The institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution in the federal government

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article uses resource dependence and institutional theory to examine the implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996. The insights from these theories are employed to explain the diffusion of and variation in the application of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to different programmatic areas. Although agencies have generally complied with the direct requirements of the acts, their intent has not been fully realized. Several factors have complicated the implementation of the ADR Acts, prompting agencies to take different strategic approaches to the application of ADR in programmatic areas. In general, agencies have acquiesced to the use of ADR in employment disputes, compromised on ADR use in contracting and procurement disputes, and avoided ADR use in civil enforcement disputes. Finally, this article evaluates progress toward impact evaluations of the ADR Acts and suggests directions for future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)646-661
Number of pages16
JournalPublic Administration Review
Volume67
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

institutionalization
Federal Government
act
Institutionalization
Federal government
Alternative dispute resolution
evaluation
resources
Dispute

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Cite this

The institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution in the federal government. / Nabatchi, Tina.

In: Public Administration Review, Vol. 67, No. 4, 07.2007, p. 646-661.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e7d746a4466c4631bb0b55d97eec4f91,
title = "The institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution in the federal government",
abstract = "This article uses resource dependence and institutional theory to examine the implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996. The insights from these theories are employed to explain the diffusion of and variation in the application of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to different programmatic areas. Although agencies have generally complied with the direct requirements of the acts, their intent has not been fully realized. Several factors have complicated the implementation of the ADR Acts, prompting agencies to take different strategic approaches to the application of ADR in programmatic areas. In general, agencies have acquiesced to the use of ADR in employment disputes, compromised on ADR use in contracting and procurement disputes, and avoided ADR use in civil enforcement disputes. Finally, this article evaluates progress toward impact evaluations of the ADR Acts and suggests directions for future research.",
author = "Tina Nabatchi",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00750.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "646--661",
journal = "Public Administration Review",
issn = "0033-3352",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution in the federal government

AU - Nabatchi, Tina

PY - 2007/7

Y1 - 2007/7

N2 - This article uses resource dependence and institutional theory to examine the implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996. The insights from these theories are employed to explain the diffusion of and variation in the application of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to different programmatic areas. Although agencies have generally complied with the direct requirements of the acts, their intent has not been fully realized. Several factors have complicated the implementation of the ADR Acts, prompting agencies to take different strategic approaches to the application of ADR in programmatic areas. In general, agencies have acquiesced to the use of ADR in employment disputes, compromised on ADR use in contracting and procurement disputes, and avoided ADR use in civil enforcement disputes. Finally, this article evaluates progress toward impact evaluations of the ADR Acts and suggests directions for future research.

AB - This article uses resource dependence and institutional theory to examine the implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996. The insights from these theories are employed to explain the diffusion of and variation in the application of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to different programmatic areas. Although agencies have generally complied with the direct requirements of the acts, their intent has not been fully realized. Several factors have complicated the implementation of the ADR Acts, prompting agencies to take different strategic approaches to the application of ADR in programmatic areas. In general, agencies have acquiesced to the use of ADR in employment disputes, compromised on ADR use in contracting and procurement disputes, and avoided ADR use in civil enforcement disputes. Finally, this article evaluates progress toward impact evaluations of the ADR Acts and suggests directions for future research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250160952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250160952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00750.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00750.x

M3 - Article

VL - 67

SP - 646

EP - 661

JO - Public Administration Review

JF - Public Administration Review

SN - 0033-3352

IS - 4

ER -