Education Administrators in Wonderland: Figuring Out Policy-Making and Regulatory Compliance When Making Decisions

  • Fernando F. PadróEmail author
  • Jonathan H. Green


This chapter offers administrators an approach to making sense of the legal landscape when making decisions. Philosophies and their stakeholder coalitions impact legislation and administrative follow-through; understanding this causal relationship helps contextualise a byzantine maze of regulations and rules setting obligations and prohibitions. This, in turn, assists in determining responsibilities, defining sanctions and remedies and providing procedural due process to ensure fairness and equity. Much depends on the eye of the beholder and the beholder’s understanding of context, events, policy developments and their enactment.


  1. Aman, A. C., & Mayton. (2014). Administrative law (3rd ed.). St. Paul: West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Ávila, H. (2007). Theory of legal principles. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, J. (2010). Towards a third generation of administrative procedure. In S. Rose-Ackerman & P. L. Lindseth (Eds.), Comparative administrative law (pp. 336–356). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Black, J. (2008). Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regulation & Governance, 2, 137–164.Google Scholar
  5. Black, J., & Baldwin, R. (2010). Really responsive risk based regulation. Law and Policy, 32, 181–213.Google Scholar
  6. Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161.Google Scholar
  7. Burrows, V. K., & Garvey, T. (2011). A brief overview of rulemaking and judicial review. CRS report for congress – Prepared for members and committees of congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government.Google Scholar
  8. Callahan, R. E. (1959). An introduction to education in American society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  9. Carter, D. P., Weible, C. M., Siddiki, S. N., Brett, J., & Chonaiew, S. M. (2015). Assessing policy divergence: How to investigate the differences between a law and a corresponding regulation. Public Administration, 93(1), 159–176.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. de Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. (2008). Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence: A review essay. Business & Society, 47(1), 8–20.Google Scholar
  12. de Figueiredo, R. J. P., Jr., & Vanden Bergh, R. G. (2004). The political economy of state-level administrative procedure acts. The Journal of Law & Economics, 47(2), 569–588.Google Scholar
  13. Degani, A., & Wiener, E. L. (1991). Philosophy, policies and procedures: The three P’s of flight deck operations. Paper presented at the sixth international symposium on aviation psychology, April 1992, Columbus.Google Scholar
  14. Dicey, A. V. (1982/1915). Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution (8th ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dunleavy, P. (1980). Urban politics analysis: The politics of collective consumption. London: The Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Epstein, R. A. (2016). The role of guidance in modern administrative procedure: The case for de novo review. Journal of Legal Analysis, 8(1), 47–93.Google Scholar
  18. Esman, M. J. (1967). The institution building concepts: An interim appraisal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  19. Farazmand, A. (2005). Role of government in an era of Total Quality Management (TQM) and globalization: Challenges and opportunities. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5, 201–217.Google Scholar
  20. Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 113–135.Google Scholar
  21. Flew, T. (2014). Six theories of neoliberalism. Thesis Eleven, 122(1), 49–71.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (2000). Governmentality. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Power (trans: Hurley, R. and others). (pp. 201–222). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (2007/1978). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978. (trans: Burchell, G.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (2008/1979). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1979–1979. In M. Sellenart (Ed.), (trans: Burchell, V.). New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  25. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics fox, C., and the public interest (pp. 123–144). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. J. (2005). Stakeholder influence strategies: The roles of structural and demographic determinants. Business & Society, 44(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
  27. Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law (Revised ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gersen, J. (2007). Overlapping and underlapping jurisdiction in administrative law. Supreme Court Review, 2006(1), 201–247.Google Scholar
  29. Grant, A. W. H., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1995). Realize your customers’ full profit potential. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 59–72.Google Scholar
  30. Hamann, T. H. (2009). Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies, 6, 37–59.Google Scholar
  31. Hansen, J., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2007). Ten philosophical problems in deontic logic. In G. Boella, L. van der Torre, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems Dagstuhl seminar proceedings (Vol. 07122, p. 26). Waden: Schloss Dagstuhl Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik GmbH (IBFI). Retrieved from
  32. Harpwood, V. (2009). Modern Tort law (7th ed.). London: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  33. Hart, H. L. A. (1997). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harvey, L. (1995). Quality assurance systems, TQM, and the new collegialism. Birmingham: Centre for Research into Quality, University of Central England.Google Scholar
  35. Hayek, F. A. (2011/1960). The constitution of liberty. In R. Hamowy (Ed.), The collected works of F.A. Hayek, Volume 17: The constitution of liberty. The definitive edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Head, M. (2012). Administrative law: Context and critique (3rd ed.). Anndale: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hofferbert, R. (1974). The study of public policy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  38. Jacobs, S. H. (2007). Current trends in the process and methods of regulatory impact assessment: Mainstreaming RIA into policy processes. In C. Kirkpatrick & D. Parker (Eds.), Regulatory impact assessment: Towards better regulation? (pp. 17–35). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.Google Scholar
  40. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  41. Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure theory of law (Revised ed.). (trans: Knight, M.). Clark: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.Google Scholar
  42. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. London: Macmillan & Co. Retrieved from
  43. Khemani, R. S., & Shapiro, D. M. (1993). Glossary of industrial organisation economics and competition law. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  44. Kim, J.-N., Grunig, J. E., & Ni, L. (2010). Reconceptualizing the communicative action of publics: Acquisition, selection, and transmission of information in problematic situations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(2), 126–154.Google Scholar
  45. Kirkpatrick, C. (2014). Assessing the impact of regulatory reform in developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 24, 161–167.Google Scholar
  46. Landecker, W. S. (1952). Integration and group structure: An area for research. Social Forces, 30, 394–400.Google Scholar
  47. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  48. Levinson, L. H. (1977). Elements of the administrative process: Formal, semi-formal, and free-form models. The American University Law Review, 26, 872–941.Google Scholar
  49. Lindahl, L. (1977). Position and change. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  50. Lorini, E., Longin, D., Gaudou, B., & Herzig, A. (2009). The logic of acceptance: Grounding institutions on agents’ attitudes. Journal of Logic and Computation, 19(6), 901–940.Google Scholar
  51. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.Google Scholar
  52. Lowi, T. J. (1985). The state in politics: The relationship between policy and administration. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences (pp. 67–104). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lowi, T. J. (2002). Law vs. public policy: A critical exploration. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 12(3), 493–501.Google Scholar
  54. Luhmann, N. (1995) Social systems. (trans: Bednarz, J. Jr. & Baecker, D.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mark, E. (2013). Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(1), 2–10.Google Scholar
  56. McCarthy, J., & Prudham, S. (2004). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 35, 275–283.Google Scholar
  57. Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  59. Noll, R. G. (1985). Government regulatory behaviour: A multidisciplinary survey and synthesis. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences (pp. 9–63). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  60. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.Google Scholar
  61. OECD. (2008). Introductory handbook for undertaking regulatory impact analysis (RIA). Version 1.0. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  62. OECD. (2009). Regulatory impact analysis: A tool for regulatory coherence. Paris: Author. Retrieved from
  63. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Google Scholar
  64. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). Education today 2013: The OECD perspective. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  65. Padró, F. F. (1988). Quality circles and their existence in present-day high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  66. Padró, F. F. (2004). Statistical handbook on the social safety net. Westport: Greenwood Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Padró, F. F. (2015). Quality in primary and secondary education. In S. M. Dahlgaard-Park (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of quality and the service economy (pp. 592–596). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  68. Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1–23.Google Scholar
  69. Parker, D., & Kirkpatrick, C. (2005). Privatisation in developing countries: A review of the evidence and the policy lessons. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(4), 513–541.Google Scholar
  70. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
  71. Polanyi, K. (2001/1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our times. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  72. Porter, T., & Ronit, K. (2006). Self-regulation as policy process: The multiple and criss-crossing stages of private rule-making. Policy Sciences, 39, 41–72.Google Scholar
  73. Power, M. (2010). Organized uncertainty: Designing a world of risk management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Raz, J. (1999). Practical reasons and norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rogers, W. V. H. (2010). Winfield & Jolowicz Tort (18th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  76. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.Google Scholar
  77. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.Google Scholar
  78. Seymour, D. T. (1993). On Q: Causing quality in higher education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  79. Siaroff, A. (1999). Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: Meaning and measurement. European Journal of Political Research, 36, 175–205.Google Scholar
  80. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2012, December). The history and the elements of the rule of law. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 232–247.Google Scholar
  81. Thorsen, D. E. (2010). The neoliberal challenge: What is neoliberalism? Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 2(2), 188–214.Google Scholar
  82. Vanderstraeten, D. (2002). Parsons, Luhmann and the theorem of double contingency. Journal of Classical Sociology, 2(1), 78–92.Google Scholar
  83. Von Hayek, F. (1944). The road to serfdom. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Wasserman, M. F. (2015). Defense asymmetries: Distortions in the evolution of regulatory law. Texas Law Review, 93, 625–679.Google Scholar
  85. Wilder, M. (2016). Whither the funnel of causality? Canadian Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 721–741.Google Scholar
  86. World Bank. (2011). Learning for all: Investing in people’s knowledge and skills to promote development: World Bank group education strategy 2020. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.Google Scholar
  87. Zierkel, P. A. (2006). Paralyzing fear? Avoiding distorted assessments of the effect of law on education. Journal of Law and Education, 35(4), 461–495.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations