Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linking throughput and output legitimacy in Swiss forest policy implementation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Policy scholars typically assume that implementing actors should follow democratically decided rules in linear, predictable ways. However, this assumption does not factor in the operational challenges and multiple accountability relations facing policy implementers in contemporary, hybrid policy implementation settings. Shifting the focus to throughput (governance process) and output legitimacy (results), this paper explores how throughput dimensions affect the implementation of policy outputs. We study a hybrid policy—the Swiss Forest Policy 2020—in a federalist, multi-level implementation context. We find that accountability dilemmas have negative consequences for output implementation, particularly when professionalism clashes with rules. Accountability dilemmas are exacerbated by policy incoherence and interact with policy ambiguity. However, high issue salience can partially compensate for the negative effects of these factors. In sum, we highlight how the role of implementing actors in democratic countries goes beyond rule-following: accountability relations and other throughput dimensions crucially affect output legitimacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Source: Adapted from Wilkes-Allemann et al. 2017

Fig. 2

Source: Adapted from Wilkes-Allemann et al. 2017

Fig. 3

Source: Adapted from Wilkes-Allemann et al. 2017

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We discuss goal 9 below; here the outputs for the public actors are on-track (Fig. 2).

References

  • Baier, V. E., March, J. B., & Saetren, H. (1994). Implementation and ambiguity. In Public sector management, theory, critique and practice. Londo (pp. 160–170). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Blatter, J., & Blume, T. (2008). In search of co-variance, causal mechanisms or congruence? Towards a plural understanding of case studies. Swiss Political Science Review, 14, 315–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (2014). The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E. Z. (2008). Accountability in street-level organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 317–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in US federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, N., & Gershgoren, S. (2016). The incentives of street-level bureaucrats and inequality in tax assessments. Administration and Society, 48(3), 267–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleon, L. (1998). Accountability in a ‘Reinvented’ Government. Public Administration, 76(3), 539–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, J. J., & Maynard-Moody, S. (2006). For-profit welfare: contracts, conflicts, and the performance paradox. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 189–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S., & Haider-Markel, D. (2017). Beyond profiling: The institutional sources of racial disparities in policing. Public Administration Review, 77(2), 168–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, N. D. (2000). Introduction: Transparency in public policy. In Transparency in public policy (pp. 1–9). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • FOEN (2013). Forest Policy 2020. Visions, goals and measures for the sustainable management of forests in Switzerland. Bern: Federal Office for the Environment.

  • Geeraert, A. (2014). New EU governance modes in professional sport: enhancing throughput legitimacy. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 10(3), 302–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, J. D., Knoepfel, P., Nahrath, S., & Varone, F. (2009). Institutional Resource Regimes: Towards sustainability through the combination of property-rights theory and policy analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 798–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2014). After the “master theory”: Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy-focused analysis. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 643–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A. (2003). Composite democracy in Europe: The role of transparency and access to information. Journal of European public policy, 10(5), 814–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A. (2016). Rigour versus relevance? Methodological discussions in political science. PVS Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 57(1), 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Globalization and governance capacity: Explaining divergence in national forest programmes as instances of “next-generation” regulation in Canada and Europe. Governance, 19, 251–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., & Shipan, C. (2002). Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B. L., Weindl, I., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., et al. (2018). Large-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environmental Research Letters, 13(2), 024011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P. L., & Hill, M. J. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, J. (2016). Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: the process of initiating a National Forest Program. Forest Policy and Economics, 70, 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, J. (2018). Collaborative governance for sustainable forestry in the emerging bio-based economy in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (2015). Implementation. In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European union: Power and policy-making (pp. 371–397). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2011). Public policy analysis. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberherr, E. (2016). Trade-offs and synergies: Horizontalization and legitimacy in the Swiss wastewater sector. Public Management Review, 18(3), 456–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberherr, E., & Thomann, E. (2019). Incorporating accountability beyond hierarchy. In P. Hupe (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy (pp. 223–239). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J. (2015). Implementation failures revisited: Policy regime perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 277–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengistie, B. T., Mol, A. P., Oosterveer, P., & Simane, B. (2015). Information, motivation and resources: The missing elements in agricultural pesticide policy implementation in Ethiopia. International journal of agricultural sustainability, 13(3), 240–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newig, J., & Koontz, T. M. (2014). Multi-level governance, policy implementation and participation: The EU’s mandated participatory planning approach to implementing environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(2), 248–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, K., Riechsteiner, D., Thees, O., & Lemm, R. (2004). Reorganisation of wood production for improved performance: a Swiss forest district case study. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(2), 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. (2009). Reinventing governance, reinventing democracy? Policy and Politics, 37(4), 591–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T., & Kleine, M. (2007). Assessing the legitimacy of the EU’s treaty revision methods. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(1), 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B. (2014). Human well-being and the lost relevance of political science. Max Weber Lecture No. 2014/03. Florence: European University Institute.

  • Sager, F., Ingold, K. M., & Balthasar, A. (2017). Policy-Analyse in der Schweiz-Besonderheiten, Theorien, Beispiele. Zürich: NZZ Libro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., van der Heiden, N., & Mavrot, C. (2014). Street-level bureaucrats and new modes of governance—How conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss ordinance on veterinary medicinal products. Public Management Review, 16(4), 481–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic?. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, T., Lieberherr, E., & Zabel, A. (2018). Network governance in national Swiss forest policy: Balancing effectiveness and legitimacy. Forest Policy and Economics, 89, 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevä, M., & Jagers, S. C. (2013). Inspecting environmental management from within: The role of street-level bureaucrats in environmental policy implementation. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 1060–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spendzharova, A., & Versluis, E. (2013). Issue salience in the European policy process: What impact on transposition? Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10), 1499–1516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strebel, M. A., Kübler, D., & Marcinkowski, F. (2019). The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population-based survey experiment in four West European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 488–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, E. (2019). Customized implementation of European Union food safety policy: United in diversity?. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, International Series on Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, E., Hupe, P., & Sager, F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance, 31(2), 299–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, E., Lieberherr, E., & Ingold, K. (2016). Torn between state and market: Private policy implementation and conflicting institutional logics. Policy and Society, 35(1), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017). Hybridity in action: Accountability dilemmas of public and for-profit food safety inspectors in Switzerland. In Paul Verbruggen & Tetty Havinga (Eds.), Hybridization of food governance: Trends, types and results (pp. 100–120). Cheltenham and Massachusetts: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tummers, L., Vermeeren, B., Steijn, B., & Bekkers, V. (2012). Public professionals and policy implementation: Conceptualizing and measuring three types of role conflicts. Public Management Review, 14(8), 1041–1059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meerkerk, I., Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2015). Connective management and governance network performance: the mediating role of throughput legitimacy. Findings from survey research on complex water projects in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(4), 746–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Versluis, E. (2003). Enforcement matters: Enforcement and compliance of European directives in four member states. Delft: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes-Allemann, J., Steinmann, K., Zabel, A., & Lieberherr, E. (2017). Zwischenbericht 2016 zur Waldpolitik 2020. Report (PDF, 10.8 MB) for the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).

  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed., Vol. 319). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabel, A., & Lieberherr, E. (2016). Weiterentwicklung der « Waldpolitik 2020 » aus Sicht der Schweizer Waldstakeholder. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 167(4), 221–228.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank three reviewers for the in-depth and highly constructive reviews, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, Forestry Division, for partially funding this research and finally for the constructive feedback that this manuscript received at the ECPR joint sessions panel “Accountability and Reputation” in Nicosia (2018).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Natural Resource Policy Group, Institute for Environmental Decisions, Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Eva Lieberherr

  2. Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK

    Eva Thomann

Authors
  1. Eva Lieberherr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Thomann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Lieberherr.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

List of actors surveyed

Public administrative actors (federal and subnational public level)

Federal Office for the Environment

Aargau

Appenzell Ausserrhoden

Appenzell Innerrhoden

Basel-Landschaft

Basel-Stadt

Bern

Fribourg

Genf

Glarus

Graubünden

Jura

Luzern

Neuenburg

Nidwalden

Obwalden

St. Gallen

Schaffhausen

Schwyz

Solothurn

Thurgau

Tessin

Uri

Waadt

Wallis

Zug

Zürich

Conference of cantonal foresters

Private actors

Forestry sector

Swiss forest economy association (forest owners)

Swiss forest manager association

Swiss forest employee association

Wood sector

Lignum Swiss wood economy association

Swiss wood energy

Swiss timber

Swiss wood industry

Swiss carpentry master and furniture producer association

Agricultural sector

Conference of agricultural offices

Environmental sector

Pro Natura

Research and education

WSL—Swiss federal institute for forest, snow and landscape

HAFL—Bern university of applied sciences, school of agriculture, forest and food sciencesa

Forestry school Lyssa

Further education forest and landscape

Leisure and recreation

Swiss hunter associationa

Swiss tourism association

Additional associations and organizations

Swiss forestry association

Insurance

Swiss insurance associationa

Suva—Swiss National Accident Insurance

Transport

Association of road traffic offices

  1. aSent survey, but no response

Appendix 2

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e
figure f
figure g
figure h
figure i
figure j

Appendix 3

figure k
figure l
figure m

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lieberherr, E., Thomann, E. Linking throughput and output legitimacy in Swiss forest policy implementation. Policy Sci 53, 495–533 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09374-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09374-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation