Showing papers in "Public Administration Review in 2001"

Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks

Abstract: Although cooperative, interorganizational networks have become a common mechanism for delivery of public services, evaluating their effectiveness is extremely complex and has generally been neglected. To help resolve this problem, we discuss the evaluation of networks of community-based, mostly publicly funded health, human service, and public welfare organizations. Consistent with pressures to perform effectively from a broad range of key stakeholders, we argue that networks must be evaluated at three levels of analysis: community, network, and organization/participant levels. While the three levels are related, each has its own set of effectiveness criteria that must be considered. The article offers a general discussion of network effectiveness, followed by arguments explaining effectiveness criteria and stakeholders at each level of analysis. Finally, the article examines how effectiveness at one level of network analysis may or may not match effectiveness criteria at another level and the extent to which integration across levels may be possible.

Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation

Abstract: Despite its appeal for improving government, many state and local governments have not developed performance-measurement systems, and even fewer use these systems to improve decision making. This study examines the factors that affect the utilization of performance measurement, based on the results of a national survey of state and local government officials. The goals of the study were to provide better information on the patterns of usage of performance measurement and to use this information to develop an elaborated model of the factors presumed to affect utilization. Using distinctions from the policy and evaluation literature, hypotheses were tested and confirmed: Policy adoption is driven more heavily by factors from rational and technocratic theory, whereas actual implementation is influenced by factors addressed by political and cultural considerations.

Work-Family Balance and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of Family-Friendly Policies on Attitudes of Federal Government Employees.

Abstract: We use the 1991 Survey of Federal Government Employees to test a theoretical framework regarding the relationships between work and family demands, family-friendly policies, satisfaction with work-family balance, and job satisfaction for diverse groups of employees with different personal and family needs. We find that a variety of policies widely presumed to be “family friendly” were used to varying degrees by disparate groups of federal employees. The use of such policies had very diverse effects on both employee satisfaction with work-family balance and job satisfaction, within and across various groups of similarly situated employees. The assumptions underlying the provision of family-friendly policies and implications for the organization are examined.

The Diminishing Publicness of Public Service under the Current Mode of Governance

Abstract: In this article, it is argued that while there has been an apparent eclipse in discourse regarding the publicness or public quality of public service, the recent transition toward a market-driven mode of governance has created a serious challenge to such publicness More specifically, the contemporary businesslike changes in the objectives, structures, functions, norms, and users of public service tend to diminish its publicness in terms of its current trends toward eroding public-private distinction, shrinking socioeconomic role, narrowing composition of service recipients, worsening condition of accountability, and declining level of public trust Based on the existing studies, empirical findings, and country experiences, this article delineates the basic criteria determining the publicness of public service, uses these criteria to demonstrate how the recent businesslike reforms have led to the erosion of such publicness, and makes recommendations for reviving the quality of publicness in public service

Cumulating the Intellectual Gold of Case Study Research

Abstract: Evaluations of public administration research have permeated Public Administration Review for over a decade (Perry and Kraemer 1986; Stallings 1986; Stallings and Ferris 1988). Two themes pervade the literature criticizing research in the field: Critics contend that knowledge is not being cumulated (Adams and White 1994; White et al. 1996) and that research in general (dissertation research in particular) is of poor quality (Adams and White 1994; Cleary 1992; McCurdy and Cleary 1984; White 1986a; White et al. 1996). Criticisms that public administration research lacks quality remain largely unchallenged (see Bailey 1992 and Box 1992, for two rare exceptions). The use of case studies as a preferred research methodology in public administration lies behind both themes. Critics contend that case studies play a limited role in knowledge cumulation (Adams and White 1994) and that they fare poorly on indicators of quality (Adams and White 1994; McCurdy and Cleary 1984). Both claims can be traced to the perception that case studies are not generalizable, a perception we show to be terribly misconceived. We contend that public administration is well suited to case studies because they satisfy the recognized need for conditional findings and in-depth understanding of cause and effect relationships that other methodologies find difficult to achieve. Case studies are a key part of the solution, not part of the problem. We will show this by first defining case studies and by outlining a typology of case studies. Next, we will show how the knowledge-cumulation problem can be solved by using meta-analysis. Finally, we will explain how the criticism that case studies have poor quality is based on a problematic definition of quality and misguided criteria. The critics' test of quality generally involves counting the number of quality criteria that are satisfied in a study. The higher the count, the better the quality of the study. That is, the criteria are additive (see McCurdy and Cleary 1984). When a whole range of quality measures are applied to any single case study, it fares badly. Similarly, when a whole range of quality measures are applied to a study using a different methodology (survey research, for example), it is also likely to fare badly. The errors of this logic lie with the application of all quality criteria to each single, isolated study pertaining to a particular point in time (or several points in time), and with the assumption that all measures of quality are appropriate for all methodologies. For example, consider a quality indicator such as the subtlety and richness of findings embedded in a meaningful historical context. A study that is not a narrative case study would fare poorly on such a criterion. Measures of quality should make sense for the methodology being used, with an understanding that good-quality studies, using a variety of methodologies, will add up to produce knowledge over time and that knowledge cumulation is actually dependent on the use of multiple methodologies. Exclusion of any methodology undermines knowledge cumulation. The charge that case studies are of poor quality stems, in part, from the perception that they are not generalizable, and thus cannot be cumulated. Both of these criticisms are untrue. Case studies are often done in clusters. Even when not so designed, they can be considered retrospectively as a group for a broader and richer analysis. When case studies are considered cumulatively, a wide variety of special conditions can be recognized to ascertain whether the findings are generalizable. Meta-analysis aims to solve the related issues of cumulation and generalizability; the cumulation of case studies using meta-analysis allows specific tests of generalizability. Meta-analysis is a method of combining findings across research studies that has become increasingly popular in the social sciences (Hedges and Olkin 1985; Hunter et al. …

The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration

Abstract: At the heart of the practice of public administration is the relationship between administrators, on one hand, and political leaders and the public on the other hand. The nature of that relationship and the proper role of administrators in the political process have been the subject of considerable debate. Anxiety about administrative legitimacy has been particularly intense in the United States, where the rise of the administrative state was out of synch with a democratic society (Stillman 1997), but similar issues have arisen in other countries as well (Rutgers 1997). As the field emerged, it was important to differentiate a practice based on professional knowledge and values from political particularism, but the extent and scope of the differentiation were unclear. It was also necessary to reconcile the tensions among complying with the directions of elected officials, maintaining professional integrity, and serving the public. Observers differ as to whether American thinking about the relationship of public administration to society has experienced major shifts over time or has gradually evolved. Along the lines developed by Lynn, the case can be made that there has generally been continuity in the development of public administration in the United States rather than an abandonment of the traditions of the field. Whereas Lynn organizes his reexamination around the bureaucratic paradigm, my emphasis is the core relationship between politicians and administrators.(1) Not only did traditional thought, as Lynn observes, seek to maintain "balance between administrative capacity and popular control on behalf of public purposes defined by electoral and judicial institutions," it also sought to justify the contributions of public administrators to shaping the definition of public purposes. Put simply, early contributors to the development of public administration acknowledged a policy role for administrators that has often been ignored. Even the politics-administration dichotomy that is a part of the traditional paradigm usually incorporates the ideas of accountability and responsibility--although the paradigm can be expressed in ways that seem to preclude these qualities by portraying administration as mechanically instrumental--but the emphasis on a strict dichotomy of politics and administration will not accommodate the policy role of administrators that has come to be widely recognized. In the past--and, I would argue, in the present as well--there was simultaneous emphasis on separation and insulation of administrators from political interference, on one hand, and interaction and incorporation of administrative contributions in the design and the implementation of public policy, on the other hand. Wilson and Goodnow favored such contributions, as did Leonard White, who acknowledged but dismissed concerns about the growth of administration "controlling in the first instance the application of law to the individual case, cooperating also in the formulation of policy" (1926, 33). Although legislative control of administration is critical, he argued, "it is nevertheless important to remember that the administration cooperates indispensably with the legislature, and that without its assistance, the task of legislation would become much less informed and much less effective." These founding fathers of the field never advocated the dichotomy attributed to them--a conclusion demonstrated repeatedly (Golembiewski 1977; Rabin and Bowman 1984, 4; Rohr 1986, 31; Van Riper 1984, 209-10).(2) Still, the myth that public administration began as a narrow, confined, and insulated activity is regularly repeated partly because, as Lynn implies, it is self-satisfying to view ourselves as enlightened and to view earlier, particularly prewar scholars and practitioners, as benighted. There are a number of reasons why the dichotomy idea has persisted. It is convenient to explain the division of roles in terms of total separation because it is easier to explain than a model based on sharing roles, particularly since the separation model does not limit the actual policy contributions of administrators in practice. …

Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology

Abstract: Interoperability is more than “digital plumbing”—making sure that computers talk so that bits of data flow properly. Fundamentally, interoperability is people talking and sharing information. Sharing information reduces the “paperwork burden”on the citizen, streamlines work processes, and enriches the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policy. Building on prior theory and research, this research has developed empirically derived, practical findings and recommendations to support thedevelopment of appropriate interoperable systems.

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy

Abstract: The authors are concerned that a remaining refuge of substantive democracy in America, the public sector, is in danger of abandoning it in favor of the market model of management. They argue that contemporary American democracy is confined to a shrunken procedural remnant of its earlier substantive form. The classical republican model of citizen involvement faded with the rise of liberal capitalist society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Capitalism and democracy coexist in a society emphasizing procedural protection of individual liberties rather than substantive questions of individual development. Today’s market model of government in the form of New Public Management goes beyond earlier “reforms,” threatening to eliminate democracy as a guiding principle in public-sector management. The authors discuss the usefulness of a collaborative model of administrative practice in preserving the value of democracy in public administration.

The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For

Abstract: For a decade, public administration and management literature has featured a riveting story: the transformation of the field's orientation from an old paradigm to a new one. While many doubt claims concerning a new paradigm—a New Public Management—few question that there was an old one. An ingrained and narrowly focused pattern of thought, a “bureaucratic paradigm,” is routinely attributed to public administration's traditional literature. A careful reading of that literature reveals, however, that the bureaucratic paradigm is, at best, a caricature and, at worst, a demonstrable distortion of traditional thought that exhibited far more respect for law, politics, citizens, and values than the new, customer-oriented managerialism and its variants. Public administration as a profession, having let lapse the moral and intellectual authority conferred by its own traditions, mounts an unduly weak challenge to the superficial thinking and easy answers of the many new paradigms of governance and public service. As a result, literature and discourse too often lack the recognition that reformers of institutions and civic philosophies must show how the capacity to effect public purposes and accountability to the polity will be enhanced in a manner that comports with our Constitution and our republican institutions.

Strategic Positioning and the Financing of Nonprofit Organizations: Is Efficiency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace?

Abstract: This article addresses the question of whether operational efficiency is recognized and rewarded by the private funders that support nonprofit organizations in fields ranging from education to social service to arts and beyond. Looking at the administrative efficiency and fundraising results of a large sample of nonprofit organizations over an 11-year period, we find that nonprofits that position themselves as cost efficient—reporting low administrative to total expense ratios—fared no better over time than less efficient appearing organizations in the market for individual, foundation, and corporate contributions. From this analysis, we suggest that economizing may not always be the best strategy in the nonprofit sector.

The Varieties of Faith-Related Agencies

Abstract: Although some recent literature suggests religious social service agencies can help governments reach important social program goals, the true social organization and services of the agencies remain in dispute. This article interviews officials in the wide class of “faith-related” agencies in two cities to consider two aspects of this issue: the ties or “coupling” of agencies to faith, and the impact of coupling on agency structure and service programming. The results suggest that many sampled agencies are loosely tied to faith in terms of resources, more tightly coupled in terms of authority, and moderately coupled with respect to culture; that certain aspects of service-delivery technology are heavily secularized in many agencies; that faith is more influential in such matters as the agencies’ choices of services; and that the larger, potentially more secularized agencies that might be least likely to be characterized as faith based balance differing sets of resources and thereby can more fully deliver services that arguably express faith in action. Given this finding and that most agencies profess a focus on protecting the dignity and rights of clients rather than on individual responsibility or other themes that are stressed by some recent policy proposals, governments need to be extremely selective in funding agencies to promote those proposals’ themes.

Budgeters' Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches

Abstract: Given that a majority of states have had some sort of performance-budgeting initiative on the books for several years, how has implementation of such reform progressed? To answer this question, we surveyed legislative and executive budgeters from the 50 states, asking them for their impressions of performance-budgeting implementation in their state. Specifically, we asked these budget officers about the reasons for introducing performance budgeting in their state; the types of activities required of their system; responsible oversight bodies; extent of application across state agencies and departments; and perceived levels of effectiveness and problems experienced with implementation of the budget reform. Our findings indicate that implementation of performance-based budgeting systems is proceeding slowly. While there are some benefits to highlight, results show that implementing performance budgeting is not without problems-perhaps the greatest being differing perceptions of use and success among budget players, particularly across branches of government.

Environmental Policy As Learning: A New View of an Old Landscape

Abstract: Environmental policy in the United States has always been characterized by high levels of political conflict. At the same time, however, policy makers have shown a capacity to learn from their own and others' experience. This article examines U.S. environmental policy since 1970 as a learning process and, more specifically, as an effort to develop three kinds of capacities for policy learning. The first decade and a half may be seen in terms of technical learning, characterized by a high degree of technical and legal proficiency, but also narrow problem definitions, institutional fragmentation, and adversarial relations among actors. In the 1 980s, growing recognition of deficiencies in technical learning led to a search for new goals, strategies, and policy instruments, in what may be termed conceptual learning. By the early 1990s, policy makers also recognized a need for a new set of capacities at social learning, reflecting trends in European environmental policy, international interest in the concept of sustainability, and dissatisfaction with the U.S. experience. Social learning stresses communication and interaction among actors. Most industrial nations, including the United States, are working to develop and integrate capacities for all three kinds of learning. Efforts to integrate capacities for conceptual and social learning in the United States have had mixed success, however, because the institutional and legal framework for environmental policy still is founded on technical learning.

The Big Questions of Public Administration Education

Abstract: Following Behn's observation that scientists in other fields understand the big questions of their disciplines and focus attention and their discussions on those questions, public administration scholars have attempted to identify the “big questions” in public management and public administration. In this article, I suggest that scholars in public administration should also be attentive to the big questions of public administration education, those timeless and enduring concerns that speak to the basic perspectives that we bring to the educational process. Specifically, I identify four big questions: Do we seek to educate our students with respect to theory or to practice? Do we prepare students for their first jobs or for those to which they might aspire later? What are the appropriate delivery mechanisms for MPA courses and curricula? What personal commitments do we make as public administration educators? I argue that these big questions in public administration education are far more connected than we usually think, and by posing these questions in terms of processes of human development we can at least provide a framework through which we might develop more coherent answers to these big questions, answers that recognize and build on the diversity of our students and our faculty.

American Federalism and the Search for Models of Management

Abstract: Public administration and the processes of federalism have merged to a nearly indistinguishable point. Since the "cooperative federalism" of the 1930s, managing within the federal system has become an increasingly more important activity. However, federalism is not static. As policy responsibilities between the national and subnational governments have evolved and devolved, governing authority has overlapped across levels to a point where all actors are involved simultaneously to varying degrees (Wright 1988). Attention must be given to operations in such a system. Managing across governments and across organizations within the complex and continuously changing processes of federalism deserves the attention of both scholars and practitioners. Such activity has become the very heart of public administration and management. The continuing growth of federal grants and new regulatory programs, increased federal-state programming, the continuation of some federal-local programs, federal initiatives to nongovernmental organizations, and expanded roles for state government have changed the context of public administration from single-organization operations to boundary-spanning operations (Agranoff and McGuire 1998a). Not only do local public managers now operate within their home agency and jurisdiction, they also perform numerous identifiable activities within the vertical realm, which includes the state and federal governments, and also horizontal activities, which involve other local governments and many nongovernmental organizations (Agranoff and McGuire 1998b; Jennings and Krane 1994; Mandell 1990; Wright and Krane 1998). These forces have put a premium on collaborative actions and transactions across governmental boundaries. While the resilience of federalism as a form of governance is undeniable--its shape and operation has caused and been caused by changing social, economic, and political trends (Watts 1996)--the search for appropriate management models within the changing processes of federalism remains a difficult task. To help focus that search, this article explores models of management. Two venerable models, top-down and donor-recipient, and two emergent models, jurisdiction-based and network, are presented. Each model's prevalence and applicability to twenty-first-century federalism are examined. While they are adaptable to explanation in a number of policy arenas, the emerging models are confirmed by our empirical study of 237 city governments and the intergovernmental and collaborative activity of government officials promoting economic development. The primary concern of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of public-management approaches by demonstrating how emergent models exist alongside more traditional models as a result of shifts in federalism. The term "model" employed here follows Kaplan's (1964, 266-7) usage: It is a "scientific metaphor" that directs attention to certain resemblances between theoretical entities and the real subject-matter; one type of system can be shown to be a consistent interpretation of another. Our search here is not for characteristic metaphors of federalism itself (Wright 1988), but how policy making and management can vary within federalism across time and policy realms. Thus, each model is not only described, its temporal and policy-specific relevance is also analyzed. Concern for management models is hardly new. Elazar (1964, 248) suggests that, from the founding period, intergovernmental cooperation was necessary, and methods of providing for collaboration among the various parts of the federal system were sought out continually. Similarly, Grodzins (1966) equates administrative practices in federalism with shared functions, and Leach (1970) identifies the management of grants programs as involving joint action and manpower from all levels of government. Even during Nixon's New Federalism attempt to streamline the intergovernmental system, Walker (1974, 30) claimed that managing within federalism was still in "a state of considerable confusion. …

Clean Air Federalism: Do States Race to the Bottom?

Abstract: From the lofty heights of Capitol Hill, it may appear the federal government makes all the important decisions about clean air policy. After all, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations and the detailed provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act regulate the amount of pollutants floating in the air (ambient air quality), the amount of pollutants released by industrial and mobile sources (emissions standards), and the types of fines and sanctions levied against pollution violators. From the Capitol Hill perspective, these national standards and regulations are absolutely necessary. According to the cynics, if left to their own devices, states would adopt weaker and weaker clean air protection laws, creating a "race to the bottom" in which states compete for economic growth by enticing industry with less stringent--and less costly--regulations. Do states always adopt the lowest possible environmental standards, as critics charge? Or can the states in fact develop policies that fit their particular political and environmental contexts? If states were involved in overwhelming competition for economic growth, no state would choose to exceed USEPA standards. A second, weaker interpretation of the race-to-the-bottom hypothesis posits that economic pressures to lower clean air standards most severely affect states that rely on heavily polluting industries. This article investigates these questions, drawing on results from the State Air Pollution Control Survey (SAPCS) conducted in 1998 by the Council of State Governments. Overall, the results show that many states have adopted clean air standards and programs that are more stringent than the USEPA requirements. Multivariate analyses of states' standards in three clean air policies indicate that states with "greener" political climates--those with stronger environmental interest groups and public opinion favoring environmental protection-are significantly more likely to develop air pollution standards that exceed USEPA requirements. The next section of this article discusses the importance of environmental policy federalism for both policy makers and academic scholars. The third section summarizes clean air policy in the United States. The fourth section presents SAPCS data on the number of states choosing to exceed USEPA standards in criteria pollutant clean air policy.(1) The fifth section presents multivariate analyses of states' decisions to exceed USEPA standards. The final section concludes that there is little evidence of a race to the bottom among states in clean air policy. The Importance of Environmental Federalism How do states handle policy authority that is delegated from the federal government? In an era of increasing devolution of policy authority from central to local governments, this question has become increasingly important for scholars and for policy professionals. For scholars, the states have been a valuable laboratory for understanding environmental policies. In the early to mid-1980s, scholars of state environmental policy investigated how states responded to Ronald Reagan's New Federalism (Crotty 1987; Davis and Lester 1987; Lester 1986). Lester (1986), for example, categorizes states by their capacity to assume responsibility for environmental programs and the extent to which they did so during the 1980s. As states assumed responsibility for environmental programs, the relevance of this question declined, and scholarly focus shifted to how state (see Ringquist 1993) and local (see Weiland 1998) governments shape environmental policies to fit their own political and policy contexts. The division of policy authority between a national government (such as the federal government) and lower-level governments is an important factor in policy development. Proponents of stronger central-government authority argue that competition for industrial development creates a "race to the bottom" in which states relax their environmental standards to avoid losing businesses to states with more "business-friendly" regulations (Duerksen 1983). …

Organizational characteristics and funding environments: A study of a population of United Way-affiliated nonprofits

Abstract: This study examines a population of United Way–affiliated nonprofit organizations in Massachusetts (1) to test hypotheses generated by previous research on relationships between government funding and specific nonprofit organizational characteristics, (2) to compare differences in organizational characteristics between nonprofits receiving higher percentages of revenues from the United Way and from government sources, and (3) to explore associations between government funding and United Way and underexamined characteristics, including use of commercial income and racial diversity of organizational membership. The study supports previous research on the relationship between government funding and nonprofit characteristics, with one notable exception—less administrative complexity was associated with higher percentages of government funding. The study also finds differences in organizational characteristics between nonprofits with higher proportions of government funding and those with higher percentages of United Way funding, including organization size, number of board members, administrative complexity, use of volunteers, and the racial diversity of boards, staff, and volunteers.

