Policy change in resources protection statutes for federal public lands: testing the punctuated equilibrium model

Abstract

The national government constitutes the largest land holder within the United States. Federal land holdings exceed one-third of the nation's land mass. Despite federal ownership, these land parcels are often managed in a disparate manner. Multiple policy mandates, competing agency missions, federalism dynamics, interest group prerogatives, and conflicting political agendas lead to policy confrontations. If sufficiently disruptive, these factors can result in policy instability, turbulence, and statutory change. Questions, however, have arisen over why the magnitude of change varies across issue arenas; and how certain factors absence, presence, or relative vigor affects policy change? Several models have been developed as a means of providing a robust explanation to these types of questions. Most intriguing among these, for purposes of this dissertation, is the punctuated equilibrium model of policy change. Preliminary testing of the model has exhibited positive explanatory results. In this dissertation the model is rigorously applied as a device for explaining change in federal statutory outputs. Three federal lands issue arenas are addressed: 1) concessioner operations, 2) coastal oil pollution, and 3) historic preservation. This analysis of the three case studies provides opportunities for testing the model's theoretical propositions as well as understanding the influences of policy change and stability in selected federal lands issue arenas. Findings suggest that while the model provides a robust mechanism for explaining policy change, revisions are needed. Primary in this regard is the need for addressing shortcomings associated with; 1) incorporation of a monopoly friendly nonincremental policy output pattern, 2) a more encompassing consideration of the role of policy entrepreneurs, 3) policy outputs associated with the prolonged absence of an issue monopoly, and 4) the role of dramatic events as agents of policy change. Case study analysis also disclosed two major policy implications. First, was the discovery that the policy perspectives of federal land managers is often at odds with their statutorily defined resources protection mandates. Second, was the discovery that economic concerns continue to conflict with resources protection preferences, within the policy arena, despite recent attempts to fashion win-win policy outputs.