000			01672naa a2200193uu 4500
001			7100416544310
003			OSt
005			20190211163151.0
008			071004s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aNABATCHI, Tina _932836
245	1	0	_aThe Institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution in the federal government
260			_aMalden, MA : _bBlackwell Publishers, _cJuly / Aug. 2007
520	3		_aThis article uses resource dependence and institutional theory to examine the implementation of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996. The insights from these theories are employed to explain the diffusion of and variation in the application of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to different programmatic areas. Although agencies have generally complied with the direct requirements of the acts, their intent has not been fully realized. Several factors have complicated the implementation of the ADR Acts, prompting agencies to take different strategic approaches to the application of ADR in programmatic areas. In general, agencies have acquiesced to the use of ADR in employment disputes, compromised on ADR use in contracting and procurement disputes, and avoided ADR use in civil enforcement disputes. Finally, this article evaluates progress toward impact evaluations of the ADR Acts and suggests directions for future research
590			_aPublic administration review PAR
773	0	8	_tPublic Administration Review: PAR _g67, 4, p. 646-661 _dMalden, MA : Blackwell Publishers, July / Aug. 2007 _xISSN 00333352 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20071004 _b1654^b _cTiago
998			_a20090608 _b1633^b _cmayze
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c24684 _d24684
041			_aeng