Human Resource Practices in State Government: Findings from a National Survey

Abstract: What are states doing with respect to human resource practices to improve government operations? Using data collected by the Government Performance Project, this article identifies emerging trends and innovations in state personnel systems. Specifically, it provides a national comparison in the areas of personnel authority, workforce planning, selection, classification, and performance management. Results show that many states are delegating authority for personnel functions to agencies and managers, shifting their human resource missions to being more proactive and collaborative with agencies, and adopting performance management systems that integrate organizational and individual goals. In short, many states are investing considerable resources to modernize their human resource management systems.

Anticipated Changes in Human Resource Management: Views from the Field

Abstract: This article reports the results of a major survey that was distributed to the members of the International Personnel Management Association and the Section on Personnel and Labor Relations of the American Society for Public Administration. The intent of the survey was twofold: to gauge the respondents' perspectives on the relative importance of various personnel techniques, activities, and values, and to assess their projections concerning the changes that will occur during the next decade. In addition to providing an interesting snapshot of the perceived state of modernization within public-sector human resource management, the results reflect a considerable degree of agreement concerning the expected direction of further changes. Themes arising from the reinvention movement, as well as the technological revolution, dominate the response patterns. The implications of these perceived alterations in the field of human resource management are discussed, and potential problem areas are identified.

Environmental Protection Versus Economic Development: A False Trade-Off?

Abstract: Is a trade-off between the social benefits of regulation and the economic benefits of development inevitable? We argue that environmental regulation may deter economic growth in some contexts, however, in other contexts the benefits of regulation may be obtained with little or no economic loss. We develop an explanation of the economic impacts of state environmental policy based on a model of public influence on private resource allocation decisions. In this model, we assume utility-maximizing firms will make investment choices based upon the projected profits on their investments and their willingness to accept the risk associated with the investments. We assert that state policies and administrative institutions influence perceptions of risk by increasing or decreasing uncertainty over future environmental policy and influence return on investments at particular locations by affecting firm-level production costs. Our results confirm that certain administrative arrangements for environmental regulation may enhance, rather than impede, economic development.

A Framework for Analyzing Emergency Management with an Application to Federal Budgeting

Abstract: Emergency management is a complex policy subsystem that involves an intergovernmental, multiphased effort to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. This article develops a framework for analyzing the fiscal and functional aspects of disaster policy. It uses established theories of intergovernmental relations to offer a rationale for examining the capabilities required to implement disaster policy and the behavioral incentives that drive policy formulation. In particular, the article identifies the extent to which the capabilities and political objectives characteristic of each level of government are aligned, and illustrates the interplay between incentives and competencies by reviewing the federal disaster funding process. The current rules for federal budgeting may inappropriately promote spending on disaster response and recovery, while de-emphasizing mitigation and preparedness. Various proposals for reform could establish more coherent incentives, making disaster spending more consistent with the relative functional capabilities of the various levels of government.

A Strategic Framework for Devolving Responsibility and Functions from Government to the Private Sector

Abstract: A new element has found its way into government decision making in the United States as public officials are asked to justify government funding of services and direct government provision of services. Whether a job belongs within or outside government is a very broad policy issue that relates to personal values and views concerning the relationship between the individual and the state. Without trying to answer that question here, this article begins from the premise that a particular function has been judged by the political process to be the responsibility of government. The article seeks to develop an approach for deciding how the function should be carried out--directly by government, or indirectly through the use of a non-governmental organization. This is a decision that government managers must make every day. The first part of this article examines what might be termed the "functional-matching" approach to privatization. It begins by delineating the distinguishing characteristics of government, nonprofit, and private organizations, and then assesses the degree to which those characteristics impede or facilitate the performance of a carefully defined set of typical public functions. The second portion of this article seeks to put the theory into practice by beginning the process of developing a framework and a method for making such decisions. The functional-matching process outlined here requires strategic thinking. It is not a straightforward, formulaic set of tasks: It requires decision makers to ask a number of critical questions and then to use their judgment and experience in framing a decision. Approaches to Privatization The modern impulse toward privatization is motivated by various perceived problems that it seeks to solve. The first is the supposed inefficiency of public enterprises due to the absence of the profit motive. The resources obtained by managers in the government sector may not be related to the revenues they generate, but to the importance of the service they deliver. The justification of costs is more important than the potential for revenues. In the private sector, operating resources and capital investments tend to be based on the potential for payout. By removing the relationship of revenues to expenditures, it is difficult to impose a downward pressure on costs, and therefore efficiency is not always rewarded. The second is the problem of over-formality--too many rules governing hiring, purchasing, budgeting, and the scope of activities that may be undertaken by an organization. The third is political influence in the process of managing activities. A fourth problem, more common outside the United States, is state ownership and financial losses from enterprises that do not perform traditional governmental functions (airlines, steel mills, shipyards, railroads, auto factories, phone companies, etc.). Most scholars of public administration assert that efficiency, organizational informality, and apolitical management are not the only values that organizations should be designed to pursue. Taken to extremes, efficiency, informality, and depoliticization of management would be opposed by advocates of privatization as well. Consider the following extreme examples: * Efficient law enforcement might execute presumed murderers on the spot to save the costs of legal processes and incarceration. * An organization without rules and structure would probably not have an accounting system and might simply disperse funds from a big box of cash in a drawer. They might hire staff and promote them on the basis of race or gender. * An organization implementing a program without political concerns would feel no pressure to be accountable for decisions and might be free to use impoverished elementary school children as a labor force. In a complex, interconnected society and economy there are, in fact, no purely private organizations. …

The Emerging Federal Quasi Government: Issues of Management and Accountability

Abstract: In recent years, both Congress and the president have turned to hybrid organizations (Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, Polish-American Enterprise Fund, for example) to implement public policy and functions that traditionally have been assigned to executive departments and agencies. Hybrid organizations, which possess legal characteristics of both the government and private sectors, tend to generate considerable support and criticism. Today, associated with the federal government alone, there are literally hundreds of hybrid entities that have collectively come to be called the "quasi government" (Seidman 1988). The relationship of this burgeoning quasi government to elected and appointed officials is of growing interest, and some concern, as it touches the heart of democratic governance: To whom are these hybrids accountable? How is the public interest being protected against the interest of private parties? The scope and consequences of these hybrid organizations have not been studied extensively. Basic definitional issues resist resolution. Even the language used in discussing the quasi government is in dispute. Should quasi government management be discussed in the language of public law, economic theory, or the business school? The traditional tools for holding executive agencies accountable (such as the budget and general management laws) are often inapplicable, leaving these hybrids free to pursue their own institutional interests, which may or may not conform to the public interest as defined by the nation's elected leadership. The current popularity of the quasi-government option can be traced to at least four major factors at work in the political realm: 1. Current controls on the federal budget process that encourage agencies to develop new sources of revenues; 2. Desire by advocates of agencies and programs to be exempt from central management laws, especially statutory ceilings on personnel and compensation; 3. Contemporary appeal of generic, business-focused values as the basis for a New Public Management; and 4. Belief that management flexibility requires entity-specific laws and regulations, even at the cost of less accountability to representative institutions. Congress is increasingly engaged in quasi-government issues ranging from the creation of nonprofit organizations to promote individual national parks, to proposals to strengthen regulation of government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae, to oversight hearings on national security issues at Los Alamos Laboratory, a government-owned, contractor-operated national laboratory. There is nothing modest about the size, scope, and impact of the quasi government. Definitions and Variations in Kind Writing about the quasi government is like entering a thicket with little hope of escaping unscathed. The truth is that the quasi government, virtually by its name alone and the intentional blurting of its boundaries, is not definable in any precise way. In general, the term describes entities that have some legal relation or association, however tenuous, to the federal government. One common aspect of this melange of entities is that they are generally not agencies of the United States, as that term is used in Title 5 of the U.S. Code.(1) The first task is to break the many hybrid entities in the quasi government into manageable categories so that legal and behavioral generalizations may be made. For the author's purposes, the following categories of quasi-government entities are defined and discussed: (1) quasi-official agencies; (2) government-sponsored enterprises; (3) federally funded research and development corporations; (4) agency-related nonprofit organizations; (5) venture capital funds; (6) congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations; and (7) instrumentalities of indeterminate character. There is nothing definitive about these categories; they are simply intended to provide a useful framework for analysis. …

Performance-Comparison Projects in Local Government: Participants' Perspectives

Abstract: How do officials of participating local governments assess the value of their involvement in performance-comparison projects, including related costs and benefits? In this article, three prominent projects involving city and county governments are examined from the perspective of the participants themselves, revealing gaps between high expectations and subsequent results, but nevertheless suggesting an array of benefits for participants.

The Influence of Jurisdiction Size and Sale Type on Municipal Bond Interest Rates: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract: The United Sates municipal bond market is very large, with $150 billion to $300 billion issued annually. The total municipal debt outstanding equals about 18 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Most local governments selling municipal bonds are small and sell infrequently. Two random sample surveys of municipal bond issues undertaken in the winter of 1996 showed the median population of governments issuing municipal bonds to be about 20,000 people (Simonsen and Kittredge 1996). (1) However, there has been very little research that focuses on small issuers. In this article we examine the determinants of municipal bond interest rates. Specifically, we explore two research questions: first, does management capacity influence municipal bond interest rates? As we will explain, the literature suggests that small communities typically have a smaller financial-management staff that is less sophisticated, frequently comprised of generalists, and often working part time. We proxy financial-management capacity using government population size and test whether this has an effect on interest rates. Second, does the method of sale affect municipal bond interest rates? We examine whether issuers experience an interest rate difference between bonds sold competitively versus those sold through negotiation (these are the two predominant ways in which municipal bonds are sold). We use data on bond sales in Oregon from 1994 to 1997 to answer these research questions. First, we look at the literature on management capacity and sale type. Second, we describe our methodology. Next, we report our research findings about the above two research questions. Finally, we discuss our research results and conclusions. Literature Review--Management Capacity and Population The management capacity of a local government revolves around managers' ability to know "whether they are doing the `right' thing programmatically, whether they are doing it `well', and whether they are doing `enough' or Bill Simonsen is an associate professor at the University of Connecticut in the Institute of Public Affairs and Department of Political Science. He is also the director of the MPA program. Email: simonsen@uconnvm.uconn.edu. `too much' of it." (Honadle and Howitt 1986, 2). Specifically, Honadle (1981) offers the following framework for capacity building: * Anticipate change * Make informed decisions about policy * Develop programs to implement policy * Attract and absorb resources * Manage resources * Evaluate performance to guide future actions. Financial management falls squarely in the "manage resources" category. According to Honadle (1981, 17) even if a community has the capacity to attract and retain resources, it must manage them effectively: "[W]ithout effective management of personnel, finances, time, information, and the other resources assigned to an organization, such resources will be dwindled away, and personnel will become demoralized by the lack of organization and direction." The research on financial-management capacity can be categorized into two broad categories, fiscal capacity and internal-management capacity. The research on fiscal capacity looks at the ability of governments to raise revenues and meet their expenditure needs. The book America's Ailing Cities (Ladd and Yinger 1989) is the most sophisticated look to date at the fiscal health of cities. Ladd and Yinger look at the influence of a range of outside factors on the fiscal health of 86 major U.S. cities to develop a standardized measure of fiscal health; they find it has worsened and call for federal and state policies to provide assistance to the neediest of cities. Other work in this area focuses on how to measure local government fiscal capacity (Berne and Schramm 1986; Clark 1994). Honadle and Lloyd-Jones (1998) apply fiscal-capacity tools to Swift County, Minnesota--specifically, three tools that test county financial condition. …

Public Administration Research from a Practitioner Perspective

Abstract: Recent research has questioned both the rigor and theoretical development of public administration research. The proposed solutions have generally endorsed a more academically oriented research agenda. Authors have discussed practitioner needs, but the focus has been on the appropriateness of different research methods rather than the types of knowledge needed. We seek to contribute to this ongoing debate by comparing the knowledge needs identified by members of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) with 15 years of research in Public Administration Review . We found much published research matching the needs of ICMA members, but it focused on a relatively narrow range of topics. We recommend incorporating a concern for relevance into efforts to improve public administration research. This will help to ensure that we build a knowledge base that makes a substantial contribution to practice.

Police Information Technology: Assessing the Effects of Computerization on Urban Police Functions

Abstract: Municipal police agencies are major users of information technology, and much remains to be learned about the effects of computerization on police operations. This article examines computerization in 188 municipal police agencies in 1993 in cities with populations of 100,000 or more. Relationships among computer hardware, police-file computerization, and police functions are examined. Cities are categorized as low, medium, and high levels of computerization to uncover differences in expenditures and police-officer allocation. Personal computers and mainframes supported file computerization of management and administration, throughput, and crime evidence. Management and administration files influenced computerization of police functions, particularly for management and crime solutions. Highly computerized cities reported larger shares of employees in technical positions, spent more per capita, and reported fewer officers per capita than cities with lower computerization levels. These relationships held after controlling for independent influences such as density, fiscal capacity, crime levels, and population.

The ''Old'' Public Management Versus the "New" Public Management: Where Does Public Administration Fit In?

Abstract: Larry Lynn's piece, "The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm," is provocative to say the least. I come to this admission not because of the overwhelming popularity of Lynn's work or my enduring "affection for the author or ... the prestige [this] author confers on the field" (Lynn, 145; see also Karl 1976), but because of the intellectual merit the essay demonstrates. I couldn't agree more with Lynn's overall premise and his conclusion that the traditional bureaucratic paradigm of public administration has proven to be much more responsive to democratic values than has the revisionists' new, customer-oriented managerialism. And, not to be overlooked, for an "outsider," Lynn (152) provides a respectable and comprehensive review of the intellectual heritage of the field of public administration. That said, I fundamentally disagree with many of Lynn's assertions. In particular, I disagree with one of his central theses: that students of public administration have failed to adequately challenge the New Public Management. I also take issue with another theme that runs, perhaps more obliquely, throughout Lynn's piece: the methodological claims and interests of the New Public Management as compared with those of the "old" public management. Here, Lynn seems to suggest that, due to a tradition of being "unduly careless," not only the New Public Management but the broader field of public administration itself "seems to have let lapse [its] moral and intellectual authority" (145, 155). Let me begin by parting company with Lynn's assertions that traditional public administration was unable to mount a sound, meaningful challenge to revisionist thought advanced by the New Public Management. On the contrary, a number of public administrationists virulently attacked the New Public Management, particularly its reinventing government or National Performance Review (NPR) manifestations. For example, there were many attacks against the NPR on the grounds that it failed to account for the realpolitik of government (see, for example, Carroll 1995; Frederickson 1996; Moe 1994; Rosenbloom 1993). In particular, many challenged the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the NPR, which, they argued, confute the fundamental principles of democracy and constitutional rule. Central to their argument was that the NPR's call for a shift from administrative bureaucracy to entrepreneurial organizations ignores the very nature of democratic government and how it evolved in the United States (Goodsell 1993). Moe (1994) points out that the NPR fails to account for critical differences between the government and private sectors, and, in particular, ignores the constitutional premise that government is based on a rule of law and not market-driven mechanisms. He states that "the government of the United States is a government of laws passed by the representatives of the people assembled in Congress. It is the constitutional responsibility of the President and his duly appointed and approved subordinates to see that these laws, wise and unwise, are implemented" (112). The "subordinates" would, in turn, be accountable to the president, not customers of government agencies, for the execution of the laws of the land. For Moe, the bottom line is the supremacy of an institutional presidency, where the president relies on the constitutional powers granted to the executive office in governing the country. This contrasts with what Nathan (1983) called the administrative presidency, where the president exerts control over the bureaucracy by administrative fiat, and, as some have argued, by circumventing rules, regulations, the law, and Congress's constitutional jurisdiction over the bureaucracy. Similarly, Carroll (1995) sees the political objective of the NPR as changing the balance of power, control, and authority over the federal bureaucracy. A presumption of power would rest in the executive branch, and Congress would have little or no role in executive administration. …

GIS, Public Service, and the Issue of Democratic Governance

Abstract: Geographic information systems (GIS) are analytical and decision-making tools that organize, compare, and analyze disparate types of information into one organized system. They have powerful visual display capabilities that present the results of analysis on maps and, in doing so, provide unparalleled power to examine social, economic, and political circumstances. In essence, GIS is the best technology to understand and solve problems related to place and space. The promise of GIS is increasingly reflected in the public administration literature (Brown and Brudney 1998; Masser 1998; Nedovic-Budic and Godschalk 1996; Ventura 1995). However, past observations about GIS have focused more on technique and less on the consequences of those techniques for the public service and democratic society. This article will examine the implications of GIS, which have a bearing on the issue of democratic governance. In doing so, an overview of GIS is followed by an examination of the relationship between this technology and democratic values. GIS: An Overview The heart of GIS is the data and the way they are organized. Generally, two types of data comprise a GIS system: spatial data (pertaining to geography and space) and attribute data (spatially related data, such as population, income, or disease). Spatial data are the cornerstone of GIS: The accurate representation of geography on a computer screen requires a thorough understanding of geography and cartography and the process by which geographic data are transformed into digital maps. Unlike paper maps, digital maps are very flexible in that, by organizing the data differently, the display of the map on the monitor can differ. In essence, GIS is to spatial analysis what statistical packages are to traditional statistical analysis. By the mid-1990s, the worldwide market for GIS products and related services was nearly $2.5 billion (Korte 1997, 66). While the ultimate power of GIS lies in the data, data dissemination has been much slower than the development of the technology. This is due, in part, to differing data formats used by agencies, reluctance to share data, and a lack of funding to create or buy new data. Once the technology is acquired, local government agencies face roadblocks due to data limitation. To make data widely available under a single format, the federal government has taken several initiatives, including the creation of the Federal Geographic Data Committee.(1) In April 1994, President Clinton signed an executive order (12906), calling for the establishment of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).(2) Prior to the federal government's involvement in data dissemination, local agencies had invested an enormous amount of resources in creating their own GIS. Today, local governments generate approximately 90 percent of GIS data (Hissong and Couret 1999). Therefore, new federal initiatives to create the NSDI have not been welcomed by many federal and local agencies, which believe the council would duplicate work already being done. Additionally, in many cases it would require the conversion of existing data to NSDI standards. As an alternative to federally dominated efforts, some have argued that the private sector could play a significant role in creating a national dataset (Hissong and Couret 1999). However, as has been the case with other new policy initiatives, it would be difficult to unite GIS users into a common front without significant incentives from the federal government. Evidence of GIS in Public-Policy Implementation GIS is considered largely a public-sector technology (Ventura 1995). The technology has significantly influenced the way public administrators implement public policy: GIS is being used for planning and community development, environmental protection, integrated public-safety response, infrastructure management, transportation planning and modeling, assessments, facility siting, vehicle routing, permitting and licensing, election management and parcel/real estate management. …

School Bureaucracy and Student Performance at the Local Level

Abstract: Scholars, political officials, the media, and the public have paid a great deal of attention to the topic of school choice in recent years. Scholarly attention has focused primarily on whether a market-based approach to education improves educational quality more than the traditional monopoly-based system of public education in America. School-choice advocates (Chubb and Moe 1990; Fliegel and MacGuire 1993) argue that school choice allows parents and students to flee low-quality public schools and move to higher-quality private schools. Thus, school choice forces public schools to improve in order to remain competitive with private schools. Critics of school choice (Henig 1994; Smith 1994; Smith and Meier 1995; Witte 1991, 1992) point to a large body of empirical evidence showing that few of the alleged benefits of school choice are realized when such programs are implemented and their effects are examined. In addition to looking at the effectiveness of school-choice programs in improving student performance, scholars have examined how parents acquire knowledge about school-choice programs (Schneider et al. 1998) and how school-choice programs effect the building of social capital in local communities (Schneider et al. 1997). Although a variety of research questions relate to school choice, one of the most interesting questions, from a public administration standpoint, is the impact of bureaucracy on public school performance. Two prominent advocates of the choice paradigm, John Chubb and Terry Moe (1990), claim that public schools perform poorly because expansive centralized bureaucracies limit teachers' discretion to propose and implement innovative solutions to educational problems. Underlying Chubb and Moe's argument is the belief that administrators are not street-level bureaucrats, and thus do not appreciate or understand the day-to-day problems that schools face. For instance, administrators may lack the experience of direct and constant interaction with students. Because education is based largely on student-teacher interactions, administrators add little value to the core task of teaching. Their lack of day-to-day interaction with students also makes it difficult for administrators to measure student performance; administrators spend their time collecting and analyzing quantitative indicators that may be of dubious value in measuring performance. In contrast, teachers concentrate on doing their jobs well, working directly with students to improve performance, rather than collecting and reviewing performance indicators. When it comes to addressing the needs of parents and students, teachers have an advantage over administrators because their in-the-trenches experience better prepares them to address the needs of their client populations. In direct contrast to Chubb and Moe, Smith and Meier (1994, 1995) argue that bureaucracy can be a positive tool in the management of public schools. Whereas Chubb and Moe view bureaucracy as an outgrowth of democratic control of public schools, Smith and Meier contend that bureaucracy arises from problems in school environments. This is especially true, they argue, in the case of urban schools: Many students in urban schools live in poverty or come from low-income family backgrounds, requiring administrators to implement and oversee school lunch, remedial education, and other poverty-related programs. Bureaucracy can be a positive force when these problems exist because the absence of administrators would place additional burdens on teachers, forcing them to spend more time on administrative matters rather than teaching students. Smith and Meier conclude that reducing bureaucracy in schools could lead to declining performance, as fewer experts are available to address administrative matters. While both Chubb and Moe and Smith and Meier present persuasive arguments, our knowledge of the impact of bureaucracy on school performance remains limited. As Smith and Meier (1994, 551) point out, Chubb and Moe's assessment is based largely on the subjective evaluations of school principals. …