• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Accountability Models in Policy Design: Understanding the Explanatory Power of the Four Major Accountability Models in Policy Tool Choices.
【24h】

Accountability Models in Policy Design: Understanding the Explanatory Power of the Four Major Accountability Models in Policy Tool Choices.

机译：政策设计中的责任制模型：了解政策工具选择中四种主要责任制模型的解释力。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In the study of government accountability, there have long been arguments about which model is superior. These arguments, which are largely made by those in the performance and political accountability camps, state that their particular model is the best, and indeed only legitimate approach to ensuring accountable government. At the same time, there is growing research in policy tools but little in how accountability models and policy tools are linked in policy design.;This study makes use of the context provided by the critical cases of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). With such large sums of money in play at a time of serious economic downturn and mounting federal deficits, government clearly has a responsibility to ensure accountability so that the public can be assured not only that its funds are being spent properly but also more generally, that accountability as well as policy tool choice is in the minds of officials as they formulate, adopt and implement public policy.;The intent of this study is to present an argument in two main areas using the critical case studies of TARP and ARRA. First, that no one accountability model fully explains most policy tool choices in TARP or ARRA and that the use of multiple models is superior. Second, that we can link policy tool choices and accountability models in policy design. The standards used to establish what models explain what tool choices are in the models themselves. Each policy is explored individually in a chapter, and the lessons and results of this study are then presented in the final chapter.;The data presented in this study indicate that a single-model approach may explain a few, but not most and certainly not all, policy tool choices in TARP and ARRA. Indeed, a multiple model approach proves superior to a single-model approach in all but a few instances. As for the connections between policy tools and accountability models, the data presented in this study show that they were strongly impacted by the policy formulation process itself, specifically the way in which the policy problem was framed and the speed with which it was undertaken.
机译：在政府问责制的研究中，一直存在关于哪种模式更好的争论。这些论点主要由绩效和政治责任营的人们提出，它们指出，他们的特定模式是确保问责制政府的最佳方法，而且实际上是唯一合法方法。同时，对政策工具的研究也在不断增长，但很少有问责制模型和政策工具如何在政策设计中联系起来。该研究利用了问题资产救助计划（TARP）的关键案例所提供的背景和美国复苏与再投资法案（ARRA）。在严重的经济衰退和不断增加的联邦赤字之际，如此庞大的资金发挥着作用，政府显然有责任确保问责制，以便使公众不仅可以放心其资金得到了合理使用，而且还可以更广泛地保证官员在制定，采用和实施公共政策时会考虑问责制以及政策工具的选择。本研究的目的是使用TARP和ARRA的关键案例研究在两个主要领域提出一个论点。首先，没有一个问责模型可以完全解释TARP或ARRA中大多数政策工具的选择，并且使用多个模型是优越的。第二，我们可以在策略设计中链接策略工具的选择和责任模型。用于建立哪些模型的标准解释了模型本身中的工具选择。在一章中分别探讨了每种策略，然后在最后一章中介绍了本研究的经验教训和结果；本研究中提供的数据表明，单一模型方法可能解释了一些，但不是大多数，当然也不能解释。所有这些都是TARP和ARRA中的策略工具选择。实际上，除了少数情况外，多模型方法被证明优于单模型方法。关于政策工具和问责模型之间的联系，本研究提供的数据表明，它们受到政策制定过程本身的强烈影响，特别是政策问题的构成方式和实施速度。

著录项

  • 作者

    Jarvis, David Seiler.;

  • 作者单位

    Portland State University.;

  • 授予单位 Portland State University.;
  • 学科 Public administration.;Public policy.;Political science.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2014
  • 页码 198 p.
  • 总页数 198
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号