Frances Stokes Berry

Florida State University
Askew School of Public Administration and Policy

649 Bellamy, PAD
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL
USA
32306-2250
fberry@fsu.edu |  Visit Personal Website


Search Google Scholar
Search for Google Scholar Profile

My current research continues to examine policy innovation and diffusion, how strategic and performance management are used by city managers, and how collaborative policy networks develop and influence policy development and policy resolution.

Citation:
Roh, Jongho, and Berry, Frances. 2008. "Framing and Modeling the Outcomes of State Abortion Funding Initiatives: Morality or Redistributive Policy or Both?" State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 8(1): 1-24.
Abstract: While Lowi (1964) said all policies can be classified as one of three types: distributive, redistributive or regulatory. His work has been criticized as incomplete, including that policies are frequently multidimensional and that his categories are not comprehensive or mutually exclusive. A fourth policy type - morality policy - has now been well-established as a distinct type from the other three (e.g., Meier 1994; Mooney 2001). There is evidence that some policies can be framed as multidimensional policy types; abortion funding is one such policy issue that has aspects of both morality and redistributive policy in its politics. In this study, we develop models of government abortion funding based on abortion as a morality and a redistributive policy, and estimate those models using weighted least squares to explain the voting outcomes of county-level votes in six elections for government funding of abortions. Then, we test a combined model and find clear evidence that the combined model, and variables from both perspectives provide a stronger case than a single policy typology model alone. Furthermore, we argue that policy framing should be included as part of the study of policy.
Citation:
Lee, Chung-pin, Kaiju Chang and Frances S. Berry. 2011. “Understanding Diffusion Models of E-government and E-democracy: A Global Perspective.” Public Administration Review 71 (3): 444-54.
Abstract: E-government is the use of information and communication technology to provide information and public services to the people, while e-democracy refers to giving citizens access electronically to political processes and choices. Few studies have examined these policies separately, although they are discussed in the literature as separate IT applications. This paper empirically assesses the factors associated with the relative level of development of e-government and e-democracy across 131 countries all of which were UN members in 2007. We develop and test hypotheses using the innovation and diffusion literature related to four explanations of policy change--learning, political norms, competition, and citizen pressures. We find differences in the factors associated with the level of development of e-government and e-democracy policies. Specifically, all four explanations (both internal and external factors) are strongly associated with those countries whose e-government policy is more highly developed, while a country's e-democracy's development is much more oriented towards internal factors, political norms and citizen pressures.
Citation:
Walker, Richard, Claudia Avallanda, and Frances Berry. 2011. “Exploring the Diffusion of Innovation Types amongst High and Low Innovative Localities: A Test of the Berry and Berry Model.” Public Management Review 13 (1): 95-125.
Abstract: Berry and Berry (1999, 2007) argue that diffusion of policy innovations is driven by learning, competition, public pressure or mandates from higher levels of authority. We undertake a first-time analysis of this whole framework and present three sub-studies of innovation. First, we examine the drivers of total innovation. Second, we assess whether the factors influencing the most innovative localities are similar to or different from the factors impacting the low localities. Finally, we disaggregate total innovation into three different innovation types. Our findings, undertaken on a panel of English local governments over four years, reveal that a majority of the diffusion drivers from innovation and diffusion theory are indeed positively significant for total innovation. However, local authorities that adopt higher and lower levels of innovation than predicted do things differently while the framework has limited applicability to types of management innovation. We concluded that the Berry and Berry model is best suited to the analysis of total innovation, but not as well suited to the analysis of different types of innovation. We also outline a research agenda that might better explain the diffusion of public policy and public management innovation types than is captured by current literature.
Citation:
Park, Seejeen and Frances Berry. 2012. "Successful Diffusion of a Failed policy: The Case of "pay for Performance in the U.S. Federal Government." Public Management Review.
Abstract: Pay for performance is a popular management approach that came out of the business sector and was adopted as a center piece of the 1978 U.S. Civil Service Reform Act. Most studies assess PFP as largely unsuccessful in the federal government, and many of the private sector studies also found problems in PFP in the private sector. This paper takes a policy diffusion approach to PFP, to assess why it diffused so readily form the private sector to the federal government. Questions raised include: Was PFP management diffusion based on fact or on myth? What were the forces that encouraged diffusion without a critical assessment of the policy being adopted? This article begins with a summary of the theory that underlies pay for performance (PFP) as a management policy, including criticisms that PFP is not likely to be effective due to contradictions in human motivation and organizational politics. We next provide an overview of how PFP performed in the private sector prior to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), and studies of PFP’s performance post-CSRA in the public sector. It reveals the necessity of systematic prior policy research in the first-setting before adoption by organizations in a second setting. In this instance, the problems of private sector PFP were diffused to the public sector. Implications are discussed.

Substantive Focus:
Governance PRIMARY

Theoretical Focus:
Policy Process Theory SECONDARY
Agenda-Setting, Adoption, and Implementation PRIMARY
Policy Analysis and Evaluation

Keywords

POLICY INNOVATION, E-GOVERNMENT POLICY ADOPTION POLICY NETWORKS POLICY DIFFUSION