LocalGovernmentCompliancewithStatePlanningMandates.pdf

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20

Journal of the American Planning Association
ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Local Government Compliance with State Planning
Mandates: The Effects of State Implementation in
Florida

Robert E. Deyle & Richard A. Smith

To cite this article: Robert E. Deyle & Richard A. Smith (1998) Local Government Compliance with
State Planning Mandates: The Effects of State Implementation in Florida, Journal of the American
Planning Association, 64:4, 457-469, DOI: 10.1080/01944369808976004

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808976004

Published online: 26 Nov 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 293

View related articles

Citing articles: 73 View citing articles

Deyle, Robert E., & Smith, Richard A. (1998). Local government compliance with
state planning mandates: The effects of state implementation in Florida. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 64(4), 457-469. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/229720324?pq-
origsite=summon

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01944369808976004

https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808976004

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjpa20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rjpa20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01944369808976004

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/01944369808976004

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/01944369808976004#tabModule

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/01944369808976004#tabModule

State planning mandates have been
used to achieve state policy objectives
through the local planning process.
Recent research has shown that plan
quality is higher both in states with
mandates for local planning and in
those where state authority to review
local plans and enforce mandates is
greater. Florida is generally considered
to be among the strongest ofthe man-
date states. We examine the extent to
which eighteen Florida communities
comply with state mandates about
coastal storm hazards. Compliance
with the mandate requirements is
highly variable-greater with some
mandates than with others; and within
mandate categories, local plans vary
substantially in compliance. In examin-
ing why this variability occurs, we test
two sets o f factors: the interpretation
and enforcement o f the mandates by
the state agency charged with their ad-
ministration, and local community
conditions. We find evidence that
much o f the variation in compliance is
attributable to how the planning man-
date was implemented by the State
Department o f Community Affairs.
We show that the state agency has em-
phasized some mandate requirements
over others, and not necessarily con-
sistently over time or across different
sub-units o f the agency. We also find
weak evidence that some local condi-
tions may have influenced plan con-
tent in cases where the state agency
did not strictly enforce the mandate.
We conclude that the extent to which
storm hazard planning is included in
local plans cannot be attributed solely
to the content o f the state’s planning
mandate. Our findings have implica-
tions for how the effectiveness o f state
planning mandates should be mea-
sured and interpreted.

Deyle is an associate professor in the
Department o f Urban and Regional
Planning, Florida State University. His
research interests are organizational
decision-making in environmental
planning and natural resources man-
agement. Smith i s a professor in the
Department o f Urban and Regional
Planning, Florida State University. His
research interests are urban growth
processes and their effects, including
the relationships between growth and
coastal storm hazards.

Journal ofthe American Planning
Association, Vol. 64, No. 4, Autumn
1998. OArnerican Planning
Association, Chicago, IL.

Local Government
Compliance with
Stat; Planning
Mandates
The Effects o f s t a t e

~ I i n p k m e n t a h o n in Florida
I

L

I Robert E. Deyle and Richard A. Smith

lorida is one of several states that have used planning mandates to
prod local governments to address policy issues of importance to the F state (DeGrove 1992). Typically, such mandates direct local govern-

ments to prepare various plans for housing, transportation, and land, to
guide local decision-making and development. Local implementation of
such programs is neither easy nor automatic, however (May and Williams
1986). Most state planning mandates obligate the community only to
address a particular set of issues, without specifying in detail how they
are to be resolved. This flexibility “entails an act of faith on the part of
the superior governmental unit that its policy goals will be achieved”
(Burby and Dalton 1994, 235). The obvious question, then, is whether
planning mandates are effective devices for producing plans and policies
at the local level that accomplish the goals of higher-level governments.
The question is especially critical where the policy issues of concern to
the state have very low salience to local governments.

Planning for natural hazards is an issue domain for which the prior-
ities of local and higher-level governments notoriously diverge (Rossi,
Wright, and Weber-Burdin 1982; May and Williams 1986; Cigler, Stiftel,
and Burby 1987; Godschalk, Brower, and Beatley 1989; Berke and Beatley
1993). Several studies, which were based on a comparative survey directed
by planning scholar Raymond Burby of the natural hazards elements of
local plans in five states, provide evidence that planning mandates can
influence the content of local plans and that stronger mandates, backed
by statutory authority to review local plans and sanction communities
for noncompliance, are associated with higher quality plans (see espe-

APA JOURNAL=AUTUMN 1998 /457

ROBERT E. DEYLE AND RICHARD A. SMITH

cially Berke and French 1994; Burby and Dalton 1994;
Dalton and Burby 1994; Berke et al. 1996).

Findings from that comparative state survey, plus
other research that contrasts planning outcomes in ju-
risdictions governed by coercive state-local planning
processes with those from collaborative processes,
have led researchers to conclude that strong oversight
and sanctions are required to motivate lower-level gov-
ernments to pursue desired state policies when the
two levels of government disagree o n policy goals and
objectives (May and Burby 1996; May et al. 1996). Flor-
ida’s state planning mandate is frequently charac-
terized as one of the most coercive because of
the substantial review powers granted to the agency
that administers the mandate, and the ability of the
state to impose heavy fiscal sanctions against non-
complying communities (Bollens 1992; Innes 1992;
Berke and French 1994; Burby and Dalton 1994; May
et al. 1996).

The conclusions of these comparative studies in-
spired us to extend some earlier work we had done to
analyze the effectiveness of the mandates that govern
local planning for coastal storm hazards in Florida
(Deyle and Smith 1994). We were stimulated in part
by noting the limited explanatory power of the com-
parative studies, and also by the substantial variation
we had found in the extent to which local communi-
ties followed Florida’s planning mandates. These
findings suggested that other factors besides the attri-
butes of a state’s planning mandate may significantly
influence the content of local plans.

In this study, a detailed analysis of eighteen
county and city comprehensive plans from the coastal
area of Florida explores hypotheses about the varied
responses of communities to the mandate contained
in the state’s 1985 Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act. We assess the compliance of local plans
with GO individual state requirements pertinent to
coastal storm hazards, from among several hundred
requirements in the regulations that govern local plan
preparation. Our analysis examines the impacts of
both the manner in which the state land planning
agency, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
has implemented the statutory mandate, and the local
conditions the communities face.

There are two levels at which plan content can be
analyzed: (1) the threshold question of what issues a
plan addresses and (2) the more complex question of
how a community addresses specific planning issues
in its data analysis, goals, objectives, and policies. Our
analysis of the coastal storm hazard portion of plans
produced in Florida investigates only the first ques-
tion. Our findings are evidence of the influence of the
agency’s implementation process on the extent to

APA JOURNAL.AUTUMN 1998

which state mandates are complied with and, there-
fore, on the ultimate content of local comprehensive
plans. We also find some evidence that local condi-
tions may affect whether plans address certain issues
in cases where the state does not enforce the man-
date strictly.

The Peculiar Challenge of Natural
Hazards Planning

State and federal governments usually shoulder a
substantial proportion of the costs of responding to
and recovering from natural disasters. In many recent,
presidentially declared disasters, the federal govern-
ment has assumed 90 or 100 percent of these costs
rather than the 75 percent minimum set forth in the
Stafford Act, which governs federal disaster assistance.
States such as Florida have often covered the nonfed-
era1 share of disaster assistance for local governments.
Both federal and state governments, therefore, have a
substantial stake in reducing the risks from natural
hazards and have pursued various means of encourag-
ing local governments to take mitigative actions. For
a number of reasons, however, local governments do
not show much interest in mitigating natural haz-
ards, and especially not through land use planning and
development management (Olshansky and Kartez
1998):

. . . [Tlhere is no public constituency, costs are
immediate and benefits uncertain, benefits may
not occur during the tenure of current elected
officials, public safety is not visible, and other
public issues are more immediate. (181)

Local governments tend instead to focus o n emer-
gency response. Thus, in the case of coastal storms,
which are the natural hazard of greatest concern in
Florida, what planning was done historically has cen-
tered on evacuation and sheltering. To the extent that
mitigation was pursued by local governments, it fo-
cused on altering the environment (building seawalls,
protecting sand dunes) or strengthening the built en-
vironment (more stringent building codes), rather
than on altering land use types or intensities in haz-
ardous areas. This context, then, is one where the
interests of the local and the higher levels of govern-
ment diverge significantly, and where a planning man-
date may be effective for accomplishing state policy
objectives.

The Effectiveness of Planning
Mandates

Burby and his colleagues conducted several analy-
ses of the effects of state planning mandates, using

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING MANDATES

data from a comparative study of the natural hazards
components of local plans produced in five states-
California, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Wash-
ington (Berke and French 1994; Burby and Dalton
1994; Dalton and Burby 1994; Berke et al. 1996). All
four analyses demonstrated that the presence of a
state mandate significantly influenced the hazard
planning components of local plans, and that the
stronger mandates had more effect. However, the
plans analyzed in these studies scored relatively low on
the scales used in each study to measure plan quality.’
In the Berke and French study, for example, mean
scores (on a scale of 0 to 1) for the inclusion of hazards
goals ranged from 0.30 to 0.38 for communities plan-
ning under state mandates in California, Florida, and
the coastal region of North Carolina. The highest
mean score by state on Burby and Dalton’s 5-point
index of plan quality was 1.6 for communities in
Florida.

Besides the relatively low scores, these studies
showed high variation in quality among the plans pro-
duced under mandates. Thus, for example, the stan-
dard deviations of the plan quality scores shown by
Berke et al. were generally higher for the mandated
communities than for the non-mandated communi-
ties. This variation is also reflected in the relatively low
explanatory power of the multivariate models used to
explain plan content-adjusted R2 values ranged from
0.22 to 0.40 in Burby and Dalton, and from 0.19 to
0.28 for non-mandate and mandate localities, respec-
tively, in Berke et al.

These results strongly suggest that other factors
beyond the legal content of the state planning mandate are at
work. If mandates are truly effective, local plans, at a
minimum, should address the specific issues detailed
in the state planning mandate. That is the focus of our
analysis of local governments’ compliance with Flori-
da’s planning mandates o n coastal storm hazards. In
the following sections we briefly characterize Florida’s
planning mandate, describe the compliance patterns
of the local plans we reviewed, and then define and
analyze several hypotheses in an attempt to explain
these patterns.

Florida’s Coastal Hazard Planning
Mandate

Florida’s planning mandate, which derives from
the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning
Act (Chapter 163, Florida Statutes), specifies that all
cities and counties must prepare and adopt local com-
prehensive plans and have them approved by the state
Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The plan-
ning mandate is both broad and detailed. Plans are

required to include eight major elements: (1) capital
improvements; (2) future land use; (3) traffic circula-
tion; (4) sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable
water, and aquifer recharge; (5) conservation of natu-
ral resources; (6) recreation and open space; (7) hous-
ing; and (8) intergovernmental coordination. In
addition, all coastal communities are required to com-
plete a coastal management element that addresses
ten separate planning objectives, two of which spe-
cifically concern coastal storm hazards.

Administrative regulations adopted by DCA
(Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code) detail the
specific issues each plan must address with individual
goals, objectives, and policies. (Figure 1 lists the 60 in-
dividual 9J-5 mandates concerned with coastal storm
hazards.) The specific content of the goals, objectives,
and policies, however, is not specified. Thus communi-
ties are free to choose how to meet each mandate in
their individual plans.

Local governments were required to submit their
draft plans to DCA for review according to a schedule
that spanned four years: 1988-1991. DCA reviewed
the plans in two stages. Teams of planners conducted
line-by-line reviews of the draft plans against the ad-
ministrative requirements. They itemized each plan’s
deficiencies and made suggestions for revisions. The
review teams’ recommendations were themselves re-
viewed, and often amended, by senior staff in the
agency. Jurisdictions then had 60 days to revise and
adopt their comprehensive plans, after which DCA
conducted a “compliance” review. The formal decision
to find the plan in compliance, and if appropriate, to
impose sanctions for noncompliance, was then made
by the State Administration Commission, consisting
of the Governor and the Cabinet.

How Have Florida’s Communities
Complied with the State’s
Mandates?

We evaluated compliance with the mandates listed
in figure 1 by reviewing the coastal elements of the
final, state-approved comprehensive plans prepared by
nine counties and nine cities across the state: Jackson-
ville Beach, Jacksonville-Duval County, St. Augustine,
Flagler County, Palm Bay, Brevard County, West Palm
Beach, Palm Beach County, Key West, Monroe County,
Cape Coral, Lee County, the City of Sarasota, Sarasota
County, Apalachicola, Franklin County, Panama City
Beach, Bay County. We selected the jurisdictions to
provide a representative sample of communities, with
a balance of different local conditions that might be
expected to influence the content of plan elements
concerned with coastal hazards. We used the following

APA JOURNAL-AUTUMN 1998

R O B E R T E. DEYL13 AND IUCHAKII A. StvlITH

I. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS MANDATES
A. Inventory of Existing Land Uses within the Coastal Area (FAC

9J5.012(2)(a))
1. existing land uses
2. conflicts among shoreline uses
3. need for waterdependenl sites
4. areas in need of redevelopment
5 . economic base in relation to future land use element
6. maps showing existing land use and waterdependent uses

B. Hurricane Evacuation Planning Inventory and Analysis (FAC
9JS.O12(2)(cXI)) [aU evacuation]
1. hurricane vulnerability zone
2. number of persons requiring evacuation
3. number of persons requiring public shelter
4. number of shelter spaces available
5 . evacuation routes
6. transportation and hazard constraints on evacuation routes
7. evacuation times
8. impact on evacuation from anticipated population density
9. impact on evacuation from special needs of the elderly,

10. analysis of local government measures to maintainlreduce

C . H a r d MiligOriOn and Post-Disaster Redevelopment Inventory
and Analysis (FAC 9J5.012(2)(@(21 and (3))

handicapped. and hospitalized

evacuation times

1. identify coastal high-hazard area (CHHA) [hazard

2. existing and proposed land use in CHHA [hazard

3. Structures with history of repeated damage [post-storm

4. coastal/shore protection structures [bazard mitigation]
5 . measures to reduce exposure through relocation [post-

6. measures to reduce exposure through structurai

7. measures to reduce exposure through public acquisition

mitigation]

mitigation]

redevelopment]

storm redevelopment]

modification [post-storm redevelopment]

[post-storm redevelopment]
D. Beach and Dune Qsrern Inventory and Analysis ( F A C

9J5.012(2)(~)(2) and (0) [all beach and dune systems]
1. beach and dune coditions
2. past trends in erosion and accretion
3. effects of shore protection structures
4. existing/potential beach renourishment areas
5 . measures that could protecthestore dunes

E. Coastal Infrastructure Inventory and AMlySiS ( F A C
9J5.012(2)(e)(2),(3), and (h)) [aU coastal infrastructure]
1. infrashucture in CHHA
2. potential for relocating threatened infrastructure
3. demand, capacity, and area served
4. future needs for facilities
5 . funding sourceslphasing in of needed improvements

11. GOALS, OBJECTIVES. AND POLICIES MANDATES
A. Gwls (FAC 91-5.012(3)(a))

I . restricting development activities that damagddestroy

2. protecting human life [evacuation; hazard mitigation;

3. limiting public expenditures in areas subject to destruction

coastal resources [beach and dune system]

post-stom redevelopment]

[coastal infrastructure]
B. Objectives (FAC 9J-S.O12(3)(b))

1. protectionlrestoration of beaches and dunes [beach and
dune system]

2. limiting public expenditures that subsidize development in
CHHA, except for restoration/ enhancement of natural
resources [coastal infrastructure]

3. directing population concernrations away from CHHAs
[hazard mitigation]

4. maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation times
[evacuation]

5 . preparing postdisaster redevelopment plans to reduce
exposure to hazards [post-stonn redevelopment]

C . Policies (FAC 9J-5.012(3)(~))
1. restoration/cnhanccment of beach and dune systems [beach

and dune systems]
2. hazard mitigation including regulation of

a . building practices [hazard mitigation]
b. floodplains [hazard mitigation]
c. beach and dune alteration [beach and dune system]
d. stormwater management [hazard mitigation]
e. sanitary sewer and septic tanks [hazard mitigation]
f. land uses [hazard mitigation]

3. reduce or maintain hurricane evacuation times
[evacuatlon]

4. postdisaster redevelopment policies
a. distinguish between immediate repaidcleanup and long

term redevelopment [post-storm redevelopmenl]
b. removailrelocationlmodi~cation of damaged

infrastructure & unsafe structures [coastal
infrastructure]

c. limiting redevelopment in areas of repeated damage
[post-stom redevelopment]

d. policies for incorporating recommendations of
interagency hazard mitigation report into local
comprehensive plan [hazard mitigation]

5 . identifying areas needing redevelopment as opportunities

6. coastal high hazard area (CHHA)
arise [post-storm redevelopment]

a. designating CHHA [hazard mitigation]
b. limiting development within CHHA mazard

c. reiocatinglrcplacing infrastructure away from CHHA
mitigation]

[coastal infrastructure]
7. shoreline land uses

a. establishing priorities [hazard mitigation]
b. establishing performance standards [hazard mitigation]

infrastructure]
8. ensure availability of required infrastructure [coastal

FIGURE 1.
date issue categories in which an individual mandate is included. (See table 1 .)

variables to select the cases: ( 1 ) history of hurricane
strikes prior t o the plan year, ( 2 ) extent to which
coastal areas were developed, a n d ( 3 ) population size.

We expected coastal hazard issues t o have greater
salience in t h e communities t h a t had more recent hur-
ricane experience before they prepared their plans.

Florida comprehensive plan mandates governing coastal storm hazards. Notations in brackets indicate man-

T h e range in o u r sample is substantial: the year of the
most recent hurricane to strike Sarasota County was
1946, versus 1985 in Franklin and Bay counties and
1987 in Monroe County (Jarrell, Hebert, and Mayfield
1992). We expected that concerns with evacuation and
safety issues might be higher in communities with

460 APA J O U l ~ A L . A 1 1 7 ‘ U M N 1998 J

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING MANDATES

more developed coastal areas, whereas they might give
less attention to mitigation through development
management, given the limited opportunities to alter
their existing development patterns. For this variable
we relied on an analysis of the percentage of developed
beachfront land in coastal communities that had been
prepared for the State Division of Beaches and Shores
(1990). Values ranged from a low of 78 percent in Bre-
vard County to 100 percent in Duval and Palm Beach
counties. We used population size as a proxy for the
resources and expertise likely to be available to the
community in preparing its comprehensive plan.
Among the cities, 1990 populations ranged from 2,602
in Apalachicola and 4,051 in Panama City Beach to
67,643 in West Palm Beach and 74,991 in Cape Coral.
1990 county populations ranged from 5,165 in Frank-
lin County to 405,120 in Palm Beach County and
653,230 in Duval County.

We coded each of the 60 mandates as “not in com-
pliance” or “in compliance” (O/l). To be considered
compliant, inventories, analyses, goals, objectives, and
policies had to address the mandates with sufficient
specificity. We did not, however, evaluate plan quality,
i.e. how it addressed the issues or whether the policies
proposed were strong and likely to be effective.

We grouped the planning mandates in two ways.
The first approach, based on plan component struc-
ture, is mirrored in the structure of the 9J-5 reg-
ulations and figure 1: (1) inventory and analysis
mandates, ( 2 ) goal mandates, (3) objectives mandates,
and (4) policy mandates. The second aggregation ap-
proach groups the plan mandates by different catego-
ries of policy issues: (1) evacuation, (2) beach and dune
systems, (3) hazard mitigation, (4) coastal infrastruc-
ture, and (5) post-storm redevelopment. These catego-
ries allow us to explore hypotheses about the salience
of different aspects of coastal storm hazards, both for
local governments and for the state. The relevant pol-
icy issue categories for each mandate listed in figure l
are indicated in brackets.

The community scores for each mandate category
were calculated as the percentage of the mandates
with which each community complied. Table 1 pre-
sents these compliance rates for the 18 coastal com-
munities we analyzed, aggregated by plan components
and by issue categories. Both groupings clearly show
that the final, state-approved plans of the local com-
munities did not comply uniformly with the state’s
mand-ates. In fact, on average, only 50 percent of the
mandated goals and fewer than half of the policies
that concern storm hazard planning were explicitly ad-
dressed in the local plans. Inventory and analysis re-
quirements are among those items for which there
were relatively high percentages of compliance-an

TABLE 1. Compliance rates for Florida comprehensive plan
mandates governing coastal storm hazards

Mandates

Mean
Compliance Standard

Rate Deviation
% %

Plan Components
Inventory and analysis 64.03% 21 .OO%
Goals 50.00 29.92
Objectives 64.14 30.65
Po I ici es 47.95 21.74

Issue Categories
Evacuation 76.92% 22.65%
Beach and dune systems 62.39 18.25
Hazard mitigation 48.61 20.89
Coastal infrastructure 50.00 29.60
Post-storm redevelopment 48.77 23.46

N = 18 except for the Beach and Dune Systems issue category, for which
N = 14.

outcome we ascribe to the fact that many of the data
needed to satisfy these requirements were available at
the time (Nave 1997). In contrast, compliance with the
policy mandates was the lowest. This is likely to reflect
the specific nature of the policies and the obligations
that their adoption places on the local community.
Given the rather general and vague meaning of goals,
we expected compliance with the goal mandates to be
high. We attribute the relatively low rate of compli-
ance to the small number of goals-three-and the
proportionately large effects when a community failed
to address any one of them.

Substantial variation in compliance rates is also
evident when the mandates are aggregated by issue
categories: typically over three-quarters of the evacua-
tion mandates were met, but half or fewer of the man-
dates concerned with land use and development
controls (hazard mitigation, coastal infrastructure,
and post-storm redevelopment) were adequately cov-
ered in these final approved plans. Compliance with
mandates concerned with preservation of beach and
dune systems was intermediate between these ex-
tremes. The findings are consistent with our under-
standing of local government perspectives on coastal
hazards. Protection of public safety through evacua-
tion is given the greatest importance; it is followed by
protection of existing development through such
means as preserving beach and dune systems. Initia-
tives to reduce risks through development controls are
the least favored, because of their perceived political
and economic costs. Throughout, the standard devia-
tions for compliance within individual mandate cate-

APA JOURNAL’AUTUMN 1998

ROBERT E. DEYLE AND RICHARD A. SMITH

gories range from 18 to 31 percent. Thus, substantial
variation existed among individual plans as well as
among mandate categories.

These findings are consistent in one respect with
the previous studies discussed above: we have pro-
vided additional evidence of the low salience of hazard
mitigation strategies in general and development limi-
tations in particular. Our results are inconsistent,
however, with what might be expected from a state
with a strong planning mandate. Despite the very ex-
plicit state mandates requiring that such strategies be
addressed, we have shown that the extent to which lo-
cal communities have complied with these require-
ments has a high degree of variation. Thus, the results
in table 1 suggest that the implementing agency may
not have insisted o n the same level of compliance with
every mandate and may have been inconsistent in
what it required within mandate categories. We turn
now to the questions of why and how such variation
occurs in the context of what has been characterized
as a strong, coercive state planning mandate.

Operating Under a Coercive
Mandate

May and Burby (1996) argue that some level of co-
ercion is necessary if higher-level governments seek to
advance policies through local governments, but the
local governments are less committed to those poli-
cies. The authors maintain that compliance with such
coercive mandates rests in part on the continued will-
ingness and ability of the higher-level government to
exercise its review and sanctioning authority over local
governments. The extensive literature o n policy imple-
mentation suggests, however, that administrative
practicality and political feasibility are likely to sub-
stantially influence how the designated administrative
agency implements a mandate in that situation. (See,
for example, Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Bardach
1977; Bardach 1979; Sabatier and Mazmanian 1983;
Browne and Wildavsky 1984; Majone and …

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code HAPPY