Vertaile menetelmiä

	Comparative Public Administration	Policy Implementation Analysis
Tieteenala	Public Administration	Public Administration
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	1964	1973
Kehittäjä	Fred W. Riggs	Jeffrey Pressman & Aaron Wildavsky
Tyyppi	Cross-system comparative analysis	Process-tracing policy analysis
Alkuperäislähde	Riggs, F. W. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN: 9780395067352	Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN: 9780520053311
Rinnakkaisnimet	Comparative Administrative Analysis, Cross-National Public Administration Study, Comparative Bureaucracy Analysis	Implementation Studies, Top-Down Implementation Analysis, Implementation Gap Analysis
Liittyvät	4	4
Tiivistelmä	Comparative public administration is the systematic study of administrative systems across countries, regions or historical periods in order to explain similarities and differences in how states organise and run their bureaucracies. Fred Riggs, a pioneer of the field, argued in his 1964 Theory of Prismatic Society that administration cannot be understood apart from its ecological context — the social, economic, political and cultural environment in which it is embedded. The method compares administrative structures, behaviours and performance while situating each case in its setting, guarding against the assumption that arrangements which work in one country will transfer to another. Its purpose is to build generalisable knowledge about administration that is sensitive to context rather than ethnocentric.	Policy implementation analysis studies what happens between the moment a policy is decided and the moment it reaches its intended effect, asking why outcomes so often fall short of stated objectives. The field was founded by Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky's 1973 study of a federal employment program in Oakland, which showed how a long chain of required agreements and clearances steadily eroded great expectations. The method traces the implementation chain — the actors, decision points and conditions through which a policy must pass — to locate where and why it succeeds or fails. Its central object is the implementation gap between policy as legislated and policy as delivered.