Search

Pressman and Wildavsky's (1973) popular view that government policy becomes ineffectual in the face of local exigencies is questioned. In contrast, using a case study of government policy on methadone treatment for heroin addiction, we show that federal decision making has profound impact even at microsociological levels of clinic life. A model drawn from organizations theory is developed to explain the efficacy of federal action. Policy is seen often to embody conflicting or contradictory demands due to governmental agencies' attempts to coopt or placate interests hostile to new policy directions. Governmental monopsony ensures that competing local agencies acquiesce to the details of federal intentions. But internal contradictions in policies limit or undermine local agencies' resources for gaining compliance from their clientele. Thus compromised policies, effectively translated by federal regulation into local practice, result in dysfunctional adaptations by clients, and the policies "fail."