Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- 48 Laboratory Experiments
- 49 Compliance Experiments in the Field: Features, Limitations, and Examples
- 50 Naming and Shaming: Evidence from Event Studies
- 51 Validity Concerns about Self-Reported Surveys on Rule Compliance
- 52 Factorial Surveys and Crime Vignettes
- 53 Qualitative Methods and the Compliance Imagination
- 54 Policy Evaluation
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
54 - Policy Evaluation
from Part VIII - Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- 48 Laboratory Experiments
- 49 Compliance Experiments in the Field: Features, Limitations, and Examples
- 50 Naming and Shaming: Evidence from Event Studies
- 51 Validity Concerns about Self-Reported Surveys on Rule Compliance
- 52 Factorial Surveys and Crime Vignettes
- 53 Qualitative Methods and the Compliance Imagination
- 54 Policy Evaluation
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
Summary
Abstract: A key objective of policy evaluation is assessing the efficacy of public policies. When evaluating public policy, compliance is treated both as an indicator of policy effectiveness and as a necessary intermediary outcome for achieving policy goals. Given the importance of compliance within broader assessments of policy efficacy, scholars have dedicated substantial attention to identifying policy, individual, and organizational factors linked to policy compliance. This chapter discusses what is meant by compliance in the context of policy evaluation and ways that it can be measured therein. It also provides an overview of recent scholarship that addresses determinants of compliance as relevant for policy evaluation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 788 - 796Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Becker, Gary. 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 76, No. 2: 523–37.Google Scholar
Beratan, Kathi K. 2007. “A Cognition Based View of Decision Processes in Complex Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology & Society 12, No. 1: 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burby, Raymond J., and Paterson, Robert G.. 1993. “Improving Compliance with State Environmental Regulations.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12: 753–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin, Issacharoff, Samuel, Loewenstein, George, O’Donoghue, Ted, and Rabin, Matthew. 2003. “Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for Asymmetric Paternalism.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151, No. 3: 1211–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, David, and Siddiki, Saba. in press. “Participation Rationales, Regulatory Enforcement, and Compliance Motivations in a Voluntary Program Context.” Regulation & Governance.Google Scholar
Chetty, Raj. 2015. “Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective.” American Economic Review 105, No. 5: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Sue E. S., and Ostrom, Elinor. 1995. “A Grammar of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 89, No. 3: 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeCaro, Daniel. 2018. “Humanistic Rational Choice and Compliance Motivation in Complex Societal Dilemmas.” In Contextualizing Compliance in the Public Sector: Individual Motivations, Social Processes, and Institutional Design, edited by Siddiki, Saba, Espinosa, Salvador, and Heikkila, Tanya. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gunningham, Neil A., Kagan, Robert A., and Thornton, Dorothy. 2003. Shades of Green: Business, Regulation, and Environment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2002. “Outcomes-Based Performance Measurement in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness.” Public Administration Review 62, No. 6: 712–25.Google Scholar
Howlett, Michael, and Rayner, Jeremy. 2007. “Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements.’” Policy & Society 26, No. 4: 1–18.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, George, and Chater, Nick. 2017. “Putting Nudges in Perspective.” Behavioural Public Policy 1, No. 1: 26–53.Google Scholar
Madrian, Brigitte C. 2014. “Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design.” Annual Review of Economics 6: 663–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, Peter J., and Burby, Raymond J.. 1998. “Making Sense Out of Regulatory Enforcement.” Law & Policy 20, No. 2: 157–82.Google Scholar
May, Peter J., and Wood, Robert S.. 2003. “At the Regulatory Front Lines: Inspectors’ Enforcement Styles and Regulatory Compliance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13, No. 2: 117–39.Google Scholar
May, Peter J., Sapotichne, Joshua, and Workman, Samuel. 2006. “Policy Coherence and Policy Domains.” Policy Studies Journal 34, No. 2: 381–403.Google Scholar
Moffitt, T. E. 1993. “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100, No. 4: 674–701.Google Scholar
Ryan, Richard M., and Deci, Edward L.. 2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55, No. 1: 68–75.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul, and Mazmanian, Daniel. 1980. “The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework for Analysis.” Policy Studies Journal 8, No. 4: 538–60.Google Scholar
Sampson, Robert J., and Laub, John H.. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne, and Ingram, Helen. 1990. “Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools.” Journal of Politics 52, No. 2: 510–29.Google Scholar
Scholz, John T., and Gray, Wayne B.. 1997. “Can Government Facilitate Cooperation? An Informational Model of OSHA Enforcement.” American Journal of Political Science 41, No. 3: 693–717.Google Scholar
Siddiki, Saba. 2014. “Assessing Policy Design and Interpretation: An Institutions-Based Analysis in the Context of Aquaculture in Florida and Virginia, United States.”Review of Policy Research 31, No. 4: 281–303.Google Scholar
Siddiki, Saba. 2020. Understanding and Analyzing Public Policy Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siddiki, Saba, and Goel, Shilpi. 2017. “Assessing Collaborative Policymaking Outcomes: An Analysis of U.S. Marine Aquaculture Partnerships.” American Review of Public Administration 47, No. 2: 253–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddiki, Saba, Carley, Sanya, Zirogiannis, Nikolaos, Duncan, Denvil, and Graham, John. 2018. “Does Dynamic Federalism Yield Compatible Policies? A Study of the Designs of Federal and State Vehicle Policies.” Policy Design and Practice 1, No. 3: 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddiki, Saba, Espinosa, Salvador, and Hekkila, Tanya, eds. 2019. Contextualizing Compliance in the Public Sector: Individual Motivations, Social Processes, and Institutional Design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winter, Soren C., and May, Peter J.. 2001. “Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Regulations.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20, No. 4: 675–98.Google Scholar
Young, Oran. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar