So sánh phương pháp

	Policy Implementation Analysis	Administrative Burden Analysis
Lĩnh vực	Public Administration	Public Administration
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	1973	2015
Người khởi xướng	Jeffrey Pressman & Aaron Wildavsky	Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd & Hope Harvey
Loại	Process-tracing policy analysis	Cost-typology policy analysis
Công trình gốc	Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN: 9780520053311	Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69.
Tên gọi khác	Implementation Studies, Top-Down Implementation Analysis, Implementation Gap Analysis	Administrative Burden Assessment, Learning Psychological and Compliance Cost Analysis, Citizen-State Burden Analysis
Liên quan	4	4
Tóm tắt	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.	Administrative burden analysis examines the costs that individuals experience when they interact with the state to claim benefits, comply with obligations or access public services. Articulated by Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd and Hope Harvey in their influential 2015 article, the framework decomposes these costs into three types: learning costs of finding out about and understanding a program, psychological costs of stress and stigma, and compliance costs of the time, paperwork and effort required to participate. The central claim is that burdens are consequential — they suppress program take-up and access — and that they are often the product of political choices rather than mere administrative accident. The analysis makes these hidden costs visible and traces who bears them.