Existing research on local government adoption of age friendly policies has been limited in its theoretical approach and empirical analysis. While these findings suggest an important role for local government in this issue, this paper asserts that a single model does not offer a full explanation. Therefore, the following paper assess different conceptual models for local government adoption of policies deemed important for older adults to remain independent in their community. This paper argues that responsiveness, multi-level governance, and public entrepreneurship theories offer a fuller explanation for local government policy decision-making. Some local governments throughout the nation are already showing an increase in support for the adoption of age-friendly policies and are designing initiatives that address fundamental policies like housing, transportation, and other services. This research examines evidence from a 20-question survey designed to probe general features of local governments and specific community characteristics to determine the extent to which local governments adopt relative policies and implement programs. The authors find support for a multi-model explanation.
AgranoffR. (2013). Local governments in multilevel systems: Emergent public administration challenges. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(4 suppl), 47S–62S.
2.
AlleyD., LiebigP., PynoosJ., BanerjeeT., & ChoiI. H. (2007). Creating elder-friendly communities: Preparations for an aging society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49(1–2), 1–18.
3.
AllisonP. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primerPine Forge Press.
4.
AndrewS. A., ShortJ. E., JungK., & ArlikattiS. (2015). Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Provision of Public Safety: Monitoring Mechanisms Embedded in Interlocal Agreements. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 401–410.
5.
BardhanP. (2002). Decentralization of governance and development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 185–205.
6.
BenavidesA. D. (2007). “Health and human services,” chapter 11. In International City Management Association (ICMA) (Ed.), Managing local government services: A practical guide, 368–388.
7.
BenavidesA. D., & KeyesL. (2015). A local response to creating communities for a lifetime: A case study on age-friendly communities. Journal of Ageing in Emerging Economies, 5(1), 1–26.
8.
BerryF. S., & BerryW. D. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. Theories of the Policy Process, 169.
9.
BoldyD., GrenadeL., LewinG., KarolE., & BurtonE. (2011). Older people's decisions regarding ageing in place: A western australian case study. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 30(3), 136–142.
10.
BryerT. A. (2007). Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 17(3), 479–500.
11.
BryerT. A. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 271–283.
12.
BuffelT., PhillipsonC., & ScharfT. (2012). Ageing in urban environmenta: Developing 'age-friendly'cities. Critical Social Policy, 32, 597–617.
13.
CaroF. G., & MorrisR. (2002). Devolution and aging policy. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 14(3–4), 1–14.
CopeG. H. (1997). Bureaucratic reform and issues of political responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 461–471.
16.
DeLeonL., & DenhardtR. B. (2000). The political theory of reinvention. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 89–97.
17.
DenhardtR. B., & DenhardtJ. V. (2001). The new public service: Putting democracy first. National Civic Review, 90(4), 391–400.
18.
DiMaggioP. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, 1, 3–22.
19.
DiMaggioP. J., & PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
20.
FaguetJ. (2004). Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs?: Evidence from bolivia. Journal of Public Economics, 88(3), 867–893.
21.
FeiockR. C., & WestJ. P. (1993). Testing competing explanations for policy adoption: Municipal solid waste recycling programs. Political Research Quarterly, 46(2), 399–419.
22.
FitzgeraldK. G., & CaroF. G. (2013). An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1–2), 1–18.
23.
FredericksenP., & LondonR. (2000). Disconnect in the hollow state: The pivotal role of organizational capacity in community-based development organizations. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 230–239.
24.
FredericksonG. H. (1980). New public administration. University of Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
25.
FredericksonH. G., JohnsonG. A., & WoodC. H. (2004). The adapted city: Institutional dynamics and structural changeME Sharpe.
26.
GreenfieldE. A., OberlinkM., ScharlachA. E., NealM. B., & StaffordP. B. (2015). Age-friendly community initiatives: Conceptual issues and key questions. The Gerontologist, 55(2), 191–198.
27.
GrodachC. (2011). Barriers to sustainable economic development: The Dallas–Fort worth experience. Cities, 28(4), 300–309.
28.
KanterR. M., & BrinkerhoffD. (1981). Organizational performance: Recent developments in measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 321–349.
29.
KerrJ., RosenbergD., & FrankL. (2012). The role of the built environment in healthy aging: Community design, physical activity, and health among older adults. Journal of Planning Literature, 27, 43–60.
30.
KettlD. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488–497.
31.
KettlD. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century americaThe John Hopkins University Press.
32.
KeyesL., PhillipsD. R., SterlingE., ManegdegT., KellyM., TrimbleG., & MayerikC. (2013). Transforming the way we live Together—A model to move communities from policy to implementation. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1–2), 117–130.
33.
KingC., & StiversC. (1998). Goverment is us: Public administration in an anti-goverment era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
34.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
35.
KlayW. E. (1998). Trends and paradoxes affecting the present and future environments of public organizations. Public Administration Quarterly, 22(2), 133–160.
36.
KodrasJ. (1997). Restructuring the state: Devolution, privatization, and the geographic redistribution of power and capacity in governance. State Devolution in America: Implications for a Diverse Society, 79–96.
37.
LehningA. J. (2012). City governments and aging in place: Community design, transportation and housing innovation adoption. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 345–356.
38.
LeichenkoR. M., CoulsonN. E., & ListokinD. (2001). Historic preservation and residential property values: An analysis of texas cities. Urban Studies, 38(11), 1973–1987.
39.
LuiC., EveringhamJ., WarburtonJ., CuthillM., & BartlettH. (2009). What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116–121.
40.
LynottJ., HaaseJ., NelsonK., TaylorA., TwaddellH., UlmerJ., … StollofE. R. (2009). Planning complete streets for an aging america. (). Washington DC: AARP.
41.
LynottJ., McAuleyW. J., & McCutcheonM. (2009). Getting out and about: The relationship between urban form and senior travel patterns. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23(4), 390–402.
42.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
43.
MeierK. J., & O'TooleL. J. (2006). Political control versus bureaucratic values: Reframing the debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177–192.
44.
MintromM. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.
45.
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging. (2009). Maturing of american report: Getting communities on track for an aging population. (). Washington DC: National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
46.
OlsonM. (1968). The logic of collective action; public goods and the theory of groups. New York: Schocken Books.
47.
OstromE. (1975). The design of institutional arrangements and the responsiveness of the police. People Vs. Government: The Responsiveness of American Institutions, 274–299.
48.
PineP. P., & PineV. R. (2002). Naturally occurring retirement community-supportive service program. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 14(3–4), 181–193.
49.
PolsbyN. W. (1984). Political innovation in america: The politics of policy initiationYale University Press.
50.
de la CruzRamírez. (2009). Local political institutions and smart growth: An empirical study of the politics of compact development. Urban Affairs Review, 45, 218–246.
51.
RobertsN. C., & KingP. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 1(2), 147–175.
52.
RogersE. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), 989–993.
53.
RosenthalL. A. (2009). The role of local government: Land-use controls and aging-friendliness. Generations, 33(2), 18.
54.
ScharlachA. E. (2009). Creating aging-friendly communities. Generations, 33(2), 5–11.
55.
SchneiderM., TeskeP., & MintromM. (2011). Public entrepreneurs: Agents for change in american governmentPrinceton University Press.
56.
SchneiderM., & TeskeP. (1992). Toward A theory of the political entrepreneur: Evidence from local government. The American Political Science Review, 86(3), 737–747.
57.
SchumakerP. D., BollandJ. M., & FeiockR. C. (1986). Urban economic development and community conflict: A cross issue analysis. Research in Urban Policy, 2, 25–46.
58.
SmithP. (1993). Outcome-related performance indicators and organizational control in the public Sector1. British Journal of Management, 4(3), 135–151.
59.
SossJ., & MoynihanD. P. (2014). Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 320–332.
60.
StiversC. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364.
61.
TolbertP. S., & ZuckerL. G. (1999). The institutionalization of institutional theory. Studying Organization.Theory & Method.London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, 169–184.
62.
United State Department of Commerce. (May 2010). The next four decades: The older population in the united states 2010 to 2050. (No. P25–1138). Washington D.C.: United State Census Bureau.
63.
Van WartM. (2005). Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practiceME Sharpe.
64.
VigodaE. (2000). Are you being served? the responsiveness of public administration to citizens? demands: An empirical examination in israel. Public Administration, 78(1), 165–191.
65.
VigodaE. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.
66.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the american states. American Political Science Review, 63(03), 880–899.
67.
WallisJ. J., & OatesW. E. (1988). Decentralization in the public sector: An empirical study of state and local government. Fiscal federalism: Quantitative studies, 5–32, University of Chicago Press.
68.
WilesJ. L., LeibingA., GubermanN., ReeveJ., & AllenR. E. S. (2012). The meaning of “Aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 357–366.
69.
YangK., & and PandeyS. K. (2007). Public responsiveness of government organizations: Testing a preliminary model. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(2), 215–240.
70.
YangK., & CallahanK. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264.
71.
ZahariadisN. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (Second ed., pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
