How does the dominant stakeholder strategically manage an innovative public policy? Evidence from the London congestion charge

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Financial Accountability & Management Pub Date : 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1111/faam.12380
Jason C. Chen, Robin W. Roberts
{"title":"How does the dominant stakeholder strategically manage an innovative public policy? Evidence from the London congestion charge","authors":"Jason C. Chen,&nbsp;Robin W. Roberts","doi":"10.1111/faam.12380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Prior studies have examined various economic, environmental, and social impacts of the London congestion charge (LCC). However, few studies have investigated <i>how</i> the Transport for London (TfL) managed the LCC in all stages of its policy. Without active, strategic management of policies, stakeholders affected may doubt the policies’ legitimacy and reduce policy effectiveness. Thus, examining the means utilized to achieve effective policy management is critical and can potentially influence the development and management of future policies. This study adapts Mitchell et al.’s stakeholder typology to study <i>how</i> the TfL, as part of the management of, and as the dominant stakeholder in, environmental regulations in London, strategically managed the LCC via their own efforts to exert power, establish legitimacy, and claim urgency. Relying on Yin, we analyze publicly available data to show how the TfL actively managed the LCC to ensure its sustainability as policy. The TfL primarily used tactics to maintain and enhance the LCC's legitimacy with authoritative power and fears of unproven urgency to influence other stakeholders. Results have practical implications for policymakers contemplating policy reforms and shed additional light on less-discussed latent factors regarding policy management. This study contributes to the literature by applying stakeholder theory to the domain of policy reform, administration, and management. Our findings have policy implications as policymakers may benefit from learning the tactics examined in this study to assess their policy management and administration. Lastly, through our discussion and conclusions, we reflect on our findings to encourage research on policy management.</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":"40 4","pages":"409-434"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12380","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prior studies have examined various economic, environmental, and social impacts of the London congestion charge (LCC). However, few studies have investigated how the Transport for London (TfL) managed the LCC in all stages of its policy. Without active, strategic management of policies, stakeholders affected may doubt the policies’ legitimacy and reduce policy effectiveness. Thus, examining the means utilized to achieve effective policy management is critical and can potentially influence the development and management of future policies. This study adapts Mitchell et al.’s stakeholder typology to study how the TfL, as part of the management of, and as the dominant stakeholder in, environmental regulations in London, strategically managed the LCC via their own efforts to exert power, establish legitimacy, and claim urgency. Relying on Yin, we analyze publicly available data to show how the TfL actively managed the LCC to ensure its sustainability as policy. The TfL primarily used tactics to maintain and enhance the LCC's legitimacy with authoritative power and fears of unproven urgency to influence other stakeholders. Results have practical implications for policymakers contemplating policy reforms and shed additional light on less-discussed latent factors regarding policy management. This study contributes to the literature by applying stakeholder theory to the domain of policy reform, administration, and management. Our findings have policy implications as policymakers may benefit from learning the tactics examined in this study to assess their policy management and administration. Lastly, through our discussion and conclusions, we reflect on our findings to encourage research on policy management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
占主导地位的利益相关者如何对创新性公共政策进行战略管理?伦敦交通拥堵费的证据
之前的研究已经考察了伦敦交通拥堵费(LCC)对经济、环境和社会的各种影响。然而,很少有研究调查伦敦交通局(TfL)是如何在其政策的各个阶段管理伦敦拥堵费的。如果不对政策进行积极的战略管理,受影响的利益相关者可能会怀疑政策的合法性并降低政策的有效性。因此,研究实现有效政策管理的手段至关重要,并可能影响未来政策的制定和管理。本研究对米切尔等人的利益相关者类型学进行了调整,以研究伦敦交通管理局作为伦敦环境法规管理的一部分和主要利益相关者,是如何通过自身的努力来施加权力、建立合法性和主张紧迫性,从而对伦敦交通委员会进行战略性管理的。根据殷氏的观点,我们分析了可公开获得的数据,以说明伦敦交通局是如何积极管理 LCC 以确保其作为政策的可持续性的。TfL主要利用权威性权力来维护和加强LCC的合法性,并利用未经证实的紧迫性来影响其他利益相关者。研究结果对考虑政策改革的政策制定者具有实际意义,并进一步揭示了政策管理中鲜为人知的潜在因素。本研究将利益相关者理论应用于政策改革、行政和管理领域,为相关文献做出了贡献。我们的研究结果具有政策意义,因为政策制定者可以通过学习本研究中考察的策略来评估他们的政策管理和行政工作。最后,通过讨论和结论,我们对研究结果进行了反思,以鼓励政策管理方面的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Environmental reporting in public sector organizations: A review of literature for the future paths of research Unfolding crowd‐based accountability of a charity fund during the war Tribute for Irvine Lapsley Making sense of climate change in central government annual reports and accounts: A comparative case study between the United Kingdom and Norway
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1