Policy Analysis in State and Community
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6358409 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Selma J Mushkin (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1977 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 245-245 |
| Publication date | 1977-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Administration Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/974817 |
| OpenAlex | W2060385797 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 4 |
From some perspectives, the progress by the state and local governments made during the first decade after concepts of policy analyses were introduced has been astonishing, especially when the vicissitudes federal leadership and direction that came with changes top personnel the Office of Management and Budget are considered. Each assistant director in charge had put their own stamp on each process and thereby give it distinction. Little heed was paid repercussions on state and local governments. From the early beginnings of program-planning-budgeting (PPB) the state and local governments 1966, policy analyses were emphasized as the core of a systematic linkage between budgeting, program development, and planning.2 The federal government, while encouraging the early effort, had proclaimed it feasible only if applied across the board all agencies.3 But at that time such an approach tended encourage concentration of resources on the structuring of programs. Structural aspects for budget formats were the most familiar the existing staffs the state and local governments and accordingly structures were prepared or revised and extended further with little attention policy analysis.4 A few state and local governments favored from the outset a piecemeal approach, with concentration on analysis. The possible early showing of results lower costs or improved program encouraged piecemeal application. However, program analysis, even those governments, increasingly was focused on selected targets without relation an overall plan for assessment. Little more could have been done, given the limitations of staff and the amount of work required complete a reasonably good analysis. With targeted analyses as th main undertaking, the functions of the central staff essentially have become those of catalyst and r viewer with limited staff support governors, mayors, and elected county officials. In 1971, a new federal administration ended the earlier conceptual commitments comprehensive approaches5 and the submission of special analytical studies connection with the budget. Later, a sequential set of directives, management by objectives, technology assessment and productivity improvement, and inflationary impact statements replaced a systematic, comprehensive approach the assessment of options by in-depth policy Each action by the national government has been paralleled by the states and localities. What the federal government does influences the states and localities. But more than leadership has been applied. The federal government has bought into a set of state and local projects so numerous that it is hard recount them all designed one way or another improve information, research, technological advances, innovation, and management improvement. Many of the state and local governments are staffed for policy analysis and carry out analyses of one kind or another. In 1974, two out of every three states responding a survey by the National Association of State Budget Officers reported that they had central budget staffs that conducted program effectiveness analyses. In response the question on the use of analyses making executive budget decisions, 10 states reported use to a substantial degree and 28 others reported use to some degree. In addition, many operating agencies had units charged with the conduct of effectiveness or productivity analysis.6 A joint survey by the Urban Institute and the International City Management Association 1971 indicated that, of the 354 cities with populations over 50,000 and counties with populations over 100,000 that were included the inquiry, 16 per cent had central
Political science · State (computer science · Computer Science · Economic, financial, and policy analysis · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Public Administration
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,11 |
| Citation span | 1979 - 2015 (37) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |