Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:59:37.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The politics of strategy: why government agencies conduct major strategic reviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Jordan Tama
Jordan Tama*
Affiliation:
School of International Service, American University, USA E-mail: tama@american.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, United States (US) policymakers have instituted quadrennial strategy reviews in several major policy areas. In this article, I examine why policymakers have initiated these large strategic reviews, and why a particular model for them has diffused from the US Defense Department to other government agencies. I find that policymakers have initiated the reviews principally to spur organisational change in agencies and influence the relationship between agencies and the Congress, and that policymakers have replicated the Defense Department’s review model because of that department’s strong political support. My findings suggest more generally that formal strategy activities are often driven more by legislative-executive and bureaucratic politics than by a search for new strategic ideas. Commonalities between the diffusion of quadrennial reviews in the US and the diffusion of other strategy and planning processes internationally underscore the broader applicability and significance of these findings.

Keywords

diffusiongovernment agenciesnational securitystrategystrategic planning
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 27 - 54
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, G. (2007) The Politics of National Security Budgets. Muscatine, IA: The Stanley Foundation.Google Scholar
Asahi Shimbun (2013) Abe Plans First Postwar National Security Strategy. Asahi Shimbun, 17 August, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201308170048 (accessed 15 July 2014).Google Scholar
Balla, S. J. (2001) Interstate Professional Associations and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations. American Politics Research 29(3): 221–245.Google Scholar
Balunis, T. (2012) Congress and Homeland Security. In Auerswald D. P. and Campbell C. (eds.), Congress and the Politics of National Security. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 100–120.Google Scholar
Barzelay, M. and Campbell, C. (2003) Preparing for the Future: Strategic Planning in the U.S. Air Force. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Barzelay, M. and Jacobsen, A. S. (2009) Theorizing Implementation of Public Management Policy Reforms: A Case Study of Strategic Planning and Programming in the European Commission. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 22(2): 319–334.Google Scholar
Baybeck, B., Berry, W. D. and Siegel, D. A. (2011) A Strategic Theory of Policy Diffusion Via Intergovernmental Competition. Journal of Politics 73(1): 232–247.Google Scholar
Berry, F. S. and Berry, W. D. (1990) State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84(2): 395–415.Google Scholar
Berry, W. D. and Baybeck, B. (2005) Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition. American Political Science Review 99(4): 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boushey, G. (2012) Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the Diffusion of Innovations. Policy Studies Journal 40(1): 127–146.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. S. (2010) The Success of Failure: The Paradox of Performance Pay. Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(1): 70–88.Google Scholar
Brews, P. J. and Hunt, M. R. (1999) Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn: Resolving the Planning School/Learning School Debate. Strategic Management Journal 20(10): 889–913.Google Scholar
Brews, P. and Purohit, D. (2007) Strategic Planning in Unstable Environments. Long Range Planning 40(1): 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, S. M. (2005) Interdependent and Domestic Foundations of Policy Change: The Diffusion of Pension Privatization Around the World. International Studies Quarterly 49(2): 273–294.Google Scholar
Bryson, J. M. (2011) Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. and Bryson, J. K. (2009) Understanding Strategic Planning and the Formulation and Implementation of Strategic Plans as a Way of Knowing: The Contributions of Actor-Network Theory. International Public Management Journal 12(2): 172–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, D. (2010) Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Center for Strategic and International Studies (2013) Preparing for the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, 25 January, http://csis.org/files/attachments/130125_panel1_transcript.pdf (accessed 15 July 2014).Google Scholar
Congressional Record (1996) 142 Cong Rec S. 6823, 104th Congress, 2nd session, 25 June.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (2007) 153 Cong Rec S. 2459, 110th Congress, 1st session, 1 March.Google Scholar
Crosby, B. C. and Bryson, J. M. (2005) Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Defense Resource Management Study Program (2010) 2010 Annual Report. Arlington, VA: US Department of Defense.Google Scholar
Destler, I. M. (1974) Presidents, Bureaucrats, and Foreign Policy: The Politics of Organizational Reform. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
European Union (2003) A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security Strategy. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
Executive Office of the President (2013) The President’s Climate Action Plan. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Famularo, J. M. (2009) The Taiwan Quadrennial Defense Review: Implications for U.S.-Taiwan Relations. Arlington, VA: Project 2049 Institute.Google Scholar
Ford, H. (2005) Congressman Harold Ford Introduces Plan for Stronger Homeland Security, press release, 21 March, http://votesmart.org/public-statement/86763/#.U8gwtmdOX_Q (accessed 15 July 2014).Google Scholar
Frumkin, P. and Galaskiewicz, J. (2004) Institutional Isomorphism and Public Sector Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(3): 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Accountability Office (2011) Progress Made and Work Remaining in Implementing Homeland Security Missions 10 Years After 9/11. Washington, DC: General Accountability Office.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. IV (2005) The Quadrennial Defense Review: Analyzing the Major Defense Review Process, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
Government of Australia (2013) Strong and Secure: A Strategy for Australia’s National Security. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
Government of Canada (2004) Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy. Ottawa: Government of Canada.Google Scholar
Government of Japan (2013) National Security Strategy. Tokyo: Government of Japan.Google Scholar
Government of the Netherlands (2007) National Security: Strategy and Work Programme, 2007–2008. The Hague: Netherlands Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.Google Scholar
Government of the United Kingdom (2008) The National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom: Security in an Interdependent World. Norwich, UK: Government of the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Guler, I., Guillen, M. F. and Macpherson, J. M. (2002) Global Competition, Institutions, and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of ISO 9000 Quality Certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly 47(2): 207–232.Google Scholar
Gunzinger, M. (2013) Shaping America’s Future Military: Toward a New Force Planning Construct. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.Google Scholar
Hendrick, R. (2003) Strategic Planning Environment, Process, and Performance in Public Agencies: A Comparative Study of Departments in Milwaukee. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(4): 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homolar, A. (2011) How to Last Alone at the Top: US Strategic Planning for the Unipolar Era. Journal of Strategic Studies 34(2): 189–217.Google Scholar
Hult, K. M. and Walcott, C. (1990) Governing Public Organizations: Politics, Structures, and Institutional Design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. P. (1961) The Common Defense: Strategic Programs in National Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ingraham, P. W. (1993) Of Pigs in Pokes and Policy Diffusion: Another Look at Pay-For-Performance. Public Administration Review 53(4): 348–356.Google Scholar
Kellough, J. E., Nigro, L. G. and Brewer, G. A. (2010) Civil Service Reform Under George W. Bush: Ideology, Politics, and Public Personnel Administration. Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(4): 404–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissler, G. R., Fore, K. N., Jacobson, W. S., Kittredge, W. P. and Stewart, S. L. (1998) State Strategic Planning: Suggestions from the Oregon Experience. Public Administration Review 58(4): 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingler-Vidra, R. and Schleifer, P. (2014) Convergence More or Less: Why Do Practices Vary as They Diffuse? International Studies Review 16(2): 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, P. C. (1997) The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work, 1945–1995. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Luttwak, E. N. (1985) The Pentagon and the Art of War. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.Google Scholar
May, P. J., Jochim, A. E. and Sapotichne, J. (2011) Constructing Homeland Security: An Anemic Policy Regime. Policy Studies Journal 39(2): 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (2009) Strategy Safari: Your Complete Guide Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson.Google Scholar
Perry, J. L., Engbers, T. A. and Jun, S. Y. (2009) Back to the Future? Performance-Related Pay, Empirical Research, and the Perils of Persistence. Public Administration Review 69(1): 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2010) Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor: The People and Their Government. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.Google Scholar
Poister, T. H., Edwards, L. H., Pasha, O. Q. and Edwards, J. (2013) Strategy Formulation and Performance: Evidence from Local Public Transit Agencies. Public Performance & Management Review 36(4): 585–615.Google Scholar
Poister, T. H., Pitts, D. W. and Edwards, L. H. (2010) Strategic Management Research in the Public Sector: A Review, Synthesis, and Future Directions. American Review of Public Administration 40(5): 522–545.Google Scholar
Poulsen, L. N. S. (2014) Bounded Rationality and the Diffusion of Modern Investment Treaties. International Studies Quarterly 58(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premchand, A. (1983) Government Budgeting and Expenditure Controls: Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010) Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel (2010) The QDR in Perspective: Meeting America’s National Security Needs in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel.Google Scholar
Ricks, T. (2012) The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today. New York, NY: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Rogin, J. (2012) Ryan Budget Contains Huge Cuts for Diplomacy and Development. Foreign Policy, 20 March, http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/20/ryan-budget-contains-huge-cuts-for-diplomacy-and-development (accessed 15 July 2014).Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1968) PPBS and Foreign Affairs. The Public Interest (11): 26–36.Google Scholar
Shipan, C. R. and Volden, C. (2008) The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 840–857.Google Scholar
Shipan, C. R. and Volden, C. (2012) Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners. Public Administration Review 72(6): 788–796.Google Scholar
Shipan, C. R. and Volden, C. (2014) When the Smoke Clears: Expertise, Learning, and Policy Diffusion. Journal of Public Policy 34(3): 357–387.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. A. and Elkins, E. (2004) The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy. American Political Science Review 98(1): 171–189.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, D. E. (2000) The QDR: Improve the Process to Improve the Product. Parameters 30(1): 57–68.Google Scholar
Solingen, E. and Börzel, T. A. (2014) Introduction to Presidential Issue: The Politics of International Diffusion – A Symposium. International Studies Review 16(2): 173–187.Google Scholar
Starke, P. (2013) Qualitative Methods for the Study of Policy Diffusion: Challenges and Available Solutions. Policy Studies Journal 41(4): 561–582.Google Scholar
Stazyk, E. C. and Goerdel, H. T. (2011) The Benefits of Bureaucracy: Public Managers’ Perceptions of Political Support, Goal Ambiguity, and Organizational Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(4): 645–672.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C. A. (2006) SECDEF: The Nearly Impossible Job of Secretary of Defense. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Stolberg, A. G. (2012) How Nation-States Craft National Security Strategy Documents. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.Google Scholar
Strang, D. and Soule, S. A. (1998) Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 265–290.Google Scholar
Tama, J. (2014) Crises, Commissions, and Reform: The Impact of Blue-Ribbon Panels. Political Research Quarterly 67(1): 152–164.Google Scholar
Tama, J. ( forthcoming) Does Strategic Planning Matter? The Outcomes of Quadrennial National Security Reviews. Political Science Quarterly.Google Scholar
US Congress (2007) The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act. Public Law 110-53, 110th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
US Department of State (2009a) Briefing on Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, 10 July, http://www.state.gov/s/dmr/former/lew/125950.htm (accessed 15 July 2014).Google Scholar
US Department of State (2009b) Town Hall on the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, 10 July, www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/july/125949.htm (accessed 15 July 2014).Google Scholar
US House of Representatives (2005a) CBP and ICE: Does the Current Organizational Structure Best Serve U.S. Homeland Security Interests? Hearing of the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security, 109th Congress, 1st session, 9 March.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives (2005b) H.R. 1383, 109th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives (2005c) H.R. 1746, 109th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives (2005d) Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Report No. 109-101, 109th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives (2009) H.R. 2410, 111th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
US Senate (1996) S.Amdt. 4156 to S. 1745, 104th Congress, 2nd session.Google Scholar
US Senate (1998) S.Amdt. 3053 to S. 2052, 105th Congress, 2nd session.Google Scholar
US Senate (2006) The Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review. Hearing of the Committee on Armed Services, 109th Congress, 2nd session, 8 March.Google Scholar
US Senate (2007) The Homeland Security Department’s Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2008. Hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
US Senate (2011a) Quadrennial Energy Review Act. Hearing of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 112th Congress, 1st session, 15 November.Google Scholar
US Senate (2011b) S. 552, 112th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
Volden, C., Ting, M. M. and Carpenter, D. P. (2008) A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion. American Political Science Review 63(3): 880–899.Google Scholar
Walker, J. L. (1969) The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American Political Science Review 63(3): 880–899.Google Scholar
West, W. F. (2011) Program Budgeting and the Performance Movement: The Elusive Quest for Efficiency in Government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Weyland, K. (2007) Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion: Social Sector Reform in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. United States: Basic Books.Google Scholar