rather than improve the problem-solving capacity of the state. This occurs when new policies are not supported by additional administrative capacities, leading to an overburdened administration. Public authorities handle the increased workload by employing “policy triage,” which involves reallocating resources among different policies. Despite this straightforward argument, a systematic understanding of these dynamics is lacking in the existing literature. This paper addresses this by examining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) introduction of the Acid Rain Program. Utilizing a difference-in-differences analysis, it reveals a significant reduction in inspections for industrial sites not covered by the Acid Rain Program as administrators redirected enforcement efforts. These findings, robust against various alternative explanations, highlight the inherent trade-offs in the public sector when policy and administrative expansions are not considered together. To assess broader relevance, we complement our analysis with 28 interviews in Germany, Italy, and Portugal, showing that policy triage is a common response to administrative overload across diverse institutional contexts.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf020","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent research suggests that additional public policies can sometimes decrease overall policy effectiveness rather than improve the problem-solving capacity of the state. This occurs when new policies are not supported by additional administrative capacities, leading to an overburdened administration. Public authorities handle the increased workload by employing “policy triage,” which involves reallocating resources among different policies. Despite this straightforward argument, a systematic understanding of these dynamics is lacking in the existing literature. This paper addresses this by examining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) introduction of the Acid Rain Program. Utilizing a difference-in-differences analysis, it reveals a significant reduction in inspections for industrial sites not covered by the Acid Rain Program as administrators redirected enforcement efforts. These findings, robust against various alternative explanations, highlight the inherent trade-offs in the public sector when policy and administrative expansions are not considered together. To assess broader relevance, we complement our analysis with 28 interviews in Germany, Italy, and Portugal, showing that policy triage is a common response to administrative overload across diverse institutional contexts.
行政超载与政策分类:美国引入酸雨计划的因果证据
最近的研究表明,额外的公共政策有时会降低整体政策的有效性,而不是提高国家解决问题的能力。当额外的管理能力不支持新策略时,就会出现这种情况,从而导致管理负担过重。公共当局通过采用“政策分流”来处理增加的工作量,这涉及在不同的政策之间重新分配资源。尽管有这种直截了当的论点,但在现有文献中缺乏对这些动态的系统理解。本文通过研究美国环境保护署(EPA)引入的酸雨计划来解决这个问题。利用差异中的差异分析,它揭示了对酸雨计划未涵盖的工业场所的检查显着减少,因为管理人员重新调整了执法力度。这些调查结果有力地反驳了各种替代解释,强调了在不同时考虑政策和行政扩张时公共部门固有的权衡。为了评估更广泛的相关性,我们在德国、意大利和葡萄牙进行了28次访谈,以补充我们的分析,表明政策分类是不同制度背景下对行政超载的常见反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory serves as a bridge between public administration or public management scholarship and public policy studies. The Journal aims to provide in-depth analysis of developments in the organizational, administrative, and policy sciences as they apply to government and governance. Each issue brings you critical perspectives and cogent analyses, serving as an outlet for the best theoretical and research work in the field. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory is the official journal of the Public Management Research Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信