Policy Implementation by Executive Order: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effects of Agency Decisions and Organizational Characteristics on Government Expenditures Through a Minority Businesses Enterprise Set-Aside Program in Ohio
Government agencies use minority business enterprises (MBEs) to provide goods, services, and access to opportunities as strategies to respond to citizens’ demand for equality in obtaining governmental bids. Set-aside programs have come under scrutiny in the United States since their inception in the 1940s (Anderson, 2005). A Supreme Court case, Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin (2011), forced a broader national debate regarding race-based enrollment and public monies used in the admission process at a state-funded institute of higher learner. The effectiveness, relevance, sustainability, and legality of this set-aside program by a state government agency represent the legal challenges involving the balance between equality and access to government goods and services converge. In a novel approach to investigating a recently enacted set-aside program, this study applied Mazmanian and Sabatier’s (1980) implementation framework to examine the effectiveness Executive Order (EO) 2008-S13, signed by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland in 2008. EO 2008-S13 required government agencies to improve their expenditures with MBEs through set-aside initiatives, the objective also being to increase the number of MBEs registering to do business with government. This study began with a historical assessment of set-aside programs, including why they were created and how successful they have been as a policy tool in the United States.There were seven major conclusions. First, there was a significant increase in government expenditures with MBEs following implementation of EO 2008-S13 (2008). Second, there was a twofold increase in the number of MBEs registering to do business with the state following EO 2008-S13 implementation. Third, agency training and education were found to be significantly related to a positive change in agency expenditures with MBEs. Fourth, the findings reveal that cabinet agencies participated in more MBE outreach, training, and education programs, as well as submitted their reporting documents in a timelier manner than did non-cabinet agencies and colleges and universities. Cabinet agencies also demonstrated the highest percentage increase in their expenditures with MBEs, as compared to non-cabinet agencies and colleges and universities, demonstrating that proximity or “nearness to the sovereign” is an important contributor to changing procurement behavior. Fifth, agency characteristics such as minority leadership, year of founding, and agency size did not play a significant role in explaining why some agencies spend more with MBEs as compared to others. Sixth, there was a gradual decrease in expenditures with MBEs after the proponent of EO 2008-13S was no longer active in the implementation process. Lastly, this research identified a high congruence between the goods and services purchased by government agencies and those offered by MBEs. This finding is noteworthy because it contradicts a historical argument made by procurement managers, which is that MBEs often do not provide the goods and services contracted out by government agencies (Bates, 2001; Pearson, Fawcett, & Cooper, 1993). These findings suggest that state agencies will not improve their MBE expenditures without government intervention, a finding consistent with the claim that systemic racism still exists in government procurement (Dollinger, & Daily, 1991).
Public Policy, Public Administration, Business Administration, Black Studies, Organization Theory, Entrepreneurship, Minority Business Enterprise, Minority Set-asides, Government Contracting, Executive Orders, Government Mandates
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations