000			01619nam a22001577a 4500
999			_c517078 _d517078
008			210630b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aFowler, Luke _926057
245			_aGovernance, federalism and organizing institutions to manage complex problems
260			_aPublic Administration: An International Quarterly
300			_a98(3), Sep, 2020: p.713-729
520			_aIn managing complex policy problems in the federal system, state and local governments are organized into different arrangements for translating policy goals into policy outcomes. Air quality management is used as a test case to understand these variations and their impact on policy outcomes. With data from Clean Air Act implementation plans and a survey of state and local air quality managers, five separate institutional designs are identified: (1) central agencies; (2) top-down; (3) donor–recipient; (4) regional agencies; and (5) emergent governance. Findings indicate that some arrangements (donor–recipient and emergent governance) result in notably better air quality than others (central agencies, top-down). Specifically, when designed to allow bargaining between state and local officials, intergovernmental management is still the most effective approach to complex policy problems; but, in absence of this, conventional federalism arrangements are less effective than public agencies self-organizing around shared policy goals. Reproduced
650			_aPolicy goals, Air quality management, Federalism, _926058
773			_aPublic Administration: An International Quarterly
906			_aPUBLIC POLICY
942			_cAR