(PDF) Introducing Public Administration | Afra Abida - Academia.edu

Introducing Public Administration

This Paper
A short summary of this paper
34 Full PDFs related to this paper
Introducing Public Administration Now in an extensively revised 9th edition, Introducing Public Administration provides students with the conceptual foundation they need, while introducing them to import- ant trends in the discipline. Known for its lively and witty writing style, this beloved textbook examines the most important issues in the field of public administration through the use of examples from a variety of disciplines and modern culture. This unique approach captivates students and encourages them to think critically about the nature of public administration today. Refreshed and revised throughout, the 9th edition contains a number of important updates: Q An examination of the effect of the Obama administration on the discipline, especially economic and financial management and budgetary policy, allowing students to apply the theories and concepts in the text to recent US government practice. Q An exploration of the 2008 economic meltdown and its consequences for the regulation of financial markets, cut-back management, and social equity, providing students with a critical look at recent changes in the global economy. Q All-new images, international examples, keynotes, and case studies have been incorporated to reflect the diversity of public servants throughout history. Case studies correspond to those in optional companion book Cases in Public Policy and Administration to offer clear discussion points and seamless learning with the two books side by side. Q New sections on careers in public service, whistleblowing and public employee dissent, networks and collaboration across organizations, social innovation, managerialism and productivity improvement, Big Data and cloud computing, collaboration and civic engagement, and evidence-based policy and management. Complete with a companion website containing instructor slides for each chapter, a chapter-by-chapter instructor’s manual and sample syllabus, student learning objec- tives and self-test questions, Introducing Public Administration is the ideal introduc- tion to the discipline for first year masters students, as well as for the growing number of undergraduate public administration courses and programs. Jay M. Shafritz is Professor Emeritus of Public Administration from the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, USA. E.W. Russell is Adjunct Professor of Public Administration in the School of Public Health at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. Christopher P. Borick is Professor of Political Science in the Department of Political Science at Muhlenberg College, USA. Albert C. Hyde is Senior Scholar in Residence in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC, USA. Introducing Public Administration Ninth Edition JAY M. SHAFRITZ E. W. RUSSELL CHRISTOPHER P. BORICK ALBERT C. HYDE For support material associated with Introducing Public Administration, Ninth Edition, please go to www.routledge.com/cw/Shafritz First published 2017 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Taylor & Francis The right of Jay M. Shafritz, E.W. Russell, Christopher P. Borick, and Albert C. Hyde to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Shafritz, Jay M., author. Title: Introducing public administration / by Jay M. Shafritz, E.W. Russell, Christopher P. Borick, and Albert C. Hyde. Description: Ninth edition. | New York : Routledge, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016010466 | ISBN 9781138666337 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781138666344 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315619439 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Public administration—Textbooks. Classification: LCC JF1351 .S448 2016 | DDC 351—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016010466 ISBN: 978-1-138-66633-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-66634-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-61943-9 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon LT Std by Apex CoVantage, LLC BRIEF CONTENTS Detailed Contents vi Preface xiii Key Events in Public Administration xvi CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration 1 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration 40 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government 85 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations 139 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability 187 CHAPTER 6 The Evolution of Management and Organization Theory 231 CHAPTER 7 Organizational Behavior 273 CHAPTER 8 Managerialism and Information Technology 319 CHAPTER 9 Strategic Management and Government Regulation 361 CHAPTER 10 Leadership 390 CHAPTER 11 Personnel Management and Labor Relations 415 CHAPTER 12 Social Equity 464 CHAPTER 13 Public Financial Management 507 CHAPTER 14 Program Audit and Evaluation 556 Index 589 v D E TA I L E D C O N T E N T S Preface xiii The Evolution of Public Administration 23 Key Events in Public Administration xvi A Short History of Public Administration 24 The Pre-modern Period and Five Eras of Civil Service Development 26 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public The Modern Period and Shifting Perspectives on the Roles of Government 28 Administration 1 Working in the Public Sector in the Keynote: Go Tell the Spartans 1 Twenty-First Century 30 The Definitions of Public Administration 6 A Case Study: How a President Undeservedly Political Definitions of Public Administration 6 Received Credit for Founding a Discipline 33 Public Administration Is What Summary 34 Q Review Questions 35 Q Government Does 6 Key Concepts 35 Q Bibliography 37 Q Public Administration Is Both Recommended Books 38 Direct and Indirect 7 Public Administration Is a Phase in the Public Policymaking Cycle 9 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Public Administration Is Implementing Environment of Public Policy and its the Public Interest 9 Administration 40 Public Administration Is Doing Collectively That Which Cannot Be So Well Done Keynote: Who Decides Whether the United States Individually 10 Should Wage War? 40 Legal Definitions of Public Administration 11 What Is Public Policy? 47 Public Administration Is Law in Action 11 Public Policymaking in a Republic 47 Public Administration Is Regulation 12 Executive Powers 49 Public Administration Is the King’s Largesse 13 The Restricted View 49 Public Administration Is Theft 13 The Prerogative Theory 49 Managerial Definitions of Public The Stewardship Theory 51 Administration 14 Public Administration Is the Executive The Policymaking Process 51 Function in Government 15 Agenda Setting 53 Public Administration Is a Management Decision Making 56 Specialty 15 A Single Calculating Decision Public Administration Is Mickey Mouse 16 Maker—Not! 57 Public Administration Is Art, Implementation 58 Not Science—or Vice Versa 16 Evaluation 60 Occupational Definitions of Public Feedback 61 Administration 17 Power—The External Perspective 61 Public Administration Is an Occupational Category 17 Pluralism 62 Public Administration Is an Essay Contest 18 Group Theory 64 Public Administration Is Idealism in Action 19 Power—The Internal Perspective 67 Public Administration Is an Academic Field 20 Organizational Goals 68 Public Administration Is a Profession 23 Internal Power Relationships 68 vi Detailed Contents vii The Cultures of Public Organizations 70 The Obama Revolution—The Return of Big The Outside Cultural Environment 71 Government 116 Cultural Values and Administration 71 The Micromanagers 117 The Inside Cultural Environment 72 The Pressure for Privatization 118 Professional Socialization 73 Strategies for Privatization 119 Symbolic Management 74 Privatization in the Military 120 A Case Study: How Old Bottles Create New Jobs— The Nonprofit Gambit 122 Both Legal and Not 76 The Faith-Based Initiative 123 Summary 80 Q Review Questions 80 Q Voluntarism and Philanthropy 125 Key Concepts 80 Q Bibliography 82 Q A Case Study: The Revolution in the British Recommended Books 84 Machinery of Government (1979–2011) 128 Summary 132 Q Review Questions 133 Q CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of Key Concepts 133 Q Bibliography 135 Q Recommended Books 137 the Machinery of Government 85 Keynote: The New Feudalism 86 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental What Is the Machinery of Government? 89 Relations 139 Fine-Tuning the Machinery 89 The Rise and Fall of Governmental Keynote: The Intergovernmental Problem of Machinery 90 Marijuana 139 The Administrative Architecture of the US The Evolution of Federal Systems 145 Government 91 Alliances and Confederations 146 Executive Branch Machinery 94 Defining Intergovernmental Relations 146 Executive Office Agencies 94 The Fundamental Settlement 147 Executive Departments 94 The Constitution 147 Independent Public Bodies 95 The European Union 148 Separation of Powers 96 The American Federal System 149 State and Local Government Machinery 98 Three Categories of Governments 149 State Government 102 Unitary Government Advantages 151 County Government 102 Federal Government Advantages 151 Municipal Government 104 Confederations 152 Towns and Special Districts 105 The Structure of Intergovernmental Local Management Machinery 105 Relations 152 Metropolitan Government 106 The Effects of Pluralism 153 Continuous State and The Marble-Cake Metaphor 154 Local Reform 108 Dynamic Federalism 154 Reforming the National Machinery Dual Federalism 155 of Government 108 Cooperative Federalism 155 The Brownlow Committee 110 Creative Federalism 156 The Hoover Commissions 111 New Federalism 156 The Ash Council 112 New, New Federalism 158 The President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control 112 Intergovernmental Management 158 The National Performance Review: Councils of Governments and “Reinventing Government” 113 Intergovernmental Agreements 159 Reinvention in Recess 115 Mandate Mania 160 viii Detailed Contents Mandates and the War on Terrorism 161 Obsessive Accountability 213 The Transformation of Governance 162 Avoiding Accountability 214 Fiscal Federalism—Following the Money 164 Legislative Oversight 215 The Theory of Fiscal Federalism 165 Hearings 215 Grant Programs 168 Casework 217 The Devolution Revolution 170 A Case Study: The Gas Chamber of Philadelphia: The Public-Choice Solution 172 How a 1977 Incident at Independence Mall Welfare Reform 172 Illustrates the “Banality Of Evil” Concept First Applied to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi Holocaust The Race to the Bottom 176 Administrator 217 A Case Study: Why Illegal Immigration Is an Summary 226 Q Review Questions 226 Q Intergovernmental Mess and Will Remain So 177 Key Concepts 227 Q Bibliography 228 Q Summary 182 Q Review Questions 182 Q Recommended Books 230 Key Concepts 182 Q Bibliography 184 Q Recommended Books 185 CHAPTER 6 The Evolution of Management and Organization Theory 231 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, Keynote: Reorganization at the State Department and Accountability 187 is Nothing New 232 Keynote: Niccolò Machiavelli, the Preeminent The Origins of Public Management 235 Public Administration Ethicist 187 The Continuing Influence of Ancient Rome 236 The Origins and Nature of Honor 190 The Military Heritage of Public Administration 237 National Honor 191 Why Honor Precedes Ethics 192 The Evolution of Management Principles 239 Dimensions of Honor 193 Comparing Military and Civilian Regime Values 194 Principles 239 The Principles Approach 241 Corruption in Government 195 Bribery 195 What Is Organization Theory? 242 Watergate 196 Classical Organization Theory 243 Adam Smith and the Pin Factory 244 Lying for Your Country 196 The Dirty Hands Dilemma 197 The Origins of Scientific Management 246 Lying about Sex 198 The Staff Concept 246 The Influence of Frederick W. Taylor 247 Hierarchy of Ethics 200 Fayol’s General Theory of Management 250 The Four Levels of Ethics 200 The Iran-Contra Affair 201 The Period of Orthodoxy 250 The Higher Law Defense 202 Paul Appleby’s Polemic 251 Luther Gulick’s POSDCORB 251 Codes of Honor, Conduct, and Ethics 203 Honorable Behavior 203 The Many Meanings of Bureaucracy 252 Was “Deep Throat’s” Behavior Honorable? 204 All Government Offices 253 Standards of Conduct 205 All Public Officials 253 A General Invective 253 Whistleblowing 206 Max Weber’s Structural Protecting the Public’s Right to Know 206 Arrangements 254 Protecting Whistleblowers 207 Neoclassical Organization Theory 255 The Challenge of Accountability 210 Herbert A. Simon’s Influence 257 Constitutional and Legal Constraints 212 The Impact of Sociology 257 Detailed Contents ix “Modern” Structural Organization Postmodern Public Administration 305 Theory 259 A Feminist Perspective 306 Basic Assumptions 259 A Case Study: The Dangers of Groupthink Mechanistic and Organic Systems 259 from Pearl Harbor to the War in Iraq 309 Systems Theory 260 Summary 312 Q Review Questions 313 Q Cybernetics and Complex Adaptive Key Concepts 313 Q Bibliography 315 Q Systems 260 Recommended Books 317 Collaborative Management 262 A Case Study: The Critical Importance of CHAPTER 8 Managerialism and Administrative Doctrine 263 Information Technology 319 Summary 267 Q Review Questions 268 Q Keynote: Socrates Discovers Universal Key Concepts 268 Q Bibliography 270 Q Management 319 Recommended Books 272 Managerialism 323 A New Managerial Revolution 324 CHAPTER 7 Organizational Policy Entrepreneurs 325 Behavior 273 Reengineering 325 Keynote: Henry II of England, Archbishop of Radical as Opposed to Incremental Canterbury Thomas Becket, and Rufus Miles of the Change 325 US Bureau of the Budget: How a Medieval King, a Martyred Saint, and an American Bureaucrat Becoming a Reengineer 326 Illustrate Miles’s Law 273 Empowerment 328 Miles’s Law 275 Empowering Teams 328 The Rise of Thomas Becket 275 Becket’s Predicament 276 Entrepreneurialism 329 A New Archbishop of Canterbury 277 Toward a Competitive Public Miles’s Law in Action 277 Administration 330 The New Public Management 332 Organizational Behavior 279 Group Dynamics 282 What Is Performance Management? 333 Organization Development 285 The Politics of Performance The Impact of Personality 288 Management 334 Management Control 335 The Impact of Bureaucratic Structure on Behavior 289 Productivity Improvement 335 Bureaucratic Dysfunctions 290 Productivity Measurement 335 Bureaucratic Impersonality 291 Barriers to Productivity Improvement 336 Bureaucrat Bashing 293 Total Quality Management 337 The Case for Bureaucracy 294 Information Technology 339 Motivation 294 Social Networks and New Media: Government 2.0 340 The Hawthorne Experiments 295 Facebook 340 The Needs Hierarchy 296 Twitter 341 The Motivation-Hygiene Theory 296 YouTube 342 Toward a Democratic Environment 297 Texting 343 Theory X and Theory Y 298 The Future of Organizations 301 From E-Commerce to E-Government 345 Postbureaucratic Organizations 301 The Two Faces of E-Government 346 Postmodernism and Technocracy 303 Wired Citizens 346 Social Network Analysis 304 One-Stop Government 347 x Detailed Contents Technology, Productivity, and Innovation in Trait Theories 398 Government 349 Transactional Approaches 398 The Future Course of E-Management 350 Contingency Approaches 400 A Case Study: Geeks to the Rescue! 353 Transformational Leadership 401 Summary 355 Q Review Questions 356 Q The Importance of Optimism 403 Key Concepts 356 Q Bibliography 357 Q Too Much Leadership 404 Recommended Books 360 Micromanagement 404 Overmanagement 405 CHAPTER 9 Strategic Management and Moral Leadership 405 Government Regulation 361 The Bully Pulpit 406 Keynote: Using Government Regulations of Rhetorical Leadership 406 Business to Strategically Manage the Environment 361 A Case Study: Transforming the Postal Service 407 What Is Strategic Management? 363 Summary 411 Q Review Questions 411 Q Objectives 364 Key Concepts 412 Q Bibliography 412 Q Recommended Books 414 The Planning Horizon 367 Capabilities 369 Game Theory 370 CHAPTER 11 Personnel Management Strategic Management Tools 370 and Labor Relations 415 Best Practices 371 Keynote: The Great Pay Comparability Benchmarking 371 Debate 415 Management Scorecards 372 Civil Service Reform: From Spoils to Merit to Government Regulation for Health, Safety, Reinvention 418 and Economic Equity 374 The Pendleton Act 419 Independent Regulatory Agencies 375 State and Local Reform 420 The Rise and Fall of the Civil Service The Rulemaking Process 377 Commission 421 State Government Regulation 379 The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 423 Occupational Licensing 379 Reinventing Public Personnel Administration 424 Local Government Regulation 380 The Personnel Function 425 Zoning 380 Recruitment 426 Building Codes 382 Merit Selection 427 Public Health 383 Position Classification and Pay 428 A Case Study: Opportunity Lost: The Story of Performance Appraisal 430 Bernie Madoff and the Securities and Exchange Performance Management and Pay for Commission 384 Results 431 Summary 386 Q Review Questions 387 Q Training 433 Key Concepts 387 Q Bibliography 388 Q Management Development 435 Recommended Books 389 Education Levels Make a Difference 435 Privatization and Patronage 437 CHAPTER 10 Leadership 390 Privatizing Public Personnel 437 Keynote: The Hedgehog, the Fox, Henry V, or the Contracting Out Personnel 437 “Hidden-Hand” Golfer 390 Patronage Appointments 439 Leading for Performance 393 The Constitutionality of Patronage 441 Defining Leadership 394 Veterans Preference 441 Leadership and Management 395 Patronage Gone Bad 442 Detailed Contents xi Public Sector Labor Relations 443 Summary 499 Q Review Questions 500 Q Administrative Agencies 445 Key Concepts 500 Q Bibliography 502 Q US Supreme Court Cases Cited in this Collective Bargaining 446 Chapter 503 Q Recommended Books 504 Q Strikes 449 Appendix: Three Thousand Years of Sexual Unions in Court 452 Harassment 505 A Case Study: The Plight of Public Employeee Unions and Public Pensions 454 CHAPTER 13 Public Financial Summary 458 Q Review Questions 459 Q Management 507 Key Concepts 459 Q Bibliography 461 Q Keynote: A Tale of How Two States and Recommended Books 463 Their Governors Weathered the Fiscal Storms of 2011 507 CHAPTER 12 Social Equity 464 The Importance of Public Financial Keynote: Social Equity Through Social Management 513 Insurance 464 Six Principles 514 What Is Social Equity? 469 Balanced Budgets 514 Mandating Social Equity 469 The Fiscal Year 515 The New Public Administration 470 Budgeting Theory and Practice 515 The Challenge of Equality 471 The Taft Commission 516 Racism 471 The Influence of Keynes 517 The Bitter Heritage of Slavery 472 The Influence of Hayek 517 From Reconstruction to Second The Objectives of Budgeting 518 Reconstruction 473 The Two Types of Budgets 520 Equal Employment Opportunity 474 Waves of Innovation in Budget Origins of Affirmative Action 475 Making 520 The Case for Affirmative Action 477 The Executive Budget 520 The Case Against Affirmative Action 479 Line-Item Budgeting 521 Representative Bureaucracy 479 Performance Budgeting 521 Reverse Discrimination 480 Program Budgeting versus Justifying Diversity 481 Incrementalism 522 The Ongoing Role of Race in Public Zero-Based Budgeting 524 Administration 484 Performance Results Nonracial Discrimination 485 Budgeting 525 Sex Discrimination 485 Contemporary Budget Reform 527 Sexual Harassment 486 Integrated Budgets 527 Pregnancy Discrimination 488 Multiyear Budgets 528 Age Discrimination 489 Financing Public Expenditure 529 Disabilities Discrimination 489 Taxation 529 Sexual Orientation Discrimination 491 The Ability-to-Pay Principle 532 Public Administration and Social Equity 492 The Flat Tax 533 Going the Extra Mile 492 User Charges 534 Inspiring Social Equity 493 Grants 535 A Case Study: Brown Reverses Plessy’s Doctrine: The Problem of Debt and Budgetary The Story of how Thurgood Marshall Convinced the Manipulation 535 US Supreme Court that Separate was Inherently Not Equal, Laid the Legal Foundations for the Abuse of Public Debt 536 Modern Civil Rights Movement 493 Municipal Bonds 537 xii Detailed Contents The Rating Agencies 537 Types of Audit 563 Debt and Economic Recovery 539 Compliance Audit 563 Bonds, Debt, and Emergency Performance Audit 564 Recovery 540 Internal Audit 566 Stealth Budgeting: Hiding the True Costs of the Iraq War 542 Program Evaluation 567 Policy Analysis Is Not Program Economic Policy 544 Evaluation 567 Monetary Policy 544 Legislative Program Evaluation 568 Fiscal Policy 545 Types of Evaluation 570 A Case Study: Social Security Reform Evaluation Standards 571 from Clinton to Obama 546 Management Control: Evaluation in a Microcosm 573 Summary 549 Q Review Questions 550 Q Key Concepts 551 Q Bibliography 553 Q Evaluation and the Democratic Recommended Books 555 Process 575 The Ascent of Evaluation in Federal Performance Management 575 CHAPTER 14 Program Audit and A Case Study: Why Florence Nightingale, Evaluation 556 the Famous Nurse who Pioneered the Graphic Presentation of Statistical Data, Keynote: Jeremy Bentham, the Philosopher is the Now Forgotten “Mother” of of Policy Analysis and Program Program Evaluation and “Powerpoint” Evaluation 556 Illustrations 578 What Is an Audit? 558 Summary 584 Q Review Questions 584 Q Multiple Applications 559 Key Concepts 585 Q Bibliography 585 Q A History of Auditing 560 Recommended Books 587 The Government Accountability Office 560 Index 589 P R E FA C E T his is the now the 9th edition of a text first published in 1997. There’s only one audience for a book of this nature—practitioners, students and teachers of public administration. In the original preface to this book we explained that we sought to create a text that would bridge two worlds, a text that would be informal enough to be accessible to undergraduates yet comprehensive enough for graduate students. This con- tinues to be our goal, to create a book that captures the history of governments and the development of public administration while taking pains to note our successes and failures, our progress and our challenges. As we’ve said since the first edition of this text, public administration is an exciting and fascinating field of study, full of the stuff of fiction, only true. We try to capture this sense of drama and excitement by beginning each chapter with a good story—what we call a keynote—that highlights a major aspect of the subject. These accounts deal with a rich variety of topics, some modern as the response to the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City or state governors resolving a budget crisis ; some classic such as Thomas Becket’s demise because he disagreed with the administrative policies of England’s King Henry II or Socrates discovering the universality of management. All of these keynotes have significant public policy and public management implications that are developed fur- ther in their respective chapters. Each chapter also ends with a short case study that illustrates important points pre- viously discussed. We have updated some of these cases – such as those on social security reform or public unions and pensions. We have added some new cases on recycling as a wicked problem as well as cases involving major historical figures such as Thurgood Marshall and Florence Nightingale As before with the keynotes, we have provided “For Discussion” questions at the end of each case, which can be used to stimulate discussions in class . The organization of the book is, we think, very straightforward, beginning with definitions, external environment and matters of governance through organizational theories, management, human resources, budget and evaluation. There are three very important chapters that move above the “what” and “how” of public administration— chapters on honor and ethics, on social equity and law, and on leadership. These all focus on the “why” and “why not” of public administration. We expect that some instructors will want to move chapters around to accommodate their own course outlines and time constraints. There is also logic to our use of terms and concepts. Unfortunately, most modern disciplines have a fair amount of jargon or use terminology that has unique meanings. We have put terms that may need explanation or historical notes or names that might require introduction on the side of each page of each chapter. So when a word or name appears in red in the text, it’s defined or explained at the side of its page. There are other terms and names,-what we refer to as key concepts, that appear in bold face and are generally discussed in some depth in the chapter. These are all listed at the end of each chapter. These concepts, really a listing of key terms, subjects, import- ant persons in public administration, and even some acronyms don’t duplicate the red- letter terms. In this format they are a summary of ideas and names that are critical to xiii xiv Preface understanding each chapter and a good checklist for the student to ensure they under- stand the essence of the chapter Readers also will find an annotated list of recommended books. These have been included as guides to further information on chapter topics for any interested reader— student or instructor. Every effort has been made to keep the material as current as possible. Thus there is extensive coverage of movements to transform government, marketization, new social equity issues and environmental sustainability, and ever increasingly globalization. Because American public administration is increasingly influenced by technological innovations, we pay increased attention to advancements in communications and information manage- ment that are reshaping the practice of public administration and the relationships between government and its citizens A NOTE ON NOTES There are no traditional footnotes in this book, although most of the quotations are fully referenced. Generally, if a work or author is referred to in a chapter, the corresponding full citation will be found in that chapter’s bibliography. The major exceptions are works or statements so famous and existing in so many formats—such as excerpts from the Bible and Shakespeare’s plays—that further bibliographic information was deemed unnecessary. Most long quotations are kept in boxes separate from the main body and rhythm of the text. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No book is born without debts. And with each edition of this book, the list of reviewers, helpful colleagues, and students with comments and questions has grown. In this 9th edition we thought to take a different tack; to accept the fact that listing 100 plus names in a long paragraph doesn’t do justice to the help we received over the past twenty years. Rather, we simply acknowledge the obvious, our continued indebtedness to old and new colleagues and past and present students in our courses that have commented or made suggestions. There is one contributor that we do wish to thank in a special note. Prof Breena Coates at California State University, San Bernardino- has prepared the student and instructor’s study materials that parallel this textbook and are available on the companion website. She has graciously agreed to let us update her materials for this 9th edition- but her original authorship and updates through past editions needs to be acknowledged. We greatly appre- ciate her work and the value she has added to this textbook. Finally, it is our hope that in reading this book, discussing Issues, and working with the ideas presented within, that you might be motivated to communicate with us to offer your ideas and contributions for the next edition. A textbook, especially one on a field of study in a dynamic, challenging environment, must be a work in progress. Thus, sugges- tions for innovations and enhancements will always be welcome. Jay M. Shafritz Professor Emeritus University of Pittsburgh shafritz@yahoo.com Preface xv E. W. Russell La Trobe University ewrussell@hotmail.com Christopher P. Borick Muhlenberg College cborick@muhlenberg.edu Albert C Hyde American University ahyde@american.edu KEY EVENTS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 1776 • Declaration of Independence is signed. 1851 • Massachusetts enacts the first law permitting • Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations advocates towns to use tax revenues to support free libraries. “the ability to pay” principle of taxation. 1861 • Abraham Lincoln becomes president; the Civil 1781 • Articles of Confederation adopted. War begins. 1787 • Northwest Ordinance provides for future states 1862 • The Morill Land Grant Act endows state to enter the union and for federal aid to local colleges of agriculture and industry. public schools. 1863 • President Lincoln issues the Emancipation • Constitutional Convention convenes in Proclamation. Philadelphia. 1865 • New York City establishes the first fire 1789 • US Constitution adopted. department with full-time paid firefighters. • Congress establishes the first federal • Civil War ends; Reconstruction begins. administrative agencies (the Departments of • The Thirteenth Amendment abolishes slavery. State, War, Treasury, and the Office of the 1868 • President Andrew Johnson is impeached by the Attorney General). House, but tried and acquitted by the Senate. • The Federal Judiciary Act creates the Supreme • Congress mandates an eight-hour workday for Court. federally employed laborers and mechanics. • New York City becomes the first capital of the United States. 1881 • President James Garfield is assassinated by deranged office seeker. 1790 • First census sets US population at 4 million. • US capital moved from New York to 1883 • The Pendleton Act creates the US Civil Service Philadelphia. Commission. 1791 • Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) added 1886 • Henry R. Towne’s paper “The Engineer as to the Constitution. an Economist” encourages the scientific • Congress passes the first internal revenue law; a management movement. tax on alcohol. • American Federation of Labor formed. 1800 • US capital moved from Philadelphia to 1887 • Congress creates the Interstate Commerce Washington, DC Commission, the first federal regulatory commission. 1803 • The Supreme Court first asserts the right of • Woodrow Wilson’s “The Study of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. Administration” is published in Political Science 1819 • The Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland Quarterly. establishes the doctrine of implied constitutional 1901 • Galveston, Texas, is the first city to install the powers and the immunity of the federal commission form of government. government from state taxation. • Oregon becomes the first state to adopt the 1829 • Andrew Jackson becomes president. initiative and referendum. 1832 • Senator William L. Marcy gives title to the spoils 1903 • The American Political Science Association system when he asserts in a Senate debate that founded. politicians “see nothing wrong in the rule, that • US Department of Commerce and Labor is to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy.” established. 1836 • Alexis de Tocqueville publishes Democracy in • The Boston police are the first to use an America, his classic study of American political automobile, a Stanley Steamer, for regular patrol. institutions and political culture. 1904 • Lincoln Steffen’s muckraking book Shame of 1840 • President Martin Van Buren establishes the the Cities finds Philadelphia to be “corrupt and ten-hour day for most federal employees. contented” and arouses sentiment for municipal 1844 • The New York City Police Department is reform. established. 1905 • New York City starts the first police motorcycle 1849 • The US Department of the Interior is created. patrol. xvi Key Events in Public Administration xvii 1906 • Bureau of Municipal Research founded in New 1924 • Hawthorne studies begin at the Hawthorne York City to further the management movement Works of the Western Electric Company in in government. Chicago; they will last until 1932 and lead to • Pure Food and Drug Act passed. new thinking about the relationship of work 1908 • Staunton, Virginia, appoints the first city environment to productivity. manager. 1926 • Leonard D. White’s Introduction to the Study of 1910 • Ohio is the first state to empower its governor Public Administration is the first text in public to prepare an executive budget for legislature administration. review. • Mary Parker Follett, in calling for “power with” as opposed to “power over,” anticipates 1911 • Frederick W. Taylor publishes The Principles of the movement toward more participatory Scientific Management. management styles. 1912 • Taft Commission calls for a national executive 1929 • The University of Southern California budget. establishes the first independent professional • Position classification first adopted at the school of public administration. municipal level in the city of Chicago. • Stock market crashes; Great Depression • Sumter, South Carolina, is first to install a begins. council-manager form of city government. • Congress approves an eight-hour day for all 1930 • Durham County, South Carolina, is first federal employees. to install county-manager form of county government. 1913 • Hugo Munsterberg’s Psychology and Industrial Efficiency calls for the application of psychology 1933 • President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal to industry. begins. • Woodrow Wilson becomes president. • Francis Perkins, the first woman in a president’s • The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution cabinet, is appointed Secretary of Labor. creates the first permanent federal income tax. • The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is • The Federal Reserve Act creates a central bank established by Congress as an independent responsible for monetary policy. public corporation. • The US Department of Commerce and Labor is 1935 • The National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act divided into two separate departments. establishes the right of private sector employees 1914 • The City Manager’s Association is formed. to organize and bargain collectively. • The University of Michigan creates the first • Social Security program created. master’s program in municipal administration. 1936 • J. Donald Kingsley and William E. Mosher’s • Dayton, Ohio, is the first major city to have a Public Personnel Administration becomes the city manager. first text in this field. • World War I begins. • John Maynard Keynes publishes his General 1918 • World War I ends. Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, which calls for using a government’s fiscal 1919 • The failure of the Boston police strike sets and monetary policies to positively influence a back municipal unionization and makes Calvin capitalistic economy. Coolidge, the governor of Massachusetts, a • E. Pendleton Herring in Public Administration national hero. and the Public Interest asserts that bureaucrats, 1920 • The Retirement Act creates the first federal civil by default, must often be the arbiters of the service pension system. public interest. • The Nineteenth Amendment gives women the 1937 • The Brownlow Committee’s report says that right to vote. the “President needs help” and calls for the 1921 • The Budget and Accounting Act establishes reorganization of the executive branch. (1) the Bureau of the Budget in the Department • Luther Gulick calls attention to the various of the Treasury and (2) the General Accounting functional elements of the work of an executive Office as an agency of the Congress. with his mnemonic device POSDCORB. 1922 • Max Weber’s structural definition of 1938 • The Fair Labor Standards Act provides for bureaucracy is published posthumously. minimum wages, overtime pay, and limits on 1923 • The Classification Act brings position child labor. classification to Washington-based federal • Chester I. Barnard’s The Functions of the employees and establishes the principle of equal Executive foreshadows the postwar revolution in pay for equal work. thinking about organizational behavior. xviii Key Events in Public Administration 1939 • American Society for Public Administration is 1949 • The First Hoover Commission recommends founded. increased managerial capacity in the Executive • The Reorganization Act enables the creation of Office of the President. the Executive Office of the President and the • The National Security Act creates the transfer of the Bureau of the Budget from the Department of Defense. Treasury to the White House. 1951 • David Truman’s The Governmental Process • The Hatch Act is passed to inhibit political calls for viewing interest groups as the real activities by federal employees. determinant of, and focal point of study on, • The federal government first requires the states public policy. to have merit systems for employees in programs • Kurt Lewin proposes a general model of aided by federal funds. organizational change consisting of three phases, 1940 • Public Administration Review is first “unfreezing, change, refreezing” in his Field published. Theory in Social Science. 1941 • James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution 1954 • Peter Drucker’s book, The Practice of asserts that as the control of large organizations Management, popularizes the concept of passes from the hands of the owners into management by objectives. the hands of professional administrators, • The Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board the society’s new governing class will be the of Education, holds that racially separate possessors not of wealth, but of technical educational facilities are inherently unequal and expertise. therefore violate the equal protection clause of • Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brings the the Fourteenth Amendment. United States into World War II. • Senator Joseph McCarthy (and in effect 1943 • Abraham Maslow’s “needs hierarchy” first McCarthyism) is censured by the US Senate. appears in Psychological Review. • Lakewood, California, pioneers the service • Withholding for federal income tax begins as a contract, whereby a small jurisdiction buys temporary wartime measure. government services from a neighboring large 1944 • J. Donald Kingsley’s Representative Bureaucracy jurisdiction. develops the concept that all social groups 1955 • The Second Hoover Commission recommends have a right to participate in their governing the curtailment and abolition of federal institutions in proportion to their numbers in government activities that are competitive with the population. private enterprise. 1945 • With the dropping of the atomic bomb • The Department of Health, Education and and the end of World War II, the suddenly Welfare (HEW) is created. public Manhattan Project marks the federal • AFL-CIO is formed by the merger of the government’s first major involvement with American Federation of Labor and the Congress science in a policymaking role. of Industrial Organization. • Paul Appleby leads the postwar attack on the 1957 • C. Northcote Parkinson discovers his law that politics/administration dichotomy by insisting “work expands so as to fill the time available in Big Democracy that apolitical governmental for its completion.” processes went against the grain of the American • Chris Argyris asserts in Personality and experience. Organization that there is an inherent conflict 1946 • The Employment Act creates the Council of between the personality of a mature adult and Economic Advisors and asserts that it is the the needs of modern organizations. policy of the federal government to maintain full • Douglas M. McGregor’s article, “The Human employment. Side of Enterprise,” distills the contending • The Administrative Procedure Act standardized traditional (authoritarian) and humanistic many federal government administrative managerial philosophies into Theory X and practices across agencies. Theory Y. • Herbert A. Simon’s “The Proverbs of 1958 • NASA is created. Administration” attacks the principles approach 1959 • New York City is the first major city to allow to management for being inconsistent and often collective bargaining with its employees. inapplicable. • Wisconsin is the first state to enact a 1947 • President Harry S. Truman announces his comprehensive law governing public sector labor namesake doctrine. relations. Key Events in Public Administration xix • The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental living past presidents of the American Society for Relations is established. Public Administration. • Charles A. Lindblom’s “The Science of • Edward A. Suchman’s Evaluation Research ‘Muddling Through’” rejects the rational model asserts that evaluation is a generic field of study. of decision making in favor of incrementalism. • Terry Sanford in Storm over the States develops • Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman’s The the concept of “picket-fence federalism,” which Motivation to Work puts forth the motivation- holds that bureaucratic specialists at the various hygiene theory. governmental levels exercise considerable power 1960 • Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power asserts over the nature of intergovernmental programs. that the president’s (or any executive’s) essential 1968 • “Younger” public administration scholars power is that of persuasion. meeting at Syracuse University’s Minnowbrook 1961 • President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell Conference site call for a “new public address warns of “the military-industrial administration” that would emphasize social complex.” equity. • President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order • Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated. 10925 requires that “affirmative action” be used • Robert F. Kennedy is assassinated. in employment. • Richard M. Nixon is elected president. • The Peace Corps is established. 1969 • Laurence J. Peter promulgates his principle that • Alan B. Shepard becomes the first American “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to astronaut to fly in space. his level of incompetence.” • The Rand Corporation helps the Department of • Theodore Lowi’s The End of Liberalism attacks Defense install PPBS. interest group pluralism for paralyzing the 1962 • President John F. Kennedy issues Executive policymaking process. Order 10988, which encourages the • Neil Armstrong, an American astronaut, unionization of federal workers. becomes the first man to walk on the moon. 1963 • During the “March on Washington,” Martin 1970 • The Bureau of the Budget is given more Luther King Jr. delivers his “I Have a Dream” responsibility for managerial oversight and speech. renamed the Office of Management and Budget. • The Postal Reorganization Act creates the US • President John F. Kennedy is assassinated; Vice Postal Service as a public corporation within the President Lyndon B. Johnson becomes president. executive branch. 1964 • The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination • Hawaii becomes the first state to give state and in private sector employment and public local government employees the right to strike. accommodation. • Environmental Protection Agency is established. • Aaron Wildavsky publishes The Politics of the 1971 • The Supreme Court attacks restrictive Budgetary Process, which becomes the classic credentialism in Griggs v. Duke Power analysis of the tactics public managers use to get Company. budgets passed. • PPBS is formally abandoned in the federal • The Economic Opportunity Act becomes the government by the Nixon administration. anchor of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “war on poverty” and other Great Society programs. 1972 • The Equal Employment Opportunity Act amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to 1965 • PPBS made mandatory for all federal agencies. include prohibitions on discrimination by public • The Department of Housing and Urban sector employers. Development is established. • The Watergate scandal erupts when men • Medicare is created through amendments to the associated with the Committee to Reelect the Social Security Act. President are caught breaking into the campaign 1966 • The Freedom of Information Act allows greater headquarters of the Democratic opposition, access to federal agency files. located in the Watergate hotel-office-apartment • Morton Grodzins in The American System complex. asserts that the federal system is more like a • The Equal Rights Amendment is passed by marble cake than a layer cake. Congress; it never becomes law because too few 1967 • The Age Discrimination in Employment Act is states will ratify it. passed. • Revenue sharing is introduced with the passage • The National Academy of Public Administration of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act (it is organized; its first members will be all of the will expire in 1986). xx Key Events in Public Administration 1973 • Vice President Spiro Agnew resigns after responsibility to provide a place of work that is pleading “no contest” to a charge of tax evasion; free of sexual harassment or intimidation. Gerald R. Ford becomes vice president. 1981 • President Carter’s zero-based budgeting • Pressman and Wildavsky publish requirements are rescinded by President Ronald Implementation and create a new subfield of Reagan. public administration and policy analysis. • David Stockman, director of the Office of 1974 • The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Management and Budget, tells the Atlantic Control Act revises the congressional budget Monthly that “none of us really understands process and creates the Congressional Budget what’s going on with all these numbers.” Office. • Professional Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO) • The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon strike; President Reagan responds by firing denies President Nixon’s claim of absolute 11,500 of them for striking in violation of executive privilege; Nixon is forced to resign federal law. in the face of certain impeachment because of 1982 • The Grace Commission, the President’s Private Watergate. Sector Survey on Cost Control, finds widespread • Gerald R. Ford becomes president and grants inefficiencies in the federal government. former president Nixon a full pardon for all 1983 • The birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. is made possible crimes. a national holiday. • An amendment to the Social Security Act 1985 • The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act is signed into provides for automatic cost-of-living adjustments law; it seeks to balance the federal budget by in Social Security payments. mandating across-the-board cuts over a period 1976 • Colorado is the first state to enact “sunset laws” of years. as a method of program review and evaluation. 1986 • The Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. 1977 • Zero-based budgeting is required of all federal Vinson finds that sexual harassment is agencies by the new Carter administration. prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. • The Presidential Management Intern Program • The space shuttle Challenger explodes on take-off. is established as a special means of bringing • The national debt passes $2 trillion. public administration masters’ graduates into the • The Iran-Contra Scandal begins to unfold. federal bureaucracy. 1988 • George Bush is elected president. • The Government in the Sunshine Act requires • The United States and Canada reach a free trade all multi-headed federal agencies to have their agreement. business sessions open to the public. 1989 • The Financial Institutions, Reform, Recovery, • The Department of Energy is created. and Enforcement Act is passed to help clean up 1978 • The Civil Service Reform Act abolishes the US the $500 billion savings and loan scandal. Civil Service Commission and replaces it with • The National Commission on the Public Service, (1) the Office of Personnel Management, the Volcker Commission, calls for a revitalization (2) the Merit Systems Protection Board, and of the public service. (3) the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 1990 • The Budget Enforcement Act amended the • The Ethics in Government Act seeks to deal Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to require that with possible conflicts of interest by former new spending be balanced by new taxes or federal employees by imposing postemployment spending reductions. restrictions on their activities. • The national debt passes $3 trillion. • Proposition 13, requiring reductions in • The Chief Financial Officers Act requires federal local property taxes, is voted into law in agencies to create a chief financial officer California. position to oversee agency finances. • The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is passed. 1992 • Bill Clinton is elected president. 1979 • The Department of Health, Education, and 1993 • National debt passes $4 trillion. Welfare is divided into (1) the Department of • Osborne and Gaebler publish Reinventing Education and (2) the Department of Health Government. and Human Services. • The Government Performance Results Act requires 1980 • The EEOC issues legally binding guidelines agencies to justify their budget requests on the holding that sexual harassment is sex basis of the results or outcomes to be achieved. discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the • The North American Free Trade Agreement is Civil Rights Act and that employers have a ratified. Key Events in Public Administration xxi 1995 • Republicans take control of both houses of 2011 • Standard and Poor’s downgrades the credit Congress. rating of the United States. 1996 • Congress gives the president the line-item veto. 2012 • The national debt passes $15 trillion. • The national debt passes $5 trillion. • The US Supreme Court rules that President • Welfare Reform Act passes. Obama’s health care coverage law The 1998 • The Supreme Court vetoes the presidential Affordable Care Act is constitutional. line-item veto. 2013 • The City of Detroit files for bankruptcy making • President Clinton is impeached by US House of it the largest municipality financial restructuring Representatives. in municipal history. 1999 • President Clinton is tried and acquitted by US 2014 • Riots break out in Missouri protesting racial Senate. bias by police after the shooting of Michael 2000 • George W. Bush is elected president. Brown in Ferguson and a new national protest 2001 • The War on Terror begins. movement is organized “Black Lives Matter”. 2003 • The war in Iraq begins. 2015 • Climate change takes center stage in public • Department of Homeland Security created. policy with a new international accord at the 2004 • George W. Bush is reelected. Paris Climate Talks and new executive orders 2005 • The national debt passes $8 trillion. and proposed regulations by the Obama administration. 2006 • Democrats win control of both houses of Congress. 2016 • The Supreme Court rejects the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s bid to file for bankruptcy 2008 • Barack Obama elected president. but Congress passes a financial rescue bill 2009 • The national debt passes $12 trillion. and establishes a financial control board to 2010 • Republicans win control of the House of run takes over fiscal affairs of the Representatives. Commonwealth. CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration CHAPTER OUTLINE Keynote: Go Tell the Spartans 1 The Evolution of Public Administration 23 The Definitions of Public A Short History of Public Administration 6 Administration 24 Political Definitions of Public The Pre-modern Period and Five Eras of Administration 6 Civil Service Development 26 Legal Definitions of Public The Modern Period and Shifting Perspectives Administration 11 on the Roles of Government 28 Managerial Definitions of Working in the Public Sector in the Public Administration 14 Twenty-First Century 30 Occupational Definitions of Public Administration 17 A Case Study: How a President Undeservedly Received Credit for Founding a Discipline 33 KEYNOTE: Go Tell the Spartans At 8:48 on the morning of September 11, 2001, Adam Mayblum, 35, an investment firm employee, was in his office on the 87th floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York. Suddenly, it seemed like a huge bomb exploded on the floors above—the building shook as if in an earthquake, lighting fixtures fell down, the ceiling collapsed in several areas, and paper flew everywhere. The halls quickly filled with smoke, but the phones were still working. Mayblum immediately called home and left a message for his wife that a bomb had gone off and he was on his way out. Next he took off his undershirt, tore it into three pieces, and gave two of the pieces to coworkers. They soaked the fabric in water and tied the torn T-shirt pieces around their faces as improvised air filters. Then the trio started down a smoke-filled staircase. As Mayblum walked down the crowded and smoky stairs, he called his par- ents on his cell phone. Soon after, his sister-in-law called him. Everybody with a cell phone was making calls to or taking calls from friends and relatives. On the 53rd floor they found a “heavyset man” just sitting on the stairwell. Mayblum 1 2 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration and his friends offered to carry him, but he preferred to wait for professional help. As they approached the 44th floor, they first started seeing firefighters and police officers on their way up. Mayblum stopped several of them and told them about the man on the 53rd floor and also about a friend who was missing on the 87th. The next day, in a 2,000-word e-mail that was written for friends but ulti- mately distributed to thousands, Mayblum told of his narrow escape. He wrote that he “felt terrible” about telling the rescuers to go further up the stairs. “They headed up to find those people and met death instead. . . . I realize that they were going up anyway. But it hurts to know that I may have made them move quicker to find my friend.” Mayblum is only one of thousands who fled down the stairs to safety from the inferno of the World Trade Center towers as firefighters and other rescue workers raced up the stairs into deadly danger. The essence of the firefighters’ bravery can be summed up by an old observation: Firefighters don’t run from burning build- ings; they run into them. Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for Presidents Reagan and Bush (the elder), wrote, “You think to yourself: Do we pay them enough? You realize: We couldn’t possibly pay them enough. And in any case, a career like that is not about money.” But if it is “not about money,” what is it about? The answer is that it is about duty. For almost 2,500 years “Go tell the Spartans” has been the most famous clas- sical reference to a duty done unto death. When it became shockingly evident that more than 300 firefighters died that day, those who knew ancient history might well have thought of another group of 300 heroes who died in the line of duty. In 480 bc, soldiers from the Greek city of Sparta fought a delaying action against invaders from Persia (now Iran). Taking up a defensive position in the mountain pass of Ther- mopylae, they fought off massive waves of assaulting Persians for three days. The Spartans knowingly sacrificed themselves—fought until they were all killed—so that their fellow Greeks would have the time to organize and eventually defeat the enemy. The similarities between the New York City firefighters and the Spartans of ancient Greece go far beyond the number 300. And that number is not accurate in either case. The 343 firefighters who died were in the company of 136 other rescue workers (New York City police, Port Authority police, private security guards, etc.) who also died. The Spartans had auxiliaries (somebody had to cook) and small combat units from other cities, including about 1,000 Thespians (not actors, but soldiers from Thespiae). Nevertheless, the number 300 resonates because it was the Spartans who fought to the death while others retreated. And it was the firefighters who personified the rescue effort. Societies have always expected their soldiers to die in large numbers if necessary––but not their firefighters, who are pacifistic warriors seeking only to fight fires and save lives. In the past, firefighters only occasionally died in the line of duty. Until 2001 about 100 died in the United States each year. Previously, in the worst fire disaster in New York City, 12 firefighters died. To have 343 die in a single day was, until September 11, unthinkable. Both the firefighters and the Spartans sacrificed themselves according to the ethics of their crafts. And though their actions were separated by two-and-a-half millennia, they were both fighting the same enemy: despotism from the East that then sought to suppress the budding democracy of ancient Greece and now seeks to wipe out the flourishing democracies of the Western world. Keynote: Go Tell the Spartans 3 After the Greeks won their war, Simonides (556–468 bc), a famous poet of the time, was commissioned to write an appropriate inscription for a memorial plaque to be placed at Thermopylae to honor the Spartan heroes. Some Greeks were shocked when he turned in only two lines. But these two lines have become the most meaningful and best-known epitaph in the history of Western civilization: Go tell the Spartans, thou who passest by, That here obedient to their laws we lie. There would eventually be a fitting memorial to all those who died on that infa- mous 11th of September. But the firefighters, police officers, and other doomed res- cuers already had one memorial. They all share the epitaph of the Spartans because they died bravely in the line of duty, “obedient to their laws.” Although the approximately 3,000 dead from the attacks were in New York, western Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in northern Virginia, it was the whole nation that cried with their families. This was not just another office building com- plex. Towering over Wall Street, these office buildings represented the capitalis- tic might of the United States. The barbarous attack wounded the entire country because it was an act of war against all of us. In the days following the blast the news media put forth much talk about America’s “loss of innocence” along with the increasing statistics, the body count, on the loss of the innocents. That no one would be found alive in the rubble after the first day was impossi- ble to know at the time. Soon out-of-state rescue teams arrived to help. These teams, deployed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, included search dogs. They are trained to bark if they detect a live person and whine when they locate a body. The dogs spent most of their time whining. While less dramatic, it is often just as dangerous to recover a body at a disaster site as it is to rescue a survivor. TABLE 1.1 Annual US Police and Firefighter Deaths in the Line of Duty (1996–2015) Year Police Firefighters 1996 133 95 2000 162 102 2001* 241 446 2005 163 106 2010 161 73 2011 171 65 2012 126 70 2013 107 99 2014 117 67 2015 129 87 Notes: * Includes police and fire fatalities from response to terrorist attacks of 9/11. Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency/US Fire Administration (2015) & National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (2015). 4 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration The heroic efforts of the rescuers received massive publicity. The stories many of the survivors told of the bravery and daring of the rescue teams were heartrend- ing. But one point was largely missed in all the news reports. All these highly trained search and rescue professionals were public employees. They, and the administra- tive apparatus that sustains their organizations, are part of the government. They are representative of the bureaucrats whom so many people—even some who were then lauding them as heroes—had often described as overpaid and inefficient. These everyday heroes got so much attention after September 11 because they were doing wholesale what they did retail on a daily basis. It is a common, if not everyday, occurrence in America for firefighters to rescue people from burning buildings. But this was the first time that they rescued thousands and died them- selves in the hundreds. Citizens the world over complain about their governments. But once disas- ter strikes—whether caused by nature or terrorists—they expect immediate gov- ernment response and longer term assistance with recovery. When there is an earthquake in California, when the Mississippi River floods, or when an Atlan- tic hurricane wreaks havoc in Florida, volunteers come running. But usually only those with special training can save someone from the raging torrent that was once a gentle stream or the cage of twisted metal that was once a car. And the last- ing help that disaster victims need—from social services to low-interest loans for rebuilding—is generally available only from government. Suddenly these “bureau- crats” are angels of mercy. When danger lurks, they become our modern versions of medieval knights in shining armor. Call 911 in most US cities and within minutes you’ll have a career public servant at your door ready to risk his or her life for you and yours. There are public sector heroes in your city, too; but most of them are invisible to you. The modern public service allows vast scope for heroism. Throughout his- tory, classic heroes used their special skills for the public good, usually by perform- ing feats of military prowess and physical bravery. And some societies recognized other kinds of heroes, too. For example, Michelangelo, who became one of the greatest heroes of Renaissance Italy, was known only for his prowess with a chisel and a paintbrush. Today’s police officer and firefighter heroes are joined by great numbers of quiet unsung heroes: public works department engineers who provide safe drink- ing water, highway department drivers who work all night clearing snow in a blizzard, and public health officials who keep diseases from becoming epidemics. These virtually invisible heroes often hold our lives in their hands no less than their uniformed coworkers. More than that, they make modern life—civilization as we know it—possible. Then there are those public employees who do not deal with life-and-death issues. Their concerns are instead with quality of life. They are, for example, the teachers who inspire students to excel, the social workers who find a loving home for a suddenly orphaned child, the economic development officers who bring hundreds of new jobs into a community, and the public managers who reinvent programs so that costs can be cut and taxes lowered. While not called on to be physically brave, their efforts are often heroic. The public service has a wide variety of heroes. Some are just more visible than others. Keynote: Go Tell the Spartans 5 Why is this photo of Air Force One flying between New York and New Jersey like an invasion from Mars? Because both caused widespread panic. The “invasion” came in 1938, as a radio drama of the H. G. Wells novel War of the Worlds. Because it was broadcast as a simulated newscast, listeners thought it was real. It caused a memorable Halloween night of disorder. Similarly, when on April 27, 2009, a 747 jumbo jet was seen flying low over the Statue of Liberty followed by a fighter jet, people on the ground reasonably assumed that another 9/11 terrorist attack was only minutes away. Panic ensued. Office buildings emptied. Antacids were taken. But no attack was under way. It was just that Louis Caldera, the civilian head of the White House Military Office, thought that this would be a great day to get some publicity photos of the presidential airplane. So he sent Air Force One to fly a mere 1,000 feet over the Statue of Liberty with a fighter along to take pictures. It never occurred to him to notify all local authorities or to allay public fears by alerting the media. But this Harvard-trained lawyer did justify the more than $300,000 cost of the photo shoot by asserting it was a training mission. The people who panicked were furious. The mayor of New York was furious. President Obama was furious. And this bureaucrat of such poor judgment was certainly furious with himself when he lost his job over this. This incident proves two things: (1) that there is some sense of accountability in the Obama White House and (2) that New Yorkers are still very sensitive about lowflying jetliners over Manhattan. And rightly so! Source: REUTERS/The White House /Landov For Discussion: Are the first responders (police, firefighters, etc.) where you live more prepared now for a terrorist attack than they were before September 11, 2001? What impact do you think successful or in some cases failed government responses (think Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 or the more recent delays with recovery efforts in the Northeast after Hurricane Sandy) have on public attitudes towards government and the image of public servants? 6 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration THE DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION It is easy to define public administration if you are content with being simplistic: it is government in action—the management of public affairs or the implemen- tation of public policies. Such a facile definition, while accurate, is not adequate for such an important task. Consider the scene in Edmond Rostand’s play Cyrano de Bergerac in which somebody insults the hero’s big nose to provoke him into fighting a duel. But the challenger’s insult of “rather large” is so commonplace that Cyrano then lectures him on “the great many things” he might have said if he’d had “some tinge of letters, or of wit.” Defining public administration poses a similar challenge—even without the ensuing swordplay. The authors of this book believe that nothing is more important to an intro- duction to public administration than the most expansive definition possible. How else can we explore its richness and subtlety and savor its historical significance, universal application, and present development? How else can we gain an appre- ciation for the later technical chapters? Nevertheless, the discussion that follows is inherently incomplete. Public administration is so vast that there is no way to encompass it all with only one definition. So we have written 18 of them and clustered them into four categories: political, legal, managerial, and occupational. This quartet of definitions essentially expands on the trio—managerial, political, and legal—established by David H. Rosenbloom. But even with such an array of Chief of state Q definitions, the authors are in the uncomfortable position of Cyrano’s challenger. The ceremonial head We would have said more if we’d only had the wit! of a government, such as a king, queen, or president. Political Definitions of Public Administration This is in contrast to the chief executive Public administration cannot exist outside of its political context. It is this context of a government, that makes it public—that makes it different from private or business adminis- such as a prime tration. Consequently, our first definitions of public administration focus on its minister, chancellor, political nature. or president. The American presidency combines in one Public Administration Is What Government Does It is a White House chef pre- office—one person— paring the menu of a state dinner for a visiting chief of state, a Department of the roles of chief Agriculture inspector examining beef at a slaughterhouse, and a Food and Drug of state and chief Administration scientist determining the number of rodent hairs that food proces- executive. sors can safely and legally leave in chocolate, popcorn, and peanut butter. It is a Food stamps Q firefighter rescuing a child from a disintegrating building, a meter reader attaching a A welfare program ticket to your automobile for overlong parking, and a state prison official injecting designed to improve deadly fluids into the veins of a condemned criminal. It is an astronomer exploring the nutrition of the the furthest reaches of outer space, a CIA agent decoding captured messages from poor. Administered by the Department of suspected terrorists, and a sewer crawler seeking to discover what has clogged up a Agriculture and state municipal drainpipe. It is giving food stamps to the poor, mortgage interest deduc- and local welfare tions to homeowners, and hot meals to evacuees of a Gulf Coast hurricane. organizations, the Throughout the world, government employees do things that affect the daily program provides lives of their fellow citizens. These things range from the heroic (as we saw in New coupons (stamps) that can be used to pay for York City) to the mundane. Usually these efforts are beneficial, but sometimes they food at many grocery are not. Most of the time, in most countries, public administrators tend to the pub- stores. lic’s business; for example, they build bridges and highways, collect garbage, put out The Definitions of Public Administration 7 fires, plow snow, spray for mosquitoes, and provide essential social services for the Amnesty less fortunate. But in other lands public employees may torture the innocent and mur- International Q A worldwide der children. When Amnesty International publishes its annual report on the states organization that that brutalize and violate the civil rights of its citizens, who do you think does all seeks to gain the this brutalizing and violating? It is none other than the local public administrators! release of political Of course, such nefarious activities are usually organized within some innocuous- and religious prisoners sounding program having to do with “population control” or “internal security.” by publicizing their plights and by Thus, modern public relations try to put a friendly face on ancient atrocities. lobbying governments. As a profession, public administration has developed values and ethical stan- It has been especially dards. But as an activity, it has no values. It merely reflects the cultural norms, effective in exposing beliefs, and power realities of its society. It is simply government doing whatever cases of government government does—in whatever political and cultural context it happens to exist. sanctioned torture. In 1972 the organization In 1955, Dwight Waldo was the first to insist that analysts “see administration was awarded the in terms of its environment” because “it enables us to understand differences in Nobel Peace Prize. administration between different societies which would be inexplicable if we were limited to viewing administration analytically in terms of the universals of admin- istration itself” (Waldo, 1955, p. 11). So, essentially similar administrative acts can be performed differently in different cultures. Thus, a routine customs inspection in one state parallels the solicitation of a bribe by a corrupt customs official in another. The same act that is performed honestly in one state (because of a culture that supports honesty) may be performed corruptly in another (where the culture supports corruption by government officials). Public administration is the totality of the working-day activities of all the world’s bureaucrats—whether those activities are performed legally or illegally, competently or incompetently, decently or despicably! British scientist J. B. S. Haldane wrote that the universe “is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose” (Haldane, 1928). Things are much the same with public administration. It is not only far vaster in scope than most people suppose, but it is so extensive and pervasive in modern life that not even the most imaginative of us can imagine it all. Public Administration Is Both Direct and Indirect It is direct when government employees provide services to the public as varied as mortgage insurance, mail delivery, and electricity. It is indirect when government pays private contractors to provide goods or services to citizens. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) operated the space shuttle, but the shuttle itself was built NASA (National by private corporations. Similarly, security officers protecting American construc- Aeronautics and Space tion workers in Iraq’s oil fields are not part of the US armed forces but employees Administration) Q of private firms contracted by the defense department. Does the fact that these The federal agency workers are employed by private companies put them outside the realm of public created by the administration? Not at all. Remember that a government agency must hire, eval- National Aeronautics uate, and hold all employees and contractors accountable for the quality of their and Space Act of 1958 to conduct performance—whether they are building rockets or guarding oil rigs. research on problems Governments have used private contractors since ancient times. For example, of flight and to explore the executioner who once operated and maintained the guillotine in France was outer space. an independent contractor who earned a fee per head chopped off (literally sev- erance pay). The current trend toward greater privatization of government func- tions, which began most notably in the 1980s during the Reagan administration 8 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration in the United States and the Thatcher administration in the United Kingdom, is now worldwide. This trend has been reinforced by the growth of the nonprofit sector, which receives much of its funding from government contracts—especially for social services and research. Much of the budgets of private nonprofit organi- zations providing human services comes from the government. Nearly two decades ago, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, noted that government funds often accounted for a majority of the revenues raised by non-profit charitable organizations. As examples, in the 1990s, two out of every three dollars spent by Catholic Charities USA, a national network of some 1,400 social service organizations came from Government sources. In 2012, according to the 2013 Non-profit Times survey, government sources of income still accounted for nearly 55 percent while the Salvation Army’s dependence declined somewhat from 15 percent to 10 percent—from government sources. The 2013 Non-profit Times survey of the Top 100 largest non-profits in the US also revealed that while government support has been slowing down in recent years, it still amounts to over 10 billion or 15 percent of the total revenues of the largest non-profits. Thus we may conclude that privatization has not necessarily reduced the total amount of public administration in the world; it has simply forced it to take different forms. The increasingly expansive nature of public administration, branching out into the private and nonprofit sectors, has given new meaning to the word governance. What was once a synonym for the process of government has evolved to refer to interorganizational efforts to cope with cross-boundary problems by using net- works of people and organizations. Thus public administration has gone from being merely indirect to being extremely convoluted as well. How the Inherent Criminality of Some Public BOX 1.1 Administrators Is Hidden by Political Language It was the British political essayist George Orwell Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language,” in (1903–1950) who most famously observed that Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays (New York: the speeches and writings of politicians are often Harcourt Brace, 1946) has had a rhetorical influence the “defense of the indefensible,” because the that remains alive and well. For example, a week language used is too euphemistic and excessively after the September 11, 2001, attack, President Bush vague. Innocent villagers are murdered and their told a joint session of the Congress, “Whether we homes burned in an effort at “pacification.” Citizens bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our are imprisoned without trial or sent to slave labor enemies, justice will be done.” In the classic Orwellian camps in a process called “elimination of unreliable tradition he was using a relatively innocuous word to elements.” According to Orwell, such euphemistic mean something far harsher. Only those not familiar phraseology is needed so that people can avoid with the innate subtleties of the English language thinking of the ugly reality of murder and torture. did not understand that his “justice” meant death to Consequently, the language of politicians and their the terrorists. Note that his administration continued administrators “is designed to make lies sound to pay homage to Orwell when it renamed torture truthful and murder respectable.” “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The Definitions of Public Administration 9 Public Administration Is a Phase in the Public Policymaking Cycle Public pol- icymaking never ends. Government perpetually suffers from a problem similar to that faced by Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the indecisive prince of Denmark, who strug- gled with whether “to be or not to be.” Governments are in a constant flurry over whether to do or not to do. And whatever they do or do not do is public policy. All such decisions (including decisions not to make a decision) are made by those who control political power and implemented by the administrative officers of the bureaucracy. Thus public policy and public administration are two sides of the same coin. One decides, the other does. They cannot be separate because one side cannot exist without the other. But because policymaking is a continuous process, it cannot end with implementation. Whenever government does something, crit- ics will suggest ways to do it better. This feedback can be informal—from citizen complaints to journalistic investigations—or it can take the form of an agency or legislative program evaluation. In any case, new decisions must be made even if the decision is to avoid making a decision. Public Administration Is Implementing the Public Interest Public interest is the universal label in which political actors wrap the policies and programs that they advocate. Would any lobby, public manager, legislator, or chief executive ever Lobby Q propose a program that was not “in the public interest”? Hardly! Because the pub- Any individual, group, or organization that lic interest is generally taken to mean a commonly accepted good, the phrase is seeks to influence used both to further policies that are indeed for the common good and to obscure legislation or policies that may not be so commonly accepted as good. A considerable body of administrative action. literature has developed about this phrase, because it represents an important phil- osophical point that, if successfully defined, could provide considerable guidance for politicians and public administrators alike. Walter Lippmann wrote that “the public interest may be presumed to be what men would choose if they saw clearly, thought rationally, and acted disinterestedly and benevolently” (Lippmann, 1955, p. 42). Clear eyes and rational minds are common enough. Finding leaders who are disinterested and benevolent is the hard part. In the early twentieth century, E. Pendleton Herring examined the problems posed by the dramatic increase in the scope of the administrative discretion of government. He accepted that laws passed by legislatures are necessarily the prod- ucts of legislative compromise; thus they are often so vague that they need further definition. The bureaucrat, by default, then has the task of giving defining detail to the general principles embodied in a statute by issuing supplemental rules and regulations. “Upon the shoulders of the bureaucrat has been placed in large part the burden of reconciling group differences and making effective and workable the economic and social compromises arrived at through the legislative process” (Herring, 1936 p. 7). In effect, it becomes the job of the anonymous administrator to define the public interest. Herring’s discussion of the public interest and the critical roles played by bureaucrats and interest groups in public policy formulation correctly anticipated many of the critical issues still being grappled with in schools of public policy and administration today. Herring is a significant voice in what political science calls group theory, a school of thought that views government as representing var- ious group interests and negotiating policy outcomes among them. According to 10 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration Herring, the most basic task of a bureaucrat has been to establish working relation- ships with the various special interests so that their concerns can be more efficiently brokered. The role that Herring would have public administrators play is that of Edmund Burke’s trustee, a representative who exercises personal judgment and doesn’t just follow the exact orders of a legislature or the perceived opinion of a constituency. In his classic 1774 “Speech to the Electors of Bristol,” Burke told the voters, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Few would argue with the desirability of using good judgment in the furtherance of the public interest. How- ever, some would argue that the interest-group broker role that Herring espouses for high-level public administrators is inherently undemocratic. Public Administration Is Doing Collectively That Which Cannot Be So Well Done Individually This is Abraham Lincoln’s understanding of the “legitimate object of government . . . to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities.” Thus, public administration is the mature manifestation of the community spirit. What started as voluntary service (such as fire protection or care for the poor) became institutionalized as people indicated a preference (via elections) to pay taxes so that once-voluntary activities could become government functions. Similarly, collective action is the remedy for the “tragedy of the com- mons,” where individuals acting in their self-interest destroy public resources such as land and water. In this context public administration is central to the process of regulating individual behavior in the interest of the common good. Twenty-first-century communications have brought about a “revolution of ris- ing expectations” whereby the people of traditionally poor countries realize just BOX 1.2 Edmund Burke versus the Tea Party Edmund Burke, the British parliamentarian, was in “instructions” from his constituents. Tea Party England when he heard of the original Tea Party activists often demand that the candidates they in 1773 Boston. In a 1774 speech in the House of support pledge never to raise taxes of any kind and Commons, “On American Taxation,” he supported the never allow laws to tolerate abortion under any Boston tea dumpers and urged the repeal of the tax conditions, even in cases of rape and incest. The clear on tea. His policy was simple. “Leave America . . . to implication is that representatives would be punished tax herself.” Despite his feelings about American at the next election if they stray in the least from efforts to reduce taxes on tea, he, if alive today, would their mandates. be vexed by the current Tea Party movement which Burke’s “speech” is a famous reproach to seeks to contradict his famous statement on the role Tea Party rigidity and a call for representatives of a legislative representative. to exercise judgment. Thus Burke, the best-known Burke’s classic 1774 “Speech to the Electors British supporter of the original Tea Party, would of Bristol” specifically rejects the notion that an likely question many of the actions of its current elected representative be bound by pre-election reincarnation. The Definitions of Public Administration 11 how poor they are relative to industrialized states. Similarly, the citizens of these GI Bill Q rich states benefit from programs that they increasingly resent paying for. A story The American Servicemen’s often told among US Senators chronicles the plight of a veteran who returned from Readjustment Act war and went to college on the GI Bill, bought a house with a Federal Housing of 1944. It provided Administration loan, started a business with a Small Business Administration loan, low-interest, no got electricity from Tennessee Valley Authority, and, later, got clean water from an down-payment home Environmental Protection Agency project. His parents, who were receiving Social mortgages and education benefits Security, retired to a farm, got their electricity from the Rural Electrification Admin- that allowed a whole istration, and had their soil tested by the US Department of Agriculture. When his generation of working father became ill, the family was saved from financial ruin by Medicare, and his class veterans to go to father’s life was saved with a drug developed through the National Institutes of college and advance Health. His kids participated in the school lunch program, learned physics from into the middle class. teachers trained in a National Science Foundation program, and went on to college with guaranteed student loans. He drove to work on the interstate and moored his boat in a channel dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers. When his home was flooded, he took an Amtrak train to Washington, DC to apply for disaster relief, Amtrak Q and while there, he spent some time in the Smithsonian Institution museums. One The National Railroad Passenger Corp., the day he got mad, so he sent his congressman an angry letter. “Get the government federally subsidized off my back!” he wrote. “I’m tired of paying taxes for all those programs created corporation created for ungrateful people!” in 1970 to operate But we all want—and indeed expect—government employees to literally pull intercity rail passenger our backs out of the rubble when disaster strikes, as they did in New York City. service. Volunteers could do the easy tasks, such as driving the walking wounded to local hospitals, but only the highly trained public service professionals could do the real rescue work. Their organizations—the police and fire departments—were created, in Lincoln’s words, to be available to do what the citizens “cannot do, at all, or cannot, so well do, for themselves.” Legal Definitions of Public Administration Because public administration is what a state does, it is both created and bound by an instrument of the law. Indeed, in many communities, such as those of conti- nental Europe, it is an academic subject that has never escaped from the faculties of law. While public administration in the United States is not a “legal” subject, its foundations are always legal. Public Administration Is Law in Action Public administration is inherently the execution of a public law. Every application of a general law is necessarily an act of administration. Administration cannot exist without this legal foundation. In the United States, the Constitution of 1787 as amended is the law of the land. All legis- lation must conform to it or at the very least not violate it in a manner obvious to the US Supreme Court. The law that creates an agency or program is known as its enabling legislation—the law that legally “enables” a program to exist. In theory, no government administrator can do anything if it is not provided for in the legis- lation or in the rules and regulations that the legislation allows the agency to pro- mulgate. And how much government money can the president of the United States spend on his own without the approval of the Congress? Not a penny! Everything 12 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration Speaker Q the president does, if it involves spending public money, must have a basis in leg- The presiding officer islation. This is often difficult for people in less democratic regimes to understand. of a legislature such as a House of Tip O’Neill, the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, wrote in a Representatives or a memoir, “I must have met Deng Xiaoping of China a half-dozen times, and every House of Commons, time he would ask, ‘The president has to go to you for his money?’” O’Neill always elected by its answered this question the same way: “Yes, and the president had better not forget members. Thomas P. it.” And the same is true of governors and mayors who must go to their respective “Tip” O’Neill was speaker from 1977 legislative bodies for appropriations. to 1987. While many books have been written about the implementation of this or that government program, there is ultimately only one thing that government is in essence capable of implementing: the law. Of course, the law is often in tur- moil. The legislative basis of programs, or specific agency rules and regulations, is constantly being challenged in court by those who oppose as well as those who support the program involved. The opposition wants the enabling legisla- tion declared unconstitutional and the program destroyed, while supporters often want the program administered even more generously. From the New Deal to the first years of the Barack Obama administration, a pattern has emerged with con- troversial legislation. After its passage, opponents challenge its legality in court, hoping that the judicial branch will overturn it. In effect, there is a new final phase to the legislative process: a judicial review that confirms that the new law is constitutional. Indeed, this is precisely what has occurred with the passage of the health care reform in 2010; arguably the most significant piece of social legislation passed since Social Security. Opponents challenged the Patient Protection and Afford- able Care Act all the way to the US Supreme Court and the Court ruled in 2011 (5 to 4) that the law was constitutional (National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, 2012). Of course, even this positive court ruling hasn’t dimmed opposition where a Republican majority in the House of Representatives has voted numerous times to repeal the legislation to no effect. While public administration is the law in action, the law of how, when, and where these actions can be taken is called administrative law. In the American context, administrative law does not deal with the substantive content of agency policies and practices. Instead, it focuses on the procedures that agencies use in exercising their authority. For example, Congress requires federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to notify the public when the agency is creating a new rule that affects citizens. If the agency doesn’t follow the specific guidelines on how and when to notify the public, its new rules can be declared ille- gitimate by the courts. In effect, administrative law is the totality of constitutional provisions, legislative statutes, court decisions, and executive directives that regu- late the activities of government agencies. Public Administration Is Regulation It is government telling citizens and busi- nesses what they may and may not do. Regulation is one of the oldest functions of government. The Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylonia provided that “the mason who builds a house which falls down and kills the inmate shall be put to death.” While not exactly a modern building code, this nevertheless proved an effective means of regulating the soundness of housing. The Definitions of Public Administration 13 Our lives are constantly governed, or interfered with, by regulation. We are not officially born until we have a birth certificate—regulation. We must attend school up to a certain age—regulation. We cannot engage in many occupations without a license from the state—regulation. Finally, we cannot be declared legally dead without a death certificate—regulation. And it doesn’t even end there. We can be buried only in government-approved cemeteries, and our estate taxes must be paid—regulation. As you will see in Chapter 9, regulation can also be used as a tool to reach the strategic goals of government. From preservation of natural resources to controlling obesity levels within the population, public administrators turn to regulation to help them achieve an array of desired outcomes. Public Administration Is The King’s Largesse “The king’s largesse” is whatever goods, services, or honors the ruling authority decides to bestow. This was the ear- liest meaning of public administration. Since everything was owned by the crown, whatever was granted to the nobles and peasants was a gift. In the modern world, this version of public administration can be seen in traditional monarchies and dic- tatorships, where hospitals, schools, parks, and such are touted as something given by the autocrat to a grateful people. The last vestige of this kingly largesse in repre- sentative government can be seen on the plaques often attached to public buildings Political machine Q Historically, an and bridges indicating that the edifice was built during the tenure of Mayor Smith informal organization or Governor Jones. Of course, whenever representative governments grow corrupt, that controlled the largesse as an operating mode of public administration reasserts itself. Then citi- formal processes of a zens may only get public services such as police protection and welfare benefits if government through they are deserving in the eyes of the rulers. corruption, patronage, intimidation, and The traditional big-city political machine lasted only as long as there was service to its largesse to distribute. For example, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, during the constituents. Great Depression, Democratic Party ward heelers were authorized to distribute Ward heeler Q up to 50 “snow buttons” each time there was a major snowstorm. Each but- A local political ton entitled the holder to a day’s work shoveling snow for the city. This was a functionary. highly prized benefit sought by unemployed men in each ward. While certainly at the low end of the patronage food chain, this largesse bought the ward heeler Libertarianism Q A political doctrine loyalty that translated into votes for the party. Snow buttons are a relic of the holding that a past. So are political machines, because welfare benefits as a matter of right, government should as an entitlement, have made them superfluous. Thus the comprehensive public do little more than services of the welfare state have driven out the informal welfare system of the provide protection; machines. Without largesse, the political machines could not hold the loyalty of other than that, it should not interfere— their audience. for either good or ill—in the lives of its Public Administration Is Theft There are those who believe that a government citizens. should do little more than provide police and military protection; other than that, Objectivist Q it should not interfere—either for good or ill—in the lives of its citizens. A major One who believes that intellectual force advocating such libertarianism was Ayn Rand, the objectivist phi- reason and logic are losopher who attacked welfare state notions of selflessness and sacrifice for a com- the only means to mon good in novels such as The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). knowledge, that self- interest determines In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967), she wrote, “The only proper function of ethics, and that the government of a free country is to act as an agency which protects the individ- capitalism should ual’s rights, i.e., which protects the individual from physical violence” (pp. 46–47). prevail in society. 14 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration Reactionary Q Such reactionary attitudes are an extreme form of conservatism. Rand, because of A person who supports her philosophy of positive selfishness and government minimalism, has become an outmoded ideas of the past; a derogatory icon of the Tea Party Movement; they have conveniently forgotten that she was a reference to political proselytizing atheist and unapologetic abortion rights advocate. malcontents who Conservatives are continuously fearful of public policies involving redistribu- yearn for a previous tion, such as social welfare policies and programs whose goal is to shift wealth status quo. or benefits from one segment of the population to another. The welfare state is Conservatism Q founded on this notion of redistribution. The basic mechanism for redistribution Adherence to a is taxation. However, the laws themselves can sometimes redistribute benefits. For political disposition example, tax loopholes benefit one group of taxpayers at the expense of others; that prefers the status and civil rights legislation, through equal employment opportunity mandates, gives quo and accepts change only in economic benefits to one segment of the population at the theoretical expense of moderation. another. Redistribution is one leg of political scientist Theodore J. Lowi’s three-part classification of all domestic public policies into distribution, regulation, or redis- Tax loophole Q tribution. Obviously, redistribution is more popular with some classes of society An provision in the tax laws, than with others. Playwright George Bernard Shaw put this succinctly: “A gov- intentional or ernment which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” unintentional, that And just who is the government’s chief robber in this Robin Hood game? None allows the avoidance other than your local public administrator! This is why so many citizens with their of some taxes. assets at risk consider thieving the underlying occupation of the public admin- istrator. It is a long-standing legal maxim that government regulation that goes too far amounts to a taking. This conservative attitude is strikingly similar to the famous invective issued in 1851 by anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon against all governments: “To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right nor the knowledge nor the virtue” (Proudhon, 1923, pp. 293–294). Proudhon was wrong about at least one thing. Public administrators do have the right under law to do what they do. A controversial example of the power of public administrators to “take” from the public was provided in a 2005 US Supreme court ruling. The decision in Kelo v. New London allows government authorities to take private property from individuals for private sector economic projects in the same way that government can take one’s land to build a new road. Thus, a local redevelopment agency seeking to bring in a new Walmart can make you sell your property even if you wish to maintain ownership. While many government actions could be construed as theft by portions of the populace, there is a line separating metaphorical and actual thievery. Just as the fic- tional British secret agent James Bond had a “license to kill,” government employ- ees in some countries consider their jobs a license to steal—usually by soliciting bribes. This is extremely common in developing countries where bureaucrats are not paid reasonable wages and have almost no choice but to engage in petty cor- ruption. Often an informal system of fees evolves that tells the citizen, for example, how much is expected to “fix” a parking ticket or to speed up a building permit. Managerial Definitions of Public Administration Public administration is so much a branch of management that many graduate schools of management (or business or administration) are divided into public and The Definitions of Public Administration 15 private—and now increasingly nonprofit—programs. Its legal basis allows public administration to exist, but without its management aspect, not much of the pub- lic’s business would get done. Public Administration Is the Executive Function in Government In demo- cratic states, whether they are republics or constitutional monarchies, it is gov- ernment agencies putting into practice legislative acts that represent the will of the people. According to Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist, (Hamilton, 1788), “The administration of government . . . in its most usual, and perhaps most precise signification  .  .  .  is limited to executive details, and falls peculiarly within the province of the executive department.” In dictatorial regimes similar agencies do the bidding of the people who hold power. But the process is far more interactive and dynamic than any separation of powers diagram would suggest. While the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are separate and distinct in the United States, all sides struggle to influence the others. A president, governor, or mayor is constantly recommending new programs to the Congress, state legislature, or city council. Modern government executives at all levels do not meekly sit back and merely “execute” the will of the legislature. They actively compete to influence that will and to fight for the enactment of programs they are anxious to implement. Because this can lead to dramatic and highly publicized confrontations, the impression is often given that this is what executives do: fight for new legislation, fight for the annual budget, and fight for or against various interest groups. The reality is far less dramatic and more mundane. Most of what an executive does is to manage existing programs, to run the bureaucracy. This work is virtually invisible to the public except when something goes wrong and the media circus begins. Public Administration Is a Management Specialty Management refers both to the people responsible for running an organization, and to the running pro- cess itself—the use of numerous resources (such as employees and machines) to accomplish an organizational goal. Top managers make the big decisions and are responsible for the overall success of the organization. In government, the top man- agers are always the political leaders of society, whether they gain power by elec- tion, appointment, or assassination. When a new president comes into office in the United States, he or she may appoint persons into approximately 3,000 jobs as the top managers who will be responsible for implementing policy. These appointees, while functioning as top managers with significant management responsibilities, are seldom professional managers and seldom think of themselves as management experts. They tend to be simply old friends, political-party loyalists, campaign con- tributors, and representatives of interest groups. Consequently, the public administrators of a jurisdiction (the actual manage- ment specialists) are to be found in the vast area of middle management—the group responsible for the execution and interpretation of top-management policies and for the day-to-day operation of the various organizational units. These individuals often have advanced degrees in general fields such as public administration or busi- ness administration or technical fields such as public health or social work. These are the people who have made the management of government programs their life’s work. They typically have supervisory or first-level managers—those responsible 16 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration for the final implementation of policies by rank-and-file employees—reporting to them. These middle managers, despite their disparity in functions and technical backgrounds, largely constitute the management specialty of public administra- tion. They spend their working lives fighting as officers in the administrative wars started by their political leaders. Public Administration Is Mickey Mouse This otherwise innocent cartoon rodent has lent his name as a pejorative term for many aspects of governmental adminis- tration. When Walt Disney’s famous mouse made it big in the 1930s, he appeared in a variety of cartoon shorts that showed him building something (such as a house or a boat) that would later fall apart, or generally going to a great deal of trouble for little result. So Mickey gradually gave his name to anything requir- ing considerable effort for slight results, including many of the Mickey Mouse requirements of bureaucracy. The term is also applied to policies or regulations felt to be needless, inane, silly, or mildly offensive. For example, President Ronald Reagan used the term to good effect when he complained in 1982 that “the United States government’s program for arriving at a budget is about the most irrespon- sible Mickey Mouse arrangement that any government body has ever practiced.” (Herbens, 1982 p. 1). Mickey Mouse is often used to mean red tape, the symbol of excessive formal- ity and attention to routine. This has its origins in the red ribbon with which clerks bound official documents in the nineteenth century. The ribbon has disappeared, but the practices it represents linger on. Herbert Kaufman of the Brookings Institution found that the term “is applied to a bewildering variety of organizational practices and features.” Organizations create and retain such seemingly rigid “practices and features” because they promote efficiency and equity on the whole—even though this may not be true in many individual cases. After all, according to Kaufman, “one person’s ‘red tape’ may be another’s treasured procedural safeguard.” Public Administration Is Art, Not Science—or Vice Versa Some people have a gift for administration. We have all met such natural administrators. They are not only perpetually organized but have a knack for getting people to work together harmoniously. The administrative art comprises judgment, panache, and common sense. But the artist is useless without tools—without the technical skills (the sci- ence) that allow for the digestion and transference of information. Nothing is more pointless than to argue whether the practice of public administration is more art or science. It is inherently both. Of course, the more science you have, the better artist you’ll be. But “book learnin’” won’t make you an artist if you don’t possess an element of the gift in the first place. At the beginning of the American Civil War, Henry Wager Halleck was perhaps the most knowledgeable northerner on the art and science of war. His textbook Elements of Military Art and Science (1846) and translations of foreign military texts were used at West Point, where he taught. He was nicknamed “Old Brains,” and much was expected when he was given a field command. But while he knew all the science, he just didn’t have the art to be a leader in actual battle. Although he ended up as the chief of staff of the US Army, he is on nobody’s list of great gen- erals. By contrast, Ulysses S. Grant, the winning general of the Civil War, dismissed The Definitions of Public Administration 17 books on tactics as “nothing more than common sense.” He wrote in his Memoirs Staff Q (1885) that he didn’t believe his officers “ever discovered that I had never studied Specialists who assist line managers the tactics that I used.” in carrying out their So are you more likely to be an “Old Brains” Halleck—all science and no duties. Generally, art, good at staff work but incapable of command—or a Grant—all art and no staff units do not science, the archetypal line officer? Just because you have a master’s degree or have the power of even a doctorate in public administration or a related field doesn’t mean that you decision, command, or control of operations. can function as a high-level administrator. Being highly educated does not always Rather, they make equate with being professionally able. If your goal is to make it as a city manager recommendations or agency administrator, you may wish to avoid staff jobs. Get out there and run (which may or may something! Gradually prove with progressively more responsible jobs that you not be adopted) to are an artist––which you can cope with and thrive among the usual administra- executives and line managers. tive chaos. It is the same in all professions. You prepare yourself by doing smaller versions of the big thing you really want to do. Organizational theorist Antony Jay wrote of the advice traditionally given to aspiring actors: If you want to be a leading actor, you must only play leading parts—“much better to play Hamlet in Denver than Laertes on Broadway.” You thus learn “to lead a big organization by leading Laertes Q smaller ones.” But lead you must! When selection committees are seeking a man- A supporting role in Shakespeare’s ager for a major agency, those with only staff experience are not as likely to make Hamlet; Laertes and the short list of finalists. Appointing authorities may not have heard of the histor- Hamlet have the ical Halleck, but they have all seen a Halleck—and don’t want to see one in the big swordfight in the administrative structure of their group. final act. Occupational Definitions of Public Administration One of the joys of public service occupations is the frequent opportunity to par- ticipate in analyses and evaluations of public programs. However, not all public sector workers seek to engage in the public debate over policies, laws, and manage- ment practices. But all of them are interested in their jobs. So let’s look at public administration—as an occupation. Public Administration Is an Occupational Category It is whatever the public employees of the world do. It ranges from brain surgery to street sweeping. Most of the people in this broad occupational category do not even think of themselves as public administrators. They identify with their specific professions (physician, engi- neer, or teacher) and trades (carpenter, electrician, or plumber). While it is true that they may not be administrators in the sense of being managers, they are neverthe- less, whether they realize it or not, ministering (in the sense of providing services) to the public. Currently (see Table 1.2) the United States has over 21 million civil- ians working for its local, state, and federal governments—and only the smallest portion of them would define their work as public administration. They simply see themselves as police officers, social workers, educators, or forest rangers, but they are also, unavoidably, public administrators. In 1995 Richard Klausner became the director of the federal government’s National Cancer Institute. He then defiantly told the New York Times, “I am not 18 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration an administrator.” He asserted that he was “a scientist and a physician.” But the Times was not fooled by Dr. Klausner. Its lengthy profile of him was headlined “New Administrator Is ‘Not an Administrator.’” Administrators, even if they, like Dr. Klausner, are in denial, are still administrators. Public Administration Is an Essay Contest People in bureaucratic careers tend to rise or fall on how well they can write. In a game of shuffling paper, the person whose memorandum ends up on top wins. It is a legendary truism in the US State Department that nobody who’s good writes his or her own memos. If you are considered talented enough, you will be asked to write your boss’s memos. Then, because you’re too busy writing the boss’s memos, you find a younger talent to write yours. When your boss gets that big promotion, you go along for the ride with your own promotion. And, of course, you bring along the person who’s been writing for you. Remember that Thomas Jefferson was offered the job of writing the Declaration of Independence because of his reputation as a fine stylist. And his eventual elevation to president came because he made the most of this writing opportunity. When General Douglas MacArthur was head of the US Army in the 1930s, a young captain (later a major) wrote the general’s reports and speeches. Coworkers knew that Dwight D. Eisenhower was an officer who was going places, because he could write. Oral presentation skills are also essential, but because more people can speak than write effectively, writing is more decisive in determining whose ideas get advanced. All organizations place great value on the person who can write suc- cinctly in times of stress. That is the person who will be turned to when an import- ant opportunity comes up. This is why public administration is an essay contest: because your writing reputation creates your administrative persona of winner or loser. This has long been recognized—as a 1970s US Department of State report noted, the Foreign Service “has prized drafting ability above almost all other skills. We emphasize this skill in recruitment and reward it generously in our promotion system. The prize jobs in the service are the reporting jobs.” Donald P. Warwick, in his analysis of the State Department’s bureaucracy, found that “following the classic model of the gentleman generalist, the Foreign Service exalts graceful prose and the well-turned phrase.” Other agencies with fewer “gentlemen” are equally anxious to reward “graceful prose.” If you examine the personal histories of the best-known and most influential members of the George W. Bush administration—Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—you will find that when they were lowly bureaucrats they each jump- started their careers because of their ability to write. And while President Bush was not known by most as one to whom “graceful prose” comes naturally, the man that replaced him has been widely hailed for his ability to put words together. In fact, while Barack Obama’s oratory skills often draw high levels of public recognition, it is important to note that he is often the writer of the script that he is following. His skill with words made him the editor of the Harvard Law Review. All his big professional and political breaks derive from that accomplishment—including his bestselling books and subsequent public offices. The Definitions of Public Administration 19 Writing Your Way to the Presidency: John F. Kennedy BOX 1.3 Compared to Barack H. Obama In the early 1950s a young senator from even make the pretense that they wrote it themselves. Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, knew he wanted Indeed, today it is fashionable to list the person who to run for president but also knew that he had no wrote the book for you as your coauthor. Of course, substantial record of accomplishment upon which to none of these books has won the Pulitzer Prize since run. So he and his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, one of the Kennedy did. But no candidate since Kennedy has had richest men in the country, arranged for him to win the a father as rich as his was. prestigious Pulitzer Prize for biography. That’d show In contrast, Senator Barack Obama had an them! even more modest legislative record than Senator First they found a talented staffer (Theodore John F. Kennedy. Nevertheless, he took a page from Sorensen) to ghost write most of the book, Profiles Kennedy’s book and wrote himself some gravitas. But in Courage (1955), a collection of essays on eight unlike Kennedy he had to do all the work himself. senators who behaved courageously at the risk of their That’s the problem with starting out poor in life; you political careers. In Counselor, a memoir he wrote lack a readily available ghost writer. Nevertheless, more than half a century later, Sorensen admitted Obama soon had millions from his book sales. Poor that he wrote “first drafts” of all of the chapters in no more. Profiles in Courage. Second, the Kennedys arranged With two bestselling books (one a memoir and the for—paid for—massive purchases of the book to make other a romp for policy wonks), he was suddenly a it an acknowledged best-seller. Then the elder Kennedy serious contender for the Democratic nomination for used his considerable influence on the Pulitzer Prize president. Obama could not only write books, he could committee to effectively buy his son the prize. Result: write speeches, too. And deliver them in a compelling instant gravitas for an otherwise insignificant junior fashion. That is a winning combination. That attracts senator. campaign donations and volunteers. One who With his now award-winning bestseller in hand volunteered was Theodore Sorensen, the same man Kennedy could be considered a serious candidate who 60 years earlier “helped” Kennedy write Profiles for vice president at the 1956 Democratic National in Courage and because of that was able to help him Convention. While he lost his bid for the nomination write his inaugural address (“Ask not what your and his party lost the subsequent presidential election, country can do for you . . .”). Now Kennedy’s ghost the concomitant favorable publicity about this was ghosting for Obama. How sweet! Not only had handsome prize-winning war hero senator laid the the Kennedy torch been passed but so had the ghost. foundation for his successful presidential campaign Sorensen, the old ghost, was the young lawyer from four years later in 1960. Nebraska who through his own writing, under his own Not every president has had a reputation as a fine name or not, won more wealth and esteem than he writer, whether real or “store bought.” But nowadays had ever dreamed of as a boy. He saw a kindred soul all presidential candidates make the effort to publish a in Obama—a fellow contestant in the essay contest of book or two. And unlike in Kennedy’s time, they don’t life. And a winner, too. Public Administration Is Idealism in Action Many people enter public ser- vice careers because they are idealists; they believe in and seek to advance noble principles. “Noble” is the key word here because traditionally the nobility had public service obligations. They were the warrior class, so it was their obliga- tion to heroically protect the weak and less fortunate, to accept the notion of 20 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration Noblesse oblige Q noblesse oblige. Gradually, their duties expanded from military affairs to the whole A French term realm of public affairs. High-level government service, which was once the prerog- meaning “nobility obliges”; the notion ative of the wellborn, the financially well off, and the well connected, is now also that the nobles (or open to those who were born with talent but without money or connections. those of the upper Idealism draws people into public administration because it provides them with class) have a special worthwhile—and exciting—things to do with their lives. Where else can someone obligation to serve without private wealth achieve such vast power so quickly? Even the children of society. the very wealthy—such as the Kennedys and Rockefellers—tend to enter public service for the same reasons other people do: because it’s fun, it offers ego gratifica- tion, and, most importantly, because it satisfies their dual desires to do good works and exercise power. When someone asked the multimillionaire presidential candi- date John F. Kennedy why he wanted to be president, he candidly replied, “Because that is where the power is.” The idealism associated with public administration goes far beyond the indi- vidual. The goal is the mystical one of building “a city upon a hill,” an ideal polit- ical community thoroughly fit for others to observe as an example. This phrase comes from John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1630 he wrote, “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” This is a famous statement in Massachusetts history, and both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan favored using it in speeches. It also illustrates how the nondenominational religious elements of public administration allow par- ticipants to gain satisfaction by becoming involved with a cause greater than them- selves. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama updated the “city upon a hill” idealism when he stated that “hope is what led me here today—with a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is: who have the courage to remake the world as it should be” (New York Times, Jan 3, 2008). Public Administration Is an Academic Field It is the study of the art and sci- ence of management applied to the public sector. But it traditionally goes far beyond the concerns of management and incorporates as its subject matter all of the political, social, cultural, and legal environments that affect the running of public institutions. As a field of study, it is inherently cross-disciplinary because it encompasses so much of political science, sociology, business administration, psychology, law, anthropology, medicine, forestry, and so on. Indeed, it can be argued that because public administration borrows so much from other fields, what is left at its core is hardly worthy of being considered a legitimate academic field at all. Yet, there is a center around which the parts of public administration have coalesced (see Figure 1.1). While Woodrow Wilson and many others of the progressive movement called for a “science of administration,” new intellectual fields evolve amorphously. It is difficult to trace the exact moment of their conception. What is certain is that the first real American public administration text is Introduction to the Study of Public Administration by Leonard White, published in 1926. The Definitions of Public Administration 21 Sources in Public AdministraƟon Review ArƟcles in 2014 Core PA Polical Science 5% 2% 3% Law 0% 6% 2% Management 41% Non-Profit Management 11% Economics 14% Medicine & Health 2% 13% Engineering Psychology 1% Sociology & Social Work Social Science Other FIGURE 1.1 The interdisciplinary nature of public administration While Woodrow Wilson provided the rationale for public administration to be an academic discipline and professional management specialty, it remained for White to most clearly articulate its preliminary objectives. In his pioneering text, he noted four critical assumptions that formed the basis for the study of public administration: 1. Administration is a unitary process that can be studied uniformly, at the federal, state, and local levels. 2. The basis for study is management, not law. 3. Administration is still art, but the ideal of transformation to science is both feasible and worthwhile. 4. Administration “has become, and will continue to be the heart of the problem of modern government.” White’s text was remarkable both for its influence over four decades (the fourth and last edition was published in 1955) and for its restraint in not taking a pre- scriptive cookbook approach to public administration. He recognized that public administration was above all a field of study that had to stay close to reality—the reality of its largely untrained practitioner base that still professed great belief in the art of administration. 22 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration TABLE 1.2 Sources in Public Administration Review Issues 1966* 1990 2014 Core Public Administration 19% 37% 41% Political Science 34% 26% 13% Law 1% 2% 1% Management 8% 12% 14% Non-Profit Management 0% 0% 2% Economics 7% 9% 11% Medicine & Health 1% 0% 2% Engineering 4% 1% 0% Psychology 1% 1% 5% Sociology & Social Work 9% 6% 3% Social Science 11% 5% 6% Other 3% 1% 2% 100% 100% 100% Note: This table was constructed by the authors by counting and categorizing all the references cited in the main articles published in issues of Public Administration Review in the 1966, 1990, and 2014 issues. Core Public Administration included any journal that was affiliated with the American Society of Public Administration or had Public Administration in its title. Books or Reports that were referenced were categorized by title. Over the past 50 years, the influence of political science on public administration has greatly decreased and been replaced by core public administration. Also, public administration is much more interdisciplinary— relying more on management, economics, other social sciences, and even a new field—non-profit management. *1966 column percentages don’t total 100% due to rounding As an independent academic field, public administration has always been con- troversial. First, it was the stepchild of political science. And in many colleges, the field is still represented by a few courses within the political science curriculum. Later, schools of business or management began to offer it as one of a variety of administrative specialties. In recent decades, independent departments and gradu- ate schools of public administration have been created. But as the field of public administration matured, its constituent elements began to intellectually fly away. The public policy analyst increasingly identified with the mathematical rigor of political science methodologists. Public finance has been claimed by the econo- mists. The core management elements have drifted toward the field of public man- agement. Increasingly, the field seems to be less a discipline than a holding company for disparate intellectual components. This is hardly new. In 1975 Dwight Waldo was decrying that “public administration is suffering from an identity crisis, having enormously expanded its periphery without retaining or creating a unifying center” (Waldo, 1975, p. 185). Now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, this crisis shows no signs of abating. In answer to the question, “Is public administration a legitimate academic field?” honest people of differing views will argue both pro and con. We obviously The Evolution of Public Administration 23 side with Waldo and assert that, whatever its problems with unity, public admin- istration is most decidedly a legitimate field. We also contend that the growth and creative independence of its elements are both healthy and intellectually invigorat- ing. An academic field without controversy must necessarily be in decline. Thus public administration is very healthy indeed. Public Administration Is a Profession It is the application of its unique arts and sciences to the problems of society. But is it a profession, such as law, medicine, engineering, or architecture? The case for public administration’s status as a profes- sion can be made by applying to it the test of professionalism. Does it possess the three core features common to traditional professions? 1. A body of academic and practical knowledge that is applied to the service of society. 2. A standard of success theoretically measured by serving the needs of society rather than seeking purely personal gain. 3. A system of control over the professional practice that regulates the education of new members and maintains both a code of ethics and appropriate sanctions. Public administration amply meets all three of these criteria even though, unlike law or medicine, it cannot control entry to practice through licenses and examinations. However, public administration acts such as these long-established professions by drawing on different fields of specialization to solve problems and prepare new practitioners. While public administration is not a pure social science, as some would have it, it is fully equal to these more traditional fields of study. Per- haps it supersedes many in one respect. Society’s original professionals were clergy because they professed the word of God. Such people were said to have a “calling.” Why? Because God was said to have called them. Public administration, with its idealistic notions of building “a city upon a hill,” is closer to this original religious conception of professionalism than many other professions today. THE EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION There was nothing preordained about the preceding discussion of definitions. It is a product of the life experiences of the authors. It could have been written in a rad- ically different framework and accomplished essentially the same task. Similarly, public administration itself did not have to evolve the way it did. As with any evo- lutionary process, there was a seemingly infinite number of possible outcomes. Biol- ogist Stephen Jay Gould in his book about the Burgess Shale, a fossil-rich limestone quarry in the Canadian Rockies, shows how animal evolution had any number of starts and stops. According to Gould, no “handicapper, given Burgess Evidence as known today, would have granted very favorable odds” that the invertebrate crea- tures from which humans evolved would have survived. The most disturbing thing about this kind of natural selection, according to Gould, is the random nature of it—that so much of evolutionary history takes on the character of a lottery. 24 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration So it has been with public administration. The administrative institutions that we presently have could so easily have been radically different. How humans learned to approach the practice and definition of public administration could so easily have taken a surprising turn. For example, if the Greeks had insisted that administration was household management on a grand scale, they might have developed it as a female occupation. And it might have been copied that way by the Romans, who adopted so much else of Greek science and culture. If the clas- sical world developed the notion that men were fit only for war and physical toil, women might have evolved a beneficent administrative matriarchy. And there is a third possibility: rule by eunuchs. (No joke!) For more than 2,000 years and into the twentieth century, eunuchs—males with their external sex organs amputated—were the public administrators of choice. Why? Because their missing parts meant that they could be trusted—first with the rulers’ wives and concubines, and then with other administrative chores. Eunuchs proved to be particularly effective and loyal administrators. As slaves usu- ally long removed from any family, they knew that the only way to thrive was to do well by the only people who could enrich and protect them. The eunuchs formed a kind of civil service system. Entrance was typically limited to captured slave boys from the edge of the empire, who were castrated by the thousands. While a large percentage died from the crude surgery, the survivors were put into service as court eunuchs. There they could work their way up to the highest level of administrative responsibility. Eunuchs grew to be the servant class most trusted by the rulers of ancient Syria, Persia, China, and Rome. In an era rife with nepotism (hiring of rel- atives), they were immune from such influences. While Christian Byzantium made extensive use of eunuchs in government posts, Western Christendom did not. The last of the traditional bureaucrat-eunuchs were still to be seen in imperial China and the Ottoman Empire only a century ago. Thus for most of recorded history administration by eunuchs was a “normal” means by which states managed their affairs. The advantages they offered—absolute loyalty and apathy—are not to be sneered at. Fortunately today there are ways to instill high standards of ethics in government officials without sending castration technicians to visit the bureaucrats of Washington, Brussels, Tokyo, and Beijing or wherever. A Short History of Public Administration But even if public administration had evolved along radically different lines, it would have had to come out about where it is concerning its core content. While there is no agreement on all the details, there is broad general agreement about the subject matter. Thus all public administration introductory texts have chapters sim- ilar to those that follow, except for the method of presentation. But there is almost universal agreement that organization theory, bureaucratic behavior, personnel management, public finance and budgeting, policy analysis, program evaluation, and administrative ethics, among other topics, are essential to a basic understand- ing of the field. This essential information is all here. It is an underlying premise of this book that public administration cannot be properly understood without an appreciation of its political dynamics. All of the actors in the public administration world must accept their political fate—they The Evolution of Public Administration 25 cannot pretend either to themselves or to the public that they operate as a public sector counterpart to industrial management. And the political nature of public administration must be faced maturely. Just as the first step in arresting alcoholism is to have the alcoholic admit that he or she is an alcoholic and will always be an alcoholic even after he or she stops drinking, the first step toward putting public administration operations on a more realistic footing is for public managers to admit that public sector administration is an inherently political process. Public administration is increasingly a cross-governmental field. Yet too many of the comprehensive texts available for introductory courses in the United States are decidedly parochial in that they focus on the national government. This is an incongruous situation when you consider that a relatively small percentage of American public administrators work for the federal government. While the United States has one federal government, it has more than 80,000 units of state, county, metropolitan, and local governments led by administrators as esteemed as gover- nors and as unnoticed as the executive director of a mosquito abatement district. In all, state and local governments employed just under 20 million Americans in 2013, compared to only 2.7 million individuals working for the federal government in civilian positions. It should be noted that those 2.7 million federal jobs include a declining number of US postal employees now at under 580,000 employees. (See Table 1.3 for an historical look at government employment and payroll levels.) Most public administration students in the United States will go into state and local government or are foreign nationals who expect to return home with read- ily applicable skills. Still others will work in nonprofit organizations. The end of the Cold War in 1989 only encouraged an ever-increasing worldwide market for Western-oriented public administration. Thus to a large extent this text takes a uni- fied approach—appropriate for US students at all levels (federal, state, and local) but generic enough to be truly useful to students of other countries and cultures. Most of the content of introductory public administration texts can be uni- versally applicable. There exists a unified whole (public administration in general) that is greater than the sum of its parts (public administration in each jurisdiction). The core concept of the unified approach to introducing public administration is to write the material in such a manner that it can be readily applied to the differing political systems within the American federal system and throughout the rest of the world. Indeed, no public administration textbook can be comprehensive today if it is not cross-governmental in the most expansive sense. National administration figures from the president on down hardly ever make a major speech without some reference to government policies and practices in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. This is just the latest evidence of how imperative it is that American students of public administration develop a greater international perspective. This will not be a “how-to” book written for people who want to be public administration experts in ten easy lessons. It will be a “what is it?” book written for people who seek or are engaged in managerial careers in the public sector and are in need of a basic introduction to, or a review of, public sector administrative practices. The “nuts and bolts” of administrative processes vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because of differing laws and customs, it would be futile to present the “one right way” for any given procedure. Instead, the procedural chapters (on personnel, budgeting, strategic management, etc.) concentrate on the 26 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration TABLE 1.3 US Government Employment & Payroll 1982–2013 Federal Government State Government Local Government Employment (1000s) Employment (1000s) Employment (1000s) Monthly Payrolls Monthly Payrolls Monthly Payrolls Year ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) 1982 2,848 3,744 9,248 $5,959 $5,022 $12,192 1992 3,047 4,595 11,103 $7,924 $9,828 $23,355 2000 2,899 4,877 13,099 $11,485 $13,279 $33,402 2005 2,720 5,078 13,926 $13,475 $16,062 $42,062 2009 2,824 5,329 14,480 $15,106 $19,388 $50,720 2014 2,700 5,343 13,911 $16,996 $21,154 $52,079 Note: Over the last 40 years, Federal employment has been stable in terms of total full-time employees while salaries have increased as average pay grades have increased. By 2015, over 60% of the federal workforce were in highest four grade levels, compared to 37% in 1980. Monthly Payroll Data not adjusted for Inflation. Source: 1982–2009 data: US Census Bureau—Statistical Abstract of the United States 2012; 2014 data: Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll, US Bureau of Labor Statistics Statistical release. historical evolution, essential theory, and future trends of their subjects. With this information, diligent readers will have the kind of conceptual foundation that will allow them to rapidly digest and master the procedural nuts and bolts that differ with every jurisdiction. The Pre-Modern Period and Five Eras of Civil Service Development There are numerous approaches to discussing how public administration has pro- gressed in the United States since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Com- plicating any analysis of how public administration has evolved are the different stages of growth and contraction that government at all levels has experienced. Rather than risk overload given that we have already presented 16 different defini- tions of PA, we will simply present two distinct phases: Q the pre-modern period (approximately the first century and a half from 1789 to the 1950s); Q the modern period (the half century from 1960 through the first decade in the twenty-first century). The Evolution of Public Administration 27 Frederick C. Mosher’s book Democracy and the Public Service (1968) is the classic historical guide to the formative years of public administration. His chapter “The Evolution of American Civil Service Concepts” divides the pre-modern era into five eras. Then he explains the evolution of administrative practice by examining who the public administrators of each era were. The passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883 established the merit system within the federal government, although it largely applied only to entry level employees. The merit system ideal—even if tentatively established—would take root and grow from covering only 10 percent of federal employees in the 1880s to nearly 70 per- cent by the mid-twentieth century. In the beginning, following the inauguration of President George Washington, the relatively small number of federal public service jobs went to the upper class or gentlemen (using the term to describe the wealthier families in the new republic) based more on “fitness of character” than political allegiance. It also mattered that the prestige of government jobs was not matched by salary, so having some access to wealth was not a minor consideration. This resulted in a higher standard, based on wealth and class status, for qualified men (and they were like the Congress they served, all white men). It should also be noted that when administrations changed, there was some “rotation in office,” but only about 20 percent. The inauguration of Andrew Jackson in 1829 marks the second era, called Government by Common Man. Jackson was elected on a platform that called for a government that was to be more open to the public or “by the people.” While his eight years of office were marked by much turmoil, it didn’t really include the wholesale turnover of federal offices to party allies. But the idea of dividing up government jobs after a newly elected leader wins and parceling them out to party loyalists as a reward—what is commonly referred to as “the spoils system”—would be fully evident in administrations to come. The triumph and ultimately the abuses of the spoils system would lead in turn to the calls for reform by the Progressive or Good Government movement. Government by the Good—begins with the passage of Civil Service Reform Act in 1883. This Pendleton Act required that government employment be tied to 1937–1955 1906–1937 Government by Administrators 1883–1906 Government by the Efficient 1829–1883 Government by the Good 1789–1829 Government by the Common Government by Man Gentlemen FIGURE 1.2 Frederick Mosher’s Evolution of the American Civil Service Source: adapted from Mosher (1968: pp. 96–97). 28 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration merit. Competitive exams would ascertain who had the highest qualifications pos- sible. This meant that there would be a need for a discipline to prepare people to be government employees. Second, the civil service reform movement in rejecting the spoils system advocated for the “political neutrality” of government employees. The fourth era might be seen as eclipsing the third as Government by the Effi- cient rises in importance in parallel with scientific management—associated with Frederick Taylor (see Chapter 6). Whatever one thinks of some of the “products” of Scientific Management—the use of time and motion studies, the search for one best way of production, and pursuing ways to make human work an extension of machines, efficiency was the dominant root. Government jobs were to be studied via new personnel and compensation systems such as position classification. Public Administration, now in its first true development stage, would begin to see itself as a science. And as a science, public administration would begin to posit principles and develop theories about how to make government both efficient and if not better, at least more rational. By the late 1930s public administration had emerged as a distinct field of study. Mosher’s “government by administrators” or “government by professional manag- ers” reflected a radically different scale of operations. By the mid 1950s, govern- ment employment was just under 10 million workers (2.4 million federal civilian, 1.5 million in state government, and 4.8 million in local government). Total gov- ernment expenditure—best measured as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) had increased from 10 percent in the mid 1920s to 25 percent. Mosher’s final pre-modern era reflected a new realization that government was operating at a scale unthought of in the early days of pursuing civil service reform. The Modern Period and Shifting Perspectives on the Roles of Government We set the next 50 years—from the 1960s to the first decade of the twenty-first century—as the modern period of public administration. While the size and scale of the federal government would not change, state and local governments would expand their reach and capabilities significantly. Federal budgets would basically double from $46.3 billion in 1960 to $92.5 billion in 1979—but when these num- bers are calculated as a percentage of the gross national product the ratio is far less impressive (18.5 to 20.8 percent of GNP). Even the 20 percent increase in federal civilian employment from 2.4 million to 2.9 million when seen as a relationship to the population, federal employment in 1979 was basically at the 1950s level. Look- ing back at Table 1.3, federal employment is now even under that gross number at 2.7 million civilian employees in 2014. State and local government employment was on a much higher trajectory in this period increasing from 4.2 to 13.1 million employees by 1979 and reaching almost 20 million before leveling off after 2000. It needs to be pointed out that the largest share of US state and local government employment growth comes from education. As a 2010 census report notes, education is also government’s biggest bargain: “While employment for all levels and occupations in education represent 56.8 percent of the total employment for state and local governments, the payroll for education is only 51.9 percent of the total payroll” (US Census Bureau, 2010). The Evolution of Public Administration 29 In a 1980 article, Frederick C. Mosher explains that these trends were “A consequence of fundamental shifts in the purposes, phases, and methods of fed- eral operations” (Mosher, 1980, p. 45). Mosher argued, the federal government’s pattern of involvement was shifting from overt to covert. On the one hand, the federal government was decreasing the number and level of activities it performed directly, while with the other hand it was stimulating major efforts by state and local governments, non-profit organizations, and even private business through income supports, contracts and grants, regulations, and loans and loan guarantees. The result, Mosher noted, was a federal administrative posture that increasingly relied on indirect administrative coordination and funds transfer. From a field of study perspective, the focus of public administration was still stuck on the federal government, while the real action was inexorably shifting to other levels. Even though the size and scale of government was basically set, public admin- istration as a practice within governments and a field of study underwent a series of major changes and shifts. The first shift is already referred to above—properly labelled Intergovernmental Relations—with the federal government’s strategic realignment of its roles and methods of operations vis-à-vis state and local gov- ernment counterparts. Emerging within this mix was a preference for the federal government to provide entitlement payments directly to individuals which would only accelerate with the graying of the American population. Social Security is the first example—by 1993, the program had eclipsed defense spending as the largest federal program category. Close behind is Medicare which should exceed defense spending by 2020. Given that the projected number of Medicare enrollees will grow from current levels of about 50 million to 80 million by 2030, it will become the largest category of federal spending. The Modern Period also saw public administration recognize new dimensions of public policy and broader management practice. Following the series of race riots in 1964 and recognition of major inequalities in American society, public adminis- tration questioned its commitment to social equity and its leadership responsibilities in improving race relations, eradicating poverty, and promoting social justice. New emphases emerged in public policy analysis that assessed the fairness, distribution, and recurrent discrimination in the distribution of public benefits and safety net programs. Following the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, public administration rediscovered its concern with ethics and embarked on a still evolving discussion of how to promote and ensure ethical conduct among public administrators. A third shift within the Modern Period involved government’s approach and application of regulation. In the pre-modern era, federal and state governments responded to the rise of monopolies and other types of businesses and groups that dominated or in many cases had control of an industry or commerce sector. Gov- ernment agencies were given oversight over a range of business practices in bank- ing, transportation, telecommunications, energy, and agriculture, among others. But starting in the 1960s and accelerating, in the 1970s and 1980s, government entered a deregulation phase where it reduced or even eliminated regulation of industry practices in order to increase competiveness and spur economic perfor- mance in these industry sectors. But deregulation or subtraction was only one side of the equation in the Modern period. Governments also added new legislation and agencies to regulate labor and 30 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration consumer practices, and equal employment rights, to advance safety in the work- place, and collective bargaining practices. Another new emphasis spurred by the establishment of environmental protection agencies at the federal and state levels was regulating pollution and promoting environmental safeguards. These have now been transformed by efforts to address the issues of climate change and sustainability. Finally, reform of government became a mantra for change during the mod- ern period. Each new presidential administration had its own government reform effort. Nixon had his Ash Council, Carter his Civil Service reform effort, Reagan his Grace commission, and Clinton his reinventing government effort. While it should be pointed out that each of these reform efforts had very different aims and rationales, they all cast government as the “problem” and urge a fundamental (and totally different) rethinking of how government, meaning public administration, should solve the recurring fiscal, performance, and trust deficits that undermined public confidence in the ability to solve the nation’s problems. Not surprisingly, as each wave of reform underwhelmed, reform itself became a metaphor for problem. While there has always been criticism of the accomplish- ments of actual reform efforts in US public administration, new voices questioned the direction and vision of reform itself. Jocelyne Bourgon, in a 2011 work enti- tled A New Synthesis of Public Administration, noted that “the generally uncom- pleted nature of administrative reforms are most likely due to the difficulty of designing and implementing an exhaustive, coherent program of bureaucratic overhaul.” She argued that such efforts are misguided and that reform should instead be redirected. In order “to meet the challenges of governance,” public administrations must reconsider the interactions between their organizational, institutional, adaptive and innovative capacities” (Bourgon, 2011: p. 13). Working in the Public Sector in the Twenty-First Century While public service, or working for the public sector (whether as a government employee, a non-profit or a private sector contractor, or in an academic or policy research organization) remains a noble quest, it has changed significantly in the last two decades. For one thing, the number of employment opportunities is differ- ent. One can see the start of this in Table 1.3 where fulltime employment actually has decreased slightly after nearly 30 years of stable growth. Table 1.4 provides a comparative snapshot of where government employees work in terms of functions. For the public administration student who is wondering about job and career prospects, there is both good and not-so-good news. On this scale, bad news which doesn’t apply to government might be what has happened to manufacturing jobs in the US since 2000. As Journalist Adam Davidson has written “In the 10 years ending in 2009, factories shed workers so fast that they erased all the gains of the previous 70 years, roughly one out of every three manufacturing jobs—about 6 million in total—disappeared” (Davidson, 2012, p. 58). He explains that as many people work in manufacturing now as did over 50 years ago, while the US population has more than doubled in the same interval. This development goes far beyond simple busi- ness cycle economics as this now one-third downsized manufacturing workforce turns out greater production levels than their pre-twenty-first-century counterparts. The not-so-good news is that government employment levels are slowing down. At the federal level there will be fewer defense contractors, fewer administrators, The Evolution of Public Administration 31 and major cuts in the number of post office workers. The US Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics projects a 14 percent reduction in the size of the federal workforce by 2022. State and local governments will see some growth, but at 5 percent that is pretty anemic. Incidentally, the industry sector that is projected to grow the most is health care and social assistance—at 29 percent by 2022. One might think of these jobs as public service, but the US health care model has over 60 percent of all jobs and expenditures in the private sector. The good news is that government employees are older and even with the won- ders of modern medicine and the reluctance on many older government workers to depart the workforce, they will ultimately have to retire. This is not a recent phe- nomenon. A 2006 report by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence noted over 69 percent of the federal workforce was over 40, 60 percent of state employees and 64 percent of local government employees compared to 48 per- cent of workers in the private sector. The numbers of true “seniors” are even more impressive—almost 40 percent of feds are over 50, 35 percent of state employees and 36 percent of local government workers—making this the largest age category within the workforce—compared to just 23 percent in the private sector. And these numbers are from a report based on the 2006 Census Data. So fear not in terms of wondering whether there will be a job out there in the public sector in the future. We may have too many lawyers and MBAs, but a new TABLE 1.4 Where Do Government Employees Work? US Government Employment by Major Functional Categories by Level of Government (2013 Census of Governments) Local States Federal FULLTIME EMPLOYEES 10,965,982 3,803,877 2,583,768 Education 58.4% 36.2% 0.5% Protective Services— 12.6% 15.1% 8.0% Police & Fire Health & Social Welfare 9.9% 22.7% 16.3% Transportation 4.8% 6.9% 2.2% Judicial and Legal 2.2% 4.5% 2.3% Administration 3.8% 5.4% 5.7% Natural Resources & 1.8% 4.0% 7.8% Environment Defense/International Relations n.a. n.a. 28.9% Postal Service n.a. n.a. 20.8% Space Research & n.a. n.a. 0.7% Technology Public Utilities 4.3% 0.2% n.a. Other and Unallocable 2.2% 5.0% 6.8% 100% 100% 100% 32 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration generation of public service workers is on the horizon. And if you have any doubt, you might consider Steve Jobs’s 2005 commencement speech at Stanford University where he reminded the graduating class: Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Jobs knew that future prospects for young job applicants are best summarized by the ancient proverb—where there’s death, there is hope. BOX 1.4 Virtual Student Foreign Service Work—it’s no longer a place, it’s more a state of mind. digital diplomacy that reflects the realities of our Many public administration students enter public service networked world. or start their careers through internship programs. But PROGRAM DETAILS not all public administration programs are conveniently VSFS e-Intern duties and responsibilities will vary located next to government agencies. Few government according to the location and needs of the VSFS agencies see that dilemma more clearly than the US projects identified at the sponsoring domestic or State department where the majority of its operations overseas diplomatic office. VSFS projects may be are internationally based. Their solution—why not apply research based, contributing to reports on issues for the Virtual Student Foreign Service as their digitally such as human rights, economics or the environment. enhanced recruitment announcement below notes: They may also be more technology oriented, such as working on web pages, or helping produce electronic The Virtual Student journals. Selected students are expected to work Foreign Service is part virtually on an average of 5–10 hours per week on of a growing effort by VSFS e-Internship projects. Students apply in the the State Department summer and if selected, begin the eInternship that fall to harness technology lasting through spring. Most work and projects are and a commitment to internet-based and some have language requirements. global service among young people to facilitate new forms of Source: http://www.state.gov/vsfs/ (accessed January 1, 2016). diplomatic engagement. Working from college In 2015, over 350 students were selected as virtual and university campuses in the United States and interns in the VSFS program—working at 15 different throughout the world, e-Interns (American students federal agencies on over 300 different projects. It’s working virtually) are partnered with our US not hard to envision more opportunities for students diplomatic posts overseas and State Department, in public administration programs to be e-Interns in US Agency for International Development (USAID), federal, state, and local agencies without regard to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the geography. Indeed, competition between MPA programs Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the for recruiting students may be based in part on the US Commercial Service domestic offices to conduct number and quality of e-Internships they provide. The Evolution of Public Administration 33 How a President Undeservedly Received Credit for Founding a A CASE STUDY Discipline In 1885 Woodrow Wilson, having not yet completed his doctoral program at Johns Hopkins University, began his teaching career at the newly founded Bryn Mawr College for Women. While reportedly a lecturer of genius, he resented having to teach women. As he told an associate, such an activity “relaxes one’s mental muscle.” In 1887 he summed up his life by saying, “Thirty-one years old and nothing done!” In retrospect, Wilson seems to have been like many other ambitious academics seemingly stuck in a post that did not do justice to talent. And he chose as the way out the now traditional road to high academic fame, fortune, and position: he wrote and published and was saved! American public administration as a field of study traditionally traces its origin to an 1887 Political Science Quarterly article by this frustrated young academic. In “The Study of Administration,” Wilson attempted nothing less than to refocus the newly emerging field of political science. Rather than be concerned with the “lasting maxims of political wisdom,” he argued that political science should concentrate on the more generally neglected details of how governments are administered. This was necessary because “it is getting harder to run a constitution than to frame one.” Wilson wanted the study of public administration to focus not only on the problems of personnel management, as many other reformers of the time had advocated, but also on organization and management in general. The reform movement of the time had an agenda that did not go beyond the abolition of the spoils system and the installation of a merit system. Wilson regarded civil service reform “as but a prelude to a fuller administrative reform.” He sought to push the concerns of public administration into investigations of the “organization and methods of our government offices” with a view toward determining “first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or energy” (Wilson, 1887 in Classics of Public Administration, 2012, p. 16). He was concerned with overall organizational efficiency and economy—that is, productivity in its most simplistic formulation. What could be more current—then or now? In his essay, Wilson also proclaimed the existence of a major distinction between politics and administration. This was a common and necessary political tactic of the reform movement because arguments that public appointments should be based on fitness and merit, rather than partisanship, necessarily had to assert that “politics” was out of place in public service. As Wilson said, “Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.” In reinforcing what became known as the “politics–administration dichotomy,” Wilson was really referring to “partisan” politics. While this subtlety was lost on many, Wilson’s main (continued) 34 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration A CASE STUDY Continued themes—that public administration should be premised on a science of management and separate from traditional politics—fell on fertile intellectual ground. The ideas of this then obscure professor eventually became the dogma of academic public administration. And what happened to the young Bryn Mawr professor who plaintively wrote in 1888, “I have for a long time been hungry for a class of men”? Shortly thereafter, he took up an appointment at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. From there he went to Princeton, made good, and became president of that university. In later life he found a job in Washington. But if Wilson had not found that job in Washington, had not become president, his now seminal article would have continued to enjoy the obscurity its verbosity warrants. The article’s significant influence came only after World War II—more than half a century after it was published. Administrative historian Paul van Riper found that none of the early public administration scholars, Wilson’s contemporaries, cited the article in their otherwise heavily referenced works. “In reality, any connection between Wilson’s essay and the later development of the discipline is pure fantasy! An examination of major political and social science works of the period between 1890 and World War I shows no citation whatever of the essay” (Van Riper, 1983, p. 477). So how did it get rediscovered and become required reading for generations of students? According to a historical analysis by Daniel W. Martin, “The simple answer . . . is the glowing reprint of Wilson’s article in the December 1941 Political Science Quarterly. It was a masterwork of public relations, complete with a photostatic copy of Wilson’s tentative letter of submission” (Martin, 1988). Thereafter, Wilson’s essay, cited only modestly in the interwar period, grew to its current influence. For Discussion: Do you think that public administration can, or should, ever be totally separate from politics? Looking back at previous administrations (Bush or Obama) do you think either would be considered “Wilsonian” in its similar concern with efficiency and economy? SUMMARY Public administration can be defined from political, legal, managerial, and occupa- tional perspectives. However defined, its vast scope encompasses whatever govern- ments do. Public administration cannot exist outside of its political context. It is this context that makes it public—that makes it different from private or business administration. Public administration is what a state does. It is created by and bound by the law and is an instrument of the law. It is inherently the execution of public laws. Every application of a general law is necessarily an act of administra- tion. Its legal basis allows public administration to exist, but without its manage- ment aspect, not much of the public’s business would get done. Key Concepts 35 Public administration as an academic field is the study of the art and science of management applied to the public sector. But it traditionally goes far beyond the concerns of management and incorporates as its subject matter all of the political, social, cultural, and legal environments that affect the running of public institu- tions. It is inherently cross-disciplinary, encompassing so much of other fields— from political science and sociology to business administration and law. American public administration as a field of study is traditionally traced to Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 article “The Study of Administration.” The discipline of public administration, after developing as part of political science, emerged as an inde- pendent field in the second half of the twentieth century. Other scholars (notably Frederick Mosher) saw the development of public administration in the context of the transformation of the profession of public administration. The idea that public service should reflect other ideals (besides being bureaucrats) is important to understanding new roles and responsibilities for government in what is now being called a new era of governance in globalization. As a profession, public administration offers significant opportunities for ideal- ism in the pursuit of public service—and even heroism, as we saw on September 11. Concerns about an increasingly effective or more expansive public service ebb and flow with the changing political philosophies of differing administrations. But the provision of public services—whether by career public servants or by contracted private sector or non-profit organization employees—remains the very essence of public administration. In addition to ensuring that public services are provided with accountability and efficiency, public administration is confronting new realities of realigning public enterprises and services in response to needs for renewable energy sources, resource conservation, green technologies, and designs for sustainability. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. How would you define public administration in one phrase, one paragraph, or an essay? 2. Is public administration among the oldest or newest areas of study, or both? 3. Is public administration an amalgam of various areas of study or a field unto itself? To what extent do you think public administration has to be more interdisciplinary, rather than relying on its traditional emphasis in political science and business management? 4. Is public administration a profession or just an occupation? KEY CONCEPTS Burke, Edmund (1729–1797) British political philosopher and Member of Parliament who is often referred to as the father of conservative thought. Hamilton, Alexander (1755–1804) George Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War. A supporter of a strong national government, coauthored the Federalist Papers to help get the Constitution ratified. When Washington became president, Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury one of the first five cabinet posts created. Herring, E. Pendleton (1903–2004) One of the most influential of the pre-World War II scholars of public administration. His Group Representation before Congress (1929) was one of the pioneering works in the study of pressure groups. His Public Administration and the Public Interest (1936) remains a major analysis of the relations between government agencies and their constituencies. 36 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration Implementation Putting a government program into effect; the total process of translating a legal mandate into appropriate program directives and structures that provide services or create goods. Judicial review Any court’s power to review executive actions, legislative acts, or decisions of lower courts (or quasi-judicial entities, such as arbitration panels) to either confirm or overturn them. Lippmann, Walter (1889–1974) A journalist who went beyond being the preeminent polit- ical pundit of his time to being a political philosopher who wrote pioneering analyses of public opinion and foreign policy. Management A word that refers to both the people responsible for running an organiza- tion and the running process itself; the use of numerous resources (such as employees and machines) to accomplish an organizational goal. New Deal The domestic programs and policies of the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was president from 1933–1945, that were designed to counteract the Great Depression and widespread economic misery in the United States before the Second World War. Progressive movement While the term has its origins in religious concepts that argued for the infinite improvability of the human condition, by the end of the nineteenth century it had come to refer to a political and cultural movement that focused on reforming industrialized societies to provide for greater democratic participation, and the application of science and specialized knowledge to the improvement of life. Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1809–1865) The French journalist who is considered the intellec- tual father of anarchism. Privatization The process of turning over to the private sector property (such as public lands) or functions (such as trash collection, fire protection) previously owned or performed by government. Public interest The universal label in which political actors wrap the policies and programs that they advocate. Public law A legislative act that deals with the citizenry as a whole; a statute that applies to all. This is in contrast to a private law that affects only one person or group. Red tape The ribbon that was once used to bind government documents; the term now stands as the symbol of excessive official formality and over attention to prescribed routines. Regulation The totality of government controls on the social and economic activities of its citizens; the rulemaking process of those administrative agencies charged with the official interpretation of laws. Representative government A governing system in which a legislature freely chosen by the people exercises substantial power on their behalf. Rosenbloom, David H. (1943– ) The leading authority on the constitutional aspects of pub- lic employment. His paradigm of public administration as the intersection of management, politics, and law has become a standard way to analyze and teach the subject. Tragedy of the commons A story illustrative of the principle that maximization of private gain will not result in the maximization of social benefit. When herdsmen sought to maxi- mize individual gain by adding cattle to the common, it caused overgrazing, with the result that the common could no longer be used for grazing at all. The concepts involved with the tragedy of the commons apply to societal problems. Waldo, Dwight (1913–2000) The preeminent historian of the academic field of public administration. His work ‘The Administrative State in 1948’ (his doctorial dissertation) is considered a benchmark work in Public Administration. Bibliography 37 White, Leonard (1891–1958) The University of Chicago professor who wrote the first pub- lic administration text in 1926. He is the author of the standard administrative histories of the US government in the nineteenth century. Wilson Woodrow (1856–1924) Before Wilson became president of the United States (1913–1921), he was a professor of history and political science who rose to be president of Princeton University (1902–1910) and governor of New Jersey (1911–1913). His essay “The Study of Administration” in 1887 in The Political Science Quarterly is often consid- ered (though not without debate) a starting point for US public administration. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bourgon, Jocelyn (2011) A New Synthesis of Public Administration. Montreal: McGill- Queens University Press. Burke, Edmund (1774) “Speech to the Electors of Bristol,” Library of Economics and Lib- erty, Indianapolis, IN Liberty Fund Inc 1990, section 4.1.6. Cuomo, Mario (1995) Reason to Believe. New York: Simon and Schuster. Davidson, Adam (2012) “Making it in America,” The Atlantic, Jan/Feb, p. 58. Derthick, Martha and Paul Quirk (1985) The Politics of Deregulation. Washington: Brook- ings Institution Press. Gould, Stephen Jay (1989) Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton. Grant, Ulysses S. (1885) Memoirs and Selected Letters: Personal Memoirs of US Grant/ Selected Letters, 1839–1865. Library of America, New York. Greenfield, Stuart (2007) “Public Sector Employment: The Current Situation,” Center for State and Local Government Excellence. Available at www.info.slcge.org. Haldane, J. B. S. (1928) Possible Worlds and Other Essays. New York: Harper. Halleck, Henry W. (1863) Elements of Military Art and Science, 3rd ed. New York: Appleton. Hamilton, Alexander (1788) The Federalist Number 72. New York: E. P. Dutton. Herbens, John (1982) “President Denounces Budget Process,” New York Times, May 29 p. 1. Herring, E. Pendleton (1936) Public Administration and the Public Interest. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jobs, Steve (2005) Commencement address delivered to Stanford University, Stanford Report, June 14, 2005. Kaufman, Herbert (1977) Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, and Abuses. Washington: Brookings Institution. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) 545 US 469. Kolata, Gina (1995) “Scientist at Work,” New York Times, December 12. Kugler, Sara (2001) “One WTC Survivor’s E-Mail Touches Hundreds Worldwide,” Associ- ated Press, December 25, 2001. Landy, Marc, Martin Levin, and Martin Shapiro (2007) Creating Competitive Markets. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Lippmann, Walter (1955) The Public Philosophy. Boston: Little, Brown. Lowi, Theodore J. (1969) The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton. Martin, Daniel W. (1988) “The Fading Legacy of Woodrow Wilson,” Public Administration Review, 48(March/April). Mosher, Frederick C. (1968, 1984) Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press. Mosher, Frederick C. (1980) “The Changing Responsibilities and Tactics of the Federal Government,” Public Administration Review, (Nov/Dec 1980). National Federation of Independent Business et al. vs. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (no 11–393 June 28, 2012). 38 CHAPTER 1 Defining Public Administration New York Times (2008) “Barack Obama’s Caucus Speech,” January 3. NonProfit Times (November 1, 2013) “The NPT 2013 Top 100.” Available at www. nonprofittimes.com. Noonan, Peggy (2001) “Courage under Fire,” Wall Street Journal, October 5. O’Neill, Tip. (1994). All Politics Is Local and Other Rules of the Game. New York: Times Books. Orwell, G. (1946) Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. New York: Harcourt Brace. Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1923) General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century. London: Freedom Press. Rand, Ayn (1967) Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet/New American Library. Rosenbloom, David H. (1990). Public Administration, 2nd ed. New York: Random House. Shafritz, Jay and Albert C. Hyde (2012) Classics of Public Administration. Belmont: Wad- sworth Publishing. Shaw, George Bernard (1944) Everybody’s Political What’s What? New York: Dodd, Mead. Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835; translation 1899) Democracy in America. New York: Appleton. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) “2013–2014 Industry Employment,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, pp. 29–36. Available online at www.bls.gov/ooc US Census Bureau (2010) Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. Available online at https://www.census.gov/govs/apes/ US Department of State (1970) Diplomacy for the 70s, Washington: US Department of State. Van Riper, Paul (1983) “The American Administrative State: Wilson and the Founders—an Unorthodox View,” Public Administration Review, 43(November/December). Waldo, Dwight (1955) The Study of Administration, New York: Random House. Waldo, Dwight (1975) “Education for Public Administration in the Seventies,” In American Public Administration: Past, Present, Future, ed. Frederick C. Mosher. Tuscaloosa: Uni- versity of Alabama Press. Warwick, Donald P. (1975) A Theory of Public Bureaucracy: Politics, Personality, and Organization in the State Department. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, Leonard (1926) An Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New York: Macmillan. Wilson, Woodrow (1887) “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly, 2(June); reprinted 50(December, 1941). Winn, Ralph B., ed. (1959) A Concise Lincoln Dictionary. New York, Philosophical Library, p. 43. Winthrop, Robert C. (1971) Life and Letters of John Winthrop. New York: Da Capo Press. RECOMMENDED BOOKS Fry, Brian, and Jos C.N. Raadschelders (2008) Mastering Public Administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo, 2nd ed., Washington, DC: CQ Press. A comprehensive review of the lives and scholarship of the leading theorists in the field of public administration. Kettl, Donald F. (2002) The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. An expla- nation of how governance—the set of processes and institutions, formal and informal, through which social action occurs—is transforming the nature of public administration. Raadschelders, Jos C. N. B. (2013) Public Administration: The Interdisciplinary Study of Government, Oxford, Oxford University Press. An assessment of how the identity of public administration has been formed both as an academic field of study and a practice for a profession—seeing public administration as an intellectual umbrella for the study of government. Recommended Books 39 Stivers, Camilla (2000) Bureau Men & Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administra- tion in the Progressive Era, Topeka: University of Kansas Press. An intellectual history of the urban reform and progressive eras—central to formation of public administration— but incorporating a gender perspective. Waldo, Dwight (1984) The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of Amer- ican Public Administration, 2nd ed. New York: Holmes and Meier. The classic work on the philosophy of public administration (originally published in 1948) wherein the prevailing “gospel of efficiency” is rejected and administrative value neutrality is denied. CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration CHAPTER OUTLINE Keynote: Who Decides Whether the Power—The Internal United States Should Wage War? 40 Perspective 67 Organizational Goals 68 What Is Public Policy? 47 Internal Power Relationships 68 Public Policymaking in a Republic 47 Executive Powers 49 The Cultures of Public Organizations 70 The Policymaking Process 51 The Outside Cultural Agenda Setting 53 Environment 72 Decision Making 56 The Inside Cultural A Single Calculating Decision Environment 72 Maker—Not! 57 Professional Socialization 73 Implementation 58 Symbolic Management 74 Evaluation 60 A Case Study: How Old Bottles Create Power—The External New Jobs—Both Legal and Not 76 Perspective 61 Pluralism 62 Group Theory 64 KEYNOTE: Who Decides Whether the United States Should Wage War? A decision to go to war is arguably the most important public policy decision made by a state. The US Constitution (Article I, Section 8) unambiguously gives Congress the authority “to declare war.” However, the president, as commander in chief, has 40 Keynote: Who Decides Whether the United States Should Wage War? 41 implied powers to commit the military forces to action. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution says that “the president shall be commander in chief of the army and the navy of the United States and of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States.” The last president to exercise his authority as commander in chief to literally command troops in the field was James Madison during the War of 1812. At Bladensburg, Maryland, the American forces, under the direct command of the president, met the British and were soundly defeated. The British then marched on Washington, DC, to burn the White House, the Capitol, and most other public buildings. No subsequent president has sought to personally lead men in battle while in office. But many subsequent presidents have sent US forces to fight in foreign lands without waiting for or even asking Congress to exercise its constitutional respon- sibility “to declare war.” Formal declarations of war seem to be rapidly becom- ing quaint relics of diplomatic history. Declarations of war first came about when states felt it necessary to separate their military actions from the activities of ban- dits, pirates, and privateers (a pirate ship authorized by a government to prey on its foes). Therefore, before the beginning of hostilities, a formal statement of intention—a declaration—to make war on another state was promulgated. In 1907 this practice was formalized by the Hague Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities. This established an international obligation on the part of the sig- natories to announce that a legal state of hostilities existed with another state by making a formal declaration to this effect. And formal meant formal. For example, here is the declaration that started World War I: The Royal Serbian Government not having answered in a satisfactory manner the note of July 23, 1914, presented by the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their right and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms. Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in state of war with Serbia. Collected Documents Related to the Outbreak of the European War 1915 (p 201). These are the courtly words that initiated the greatest mass slaughter the world had seen to date. When British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had to justify why the declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941, was made in similar diplomatic language, he responded that even with war; “it costs nothing to be polite.” World War II was the last war the US Congress actually declared. The Con- gress was called into an emergency joint session by President Franklin D. Roosevelt the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (December 8, 1941). Pearl Harbor, the American Pacific fleet headquarters in Hawaii, had about 5,000 casual- ties, half of them deaths. The attack incensed the American public not just because it was a surprise, which is to be expected in war, but because it was a sneak attack when there was no state of war. Indeed, Japanese emissaries were in Washington at the same time purportedly negotiating in good faith to resolve United States–Japan differences. 42 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration The Japanese had intended to notify the Americans that a state of war existed one half hour before the attack. But because of decoding difficulties, the war mes- sage was not delivered until after the attack was well under way. This time differ- ence was the difference between an honorable surprise attack and a dishonorable sneak attack. So how did Pearl Harbor cause the United States to fight Nazi Ger- many as well? Because Germany’s 1937 treaty of alliance with Japan was a defen- sive one, its pact did not require Germany to declare war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (It would have been required if the United States had attacked Japan.) Because Japan was clearly the aggressor, Hitler’s dec- laration of war against the United States was both gratuitous and, as it turned out, stupid. While World War II was the last time formal declarations of war were widely used, things started to get constitutionally messy with the Korean War. This war, between communist North Korea and non-communist South Korea, began on June 25, 1950, when the North invaded the South. The American intervention was a symbolic signal to the Soviets that the United States was determined to halt the spread of communism. With the encouragement of the United States, the United Nations Security Council (with the Soviet Union temporarily absent) asked mem- ber nations to aid the South in resisting the invasion. Thus the war, called a “police action,” was fought under the flag of the United Nations by US forces with small contingents from more than a dozen other nations. The Vietnam War of 1956 to 1975 was between the non-communist Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) and the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), which resulted in the victory of the North over the South and the unification of the two countries into the communist Socialist Republic of Vietnam on July 2, 1976. The United States first offered financial support to South Vietnam during the Eisenhower administration. Military assistance began with the John F. Kennedy administration in 1961. By 1963, the United States had 16,000 military “advisors” in South Vietnam. In 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution allowed the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson to expand US involvement in spite of the fact that Johnson had promised, notably in a campaign speech in Akron, Ohio, on October 21, 1964 that the US wouldn’t be sending American troops to anywhere in Asia. With the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the US Congress sanctioned the Johnson administration’s use of great numbers of American forces in an expansion of the Vietnam War. It was based on a presumed attack on US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnamese naval units. The Johnson administration would treat this as the moral and legal equivalent of a declaration of war. Later, those who opposed the war would denounce it as a fraud because there was no solid evidence that there ever was an attack on American ships in the Tonkin Gulf. Indeed, Barbara W. Tuchman in The March of Folly (1984) would write, “With evidence accumulating of confusion by radar and sonar technicians in the second clash, [President] John- son said privately, ‘Well, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish’ (Tuchman, 1984, p. 317). So much for casus belli.” But there was little initial opposition. The House of Representatives passed it unanimously. In the Senate there were only two dissenting votes. Keynote: Who Decides Whether the United States Should Wage War? 43 TABLE 2.1 Wars: Declared and Undeclared Undeclared Wars Declared Wars UN Resolution US Alone or with Allies War of 1812 Korean War 1950–1953 Vietnam War 1962–1974 Mexican War, 1846 Persian Gulf War 1990–1991 Grenada Invasion 1983 Spanish-American War, 1898 Bosnia 1993 Panama Intervention 1989 World War I, 1917 Kosovo 1999 Afghanistan 2009 World War II, 1941 War on Terrorism 2001– Iraq War 2003– Haiti 2004 ISIS 2015– Libya Civil War 2011 By 1968, the United States had more than one-half million men engaged in the most unpopular foreign war in American history. As a direct result, the Dem- ocrats lost control of the White House to Republican Richard M. Nixon. The Nixon administration’s policy of “Vietnamization” called for the South Vietnam- ese to gradually take over all the fighting from the Americans. The Americans continued to pull out, and the South held off the North for a while. As the Amer- ican forces dwindled, the North got more aggressive and successful. Finally, the North’s January 1975 offensive led to the South’s unconditional surrender by April. More than 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War; another 150,000 were wounded. Because of the unhappy experience of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the law that seeks to clarify the respective roles of the president and Congress in cases involving the use of military forces without a declaration of war. The president “in every possible instance” shall consult with Congress before introducing troops and shall report to Congress within 48 hours. The use of the armed forces is to be terminated within 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension by the president) unless Congress acts during that time to declare war, enacts a specific authorization for use of armed forces, extends the 60- to 90-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an attack on the United States. At any time before the 60 days expire, Congress may direct by concurrent resolution that American military forces be removed by the president. In one sense the War Powers Resolution has been a failure: it has not been able to remedy the problems of presidents ignoring Congress. President George H. W. Bush, for example, sent troops into action during the Panama Intervention and the Persian Gulf War without formally asking for congressional consent. While Con- gress, at the last minute (on January 12, 1991), gave him legal authority to commit US forces to combat (which he did on January 15, 1991), he asserted that he didn’t 44 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration really need it—that his authority under the Constitution as commander in chief was sufficient. On the other hand, the desire to avoid putting their war powers to the test has led presidents to be somewhat more responsive to Congress than they might other- wise have been. The Reagan administration, for example, withdrew US forces from Lebanon when it became clear that there was little congressional or public support for keeping them there. The Clinton administration conducted a major bombing campaign against Serbia to force the Serbian troops out of Kosovo in 1999. But it initially maintained that a ground assault was not an option because it knew that there was slight congressional support for the bombing. If the president can, as Bush did, send 500,000 troops half a world away to fight for a country with which we had no treaty of obligation to defend, then what, if anything, is left of Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war? The answer is that it has never amounted to much. The fallacy of Congress’s authority “to declare war” was first exposed by James K. Polk, the president of the United States from 1845 to 1849. When in 1846 Mexico refused a US offer to purchase New Mexico and California, Polk sent the army to provoke a war. The Mexicans obliged with incidents, were conquered, and forfeited (with payment by the United States of $15 million) land comprising the present states of California, Nevada, Utah, and most of New Mexico and Arizona. So it was nothing new when, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush decided that the United States would be “at war” but that it would not be necessary for Congress to actually declare it. Besides, the traditional decla- ration of war was designed to be an honorable notice of intent from one sovereign state to another. It hardly made sense to apply it to a criminal gang with branch offices in dozens of states. Instead of a declaration, the president, on September 18, 2001, signed a joint resolution by Congress entitled “Authorization for Use of Military Force.” While he was pleased to have the backing of the members of Congress and promised to “con- tinue to consult closely with them,” he also asserted—as did his father before him during the Persian Gulf War—that he didn’t need their approval. “In signing this resolution, I maintain the long-standing position of the executive branch regarding the president’s constitutional authority to use force” (Bush, 2001, p. 1319). President Barack Obama demonstrated that he was no different from his pre- decessors in his disdain for the War Powers Resolution. In 2011 the United States and its NATO allies started military action against Libya in order to help rebels overthrow the regime of Muammar Gadhafi. After the 90 days passed and military operations continued, many members of Congress, both Democrats and Republi- cans, began publicly complaining that the president was in violation of the Resolu- tion. But the Obama administration refuted this, asserting that the United States had only a supporting role in the NATO operation and that the actions differed from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated in the Resolution’s termination provisions. In effect, the president has always had dictatorial powers concerning mili- tary operations. This is only tempered by his political concerns and the ultimate ability of Congress to stop him by cutting off funds. So the answer to the ques- tion of who decides if the United States should wage war is very simple: it is the president—alone. And because it is the president alone who makes this decision, it Keynote: Who Decides Whether the United States Should Wage War? 45 Back to the future: This photo of US Special Forces in Afghanistan in 2001 shows Americans on horseback riding with our Northern Alliance allies. This new model US Cavalry was so successful in calling in air strikes against the terrorist enemy that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was overthrown in a few weeks. There was an administrative lesson in this for then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—perhaps the wrong one. If American technology can use a small group of military personnel suffering few casualties to overthrow one Asian government, then why not try the same strategy with another Asian government deserving to be overthrown? So, in 2003, with fewer forces than many experts recommended, the United States invaded Iraq to liberate it from a tyrant every bit as despicable, but on a smaller scale, as those famous dictators of World War II. While the initial fighting went well and was over in a few weeks, the occupation became a nightmare of guerrilla warfare dragging on for years. Eventually, in 2006, this even cost Rumsfeld his job—but it cost the lives and limbs of thousands of other Americans. The problem here was that the analogy was not apt. Just because high-tech small forces worked in one country doesn’t automatically mean that a similar effort will work in another. Differing geographies, cultures, and populations must be taken into account. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration thought they could win the war in Iraq on the cheap with a relatively small expeditionary force still structured for fighting the Russians in Europe. They soon learned that they needed a new mix of forces, new training techniques, new combat doctrines, and new occupation policies. Of course, ideally, these are the kind of administrative problems that should be addressed before you start a war. But who knew beforehand? As it turned out, lots of career experts in the Defense and State Departments did. But neither Rumsfeld nor Bush would listen to them. Sometimes, it can really pay for political executives to heed the advice of professional staff. Even if the career staff disagrees with your policy (such as war), they can often help you do it (wage war) in a smarter way. The smarter way that quickly evolved was to use armed drones to replace both the special forces on horseback and the aircraft they called upon to bomb enemy targets. Now a technician can sit at a computer terminal in Nevada and can identify and bomb a target half a world away using a drone like the one pictured below. Source: Wikimedia Commons. CCT Bart Decker on horseback, Afghanistan, 2001. 46 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration is the president who must accept the political fallout from failed military endeavors that eventually disenchant the public because they fail, cost too much, have too many dead and wounded, or simply take too long. Of course, with success, how- ever it is defined, he gets the political credit for foresight and wisdom. Now into the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is also apparent that the nature of war has itself been fundamentally altered. Instead of sending our mil- itary forces backed by our air force and navy into harm’s way, there is the option of sending in a unmanned Predator drone with hellfire missiles to take out an enemy force. The first generally acknowledged attack by drone was on November 4, 2002 when the US was able to blast a car with six terrorists in Yemen to kill an al-Qaeda leader who had led the 2000 bomb attack on the USS Cole. Also in the car that was vaporized by the drone was a US citizen who was linked to a terrorist cell in the US. President Obama has elevated the use of this new war fighting technology to an even higher level—having ordered over 400 drone strikes in the first five years since taking office. Since the US can operate over the skies of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and most of northwestern Pakistan, with impunity, it can strike whatever targets it deems “appropriate”. And yes, there are protests inside and outside the US that include even congressional representatives condemning, as illegal and immoral, the US repeatedly using what Mark Bowden in an Atlantic Monthly article in 2013 described as “a weapon capable of finding and killing someone just about any- where in the world”. Of course, drones are only as good as the intelligence attributable to them from the ground. And, as is inherently the case with new technologies, the laws of war dealing with them lag behind. An Aerial drone loaded not for bears but for terrorists. Source: Shutterstock. Predator drone: an unmanned aircraft takes off from Balad Air Base Iraq Thursday June 12, 2008. By: Everett Historical. What is Public Policy? 47 For Discussion: Why is it that the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Congress’s effort to curb the war-making powers of the president, is generally considered a failure? If the American president has, in effect, dictatorial powers in wartime, what has prevented the United States from succumbing to a dictatorial government when this has been the fate of so many other nations? WHAT IS PUBLIC POLICY? In the beginning there was chaos. Then came policy. “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) was a policy decision. Policy creates orderly structures and a sense of direction. Public administration cannot exist in a policy vacuum. It must have administrative structures that are directed by leaders who wish to do something—if only to main- tain the status quo. Thus all of public administration is inherently an instrument of Status quo Q policy—whether that instrument plays well, poorly, or not at all. The existing state of affairs. This term is Any policy is a decision. A public policy is whatever a government decides often used to describe to do or not to do. It is what a government does in response to a political issue. policies designed to A public program consists of all those activities designed to implement the pub- maintain the existing lic policy: often this calls for the creation of organizations, public agencies, and distribution of power. bureaus, which in turn need to create more policies that give guidance to the orga- nization’s employees on how to put into practice the overall public policy. Policy is hierarchical. The broadest, most overarching policy is made at the top. Then increasingly more focused policies must be made at every level on down. For example, the president of the United States sits at the top of the foreign poli- cymaking pyramid. Dozens of layers below him sit thousands of clerks in the visa sections of hundreds of embassies and consulates making policy—that is, making decisions—on who may legally enter the United States. To be sure, policy at the bottom is heavily impacted by laws and regulations. But to the extent that these low-level officials—who Michael Lipsky calls street-level bureaucrats—have any discretion at all, they are making policy. And if you are on the receiving end of that policy, whether as a visa applicant or a motorist receiving a traffic citation from a police officer, the policy is as real to you as if it were coming from higher levels in the policymaking hierarchy. Public Policymaking in a Republic It is the sovereign who makes legitimate policy in a political community. In a tradi- tional society, the sovereign (meaning the monarch) is the sovereign (meaning the boss). In the United States, the people are sovereign and government is considered their agent. In a speech on January 29, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson rhetor- ically asked what America stood for, noting that above all it is the “sovereignty of self-governing people.” This kind of sovereignty is generally referred to as a democracy. But democracy is not a simple or constant concept. Instead, it is an evolv- ing notion regarding the relationship between the people and government. It started, like so many things having to do with government, with the Greeks. Their 48 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration democracy consisted of rule by an elite group of male citizens, whose well-being was maintained by politically suppressed women and a large slave population (not a desirable situation if you were a woman and worse if you were a slave). The development of popular or universal democracy in the eighteenth century led to revolutionary conceptions of democracy that called for the placing of all power in the hands of the people—at first just white males. The problem remained of constructing a state that could exercise that power not just in the name of, but for all the people. This is what President Abraham Lincoln, a man with strong anti- slavery credentials, was concerned about in his 1863 Gettysburg Address: “that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” The modern problem with “the people” is that so many nasty individuals have done too many despicable things in their name. Because the term democracy often has been used by totalitarian regimes and their “people’s democracies,” one per- son’s democratic regime is too often another’s totalitarian despotism. So modern democracy, like the modern contact lens, is in the eye of the beholder. By being used to describe such a large range of institutional possibilities, the term democracy has lost its meaning—but not its vitality—in political debate. The founders of the United States were rightly suspicious of the so-called “pure” democracy of the free male citizens of ancient Athens. As Aristotle had warned, time and again throughout history these pure democracies had been cap- Demagogue Q tured by demagogues and had degenerated into dictatorial tyrannies. While the A political leader founders specifically wanted a governing structure that was insulated from a pure accused of seeking democracy, they also wanted a governing arrangement that, unlike the city-states or gaining power through the use of of ancient Greece, could function over a large area. As James Madison (1788) arguments designed wrote in The Federalist, No. 14, “In a democracy the people meet and exercise the to appeal to a mass government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their repre- public’s sentiments, sentatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. even though critics A republic may be extended over a large region.” Yet the founders all knew may consider those arguments that many republics in history, such as the Roman republic, had been replaced exaggerated. by despots. Consequently, when Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government had been hatched at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” He knew that “keeping it” was far from certain. In a republic, the legislature, whether parliament or Congress, is supreme. After all, it has the greatest number of enumerated powers and the executive and judi- cial branches must enforce its laws. As Madison (1788) wrote in The Federalist, No. 51, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predomi- nates.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a press conference on July 23, 1937, put it another way: “It is the duty of the president to propose and it is the privilege of the Congress to dispose.” Yet this system was perverted from World War II until very recently. Because of the necessities of both hot and cold wars, the president has been unusually strong vis-à-vis the Congress. With the end of the Cold War and without the need to rally behind a wartime leader, the power relationship seemed to be returning to its “normal” condition—at least until September 11, 2001, and the war on terrorism. What is Public Policy? 49 Executive Powers Many political executives, whether mayors, governors, or presidents, have tried— often for sound causes relating to the public good—to take more policymaking power unto themselves than may be constitutionally warranted. Just how far can an executive deviate from the legislative will or the letter of the constitution in a republican government? This is usually a function of the political strength of the executive as evidenced by a large electoral mandate, control by the executive’s party in the legislature, or public opinion poll ratings. Strong executives are able to put into place more of the policies they espouse. But just how much strength should an executive ideally have or be allowed to have? Fortunately, we can answer this question with the help of three famous statements on executive power, all made by past presidents of the United States—and all equally applicable to any political executive, whether president, governor, or mayor, in any constitutional system: the restricted view, the prerogative theory, and the stewardship theory. The Restricted View This is the limited (or literalist) view of presidential power, espoused by President William Howard Taft. He, as an archconservative, held that “the president can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise.” Furthermore (and in direct opposi- tion to President Theodore Roosevelt’s stewardship view that follows), “there is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to be in the public interest” (Taft, 1916, p. 138). Taft viewed the president as the agent of the Congress—in no way a free agent. In a constitutional sense, Taft was a strict con- Strict structionist. He was disdainful of those who asserted the presence of a “residuum constructionist Q One who believes of power” when he clearly saw none. As an administrator, he felt his political hands the US Constitution were tied by the constraints of his office. And he was happy in his bondage. Today should be interpreted he remains a role model for all those public managers who would instantly solve narrowly and public problems with new public policy if only they had the power. Not having literally. A loose it, they sit back, survey the poor conditions in their administrative realm, and feel constructionist, in contrast, believes quite strongly that they too are victims of “the system.” that the Constitution should be interpreted The Prerogative Theory This theory of executive power was espoused by Presi- liberally in order to dent Abraham Lincoln and supported by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Gov- reflect changing times. ernment (1690). Under certain conditions, they believed that the chief executive possessed extraordinary power to preserve the nation: “Many things there are which the law can by no means provide for; and those must necessarily be left to the dis- cretion of him that has the executive power in his hands” (pp. 91–92). This power, as Lincoln saw it, might not only exceed constitutional bounds but act against the Constitution. A president, according to this view, could at least for a short while even assume dictatorial powers. Lincoln explained this theory in an 1864 letter: [T]hat my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government— that nation, of which that Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to 50 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures otherwise unconstitutional might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Con- stitution through the preservation of the nation. Lincoln’s attitude was commendable enough in the middle of a civil war. How- ever, when recent presidents have sought extraordinary powers, even with claims of national security and executive privilege, they have been “checked” by the Supreme Court. For example, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the federal government’s scope and size during the Great Depression, many of his efforts were rejected by a Supreme Court that viewed his initiatives as exceeding the bounds of executive power established by the Constitution. Similarly, during the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman’s attempts to exert executive power over labor and industry were blocked by a skeptical judicial branch. As the war in Korea waged on during the 1950s, Truman issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate the nation’s steel mills because of a labor dispute that threatened to disrupt war production. In response, the Supreme Court held, in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), that the president exceeded his constitutional powers. Two decades later Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) rejected Pres- ident Richard M. Nixon’s claim that the Constitution provided the president with an absolute and unreviewable executive privilege—specifically, the right not to Subpoena Q respond to a subpoena in connection with a judicial trial. The Court held that A written order issued “neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of by a judicial officer high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, requiring a specified person to appear in a presidential immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” The Court designated court at a allowed there was a limited executive privilege that might pertain in the areas of specified time, either military, diplomatic, or security affairs, and where confidentiality was related to to serve as a witness the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional mandates. This was the deci- in a case under the sion that forced Nixon to give the Watergate special prosecutor tape recordings of jurisdiction of that court or to bring criminal activities in Oval Office meetings and, in effect, forced Nixon to resign as material to that court. president in 1974. The prerogative approach is not a theory for all seasons. Because it is applica- ble only in times of extraordinary national emergency, presidents have been able to “get away with it” only during wartime, when Congress has been compliant (as it was during the Civil War) or kept ignorant (as it was during the Vietnam War). Just how much prerogative President Bush should be allowed to exercise during the War on Terror and in Iraq was a major point of contention with the Congress and the public. Similarly, as President Obama confronted the economic crisis in 2009, there was a great deal of criticism that he was overstepping his powers. Despite an economic situation that was described as “the worst since the Great Depression,” critics of Obama claimed that he was exceeding his prerogative to lead by taking actions beyond the legitimate role of the president. The important thing to remem- ber is that this theory of executive power is quietly reserved to support the efforts of a leader who sees the nation through in a time of crisis, or, alternately, it lurks in the hands of an unprincipled opportunist or demagogue to stifle republican The Policymaking Process 51 institutions. Only the writers of history get to decide who were the strong leaders and who were the political opportunists. The Stewardship Theory This is President Theodore Roosevelt’s view that the president, because he represents and holds in trust the interests of all the people, should be free to take any actions in the public interest that are not specifically forbidden by the Constitution or statutory law. Although he only articulated this doctrine in his autobiography, published in 1913 after he left office, Roosevelt certainly lived it. For example, he sent the US Navy’s battleships on an around-the- world training cruise without congressional permission. He then told members of Congress that if they wanted the ships back, they would have to appropriate funds to buy fuel for the return journey. Roosevelt believed strongly in the idea that the executive officer was a steward of the people. He felt, in sum, that he was free to do as he pleased in that twilight zone lying between the prohibitions of the law and the duties required by specific constitutional or statutory enactments. These three models of executive leadership are all still very much with us. Of course, the prerogative approach of Lincoln and Locke is not much in evidence except in despotic regimes. But the war on terrorism may force a future American president to temporarily suspend some constitutional privileges in the wake of a subsequent disastrous attack. While Lincoln’s example remains as a last resort, the more common situation at all political and organizational levels is illustrated by the two ends of a continuum, with a literalist (Taft) at one end, and a steward (Teddy Roosevelt) at the other. The choice for leaders, then, is to be inactive in terms of policy initiation—basically to just maintain what is—or to be proactive in terms of Proactive Q policy and to be at the forefront of continuous change and reform. Or to be where An administrative style that encourages most political and administrative executives are—somewhere in between. That is, taking risks on behalf they are proactive only on a limited number of issues. of one’s clients or one’s moral values; the opposite of a THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS reactive style. A new policy proposal is frequently presented to the public as a policy paper— a written argument in favor of (or opposing) a particular public policy. Political Sound bite Q A political campaign candidates typically generate a variety of policy papers on issues of importance to slogan or short their constituents. Political campaigns often become a “battle” of opposing policy statement that papers. And the modern battleground for these opposing policies is frequently in summarizes a cyberspace, on political candidates’ Web sites. Such Web sites are promoting not candidate’s beliefs. only the candidate but the policies of that candidate, as well. Consequently they Such simplistic policies can backfire if they usually contain white papers about where the candidate stands on various issues promise more than can and why. In theory, the voters can read these thoughtful papers on a wide range be delivered. In 1988 of policy issues. They may even believe the illusion that the papers were actually George H. W. Bush written by the candidate. In reality, the papers are read by few because most voters became president by are content with the minimally informative sound bites that the candidates spit exclaiming, “Read my lips! No new taxes!” out on TV. But less than two years But no matter how astute and detailed the arguments are for or against a par- into his presidency he ticular policy, the media tend to distill them into a few words. Thus an extremely was forced to eat his thoughtful review of the utility of capital punishment often comes down to the fact sound bite and agree that the candidate is “for” or “against” the death penalty. Voters prefer to think to raise taxes. 52 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration that their favored candidates have given great thought to all the subtle aspects of their policy positions. Consequently, it is more important that such policy papers exist than be read. However, policy papers put out by advocacy groups and academics—and not related to political campaigns—tend to be both more sophis- ticated and better received. Policy papers, while currently written, have an ancient unwritten tradition. When, in the Bible, Moses said to Pharaoh “Let my people go!” (Exodus 5:1), and when Ulysses, in Homer’s The Iliad, told the Greeks besieging Troy to build the Trojan horse, they were presenting policies even before there was paper. There is still a strong oral policy paper tradition. However, the modern version of a would-be Moses or Ulysses is most likely to be found giving a speech on the cam- paign trail—either running for office or as the representative of a public interest group. The place where you will find this oral tradition flourishing every hour of every day is on TV and radio talk shows. There, the most pressing public policy issues of any given day will be dissected, criticized, and/or supported ad nauseum. Academic policy papers are published in professional journals and read by few. Talk show hosts publish little and may be relatively ignorant—but they can be immensely influential. Because public policymaking involves so many aspects, so many players, and so many issues, it is difficult to grasp it as one single thing. Of course, it is not a tangible thing; it is a never-ending intangible process. This process can be illustrated BOX 2.1 How War Studies Became Case Studies The study of the policymaking process is often policy proposals become law, how programs are undertaken by means of a case study—an in-depth implemented, and how special interests affect policy analysis of a single subject. It is a history that offers development. an understanding of dynamic, constantly moving College courses in business and public and changing processes over time. Most traditional administration often use a case study approach. An news stories use the case study approach. Note that entire course may consist of case studies (frequently aspiring journalists are taught that a story should combined into a casebook) of management situations contain all the essential elements of a case study: to be reviewed. The goal is to inculcate experience “who, what, why, when, where, and how.” artificially. Any manager rich with years of service will Wars make excellent case studies because they have had the opportunity to live through a lifetime of each have a beginning, middle, and end. Indeed, “cases.” By having students study many cases, each the first case studies examined battles and wars. of which may have extended over many years, the case Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War study course compresses both time and experience. (404 BC) is the progenitor of these military case In this way, a relatively young student can gain much studies. Military colleges—and general staffs—have of the insight and wisdom of a manager who has had long used the case study method to review battles many years of experience. In theory, this makes them and study generalship. This same technique is now so wise beyond their years that employers will eagerly widely used in a civilian context to examine how seek them out. The Policymaking Process 53 Implementation of a Criticism from Agenda Policy decision new program or citizens and formal setting or nondecision change in an old program evaluations public program Feedback FIGURE 2.1 The public policymaking cycle by the public policymaking cycle (see Figure 2.1), a conceptual model that views the public policy process as moving through a succession of stages: (1) agenda setting (or the identification of a policy issue), (2) policy decision or nondecision, (3) imple- mentation, (4) program evaluation or impact analysis, and, finally, (5) feedback, which leads to revision or termination. Thus the process comes full circle—which is why it is called a “cycle.” A review of this process will show that public administra- tion is both at the heart of the process and a feature of every aspect of it. Agenda Setting Agenda setting is the process by which ideas or issues bubble up through the var- ious political channels to wind up for consideration by a political institution such as a legislature or court. We have already mentioned the two greatest sources of agenda items—the executive and the legislators. Their constituents expect that they will seek the enactment into law of the policies that they advocated in their cam- paigns for elective office. Additionally, the administrative agencies of a government often generate legislative proposals. Sometimes, these are incorporated into the executive’s legislative recommendations. The agenda-setting process often makes extensive use of the mass media to take a relatively unknown or unsupported issue and, through publicity, expand the numbers of people who care about the issue so that an institution, whether it be city hall or the Congress, is forced to take some action. One example can be traced back to 1955, when Rosa Parks, an African-American woman, was arrested for refusing to take a seat in the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. This con- frontation sparked the modern civil rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would later use the tactics of nonviolent confrontation with southern segregation policies to arouse sufficient sympathy and support in the rest of the nation, which would lead to the passage of landmark civil rights legislation in Congress. When these nonviolent demonstrations turned violent, it was all the better—because it made better TV and thus ensured a bigger audience for the message of the cause. Starting in the 1980s, pro-life (meaning anti-abortion) groups used demonstrators in front of medical offices providing abortion services to arouse the national con- sciousness about this issue. These, too, often became spontaneously violent and thus made for better media coverage. The lesson is clear. “Nonviolent” demonstra- tions that turn violent or at least contentious once the TV news cameras arrive are more likely to get on the six o’clock news or go viral over the internet. 54 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration The importance of media in whatever form—news coverage or social media, in propelling an issue onto government’s agenda is particularly notable when the policy issue maintains a highly visual element. For example, the stark visual aspects of air and water pollution helped drive environmental protection issues fully onto the federal government’s radar in the late 1960s and early 1970s. From oil-covered marine mammals on California’s once pristine coast to burning rivers in the petroleum-choked surface water of Cleveland, Ohio, the striking images of environmental destruction directly boosted environmental protection issues into the public consciousness and eventually into the halls of Congress. Agendas are often set by public policy entrepreneurs, political actors who take a political issue and run with it. Thus certain senators might make particular issues their own by sheer force of expertise that, if respected, “forces” colleagues to take cues on the matter from them. Or a staffer might become such an expert on an issue that he or she can heavily influence legislation dealing with it. Thus, a public policy entrepreneur can be anyone in the political environment whose expertise and actions can affect an issue. Agenda setting, which is usually confined to professional politicians, is a game that anybody can play. A federal judge could rule that a state prison is unconstitu- tionally overcrowded and thus force the state’s legislature to deal with the issue by appropriating funds for new prisons. A citizens’ group could be so concerned about an issue that they gather enough signatures of registered voters to advance the issue as a proposition on the next election’s ballot. A public interest law firm could challenge the legality of an agency’s action and force the courts to ascertain its constitutionality. Or an interest group could get thousands of its members to write (or e-mail) letters to their legislative representatives demanding action on a contro- versy. While there are only a few places—such as a legislature, court, or regulatory An issue is identified by citizen groups or a public policy entrepreneur. Through publicity (press releases, demonstrations, violence, etc.) the issue is exposed to a larger audience. Because of all the “noise” created by its supporters, formal decision makers are forced to consider the issue. FIGURE 2.2 The agenda-setting process The Policymaking Process 55 commission—where agendas can be formally enacted, there are infinite numbers of sources from which agenda items spring. And like hope, they spring eternally. The issue-attention cycle is a model developed by Anthony Downs that attempts to explain the way in which many policy problems evolve on the polit- ical agenda. The cycle is premised on the notion that the public’s attention rarely remains focused on any one issue, regardless of the objective nature of the problem. The cycle consists of five steps: 1. The preproblem stage (an undesirable social condition exists but has not captured public attention). 2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm (a dramatic event catalyzes the public attention, accompanied by an enthusiasm to solve the problem). 3. Recognition of the cost of change (the public gradually realizes the difficulty of implementing meaningful change). 4. Decline of public interest (people become discouraged or bored or a new issue claims attention). 5. The postproblem stage (although the issue has not been solved, it has been dropped from the nation’s agenda). According to policy analyst John Kingdon, “If Anthony Downs is right, problems often fade from public view because a short period of awareness and optimism gives way to a realization of the financial and social costs of action. As people become impressed with the sacrifices, dislocations, and costs to be borne, they lose their enthusiasm for addressing the problem” (Kingdon, 1995, p. 104–105). For example, early in the first Clinton administration there was great enthusiasm and support for a major reform in the nation’s system of medical insurance. But as increasing attention was brought to the financial costs and difficulties of implementation, the issue faded from view while both political leaders and the public lost enthusiasm for dealing with what remains a major problem—at least for the nearly 47 million Americans without medical insurance. By 2009 the public appeared once again engaged in the issue of health care reform with President Obama and the democratically controlled Congress pass- ing a sweeping health care reform package in 2010. Public reaction was heavily divided, but opposition and anger to this action was considerable, culminating with the Republicans taking back control of Congress in the midterm elections of 2010. More challenges ensued but when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in 2012 and with President Obama’s reelection, Obama care (as it is still known) moved on to implementation. Despite a rocky start up in 2013 that would ultimately cost the HHS Secre- tary her cabinet post because of repeated failures of the government’s health care on-line sign up Web site, over 8 million Americans signed up for health care cover- age in 2014. This exceeded the 7 million projected. That sign up goal also included a 40 percent segment being between the ages of 18 and 34 to average out premium costs. The actual 2014 percentage was only 28 percent, lower than hoped, but close enough—in the view of the Kaiser Family Foundation—to avoid a significant increase in premiums for 2015. 56 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration Decision Making Public policymaking is the totality of the processes by which a government decides to deal or not to deal with a particular problem or concern. It is a never-ending process. Nineteenth-century British statesman Lord Salisbury is usually credited with first remarking, “There is no such thing as a fixed policy, because policy, like all organic entities, is always in the making.” There are two distinct and opposite theories seeking to explain the mecha- nisms that produce policy decisions or non-decisions. The first might be called the rational decision-making approach, and it generally has been attributed to Harold D. Lasswell. In his book The Future of Political Science (1963), he posited seven significant phases for every decision: 1. The intelligence phase, involving an influx of information. 2. The promoting or recommending phase, involving activities designed to influ- ence the outcome. 3. The prescribing phase, involving the articulation of norms. 4. The invoking phase, involving establishing correspondence between prescrip- tions and concrete circumstances. 5. The application phase, in which the prescription is executed. 6. The appraisal phase, assessing intent in relation to effect. 7. The terminating phase, treating expectations (rights) established while the prescription was in force. Of course, there is an immediate problem with this and every other such list. It is impossible to complete. No matter how rational we would hope to be, there is no way anyone could gather all the facts and take into account every consideration. Therefore, decision makers exercise what Herbert Simon, the 1978 Nobel laureate in economics, calls “bounded rationality.” The “bounds” are what people put on their decisions. Simon asserts that “it is impossible for the behavior of a single, iso- lated individual to reach any high degree of rationality. The number of alternatives he must explore is so great, the information he needs to evaluate them so vast, that even an approximation to objective rationality is hard to conceive.” Consequently, humans make decisions on satisfactory, as opposed to optimal, information. Invent- ing a new word, Simon said that decision makers “satisfice” when they accept a sat- isfactory and sufficient amount of information on which to base a decision. Thus in the real world we are forced to reject the “rational comprehensive” approach and “satisfice” rather than “maximize.” A rejection of this rational approach was urged by Charles E. Lindblom, the leading proponent of the second theory of policy decision making—the incremen- tal approach. In his most famous article, “The Science of Muddling Through,” Lindblom took a hard look at the rational models of the decisional processes of government. He rejected the notion that most decisions are made by ratio- nal (total information) processes. Instead, he saw such decisions—indeed, the whole policymaking process—as dependent on small incremental decisions that tend to be made in response to short-term political conditions. Lindblom’s thesis essentially held that decision making was controlled infinitely more by events The Policymaking Process 57 Rational Decision Making Versus Incremental BOX 2.2 Decision Making Rationalism Incrementalism All options and means are considered Only a few options and means are considered Decisions are the product of structured evaluations Decisions are the product of negotiated settlements Major changes can be made on a regular basis Changes are made gradually over time Decisions tend to be made proactively Decisions tend to be made reactively Decisions should be removed from political pressures Political considerations are important in determining outcomes The criteria listed above compares a number of the key characteristics associated with the rational and incremental approaches to decision making. While each approach certainly has its advantages and disadvantages, it is interesting to think about the circumstances in which each approach may be more beneficial. In particular, can you identify scenarios where either rationalism or incrementalism would hold a clear advantage as a means of making a public policy decision? and circumstances than by the will of those in policymaking positions. Disjointed incrementalism as a policy course was in reality the only truly feasible route, because incrementalism “concentrated the policymaker’s analysis on familiar, better-known experiences, sharply reduced the number of different alternative policies to be explored, and sharply reduced the number and complexity of fac- tors to be analyzed.” The rational and incremental models, often viewed as two ends of a contin- uum, are useful intellectual tools for conceptualizing the decision-making process. There is even a “split the difference” compromise model that combines the two. Mixed scanning is the decision-making model put forth by Amitai Etzioni, which Etzioni, Amitai calls for seeking short-term solutions to problems by using both incrementalism (1929–) Q The sociologist and rational-comprehensive approaches to problem solving. For example, a foreign whose early work policy analyst responsible for reviewing political developments in Europe might on organization superficially scan all recent developments (the comprehensive approach) but focus theory steered him only on those political problems that have changed since the last scanning (the toward political incremental approach). In this way the analyst saves time by dealing in detail only integration and communitarianism. with those situations that truly demand attention. A Single Calculating Decision Maker—Not! A famous example of a conceptual model of public policymaking is provided by Graham T. Allison’s classic study of government decision making, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971). It showed the inadequa- cies of the view that policies are made by a “single calculating decision maker,” such as a president who has complete control over the organizational units and individual officials within his or her government. Instead, Allison—using John F. 58 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration Cuban Missile Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962—demonstrated that differing bureau- Crisis Q cratic viewpoints (such as those of the State Department, Defense Department, The 1962 confrontation between and National Security Council) fight over policy. Although Allison’s ideas were the US and the not new, he helped crystallize thinking about foreign policymaking by dealing with Soviet Union over the different approaches in terms of three models. He argued that the traditionally the Soviet placement dominant model, that of the “single calculating decision maker,” obscured more of nuclear missiles than it illuminated. Allison called this the Rational Actor Model or Model One in Cuba. President Kennedy demanded and believed that this model must be supplemented by two other models. Allison’s the removal of the Model Two, the Organizational Processes Model, basically argued that govern- missiles, imposed a ment action could be understood as the output of large organizations that operated naval blockade on according to standard operating procedures. Allison described Model Three as a Cuba, and waited for Governmental Politics Model, the essence of which was that decisions were the the Soviet response. In the end, the Soviets outcome of a bargaining process between different groups and individuals with removed their missiles different bureaucratic perspectives and different political interests. Consequently, for a US promise not foreign policy decisions are not the product of a rational calculation about what to invade Cuba and an is good for the state but a compromise—and often a compromised product of the understanding that the internal bargaining process. US would also remove its missiles from But in reality, all these models are not much more than mind games for pol- Turkey. icy wonks. The real world of political executives and harried legislators is not so much an intellectual arena as it is a bare-knuckles political arena. Decisions in the political arena are influenced far more by the perception of a situation than by any rational concept of objective reality. It is far more than the difference between a pessimist seeing a glass as half empty and an optimist seeing it as half full. One actor in the decisional drama may view a program as absolutely essential for the national interest, while another is equally certain that it is nothing more than an example of petty bureaucrats wasting the taxpayers’ money. Policymakers bring two kinds of intelligence to bear on their thinking. First is their mental ability to cope with complicated problems. Second is the information and experience they have with the issue at hand. Both kinds of intelligence are then filtered through their ideological predispositions and personal biases before an atti- tude toward any given problem is set. Thus, political decisions are seldom made on the objective merits of a case because a case only has merit in the eyes of a political decision maker if he or she is intelligent enough to see it and, equally important, is ideologically and politically predisposed to support it. At the end of the day, the policy processes of government are not only about equity or justice but, fundamentally, about power. But once power is exerted, once a law is enacted, once a program is created, these power brokers—whether dem- ocrats or autocrats—turn to their public administrators to make their wishes, to make their power, a reality. Without the administrators of the state to do their bidding, the power brokers are quite literally broke. Implementation Statute Q Implementation is the process of putting a government program into effect; it is A law passed by a legislature; legislative- the total process of translating a legal mandate, whether an executive order or an made as opposed to enacted statute, into appropriate program directives and structures that provide judge-made law. services or create goods. Implementation, the doing part of public administration, The Policymaking Process 59 is an inherently political process. Architects often say that “God is in the details.” So is it with implementation. A law is passed, but the process of putting it into effect requires countless small decisions that necessarily alter it. More than one political participant in the decision making process has noted implementation when effected by the bureaucracy, invariably means distortion. “Distort” is a harsh word that implies intentional change. Most administra- tive implementers, however, act in good faith, with little intentional distortion. But there is substantial friction. This concept has been well expressed by Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz, who held that no matter how well planned a large operation is, the reality of delays, misunderstandings, and so forth will make its inevitable execution less than ideal. While military in origin, friction has become a generally recognized phenomenon in all aspects of the administration of public and international affairs. While implementation is obviously at the heart of public administration, it has only recently been self-consciously studied. The first major analysis of implemen- tation as a new focus for public administration was Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky’s 1973 study of federal programs in the city of Oakland, California. The unabridged title of their work tells part of the story: Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It’s Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All; This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes. What Pressman and Wildavsky related in their landmark book seems almost simplistic—that policy planners and analysts were not taking into account the difficulties of execution or “implementation.” The goal of their book was to consider how a closer nexus between policy and implementa- tion could be achieved. A direct result of this book was a spate of works explaining how policy analysis can accomplish this objective—an objective, it is fair to say, that has yet to be comprehensively implemented. Pressman and Wildavsky define implementation as “a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions geared to achieving them” as well as “an ability to forge subsequent links in the causal chain so as to obtain the desired results” (p. xxiii). This definition usefully calls attention to the interaction between setting goals and carrying them out. This helps clarify that implementation is polit- ical in a very fundamental sense. The activities that go on under its banner shape who gets what (and when and how they get it) from government. Like lawmak- ers, administrators and those they interact with during the implementation process exert power over program objectives and influence program inputs and outcomes. Implementation involves administrators, interest groups, and other actors with diverse values mobilizing power resources, forming coalitions, consciously plotting strategies, and generally engaging in strategic behavior designed to ensure that their point of view prevails. The terrain may be different from that found in Congress or other legislatures, but the basic staples of the political process are very much present. Never forget that the goal of program implementation is necessarily the creation of the myriad details of everyday administrative life. Policy analyst Charles O. Jones maintains that implementation consists of steps and actions taken to put a program into effect. This involves the “translation of program language into acceptable and 60 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration feasible directives,” as well as creating appropriate organizational structures and routines. A major virtue of Jones’s definition is that it explicitly points to the role of routine and other aspects of organizational structure in implementation. In order to conserve time and energy, as well as to promote the equal treatment of clients, organizations develop standard operating procedures. These procedures plus other informal decision rules greatly simplify choices for administrators. Decisions can be made almost without thinking. Any effort to comprehend how implementation processes affect program outcomes cannot, then, ignore the collective impact of countless procedures and simple decision rules. Implementation is always a mix of the consciously strategic with the daily routine. Evaluation Any evaluation is an assessment. A program evaluation is the systematic exam- ination of activities undertaken by government to make a determination about their effects, both for the short term and the long range. Program evaluation is distinguished from management evaluation (also called organization evaluation) because the latter is limited to a program’s internal administrative procedures. While program evaluations use management and organizational data, the main thrust is necessarily on overall program objectives and impact. Thus a program evaluation is less concerned with the management of a police department than with that department’s overall effect on crime and less concerned with a wel- fare agency’s internal administration than with its effectiveness in dealing with clients. The concepts of efficiency and effectiveness are the standard criteria by which programs are evaluated. In addition, these concepts helped to forge a workable distinction between audits and evaluations. Audits, primarily financial account- ing audits, were traditionally geared to control—to ensure that every dime of public funds is accounted for and that every regulation is complied with. This law enforcement style of management is being increasingly displaced by program evaluation—a far more comprehensive management tool. We still expect pro- grams to be administered efficiently, just as we expect complete fiscal account- ability for funds and receipts. But efficiency is not enough. A work unit could be terribly efficient while working toward the wrong goals. Because of this, evalu- ations, if they are themselves to be effective, must also deal with the questions of effectiveness and relevance. It is not unreasonable to demand that programs have an effect on problems—and the right problems at that. Simply put, the most basic objective of a program evaluation is to assay the impact of a program on its target problem. Program evaluations, while usually undertaken by the executive and legislative branches of government, are sometimes even done by the courts in response to peti- tions by client groups. While the three regular branches of government are heavily involved in evaluation, so too is the so-called “fourth branch of government”: the press. It conducts evaluations with every exposé of a mismanaged agency. However, journalistic evaluations often tend to be too superficial to serve as instruments of reform, although they do serve to provide impetus for full-scale evaluation efforts by others. Power—The External Perspective 61 BOX 2.3 Accountability at Walter Reed All too often, program evaluations come about not as The Congress and the public were outraged. In part of the normal process of public administration, short order both the general in charge of Walter but as public scandals exposed by enterprising Reed and the civilian secretary of the US Army reporters. This was the case in February 2007 when were removed from office. For the first time in a the Washington Post published a series of articles that war lasting longer than American participation in revealed that some wounded soldiers returning from World War II, a general lost his command for poor Iraq for medical treatment were housed in facilities performance. While battlefield strategies and tactics infested with mice and covered in mildew. It seemed are debatable, everybody instantly understood that all the worse because these facilities, on the grounds there was no excuse for housing those honorably of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, were only a wounded in Iraq, many with missing arms and legs, in few minute’s drive from the White House. military slums in suburban Washington, DC. Feedback The public policy cycle comes full circle when evaluative information creates new agenda items for subsequent decisions. This is called feedback, because the new information feeds back into its original source. In its purest form feedback can either drive new items onto the policy agenda or reshape issues that are already Throw the being considered. But remember, everything about this cycle is impacted by politics. rascals out Q This is because the whole process takes place in a political environment, as shown An oft-heard in Figure 2.1. campaign slogan of Feedback is effective to the extent that it is noisy. The people who set the goals the party not in power. Sometimes all it really and make the decisions must hear it. Sometimes feedback is heard as a complaint means is that it is about slow service or poor-quality products. Sometimes it is the silent noise of the time for a change of citizens voting to throw the rascals out. rascals. POWER—THE EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE Power is the ability or the right to exercise authority over others. Traditionally, according to the founder of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” More recently power has been residing in the checkbooks of large corporations and influential lobbyists. Those with tra- ditional power or the power to make large campaign contributions get to make or heavily influence public policy. Whether they do it with a gun or a check is dependent on local conditions. The world is organized into an immense hierarchy of power: political leaders have power over their followers, managers over their workers, and parents over their children. We are all subject to the powers that be that force us to work or school and constrain us from straying too far from what is expected. One of the best ways to visualize and understand an administrator’s power environment is to do a force field analysis of the pressures that bear on any agency. Field theory originated in physics. It was borrowed by psychology to explain how an individual’s behavior at any given time is the result of his or her personality 62 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration interacting with the psychological forces in the environment. Organizational ana- lysts refocused field theory from the individual to the group, the group that made up an organization. By systematically examining all of the forces—all of the powers— in the organization’s field (meaning environment)—thus a force field analysis— they were better able to understand why the organization acted the way it did. Those wishing to understand why a government or an agency does seemingly irra- tional or contradictory things use a force field analysis to arrive at an explanation. For example, the federal government has a variety of laws and programs designed to prevent people from smoking tobacco. It forbids cigarette advertising on tele- vision and demands health warnings on tobacco products. But at the same time it encourages the growing of tobacco by American farmers and the sale of tobacco overseas by American companies. Thus the federal government is at the same time both for and against the use of tobacco. This contradictory policy seems silly on the surface. But the forces of good health work their will on the system to curtail tobacco use at the same time that the forces of commerce work their will on the system to encourage profit from tobacco—and the latter were here first. The obnoxious weed was introduced to Europe by none other than Christopher Columbus. For hundreds of years tobacco has been a major part of the economic foundation of colonial and later republi- can America. Only in the 1960s did the government “discover” the health hazards Excise tax Q related to it. But by then it was just so profitable in terms of excise tax yields to A tax on the both federal and state governments that forbidding the sale on health grounds manufacture, sale, would mean higher taxes elsewhere. Besides, an illegal market for tobacco would or consumption of a product such as immediately arise in its place, as it did with alcohol during the era of prohibition, gasoline or tobacco. thus yielding “tax” revenues only to the smugglers. While excise taxes This all goes to show how governments as well as people get addicted to addic- are specific to a tive substances. We as citizens are all addicted in the sense that we depend on class of products or smokers to disproportionately pay taxes for their vice and then graciously die pre- services, state and local governments also maturely without collecting their fair share of Social Security retirement benefits. levy sales taxes on What self-sacrificing patriots they are! The same can be said of alcoholics. Here general consumption we have public choice economics in action. The citizen smoker (or drinker), as the of products and sovereign consumer, makes intelligent (or stupid) choices in the marketplace of sometimes services. products and ideas. If you feel this is irrational, you are right—but it is political, too. To understand why administration is so often irrational, we have to look at some of the underlying premises of American government. Pluralism The “problem” begins with the fact that American government is inherently pluralistic—composed of multiple elements. First, its constitutional arrangement requires a separation of powers, the allocation of powers among the three branches of government so that they are a check on each other. This separation, in theory, makes a tyrannical concentration of power impossible. The US Constitution con- tains provisions in separate articles for three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial. There is a significant difference in the grants of power to these branches: the first article, dealing with legislative power, vests in Congress “all legislative powers herein granted”; the second article vests “the executive power” Power—The External Perspective 63 in the president; and the third article states that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Con- gress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Justice Louis D. Brandeis offered the opinion of the US Supreme Court in the 1926 case Myers v. United States: “The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the dis- tribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.” The “friction” that Brandeis refers to is not the friction inherent in implementation that Clausewitz analyzed but the friction of conflict caused by independent power. Second, American political processes, being inherently pluralistic, emphasize the role of competitive groups in society. Pluralism assumes that power will shift from group to group as elements in the mass public transfer their allegiance in response to their perceptions of their individual interests. In his book Who Gov- erns?, Robert Dahl established key tenets of the pluralist perspective. According to Dahl, pluralism involves varying degrees of political engagement among citizens, with the ability of individuals to impact political decisions in selected areas of public policy. However, according to power-elite theory, if democracy is defined as popular participation in public affairs, then pluralist theory is inadequate as an explanation of modern US government. Pluralism, according to this view, offers lit- tle direct participation, because the elite structure is closed, pyramidal, consensual, and unresponsive. Society is thus divided into two classes: the few who govern and the many who are governed. So pluralism is covert elitism instead of a practical solution to preserve democracy in a mass society. Those who subscribe to elite theory often have a paranoid political orientation, the belief that there is a nationwide conspiracy against them. Examples include homosexuals who believe that AIDS was “invented” by the government to destroy them, African-Americans who believe that the drug epidemic is encouraged by the government to hurt them, right-wing militia members who believe that the federal government is conspiring to confiscate all firearms in the hands of the citizens, and politicians who—especially during the Cold War—believed that a communist conspiracy was on the verge of taking over the country. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there has been considerable discussion that the failure of the levees and the slow government response were part of an intentional plot to eradicate the large African-American population in New Orleans. This concept was first identified in 1965 by historian Richard Hofstadter in The Paranoid Style in American Politics. He found that “there is a vital difference between the paranoid spokesman in politics and the clinical paranoiac: although they both tend to be overheated, over suspicious, overaggressive, grandiose, and apocalyptic in expression.” However, “the clinical paranoid sees the hostile and conspiratorial world in which he feels himself to be living as directed specifically against him, whereas the spokesman of the paranoid style finds it directed against a nation, a culture, a way of life whose fate affects not himself alone but millions of others” (Hofstadter, 1965, p. 4). Perhaps the most significant example of the paranoid style in contemporary American politics involves the actions of President Bush leading up to the war in 64 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration Iraq. President Bush justified the war in Iraq in 2003 partly on the assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons) and that it was on the verge of using them against the United States or its allies. When no such weapons were found after allied forces occupied Iraq, Bush oppo- nents started to assert with ever-increasing intensity that the president purposely lied to gain public acceptance for the war. Many of them contend that the president knowingly gave false reasons to the Congress and the American public for starting a major war. Bush and his defenders maintained that the problem was just faulty intelligence. Besides, they argued, the war was justifiable on many other grounds as well. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of the US and world population continue to believe that Bush consciously lied about this. Is this an example of the paranoid style at work? Finally, pluralism has a cultural dimension. Those who espouse this believe that a nation’s overall welfare is best served by preserving ethnic cultures rather than by encouraging the integration and blending of cultures. This is in contrast to the assimilationist belief that all immigrants should take their turn in a national melt- ing pot and come out homogenized. But studies have consistently shown this not to be the case. Historian Carl N. Degler wrote, “The metaphor of the melting pot is unfortunate and misleading. A more accurate analogy would be a salad bowl, for, though the salad is an entity, the lettuce can still be distinguished from the chicory, the tomatoes from the cabbage” (Degler, 1970, p. 296). In recent years the term has become less fashionable and has been replaced in political rhetoric by the image of a mosaic. Without using the term, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich resur- rected the melting pot concept in 1995 when he asserted that America is a distinct civilization—and that the way for immigrants to become “civilized” is to accept the mainstream “melting pot” values. Group Theory The importance of pluralism and the significance of groups in the democratic polit- ical process has been recognized for more than two thousand years: Aristotle noted that political associations were both significant and commonplace because of the “general advantages” that members obtained. One of the first specific references to groups in the American political process was James Madison’s famous discussion of factions in The Federalist, No. 10 (1787). In Madison’s view, the group was inherent in the nature of people, and its causes were unremovable. Therefore, the only choice was to control the effects of group pressure and power. A more elab- orate discussion of group theory can be traced to John C. Calhoun’s 1853 treatise A Disquisition on Government. While essentially an argument for the protection of minority interests, the treatise suggested that ideal governance must deal with all interest groups, because they represent the legitimate interests of the citizens. If all groups participated on some level of parity within the policymaking process, then all individual interests would be recognized by the policymakers. Modern group theory has taken greater impetus from the work of Arthur F. Bentley, David B. Truman, and Earl Latham. Latham viewed the legislature as the referee of the group struggle, responsible for “ratifying the victories of the suc- cessful coalitions and recording the terms of the surrenders, compromises, and Power—The External Perspective 65 conquests in the form of statutes.” The function of bureaucrats is quite different, however. They are like “armies of occupation left in the field to police the rule won by the victorious coalition.” Although Latham’s description was aimed primarily at regulatory agencies, he saw the bureaucrat being deluged by the losing coalitions of groups for more favorable actions despite the general rules established. The result is that “agencies are constantly besought and importuned to interpret their author- ities in favor of the very groups for the regulation of which they were originally granted” (Latham, 1952, p. 39). Latham distinguished three types of groups, based on phases of development: incipient, conscious, and organized. An incipient group is one “where the interest exists but is not recognized” by the potential members; a conscious group is one “in which the community sense exists but which has not become organized”; and finally an organized group is “a conscious group which has established an objec- tive and formal apparatus to promote the common interest.” Latham’s incipient and conscious groups are essentially the same as Truman’s potential groups, which always exist but do not come together until there is a felt need for action on an issue. The concept of potential groups keeps the bureaucratic policymaking process honest (or perhaps balanced), given the possibility that new groups might surface or some issues may influence decision making. The potential groups concept also serves as a counterargument to the claim that group theory is undemocratic. Once the concept of potential group is married to the active role of organized groups, the claim can be made, in Truman’s words, that “all interests of society by definition are taken into account in one form or another by the institutions of government” (see Figure 2.3). So much for the theory. The problem is that, according to political scientist Theodore J. Lowi, too much public authority is parceled out to private interest Chief Politically Elected Executive Outside auditors Other agencies Legislature Courts Agency Head Political Media parties Interest Agency groups clientele FIGURE 2.3 Typical outside forces on a public agency manager 66 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration groups, resulting in a weak, decentralized government incapable of long-range planning. Powerful interest groups operate to promote private goals but do not compete to promote the public interest. Government becomes not an institution that makes hard choices among conflicting values but a holding company for inter- ests. These interests are promoted by alliances of interest groups, relevant govern- Committee Q ment agencies, and the appropriate legislative committees in each issue area. This is A subdivision of furthered by cozy triangles, the mutually supportive relations among government a legislature that agencies, interest groups, and the legislative committee or subcommittee with juris- prepares legislation for action by the diction over their areas of common concern. Such coalitions constantly exchange respective house information, services, and money (in the form of campaign contributions from the or that makes interest groups to the members of the legislative committee and budget approval investigations as from the committee to the agency). As a whole, they tend to dominate policymak- directed by the ing in their areas of concern. These triangles are considered to be so strong that respective house. Most standing others elected or appointed to control administrative policy as representatives of (full) committees the public’s interest are effectively prohibited from interfering on behalf of the are divided into public (see Figure 2.4). subcommittees, which All government agencies rise and fall, are created or dissolved, in response to study legislation, an ever-changing external environment made up both of broad historical trends hold hearings, and report their and everyday political maneuvering. NASA is a perfect example of this. It began recommendations to in 1958 as the American response to the space race of the Cold War—certainly the full committee. a broad historical trend. Political maneuvering by cold warriors in the Truman Only the full administration allowed Nazi war criminals such as Wernher von Braun, the Ger- committee can man rocket scientist, to give American rocketry a decided boost during the early report legislation for action by the entire days of the space program. Morality and ethics aside, von Braun and his team legislature. of refugees truly were the best rocket scientists available to the United States at the time. Sometimes administrative necessity is as strong a force as military necessity. Now that this necessity has lessened in the wake of the Cold War, it is not surprising to find NASA significantly declining in budget and numbers of employees. Government Agency (Administers policy) Legislative Committee Interest Group (Creates policy) (Lobbies for policy) FIGURE 2.4 The cozy or iron triangle Power—The Internal Perspective 67 POWER—THE INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE George Orwell was one of the most astute political observers of the twentieth cen- tury; however, he was very wrong about one thing. In his book Nineteen Eighty- Four he wrote that “power is not a means, it is an end” and that “the object of power is power.” This highly influential attitude was taken by a man whose only large organizational experience was as a policeman in colonial Burma for a few years in the 1920s, and as the most minor of bureaucrats for little more than a year in the World War II British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). He loathed the inherent and subtle politics of large bureaucracies—mostly because he saw such wicked ones in the fascist Europe of the World War II era. Indeed, his creation of Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four is the ultimate expression of that loathing. Big Brother Q Orwell is a wonderful model for a political writer because he was such a great George Orwell’s stylist, but his analysis and disdain of power are hardly useful for would-be and (1903–1950) symbolization, from practicing public administrators—because public administration in essence is the his novel Nineteen exercise of power. Eighty-Four (1949), One sure thing about power is that we all understand it. We learn about power of government so big in organizations as soon as we go to school. Most of us have a pretty good intuitive and intrusive that it grasp of the basic concepts of organizational power by the time we reach the third literally oversaw and regulated every aspect grade. The newest thing about power in organizations is not our understanding of of life. The term has it but rather our intellectualizing about it. evolved to mean any Discussions of power and politics go back to Aristotle and other writers from potentially menacing antiquity. All of political theory is concerned with the exercise of power. The ancient power constantly field of political theory is now frequently applied to the comparatively young con- looking over one’s shoulder and is now cepts of organization theory. Those who would limit themselves to the wisdom of in use in the public modern writers are putting on intellectual blinders. Remember, it is frequently said debate about US of those who rise to rule the nation’s largest organizations that they are “natural intelligence agencies politicians.” Niccolo Machiavelli is the most famous management and political monitoring US citizens analyst of the Italian Renaissance. His 1513 book of advice to would-be leaders, and other foreign national’s cellular The Prince, is the progenitor of all “how to succeed” books that advocate practical phone calls. rather than moral actions. In 1967, British Broadcasting Corporation executive Antony Jay reintroduced Machiavelli’s concepts to a modern audience with his best selling book Management and Machiavelli, which applied Machiavelli’s insights for managing a state to the problem of power and politics in organizations. Jay concluded that Machiavelli’s principles are as valid now as they were 450 years ago because they are “rooted in human nature.” According to Jay, “The new sci- ence of management is in fact only a continuation of the old art of government.” Consequently, “when you study management theory side by side with political theory . . . you realize that you are only studying two very similar branches of the same subject” (Jay, 1967, p. 3). Ordinary people—as well as scholars—have hesitated to talk about power. For many, power is not a subject for polite conversation. Many of us—including Orwell—have often equated power with force, brutality, unethical behavior, manip- ulation, connivance, and subjugation. Harvard sociologist Rosabeth Moss Kanter contends that “power is America’s last dirty word. It is easier to talk about money— and much easier to talk about sex—than it is to talk about power” (Kanter, 1979, p. 65). Yet we must. 68 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration Organizational Goals The traditional thinking is that organizations are institutions whose primary pur- pose is to accomplish established goals. Those goals are set by people in positions of formal authority such as elected officials or appointed agency directors. Thus the primary question for organization managers is how best to design and man- age organizations to achieve their declared purposes effectively and efficiently. The personal preferences of organizational members are restrained by systems of for- mal rules and authority and by norms of rational behavior. But these assumptions about organizations may be naive and unrealistic when organizations are viewed as Coalition Q being complex systems of individuals and coalitions, each having its own interests, A temporary joining beliefs, values, preferences, perspectives, and goals. These coalitions—just like the of political actors to larger group theory of politics—compete with each other continuously for scarce advance legislation or to elect candidates. organizational resources. While the battles between groups such as automobile It is often the case manufacturers and environmentalists over new clean air regulations often play out that the actors in a in the public spotlight, organizational competition is less obvious but every bit as coalition are poles real. The public may not be aware of a deep competition between agencies within apart on many issues the Department of Homeland Security for control over a newly hired group of but are able to put their continuing agents, although such small-scale battles are quite common. differences aside in Under the reality of scarce resources and individual aspiration, conflict is inev- the interest of joining itable. Influence—and the power and political activities through which influence to advance (or defeat) is acquired and maintained—is the primary “weapon” for use in competition and the issue at hand. conflicts. Within an organization, this weapon of influence can be based on factors ranging from an employee’s knowledge and abilities within a given field to a staff member’s skill in “sucking up” to the right people. Therefore, to fully understand an organization, we must get beyond its formally established goals and recognize that power, politics, and influence are critically important and permanent facts of organizational life. Only rarely are organizational goals established by those in positions of formal authority. Goals result from ongoing maneuvering and bargaining among individu- als and transitory coalitions. Just as it is with outside politics in general, coalitions tend to shift with issues. Thus, organizational goals change with shifts in the bal- ance of power among coalitions. Organizational goals are important in the same way organizational power and politics are because they provide the “official” ratio- nale and the legitimacy for resource allocation decisions: who gets which money. Internal Power Relationships Power relationships are permanent features of organizations primarily because specialization results in the creation of many interdependent units with vary- ing sizes and degrees of importance that compete with each other for scarce resources. Organization theorist Jeffrey Pfeffer emphasizes this point in his book Power in Organizations: “Those persons and those units that have the respon- sibility for performing the more critical tasks in the organization have a natural advantage in developing and exercising power in the organization. . . . Power is first and foremost a structural phenomenon, and should be understood as such” (Pfeffer, 1981 p 252.). Power—The Internal Perspective 69 Power is related to dependence. Lower-level organizational members have an arsenal of weapons—such as expertise and personal attractiveness—with which to make others dependent on them. Servants who use their cleverness to take advan- tage of social betters are stock-in-trade in classic drama. This is an intellectualiza- tion of something we all know instinctively: that some people are treated like prima donnas or “get away with murder” in organizations because they possess some spe- cial skill that gives them power in a specific context. The most ready examples are the characters Hawkeye and Trapper from the M*A*S*H* movie and television series. If they had not been surgeons badly needed at the battlefront, they would have been court-martialed for their college-boy antics. Other forms of power and influence often prevail over authority-based power—for example, control over scarce resources (office space, discretionary funds, current and accurate information, and time and skill to work on projects), easy access to others who are perceived as having power (important customers or clients, members of the board of directors, someone else with formal authority or who controls scarce resources), a central place in a potent coalition, ability to “work the organizational rules” (knowing how to get things done or to prevent others from getting things done), and credibility (believing that one’s word can be trusted). Historian Richard E. Neustadt’s landmark analysis of the presidency, Pres- idential Power, asserted that a president’s real powers are informal, that presiden- tial power is essentially the power to persuade. Neustadt quotes President Harry S. Truman contemplating General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower becoming president: “He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating” (Neustadt, 1960, p. 10). Jeffrey Pfeffer further defines power as “the ability to get things done the way one wants them done; it is the latent ability to influence people.” This definition offers several advantages for understanding organizations. First, it emphasizes the relativity of power. As Pfeffer points out, “Power is context or relationship specific. A person is not ‘powerful’ or ‘powerless’ in general, but only with respect to other social actors in a specific social relationship” (Pfeffer, 1981, preface. p x.). Pfeffer’s phrase “the way one wants them done” is a potent reminder that conflict and the use of power often are over the choice of methods, means, approaches, and/ or “turf.” They are not limited to battles about outcomes. This point is important because power is often a consequence of organizational specialization. For exam- ple, competing organizational coalitions often form around professions: hospi- tal nurses versus paramedics, sociologists versus mathematicians in a university, or business-school-educated staff specialists versus generalists from the “school of hard knocks.” Organizational conflicts among people representing different professions, edu- cational backgrounds, sexes, and ages frequently do not involve goals: they center on questions about the “right” of a profession, academic discipline, sex, or age group to exercise its perception of its “professional rights,” to control the way things will be done, or to protect its “turf” and status. This point is important because it reemphasizes that organizational behavior and decisions frequently are not “rational”—not necessarily directed toward accomplishing the formally stated goals of the organization (see Figure 2.5). 70 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration Budget constraints Employee Morale (union) demands Agency Head Need to maintain Professional or increase associations productivity Demands of critical work units FIGURE 2.5 Typical inside forces on a public agency manager All would-be administrators should be aware of the personal danger in pos- sessing significant power. Say the word “power,” and half the people hearing it will immediately think of Lord Acton’s 1887 statement that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Certainly men such as Hitler, Napoléon, Stalin, and Mao all grew more grossly corrupt the longer they held power. But petty tyrants grow proportionately corrupt. Perhaps the best advice on handling power is attributed to former President Harry Truman who in a series of interviews collected by a biographer who said—if a person sees power as a situation—and one that is only temporary, than a good outcome is possible. Its when the person sees themselves as the source of power, then they are on the path to “ruination”. (Miller, 1974). THE CULTURES OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS Administrative institutions are part of the greater culture of their society at the same time that they develop and nurture their own organizational cultures. We learn how to cope in these differing worlds almost instinctively from childhood. How we act in school or at home (each a relatively closed organization) is different from how we act on the street—in the outside world. This is recognition that each culture demands different behaviors. Thus we talk differently to our friends on the street than we do to our parents or teachers. This literally acculturates us to the fact that each time we join another organization—whether for work, worship, or weight lifting—we expect to—and are usually eager to—learn the new jargon and accepted ways of the new group’s culture. To talk of the “two cultures” of public organizations is a gross oversimplification. There is an almost infinite variety of public organization cultures. However, they all have this in common: they interact with the outside environment of the overall culture. In this sense alone it can be said that all public organizations must deal with two cultures: their unique internal culture and the common outside culture. The Cultures of Public Organizations 71 The Outside Cultural Environment Public management is constantly being judged in the wrong context. It is errone- ously viewed as a public sector counterpart to industrial management systems. The private sector analogy holds true only for a portion of the total public management function, and the size of that portion depends on the degree to which the admin- istrative operations of the jurisdiction are politicized. Thus public sector opera- tions cannot be properly understood or evaluated outside the political context—the political culture—of the host jurisdiction. The determinant of any community’s attitudes toward the quality and vigor of its governing institutions is the political culture of the geographic area con- cerned. Political culture is that part of the overall societal culture that determines a community’s attitudes toward the quality, style, and vigor of its political processes and government operations. The only way to explain the extreme variations in public bureaucracies is by examining the cultural context of the host jurisdictions. The quality of bureaucratic operations measured by levels of citizen satisfaction, efficiency, or corruption varies for a variety of reasons—not the least of which is the substantial disagreement on just what constitutes a quality operation. But the quality or style of operations is determined only in the lesser part by critics and public officials; the crucial determinant is the political will of the community. It determines the values and resources to be applied to any given public problem, it helps establish the obligations of citizenship, and it establishes the parameters of activities in which an official may participate. Even when corruption is rife, it is the political culture that sets the limits and direction of such dishonesty. For example, James Q. Wilson, in Varieties of Police Behavior, demonstrates that the style of police operations in eight commu- nities reflected not some abstract standard of quality or professionalism but the expressed and/or implied desires of the community. Thus the police were either exceedingly lenient or exceedingly strict with minor legal violations, depending on the perceived degree of community concern one way or the other. Wilson considers a police department to have a “watchman” style of performance if it is one in which order maintenance is perceived to be the prime function of the department. Such a police operation will tend to ignore law infringements that do not involve “serious” crimes, such as minor traffic violations, bookmaking, and illegal church bingo. Of course, all these activities or no activities are subject to occasional crackdowns. The police periodically shut down illegal gambling operations in response to the political needs of the police chief or mayor. The thrust of the “watchman” style is to maintain order, to ensure a smooth, nondisruptive running of the community or bureaucracy. Legal considerations and official operating mandates are paramount only when the “heat” is on. Of course, the standard operating procedures of police will tend to be more legalistic in communities that are so disposed. Cultural Values and Administration While a community’s political culture is sel- dom articulated, it nevertheless serves as a source of definition. By determining the values to be applied to any given problem, the political culture ensures that the decisional process is filtered through its value system before administrative action is taken. How values influence administrative actions is illustrated by George 72 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration Orwell’s 1936 essay “Shooting an Elephant.” In 1920s Burma, where Orwell was a police officer representing the British colonial administration, trained elephants were used for moving heavy logs. When an elephant suddenly disdained his domes- ticated labors in the timber industry and went on a rampage, it was the job of the local cop on the beat, in this case Orwell, to shoot him. The problem was that by the time Orwell and the local onlookers caught up with the elephant chronicled in the essay, it was peacefully eating grass and no danger to anyone. But an ever- increasing crowd expected this lone officer, this symbol of imperial presence, to act decisively. “A sahib [a master] has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear reso- lute, to know his own mind and do definite things” (Orwell, 1946, p. 265). Orwell was expected by the prevailing culture to shoot the elephant. Orwell says he felt like “an absurd puppet” who was being “pushed to and fro by the will of those” villagers. Despite the fact that there was no public safety reason to do so, he shoots and kills the elephant “solely to avoid looking a fool.” The culture made him do it. Of course, today’s attitudes are radically different, and it is almost unthinkable that a police officer anywhere in the world would feel pressured to kill any endangered species—let alone a nonthreatening elephant. The United States is so vast and geographically diverse that while there is an overall American political culture, it is often less influential than the local politi- cal subcultures of the individual states and regions. Differing sources of political culture, such as race, ethnicity, and religion, combine with historical patterns of political behavior to yield the distinct political cultures of, for example, the Rocky Mountain West or the Deep South. All political cultures change—some more quickly than others. Germany and Japan have vastly different political cultures Fascism Q today than they did when they were the exemplars of fascism prior to and during A political philosophy World War II. In the wake of the Cold War the once communist states of Eastern that advocates Europe almost overnight found themselves with new political cultures. The Ameri- governance by a dictator, assisted can political culture, with the notable exception of the Civil War of 1861 to 1865, by a hierarchically has, in historical terms, been very stable. organized, strongly ideological party, in maintaining a The Inside Cultural Environment totalitarian and An organizational culture—the culture that exists within an organization—is a par- regimented society through violence, allel but smaller version of a societal culture. It is made up of intangible things such intimidation, and the as values, beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions. It is the pattern of these beliefs and arbitrary use of power. attitudes that determines members’ behaviors in and around the organization, per- sists over extended periods of time, and pervades all elements of the organization (albeit to different extents and with varying intensity). An organizational culture is transmitted to new members through socialization (or enculturation) processes; it is maintained and transmitted through a network of rituals and interaction patterns; it is enforced and reinforced by group norms and the organization’s system of rewards and controls. It is the unseen and unobserv- able force that is always behind those organizational activities that can be observed. Organizational culture is created by the attitudes and behaviors of the domi- nant or early organizational “shapers” and “heroes”; by the nature of the organiza- tion’s work; and by the attitudes, values, and “willingness to act” of new members. It is transmitted by often-told stories and legends, and by the formal and informal The Cultures of Public Organizations 73 processes of socialization. An organization’s culture provides a framework for a shared understanding of events, defines behavioral expectations, serves as a source of and focus for members’ commitment, and acts as an organizational “control system” (i.e., through group norms). But while a strong organizational culture can control organizational behavior, it can also block an organization from making those decisions needed to adapt to a changing environment. Organizational culture is particularly useful as an intellectual construct because it helps us to understand or predict how an organization will behave under differ- ent circumstances. A cultural pattern is similar to a genetic inheritance: once you know the patterns of basic assumptions, you can anticipate how the organization will act in differing circumstances. Most importantly, if it can be deduced that an organizational culture led to poor performance by an agency, it becomes necessary to find ways to break down the problematic elements of that culture. Such a sce- nario took place during the examination of intelligence breakdowns that allowed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to succeed. During joint Senate and House hearings in 2002, heavy criticism was targeted at the FBI for creating and fostering an organizational culture where cooperation between varied divisions within the bureau was not valued. More specifically, the hearings called attention to a culture at the FBI, and a similar culture at the CIA, that did not promote inter- action between intelligence officers and law enforcement officials. Like snowflakes, every organizational culture is different. What has worked repeatedly for one organization may not work for another—so the basic assump- tions differ. And every organizational culture is shaped by myriad factors—from the societal culture in which it resides to its technologies and competing organiza- tions. Some organizations have strong, unified, pervasive cultures, whereas others have weaker cultures; often “subcultures” evolve in different functional or geo- graphical areas. The most common example of this last phenomenon is the more formal culture of a headquarters office versus the informality of a field office. Although phrases such as “organizational culture” and “culture of a factory” can be found in a few books on management written as early as the 1950s (for exam- ple, The Changing Culture of a Factory by Elliott Jacques (1951), and William H. Whyte Jr.’s book about corporate conformity, The Organization Man (1956)), few students of management or organizations paid much attention to the nature and content of organizational culture until the late 1970s. Nevertheless, today organi- zational culture is a critical dimension of public administration—so much so that whenever there is an organizational breakdown, people start to shout—figuratively if not literally—“It’s the culture!” Professional Socialization During the 1960s and early 1970s, several books on organizational and professional socialization processes received wide attention. As useful as these earlier works were, they assumed the presence of organizational or professional cultures and proceeded to examine issues involving the match between individuals and cultures. Two of the more widely read of these were Boys in White by Howard Saul Becker et al. (1961), which chronicled the processes used to socialize medical students into the medical profession, and Herbert Kaufman’s The Forest Ranger (1960), a study of how the 74 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration United States Forest Service developed the “will and capacity to conform” among its remotely stationed rangers. Once again, however, these earlier writings did not address important questions such as how cultures are formed or changed, how cul- tures affect leadership, or the relationship between culture and strategic planning (establishing organizational directions); rather, they focused on the process of social- izing employees into existing organizational cultures and the impacts of existing cultures on organizational members. Without attention paid to the effect of culture on outcomes, important issues can be overlooked. For example, while it’s important to understand how an FBI agent is socialized into the bureau, it’s probably more important to understand how the organization’s culture stressed the examination of crimes after the fact rather than stopping terrorism from occurring in the first place. An entirely different orientation to organizational culture that focused on sym- bols started to appear in the late 1970s. Symbols are things such as flags and logos, which carry a wider (or different) meaning than their intrinsic content. For exam- ple, the “Stars and Stripes” is symbolic because it embodies values, traditions, and emotions. Symbols also can be things such as words (IBM’s famous sign “Think”), phrases (Semper fidelis, the motto meaning “Always faithful” of the US Marine Corps), and organizational structures. Because the top or seventh floor is the loca- tion of the highest officials of the US Department of State, policy is frequently said to come from the “seventh floor”—not from any particular official. Similarly, the White House is a building that can, as a symbol, speak. Reporters and political commentators frequently state that the “White House said” this or that. The build- ing speaks because it is the architectural embodiment of the bureaucratic institu- tion that is the modern presidency. Thus the building speaks through press releases, news conferences, deep as well as shallow background briefings, and leaks. While the president is the main and most desired speaker, the few hundred other people who work there also give it voice. Romanticized stories about organizational heroes and ritualistic ceremonies can also be symbols, if they carry meanings that go beyond their intrinsic content. Military medals and other types of organizational awards for unusual achievement are a major example. When a member of Napoléon’s government described military decorations as “baubles,” Napoléon replied, “You are pleased to call them ‘baubles.’ Well, it is with ‘baubles’ that mankind is governed.” Wise managers will create mul- tiple opportunities to use symbols to motivate, inspire, and reward their employees. Symbolic Management The manipulation of symbols and the dramaturgy of symbolic acts are essential elements of managing people in organizations. While such manipulations may be conscious or unconscious on the part of management, they are invariably there. Frequently, symbolic acts are easily identifiable because of their obvious beau geste quality. They form an integral part of everyday manners and courtesies. When an organization’s chief executive accidentally meets a lower-echelon employee in a crowded elevator and says, “How’s your job coming along?” the executive is not expecting an answer to this question; the words are used simply to communicate sociability—a symbolic ritual. It would be quite out of place and both annoying and surprising to the executive if the employee really answered the question instead of replying with a simple “Fine, thank you.” In cases such as these, language ceases The Cultures of Public Organizations 75 being an instrument of communication and becomes a symbol—a thing that carries a different meaning than its intrinsic content. An act of symbolic management can come in the form of a simple trip by a manager to meet his or her employees. A prime example of symbolic management through appearance is President Barack Obama’s visit to the CIA headquarters in 2009. On taking office, Obama had pledged to make public memos that chroni- cled the use of controversial interrogation techniques by CIA agents, thus causing significant concern among the personnel of the nation’s chief spy agency. To help bolster morale at the agency and to reduce anxiety that the new president was making CIA agents scapegoats for past policy failures, President Obama made a trip to the agency’s Langley, Virginia, facilities to directly address the agents. While his words to the CIA staff were quite conciliatory, his very presence on their “home turf” sent a symbolic message that he valued their work and that he will not desert them as they fight terrorism. Symbolic management attracted only limited attention during the 1970s. The turning point for the organizational culture (and symbolism) perspective did not arrive until the early 1980s. Then, almost overnight, organizational culture became a hot topic in books, journals, and periodicals aimed at both management practi- tioners and academicians. Because of the youthfulness of organizational culture as a perspective, minimal consensus exists about much of anything concerned with it. There are only a few organizational culture issues on which there is widespread agreement, including the following: 1. Organizational cultures exist. 2. Each organizational culture is relatively unique. 3. Organizational culture is a socially constructed concept. 4. Organizational culture provides its members with a way of understanding and making sense of events and symbols. 5. Organizational culture, because of its ability to informally approve or disap- prove of behavior, can be a powerful tool for guiding organizations. Each organization has its own unique culture that determines how it will respond to the same stimuli. At the Pentagon, the story is often told about how the same words can have vastly different meanings in different organizations. A good example is the use of the word secure in the US Department of Defense. If the US Army is told to secure a particular building, it will post guards at all the entrances and exits. The US Marine Corps, given the same instructions, will assault the build- ing until everyone inside surrenders. And the US Air Force will achieve its mission to secure the building by negotiating a three-year lease with the owners. Because the same words used in different organizational cultures can mean radically different outcomes, all would-be managers must be aware that organi- zational culture is not just something we live in. J. Steven Ott elaborates on this idea in The Organizational Culture Perspective (1989). Managers must use orga- nizational culture, not just as context, but as a real frame of reference. Thus, even though the vocabulary may be the same, the meaning of words in their organi- zational context may require a manager to effectively learn a new language. Any manager who doesn’t learn to “walk the walk” and “talk the talk” is walking and talking alone—not managing. 76 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration BOX 2.4 What’s a “wicked problem”? While systems theorist C. West Churchman is A Public Policy Perspective.” Its approach to generally credited with having first coined the term definition is to list nine characteristics of wicked “wicked problem”, the most cited source is the problems: seminal article by two urban planners H.W. J. Rittel 1. Wicked problems are difficult to clearly define. and M. M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of 2. Wicked problems have many interdependencies Planning’, (Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, June 1973, and are often multi-causal. pp. 155–69). 3. Attempts to address wicked problems often lead Rittel and Webber sought to specify ten to unforeseen consequences. characteristics of “wicked problems” that confront 4. Wicked problems are often not stable. social and urban planners. They began with a 5. Wicked problems usually have no clear solution. perplexing first rule—that there is “no definite 6. Wicked problems are socially complex. formulation” of wicked problems. One approach to 7. Wicked problems hardly ever sit conveniently dealing with this effort at definition would be to ask within the responsibility of any one organization. what is the opposite of a wicked problem. The usual 8. Wicked problems involve changing behavior. response is not normal or non-complex problems but 9. Some wicked problems are characterized by “tame problems”. Such problems aren’t easy, but at chronic policy failure. least these problems are definable. Their main causes are evident. Their solutions are mapable and verifiable. Using the Australian criteria, examples of wicked In contrast, wicked problems are at the other end of a problems include climate change, health care reform, continuum—hard to define, with solutions even harder poverty reduction, and of course, recycling. to articulate. For more wickedness, see Australian Public Service A more recent analysis that cuts through the Commission (2007) “Tackling Wicked Problems: more technical public planning language of Rittel and A Public Policy Perspective”, pp. 11–12, available Webber is a 2007 report by the Australian Public at http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/ Service Commission “Tackling Wicked Problems: archive/publications-archive/delivering-performance How Old Bottles Create New Jobs— A CASE STUDY Both Legal and Not In 1971 Oregon became the first state to pass a bottle deposit law that led to the first container recycling program. Today, recycling has become a household norm for most American families. Mandatory recycling means that we are all environmentalists now, whether we want to be or not. That recycling has made major progress in the United States is obvious by the statistics. In Oregon the composition of roadside litter went from 40 percent bottles and cans to 6 percent following the adoption of their deposit law. Nationwide, recycling rates—measured as a percentage of total solid waste collected and sent to landfills, reached 34 percent by 2010. This is up The Cultures of Public Organizations 77 from 10 percent of all municipal waste in 1980. This diversion of recycling out of municipal solid waste (MSW) has reduced the amount of waste going to landfills from 89 percent in 1980 to 54 percent in 2010. But hold that success statistic for a minute. Solid waste generation, despite the success of recycling, continues to increase. MSW now averages over 250 million tons a year. Put another way—according to a University of Michigan 2012 report, (http:/css.smre.umich.edu) the average American generates their own weight (180 lbs) in MSW every 41 days—that is 4.4 lbs per day. In contrast, most European countries, with more rigorous recycling programs, have a MSW generation rate 30 percent less—or 3.2 lbs per day. As for American recycling, the chart below shows that rates have somewhat peaked around 2000 and are falling behind total recycling waste growth rates. 90 50% 85.2 87.2 80 79.8 Total MSW recycling (million tons) 70 40% Percent of generation recycled 69.5 34.0% 60 55.8 34.3% 31.4% 30% 50 28.5% 25.7% 40 33.2 20% 30 16.0% 10.1% 9.6% 20 6.2% 6.6% 7.3% 10% 6.4% 16.7 10 14.5 8.0 9.3 5.6 6.5 0 0% 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 Total MSW recycling Percent recycling Municipal Solid Waste Recyling Rates 1960–2013 Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, available at: http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/ Understandably, recycling is a complicated issue. First of all—recycling rates vary greatly by category of waste—as the figure below illustrates. So, cities can claim some success with paper, metal, plastics or glass—where average recycling rates are above 25 percent—but scratch their heads about what they should do to deal with the more than 36 million tons of food that Americans push from their plates into landfills. (continued) 78 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration A CASE STUDY Continued TOTAL Paper & Food Yard Plastics Metals Wood Glass Other Paperboard Waste Trimmings 254 Mil Tons of Muncipal Solid Waste in 2013–14 Waste Category as 27% 14.6% 13.5% 12.8% 9.1% 6.2% 4.5% 12.2% Percent of Total Waste 87.2 Mil Tons Recycled; 67% 5% 60% 9% 34% 15% 28% 16% Category as Percent of Total Recycled Types of Waste and Percentage of Recyling Source: US EPA MSW Generation and Recycling & Disposal in US (2014) Secondly—for areas like glass and plastic—where some jurisdictions have had great success, other problems have surfaced. This is nowhere more appar- ent than in California. Because of the passage of the California Beverage Con- tainer Recycling and Litter Reduction Act in 1986, California now recycles 97 percent of all its aluminum containers and 84 percent of its glass. There are seven other categories of recyclables, but they are still minor compared to aluminum and glass. Driving this record accomplishment has been a significant increase in the amount of deposits for containers. Two payments are made. Distributors pay a container fee—called the CRV (California Redemption Value) of 5 cents for everything below 24 fluid ounces and 10 cents above. That’s up from 1 cent when the law was first enacted. Customers also pay the 5 cent and 10 cent deposits on all of their purchases. Of course they can redeem if they return the empty containers to recycling centers. These centers receive over a billion dollars from the state to pay individuals for their containers. These deposits amount to over 1.1 billion dollars in the state’s recycling fund in fiscal year 2013. The problem is that the program is so successful that it has created a structural deficit, more is being paid out in refunds than came in with deposit payments and container fees, creating a shortfall for other related programs— such as public education, municipal grants, and other administrative fees. Following the increase in CRV to 5 and 10 cents in 2007, California’s container recycling has exploded by 25 percent per year—from 13 billion containers returned annually to 16.7 billion. But something strange is going on here. What if all those aluminum cans and glass bottles aren’t all attributable to green conscious Californians? C. V. Nevius—a columnist from the San Francisco Chronicle has been writing columns about recycling issues that remind us that even something as ordinary as container deposits can be a wicked problem. His June 19, 2013 column entitled “Black Market run by recycling syndicates” describes a very different kind of policy outcome than policymakers expected. “Abandoned The Cultures Of Public Organizations 79 cans and bottles have turned out to be a virtual ATM in California. In fact, a thriving out-of-state black market has sprung up. Scavengers from states without a recycling program, like Arizona or Nevada, pick up tons of discarded material, drive across state lines and cash in”. He explains further: “In San Francisco, there’s another layer of criminal activity. Recycling ‘syndicates’ set up large trucks on designated streets and hire homeless and down-and-out individuals as collectors. The freelancers do the dirty work—digging through trash bins or stealing recycling from the bins of homeowners—and are paid a fraction of what the material is worth.” (Nevius, 2013, p B-1) The state of California, aware of the out-of-state trafficking issue, is contemplating changing the amount of recycling that can be redeemed from current levels of 500 lbs of aluminum and plastic and 2500 lbs of glass per day. (That’s about $1000 for a maximum load—whereas the average redemption amount for individuals is about 10$). The state is contemplating reducing daily limits to 100 lbs of aluminum and 1000 lbs of glass). That would work out to about $200 a day and might deter the interstate trafficking somewhat. As for dealing with “syndicates” paying “canners” (a term used to desribe those who search through trash and recycling bins on the street) a fraction of the value of the recycling they have scavenged, that change seems unlikely to help. San Francisco has been closing down the number of recycling redemption centers as it tries to increase its curbside pickup of recycling bins. The street people or “canners” will have even fewer options to take what they have collected—and the black market will continue, even if downsized a bit. But San Francisco’s wicked problem/situation might be viewed in another light. The Economist reported in a Nov 2, 2013 article entitled “Money from Rubbish” that Brazil has taken its own approach to recycling policy by making scavenging an official occupation. By paying Catadores up to 1,700 reais ($800) a month from recycling and craft-making, (this far surpasses the national 678 reais minimum wage)—they have created a municipal workforce—whose motto is “your trash is our luxury” that has achieved recycling rates of 90 percent for cardboard and paper. The Economist also points to the western Indian city of Pune which has created cooperatives that do trash collection for over 400,000 households. In addition to uniforms and pushcarts, workers even get modest health insurance and are paid a regular income of 36 rupees ($0.60) per month for each household they serve. To encourage recycling, cooperative workers are allowed to keep any profits they make from reprocessing recyclables. For Discussion: 1. To what extent do you think this recycling discussion case rep- resents a “wicked problem?” 2. Some recent studies are questioning the ways in which recycling is managed- noting that less energy is used and costs are lower if all municipal waste is simply put into one trash receptacle for pickup and then sorted by machines at facilities. Which method do you support—more effi- cient trash waste collection or methods that engage the public in recycling.? 80 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration SUMMARY Public administration is an instrument of policy. But public policymaking in repub- lican government is constrained by the very nature of republican institutions. Exec- utive leadership is inherently limited, both by the leader’s philosophic views on how to exercise power and the legal constraints of constitutional checks and balances. Public policymaking is cyclical. As policy decisions are made and implemented, criticism in the form of feedback puts new decisions on the policy agenda. This starts the policymaking cycle all over again. While decisions can be radical depar- tures for the current situation, they are most likely to be incremental. Public processes, whether public policymaking or public administration, take place within a polity, an overarching political jurisdiction. All public managers have two polities with which to contend—internal (their agency) and external (the outside political world). Increasingly the external environment is moving faster than the internal, and outpacing institutional response. As the challenges of glo- balization, technology, marketization, and ecological forces mount, public admin- istration is hard pressed both in terms of creating public policies to deal with these new forces as well as existing social and economic problems and implementing programs to accomplish the solutions proposed by governments. The use of the term—Wicked Problems—to signify both the complexity and the difficulty in pub- lic policy certainly seems approriate. Public administrators are learning that new problems are often created by current solutions. Finally, just as public policy and administration exists in two polities, it has a similar double life as a culture. It is part of the greater culture of its society at the same time that it develops and nurtures its own organizational cultures. Another greater challenge is recognizing that a culture can also resist change as many organizations prefer small incremental improvements as a path forward. In a highly dynamic environment, public administration must do more than adapt— well intentioned improvement will be inadequate when innovation is demanded. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What are the major checks on the American president’s power to wage war? 2. What are the differences among the three major views of executive power: restricted, prerogative, and stewardship? 3. What are the major elements in the public policymaking cycle and how do they interact? 4. How does the pluralistic notion of the American political process influence public agency managers? 5. What is the difference between the internal and external cultures of public organizations? 6. What is a wicked problem—and do pubic administrators need to think differently about policymaking and implementation in confronting a wicked problem? KEY CONCEPTS Agenda setting The process by which ideas or issues bubble up through the various political channels to wind up for consideration by a political institution such as a legislature or court. Aristotle (384–322 BC) The Greek philosopher who originated much of the study of logic, science and politics. Audit The final phase of the government budgetary process, which reviews the opera- tions of an agency, especially its financial transactions, to determine whether the agency Key Concepts 81 has spent its money in accordance with the law, in the most efficient manner, and with desired results. Bentley, Arthur F. (1870–1957) The political scientist who was the intellectual creator of modern interest group theory. Citizenship The dynamic relation between a citizen and his or her nation. The concept of citizenship involves rules of what a citizen might do (such as vote), must do (pay taxes), and can refuse to do (pledge allegiance). Increasingly, the concept involves benefits or enti- tlements that a citizen has a right to demand from government. In some jurisdictions, cit- izenship is a requirement for public employment. Citizenship also requires loyalty to and primary residency in one’s state. Constitutional Convention of 1787 The meeting in Philadelphia, held from May 25 to September 18, at which 55 delegates from the various states designed the US Constitution. Decision rule Any directive established to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. For example, a payroll office might be given a decision rule to deduct one hour’s pay from an employee’s wages for tardiness that exceeds ten minutes but is less than one hour. Downs, Anthony (1930–) The economist and policy analyst who is generally credited with establishing the intellectual framework for public choice economics in his book An Eco- nomic Theory of Democracy (1957). His classic book on bureaucracy, Inside Bureaucracy (1967), sought to justify bureaucratic government on economic grounds and to develop laws and propositions that would aid in predicting the behavior of bureaus and bureaucrats. Effectiveness The extent to which an organization accomplishes some predetermined goal or objective; more recently, the overall performance of an organization from the viewpoint of some strategic constituency. Efficiency Competence as well as speed in performance. Americans have historically been suspicious of a too-efficient government, feeling that a truly efficient administration of pub- lic affairs could eventually eat into political liberties. Executive privilege The presidential claim that the executive branch may withhold infor- mation from the Congress or its committees and the courts to preserve confidential commu- nications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Hierarchy Any ordering of persons, things, or ideas by rank or level. The administrative structures are typically hierarchical in that each level has authority over levels below and must take orders from levels above. Incremental decision-making model A view of the public policymaking process that assumes that small decisions made at the margins of problems are the usual reality of change. The classic statement of this concept was offered by Charles Lindblom in his 1959 article in PAR entitled “The Science of Muddling Through.” Lasswell, Harold D. (1902–1978) One of the most influential and prolific of social scien- tists. While he made major contributions to the fields of communications, psychology (he pioneered the application of Freudian theory to politics), political science, sociology, and law, his most lasting legacy is probably his pioneering work in developing the concept and methodology of the policy sciences, in his classic 1936 book Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Latham, Earl (1907–1977) The group theorist whose The Group Basis of Politics (1952) asserted that government itself is a group just like the various private groups attempting to access the policy process. Lindblom, Charles E. (1917–) The Yale University political scientist who since the 1950s has been asserting that incrementalism is the most viable approach to understanding how public policies are made. Locke, John (1632–1704) The English physician and philosopher whose writings on the nature of governance were a profound influence on the founding fathers. It is often argued 82 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration that the first part of the Declaration of Independence, which establishes the essential phil- osophic rationale for the break with England, is Thomas Jefferson’s restatement of John Locke’s most basic themes. Pluralism A theory of government that attempts to reaffirm the democratic character of society by asserting that open, multiple, competing, and responsive groups preserve tradi- tional democratic values in a mass industrial state. Pluralism assumes that power will shift from group to group as elements in the mass public transfer their allegiance in response to their perceptions of their individual interests. Power-elite theory The belief that the United States is basically ruled by a political, mili- tary, and business elite whose decisional powers essentially preempt the democratic process. C. Wright Mills (1916–1962) wrote in The Power Elite that “the leading men in each of the three domains of power—the warlords, the corporation chieftains, the political directorate—tend to come together to form the power elite of America.” Public choice economics An approach to public administration and politics based on microeconomic theory that views the citizen as a consumer of government goods and ser- vices. It would attempt to maximize administrative responsiveness to citizen demand by creating a market system for government activities in which public agencies would compete to provide citizens with goods and services. Rational decision-making model A view of the public policymaking process that assumes complete information and a systematic, logical, and comprehensive approach to change. Republic A Latin word meaning “the public thing”; the state and its institutions; that form of government in which sovereignty resides in the people who elect agents to represent them in political decision making. Separation of powers The allocation of powers among the three branches of government so that they are a check on each other. This separation, in theory, makes a tyrannical concen- tration of power impossible. Street-level bureaucrats Those public officials who are literally closest to the people by being in almost constant contact with them. Examples are police officers, welfare caseworkers, and teachers. Perhaps the most seminal work on this is by Michael Lipsky in his 1980 book Street-Level Bureaucracy, which has been recently released in a 30th year anniversary edition. Taft, William Howard 1857–1930) The only person to be both president of the United States (1909–1913) and chief justice of the Supreme Court (1921–1930). Taft, at 321 pounds, also holds the record as the largest of all presidents. Truman, David B. (1913–2003) A political scientist whose principal work, The Governmen- tal Process (1951), views group interaction as the real determinant of public policy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Acton, Lord (John Dahlberg) (1887) “Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton” in Historical Essays and Studies, eds J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence. London: Macmillan (1907). Allison, Graham T. (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bos- ton: Little, Brown. Aristotle (2000) Politics, Translated by B. Jowett. New York: Dover Publications. Australian Public Service Commission (2007) “Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective”. Available at available at http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/ archive/publications-archive/delivering-performance Bell, Daniel (1960) End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Bemis, Samuel Flagg (1956) John Quincy Adams and the Union. New York: Knopf. Bibliography 83 Boorstin, Daniel J. (1961) The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Atheneum. Bush, George (2001) “Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force” Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, September 21, p. 1319. Center for Sustainable Systems (n.d.) “Municipal Solid Waste Factsheet.” Ann Arbor: Uni- versity of Michigan, available at http://css.snre.umich.edu Clausewitz, Karl von (1832) On War. New York: Penguin Press (1968). Congressional Research Service (1993) “The Intelligence Community and 9/11: Congressio- nal Hearings and the Status of the Investigation”, available at http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/ RL31650.pdf. Dahl, Robert A. and Charles E. Lindblom (1953) Politics, Economics, and Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Degler, Carl (1970) Out of Our Past. New York: Harper and Row. Downs, Anthony (1972) “Up and Down with Ecology—The Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public Interest 28 (summer). Easton, David (1963) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Atherton. Etzioni, Amitai (1967) “Mixed Scanning: A ‘Third’ Approach to Decision Making,” Public Administration Review (December). Galbraith, John Kenneth (1956) American Capitalism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gingrich, Newt (1995) To Renew America. New York: HarperCollins. Hofstadter, Richard (1965) The Paranoid Style in American Politics. New York: Knopf. Jacques, Elliott (1951) The Changing Culture of a Factory. London: Tavistock Institute. Jay, Antony (1967) Management and Machiavelli. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jones, Charles O. (1977) An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, 2nd ed. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. Joseph, Peter (1974) Good Times: An Oral History of America in the Nineteen Sixties. New York: William Morrow. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1979) “Power Failure in Management Circuits.” Harvard Business Review (July–August), pp. 65–75. Kaufman, Herbert (1960) The Forest Ranger. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kingdon, John W. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York: Longman. Lasswell, Harold D. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Smith. Lasswell, Harold D. (1963) The Future of Political Science. New York: Atherton. Latham, Earl (1952) The Group Basis of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959) “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review (spring). Lincoln, Abraham (1894) “Letter to A. G. Hodges, April 14, 1864”, in The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, eds J. Nicolet and J. Hay. New York: Francis D. Tandy Co. Lipsky, Michael (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Locke, John (1690) Second Treatise of Government. New York: Liberal Arts Press (1952). Lowi, Theodore, J. (1979) The End of Liberalism, 2nd ed. New York: Norton. Machiavelli, N. (1513) The Prince and The Discourses. New York: Modern Library (1950). Madison, James (1787) The Federalist, No. 10. New York: E. P. Dutton (1961). Madison, James (1788) The Federalist, No. 14. New York: E. P. Dutton (1961). Madison, James (1788) The Federalist, No. 51 New York: E. P. Dutton (1961). Markham, Felix (1964) Napoleon. New York: New American Library. Miller, Merle (1974) Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman. New York: Berkley. Mills, C. Wright. (1956) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Myers v. United States: 272 US 52 (1926). Neustadt, Richard M. (1960) Presidential Power. New York: Free Press. Orwell, George (1946) Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. New York: Harcourt, Brace. 84 CHAPTER 2 The Political and Cultural Environment of Public Policy and its Administration Orwell, George (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Penguin. Ott, J. Steven (1989) Organizational Cultural Perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Peters, Charles (1993) “Tilting at Windmills.” The Washington Monthly, 25 (November). Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1981) Power in Organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Pressman, Jeffrey and Aaron Wildavsky (1973) Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Romzek, Barbara S. and Melvin J. Dubnick (1987) “Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy,” Public Administration Review 47 (May–June). Shafritz, J., P. Williams, and R.S. Calinger, eds (1993) Dictionary of 20th Century World Politics. New York: Henry Holt Publishers. Sheldon, Michael (1991) Orwell. New York: HarperCollins. Taft, William Howard (1916) Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers. New York: Columbia University Press. The 9/11 Commission (2004) The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, DC. Tuchman, Barbara W. (1984) The March of Folly. New York: Ballatine Books. United States v. Nixon 418 US 683 (1974). Whyte, William H. Jr. (1956) The Organization Man. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wilson, James Q. (1968) Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Woodward, Bob and Carl Bernstein (1974) All the President’s Men. New York: Simon and Schuster. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 US 579 (1952). Zenko, Micah (2013) “Reforming US Drone Strike Policies”, US Council on Foreign Rela- tions Special Report, 65. RECOMMENDED BOOKS Barzelay, Michael (2001) The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press. How policymakers should treat the denizens of the bureaucracy. Cartwright, Nancy and Jeremy Hardie (2012) Evidence-Based Policy. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Billed as “practical guide to doing it better,” this overview of current public policy analysis methods makes sense of new approaches to using scientific evidence and data to improve policymaking. Kingdon, John (2011) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York: Longman. Still considered the classic interpretation of how issues emerge and develop into public policy and transform and are transformed by political agendas in government. Simon, Herbert A. (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th ed. New York: Macmillan. The fiftieth anniversary edition of the groundbreaking analysis of how organizations make decisions within the context of their social values. Stone, Deborah (2012) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. A clear discussion of the factors that shape policy decisions with a focus on the nexus between politics and governing. CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government CHAPTER OUTLINE Keynote: The New Feudalism 86 Reforming the National Machinery of Government 108 What Is the Machinery of The Brownlow Committee 110 Government? 89 The Hoover Commissions 111 Fine-Tuning the Machinery 89 The Ash Council 112 The Rise and Fall of Governmental The President’s Private Sector Survey Machinery 90 on Cost Control 112 The National Performance Review: The Administrative Architecture “Reinventing Government” 113 of the US Government 91 Reinvention in Reverse 115 Executive Branch Machinery 94 The Obama Revolution—The Return Separation of Powers 96 of Big Government 116 The Micromanagers 117 State and Local Government Machinery 98 The Pressure for Privatization 118 State Government 102 Strategies for Privatization 119 County Government 102 Privatization in the Military 120 Municipal Government 104 The Nonprofit Gambit 122 Towns and Special Districts 105 The Faith-Based Initiative 123 Local Management Machinery 105 Voluntarism and Philanthropy 125 Metropolitan Government 106 Continuous State and Local A Case Study: The Revolution in the Reform 108 British Machinery of Government (1979–2014) 128 85 86 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government KEYNOTE: The New Feudalism In 1958, economist John Kenneth Galbraith published The Affluent Society. This book described American society as one in which scarcity of resources was not a major problem but where “private affluence and public squalor” existed continu- ously side by side. Today, this trend is becoming even more pronounced. Journalists such as Michael Lind are observing a “new feudalism” that “reverses the trend of the past thousand years toward the government’s provision of basic public goods such as policing, public roads and transport networks, and public schools.” Lind concludes that “in the United States—to a degree unmatched in any other industrialized democracy—these public goods are once again becoming private luxuries.” When public services deteriorate—especially in urban areas—those with enough money, increasingly, buy their way out of the problem. They send their children to private schools and hire private police. And in the best feudal tradition, they retire each night behind walled towns where guards at a gate check the iden- tity of all who seek to enter. And we are not just talking about apartment buildings with doormen. We are talking about millions of citizens living in suburban “gated communities” with their own private police, private streets, and private parks. While most popular in California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and Virginia, such private residential communities are springing up throughout the United States, pat- terned after the comprehensive mini-cities that have long been popular with retirees in the Sunbelt. What is new is that middle- and upper-income families of all ages are opting to pay hefty private taxes (community fees) and submit to stringent environmental regulations to lead the good life away from urban ills. According to the American Housing Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau, the number of people living in gated communities rose to almost 11 million households in the last census (2010), up from slightly more than 7 million in 2001. Ironically, according to political analyst Timothy Egan, “The very things that Republicans in Congress are trying to do away with for the nation as a whole—environmental protection, gun control, heavy regulation—are most pronounced in these predom- inantly Republican private enclaves.” These new-fashioned feudalists, who are decidedly libertarian concerning the outside world, are surprisingly socialistic concerning the private, inside world of their gated mini-cities. They willingly accept a wide variety of community regula- tions that they would challenge as unconstitutional in other contexts—from gun control to restrictions on exterior paint colors, lawn maintenance standards, and prohibitions on basketball hoops over garages. Homeowners must abide by com- mon mandates, including the carrying of special identification, getting permission for more than a set number of visitors, and paying user fees for a wide variety of services such as trash collection, cable TV connections, and time on tennis courts. The new feudalism also extends beyond the guarded gates. During the Mid- dle Ages, many of the castles on the Rhine River in Western Europe were built to enforce the collection of tolls on that portion of the river controlled by a local warlord. These modern day electronic “castles” can also enforce the collection of tolls on a similarly private means of transport. For example, the California Private Transportation Corporation, with state approval, built a ten-mile, $128 million, Keynote: The New Feudalism 87 four-lane road in the median strip of an existing but highly congested southern California freeway in 1995. Users had to have a transponder installed on their vehicle’s windshield that can be read by an electronic monitor—the “castle”—as they entered the road. Periodically a computer billed the driver’s credit card or mailed an old-fashioned paper invoice. Anyone seeking to avoid these silent sen- tries would have their license plates photographed and face state-sanctioned fines of up to $300. Gerald S. Pfeffer, the managing director of the corporation that built and oper- ated this road, which was the nation’s first fully automated toll road utilizing elec- tronic transponders to collect tolls, explained his company’s philosophy: “We’re another example of private enterprise filling a gap in government services—the Federal Express of roads.” But critics complained that the highway is elitist in that people who can afford the $2.50 rush-hour toll speed along in their luxury cars, while those who can’t afford an extra $5.00 a day—more than $1,000 a year—for the round trip must creep along with the poor on the old public freeway. Pfeffer sees nothing wrong with that: “You get what you pay for—the great American way.” Besides, toll roads and bridges have long been common in the United States. What was new here was someone collecting tolls for profit and not for govern- ments. But not for long either. In 2002, the Orange County Transportation Author- ity purchased the private project for $207 million and then operated the toll road (although admittedly it is somewhat surreal to drive by the empty toll booths con- structed for the road, as the Authority uses electronic toll collection or fast track cameras). Millions of citizens obviously feel that having private police, roads, and parks are well worth the cost in money and possible personal restrictions. The problem is that the larger sense of community is often lost. Citizens living in their affluent private enclaves are less likely to vote for spending on public services that they do not use, such as traditional public schools, public parks, and public roads. Indeed, the California legislature specifically authorized the private road because it per- ceived that there was not sufficient public support to pay additional taxes for new public roads. The result of this trend toward private services is that the needs of citizens who do not have a “going private” option may be ignored. And because these enclaved communities tend to be overwhelmingly white, this leads to a further balkanization of the body politic. The essential question here is: if certain citizens can afford to buy their way out of common public problems, what kind of public services does that leave for the rest of us? It used to be that the “leading” (meaning richer) citi- zens would make an effort to solve the problems of their communities because, for better or worse, they were part of it. Now they can just hide behind their walls. Even people living in the heart of a big city can buy better public services for themselves by creating a “business improvement district”—a quasi-government paid for by taxes on property owners within the district. Almost a thousand of these districts nationwide provide extra sanitation, policing, and other services for their residents. New York City has perhaps the most extensive network—where over 69 different districts operate in the city as a public private partnership provid- ing an annual $100 million in services and programs, all under the coordination of the New York City Department of Small Business. Thus many of the richer 88 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government neighborhoods in New York City are cleaner and safer because their residents can afford to pay for private sanitation services and private police. This new feudalism is just one side of the increasing privatization of the public sector: here, citizens, as is their right, buy the amount of “public” services they can afford. The other side of privatization has government itself contracting for the private provision of public functions. Thus increasingly trash is collected, public buildings are cleaned, and streets are repaired not by public employees but by pri- vate sector employees of companies with government contracts. This is often less expensive because such workers are typically paid less than public employees— especially when fringe benefits are considered. The traditional machinery of government—the administrative structures by which public purposes are achieved—is increasingly being called into question by an angry citizenry that does not always see the contradiction between wanting ever greater government services at ever decreasing costs. Thus privatization, even with its feudal aspects, is seen by some as one means of lowering the overall costs of gov- ernment, by others as a means of reducing services to the poor, and by still others as a means of eliminating large elements of government altogether. But however it is viewed, and despite the continuing danger of social balkanization, it remains one of the most important tools in reinventing the machinery of government for the twenty-first century. For Discussion: Why is it that citizens living in gated communities are less likely to be involved in civic affairs? What does the trend toward gated communities imply for overall public support for increasing taxes and improving public services? BOX 3.1 Selling the Brooklyn Bridge! Someday soon public sector infrastructure assets such 2007), a $3.8 billion deal for a toll road in Indiana as toll highways and bridges will be appearing in a concluded in 2006, allows the investors to break even pension or mutual fund near and dear to you. State in year 15 of a 75-year lease. Thereafter, they expect and local governments throughout the nation are to earn “as much as $32 billion in profits.” Analysts strapped for cash, anxious to downsize via privatization typically assess the value of infrastructure assets at and increasingly seeing their saleable infrastructure 40 times annual toll revenues. At this rate, the Golden as cash cows waiting to be milked (meaning sold Gate Bridge at the head of San Francisco Bay could or leased). Just as investment brokers packaged sell for $3.4 billion. Remember that old story about commercial real estate (apartments, office buildings, the city slicker having a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to shopping centers, hotels, etc.) into Real Estate some rube from the country? Well, it is no longer a Investment Trusts now readily sold on stock markets, joke. Thornton concludes: “If permission were granted they are currently on the verge of packaging public by New York City to charge the same tolls as the sector infrastructure (highways, bridges, airports, George Washington Bridge, a private owner might water systems, etc.) into a new investment option. shell out as much as $3.5 billion for it.” Then part Tolls or user fees can yield substantial and consistent ownership of the bridge could end up in your pension profits. For example, according to journalist Emily fund—and you could be that proverbial rube from Thornton, “Roads to Riches” (Business Week, May 7, the country. What is the Machinery of Government? 89 WHAT IS THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT? The machinery of government consists of all of the structural arrangements adopted by national, state, or local governments to deliver their legally mandated programs and services. This of necessity includes the central management arrange- ments of government. In all jurisdictions, the organization and eventual reorga- nization of executive branch agencies is the everlasting machinery of government issue. Fine-Tuning the Machinery In 1733 English poet Alexander Pope wrote the following: For forms of government let fools contest— That which is best administered is best. These two lines from his An Essay on Man became so well known that Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 68 (1788), took the trouble to quote them, denounce the sentiment as “political heresy,” and then go on to acknowledge, “Yet we may safely pronounce that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.” Ever since, one test of govern- ing efficacy has been Hamilton’s ideal of “good administration.” The machinery that a government creates to work its will must be judged by the quality of public administration that it yields. But many political analysts of Hamilton’s generation as well as today would argue that no matter how good the quality, it is the quantity that is the crucial thing. Senator Barry Goldwater’s often stated warning during his unsuccessful 1964 presidential campaign still resonates: “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Hamilton’s contemporary, Thomas Paine, the pamphleteering propagandist of the American Revolution, wrote in Common Sense that “society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.” This certainly reflects the sentiments of the modern Republican Party in the United States. Indeed, this party took control of the US Congress during the 1994 midterm election, running on a platform that differs only in detail with Paine’s contention. This can all be summed up in the proposition that “government is best which governs least.” New England writer Henry David Thoreau began his famous 1849 essay “Civil Disobedience” with this motto, which has also been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and many other doubting Thomases about government. But if so many good and wise people believed so strongly that government should be “least,” how and why did it grow so large? Has the machine grown too big for its most elemental task of producing Hamilton’s “good administration”? The task of this chapter is to examine the machinery of government and its effects on administrations good and bad. Always remember, however, that most of the debates over reinventing government and the best public management practices are not about fundamentally changing the nature of governing institutions but 90 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government about fine-tuning the machinery. To use a mobile metaphor: it’s not about rein- venting the automobile; it’s about getting more miles per gallon of fuel using fewer and less-expensive parts. The Rise and Fall of Governmental Machinery Whenever government seeks to address a major issue, it leaves new machinery in its wake. Thus the civil rights movement that began in the 1950s left the Commis- sion on Civil Rights (created in 1957) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (created in 1964). The environmental movement that began in the 1960s left the Environmental Protection Agency (created in 1970). The war on ter- rorism that started at the World Trade Center in 2001 has created the Department of Homeland Security. And the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 left us with the The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and Automobile Recovery Task Force. Governmental entities, once established, tend to last a long time and not change easily. They develop constituencies that support their cause. Often they take on new causes that also enhance their support. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initially dealt only with cases of workplace discrimi- nation. Today, as federal courts reinterpret the nature of discrimination, it is the nation’s prime enforcer of workplace sexual harassment prohibitions as well (see Chapter 12 for more on this). There is gravity at work in the machinery of government. What goes up can also fall down. For example, the Civil Aeronautics Board, created by the federal government to regulate the airline industry in 1938, was abolished in 1985 as economic deregulation became fashionable. The Office of Technology Assessment, created in 1972 as a support agency of Congress to be an objective source of infor- mation on policy alternatives for technology-related issues, was abolished in 1995 as a newly elected Republican-controlled Congress sought to cut costs. In 1996 the Bureau of Mines within the Department of the Interior gave 1,200 of its employees the shaft. This 85-year-old agency was abolished by a Congress less interested in the concerns of big labor unions than in big-budget savings. But even when a piece of the government machine is sliced off, it is seldom completely thrown away. For example, Bureau of Mines’ workers engaged in coal mine safety were transferred to the Fossil Energy Division of the Department of Energy. And even the most fervent advocates of abolishing the Department of Com- merce believe it would be wise to retain the National Weather Service and the Bureau of the Census, even if only in scaled-down forms. This can even apply to rel- atively new government creations. Take, for example, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. This is the non-partisan, non-political agency originally created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) with two goals: Q To provide transparency of ARRA-related funds Q To detect and prevent fraud, waste, and mismanagement of those funds The Administrative Architecture of the US Government 91 Later, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, the Board’s authority was expanded to include oversight of all federal funding for the post-economic recovery efforts supported by the federal government. Then under the Disaster Appropriations Act of 2013, the Board was mandated by Congress to use its resources to provide oversight of Hurricane Sandy funding. In the United States, the national machinery of government is far more inher- ently conservative and, in consequence, far more hesitant to change than many other comparable—albeit smaller—democracies, such as Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. However difficult to change, the elements of the machinery of gov- ernment are not immutable. They can and should be changed as societal needs alter. There is one commonly asked machinery-of-government question. It was posed by Representative Newt Gingrich in a December 1994 speech accepting his par- ty’s nomination to be Speaker of the House: “When you see a large government bureaucracy, is it an inevitable relic of the past that can’t be changed, or is it an opportunity for an extraordinary transformation to provide better services and better opportunities at lower cost?” This is one of those questions for which there is only one possible answer: everybody wants “better services” and “lower costs.” But are you willing to tinker with your government machine to get them? One need only look at the recent effort by French President Francoise Hollande to redraw the French administrative regions from 22 to 14—in an effort to reduce levels and layers of bureaucracy which was met with widespread disapproval and scathing criticism (Bilefsky, 2014). THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARCHITECTURE OF THE US GOVERNMENT A constitution provides the basic political and legal structure, the architecture, that prescribes the rules by which a government operates. James Madison wrote in The Federalist, No. 57 (1788), that “the aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.” While Madison asserted that the first aim was to find appropriate “men,” he would certainly reconsider that word if he were writing today. To be sure, he would use a sexually neutral term such as people, individuals, or persons. But this does not go far enough—because the primary task of rulers in all modern constitutional systems is administration. So “administrators” should replace “men” in Madison’s political philosophy because administrators are those who run a constitution. The echo of Woodrow Wilson’s famous statement that “it is getting harder to run a constitution than to frame one” is loud and clear (Wilson, 1887). Madison is generally considered the primary framer of the Constitution. But if he had lived to see what his handiwork had wrought, he would be much more concerned about running it. The Constitution, with its famous opening words “We the people,” asserts that the source of its authority is the people as opposed to the states. It then assigns 92 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government powers to the various branches of government and in doing so, structures the gov- ernment. It limits the powers that any branch may have through a system of checks and balances. Most significantly, it denies certain powers to the national govern- ment by reserving them for the states and the people. American politics has grown up around the Constitution and has therefore been “constitutionalized.” Many domestic political issues are eventually treated in constitutional terms—for example, civil rights, crime, pornography, abortion, and impeachment, to name but some of the more obvious cases. Only the realm of foreign affairs has substantially escaped this tendency, although the war on terror has increasingly brought back questions of the rights of prisoners to the American courts. In addressing matters of government and politics, Americans are likely to pose as the first question, “Is it constitutional?” Only afterward is the desirability of specific policies and government arrangements considered on their own merits. In the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court explained how to tell if something is constitutional: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” Unlike the British parliamentary machinery of government that evolved over hundreds of years, the American machinery was created at one moment in time for its specific purpose. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was truly the world’s first inventing-government movement. And the government it created was designed to be inefficient. Because of their experiences under British rule, Americans have historically been suspicious of a too-efficient government, feeling that an overly efficient administration of public affairs could eventually eat into political liberties. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the Court in Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service v. Chadha (1983), offered this opinion: It is crystal clear from the records of the [Constitutional] Convention, contemporaneous writings and debates, that the Framers ranked other values higher than efficiency. . . . The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental processes that often seem clumsy, inefficient, and even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked. The modern US Supreme Court then reaffirmed the value of inefficiency when it asserted in the Chadha case that “there is no support in the Constitution or deci- sions of this Court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit Constitutional standards may be avoided, either by the Congress or by the president.” The Court unanimously declared its support for red tape, the treasured procedural safeguards that protect us even when we do not wish to be protected, and the law’s delay. And they have done this as they stated in the Chadha case because “with all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.” THE CONSTITUTION LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EXECUTIVE BRANCH JUDICIAL BRANCH The Congress The President The Supreme Court of the Senate House The Vice President United States Architect of the Capitol Executive Office of the President United States Courts of Appeals United States Botanic Garden United States District Courts Government Accountability Office White House Office Office of Management and Budget Territorial Courts Government Printing Office Office of the Vice President Office of National Drug Control Policy United States Court of International Trade Library of Congress Council of Economic Advisers Office of Policy Development United States Court of Federal Claims Congressional Budget Office Council on Environmental Quality Office of Science and Technology Policy United States Court of Appeals for the National Security Council Office of the US Trade Representative Armed Forces Office of Administration United States Tax Court United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Administrative Office of the United States Courts Federal Judicial Center United States Sentencing Commission Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Health and Human Homeland Housing and Urban Agriculture Commerce Defense Education Energy Services Security Development Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of the Interior Justice Labor State Transportation the Treasury Veterans Affairs The Administrative Architecture of the US Government INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENTS AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS African Development Foundation Federal Labor Relations Authority National Foundation on the Arts and Peace Corps Broadcasting Board of Governors Federal Maritime Commission the Humanities Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Central Intelligence Agency Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service National Labor Relations Board Postal Regulatory Commission Commodity Futures Trading Commission Federal Mine Safety and Health Review National Mediation Board Railroad Retirement Board Consumer Product Safety Commission Commission National Railroad Passenger Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission Corporation for National and Community Service Federal Reserve System (Amtrak) Selective Service System Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board National Science Foundation Small Business Administration Environmental Protection Agency Federal Trade Commission National Transportation Safety Board Social Security Administration Equal Employment Opportunity Commission General Services Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Export-Import Bank of the US Inter-American Foundation Occupational Safety and Health Review Trade and Development Agency Farm Credit Administration Merit Systems Protection Board Commission US Agency for International Development Federal Communications Commission National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Government Ethics US Commission on Civil Rights Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation National Archives and Records Administration Office of Personnel Management US International Trade Commission Federal Election Commission National Capital Planning Commission Office of Special Counsel US Postal Service Federal Housing Finance Board National Credit Union Administration Overseas Private Investment Corporation FIGURE 3.1 The Government of the United States Source: 2010–2011 US Government Manual. (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GOVMAN-2014-10-06/pdf/GOVMAN-2014-10-06-Government-of-the-United-States-4.pdf) 93 94 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government Executive Branch Machinery One glance at an organization chart of the US government and we can see imme- diately that the most complex part of the machinery of government lies in the executive branch; the other two branches seem small by comparison, with compar- atively few subdivisions (see Figure 3.1). While the inefficiency of the separation of powers is to be highly valued for its protection of basic liberties, this is no excuse for individual agencies to be inefficient as organizations. Indeed, the whole thrust of American public administration reform over the past century has been to create efficient subunits within an overall inefficient system. Although the executive branch has the most complex structure, the other two branches are also of interest from a machinery-of-government point of view. For example, the US Supreme Court has ultimate administrative responsibility for the entire federal court system. And while most citizens know that the legislative branch contains the Senate and the House of Representatives, not so many realize that other important agencies are located in this branch, ranging from the Architect of the Capitol and the US Botanic Garden to the Library of Congress and the Gov- ernment Accountability Office (GAO). This last agency is of critical importance, allowing Congress to exercise financial oversight of the executive branch. The GAO would be severely diminished if its functions were located within the executive branch, as it frequently is within democracies based on the British parliamentary system. (The GAO’s work is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14.) The executive branch, headed by the president, contains the machinery that serves to implement national policies established by both constitutional and legis- lative means. There are three main categories of organizations in the structure of the executive branch: (1) executive office agencies, (2) executive departments, and (3) independent public bodies. Executive Office Agencies The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is an umbrella office consisting of the top presidential staff agencies that provide the president help and advice in carrying out major responsibilities. These include, as you might expect, some agencies that are concerned with “head office” functions of policy, planning, and resource allocation, such as the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the National Security Council. But some exist to signify important national priorities, such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality. Executive Departments There are 15 executive departments. As a group, they constitute the president’s cabinet. This is an institution whose existence relies on custom rather than constitutional provision, even though its chief members, the secretaries of the federal executive departments, must be approved by the Senate. It came into being as a single body because President George Washington found it useful to meet with the chiefs of the several executive departments. While all subsequent presidents have considered it necessary to meet with the cabinet, their attitudes toward the institution and its members have varied greatly. Some presi- dents have convened their cabinet only for the most formal and routine matters, while others have relied on it for advice and support. The president’s cabinet differs The Administrative Architecture of the US Government 95 from the cabinet in the British parliamentary system in that, in the United States, the executive power is not shared by the cabinet as a whole but is constitution- ally vested solely in the president. This is famously illustrated by a story about Abraham Lincoln. During the Civil War he called his cabinet together to discuss a pressing matter of war policy. Wanting to get a sense of their feelings, he called for a vote. They all voted “nay.” Lincoln alone voted “aye.” Yet, as president, he declared, “The ayes have it.” At the present time, cabinet membership consists of the secretaries of 15 execu- tive departments, the newest member being the secretary of Homeland Security. But a substantial part of the executive branch is not represented in the cabinet. From the earliest days, presidents have accorded to others the privilege of attending and participating in cabinet meetings. In recent years, the US ambassador to the United Nations and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, among others, have been accorded cabinet rank to symbolize the importance of the functions they represent. However, not all cabinet members are equal. The “inner” cabinet refers to the federal departments of State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice—because they (and their secretaries) tend to be more prominent and influential in every adminis- tration than the rest of the cabinet. While all cabinet secretaries are equal in rank and salary, the missions of those in the inner cabinet tend to give them an advan- tage in prestige, access, and visibility denied to those who head the remaining (the “outer”) cabinet. For better or worse, according to political scientists Edward Weisband and Thomas M. Frank (1975), “Cabinet meetings in the United States, despite occa- sional efforts to make them into significant decision-making occasions, have, at least in this century, been characterized as vapid nonevents in which there has been a deliberate nonexchange of information as part of a process of mutual nonconsul- Corporation Q tation.” The president’s cabinet has never functioned as a unified team. The Ameri- An organization can machinery of government, which requires cabinet secretaries to be responsible formed under state or federal law that exists, both to the president and the Congress (with its competing interests) makes that for legal purposes, as virtually impossible. a separate being or The structure of US government departments is a reasonably deft selection of an artificial person. topics likely to need a national focus by government. But these topics are not the It may be public (set only ones that could be represented at this level. They represent choices among com- up by the government) or private (set up by peting priorities. There is no federal Department of the Environment, for example, individuals), and it which means that environmental issues must be voiced through other departments. may be created to While the Clinton administration called for such a new department, its Republican carry on a business opposition in the Congress not only opposed it but made efforts to repeal much or to perform almost of the environmental protection legislation such a department would administer. any function. It may be owned by the government or by a Independent Public Bodies Independent establishments and government corpo- few persons, or it may rations form the third main area of the US national machinery of government. be a “publicly owned They range in purpose from public business corporations (such as the US Postal corporation”—owned Service, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and Amtrak—the National by members of the Railroad Passenger Corporation) to important regulators and watchdogs (such general public who buy its shares on an as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Commission on Civil Rights) to open stock market foundations committed to worthy purposes (such as the National Science Founda- such as the New York tion and the African Development Foundation). Stock Exchange. 96 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government A regulatory commission is an independent agency established by Congress to regulate some aspect of US economic life. Among these are the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Such agencies are, of course, not independent of the US government. They are sub- ject to the laws under which they operate as these laws are enacted and amended by Congress. Independent agencies and regulatory commissions can be divided into two categories: (1) those units under the direct supervision and guidance of the president, and therefore responsible to him, and (2) those not under such supervi- sion and guidance, and therefore not responsible to him. Independent executive agencies, with rare exceptions, are headed by single administrators appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. These administrators serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the pres- ident at any time. In addition, they must submit their budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is located within the Executive Office of the President, for review and clearance. Examples of independent executive agen- cies include the Central Intelligence Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration. Government corporation is the term used for a government-owned corpora- tion or an agency of government that administers a self-supporting enterprise in the following situations: 1. When an agency’s business is essentially commercial. 2. When an agency can generate its own revenue. 3. When the agency’s mission requires greater flexibility than government agencies normally have. Examples of federal government corporations include the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Amtrak, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. At the state and municipal lev- els, corporations (often bearing different names, such as authorities) operate enterprises such as turnpikes, airports, and harbors. As we discuss later in this chapter, there has been an increased push, especially under Republican admin- istrations, for many government corporations to be dissolved or sold to private entities. Separation of Powers The executive branch organizations discussed in the previous section maintain important powers within their individual spheres. But as even the most casual observer of American government will recognize those powers are significantly constrained by the core principle of separation of powers established by the Constitu- tion. This separation of powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches, in theory, makes a tyrannical concentration of power impossible. While the Con- stitution contains provisions in separate articles for the three branches of govern- ment, there is a significant difference in the grants of power to these branches: the The Administrative Architecture of the US Government 97 first article, dealing with legislative power, vests in the Congress “all legislative powers herein granted”; the second article vests “the executive power” in the pres- ident; and the third article states that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The drafters of the Constitution were very familiar with Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1783) which asserted that: “In all tyrannical governments the supreme magis- tracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty.” Thus Justice Louis D. Brandeis writes in Myers v. United States 272 US 293 (1926): “The doctrine of the sepa- ration of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote effi- ciency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.” Viewing the relationships between the administration of Barack Obama and the Republican-controlled House of Represenatives in 2011 provided observers with a contemporary example of just the types of friction that Brandeis described over 80 years ago. BOX 3.2 James Madison on the Separation of Powers But the great security against a gradual concentration first enable the government to control the governed; of the several powers in the same department, consists and in the next place oblige it to control itself. in giving to those who administer each department the A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary necessary constitutional means and personal motives control on the government; but experience has taught to resist encroachments of the others. The provision mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must the defect of better motives, might be traced through be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the the whole system of human affairs, private as well man must be connected with the constitutional rights as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, subordinate distributions of power, where the constant that such devices should be necessary to control the aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such abuses of government. But what is government itself, a manner as that each may be a check on the other— but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If that the private interest of every individual may be men were angels, no government would be necessary. a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of If angels were to govern men, neither external nor prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of internal controls on government would be necessary. In the supreme powers of the State. framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must Source: James Madison (1788) The Federalist No. 51. 98 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT MACHINERY American subnational governments are individually smaller than the national gov- ernment but collectively far larger (see Table 3.1). The number of public employees is a good indicator of this disparity. The federal government, excluding the armed forces, has just about 2.7 million civilian employees. But state and local employ- ment exceeds 17 million. The machinery of government at the state and local levels parallels the national model with legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Tenth Amendment, the last part of the Bill of Rights, holds that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This means that whatever the federal government cannot constitutionally do for the people, the states and their subunits must or may do. Significantly, the national Constitution does not mention cities, counties, or any other type of local government. They are all crea- tures of their states; their powers are derived from state law; and what a state gives a state may later take away. TABLE 3.1 Governments in the United States 2012 Special Purpose General Purpose Governments Govts State Ranked by Size Total All Towns/ School Special (square miles) Governments Counties Municipal Townships Districts Districts United States 90,056 3031 19,519 16,360 12,880 38,266 NorthEast Rhode Island 133 - 8 31 4 90 1,544 Delaware 339 3 57 - 19 260 2,488 Connecticut 643 - 30 149 17 447 5,543 New Jersey 1,344 21 324 242 523 234 8,722 New Hampshire 541 10 13 221 166 131 9,349 Vermont 738 14 43 237 291 153 9,616 Massachusetts 857 5 53 298 84 417 10,544 Maryland 347 23 157 - - 167 12,405 State and Local Government Machinery 99 TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Governments in the United States 2012 Special Purpose General Purpose Governments Govts State Ranked by Size Total All Towns/ School Special (square miles) Governments Counties Municipal Townships Districts Districts United States 90,056 3031 19,519 16,360 12,880 38,266 Maine 840 16 22 466 99 237 35,379 Pennsylvania 4,897 66 1,015 1,546 514 1,756 46,054 New York 3,453 57 614 929 679 1,174 54,554 South West Virginia 659 55 232 - 55 317 24,230 South Carolina 678 46 270 - 83 279 32,020 Kentucky 1,338 118 418 - 174 628 40,407 Tennessee 916 92 345 - 14 465 42,144 Virginia 518 95 229 - 1 193 42,774 Mississippi 983 82 298 - 164 439 48,431 Louisiana 529 60 304 - 69 96 52,378 Alabama 1,208 67 461 - 132 548 52,420 Arkansas 1,556 75 502 - 239 740 53,178 North Carolina 973 100 553 - - 320 53,819 Georgia 1,378 153 535 - 180 510 59,425 Florida 1,650 66 410 - 95 1,079 65,757 Missouri 3,768 114 954 312 534 1,854 69,706 (Continued) 100 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Governments in the United States 2012 Special Purpose General Purpose Governments Govts State Ranked by Size Total All Towns/ School Special (square miles) Governments Counties Municipal Townships Districts Districts United States 90,056 3031 19,519 16,360 12,880 38,266 Oklahoma 1,852 77 590 - 550 635 69,898 Texas 5,147 254 1,214 - 1,079 2,600 268,596 Midwest Indiana 2,709 91 569 1,006 291 752 36,419 Ohio 3,842 88 937 1,308 668 841 44,825 Iowa 1,947 99 947 - 366 535 56,272 Illinois 6,963 102 1,298 1,431 905 3,227 57,913 Wisconsin 3,128 72 596 1,255 440 765 65,496 South Dakota 1,983 66 311 907 152 547 70,115 North Dakota 2,685 53 357 1,313 183 779 70,698 Nebraska 2,581 93 530 417 272 1,269 77,347 Kansas 3,826 103 626 1,268 306 1,523 82,278 Minnesota 3,672 87 853 1,784 338 610 86,935 Michigan 2,875 83 533 1,240 576 443 96,713 West Hawaii 21 3 1 - - 17 10,931 Washington 1,900 39 281 - 295 1,285 71,297 Idaho 1,168 44 200 - 118 806 83,568 State and Local Government Machinery 101 TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Governments in the United States 2012 Special Purpose General Purpose Governments Govts State Ranked by Size Total All Towns/ School Special (square miles) Governments Counties Municipal Townships Districts Districts United States 90,056 3031 19,519 16,360 12,880 38,266 Utah 622 29 245 - 41 307 84,935 Wyoming 805 23 99 - 55 628 97,813 Oregon 1,542 36 241 - 230 1,035 98,378 Colorado 2,905 62 271 - 180 2,392 104,093 Nevada 191 16 19 - 17 139 110,571 Arizona 674 15 91 - 242 326 113,990 New Mexico 863 33 103 - 96 631 121,590 Montana 1,265 54 129 - 319 763 147,039 California 4,425 57 482 - 1,025 2,861 163,694 Alaska 177 14 148 - - 15 665,384 Source: US Census of Governments (2012) Available at: http://www.census.gov/govs/nts The primacy of state over local law is the essence of Dillon’s rule—a rule famously formulated by Judge John F. Dillon in his 1911 Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations. The rule outlines criteria developed by state courts to determine the nature and extent of powers granted to local governments. It holds that municipal corporations have only those powers (1) expressly granted in the city charter, (2) necessarily or fairly implied by or incidental to formally expressed powers, and (3) essential to the declared purposes of the corporation. “Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt” about a power is to result in denying that power to the corporation. In some states, the rule has been relaxed, especially in dealing with home rule cities. The essence of Dillon’s rule was upheld by the Supreme Court in Trenton v. State of New Jersey (1913). 102 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government State Government The elected chief executive of a state government is the governor. The responsibil- ities of a governor usually parallel those of a US president, on a smaller scale, but each governor has only the powers granted to the office by the state constitution. Some states severely limit executive powers, while others give their governors pow- ers, such as the item veto, that are greater than those possessed by the president of the United States. The term of office for a governor is four years in all states except Arkansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, where it is two. Currently, 38 states have limits on the number of terms that their governors can serve, with most allowing two or three four-year terms, and a few, such as Virginia, only allow- ing a single four-year term. In one sense, it is a misnomer to call a governor the chief executive of a state. The reality is that most state constitutions provide for what amounts to a plural executive, because governors, in marked contrast to the US president, typically must share powers with a variety of other independently elected executive branch officers, such as a secretary of state, an attorney general, a trea- surer, and an auditor (or controller). Consequently, a governor’s informal powers as a lobbyist for his or her initiatives and as head of his or her party may often be far more useful than the formal authority that comes with the office. Nevertheless, the management job of a governor compares favorably in terms of responsibility to those of the highest-paid corporate executives. In comparing the leading corpora- tions in the world, over 30 of the states have more than 200,000 employees which would rank them in the top 20. Walmart, the largest employer with over 2.2 million employees would be followed by California with just over 2.1 million. The lieutenant governor is the elected state official who would replace the gov- ernor should he or she be unable to complete a term of office. The office parallels that of the vice president in the national government but differs in that in many states the lieutenant governor is separately elected and thus may be of a different party from the governor. This can sometimes cause considerable friction when the two officeholders are political rivals—and especially when, as in California, the lieutenant governor assumes some of the governor’s powers to act whenever the governor is out of the state. Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, West Virginia, and Wyoming have no lieutenant governors. In four of these states, the president of the state senate would succeed to the governorship; in the other three, the secretary of state would. The story is often told of Calvin Coolidge, then the lieutenant governor of Mas- sachusetts, who met a woman at a dinner party. She asked him, “What do you do?” He replied, “I’m the lieutenant governor.” “How interesting, you must tell me all about it,” she said. Coolidge then replied, “I just did.” While Coolidge was notoriously tight- lipped, his summation of the limited responsibilities of the office of lieutenant gov- ernor was drawn from reality. County Government The county is the basic unit for administrative decentralization of state govern- ment. Although it is typically governed by an elected board or commission, there State and Local Government Machinery 103 BOX 3.3 The Meaning of Gubernatorial Gubernatorial is the strange word that refers to Greeks as guberno. Then the French took it and sent things pertaining to the office of governor. It comes it across the English Channel as governor. When the from the Greek kybernan, meaning “to direct a word is used as an adjective, it goes back to its Latin ship.” The Romans borrowed the word from the roots: gubernatorial. is a movement at present toward a county administrator or executive (sometimes elected). In Louisiana, the comparable unit is called a parish; in Alaska, it is a borough. In 2011, the United States had 3,033 county governments. Each state determines for itself how many counties it will have. The elected officials of county government have a bewildering array of titles. According to Dade County, Florida, Commissioner Harvey Ruvin, speaking in 1989, county officials “are supervisors in California, judges in Texas, jurors in Louisiana, freeholders in New Jersey, county legislators in New York, commissioners in Dade. If I tell somebody from New York I’m a commissioner, they think I’m the dog catcher. No wonder the public and the media focus on governors and mayors.” The county seat is the capital of a county, where the courts and administrative offices are located. In much of the United States, the county seat was located in the geographical center of the county so that it would not be more than one day’s ride on horseback from the farthest part of the county. This is why there are so many counties. Because few citizens ride horses to government offices today, it would seem to make a lot of sense to combine many counties and thus realize substantial savings from having fewer county clerks, county sheriffs, county courts, and so on. But which clerk, sheriff, or judge is going to quietly resign? The conundrum of reforming the machinery of government can often be summarized by the phrase “You can’t get there from here!” Of course, the multiplicity of governing entities allows for greater democratic control in that government is kept closer to the peo- ple. Nevertheless, reformers constantly ask if the benefits derived are worth the extra costs of fragmented government. Numerous consolidations between county and municipal governments have occurred in recent decades. A prominent example is the recent consolidation of Jefferson County, Kentucky, with the city of Louisville into a unified metropolitan (metro) government. We will examine the concept of metro government later in this chapter. BOX 3.3 The Meaning Professor Tanis Janes Salant has classified the forms of county government as follows: 1. Commission Form. An elected county commission or board of supervisors, which is the most common form of county government, has legislative authority (e.g., to enact ordinances, levy certain taxes, and adopt budgets), as well as executive and administrative authority (e.g., to administer local, state, and federal policies, appoint county employees, and supervise road work). Typically, however, administrative responsibilities are also vested 104 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government in independently elected constitutional officers, such as a county sheriff, treasurer, coroner, clerk, auditor, assessor, and prosecutor. 2. Commission-Administrator. There are three basic types of this form, some of which also have additional, independently elected constitutional officers. About 786 counties have one type of this form. A. Council Manager. The county council or board, which is the legislative body, appoints a county manager who performs executive functions, such as appointing department heads, hiring county staff, administering county programs, drafting budgets, and proposing ordinances. B. Chief Administrative Officer. The county board or commission, as the legislative and quasi-executive body, appoints a chief administrative officer to supervise and coordinate county departments, but not appoint department heads, and to prepare budgets, draft ordinances, and oversee program implementation. C. County Administrative Assistant. The county board or commission, as the legislative and executive body, appoints an administrative assistant to help carry out the commission’s responsibilities. 3. Council-Executive. A county executive is independently elected by the people to perform specific executive functions. The county board or commission remains the legislative body, but the county executive may veto ordinances enacted by the commission, with the commission having override power by an extraordinary majority vote. The county executive’s authority and responsibilities are much like those of a mayor in a strong mayor-council municipality. About 383 counties have this form. Municipal Government Municipal refers to something of local government concern—such as municipal bonds or municipal parks. It implies that the thing it modifies is of internal concern to a state—as opposed to international concern. It comes from the Latin word municipium, which was a self-governing body within the ancient Roman Empire. A city is a municipal corporation chartered by its state. A political subdivision must meet various state requirements before it can qualify for a city charter; for example, it must usually have a population above a state-established minimum level. Unicameral Q A city council is the legislative branch, typically unicameral, of a municipal A legislature with government. The duties and size of city councils vary greatly, but in almost all only one chamber, cases the most significant functions include passing ordinances (local laws) and as opposed to a bicameral one with controlling expenditures. two—typically a A mayor is the elected chief executive officer of a municipal corporation, the house and a senate. chief ceremonial officer of a city. In most modest-sized and small cities, the office Nebraska is the of mayor is a part-time job. He or she may be directly elected. The smaller the city, only state with a the more likely that the election will be nonpartisan or that the city council will unicameral legislature. select a mayor from among its members; then the mayor simply presides as the first among equals on the council. While many big-city mayors such as Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg have become national figures, no mayor has ever been able to make the leap directly from city hall to the White House—or has even been able to get a major party’s nomination for president. State and Local Government Machinery 105 Towns and Special Districts A town is an urban population center—larger than a village but smaller than a city. Typically, its state statutory powers are less than those possessed by cities. The New England town combines the role of both city and county. It usually contains one or more urban areas plus surrounding rural areas. The town meeting is a method of self-government, suitable for only the smallest jurisdictions, where the entire citizenry is eligible to meet to decide local public policy. The town meeting is still the governing body for 88 percent of all New England municipalities. According to journalist Robert Preer (1986), town meetings today are most likely to be con- trolled by special interests and the town’s bureaucracy. Attendance is slight. Even though quorums are set at only 1 or 2 percent of registered voters, meetings are often canceled because of the lack of a quorum. “Raises and promotions pass with ease because meetings are so often packed with employees and their families and friends.” Preer concludes that the modern town meeting “is a microcosm of national politics. In both cases, power has shifted from an apathetic and unorganized public to special interests, the mass media, and a bureaucratic-technocratic elite.” A special district is a unit of local government typically performing a single function and overlapping traditional political boundaries. Examples include trans- portation districts, fire protection districts, library districts, water districts, sewer districts, and so on. Because special districts are such useful devices, they have been multiplying rapidly. In 1942 there were only 8,299 of them in the entire United States. Today there are more than 37,000—not including school districts, and they are the fastest growing governments in the nation. In 2011 they constituted more than one out of three American government entities. A school district is a special district for the provision of local public education for all children in its service area. An elected board, the typical governing body, usu- ally hires a professional superintendent to administer the system. School districts often have their own taxing authority. Many are administratively, financially, and politically independent of other local government units. The total number of school districts has been constantly shrinking because of the increasingly common phe- nomenon of merging two or more districts. There were more than 108,000 school districts in 1942; today there are under 13,000. But the decline in the number of school districts has slowed greatly in the last two decades—from 14,400 districts in 1992 to 12,900 in 2012. Remember education still remains the largest public sector employer within state and local governments and the public prefers to maintain strong local control over this function. Local Management Machinery Local government leadership in the majority of jurisdictions overwhelmingly con- sists of part-time elected volunteers. Tens of thousands of citizens of middle- and small-sized local governments serve as elected or appointed unpaid (or symboli- cally paid) council, commission, and board members. Often these amateurs appoint a full-time professional manager. The council-manager plan is a form of municipal government in which an elected city council appoints a professional city manager to administer the city government. A county-manager system offers the same essen- tial structure at the county level. 106 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government A city manager is the chief executive of the council-manager system of local government. In contrast to the heads of other types of government, the city manager is an appointed chief executive serving at the pleasure of the council. The concept originated early in the twentieth century by progressive reformers who wanted to replace political bossism with municipal experts. To do this effectively, they created the concept of an administrative chief executive armed with critical administrative powers, such as appointment and removal of administrative officials, but denied any political powers, such as the veto. The city manager concept was sold to the cities as being just like a corporation with its board of directors. The dichotomy between administration and politics (remember Woodrow Wilson) on which the system was premised was implemented by putting all of the policymaking and political func- tions into the city council, essentially abolishing any separation of powers in the traditional sense at the local level. The decision-making ability of the council was ensured by (1) creating a small council, typically from five to nine members, elected through at-large, nonpartisan elections, and (2) permitting the council to hire and fire the city manager, their expert in the implementation of community policies. Ward Q Present council-manager systems often deviate from this traditional model. A subdivision of a city, often used as a Many, particularly in bigger cities, have large councils, partisan elections, and sep- legislative district for arately elected mayors, and some if not all of the council members are elected city council elections. from a ward or district. In fact, some recent federal court decisions have required ward elections in some cities because at-large elections make it more difficult for At-large Q An election in minority candidates to be elected. In some larger cities, a variant of the system has which one or more evolved, utilizing a chief administrative officer often appointed by the mayor. candidates for a The council-manager system has been criticized by some political scientists as legislature are chosen being unresponsive to some elements of the community and supported by public by all of the voters administration experts for its effective management in the public interest. Yet even of a jurisdiction. This is in contrast to an when a city manager delivers effective public management, it is important to remem- election by legislative ber that he or she is working in an expressly political environment. The best manag- district, in which ers are those who are able to neatly balance political pressures with service delivery, voters are limited thus addressing the real needs of the public. to selecting one The mayor-council system is a form of urban government that has a separately candidate to represent their district. elected executive (the mayor) and an urban legislature (the council) usually elected in partisan ward elections. It is called a strong mayor system if the office of mayor is filled by separate citywide elections and has such powers as veto, appointment, and removal. Where the office of mayor lacks such powers, it is called a weak mayor system. This designation does not take into account any informal powers possessed by the incumbent mayor—only the formal powers of the office. Hence, someone can be a strong mayor in terms of actual power in a weak mayor system. Metropolitan Government Most larger American cities today cover wide geographical areas. They may have an old urban center with sprawling suburbs extending for many miles, connected to the center by freeways and other forms of urban transportation. The governance of such large conurbations or metropolises presents several options and philosophical choices. There could be a single local government covering the whole area and pro- viding for all. There could be, at the other end of the spectrum, total fragmentation, State and Local Government Machinery 107 with many suburban local governments, and even fragmentation within the old cen- ter. Or there could be a variety of compromises in between—such as the two-tier government in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where functions are split between an overall metropolitan government and particular localities. The Lakewood Plan, in force in California for many years, offers another option: local governments remain within the county, but they contract for many of their services from the county. The adoption of the appropriate machinery of government for a metropolis depends on values. Often, richer and predominantly white residents prefer to with- draw to the suburbs and live under a fragmented local government system, which can avoid the costs of aging urban infrastructure and the social costs of policing and welfare in poorer areas. But fragmented local government lacks the muscle to put investment into social capital that benefits everybody—such as extensive tran- sit systems, museums, parks, and land preserves. It is also difficult to address regional issues such as transportation and eco- nomic development when government authority is highly dispersed among many small governments. A 2003 study by the Brookings Institution attributed many of the state of Pennsylvania’s economic and environmental problems to one of the nation’s most fragmented systems of local government (see Box 3.4). BOX 3.4 Government Fragmentation: The Pennsylvania Story Pennsylvania is known for many things. From such governments and authorities stymie planning for historical treasures as Independence Hall, Gettysburg, business development, open-space conservation, and and Valley Forge, to its culinary masterpieces of growth supported by public infrastructure. The effects cheesesteaks and soft pretzels, the Keystone State has of fragmentation are most pronounced in the area of many distinguishing qualities. For those interested in land management, where state law delegates the study of local government, Pennsylvania may be land-use authority to 2,566 municipalities, placing most known for its incredibly fragmented system of these important decisions at a level of government local governance. According to the Census Bureau, with very limited capacity to manage them. While Pennsylvania has 2,630 local governments, many analysts both in and outside the state have amounting to one unit of general government for brought the problems of fragmentation to the public’s every 4,760 residents of the state. While the attention, there have only been nine municipal mergers abundance of local governments may provide for an since 1956 and very limited changes to the state’s intimate relationship between the government and the planning code. When the Brookings Institution governed, the fragmented nature of the system has returned to Pennsylvania in 2008 it found that little also come under increased criticism for its inability progress had been made in breaking down the baroque to deal with many of the problems facing the state. design of government in the Keystone State despite A 2003 study by the Brookings Institution in much debate and discussion. Even with evidence Washington, DC, found that the highly decentralized accumulating on the disadvantages of fragmentation, structure of Pennsylvania’s governments works Pennsylvanians are very hesitant to make any moves against strategic planning for economic development, that transfer power from the level of government that transportation, and environmental preservation—thus is closest to them. placing the state at a competitive disadvantage with other states. In particular, the thousands of small Source: Adapted from Brookings Institution (2003, 2008). 108 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government Conversely, it’s no coincidence that one of the finest transit systems in North America is in Toronto, Canada, where Metro Toronto provides a strong metropoli- tan government approach. Of course, many wealthier Americans would rather not have any local government at all, but rely instead on private corporations to service their (often gated) communities, distant from urban problems and exempt from both urban costs and urban politics. It’s an option some like, but such a degree of civic disengagement is not for everybody. Continuous State and Local Reform The progressive reform movement left in its wake some reform institutions that continue to encourage improvements in state and local government machinery. At the beginning of the twentieth century, municipal research bureaus—private non- profit good government organizations—were established in most major cities. This “bureau movement” emphasized fact finding and the application of the scientific method to urban reform; this was in marked contrast to the simplistic “throw the rascals out” tactics of earlier reform efforts. The New York Bureau of Municipal Research, founded in 1906, pioneered with investigations of wasteful municipal spending (double billing, work paid for but not performed, etc.) that, when it was published, so shocked the community that real administrative reforms followed. The investigatory approach of the New York Bureau (now called the Institute of Public Administration) was then imitated in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Chicago, Milwaukee, Kansas City, San Francisco, and elsewhere. The bureau movement was the primary vehicle for developing, and then advo- cating, the implementation of many administrative innovations that we take for granted today—for example, executive budgeting; uniform accounting standards; merit system selection and staffing procedures; retirement systems; uniform crime statistics; and in-service training. This movement was the source of much of the early scholarly research in public administration. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that academic public administration was almost wholly created in its initial stages by scholars associated with the various bureaus. REFORMING THE NATIONAL MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT It all started with the conquest of England in 1066. William the Conqueror appointed commissioners to make an inventory of the assets of his new kingdom. This report, known as the Doomsday Book (because its findings were as beyond appeal as a Doomsday judgment), is the predecessor of today’s royal or presidential commissions and committees. Ever since, prime ministers and presidents have used these devices to investigate a matter of public concern and to issue recommen- dations for improvement. There is great public satisfaction to be had in bringing together a group of responsible, respected, supposedly objective but knowledgeable citizens to examine and report on a national problem or major disaster. Such commissions have proven to be handy devices for a modern president who, when faced with an intractable problem such as crime, pornography, or urban Reforming the National Machinery of Government 109 riots, can appoint a commission as a gesture to indicate his awareness of con- stituent distress. Whether that gesture has meaning or sincerity beyond itself is inconsequential for its immediate effect. By the time a commission makes its report–– six months to a year later––attention will have been diverted to other issues, and the recommendations can be safely pigeonholed or curtailed. Often such commissions (or committees) have been used to tinker with the machinery of government. Evolution inexorably marches on. Just as birds are now thought to be all that is left of the dinosaurs, the modern performance review can trace its lineage to the Doomsday Book. Both are efforts by the prevailing regime to assess a present situation so that it can be better repositioned. William the Conqueror used his assessment to restructure England’s tax system. A later William—President William Jefferson Clinton—used his to try to reinvent gov- ernment. The advent of the 1990s reinventing-government movement once again made reorganization a fashionable theme in the practice and literature of American public administration. Just as every new generation writes its own history, each new managerial gen- eration has its own ideas about the “one best way”—even if that means multiple ways. What has been genuinely new here is that governments at all levels are actually being forced by events to change the fundamental ways in which they operate. They must literally rethink (reinvent) how they operate because they can no longer afford to simply do what they have been doing—with reorganization here and a new public relations effort there—to assuage their critics. In the United States, there have been no less than ten major reform efforts or commissions in the last 100 years. A book by Ronald Moe actually details and compares the themes and causes espoused in each effort. Our review here will focus on just five—see Table 3.2 below. TABLE 3.2 Major Commissions to Reform Federal Bureaucracy Name Chair Year(s) President Result Brownlow Louis Brownlow 1936 Roosevelt Enhanced presidential control of Commission bureaucracy First Hoover Herbert Hoover 1947–1949 Truman Strengthened the Executive Office Commission of the President and enhanced agency management Second Hoover Herbert Hoover 1953–1955 Eisenhower Nothing significant Commission Ash Council Roy Ash 1971 Nixon The Bureau of the Budget became the Office of Management and Budget Grace Commission J. Peter Grace 1982 Reagan A handful of minor bureaucratic adjustments National Performance Al Gore Jr. 1993 Clinton A somewhat more streamlined and Review customer-friendly bureaucracy 110 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government The Brownlow Committee However, the classic example of government reorganization, the one that to this day is still the most significant, is the structuring of the executive branch recommended by the President’s Committee on Administrative Management in 1936–1937. This committee was popularly known as the Brownlow Committee, named after its chairman, Louis Brownlow, a major figure in the development of city management as a profession. The two other members of the committee were Charles Merriam of the University of Chicago and Luther Gulick of Columbia University and the Institute of Public Administration in New York City. Government grew rapidly during the New Deal period, and there was little time or inclination for planning. It was largely believed that there existed many poorly conceived and poorly implemented organizational designs that were neither economical nor effective. These poor designs were often a reflection of the consid- erable political conflict between the executive and legislative branches. Both the president’s office and the Congress had deliberately contributed to this problem by establishing programs in new organizations or agencies only with regard to political objectives—without taking managerial considerations into account. This persistent struggle over organizational control would be addressed by the Brownlow Committee—which provided the first formal assessment of government organiza- tion from a managerial perspective. The Brownlow Committee submitted its report to President Roosevelt in January 1937. The core proposals of the committee were simple enough. Essentially the report indicated that “the president needs help” and professional staff members who possess a “passion for anonymity.” This particular passion seems to have faded in recent years, along with the public’s belief that a modern president writes his own speeches. Overall the committee recommended a major reorganization of the executive branch. The president agreed and appropriate legislation was submitted to Con- gress in 1938. But Congress, in the wake of the president’s efforts to “pack”—to enlarge and thus control—the Supreme Court, and fearful of too much power in the presidency, killed the bill. The president resubmitted a considerably modified reorganization bill the following year, and Congress passed the Reorganization Act of 1939. This law created the Executive Office of the President, brought into it the Bureau of the Budget (later to be the Office of Management and Budget) from the Department of the Treasury, and authorized the president to prepare future reorga- nization plans subject to an after-the-fact congressional veto. The Brownlow report, the Executive Office of the President, and many of the other recommendations of the Brownlow Committee that would eventually become law have been sanctified by time. Yet the Brownlow Committee’s major proposals initially aroused considerable controversy. Modern scholars now recognize that there were different schools of thought regarding the development of public admin- istration. The executive administration school, espoused by Frank J. Goodnow, viewed the roles and functions of government almost exclusively as opportunities for executive actions. In contrast, the legislative administrative school, as espoused by Brookings Institution head William F. Willoughby, viewed the relationship and especially the accountability of administration to the legislative branch as a central focus. This latter school believed that there was a considerable distinction between Reforming the National Machinery of Government 111 what was meant by “executive” and “administrative” and that the Constitution gave administrative power mainly to Congress. The argument over who has more power over the machinery of government, the executive or the legislature, reso- nated in the mid-1990s with the budgetary struggles between the president and Congress over the size and scope of the governmental machine. While Congress was considering the Brownlow Committee’s various proposals, the forces opposed to an increase in the “administrative” powers of the president at the expense of Congress marshaled their arguments. One of the most eloquent was Lewis Meriam’s 1939 Reorganization of the National Government. As the Brownlow Committee was arguing for increased presidential power, Meriam was cautioning against it. After “noting Hitler’s rise to power within constitutional forms,” he warned his readers that “proposals to vest great powers in the execu- tive” might not work “to preserve democracy as we have known it but seriously to endanger it.” Forty years later the only surviving member of the Brownlow Committee would concede a point to Meriam. In considering Richard M. Nixon’s abuses of the enhanced powers of the presidency, which the Brownlow Committee helped to create, Luther Gulick is quoted by Stephen Blumberg (1981) as saying, “We all assumed in the 1930s that all management, especially public management, flowed in a broad, strong stream of value-filled ethical performance. Were we blind or only naive until Nixon came along?” Nixon’s 1970s subversion of constitutional gov- ernment in the United States during the 1972–1974 Watergate scandal that forced his resignation differed only in degree from the subversion of republican govern- ments that has been the hallmark of twentieth-century dictators. Ironically, Nixon sought to enhance the power of the presidency with the creation of the Office of Management and Budget, yet he accomplished just the opposite. Congress, upset by Nixon’s budgetary double-dealing, created a parallel Congressional Budget Office so that the legislature had its own number crunchers— who presumably would crunch numbers that could be believed. So, in the game of constitutional checks and balances, new machinery of government is often created to check a would-be king. The Hoover Commissions The first Hoover Commission (1947–1949), formally the Commission on Orga- nization of the Executive Branch of the Government, chaired by former President Herbert Hoover, was specifically charged to reduce the number of government agencies created during World War II; it did not, however, do so. Instead, it found that “disorder in the administrative machinery makes the executive branch of the Government work at cross purposes within itself” and focused on strengthening the executive branch by providing for a reorganization of agencies so that there would be a coherent purpose for each department. Instead of calling for a reduc- tion of government agencies, the commission made a vigorous call for increased managerial capacity in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) through: 1. Unlimited discretion over presidential organization and staff. 2. A strengthened Bureau of the Budget. 112 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government 3. An office of personnel located in the EOP. 4. The creation of a staff secretary (what we now call a chief of staff) to provide a liaison between the president and his subordinates. The commission was considered a big success because 72 percent of its recommen- dations (196 out of 273) were adopted, including passage of the Reorganization Act of 1949 and the establishment of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1953. A second Hoover Commission (1953–1955), also chaired by Hoover, is a unique example in the history of American public administration of an important commission being virtually reconvened after four years had passed to continue its work. This second commission recommended the elimination of nonessential government services and activities competitive with private enterprise, based on the assumptions that the federal government had grown beyond appropriate limits and that such growth should be reversed. In contrast to the first commission, the second commission’s recommendations accomplished little. In a mere 18 volumes, the former president and his 11 fellow commissioners rigorously argued that a whole host of government activities should be turned over to the private sector. But the US Congress was not so inclined, and this commission’s recommendations got essentially nowhere. There was no political will to undertake massive privatization in the mid-1950s. This was a banner in the dust that would not be picked up and held high again until the Reagan administration of the 1980s and, more dramati- cally, with the Republican capture of Congress in 1994. The Ash Council President Richard M. Nixon’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization, chaired by Roy Ash of Litton Industries, led to the transformation of the Bureau of the Budget into the Office of Management and Budget. The Ash Council’s 1971 rec- ommendations were extraordinarily ambitious in calling for a major restructuring of the cabinet agencies. President Nixon intended to implement this restructuring in his second term, beginning in 1973. But the Watergate scandal (see Chapter 5), which would force his resignation the following year, so dominated his aborted second term that no major domestic policy initiatives were possible. The President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control If the second Hoover Commission is to be measured by 18 volumes of output lead- ing nowhere, the 1982 President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (PPSSCC) can be measured by 47 reports from 36 major task forces with approximately similar results. The executive summary alone was 650 pages in two volumes. Like the second Hoover Commission, President Reagan’s survey was appointed from an ideological position in which it was assumed that a little private sector know-how was all that it would take to put things right in Washington—an age-old belief that has been applied time and time again with great ardor but to somewhat limited effect. Reforming the National Machinery of Government 113 It now seems that the PPSSCC, which came to be called the Grace Commis- sion, was ill-fated from the start. The first problem was Grace himself. His true feelings notwithstanding, he came across in countless media interviews as an iras- cible old corporate patriarch who was condescending enough to disturb his well- earned repose by deigning to advise a misguided government on the multitudinous errors of its ways. The second problem was the commission’s ignorance of one of the central precepts of modern management—employee participation. While Grace orchestrated this immense management audit by 2,000 private sector volunteers, the committee’s task force largely ignored the expertise that was freely available from within the bureaucracy and the Congress. Bureaucratic reform historian Donald Savoie reports that both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office systematically reviewed the commission’s conclusions and “undermine[d] the Commission’s credibility” when they demonstrated that too many of the proposed savings were nonexistent and too many of the commission’s facts were not factual after all. This however “did not stop the Reagan administration from applauding the findings of the commis- sion and from reporting that it would press ahead with their implementation.” But this was largely a public relations exercise of putting a good face on a poor effort. Perhaps the most highly touted recommendation of the commission that was actu- ally implemented was the proposal that federal employees be issued corporate-type credit cards for official travel. While this offered legitimate savings on time previ- ously spent on completing expense reimbursement vouchers, it was hardly worth the estimated $75 million cost (all private sector donated) for the report. The National Performance Review: “Reinventing Government” The next most comprehensive recent government reform movement was started in 1993 by the Clinton Administration. The National Performance Review—as it was formally called was better known as “REGO” short for “Reinventing Gov- ernment” deriving from a book with that title by Osborne and Gaebler (1992). It represents the confluence of two long-standing influences in American public life: the progressive reform movement and management faddism. Reinventing was logically the continuation of the progressive movement’s philosophy of continuous improvement. This year’s or this generation’s most popular management fad is the comprehensive performance audit as a logically prior step in developing a new strategic vision for a business organization or a government operation. Next year, or next generation, there will be a new management fad, but it will still be within the progressive tradition. When President Bill Clinton launched the National Performance Review in 1993—a six-month study, chaired by the Vice President Al Gore, aimed at making the federal government more efficient—the language he used was familiar: “Our goal is to make the federal government both less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment. We intend to redesign, to reinvent, to reinvigorate the entire national government.” In pointed and emphasized contrast to the federal government’s last major management reform effort (the Grace Commission), the 114 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore announce their reinventing-government initiative on the White House lawn in 1993 surrounded by papers representing bureaucratic regulations they promise to discard. This was a truly great photo opportunity. Before most of the cabinet, many members of Congress, and the assembled press corps, Gore then told the president (for the benefit of the press): “Mr. President, if you want to know why government doesn’t work, look behind you. The answer is at least partly on those forklifts. Those forklifts hold copies of budget rules, procurement rules, and the personnel code. The personnel code alone weighs in at more than 1,000 pounds. That code and those regulations stacked up there no longer help government work, they hurt it; they hurt it badly. And we recommend getting rid of it.” The lesson here is that there is not much political mileage in reinventing government in a closet. Better to do it on the White House lawn and let the whole world watch. Source: Corbis. Gore report would be researched and written largely by the in-house talent of the federal bureaucracy. Whereas the Grace Report under the Reagan administration—which based its philosophy on the proposition that only private business executives could fix government—was an abject failure, the implementation of reinvention was quite dif- ferent. The National Partnership for Reinventing Government relied on borrowed federal career officials to do its work. By 1998 it reported savings of $137 billion, a reduction of 351,000 positions in government, and the creation of 340 rein- vention laboratories in government agencies. It should also be pointed out that a significant percentage of those reductions came from the so-called peace dividend- defense reduction and base closures following the end of the Cold War and the break up of the Soviet Union. Reforming the National Machinery of Government 115 But there were other new themes. Partnership was a key theme: between labor and management (occupational health and safety has been a key focus); between regulatory agencies and regulated businesses; and between government agencies. As was Customer Service—all federal agencies were required to establish customer service standards and measure levels of satisfaction for their interactions with the public. All this was for the common goals of best value for the taxpayer dollar, better service for customers, and better workplaces for employees. Reinvention in Recess It must also be said, however, that the NPR report was not unlike its predeces- sors in that it focused on many specific programs and details, as would a conven- tional management consultant’s report. It lacked the root and branch depth of change achieved in those bureaucracies where new fundamental principles have been adopted. It was an endeavor to fine-tune, but not fundamentally change, the existing system. Indeed, one might cynically note that the NPR report was follow- ing the counsel of the Prince in di Lampedusa’s 1958 classic work Il Gattopardo (The Leopard)—“Change everything just a little so as to keep everything exactly the same.” Some of the recommendations of the National Performance Review—for example, that the Railroad Retirement Board be reinvented—had a familiar ring, while others, such as the recommendation that the management of the Department of Health and Human Services be reviewed, seemed to be like a Russian matry- oshka doll—a review that contained a recommendation for another review. In marked contrast are the machinery-of-government changes that have taken place in the last decades in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. These have involved fundamental principles and have been more radical than those of the National Performance Review. In fact, the specific machinery-of-government recommenda- tions of the National Performance Review were relatively few—considering that an organization left in place after a review lives to fight another day and to disregard review recommendations it dislikes once the dust has settled. The defeat of Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential race ended rein- vention. But by that time, after eight years of the Clinton administration’s reform impetus, the reinventing-government effort badly needed reinventing itself. Its pro- posals were attacked both by those who felt that its principles didn’t fit the tra- ditional values of public administration and by those who felt that its proposals weren’t radical enough. During Clinton’s second term with a Republican-controlled Congress, reinventing efforts became more rhetoric than reality. The Republi- cans’ idea of reinventing meant two things: devolution and privatization. Thus the Republican Congress (with Clinton’s support) devolved the national welfare program (discussed in Chapter 4), and privatization became the watchword of the subsequent Bush administration. Reinvention became a Clinton–Gore tainted word. While many reforms were advocated by the Bush administration, nothing was to be “reinvented.” Rather, the Bush Administration, after quickly issuing an executive order can- celing the labor management partnership arrangements, promoted much of the same management agenda as its predecessor. Any effort at management reform 116 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government in the Bush administration was, of course, sidetracked by the tragic events of 9–11 and following that, the effort to reconstruct a large new federal agency—the Department of Homeland Security—which would consist of parts of 20 existing federal agencies and units—to combat terrorism and protect America. There was a smaller management improvement effort led by the central budget office with a set of performance goals with a twist. The twist they provided was to set up an executive score card system where each federal agency would have its performance rated by the Office of Management & Budget across several core management dimensions—human capital, financial controls, e-government goals. Widely known as “getting to green”—because the ratings were color coded and green was the top rating, reinvention as major reform had been relegated to some- thing akin to a kindergarten quarterly progress report. The Obama Revolution—The Return of Big Government The election of Barack Obama in 2008 marked a return to the endeavor of govern- ment redesign. The combination of vastly expanded government activity as part of the economic recovery effort and enormous fiscal pressures from mounting deficits and debt served as a catalyst for increased attention on redesign of the federal gov- ernment. While President Obama claimed that his administration’s major expan- sion into areas of the economy such as the auto industry, insurance, and financial securities marked a temporary phase for the federal government, it clearly spelled an end to the idea that the “era of big government” was over. Much to the contrary, government had been placed at the center of steering the nation out of an almost fatal catastrophic economic crises, with the Obama administration exerting influ- ence in many spheres of society that at one time might be unimaginable. Perhaps the greatest example of this new order was the 2009 dismissal of General Motors Corporation CEO Rick Wagoner as part of the deal to have the once-proud auto company bailed out by the federal government. President Obama made it clear to GM’s board that any financial support from the federal government to keep GM afloat was conditional to Wagoner’s dismissal. In essence, the president made GM an offer it couldn’t refuse and Wagoner was gone. After a generation of efforts to make government behave more like business, the failures of major American corporations, banks, and investment firms had many questioning if some of the reforms had gone too far. With the passage of the Affordable Health Care in 2010, the Obama administration has had to focus on implementing a very complex piece of legislation, with major changes on an unprec- edented scale affecting millions of Americans. Again, not surprising, the President after re-election has chosen to keep the management reform agenda small and low key. Indeed, the Administration’s management change effort has been spelled out deep inside the 2015 budget message—calling for efforts to benchmark perfor- mance and increase productivity levels. (Budget.gov, 2015, p. 39). The OMB is again to provide guidance on how this will be accomplished, never mind that the only federal agency that has an actual productivity measurement system in place is the nearly bankrupt Postal Service and that benchmarking has been passé in the private sector for over a decade. Reforming the National Machinery of Government 117 The Micromanagers Divided government Q Woodrow Wilson wrote in his famous 1887 essay “The Study of Administration” A government in which that “the field of administration is a field of business . . . a part of political life only different political as the methods of the counting-house are a part of the life of the society,” and parties control “administrative questions are not political questions.” This was institutionalized the legislative and executive branches. by the Brownlow Committee recommendations for greater managerial capability on the part of the executive. But as Professor David H. Rosenbloom has observed, Micromanagement Q Congress responded to this stronger, more managerially capable, presidency “in A pejorative term for 1946 by establishing the legal and institutional bases for its contemporary role in too-close supervision by policymakers in federal administration.” Thus when Truman, a Democrat, was president while the the implementation of Republicans controlled Congress, a divided government brought forth this quartet programs. Congress of laws that sowed the seeds of micromanagement: has been accused of micromanagement 1. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946: The basic law governing the when it writes way federal agencies operate to safeguard agency clients and the general detailed rules governing programs public. The APA specifies the conditions under which administrative agencies into legislation— (a) publicize information about their operations, (b) make rules, (c) engage in thus denying line adjudication, and (d) are subject to judicial review. Thus agencies begin with managers any real some form of legislative mandate and translate their interpretation of that administrative mandate into policy decisions, specifications of regulations, and statements discretion. But any manager is a of penalties and enforcement provisions. The APA requires that rules be micromanager if he or published 30 days before their effective date and that agencies afford any she refuses to allow interested party the right to petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of subordinates to have a rule. In effect, while the APA establishes a process of notice and time for any real authority or comment, it accords administrative rule-makers the same prerogatives that responsibility. legislatures have in enacting statutes, as long as the rule enacted is consistent with the enabling statute. 2. Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946: A law that dramatically reduced the number of standing committees in the Senate and House, provided for a major expansion of the Legislative Reference Service (now known as the Congressional Research Service), and promoted the creation of a professional, nonpartisan staff for committees, as well as increased staff for individual members. This was the first attempt by Congress to establish an effective staff system to decrease its dependence on executive agencies for information. 3. Tort Claims Act of 1946: The law that made federal agencies responsible for their torts—legal harms done to another person that can be the cause of a civil court suit. 4. Employment Act of 1946: The law that created the Council of Economic Advisers in the Executive Office of the President and asserted that it was the federal government’s responsibility to maintain economic stability and promote full employment. The combined effect of these laws was to unleash a mob of micromanagers. Mem- bers of Congress, once largely limited to policy oversight, now had the opportu- nity to delve into the minutiae of administration on behalf of their constituents. The APA created a rulemaking process that offered unlimited possibilities for influencing rules for pork barrel motivations. The Legislative Reorganization Act 118 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government gave Congress the staff it needed to constantly interfere for their specific political purposes. The Tort Claims Act meant that Congress could effectively lobby agen- cies to redress wrongs to constituents. And the Employment Act meant virtually unlimited justification to pump federal money into selected congressional districts. This process can be seen every time the Department of Defense has been forced into buying more of a weapon than it needs simply because the factory that makes it is in an influential member’s congressional district. As Rosenbloom sarcastically noted, “Turning pork barrel politics into a virtuous national economic policy was no small achievement.” But while pork by its nature is not kosher, for many Amer- icans the very definition of a member of Congress is one who brings home the bacon. This, however, may be changing. The importance of all this is that Congress has never drawn—as the Brownlow Committee would have liked—a dichotomy between politics and administration; the two are not separate anyway. So what made anyone think that the reinventing- government movement—the latest effort to take politics out of administration by turning grumpy citizens into happy customers—was going to change the situation? Now, there is much tinkering that the executive branch can do on its own. It can get the Social Security Administration to answer its phones within a reasonable period. It can force Internal Revenue Service auditors to be polite. But this is minor compared to the power of Congress to determine the amount of Social Security payments and the level of taxes. Members of Congress are hardly likely to give up their ability to micromanage—with all the pork for constituents and reelection prospects that implies—for vague notions of greater efficiency. Members thrive on bureaucratic red tape and the opportunities it creates for constituent service. This is why the ombudsman/ombudswoman movement has never gone very far in the United States. This function is happily, even joyously, performed by the elected representatives. It is quite literally what their staffs spend most of their time on— because it is the key to reelection. The conclusion is in essence quite simple and obvious: to reinvent government, you must also reinvent Congress. And to reinvent state government, you must reinvent the state legislature. Few things are more obvious in the study of public administration than the fact that there exists a strong relationship between the orga- nization of a legislature and that of its executive branch. According to administra- tive analyst Harold Seidman, “One could as well ignore the laws of aerodynamics in designing an aircraft as ignore the laws of congressional dynamics in designing executive branch structure.” Thus “what may appear to be structural eccentricities and anomalies within the executive branch are often nothing but mirror images of jurisdictional conflicts within the Congress. Congressional organization and exec- utive branch organization are interrelated and constitute two halves of a single system.” The British and other parliamentary systems have been able to go much further down the reinventing road precisely because they do not have this problem. There the executive and legislature are, for policy purposes, effectively one. THE PRESSURE FOR PRIVATIZATION Just as the Clinton administration wanted to reinvent government, the George W. Bush administration sought to privatize much of it through a major commit- ment to push into the private sector hundreds of thousands of federal jobs. The The Pressure for Privatization 119 rationale for this, as explained by Bush OMB Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., isn’t switching jobs from the public to the private sector—the real goal is getting the best deal in terms of quality and cost for the taxpayer. Notice that the underlying phi- losophy of this movement toward privatization comes directly from the Second Hoover Commission Report of 1955. Nothing is more challenging, indeed threatening, to public administration than the now constant specter of privatization. Indeed, to many on the political right, reinventing is virtually synonymous with privatization. There are essentially two kinds of privatization. First, as discussed in the Keynote, there is the private provi- sion of services with a “public” character, such as private police and private parks. These services are public only in the sense that they are available to any who can pay for them. Second, privatization is the process of returning to the private sector property or functions previously owned or performed by government. Conserva- tive Republicans in particular tend to be in favor of privatizing those government functions that can be performed (in their opinion) less expensively or more effi- ciently by the private sector. Privatization is a broad long-term trend, often fueled with strong and emotional conservative ideology, to reduce government expendi- tures, to turn (or return) government assets and operations to private enterprise, and, thereby, to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of government. Privatization is almost always predicated on assumptions about public sector versus private sector efficiency and productivity rates. The burden of proof is often on public sector managers to explain why they are not inferior to private enterprise managers and why they should retain their functions in the face of private sector alternatives. Perhaps no responsibility is greater for public managers today than developing the evaluation and management assessment tools needed to assure crit- ics that public sector programs and enterprises are being managed efficiently and effectively. Generally there are three basic forms or types of government privatization: 1. The sale of government assets (such as a railroad to a corporation or public housing units to their tenants). 2. The private financing of public facilities (such as toll highways in California or Virginia). 3. The private provision of services (such as trash collection or retirement benefits). Strategies for Privatization Privatization is the management ideology for those fearful, suspicious, or skeptical of expanding government. It is equally ideal as a tool for those who wish to reduce the size of government. Done properly, it dovetails with the first principle of the reinventing-government movement: that government should be catalytic and steer (set direction) rather than row (do the work). However, privatization sometimes means that government will neither steer nor row. It will simply get out of an activity altogether. For example, some people strongly believe that government should have absolutely no role in birth control, sex education, broadcasting, or the arts. These activities, if undertaken at all, should be undertaken by private citizens at their own initiative. One counterargument was 120 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government made by the Pulitzer prize winning playwright Arthur Miller. He tells the story of the time he was speaking in defense of government support for theater. A man in the audience asked him, “I manufacture shoes. If the public won’t buy enough of them, why shouldn’t I demand government support?” Miller couldn’t think of a logical and reasoned answer to this perfectly valid question. So he responded with a ques- tion: “Can you name me one classical Greek shoemaker?” Of course, Miller was emphatically not in favor of government control of the arts, but he felt, as many do, that government has an obligation to further its notions of civilization—and that this is often done by subsidizing the arts. Political analyst E. S. Savas identified four strategies of privatization that together will “halt and reverse the growth of government.” 1. Load shedding: A term that refers to government withdrawing from the provision of goods and services and allowing them “to be supplied by the marketplace or by voluntary arrangements.” 2. Alternative delivery systems: Arrangements “in which government plays a relatively limited role,” including services provided through voluntary or self-service arrangements, competitive markets, franchises, vouchers, grants, and contracts. 3. Imposing user charges for goods and services: Savas argues that government should do this whenever possible in order to expose the true costs of services and, thereby, to increase the chances that alternative delivery systems will evolve. 4. Restoring competition and minimizing government monopolies: Savas maintains that this “requires a conscious strategy of creating alternatives and fostering a receptive climate and mental attitude in favor of giving options to the citizen-consumers of public services.” Privatization is often pursued on the ideological grounds that government should not provide goods and services that firms in the private for-profit or non- profit sector are able and willing to provide. Government should limit itself to activities that firms in the private sector cannot or will not provide. Policy analyst John Donahue has found that privatization brings both good news and bad news. The good news is that while privatization is not a “universal corrective,” it does present some “real opportunities to make public undertakings more efficient and accountable by enlisting the private sector.” The bad news is that political pressures could just as easily “tend to retain for the public sector functions where privatiza- tion would make sense, and to privatize tasks that would be better left to govern- ment” (Donahue, 1989, p. 13). Privatization in the Military The military is the most fundamental unit of government—often predating the government it serves. Remember that it was the Continental Army under George Washington that literally enabled the creation of the United States. But the traditional military is fading rapidly. Until recently, the military performed many of its own support functions. From cleaning sheets to digging latrines, basic aspects of military The Pressure for Privatization 121 life were handled by members of the armed services. But increasingly, these basic support services are being handled by private, nonmilitary sources. While this “con- tracting out” of services is often seen as cost effective, there has been considerable criticism of the practice in recent years. Privatization has been subjected to especially heavy criticism in regard to the war in Iraq. As noted in Chapter 1, the United States has hired private con- tractors to provide security services for construction workers who are rebuilding Iraq’s worn-out infrastructure and oil industry. As the insurgency has continued to mount since 2004, there has been consistent criticism of the role that private security forces have played in the war theater. According to a 2005 PBS Front- line report, members of the US military have reported numerous problems with the more than 20,000 individuals who are serving as private security personnel. Among the complaints put forth by US troops are claims that private contractors lack accountability and a clear relationship to the chain of command. There also exists a more emotional disconnect between active military personnel and pri- vate contractors that stems from vast differences in pay rates for similar levels of risk and position. Brookings Institution research fellow Peter Singer noted, “There’s a bubbling resentment . . . and you’re starting to sense a backlash from the military.” Although the potential problems differ somewhat among the various types of privatization, there is evidence that privatization leads to corruption because of its susceptibility to political influence, difficulties in monitoring contract performance and outcomes, reduced control over services, and limited numbers of competitors who are willing or able to provide services. The Halliburton Corporation has been a lightning rod for many of these concerns. This Texas-based construction company has been awarded a number of contracts from the federal government for recon- struction projects in Iraq. In particular, Halliburton was given a contract worth more than $7 billion to help restore Iraqi oil production. The awarding of the con- tract was controversial not only because Vice President Dick Cheney was once the company’s CEO, but because the contract was awarded without inviting bids from other firms. The Washington Post reported that Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, the top civilian contracting official at the US Army Corps of Engineers, testified that Halliburton’s subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) was given an unusual amount of control over the terms of its no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq’s oil infra- structure. Greenhouse stated, “I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career” (Witte, 2005). To add fuel to the fire, the Defense Contract Audit Agency issued a 2005 report that ques- tioned more than $800 million in expenses that Halliburton charged to the Defense Department. It might also be remembered that it was these kinds of problems that led to “publicization” of many privately provided services in the first place. The pro- gressive reformers of the municipal research bureaus early in the twentieth century forcefully advocated that the government itself provide services such as street paving and trolley lines as a way of maintaining public accountability. But adverse publicity notwithstanding, the federal government has continued to rely on the private sector to supply a variety of goods and services. Federal spending on 122 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government contracts for goods and services rose from $206 billion in 2000 to $536 billion in 2012. As a percentage of direct federal spending this is an increase from 12 percent to 16 percent. The Nonprofit Gambit In chess a gambit is a play, such as the sacrifice of a pawn, by which one seeks to gain a later advantage. Governments at all levels are increasingly using nonprofit organizations for just such strategic purposes. Services previously performed by government are being turned over to them—privatized because they are private Marketplace organizations—so that government can both save money and get rid of peren- failure Q nially troublesome social programs that seek to improve the lot of the poor and The inability of a unfortunate. society’s free markets The nonprofit sector is a uniquely democratic phenomenon. In some respects to provide a needed it is the most capitalistic of our economic responses, reacting to marketplace failure service. i.e. the inability of a society’s free markets to provide a needed service or by filling Volunteer Q economic voids with volunteers and charitable contributions. In contrast, more A person who socialistic economies tend to meet similar types of community needs through provides a service tax-supported government programs and services. Nonprofits provide a flexible without compulsion or requirement and alternative to tax-supported government action. typically without A nonprofit organization is in many respects a concept rather than a specific compensation. entity—and it can be defined in many different ways. The primary essence of a However, with nonprofit organization, however, is that it is organized and operated for public or the growth of the societal purposes (such as alleviation of poverty) rather than private benefit pur- voluntary sector, the definition of a poses (such as return on shareholders’ investments). A second essential element of volunteer appears a nonprofit organization is its reliance on voluntary action for most of its finan- to be changing. cial and human resources. Despite common misconceptions to the contrary—and For example, many within well-defined limitations—nonprofit organizations can realize profits from volunteer ambulance their activities and programs, and they can engage in commercial-type enterprises. services and fire departments now pay However, such profits must be returned to the operations of the agency. volunteers for their Nonprofit organizations range in size and structure from large international standby time and/ religious denominations and seminational hospital chains to small, local, nonin- or for making runs. corporated associations of people with common interests, goals, or concerns. From These paid persons are a relatively narrow, legalistic point of view, we can argue that a nonprofit organi- still called volunteers or paid volunteers as zation is, in effect, an organization prescribed by the laws, rules, and codes of tax long as their work exemption. From a tax-exemption viewpoint, there are two basic types of nonprofit with the ambulance organizations: service is not their primary source of 1. Publicly supported charitable organizations that engage directly in religious, income. education, and social welfare programs. 2. Private foundations, which tend to support other tax-exempt organizations’ programs. The Reagan administration refocused the nation on the power of voluntary, nongovernmental responses to community problems. The Reagan agenda was predicated on the assumption that issue identification and action responsibility The Pressure for Privatization 123 should be returned to local communities, thus increasing community reliance on nonprofits at a time when the government was simultaneously decreasing the size of, and the sector’s access to, its traditional funding sources. Never in the history of the United States had the third sector been called upon to do so much more with so much less. The first Bush administration did not signal the arrival of less complex times for the nonprofit sector. In fact, Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign may be most remembered for its “thousand points of light,” a reference to volunteerism and Bush’s belief that a new, more altruistic age had begun throughout the land. Bush first used this metaphor for volunteerism and charity in American life in his accep- tance speech at the 1988 Republican National Convention. In his inaugural address he further defined the “points” as “all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the nation doing good.” Peggy Noonan, who wrote Bush’s acceptance speech, said in her memoirs What I Saw at the Revolution (1990) that the “thousand points of light . . . became Bush’s shorthand way of referring to the network of helping organizations throughout the country, and it became in some circles the object of derision, or at least of good-natured spoofing.” The public as well as the press were initially confused about the exact meaning of the “thousand points.” The metaphor had to be explained so often that it became a symbol of the fractured syntax of Bush’s speech patterns. Subsequently President Bill Clinton carved out an interesting middle ground between private philanthropic organizations and the federal government. In 1993, Clinton signed the National and Community Service Trust Act, which established the Corporation for National and Community Service. This act brought a wide range of domestic community service programs under the umbrella of one central governmental organization known as AmeriCorps. In 2014, over 80,000 mem- bers of AmeriCorps served with more than 3,000 nonprofits, public agencies, and faith-based and community organizations throughout the country. For example, an individual who volunteers with AmeriCorps may be placed with a group such as the Christian Appalachian Project, which builds homes in the impoverished areas of eastern Kentucky. Despite programs such as AmeriCorps, the national inhibition toward more direct government funding for social programs has continued. The bottom line is that because of their charitable objectives and highly motivated, often volunteer, workforces, nonprofit organizations are a cheap way to fund a legislative man- date. In these instances, the subcontracting relationship to public funders renders the nonprofit organization at least indirectly accountable to the general public. In many cases, nonprofit board decision making is quite similar to that of a public utility: the nonprofit board is free to make decisions within legislative parameters. The Faith-Based Initiative The George W. Bush administration was even more enthusiastic than its prede- cessors about using nonprofit agencies—especially religious organizations—to provide social services. Bush created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Ini- tiatives to further this agenda. And five departments—Health and Human Services, 124 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Education, and Labor—have created centers to further faith-based efforts. The most controversial element of Bush’s initiative was a policy that allowed religious organizations to compete for grants to provide federally funded social services such as drug rehabilitation and health clinics for the poor. This element of Bush’s program was criticized for blurring the separation between church and state by providing direct government payment to religious organizations, but most aspects of the faith-based initiative remained intact throughout his administration. When Barack Obama took over the presidency in 2009, he made it clear that he would not abolish the White House’s Faith-Based Initiative, but instead announced major reforms to the program. Obama had spent the earliest part of his career working as a community organizer in Chicago, often interacting with churches on projects aimed at improving the lives of residents in the city’s poorest neighbor- hoods. The president emphasized that those receiving Faith-Based Initiative funds could not proselytize the people they help, nor could they discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of religion. Faith-based groups could only use federal dollars for secular programs. See Figure 3.2. This issue of federal funding is at the heart of the controversy over faith-based efforts at the federal level. Critics are concerned with a possible breach of the estab- lishment clause, the first part of the First Amendment that asserts that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The clause is the basis for the separation of church and state in the United States. Yet the Supreme Court has held in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that it is not a violation of the establishment clause for the government to pay for the cost of bussing children to religious schools; nor was the tax-exempt status of religious property—at issue in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970)—a violation. Increas- ingly, the Court is taking an attitude of “benevolent neutrality” toward religion. Government activity that has the purpose or primary effect of advancing or inhib- iting religion or that results in excessive government entanglement with religion is proscribed. One continuing problem with the establishment clause is that, traditionally, many welfare and educational services in local communities have been provided by privately funded religious groups. This has posed a problem as far back as the New Deal. This was a potential problem for the Bush administration until the Supreme Court ruled in the 2007 case of Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation that taxpayers had no standing to sue to stop federal funding that they thought violated Diminish government Expanded The state has a bureaucracies by channeling grants and contracts to reponsibility to aid the social programs through nonprofit and religious poor and infirm nonprofit and religious organizations organizations FIGURE 3.2 A schematic of the Faith-Based Initiative The Pressure for Privatization 125 the First Amendment’s so called “wall of separation” between church and state. President Obama seems to see a continued coexistence between federal funding of faith-based initiatives and preservation of the divide between church and state. At a 2009 press conference announcing reform of the Faith-Based Initiative he stated, “I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea.” However, because the case was decided by a five-to-four vote, the Court may have more to say on this issue as its composition changes with the coming years. Voluntarism and Philanthropy Nonprofit management, third-sector organizations, and independent-sector pro- grams are only new articulations of the old concepts of charity, philanthropy, and social action. The notions of charity and philanthropy are old, but how they are influencing today’s society is new. In a country where the profit motive is supreme, it is both curious and inevitable that there also exists a pervasive nonprofit sector. In most other societies voluntarism does not play as significant a role in the lives of people as it does in the United States. This Western tradition of voluntarism has roots in two diverse ideological streams: 1. The Greco-Roman heritage of emphasis on community, citizenry, and social responsibility. The Greco-Roman ideology rests on a foundation of social reform to relieve community social problems, in order to improve the quality of life for all in the community. 2. The Judeo-Christian belief that relationships with a higher power affect our choices, our decision making. Thus, our purpose is not to change people’s lots but rather to alleviate the (preordained) suffering of others, particularly the poor. Under the Judeo-Christian tradition, one does not help others solely from concern for oneself or one’s neighbors but because a deity has given instructions to do so. We have been told to love our neighbors as we love ourselves: one loves one’s neighbor because one loves God first and thus seeks to obey. These two distinct, historical, ideological themes remain clearly evident today. For example, we can distinguish between cause advocacy, or leadership for social reform, and case advocacy, or individual service to a person or a limited group of persons in need. The influence of the two ideologies has been replayed countless times and in countless ways in the history of the American nonprofit sector. Notice how it is reflected in the following definitions of two types of voluntarism: Q Philanthropy is the giving of money or self to solve social problems; it is developmental, an investment in the future, and an effort to prevent future occurrences or recurrences. Q Charity is relieving or alleviating specific instances of suffering; it entails acts of mercy or compassion. 126 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government We tend to view these two forms of voluntary action as complementary ele- ments in a nonprofit system. We need philanthropy as well as charity. However, this is not always the case. For example, Andrew Carnegie, an ardent philanthro- pist, abhorred charity. “It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. . . . So spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it hopes to mitigate or cure” (Carnegie, 1900). Yet from the Judeo-Christian charitable tradition, almshouses, charitable hospitals, orphan homes, and charitable organi- zations such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Salvation Army, the International Red Cross, and countless others, have helped relieve untold instances of human suffering. As this nation was founded on the democratic ideals of both individualism and pluralism, our fundamental notion of how domestic problems (such as poverty, health, childrearing, housing, mental illness, homelessness, and inequitable access to employment opportunities) should be addressed is returning to its historical stable state: community-level problem solving. Our basic approach to dealing with domestic problems has progressed from individual and family-level resolution, to community problem solving (as the country urbanized), to massive state interven- tion, and back toward community problem solving. In part this return to the past has been a negative reaction to the perceived failure of many New Deal and Great Society social programs. Thus, as we enter a new century, the nexus of responsibil- ity for charity and social action once again shows signs of shifting from a national orientation back to one of local control. Until recently, philanthropy was largely limited to a leisure-time activity of the rich. In the last century, the great industrialists/robber barons and their fami- lies, after making their fortunes, might have donated funds for this or that public improvement. Andrew Carnegie was the most systematic example of this variety of traditional philanthropists. He gave away more than $350 million while he lived. This is equivalent to $6 billion today. But this century’s differing attitudes toward social responsibilities and tax laws have transformed philanthropy from the altru- istic concern of a single individual or family to a huge enterprise that affects and sustains a major portion of our economy and our society. Of course, individual fortunes may still play a huge part—Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda have so far given away  $28 billion  via their charitable foundation, more than $8 billion of it to improve global health. To be sure, wealthy people as well as people of all economic means contribute money, time, energy, and property for socially desirable purposes. But the largest share of the available philanthropic dollar goes to endow foundations. There are tax advantages to the donor in doing this. Therefore, using a foundation helps to multiply the total amount of philanthropic funds available for good works. Now that philanthropy has to a large extent been institutionalized, its role has changed from random charitable or community developmental efforts to sys- tematic efforts to find causes for focused efforts, to alleviate poverty in certain regions, control world population growth, or preserve rare artifacts, to state only three examples. The large-scale nature of philanthropy has caused it to become bureaucratized. No longer will an emotional charitable appeal suffice. A systematic The Pressure for Privatization 127 proposal must be written and maneuvered through the various levels of approval of the requesting organization to the granting organization’s often equally elab- orate bureaucracy. Thus the alternative to government becomes, by trying to do what government has so far failed to do, more like the government than it finds comfortable to admit. A contemporary cartoon of Andrew Carnegie. The popular image of Carnegie is that of an enormously wealthy robber baron giving almost all of his money away before he died. But he is an important philosopher of the movement toward nonprofit organization in twentieth-century America. He sought to create institutions whereby the working classes could better themselves. But they had to be worthy of his largesse. Thus he paid for the construction of 3,000 public libraries— but the local communities had to buy the books and maintain the buildings. He donated organs to 4,000 churches—but only to those that were financially sound and well managed. He created innumerable trusts and foundations as well as museums, institutions for art and music (Carnegie Hall but not the Carnegie Delicatessen across the street), and one of the world’s great universities: Carnegie-Mellon. This man who said, “He who dies rich dies disgraced” did not die disgraced. And when he did die, he gave the world the secret to his success by having this engraved on his tombstone: Here lies a man Who knew how to enlist In his service Better men than himself. 128 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government The Revolution in the British Machinery of Government A CASE STUDY (1979–2011) The British machinery of government differs in important respects from that of the United States. It is a system of cabinet, rather than presidential, government. In the British system the cabinet, the collective of ministers, is the ultimate seat of authority, although its existence and role are not provided for in a written constitution. Each minister is an elected member of Parliament, a politician of the ruling party of the day, and is assigned his or her post by the prime minister. The clear division of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is blurred in the British system, because the executive and the legislature are more closely tied. Just as the US system puts the three dominant classes of government agencies within the Executive Office of the President, the national executive departments, and independent public bodies, we find in the British system the parallels of Crown agencies, portfolio (cabinet) departments, and public bodies. As in the United States, some of the oldest departments, such as the Treasury and the Foreign Office, have long and independent traditions, and the bureaucracy of “Whitehall” has had a reputation for intransigence and self-serving behavior no less negative than that of the US bureaucracy. By 1979, the British central machinery of government had evolved into the ideal candidate for substantial reform. It had become large, unwieldy, costly, and secretive. The numbers of public bodies had grown to a point where it was difficult for any one person to understand what they did or to whom they were accountable, much less to assess whether their activities served the public interest or some narrower sectional interest. The legacy of the nationalization of a number of heavy industries that had not been well managed in the 1960s and 1970s represented a serious problem for the country, and their poor performance seemed to play a big part in the overall decline in British economic performance. With this in view, significant reform was necessary. The British system of unitary government, in which there are few of the checks and balances that exist in the US Constitution and in US policymaking behavior, provided circumstances in which far-reaching reform could be undertaken. The most famous of these reforms, privatization, was not part of Margaret Thatcher’s explicit platform when she was elected in 1979, although it was certainly part of the Conservative Party’s program. Privatization was particularly focused on the nationalized industries and utilities. In Britain these included the petroleum, aerospace, and automotive industries, as well as gas, electricity, and water. Since the 1980s, these were successively sold to the private sector. The massive reform of the national government departments, the “Next Steps” program, was launched in 1988. By 1992 more than half the British civil service—290,000 people—was included in the 76 new Executive Agencies. The Pressure for Privatization 129 Margaret Thatcher, before and after. At a 1995 book signing the former British Prime Minister holds a copy of her autobiography, Margaret Thatcher: The Path to Power. The photo on the book’s cover shows her as a young woman before she had read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. (She was a chemistry—not a politics—student at Oxford University.) The older woman holding her book has a face—and had a career—dominated by the ideas of Hayek. In her book she wrote of the doctrine she took from Hayek; that “each demand for security, whether of employment, income or social position, implied the exclusion from such benefits of those outside the particular privileged group—and would generate demands for countervailing privileges from the excluded groups.” In such a socialist state “everyone will lose.” This is why her mission in life became to roll back the British welfare state. Source: Alamy. In a US context, this would be comparable to a million federal government employees being reassigned to several hundred new agencies whose executives could be immediately removed if they did not achieve their performance targets. Some former departments, such as Inland Revenue (equivalent to the US Internal Revenue Service), were split into as many as 34 Executive Agencies, and each of these was pursuing stated quantitative performance targets. While these reforms are relatively recent, they do represent a disciplined and systematic program of reforming one of the most difficult parts of the public sector to reach and to manage—that is, the work conducted normally (continued) 130 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government A CASE STUDY Continued within civil service departments, albeit the “operational” rather than the “policy” aspects of that work. In effect, half of the traditional civil service has been placed in corporate-like structures where they will be treated more like corporate employees than public servants. This is the essence of corporatization—more flexibility for managers and less job security for all. The initial results were dramatic, although the “arm’s length relationship”— meaning no political interference—central to the Executive Agency concept can sometimes break down under sufficient political pressure. Within a decade, the British public sector was changed beyond recognition, with machinery of government changes of the most profound significance taking place. Overall, according to British professor Christopher Pollitt, “in the decade from 1979 to 1990, 800,000 employees were transferred into the private sector, and the share of the gross domestic product accounted for by state-owned industries fell from 11 percent in 1979 to 5.5 percent in 1990.” In effect, the Thatcher revolution cut the British public sector in half. This revolution in the machinery of government continued even after the revolutionary party was voted out of office. In 1997 when the Labour Party led by Prime Minister Tony Blair took over the British government, he declared, to the chagrin of many of the traditionally socialist members of his party, that the reforms would stay. He espoused a “third way” that went beyond the old left’s preoccupation with state control but not so far as the far right’s “belief that free markets are the answer to every problem.” He sought to have his “New Labour” Party “rebrand Britain.” And a major part of this “rebranding” was Labour’s acceptance of the Conservative Party’s radical reforms of the machinery of government. A key concept in the British reforms is market testing—a process that requires agencies to buy goods and services from the private sector if savings are to be had. This has led to private contractors building and managing prisons, the Passport Agency hiring outside companies to print passports, and the Inland Revenue contracting out the management of its computer databases. According to reinventing guru David Osborne, “The U.K. has gone further in reinventing government than any other country [other] than New Zealand.” True, New Zealand has jumped into the deep end of the reinventing pool, but it is so small in population (less than 3.5 million) that its reinventing efforts (while correctly termed a true revolution in thinking about how government should operate) have still been difficult to assess. Now three decades into reform, even the most sympathetic observers are still trying to discern what this shift to more horizontally focused government has accomplished (Christensen, 2012). In Britain, the late 1990s saw the headlong dive into privatization slowing a little. The incoming Labour government of Tony Blair in its July 1998 white paper on local government scrapped the compulsory local government outsourcing the Conservatives had insisted on, replacing it with a broader The Pressure for Privatization 131 concept of “Best Value.” In April 1999, a true watershed was reached when Conservative opposition leader William Hague, in a major public lecture, conceded that privatization should not displace predominant public funding in health, education, and welfare. This does not mean that the pendulum of privatization will swing back to the division between public and private functions that once existed, but it does indicate that, in Britain at least, a practical rather than an ideological stance on these issues is emerging on both sides of the political fence. The practical approach was continued when the Conservative Party, now under Prime Minister David Cameron, came back FIGURE 3.3 Employment in the UK public sector, September 2013 Source: Office for National Statistics (continued) 132 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government A CASE STUDY Continued into power in 2010. While austerity measures have forced the administration to substantially cut government programs, the emphasis has been on reforming, not abolishing, the welfare state. But the proof of all this is in the implementation. Great Britain is way ahead in this game. Of course, it started a decade earlier and during recent years many have argued that the reinvention movement has run out of steam. Nevertheless, the US machinery of government is radically different, and there is no guarantee that the United States could ever catch up, if it wanted to. Different political cultures and different machinery require different administrative solutions. For Discussion: How have the British reforms influenced public administration in the United States? The sector of the US economy that has seen the most change in terms of a shift from government to the private sector is health care. Estimates indicate that the production of health care services in the US by the private sector now exceeds 60 percent. There are even calls now for the Veterans Health Administration to allow veteran’s access to private sector providers. What’s your assessment of this trend? Do you think a similar trend is starting in public education with the advance of charter schools? Remember, the majority of state and local employees work in education. SUMMARY The machinery of government consists of all of the structural arrangements pro- vided by a constitutional provision or a statute requiring the delivery of govern- ment services. These arrangements are not immutable. The functions of public agencies can and should be altered from time to time to reflect emerging needs and changing values. Executive branch machinery has three main categories of organizations: exec- utive office agencies, executive departments, and independent public bodies. State and local arrangements parallel those of the federal level. The advent of the 1990s reinventing-government movement made reorganiza- tion once again fashionable. But this followed a long tradition of appointed bod- ies given the task of recommending improvements in governing structures. The Brownlow Committee of the 1930s and the Hoover Commissions of the 1940s and 1950s were followed by the National Performance Review of the 1990s. But because of the micromanagers in the Congress, executive agency reforms can never get too far ahead of the legislative will. Privatization has two faces: (1) the private provision of services for those who can afford to pay for them and (2) the return to private sector functions previously Key Concepts 133 performed by government. The various aspects of privatization are pivotal to reinventing-government efforts throughout the world. The United States has a uniquely large nonprofit sector that it has been able to use as a vehicle for pri- vatization. Increasingly the term privatization—which has considerable political overtones—is being replaced by the term marketization, meaning more specifically, having government consider the full suite of market-type mechanisms to produce or deliver public services. This could range from various forms of contracting or outsourcing, to new forms of public-private partnerships or joint investment efforts to new types of vouchers or grants. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What is the role of the US Constitution in framing the national machinery of government? 2. How do state and local administrative arrangements mirror those of the federal government? 3. Why have the major efforts to reform the administrative machinery of the federal government—from the Brownlow Committee to the National Performance Review— been incomplete successes at best? 4. Why is the privatization of government services usually a more attractive option for Republicans than Democrats? 5. How does the nonprofit sector supplement the government’s role in providing social services? 6. How well does contracting out, privatization, or marketization (or whatever term you prefer) work across sectors—police and prisons, schools and hospitals, public utilities and transportation? KEY CONCEPTS Bossism An informal system of local government in which public power is concentrated in the hands of a central figure, called a political boss, who may not have a formal govern- ment position. The power is concentrated through the use of a political machine, whereby a hierarchy is created and maintained through the use of patronage and government largesse to ensure compliance with the wishes of the boss. It was a dominant system in American city government after the Civil War and was the main target of the American urban reform effort. Bureau movement The efforts of progressive reformers early in the twentieth century to apply scientific methods to municipal problems. Their efforts led to the creation of research bureaus, which in turn created the academic field of public administration. Cabinet government The British system, whereby the cabinet as a whole, rather than only the prime minister who heads it, is considered the executive, and the cabinet is collectively responsible to the Parliament for its performance. In addition, the cabinet ministers are drawn from among the majority party’s members in Parliament, whereas in the United States the cabinet secretaries are only from the executive branch. Checks and balances The notion that constitutional devices can prevent any power within a nation from becoming absolute by being balanced against, or checked by, another source of power within that same nation. The US Constitution is often described as a system of checks 134 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government and balances. For example, it allows the president to check Congress by vetoing a bill and Congress to check the president by overriding a veto or refusing to ratify treaties or confirm nominees to federal office. The Supreme Court can check either by declaring laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the president to be unconstitutional. City charter A document that spells out the purposes and powers of a municipal corpora- tion. To operate, a municipal corporation must have a charter like any other corporation. The municipality can perform only those functions and exercise only those powers that are in the charter. If the particular state permits home rule, a city can develop and imple- ment its own charter. Otherwise, it is limited to statutory charters spelled out by the state legislature. Commission A group charged with directing a government function, whether on an ad hoc or a permanent basis. Commissions tend to be used (1) when it is desirable to have bipar- tisan leadership, (2) when their functions are of a quasi-judicial nature, or (3) when it is deemed important to have wide representation of ethnic groups, regions of the country, differing skills, and so on. Constitutional architecture The administrative arrangements created by a government’s constitution—from the separation of powers to the requirement that specific departments be created or services performed. Department A confusing word. While it can refer to a cabinet-level agency of the US gov- ernment, it can also refer to one of the three branches of government: executive, legislative, or judicial. But it is also used as a general term for any administrative subdivision. Thus the Department of the Navy is within the Department of Defense. Dillon’s rule The criteria developed by state courts to determine the nature and extent of powers granted to local governments. The rule was posited by John F. Dillon is his 1911 volume Commentaries on the Law of Municpal Corporations. Executive Office of the President (EOP) The umbrella office consisting of the top presi- dential staff agencies that provide the president help and advice in carrying out his major responsibilities. The EOP was created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the author- ity of the Reorganization Act of 1939. Since then, presidents have used executive orders, reorganization plans, and legislative initiatives to reorganize, expand, or contract the EOP. Goodnow, Frank J. (1859–1939) A leader of the progressive reform movement and one of the founders and first president (in 1903) of the American Political Science Association. Good- now is now best known as one of the principal exponents, along with Woodrow Wilson, of public administration’s politics–administration dichotomy. Home rule The ability, the power, of a municipal corporation to develop and implement its own charter. It resulted from the urban reform movement of the early twentieth century, which hoped to remove urban politics from the harmful influence of state politics. Home rule can be either a statutory or a constitutional system and varies in its details from state to state. Item veto The executive power to veto separate items in a bill. This is also known as the line-item veto. While many state governors have item veto, especially to reject additions to their exeuctuve budgets made by legislatures, efforts to give the President a budgetary line item have failed. Even when passed, the Supreme Court struck it down in only two years after the law enacting it. When then President Clinton actually began using the line-item veto, several entities filed suit to have the Act declared unconstitutional and were affirmed in a combined case, in a 6–3 ruling, Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417 (1998). Nationalization The taking over by government of a significant segment of a country’s pri- vate sector industry, land, transportation, and so on, usually with compensation to the for- mer owners. Socialist governments tend to favor extensive nationalization. Indeed, the level Bibliography 135 of nationalization is an accurate measure of the degree of a nation’s socialism. Ironically, even conservative and nonsocialist governments have resorted to nationalization but in an effort to save a collapsing firm or service, rather than in ideological fervor. A recent variation was the 2009 stock purchase and bailout of General Motors and Chrysler by the Obama Administration to rescue the failing auto industry. Nonprofit organization An organization created and operated for public or societal pur- poses (such as alleviation of poverty) rather than private benefit purposes (such as return on shareholders’ investments). Many non-profits are set up as 501 C-3 organizations—which means any contributions provided to them are tax deductible. Ombudsman/ombudswoman An official whose job it is to investigate the complaints of the citizenry concerning public services and to ensure that these complaints will reach the atten- tion of those officials at levels above the original providers of service. The word is Swedish, meaning a representative of the king. Ombudsmen and ombudswomen are now found in many countries at a variety of jurisdictional levels. Many of the functions of ombudsmen in American local, state, and national governments are performed by members of their respec- tive legislatures as casework. Parliamentary system A means of governance whose power is concentrated in a legislature, which selects from among its members a prime minister and his or her cabinet officers. The government—that is, the prime minister and the cabinet—stays in power as long as it com- mands a majority of the Parliament. When the government loses its majority (loses a vote of confidence), elections must be held within a prescribed time period (or at least every five years in British practice). Thatcher, Margaret (1925–2013) The conservative prime minister of Great Britain from 1979 to 1990. Elected as the first female prime minister in British history, her championing of free-market economic policies, coupled with an assertive role in world affairs, created an ideological style of leadership that came to be known as “Thatcherism.” Third sector All those organizations that fit neither in the public sector (government) nor the private sector (business); a generic phrase for the collectivity of nonprofit organizations or organizations that institutionalize activism to deal with issues and problems that are being ignored by the public and private sectors. BIBLIOGRAPHY American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (1984) Passing the Bucks: The Contracting Out of Public Services. Washington: AFSCME. Bilefsky, Dan (2014) “Disapproval Is Swift for French Merger Plan” (New York Times, June 4, p. A-4. Blackstone, W. (1783) Commentaries on the Laws of England. Phildalphia: J.B. Lippincott & Company (1893). Accessible at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/blackstone-commentaries- on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1 Blair, Tony. (1998) “Third Way, Better Way.” Washington Post National Weekly (October 5). Blumberg, Stephen (1981) “Seven Decades of Public Administration: A Tribute to Luther Gulick.” Public Administration Review 41 (March–April). Brookings Institution (2003) Back to Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsyl- vania, December 2003. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2003/12/ metropolitanpolicy-pennsylvania Brookings Institution (2008) An Economic Plan for the Commonwealth: Unleashing the Assets of Metropolitan Pennsylvania, March 31. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/ research/reports/2008/03/31-pennsylvania-katz-liu 136 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government Brownlow, Louis (1958) A Passion for Anonymity: The Autobiography of Louis Brownlow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Budget.gov (2015) Fiscal Year 2015 Budget of the US Government. Accessed at Budget.Gov) Carnegie, Andrew (1900) The Gospel of Wealth. New York: Century. Christensen, Tom (2012) “Post-NPM and Changing Public Governance.” Meiji Journal of Political Science and Economics, Volume: 2012, pp. 1–11. Dillon, John F. (1911) Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, vols 1–5. Donahue, John M. (1989) The Privatization Decision. New York: Basic Books. Egan, Timothy (1995) “Many Seek Security in Private Communities.” New York Times (September 3). Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947) Goodnow, Frank J. (1900) Politics and Administration: A Study in Governments. New York: Russell and Russell. Gore, Al (1993) From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less. Report of the National Performance Review. Washington: Government Printing Office. Hamilton, Alexander (1788) The Federalist No. 68, The Federalist Papers (Signet Classic 2003). New York: The New American Library. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 US 587 (2007). Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha 462 US 919, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 77 L. Ed. 2d 317, (1983). Kaufman, Herbert (1976) Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington: Brook- ings Institution. Kettner, P.M., and L. L. Martin (1987) Purchase of Service Contracting. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. King, N., and John D. Stoll. (2009) “Government Forces Out Wagoner at GM.” Wall Street Journal (March, 30). di Lampedusa, Giuseppe Tomasi (1958) Il Gattopardo (The Leopard), New York: Pantheon. Lampman, Jane (2008) “Obama Would Overhaul Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives,” Christian Science Monitor (July 2). Lind, Michael (1995) “To Have and Have Not: Notes on the Progress of the American Class War.” Harper’s (June). Madison, James (1788) The Federalist No. 51, The Federalist Papers (Signet Classic 2003). New York: The New American Library. Madison, James (1788) The Federalist No. 57, The Federalist Papers (Signet Classic 2003). New York: The New American Library. Marlin, J. (1984) Contracting for Municipal Services. New York: Wiley. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819). McKenzie, Evan (1994) Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Meriam, Lewis (1939) Reorganization of the National Government: What Does It Involve? Washington: Brookings Institution. Miller, Arthur (1995) “To Newt on Art.” Nation (July 31/August 7). Moe, Ronald C. (1987) “Exploring the Limits of Privatization,” Public Administration Review, vol. 47, No. 6 (Nov–Dec., 1987), pp. 453–460. Morgan, D. R., and R. E. England (1988) “The Two Faces of Privatization.” Public Admin- istration Review 48. Mosher, Frederick C. (1967) Government Reorganization: Cases and Commentary. India- napolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Nakashima, Ellen (2001) “Bush Opens 40,000 Federal Workers’ Jobs to Competition.” Washington Post (June 8). Recommended Books 137 Noonan, Peggy (1990) What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era 1990. New York: Random House, pp. 298–318. Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler (1992) Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Paine, Thomas (1776) Common Sense. Available through Google Books at: http://www. calhum.org/files/uploads/program_related/TD-Thomas-Paine-Common-Sense.pdf Pollitt, Christopher (1996) “Antistatist Reforms and New Administrative Directions: Public Administration in the United Kingdom.” Public Administration Review 56 (January–February). Preer, Robert (1986) “Town Meetings Don’t Work.” Washington Post (June 13). Public Broadcasting System (2005) Frontline: Private Warriors. Airdate: June 21, 2005. Rehfuss, J. A. (1989) Contracting Out in Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rosenbloom, David H. (1993) “Have an Administrative Rx? Don’t Forget the Politics!” Public Administration Review 53 (November–December). Ross, Bernard H. (1998) “Metropolitan Organization,” International Encyclopedia of Pub- lic Policy and Administration, ed. Jay M. Shafritz. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Salant, Tanis Janes (1998) “County,” International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Admin- istration, ed. Jay M. Shafritz. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Savas, E. S. (1982) Privatizing the Public Sector: How to Shrink Government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Savoie, Donald J. (1994) Thatcher Reagan Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy. Pitts- burgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Seidman, Harold (1980) Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organiza- tion, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Singer, P. (2005) Private Warriors. Boston: Frontline WGBH Educational Foundation, June 21. Available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/etc/syn opsis.html Szanton, Peter L., ed. (1981) Federal Reorganization: What Have We Learned? Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Thoreau, Henry David (1849) Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience). Online. Available at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/71/71-h/71-h.htm Thornton, Emily (2007) “Roads to Riches.” Business Week, May 7. Trenton v. New Jersey 262 US 182 (1923). US Census of Governments (2012) Available at: http://www.census.gov/govs/ nts US Supreme Court (1926) Myers v. United States 272 US 293 (1926). Wallsten, Peter, and Tom Hamburger (2006) “The GOP Knows You Don’t Like Anchovies,” Los Angeles Times (June 28). Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 US 664 (1970). Weisband, Edward, and Thomas M. Frank (1975) Resignation in Protest. New York: Viking Press. Wilson, Woodrow (1887) “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly 2 (2): 197–222. Witte, Griff (2005) “Democrats Criticize Payments to KBR. Pentagon Auditors Question More Than $1 Billion in Iraq Costs.” Washington Post (June 28). RECOMMENDED BOOKS Downs, George W., and Patrick D. Larkey (1986) The Search for Government Efficiency: From Hubris to Helplessness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. An explanation of why efforts to reform government tend to operate in ignorance of previous reform efforts and why all such schemes have only “a minuscule chance of successful implementation.” 138 CHAPTER 3 The Continuous Reinventing of the Machinery of Government Kamarck, Elaine C. (2007) The End of Government . . . As We Know It. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. An insider’s view of government machine reform efforts from the chief of staff to Vice President Gore during the Reinventing Government effort. Moe, Ronald C. (2003) Administrative Renewal: Reorganization Commissions in the 20th Century. Latham MD: University Press of America. The definitve guide to the land- mark ten federal commissions that have sought to reform and reorganize the federal government—from preambles to disappointing results. Osborne, David, and Peter Plastrik (2005) Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government, 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Putnam. More stories of govern- ment organization turnarounds; touted as the “sequel” to the 1992 Reinventing Govern- ment because Osborne is the senior author of both books. CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations CHAPTER OUTLINE Keynote: The Intergovernmental Problem New Federalism 156 of Marijuana 139 New, New Federalism 158 The Evolution of Federal Intergovernmental Management 158 Systems 145 Councils of Government and Alliances and Confederations 146 Intergovernmental Agreements 159 Defining Intergovernmental Relations 146 Mandate Mania 160 Mandates and the War on The Fundamental Settlement 147 Terrorism 161 The Constitution 147 The Transformation of Governance 162 The European Union 148 Fiscal Federalism—Following The American Federal System 149 the Money 164 Three Categories of Governments 149 The Theory of Fiscal Federalism 165 Grant Programs 168 The Structure of Intergovernmental Relations 152 The Devolution Revolution 170 The Effects of Pluralism 153 The Public-Choice Solution 172 The Marble-Cake Metaphor 154 Welfare Reform 172 The Race to the Bottom 176 Dynamic Federalism 154 Dual Federalism 155 A Case Study: Why Illegal Immigration Cooperative Federalism 155 Is an Intergovernmental Mess and Will Creative Federalism 156 Remain So 177 KEYNOTE: The Intergovernmental Problem of Marijuana For many generations the topic of marijuana has been a mainstay of discussions on America’s college campus. As students examine their personal freedoms and the limits that may be placed on them by the law, conversations regularly turn to the rules that govern their access to one of the most controversial substances in 139 140 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations the United States. It is not unusual to hear a student ask why marijuana, or can- nabis as it is more formally known, often remains beyond their legal reach, while alcohol—a substance with a long history of destructive consequences—is legal and readily available to anyone twenty-one or older. And more recently students in many states are asking why their counterparts in Washington and Colorado can legally purchase and smoke marijuana when they could be arrested for trying to do the same thing in their state. While the debates regarding marijuana use tend to focus primarily on ques- tions of freedoms and liberties, this substance and its place in contemporary society provides a familiar case study in the complexities and tensions that are inherent in the intergovernmental nature of American federalism. In particular the issue of marijuana provides a powerful case study of federal and state relations in contem- porary America. Marijuana has had a long history of use in the United States. The hemp plant, used in making rope and canvas for sailing ships, from which marijuana is also derived, was a common part of colonial era agriculture. Proponents of marijuana legalization often point to the fact that George Washington ordered his slaves to cultivate hemp on his Virginia plantation during his years as a gentleman farmer. Indeed, Virginia’s original English settlement, Jamestown colony, actually required farmers to plant hemp as one of their crops. While hemp has been grown for its use in many products (both food and fiber) ever since the colonial period, marijuana’s use as an intoxicant in America became prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The substance found growing popularity within the expanding Latin American communities of the Southwest and in the African American communities in America’s urban areas in the years in and around the turn of the twentieth century. With this growth in use of cannabis in the United States came some real problems, but even more manufac- tured concerns regarding marijuana’s role in American culture. Marijuana, like many intoxicating substances, can be misused. Excessive use of marijuana by some, during the early twentieth century, did result in incidents where individuals engaged in behaviors that were harmful to themselves or others. However, any real problems associated with its use paled in comparison with the portrayal of marijuana’s dangers within the American media. Films such as the 1936 propaganda movie “Reefer Madness” comically (the comedy was inadvertent) dra- matized how marijuana use leads to sexual promiscuity, the murder of one’s parents and a liking for jazz music. This was complemented by highly negative stories in William Randolph Hearst’s chain of newspapers which printed sensational and highly questionable stories designed to fuel public fear about marijuana’s threat to American society. Many of these so-called threats were crafted so as to play on a variety of the nation’s worst racial prejudices and fears, including scenarios where minorities perpe- trated crimes on whites while under the influence of this illegal substance. As the twentieth century began, public fears served to encourage government action on the nation’s “marijuana problem.” In the earliest stages of the campaign against cannabis, the federal government attempted to tighten regulations on the sale of marijuana throughout the nation. In 1906 Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act which, among other things, required the labeling of marijuana when sold without a prescription. Keynote: The Intergovernmental Problem of Marijuana 141 As regulation of marijuana was emerging from Washington, DC, the states took the lead in banning marijuana completely. Beginning in California in 1907 and continuing with dozens of other states until the 1930s, marijuana was deemed an illegal substance, with possession and production of the intoxicant ruled as criminal offenses, punishable by fines and jail time. The patchwork of marijuana laws throughout the nation in the first quar- ter of the twentieth century and growing public concern with all forms of intoxi- cants during an age of prohibition helped lead Congress to work on establishing more consistent rules on the sale and trafficking of cannabis. With some states banning marijuana and others taking more of a laissez faire approach, Congress created model legislation for marijuana and other substances under the Uniform Narcotic Act (UNA). At first, few states signed on to the voluntary standards of the UNA, but the efforts of the President Franklin D. Roosevelt administration and an impressive propaganda effort on the radio resulted in every state signing on to the standards by 1935. Even with the adoption of uniform regulations by all states, there was con- tinued pressure in Washington for the federal government to be more aggressive in fighting cannabis use. At the forefront of this campaign for a stronger federal presence was the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now merged in the Drug Enforcement Administration) Harry Anslinger. As the first director of the FBN, Anslinger became a crusader for tougher federal narcotics laws. Anslinger, who would serve as the head of the FBN for over three decades (1930–1962), maintained an almost religious zeal for outlawing cannabis, and successfully ral- lied support from a variety of political and economic sources for his cause. How- ever, without constitutional authority to establish an outright ban of marijuana, Anslinger was forced to find alternative methods to rid the nation of the problem. As is often the case with federal efforts to change behaviors, the power of taxation was selected as the tool by which the feds could attack marijuana use in America. In 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, which placed taxes on anyone dealing commercially in cannabis and established heavy fines and jail sen- tences on individuals not in compliance with the act. This act did not criminalize the possession or use of cannabis, but the impact of the law was nonetheless enor- mous in terms of limiting access to marijuana throughout the nation. Anslinger was a very successful bureaucrat. By expanding his mandate with this new law, he also expanded his agency and his budget—mainly at the expense of minorities and jazz musicians who had little political influence. States responded to the federal insertion into marijuana matters not with shouts of protest against usurpation of power, but instead cracked down on marijuana even more through their own laws over the following three decades. Anslinger and his allies in the nation’s capital had successfully created an environment where any state going against the federal position on cannabis was seen as putting the interests of decadent drug induced minorities against the protection of decent law abiding white Americans. It wasn’t until the 1960s that both the wisdom and legality of federal mari- juana policy began to be challenged in mainstream venues. In the changing Amer- ican culture of the era it became more fashionable to question the legitimacy of federal incursions into areas of individual freedoms. It was also becoming more 142 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations apparent that the costs of implementing prohibition of marijuana were rising as the substance grew in popularity during the “hippie” decade. The federal government under President Richard M. Nixon even reconsidered its hard line stance on can- nabis through a well-publicized commission on drug policy. While Nixon and the federal government opted to continue its hard line against marijuana despite the commission’s recommendations to consider other paths, the states began a process of reasserting their control over this policy area. In 1973 Oregon became the first state to decriminalize marijuana. By decrim- inalizing consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis, Oregon made most marijuana use the legal equivalent of speeding. In other words, it was not legal to smoke pot, but doing so would not lead to jail time and a crimi- nal record. By 1978 eight other states had followed Oregon’s lead. These states’ actions directly contradicted federal policies that identified marijuana as an illegal narcotic. Simply put, the federal government did not recognize the decriminaliza- tion efforts and held that federal public administrators, such as those in the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), would follow federal standards even if state laws differed. This meant that even if the locals wouldn’t arrest you for smoking pot, the feds still might. The strained relationship between states and the federal government regarding marijuana was exacerbated in the late 1990s when California became the first state to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Unlike decriminalization, legalization means that the state permits the use of cannabis as long as a prescrip- tion for the substance has been obtained. A number of other states would follow California’s lead, with 22 states providing some form of legal protection for medi- cal marijuana by 2014. While legalized medical marijuana became popular in the states, the federal government refused to yield on its stance that marijuana has no medical properties and that therefore state laws legalizing the use of cannabis for medical purposes would not be recognized. As is often the case when there is a showdown between the federal government and states, the conflict ended up in the courts. When fed- eral DEA officials destroyed a number of marijuana plants that were owned by a Californian growing the plant for medicinal purposes under a prescription from a physician, the battle between the states and feds was thrown into the courts. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich the United States Supreme Court held that Congress may ban the use of marijuana even in cases where states have legal- ized its use for medical purposes. The Court’s decision in this case rested on the position that the federal government’s constitutionally delegated power to regulate commerce trumped California’s policy on medical marijuana, thus allowing DEA officials the ability to act in the interest of federal laws even if those actions went against state medical marijuana laws. What is perhaps most interesting about the aftermath of the Gonzales case was that the decision did not seem to slow the growth of medical marijuana use in California and other states. In fact the medical marijuana business boomed. Since 2005 more Californians than ever have taken advantage of the state’s lax rules on attaining marijuana for medical purposes. Doctors in California have dispensed prescriptions for marijuana by the tens of thousands and pot has become a com- mon sight in storefronts from San Diego to San Francisco. Keynote: The Intergovernmental Problem of Marijuana 143 With medical marijuana proliferating in California and beyond, the federal government has been faced with a dilemma. Should DEA agents ramp up their efforts to crack down on the expanding medical marijuana market or do they turn a blind eye and give their attention to other matters? In 2009 the answer to this question came in an announcement from United States Attorney General Eric Holder that the DEA will no longer raid medical marijuana retail outlets. In effect, the federal government had called a truce with states on the question of medical marijuana. The laws had not changed and the feds continued to have the authority to crack down on medical marijuana use. The desire to do so had simply dissipated with the arrival of the Obama administration. The announcement of this “truce” was followed by a memo from the Depart- ment of Justice proclaiming that federal law enforcement resources were not to be used against anyone that was in conformance with state laws governing medical marijuana use. The “truce” also led to a huge jump in the number of medical pot shops in the 18 states that passed authorizing legislation from about 1000 shops in 2009 to over 2500 by the end of Obama’s first term. Tied to this increase was a flood of revenue making the medical pot business a multi-million dollar enterprise with sometimes dubious financial connections. Yet, the so-called truce has really been more of a cold war with federal law enforcement, led by DEA, conducting investigations of the booming medical mar- ijuana business and launching raids. In 2014, just weeks before Colorado opened its first wave of retail marijuana shops after legalization, federal law officials raided numerous Denver pot shops primarily to stop some of the shops from trafficking outside their state boundaries and for money laundering. How long these raids will continue is another question. Reflecting the growing acceptance of the pub- lic about pot use and frustration with federal law enforcement, the US House of Representatives in May 2014 voted to restrict the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration from using taxpayer funds to interfere in state- sanctioned medical marijuana programs in the 20+ states that have enacted them. Federal–state relations have now entered a new era since Colorado and Wash- ington became the first states to legalize recreational use of marijuana in 2012. Alaska and Oregon have also legalized marijuana (effective in 2015). In these four states the citizens voted for referendums that approved the legalization of mar- ijuana use within their state borders. In the case of Colorado the production of marijuana for personal use was also legalized. As might have been expected the demand for legalized pot was overwhelming, with over 5 million dollars of retail sales in Colorado in the first week after legalization. That 5 million in sales was being taxed at the rate of 25 percent, thus adding $1.25 million to the state’s coffers in just a few days. If, as expected, more states turn to pot as a remedy for the need for financial resources (not to mention reducing prison populations), the feds will surely have to reconsider their marijuana policy. Of course the weight of the federal government’s own fiscal troubles may lead future leaders in Washington, DC to consider taxa- tion of legalized marijuana as a key to balanced budgets. After all, the estimated number of marijuana users is so large that potential tax revenues would be enor- mous. That said, the political route towards legalizing marijuana by the states will continue to be uneven. Florida voters rejected medical marijuana in 2014 and Ohio 144 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations TABLE 4.1 US States Actions on Marijuana 2015 Decriminalized and Medical Medical Marijuana (8) Decriminalized (6) Marijuana (9) Legalization (4) + 1 Arizona Maryland California Colorado Delaware Minnesota Connecticut Washington Hawaii Mississippi Maine Alaska Illinois Nebraska Massachusetts Oregon Michigan North Carolina Minnesota District of Columbia* Montana Ohio Nevada New Jersey New York New Mexico Rhode Island Vermont Notes: * DC’s legalization remains subject to Congressional Review. Medical Marijuana Programs: typically states where marijuana can be legally bought and used with a doctor’s prescription. Decriminalized: typically means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation. Legalization: in the case of Colorado, the state has legalized the possession, use, production, distribution, and personal cultivation of marijuana. Source: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (2016). voters turn downed a referendum to legalize marijuana in 2015. Analysts saw in Ohio a complex policy reform that was difficult for even supporters to back— others pointed to Ohio’s not having experimented with medical marijuana, and thus not having any incremental step to gauge how it would work. But the other and perhaps larger debate continues in prisons where tens of thousands of mostly young men rot because they were caught in possession of minor amounts of marijuana—not for sale but for personal use. They got sucked up by the drug-law enforcement complex. Powerful interest groups want the cur- rent marijuana legal situation continued. Law enforcement wants to maintain or expand the budgets for drug enforcement. Distillers and brewers don’t want com- petition from another legal drug. All make major financial contributions to politi- cians to maintain the status quo. The pot smokers, so often poor, disorganized and disoriented, have only the slightest political clout. During his first term in office, Obama quietly allowed these anti-marijuana policies to continue, but in his second term there was a change of tone in his posi- tion. In a 2014 interview with the New Yorker magazine Obama acknowledged the unequal impact of marijuana laws on the poor when he stated that “middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot and poor kids do.” He also expressed a belief that marijuana was no more dangerous than alcohol and that it was important for the legalization efforts in Colorado and Washington to go forward to prevent a few being punished while many more are never punished for the same behavior. The Evolution of Federal Systems 145 Obama’s more supportive public positions on marijuana were accompanied by many qualifiers and warnings regarding broader legalization efforts, dampening optimism that the president would begin major policy reforms at the federal level. Or perhaps another direction for the federal government regarding marijuana might be pursued. In 2013, The South American country of Uruguay became the first nation where the national government will regulate and control the produc- tion, sale and consumption of cannabis. The key dimensions are quite sweeping: Q Registered residents can buy up to 40 g (1.4 oz) marijuana/month Q Up to six plants can be grown at home Q Buyers and growers have to be over 18 Q Tourists are excluded Q Advertising is forbidden Q Prices will be fixed by the government. Looking at the marijuana issue through global eyes brings into focus other costs and opportunities. Studies by the Rand Corporation in California and a Mexican think-tank have concluded that legalization in just the western states to date would crimp profits of the Mexican Drug Cartels by as much as 30 percent. The Mexican study forecasts state-by-state cuts in drug cartel annual earnings of $1.425 billion in Colorado, $1.372 billion in Washington, and $1.839 billion in Oregon. When California—the most populous state—ultimately legalizes marijuana use, the 6 billion dollar estimated earnings of the Mexican Drug cartels from pot trafficking might basically go up in smoke. For Discussion: Why has the federal government’s marijuana policy been treated as a criminal justice problem as opposed to a public health problem as it is in Australia and many European nations? To what extent would the debate over government marijuana policy change if it were viewed from an international perspective—how it affects the global drug trade or relations with Mexico? THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL SYSTEMS History indicates clearly that the principal factor in the formation of federal sys- tems of government has been a common external threat. Tribes, villages, cities, colonies, or states have joined together in voluntary unions to defend themselves. However, not all systems so formed have been federal. A true federal system such as that in the United States must have the following features: 1. A written constitution that divides government powers between the central gov- ernment and the constituent governments, giving substantial powers to each. 2. Levels of government, through their own instrumentalities, exercising power directly over citizens (unlike a confederation, in which only subnational units act directly on citizens while the central government acts only on the subna- tional governments). 3. A constitutional distribution of powers that cannot be changed unilaterally by any level of government or by the ordinary process of legislation. 146 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations Alliances and Confederations In the beginning there was the alliance—a coalition of states agreeing to help each other in the event of war or crises. Alliances do not only involve cooperation and aggregation of capabilities; they are generally directed toward an actual or poten- tial enemy and the actual or potential use of force. The agreement on which an alliance is based is often embodied formally in a treaty, but it can also be based on a tacit or informal understanding. Alliances can exist between states that are relatively equal in power and involve mutual security guarantees, or they can be between unequal states—in which case the more powerful state generally extends a unilateral guarantee to the less powerful one. This is always a dangerous situation for the weaker state. Too often a willingness to protect and preserve has turned into a desire to take over and annex. Then came the confederation, a group of independent states that delegate powers on selected issues to a central government. In a confederation, the cen- tral government is deliberately limited, designed to be inherently weak, and has few independent powers. The United States was a confederation from 1781 to 1789. But the central government was so ineffectual in dealing with problems such Shays’ Rebellion Q as Shays’ Rebellion and interstate commerce that the Constitutional Convention A futile armed revolt of 1787 was called to discuss the inadequacies of confederation government. To (1786–1787) led the great surprise of many who sent them to the convention, the delegates rec- by Daniel Shays ommended not improvements in the confederation—which was expected—but a (1747–1825), a Revolutionary whole new form of national government. War officer, in New England to protest the discontent of Defining Intergovernmental Relations small farmers over Finally, when there was a need for even stronger bonding among governments, debts and taxes. The along came federalism, a system of governance in which a national, overarching rebellion was never a serious military threat, government shares power with subnational or state governments. Intergovernmen- but it raised concern tal relations represent federalism in action. It is the complex network of day-to-day over the inadequacy interrelationships among the governments within a federal system. It is the polit- of the Articles of ical, fiscal, programmatic, and administrative processes by which higher units of Confederation to government share revenues and other resources with lower units of government, handle internal disorders and thus generally accompanied by special conditions that the lower units must satisfy as helped to create prerequisites to receiving the assistance. support for a stronger In essence, intergovernmental relations are the sets of policies and mechanisms national government. by which the interplay between different levels of government serving a common geographical area is managed. Such relations reflect the basic constitutional frame- work that links the levels of government, as well as dynamic contemporary factors including relative power, financial strengths, ethnic divisions, geographical factors, and so on. The essence of this constitutional framework is well captured by this famous 1763 statement by William Pitt the elder, in the British House of Lords: The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter!—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! (Timbs, 1880, p. 1) The Fundamental Settlement 147 In the United States today, the “crown”—the federal government—may not interfere unless this “poorest man” commits the proverbial “federal offense” and federal officials obtain a search or arrest warrant. And only local officials can obtain warrants for local crimes. This is why the investigation of President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination was undertaken by the local police in Dallas, Texas. Assassination Q In the eyes of the law, Kennedy was just the victim of a local murder. In 1963 it was The deliberate murder a federal crime to rob a bank if it was insured, as most are, by a federal agency, but of someone, especially of a politically it was not a federal crime to murder a president. (It is now!) After the local police prominent personage, so botched the investigation that they inadvertently spawned a conspiracy theory for political motives. industry, Congress made it a federal offense to threaten or attack a president, vice The original assassins president, or his or her immediate family. The point here is that within a federal were thirteenth- system, different levels of government often perform similar functions, law enforce- century Muslims whose main goal ment in this case, that are constitutionally separate. Each level has constitutional was the murder of limitations. Christian Crusaders An understanding of intergovernmental relations is essential for every public and other political administrator, because this area defines the scope and territory of the administra- rivals. Assassination is tive world in which he or she lives. It is not just a question of territorial boundaries, a time-honored though dishonorable way though the boundaries of all political units are established by laws, constitutions, of removing people and accords, the study of which is central to intergovernmental relations. It is from public office. equally a question of functional allocations, because most countries have found Presidents Lincoln, it necessary to distinguish among national, regional, state and local issues and to Garfield, McKinley, allocate them in various ways to different levels of government. This allocation, and Kennedy were assassinated; the question of who does what and with what resources, is the essential core of Presidents Theodore intergovernmental relations. Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, and Reagan THE FUNDAMENTAL SETTLEMENT all narrowly escaped death in The most critical dimension of intergovernmental relations, that which forms and various attempted shapes the context of every government, is the fundamental settlement or accord assassinations. by which the government was created. Such accords can never ultimately be unilateral—they must always involve a settlement between a plurality of commu- nities. Federalism, like most institutional forms, is a solution of, or an attempt to solve, a certain kind of problem of political organization. Viable federal systems accommodate regional or subsystem diversity, thereby enhancing the strength of the greater federation. Both the United States and the European Community offer illustrations of settlements whose terms determine the nature, scope, and powers of the governments involved. The Constitution The 1789 Constitution of the United States is the oldest written constitution con- tinuously in force and an enduring example to the rest of the world of the benefits and effectiveness of such a well-crafted document. Its famous beginning, “We the people,” asserts that the source of its authority is the people as opposed to the states. It then assigns powers to the various branches of government, and in doing so, structures the government. It limits the powers that any branch may have and allows each branch to check and balance the others. Most significantly, it denies 148 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations certain powers to the national government, reserving them for the states and the people. But aside from its legal force as law and its physical existence as a piece of fading parchment in the National Archives, the US Constitution is the national icon, the premier symbol of American freedom and governance. Above all, it rep- resents the collective political will of the American people over two centuries to maintain their republican form of government. Nevertheless, because of the nature of judicial review, the Constitution is ultimately, as New York Governor Charles Evans Hughes asserted in 1907, “what the judges [of the Supreme Court] say it is.” It is as Thomas Jefferson angrily wrote in a letter dated September 6, 1819 to Judge Spencer Roane, “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please” (Melton, 2004, p. 150). The 85 essays in The Federalist, published in 1787–1788, are the classic com- mentary on the US Constitution and the theories behind it. They are considered by many political scientists to be the most important work of political theory written in the United States—the one product of the American mind counted among the classics of political philosophy. The papers were originally newspaper articles writ- ten by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (all under the pseud- Publius Q onym Publius) to encourage New York to ratify the new Constitution. An ancient Roman Jay wrote only a few of the Federalist papers, but he was the first chief justice of who was famous the United States—a job he considered so insignificant that he resigned to become for his devotion to republican governor of New York. His resignation had the beneficial effect of making room government. It was for a later chief justice, John Marshall, a Revolutionary War soldier who became common in the late the third chief justice of the Supreme Court and, by almost universal agreement, did eighteenth century the most to establish the independent authority of the Court. From 1801 to 1835, for political writers he led the struggle for the Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution and, by to use a pseudonym of ancient lineage sheer force of will and legal cunning, made the federal judiciary a true check on the that reflected their power of the other two branches. political leanings. Marshall, in a wide-ranging series of decisions, helped to create the American style of federalism. For example, in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland the Court upheld the implied powers granted to the Congress by the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution, upheld the supremacy of the national government in carrying out functions assigned to it by the Constitution, and established the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. In stating that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” the Court held that the Bank of the United States was not subject to taxation by the State of Maryland. And “destroy” is exactly what the Maryland State Legislature wanted to do to the bank. It viewed the “Monster Bank” so much as the tool of the privileged elite and the still-hated British interests that it specifically passed a law taxing the bank’s operations in Maryland in the hopes of crippling it. The European Union Sometimes the fundamental settlement occurs all at once, as it did with the creation of the American federal system by the US Constitution. Sometimes it evolves over a series of accords, as it has with the European Union, which is still evolving. It may eventually become a “sort of United States of Europe,” as Winston Churchill envi- sioned in 1946; or it could fracture into warring (either hot or cold) camps as it did The American Federal System 149 so often in the twentieth century. Remember, the US experience with federalism was not a ride in a continuous direction. The Civil War was a major setback. Of course, after the war the Union was stronger than ever. Historian James M. McPherson reminds us in his Battle Cry of Freedom (1988) that “before 1861 the two words ‘United States’ were generally rendered as a plural noun: ‘the United States are a republic.’ The war marked a transition of the United States to a singular noun” (p. 80). Only after the Civil War were we “one nation under God, indivisible,” as it says in the Pledge of Allegiance. The war had decided once and forever the issue of divisibility. THE AMERICAN FEDERAL SYSTEM The US Constitution is the fundamental settlement defining federalism and also defining the permanent features of intergovernmental relations in the United States. Like the constitutions of many countries, the US Constitution is capable both of amendment as to its formal terms and evolution as to its meaning as a result of such things as Supreme Court judgments. Yet, in essence, it represents a relatively unchanging element of the framework within which intergovernmental relations are conducted. The most fundamental aspects include the Constitution’s provisions in three areas: 1. Its creation of a federal system—that is, one in which there is both a national government and state governments. 2. Its allocation of certain functions to the national government. 3. Its embodiment of certain principles, particularly through the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which provide scope for Supreme Court judgments that can profoundly alter the respective powers and func- tions of the national and state governments over time. If we grow up within a federal system and are used to belonging to a state as well as a nation, it is difficult to imagine what it would be like to live in a country without states. Yet this is the case in countries such as France and New Zealand, which have unitary governments, with all significant decisions being made at the national level. Three Categories of Governments There are three main categories into which we can allocate nations: unitary govern- ments, federal governments, and confederations (see Table 4.2). Each has certain strengths and weaknesses, and it is interesting to consider the effects of altering the system from one of these to another, as New Zealand did in 1879 when it abolished its federal system and moved to unitary government. In Australia today, a significant minority would like to abandon federalism, abolish state govern- ments, and perhaps introduce a new level of less costly, more numerous regional administrations. 150 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations TABLE 4.2 Types of Governments- The Top 30 Nations in the World, Type by Population (2014) Unitary Governments (21) There are no state governments; China (1.4 b) France (65 m) although there may be subnational Indonesia (251 m) United Kingdom (63 m) administrative units with specific powers Japan (127 m) Italy (61 m) delegated by the national government. Philippines (105 m) Burma (55 m) Ethiopia (93 m) South Korea (48 m) All important power lies with the Vietnam (92 m) South Africa (46 m) national government.  Egypt (85 m) Tanzania (48 m) Turkey (80 m) Spain (47 m) Iran (79 m) Columbia (45 m) Democratic Rep Congo (75 m) Ukraine (44 m) Thailand (67 m) Federal Governments (9) There is a national government and a India (1.2 b) number of state governments; power is United States (316 m) (50 states) shared between them. Brazil (201 m) Pakistan (193 m) Nigeria (174 m) Bangladesh (163 m) Russia (142 m) Mexico (116 m) Germany (81 m) (16 Landers) Confederations* Power rests with “sovereign” state Belgium* (11.1 m) (2 states) governments, and an overarching Switzerland* (8.1 m) (10 cantons) government has some defined powers (usually defense, treaties, and regulation European Union of trade). *Obviously neither Belgium nor Switzerland would make the list of the top 30 most populated nations, nor even the top 100. More recently the reform impetus seems to going in the other direction. For example, Great Britain, formally the United Kingdom, is on the verge of moving from a unitary government to a federal structure with Scotland and Wales having their own legislatures with broad powers. Indeed, Scotland went further—voting in 2015 (though rejecting) independence—essentially secession from the United Kingdom. In an election with the highest turnout in over a century (85 percent of eligible voters vot- ing), independence was rejected by a 55 percent to 45 percent margin. That vote is now further complicated by the United Kingdom’s vote in 2016 (Brexit) to leave the Euro- pean Union, something that Scottish voters (Remaining in the EU) strongly support. The American Federal System 151 Spain is also facing its own secession crises as pressure mounts in Catalonia— the most prosperous subunit and of course historically its own country. Here the likelihood is much higher—a non-binding referendum held in late 2014 resulted in an estimated turnout of about 40 percent of the population with over 80 per- cent supporting the proposition that Catalonia become an independent state. These dynamic shifts in political thinking and voter preferences make the entire question of how countries should “organize” and “manage” subnational units of increasing interest for students of public administration. As such they must be well versed in pros and cons of different forms of governance. Unitary Government Advantages Unitary governments do have some significant strengths. The following are the four key advantages they usually have over a fed- eral system or a confederation: 1. National direction is clear; policies can be made by a single government with- out the need for negotiation or cooperation with subnational states. 2. There can be no confusion as to accountability. It is clear to voters which level of government is responsible for a particular problem or function. (Leg- islators who wish to spend money must raise it; it is not possible for legisla- tors to seek to shift the blame for failure to another level of government.) 3. Duplication of legislatures, bureaucracies, and programs is avoided with significant savings in direct costs—and the more subtle but no less real costs of needless duplication. 4. Issues of fairness in raising and spending money between levels of govern- ment (vertical fiscal imbalance) simply do not arise. Federal Government Advantages Unitary governments also have major draw- backs, which in turn correspond to the major strengths of federal systems. These include the following: 1. A federal system has greater scope for diversity and experimentation in policy. 2. The need to debate issues rather than enact them instantly may provide a more considered and viable policy outcome. This tendency toward incremen- talism is seen as integral to democracy. 3. A federal system must consider the different ethnic or cultural groupings that may predominate in a particular state and wish to pursue a distinct cultural or social policy—such as the French Canadians in Quebec. (As the cases of Quebec and Bosnia show, membership in a federation may still fail to fulfill the nationalist aspirations of many people.) 4. The danger always exists in a large country that a unitary government may be too remote for appropriate democratic participation by regional cen- ters located away from the capital; a federal system encourages—indeed demands—regional participation in governance. 5. The danger exists in a unitary government that the stronger regions, the larger racial groups, or more powerful interests will provide insufficient allowance for the needs of minorities or weaker groups. 152 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations In The Federalist, No. 10, James Madison discusses the problem of such fac- tions and the danger they pose to a political system. Madison feared that the inter- ests of parties and pressure groups could destabilize a government, but he believed that an overarching representative government, with a functional as well as a terri- Confederate States torial separation of powers, could prevent this. of America Q The short-lived Confederations Confederate systems are inherently weak as central governments. confederation formed by the 11 states that The United States was originally a confederate system. The Articles of Confedera- sought to secede tion were the original framework for the government of the new United States; they from the Union. went into effect in 1781 and were superseded by the US Constitution in 1789. The That they could not Articles said that the states were entering into a “firm league of friendship” and a do so was decided “perpetual union for the common defense, the security of their liberties, and their by the Civil War of 1861 to 1865. Those mutual and general welfare.” The Articles provided for a weak central government, states, in alphabetical which could not compel states to respect treaties, could not regulate interstate and order, were Alabama, foreign commerce, could neither collect taxes directly from the people nor compel Arkansas, Florida, the states to pay for the costs of the national government, and could not create Georgia, Louisiana, a sense of national unity and national purpose. Such absence of central power Mississippi, North Carolina, South directly contributed to problems such as a devalued national currency, trade wars Carolina, Tennessee, between states, and an ineffectual foreign policy. It nonetheless provided the experi- Texas, and Virginia. ence of state cooperation out of which the consciousness of the need for a stronger union could emerge. Confederation of the All confederations such as the present European Union and the Common- Rhine Q wealth of Independent States (the former Soviet Union) pose the same question: The 1806–1813 Which way are they going? Will they evolve, as the United States did, into a strong union of the smaller German-speaking federal system? Or will they follow the route of the Confederate States of America states in the Rhine or the Confederation of the Rhine and simply disintegrate, to be replaced by new River region. governing structures? THE STRUCTURE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS There are eternal questions concerning the structure of intergovernmental rela- tions: Which level of government will have overall responsibility for what func- tions? When functions are shared between levels of government, how will each function be divided among national, state, and local governments? Should the taxes needed to finance local government be raised by the government that is to spend them or by the higher level of government most successful at tax-raising? Should a national government have an objective of redistributing revenues to reduce the differential between the richest and poorest regions of a nation? As we said earlier, the Constitution itself is the best place to go for answers to these questions. For example, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the national government the authority to regulate trade “among the several states.” Similarly, the Constitution makes explicit the limits of federal intervention in state matters, including restrictions on the federal government’s ability to tax interstate commerce (Article I, Section 9). Such direction provides a framework for what governments can and cannot do in relation to each other. While the Constitution does provide a framework for intergovernmental rela- tions, the document does not provide all the details on how governments should The Structure of Intergovernmental Relations 153 relate to each other. In fact, the Constitution can be particularly vague in laying out the balance of power between the levels of government. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Tenth Amendment. In this last amendment of the Bill of Rights we are told that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitu- tion, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This amendment, commonly known as the reserved powers clause, has been at the heart of numerous debates on the balance of power between the national and state governments. Intergovernmental relations structures are almost always designed to accom- modate differing communities of interest—social, ethnic, and political—as the boundaries of governments often possess, or soon acquire, symbolic meanings for communities that identify with them. This applies whether we are speaking of what it means to be a European or an American, a Luxemburger or a Texan, a Lon- Economies of doner or a San Franciscan. For example, localities in the United States often create scale Q fire, library, and school districts that for obvious reasons of economies of scale Cost savings realized (i.e. where cost savings are realized by doing things in larger rather than smaller by doing things in larger rather than units) serve the citizens of small general-purpose jurisdictions, such as boroughs or smaller units. This towns. These communities may develop a strong sense of identity that is focused on decreases the overall volunteer fire companies or high school sports teams. average cost. The Effects of Pluralism Sometimes a community is so dominated by one ethnic group that this impacts its relations—its intergovernmental relations—with other levels of government. Thus the people of Quebec, because of their strong French cultural identity, have been able to get special advantages from the Canadian national government. Alter- natively, ethnically dominated communities in other countries have complained that they get fewer resources from their national governments because of their minority status. Sometimes national policies even encourage political ghettoiza- tion. For example, the United States has long practiced the art of gerrymander- ing, the reshaping of an electoral district to enhance the political fortunes of the party in power, as opposed to creating a district with geographic compactness. The term first arose in 1811, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry reluctantly signed a redistricting bill, creating a district shaped like a salamander. In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled in Davis v. Bandemer that partisan gerry- mandering is unconstitutional “when the electoral system is arranged in a manner that will consistently degrade a voter’s or a group of voters’ influence on the polit- ical process as a whole.” This encouraged a spate of affirmative gerrymandering, redistricting to consolidate minority votes so that a minority group member will most likely win the next election. This has resulted in more minorities, especially African Americans, being elected to the US Congress than ever before. The effect of this is to give them representation in numbers that approximate their percentage of the population. Just like all other members, they fight the political wars to bring resources to the myriad governments within their legislative districts. However, in the 1995 case of Louisiana v. Hays, the Supreme Court seemed to put severe inhi- bitions on this when it ruled that congressional district lines are unconstitutional if race is the “predominant factor” in drawing them. Nevertheless, the Court did not say that race could not be a factor at all. 154 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations The Marble-Cake Metaphor People who have not worked in or studied public administration are often unaware of the complicated nature of intergovernmental relations. It is not simply a ques- tion of dividing the work between the levels—of assigning local issues to local government, and national issues to federal government. The majority of issues have national, regional, and local implications. The popular image of the federal system as a layer cake, with each layer of government neatly on top of the other, is decep- tive. The reality is more like a marble cake. This metaphor holds that the coopera- tive relations among the varying levels of government result in an intermingling of activities; this is in contrast to the more traditional view of layer-cake federalism, which holds that the three levels of government are totally or almost totally sep- arate. Marble-cake federalism is usually associated with Morton Grodzins, who made a famous example out of the case of rural county health officials called san- itarians. Sanitarians are appointed by the state government under merit standards established by the federal government, and while their base salaries come from state and federal funds, the county provides them with offices and office amenities and pays a portion of their expenses. According to Grodzins (1966): “It is impossible from moment to moment to tell under which government the sanitarian operates. His work of inspecting the purity of food is carried out under federal standards; but he is enforcing state laws when inspecting commodities that have not been in interstate commerce” (p. 9). The essential story of the sanitarian could be told of hundreds of other public sector jobs. Bus drivers, police officers, and teachers are all caught up in the inter- governmental maze. Consequently, mass transit, law enforcement, and education policies, for example, must be subjects of attention at all levels of government. It takes wise legislators at each level to comprehend how their legislation will fit in with that being developed at other levels—and officials working at each level may find it a major task to see that their work is compatible with that of people working on similar topics in other levels of government. DYNAMIC FEDERALISM The formal structure of powers, roles, and relationships underlying the intergovern- mental relations of a federal system is rather like the trunk and branches of an old tree. It sways in the wind, leaves come and go, and sometimes entire branches are lost in a storm. The more rigid the tree, the greater the possibility that a major storm (such as a civil war) may uproot it entirely. If the tree is more supple, it will adapt and change to withstand the storm—and may be all the stronger for the experience. Some federations have collapsed entirely in recent political history. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia are leading examples. Others, such as Malaysia, have lost a major branch (Singapore) but survived. Still others, such as Canada, have been close several times to losing a very major branch (Quebec). Already mentioned are the trials of several unitary government forms—the United Kingdom and Spain. In the United States, a civil war has already been fought to uphold the doc- trine that sub-units, i.e. states, are not allowed to opt out once they have opted in. Dynamic Federalism 155 Though it should be pointed out that there is another interesting debate within US intergovernmental relations whether Puerto Rico, in commonwealth status, should be admitted if it should seek statehood. But interpretations of the evolution of the American federal system are generally couched as a progression through a series of major phases of intergovernmental relations. Dual Federalism The first such phase was the nineteenth-century concept of dual federalism (now no longer operational), that the functions and responsibilities of the federal and state governments were theoretically distinguished and functionally separate from each other. With this philosophy—which existed during the nineteenth century, when each level of the government could and did pretend the other level did not exist—rival lawmen rode through the Old West. In the absence of cooperation between jurisdictions, an outlaw could evade capture simply by “crossing the state line.” Some analysts suggest that this kind of federalism, which went out when the New Deal of 1933 came in, is what the Reagan administration sought, at least rhe- torically, to eventually get back to. The basic idea of dual federalism was expressed succinctly in 1891 in The American Commonwealth by British historian James Bryce, who visited the United States in the 1880s to observe its political system: The characteristic feature and special interest of the American Union is that it shows us two governments covering the same ground yet distinct and separate in their action. It is like a great factory wherein two sets of machinery are at work, their revolving wheels apparently intermixed, their bands crossing one another, yet each doing its own work without touching or hampering the other. (p. 26) Dual federalism has never really died out. It has just been extensively modified by two centuries of federal legislation and judicial precedents. Indeed, as recently as 1997 the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States held that “it is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of ‘dual sovereignty.’” Cooperative Federalism This is the notion that the national, state, and local governments are cooperating, interacting agents, working jointly to solve common problems, rather than con- flicting, sometimes hostile competitors pursuing similar or, more likely, conflicting ends. While some cooperation has always been evident in spite of the conflict, competition, and complexity of intergovernmental relations, cooperation was most prominent between the 1930s and the 1950s. The emergency funding arrangements of the Depression years, known collectively as the New Deal, and the cooperation among federal, state, and local authorities during World War II to administer civil- ian defense, rationing, and other wartime programs, are noteworthy examples of cooperative federalism in the United States. 156 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations The New Deal’s scheme of economic reconstruction involved many new federal grants to the states aimed at providing jobs. During this time, the concept of using federal spending to create demand led to an entirely new position for federal gov- ernment as the shaper of programs in the states. This was the economic prescription of the British economist John Maynard Keynes, which called for stimulating the economy during a time of economic decline by borrowing money to spend on public works, defense, welfare, and so on. In theory, the prosperity generated by such expen- ditures would increase tax revenues, which in turn would pay for the borrowing. Cooperative federalism also has a horizontal dimension: state-to-state interac- tions and relations. Such interstate relations take many forms, including interstate compacts and commissions established for specific purposes: river basin manage- ment, transportation, extradition of criminals, conservation of forests and wildlife, and administration of parks and recreation. Horizontal relations between local governments also are numerous. Cities frequently contract for services from vari- ous neighboring local governments (and even from private providers). The Lake- wood plan, established in southern California in 1954, is the best-known example of local contracting for services in the United States. Under this plan, the city of Lakewood contracted for a rather comprehensive package of services from Los Angeles County, where Lakewood is located. Creative Federalism This was the Lyndon B. Johnson administration’s term for its approach to intergov- ernmental relations, which was characterized by joint planning and decision making among all levels of government (as well as the private sector) in the management of intergovernmental programs. Many new programs of this period had an urban/ metropolitan focus, and much attention was given to antipoverty issues. Creative federalism sought to foster the development of a singular Great Society by integrat- ing the poor into mainstream America. Its expansive efforts were marked by the rapid development of categorical grant programs to state and local governments and direct federal grants to cities, frequently bypassing state governments entirely. Great Society programs such as Head Start (a federal program designed to provide early education opportunities for poor children prior to kindergarten) and the War on Poverty (a name given to other social programs designed to eliminate the causes and effects of poverty in the United States) were all based on the concept of federal grants shaping activities and directions at the state and local levels. However, the idea that all wisdom rested in Washington was not always well received in state capitals or city halls. The Nixon administration’s new federalism sought to alter this balance. New Federalism This was President Richard Nixon’s attempt to return autonomy to the states while maintaining significant levels of federal funding. From 1972 onward, new federal- ism entailed establishing aggregate grant levels by formula, but allowing state and local governments substantial latitude in applying the funds in their own area. The term has its origins in the liberal Republican effort to find an alternative to the cen- tralized state perceived as having been set up by the New Deal but an alternative Dynamic Federalism 157 Time Period Doctrine Policy Totally separate 19th century to Dual federalism federal and 1920s state programs Jointly managed Cooperative 1930s to 1950s and jointly federalism funded programs Federal grants Creative direct to cities, 1960s federalism which bypassed state governments New Formula grants to 1970s states managed federalism decentrally New, new Curtailed federal 1980s to 2008 federalism funding Stimulate Massive federal 2009 to Present the economy funding FIGURE 4.1 Evolution of intergovernmental relations doctrine that nonetheless recognized the need for effective national government. During the Nixon administration, new federalism referred to the style of decentralized man- agement at the federal level symbolized by such programs as general revenue shar- ing (see the next section) and the decentralization of federal regional management to ten coterminous regions, each with a common regional center. New federalism as developed by the Reagan administration disregarded the Nixon approach of decentralized federal regional management and turned to development of direct relations between the federal government and the state gov- ernments. The intent was to return power and responsibility to the states and to dramatically reduce the role of the federal government in domestic programs, rang- ing from community mental health to crime prevention. This was reminiscent of the dual federalism that prevailed in the United States in the nineteenth century. 158 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations New, New Federalism The Reagan administration imposed new policy objectives on intergovernmental arrangements. This was also called—in Nixon fashion—“new federalism.” This made sense, however, in that it was basically an extension of the Nixon initiatives. Reagan and his advisers viewed much activity by the national government, espe- cially many expenditures on social programs, as wasteful and unnecessary. Thus they turned their attention to cutting federal grants, attempting to transfer func- tions “back” to the states and away from Washington. In 1986 the Reaganites also destroyed general revenue sharing, the unrestricted distribution of a portion of federal tax revenues to state governments. Because Reagan succeeded in making such large cuts in the funds available from Washington to state and local governments, the subnational jurisdictions had no choice but to curtail or close facilities and programs, or to look for energetic ways of funding those they wished to retain. In some respects, the entrepreneurship in state and local government documented by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in Reinventing Government (1992) was the inventiveness mothered by the financial necessity imposed on them by Reagan administration policies. While the policy directions of the Reagan and Bush administrations, through their cuts in state and local aid, heavily impacted the poor in the United States, they failed to address the perception of malaise in Washington. Thus the Clinton administration began with public confidence in government at record low levels—especially with regard to intergovernmental issues such as welfare and crime. Then history, as is its want, repeated itself. The Republican Congress, elected in 1994, declared in 1995 that it was determined to create—what else?—a new fed- eralism. But according to political journalist Alan Ehrenhalt, this was really more “New New New Federalism”—a 1990s retro version of Reagan’s recycling of the Nixon rediscovery of some ideas that could be traced back to Dwight D. Eisenhower National Guard Q in the 1950s. One can’t be faulted for thinking “The more things change, the more The military forces they stay the same.” of the states, which often are used for civil emergencies, such as major fires or floods. INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT Normally, under the We cannot usually “see” intergovernmental relations, just as we cannot see other command of each state’s governor, any aspects of government machinery. But there are times when intergovernmental or all of the states’ management bubbles to the surface and becomes visible. Unfortunately, these times individual guard units usually involve great tragedies such as a major earthquake in California or hurri- may be called (by the cane and flooding as in New Orleans with Katrina, the terrorist attack on the World US Congress) into Trade Center in New York, or the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma federal service at any time. Once a guard City. In each case, the various levels are literally on the scene. First to arrive are unit is called into local police and fire personnel. They are backed up by appropriate state agencies federal service, it is no such as the National Guard. The federal government is represented by the FBI longer subject to state (when a crime is suspected, as in a bombing) and the Federal Emergency Manage- control. The National ment Agency (FEMA), which plans for and coordinates emergency preparedness Guard was organized in 1916. Until that and response for all levels of government and for all kinds of emergencies—both time, each state had a civilian and military. FEMA is the organization that decides what the various gov- volunteer militia. ernments should be doing after such a catastrophe. Intergovernmental Management 159 The political dialogue in American politics is always full of intergovernmental management issues. Politicians running for president or Congress love nothing bet- ter than telling the voters what they are going to do about crime or education once elected. But these are only marginal concerns of the federal government. State and local police are responsible for law enforcement. The FBI, while highly visible in the public’s crime-fighting imagery, is minuscule in comparison. State and local govern- ments employ more than half a million uniformed police officers. The FBI has only about 13,000 special agents in a total workforce of just under 35,000. Education is the province of local school boards. The bottom line is that aside from funding for special programs, there is practically nothing the federal government can do itself about these issues. It can and does talk, but talk is only as good as the money back- ing it up. But federal officials, and would-be federal officials, spend so much time talking about such hot-button issues that the public often thinks there is something, usually something simple such as mandating more homework for third-graders or telling teenagers not to become sexually active before marriage, that the federal government can do that will make a real difference. While politicians may think the public naive, there are no simple answers to the complex questions of intergov- ernmental management. Councils of Governments and Intergovernmental Agreements Any multijurisdictional cooperative arrangement to permit a regional approach to planning, development, transportation, environment, and other problems that affect a region as a whole tends to be known as a council of government (COG), even if the word council is not part of its formal title. COGs are typically substate regional planning agencies established by states. They are usually responsible for area-wide reviews of projects applying for federal funds and for development of regional plans and other area-wide special-purpose arrangements. They are com- posed of designated policymaking representatives from each participating gov- ernment within the region. Some COGs have assumed a more enterprising role beginning in the 1980s by acting as contractors for, and service providers to, their local governments. For example, the COG for Lee and Russell counties in Alabama helped form a waste management authority to negotiate a single landfill contract with the private company that owns the landfills they use. According to journalist Eileen Shanahan, there is a tendency for COGs to be reformed as “regional enti- ties” which are essentially multipurpose special districts, often with real budgetary powers. The value of councils of government and other cooperative agreements between local governments is becoming particularly noticeable in the area of land-use man- agement. As suburban sprawl has emerged as a significant challenge in many parts of the country, there has been a move on the part of state governments to use incen- tives to bring counties and municipalities into partnerships to manage growth. For example, local governments in Wisconsin are entitled to state grants for planning only if they enter into intergovernmental agreements with their neighbors. While the best way to effectively manage sprawl-related problems might be to simply merge local governments or shift land-use management completely to the county level, such options are generally a political nonstarter. Thus states will likely continue 160 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations to rely more on nudging local governments to join forces rather than shoving them together. Finally, even if states can coax municipalities into councils of government, the voluntary nature of the partnerships makes them only advisory in nature. They have few, if any, independent sources of revenue. Taxing or borrowing authority, or some form of raising revenue through user fees or charges is the real difference. Mandate Mania The key word in the new American thrust toward devolution is mandate. Normally this word refers to the perceived popular or electoral support for a public program, political party, or a particular politician. US presidents who win elections by over- whelming majorities may rightly feel the vote was a “mandate” to carry out their proposed policies. But mandate has another equally important meaning: it is one level of government requiring another to offer—or pay for—a program as a matter of law or as a prerequisite to partial or full funding for either the program in ques- tion or other programs. It is the federal government ordering, by means of passing a law, state governments to reduce air pollution. Or it is a state government order- ing, by means of passing a law, municipal governments to recycle trash collections. Mandates are orders, pure and simple. And the movement toward devolution is spurred on by jurisdictions and constituencies that increasingly resent taking such orders. In the United States these jurisdictions cite the “fact” that they are sovereign states and shouldn’t have to put up with this administrative tyranny. Hypocrisy is what makes it possible for the states to demand federal action and funding on this or that program while complaining that federal regulations on their use of federal funds insult their sovereignty. It is like a grown child demanding his or her parents are obligated to pay for this and that, while at the same time insisting Philosophy Doctrine Policy Higher level of Subordinate Levels of government knows best levels of government on the government are receiving end of given mandates mandates must that reflect implement programs the wisdom of they might not higher levels desire and pay for and to ensure them with funds program they might not have uniformity FIGURE 4.2 Doctrine of mandates Intergovernmental Management 161 that he or she be treated like an independent adult. Neither the states nor such chil- dren can have it both ways. The deal made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was “more perfect”—not perfect. Those who might say to the states, “Quit your whining and act your age” miss the point. The whining, the complaining, and the hypocrisy are an inherent and beneficial part of a never-ending process of inter- governmental give and take. Besides, the complaining often leads to useful change. Nothing sours intergovernmental relations faster than mandates. It is difficult even to determine how many mandates impact any given jurisdiction. For example, according to journalist Eric Pooley, the New York State Governor’s Office of Man- date Relief counted 1,700 state and federal mandates in 1992. But in 1994 the New York Times discovered that there were 3,200 from the state alone that affected local government. There is obviously a major problem of definition here. Different things were being counted. The only way to comprehend the full scope of the mandates problem is to look at their different categories. First, are they direct orders (which imply civil or criminal penalties for disobeying) or merely conditions for receiving aid? If they are the latter, they may not be considered mandates at all, because they do not have any effect unless you want the aid. Then you must also take the strings—the mandates—that come with it. Second, are they programmatic or procedural? Pro- grammatic mandates state the type and quality of program to be implemented—a school lunch program must meet specified national standards for nutrition. A pro- cedural mandate requires jurisdictions to do what they were going to do anyway, but, according to new requirements, personnel must be hired according to equal opportunity provisions; formal meetings and records must be open to the public. While programmatic mandates may cost a great deal, many procedural mandates may cost little or nothing, or have a one-time-only cost. Some mandates merely constrain. But the constraints can hurt, as they do when state laws specify the kinds of government, religious, and nonprofit organization property that is exempt from local property taxes or when states put limits on property taxes or tax increases for veterans or retired citizens. Some mandates involve not one but large numbers of programs at once. These so-called crosscutting mandates are found in virtually all state and federal aid pro- grams. For example, if you accept federal funds, you are subject to the Anti-Kickback Czar Q A former Russian Act of 1934 (the Copeland Act), which should inhibit you from extorting money absolute monarch; from employees or contractors. a nickname for While it is possible to classify mandates, they are so integral to all of public any high-ranking policy and administration that it is virtually impossible to accurately count them— administrator who is without first creating a classification scheme that defines what you mean by a given great authority over something—for mandate. There is no czar of mandates statistics. There are only countless studies example, an energy by groups, such as the US Conference of Mayors and other state and local govern- czar, a housing czar. ment associations that all essentially conclude that there are more mandates than The creation of a czar you can shake a stick at! or czarina position is especially applicable when there are Mandates and the War on Terrorism numerous agencies competing with each The war on terrorism that started on September 11, 2001, has caused mandates to other in a program or explode at the same time that state and local governments have had their revenues policy domain. 162 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations curtailed because of a poorly performing economy. The Transportation Security Agency, created in 2001, regularly tells airports to raise their security status. How- ever, it hasn’t been able to tell the airports where to find the funding to pay for overtime payments to local police. Dale Russakoff and Rene Sanchez reported in the Washington Post that when the Department of Homeland Security elevated the terror threat in early 2003, the city of Los Angeles, already spending $1 million a week on extra security and running a high deficit, sought to avoid the additional expense by asking its state to send National Guard troops to the airport. Califor- nia, already suffering staggering deficits, sent 50 National Guard soldiers to the airport. While the city avoided the expense, the state was stuck with “$100,000 a week more to cut elsewhere.” In order to address this problem, at least symbolically, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This law held that any future bill might be out of order if it imposes a financial mandate of more than $50 million on any one state, local, or Native American tribal government. But this requirement could always be rescinded by a majority vote. The law did nothing to end current unfunded mandates. It was basically designed to force Congress to be more aware of the implications of possible future mandates. The Transformation of Governance In 1999, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) established a Priority Issues Task Force to identify the key issues in public administration that would face the nation in the first years of the twenty-first century. What the task force found was that governance throughout the United States and around the world was “undergoing a fundamental transformation” that had huge implications for public administrators. In particular, the NAPA group suggested that public administrators would face (1) a growing complexity of relationships between gov- ernment and society; (2) the shifting of national responsibilities both in the direc- tion of international bodies and systems and in the direction of states, localities, and community-based institutions; and (3) the need for greater capacity to manage these relationships. Compounding these major shifts in who takes responsibility for what is the issue of scale. Scale means that “size” of societal problems may be greatly out of line with the capabilities, resources, and authority of the government organizations expected to resolve social issues. Elaine Kamarck and Joseph Nye point to the work of social technologist Daniel Bell who aptly summed up the scale problem noting that as a nation-state, we have reached a point where national government “has become too small for the big problems of life and too big for the small problems.” The result, as Kamarck and Nye point out, is that centralization or reorganizing, the mainstay of how public administration has approached problems in the twentieth century, no longer work. Rather, solutions to public policy issues in the twenty-first century follow a path of “diffusion”, moving across different sectors and levels or organizations. Table 4.3, adpted from Kamark and Nye’s introduction to their book Governance. com, frames the diffusion process. Intergovernmental Management 163 BOX 4.1 Updating Cyber Sales and Intergovernmental Relations If you are like a growing number of college students, and then remitting the revenue to the states. In return, there is a good chance that you bought this book the e-businesses were to receive a one-year amnesty through an Internet company such as Amazon.com. for taxes they may have owed on past online sales. According to the US Department of Commerce, While the states benefited from the revenue generated total Internet sales for 2015 were estimated at over from the new system, the project had a broader goal $325 billion, amounting to about 7.5 percent of all of pressuring Congress to create legislation that allows sales in the nation—the Internet is clearly becoming a the states to directly tax online sales. cornerstone of the nation’s economy. But what about By 2010 this pressure appeared to be bearing Internet sales as a source of government revenue? some fruit. With fiscal conditions in the states in crisis When you purchase products or services in most condition, a bill entitled the Market Street Fairness Act states, you are charged a sales tax. However, when was introduced into both houses of Congress in 2013 to you make Internet purchases, you most likely pay no allow states to collect sales taxes from online purchases, sales taxes at all. That’s because the US Supreme with optimism among the sponsors that the time may Court ruled in Quill v. North Dakota (1992), that have finally arrived for states to have this power. online retailers did not need to collect taxes for sales Unsuccessful, a new version of the bill was to states where they did not have a physical presence. reintroduced in 2015. Essentially, the Marketplace Thus, if a company doesn’t have a store or shipping Fairness Act imposes no new federal tax or even center in your state, your purchase online should be a state tax. Online sellers are simply required to tax-free. While this scenario is good for you, it places collect sales tax from customers in their own states. a strain on most states’ revenue streams. All but five (Remember under the Supreme Court’s 1992 holding states (Alaska, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire retailers must collect sales tax from out-of-state and Delaware) collected some form of sales tax. customers only if they have a physical presence (store, According to the National Governors Association and warehouse or office) in the customer’s state. But since National Conference of State Legislatures, state and then, a growing number of states are extending sales local governments lost approximately $23.2 billion in taxes to online retailers with in-state sales affilates. 2012 from untaxed Internet sales. Not surprisingly, Amazon collects sales tax in 24 states and according states have been anxious to find a way to get their to Marketplace Fairness Act (2016), is now allied money back. However, the states’ road to riches must with supporters of the 2015 bill. travel through Washington, DC That’s because the However, not content to wait on passage of Constitution gives the federal government control over that legislation, the Senate inserted a permanent interstate commerce. Without congressional action, moratorium (the Internet Tax Freedom Act) into or a change of heart by the federal judiciary, states a trade bill (the Trade Facilitation and Trade cannot collect taxes on online sales. In 2000 and 2003 Enforcement Act) which passed by a vote of Congress considered legislation to allow state and local 75 to 20 that President Obama signed into law in governments to tax Internet purchases, but the bills 2015. The moratorium will prevent state and local died before ever reaching the Senate or House floors. governments from taxing telecommunications and Since 2005, many states joined together in a cable providers, as well as those who access the consortium under the Streamlined Sales Tax project. Internet. The Government Finance Officers Association Under this initiative the states have been using their bemoaned this in a post on its website, saying the numerical strength to try to persuade online retailers to moratorium would result in the potential revenue voluntarily collect sales taxes. In October 2005 a large loss of up to $1billion annually and compromise local number of Internet vendors began collecting sales taxes governments’ ability to deliver essential services to based on the rates in effect in the buyer’s home states their communities. 164 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations TABLE 4.3 The Diffusion of Public Policy and Management to Scale Private Sector (Business) Public Sector Non-Profit Sector Sector Level Scale GGDP $107 Trillion $28 Trillion $1.5 Trillion Subnational or Local Business Entities and State, County, and Local Non-profit Regional Franchises Municipal Governments Entities and (US: $3.7 Trillion) Groups:ND National National Corporations US Federal Government National Non-Profits ($3.5 Trillion) ($887 Billion) International or Multinational Corporations International NGOs (e.g. Red Cross Supranational (Global) or Businesses Organizations (i.e. United International) Nations, etc.) While government remains the only player in society that has formal authority to act in the name of the “people,” it has seen its responsibility distributed to both nonprofit and profit-driven enterprises. Given the increasing importance of public- private partnerships, the already complex nature of intergovernmental relations becomes even more stressed. Not only must a local public administrator work with officials at the state and federal level, but he or she must also coordinate programs with nongovernmental organizations such as private contractors and nonprofit groups. Inevitably, such multidimensional relationships raise questions of account- ability and responsiveness, with public administrators receiving blame and credit for actions they really do not have control of. FISCAL FEDERALISM—FOLLOWING THE MONEY In the infancy of federalism in the eighteenth century, it may have been grandi- ose to think of the policy arrangements in national and state government as a system. Geographic separation, painfully slow systems of communication, and a relatively clear differentiation of functions gave each level of government a role that could be carried out with only limited interaction with other levels of government. Several factors permanently changed this picture during the twentieth century. First, the galvanizing effect of the world wars and the Cold War saw national direc- tion and planning emerge more thoroughly than had ever been necessary before. Second, a revolution occurred in transport and communications that has perma- nently ended the possibility for states to behave with the completely unilateral autonomy they once had. Third, there emerged with the 1930s New Deal, and with the 1960s civil rights and antipoverty programs, legislation embodying national values that needed to be uniformly implemented across the entire country. The cumulative effect of these fundamental changes gave rise to a concept of national Fiscal Federalism—Following the Money 165 policymaking and state policy implementation overlaid on the traditional and con- tinuing functions of national and state government. How could a national government bring about actions at the state level that state governments, left to themselves, might find neither palatable nor affordable? Certainly, at times, the federal courts have ordered state governments to adopt policies and actions based on judicial interpretations of the meaning of federal legislation or the Constitution. For example, the courts have ordered states to integrate schools (by busing if necessary) and to relieve prison overcrowding if it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. However, the federal government, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, does not have a general power to give directions to the states in their primary areas of power. Consequently, more often than not, financial inducement, through grants of money tied to a particular policy objective, has been the preferred instrument for achieving fed- eral purposes. Financial arrangements have been the predominant vehicle within intergovernmental relations by which national policies have been implemented by and through the states. The Theory of Fiscal Federalism Fiscal federalism refers to the fiscal (financial) relationships that exist between and among units of government in a federal system (see Table 4.4). The theory of fiscal federalism, or multiunit governmental finance, addresses the question of the opti- mal design of governments in a multilevel (or federal) governmental system. The public sector has three principal economic problems to solve: 1. The attainment of the most equitable distribution of income. 2. The maintenance of high employment with stable prices. 3. The establishment of an efficient pattern of resource allocation. The theory of fiscal federalism postulates that a federal form of government can be especially effective in solving these problems because of the flexibility it has in dealing with some problems at the national or central level and some at the local or regional levels. It argues that, for a variety of reasons, the first two problems, equitable distribution of income and maintenance of high employ- ment with stable prices, are problems that the national level of government is best equipped to handle. However, according to the theory, the decentralized regional or local units of government can more efficiently deal with the third problem, allocation of resources, because such units of government are more familiar than the central or national government with local needs and the desires of citizens for public services. Even so, grants-in-aid from the national level of government to local levels may be needed to stimulate local government spending for national purposes, to provide for uniform or minimum service levels (as in education), or to compensate citizens of one area for benefits from services they finance that spill over to residents of another area. Spillover benefits are especially frequent in such programs as clean water and air pollution control, health, and education. 166 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations TABLE 4.4 Summary Comparison of Total Outlays for Grants to State and Local Governments: 1940–2020 As Percentages of In Millions of Dollars Total Outlays As Percentages of GDP Fiscal Year Total Direct Grants Total Direct Grants Total Direct Grants 1940 2,071 1,774 298 21.9 18.7 3.1 2.1 1.8 0.3 1950 13,508 12,192 1,316 31.7 28.6 3.1 4.8 4.4 0.5 1960 24,258 21,632 2,625 26.3 23.5 2.8 4.5 4.0 0.5 1970 65,372 56,299 9,074 33.4 28.8 4.6 6.2 5.4 0.9 1980 280,404 247,320 33,084 47.5 41.9 5.6 10.0 8.8 1.2 1990 592,381 513,503 78,878 47.3 41.0 6.3 10.0 8.7 1.3 2000 1,067,379 876,647 190,732 59.7 49.0 10.7 10.5 8.6 1.9 2010 2,307,040 1,907,827 399,213 66.7 55.2 11.5 15.6 12.9 2.7 2011 2,368,046 1,967,785 400,261 65.7 54.6 11.1 15.4 12.8 2.6 2012 2,316,868 1,949,084 367,784 65.5 55.1 10.4 14.5 12.2 2.3 2013 2,406,345 2,024,888 381,457 69.7 58.6 11.0 14.5 12.2 2.3 2014 2,508,868 2,091,993 416,875 71.6 59.7 11.9 14.5 12.1 2.4 2015(estimate) 2,667,571 2,213,308 454,263 71.0 58.9 12.1 14.8 12.3 2.5 2020(estimate) 3,428,638 2,864,305 564,333 70.2 58.6 11.5 15.3 12.7 2.5 Note: Includes both on- and off-budget Federal outlays. Source: Historical Tables for US Budget 2016, US Office of Management and Budget (Table 11.1). Off-budget social security payments for individuals are shown separately in Table 11.2 (ibid.). Available from https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals In theory, an accountable government should involve representatives only vot- ing for programs for which they have voted the taxes. The representatives would be accountable to the voters, who could directly assess whether the “purchase” of services and programs they had made at election time was what they wanted, and whether they got good value for their tax money. But in a large nation, need for services can vary greatly between communities, and the capacity to pay taxes also varies greatly among the categories of those who are taxed. This issue focuses attention on several of the central problems of the federal concept: the difficult notion of two or more governments overlaid on the same geographical territory; the difficulty of persuading voters that they need to pay their taxes twice (or more) to different levels of taxing authority; and the difficulty of persuading taxpayers that it is fair that some of their taxes should produce no direct benefit to them but be used to assist some other community or some ill-defined goal dear to an official in a remote office in another city. Attitudes toward these issues illustrate the level of confidence citizens have in a democratic federation. If confidence is high, and a sense of common national purpose is high—as it was during a “popular” war such as World War II, or during the early days of the Great Society programs, citizens are more prepared to trust Fiscal Federalism—Following the Money 167 TABLE 4.5 Outlays for Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, by Function, Selected FY1902–FY2015 (nominal $ in millions) Education, Training, Employment Community Income and Social and Regional Fiscal Year Total Health Security Service Transportation Development Other 2015 est. $628,153 $354,031 $105,095 $65,215 $64,378 $16,672 $22,762 2014 576,965 320,022 100,869 60,485 62,152 13,232 20,205 2013 546,171 283,036 102,190 62,690 60,518 16,781 20,956 2012 544,569 268,277 102,574 68,126 60,749 20,258 24,585 2011 606,766 292,847 113,625 89,147 60,986 20,002 30,159 2010 608,390 290,168 115,156 97,586 60,981 18,908 25,591 2009 537,991 268,320 103,169 73,986 55,438 17,394 19,684 2008 461,317 218,025 93,102 58,904 51,216 19,221 20,849 2007 443,797 208,311 90,971 58,077 47,945 20,653 17,840 2006 434,099 197,347 89,816 60,512 46,683 21,285 18,456 2005 428,018 197,848 90,885 57,247 43,370 20,167 18,501 2000 285,874 124,843 68,653 36,672 32,222 8,665 14,819 1990 135,325 43,890 36,768 21,780 19,174 4,965 8,748 1980 91,385 15,758 18,495 21,862 13,022 6,486 15,762 1970 24,065 3,849 5,795 6,417 4,599 1,780 1,625 1960 7,019 214 2,635 525 2,999 109 537 1950 2,212 123 1,123 484 429 0 53 1940 967 22 271 238 165 0 271 Source: Table 12.2—Total Outlays for Grants to State and Local Governments, by Function and Fund Group: 1940–2021 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals politicians and bureaucrats to redistribute taxes to promote national goals else- where. If, however, confidence in politicians and the bureaucracy is low, citizens may well take some convincing that spending programs are fair and necessary. A confident, successful federal democracy that has confidence in its political leaders and has honest and efficient bureaucrats and well-articulated national aspirations will be one in which there is more room for redistributive programs—an admirable goal to strive for—or perhaps not! All too often the same central question of fiscal federalism is asked in countless congressional and presidential elections: why can’t the citizens of the states just keep their money (meaning, have their federal taxes reduced) rather than paying it 168 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations to the federal government so they can return it in grants and services? The answer is deceptively simple: not all states are fiscally equal. If there are more poor people in one state, federal welfare funds from other states will in effect subsidize them. Would Delaware and Connecticut, for example, otherwise transfer tax dollars from their citizens to the overall poorer citizens of Mississippi and Alabama? Federal spending for military bases, while concentrated in more southern states for rea- sons of climate, benefits the entire nation—even if it benefits the local economy of Georgia more. While bases and ports may be concentrated in the South, defense contractors are widely distributed. Indeed, to gain support for many defense sys- tems, the Defense Department quite consciously procures goods and services from companies in as many congressional districts as possible. Even NASA once boasted, in order to drum up congressional support, that the parts for the space shuttle were built in most of the 50 states. Lobbying by defense contractors aside, the federal government justifies taking its measure of taxes from the states and distributing it in an uneven fashion because this furthers national policies for welfare, for defense, for conservation, for envi- ronmental protection, and so on. In this process, some states are winners and some losers. And while no one would deny that any given program could not be better managed or more economically operated, these redistribution programs all exist because lawmakers representing all the citizens thought them to be in the public interest. The members of Congress cannot have it both ways—they cannot argue that the federal government is too full of pork-barrel programs for the congressio- nal districts while at the same time kicking and clawing to bring home the bacon for their constituents. Fortunately this is becoming, though only gradually, a truth more universally acknowledged than before. Grant Programs Grants by formula or category are the most significant means by which federal monies are transmitted to the states. A grant is simply an intergovernmental trans- fer of funds (or other assets). Since the New Deal, state and local governments have become increasingly dependent on federal grants for an almost infinite variety of programs. From almost the beginning of the republic to the present, a grant by the federal government has been a continuing means of providing states, locali- ties, public (and private) educational or research institutions, and individuals with funds to support projects the national government considered useful for a wide range of purposes. In recent years, grants have been made to support the arts as well as the sciences. All such grants are capable of generating debate over what the public as a whole, acting through the grant-making agencies of the federal govern- ment, considers useful and in the national interest. A “grant-in-aid” is the term used for federal or state payments to local gov- ernments for specified purposes and usually subject to supervision and review by the granting government or agency in accordance with prescribed standards and requirements. One function of a federal grant-in-aid is to direct state or local funding to a purpose considered nationally useful by providing federal money on the condition that the jurisdiction receiving it match a certain per- centage of it. The federal government actively monitors the grantee’s spending Fiscal Federalism—Following the Money 169 of the funds to ensure compliance with the spirit and letter of federal intent. Grants-in-aid have other public policy implications as well, because a jurisdic- tion that accepts federal money must also accept the federal “strings,” or guide- lines, that come with it. All federal grantees must comply with federal standards on equal employment opportunity in the selection of personnel and contractors, for example. Historically, the most common grants have been “categorical”—those that can be used only for specified purposes. But there has been a trend, ever since the Nixon administration, to move toward block grants that give the states more dis- cretion over the funds. This trend decidedly accelerated in the mid-1990s as the Republican-controlled Congress sought to reduce the size and role of the federal bureaucracy by reducing congressional oversight of grant programs—and at the same time permanently removing the federal employees who performed many of the oversight functions. For the public administrator, fiscal federalism refers, first and foremost, to the politics and administration of complex intergovernmental grant-in-aid systems. The federal government distributes money to the states through hundreds of grant programs, of which about half are related to Medicaid. See Table 4.5 some 20 percent are for infrastructure, such as transportation, water, or sewage treatment, and the remainder relate to various social and labor market programs. During the 1970s, the Nixon administration introduced less-specific block grants to counter the criticism that overly restricting the ways federal moneys could be spent tended to reduce state governments to an extremely mechanical role not consistent with BOX 4.2 Stimulating the States In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed of dramatically reduced tax revenue and state a $780 billion stimulus package designed to give a constitutional requirements that prevented them from boost to the struggling US economy. As the nation running deficits. Unlike the federal government, which faced the greatest economic downturn in generations, more often than not spends more than it takes in, the the president and Congress leveraged the financial states must balance their budgets each year because powers of the federal government to pump more than their varied constitutions force them to do so. These three-quarters of a trillion dollars into the American conditions forced states to quickly find other sources economy. While the sheer volume of the government of revenue and/or cut spending to bring their budgets outlays caused considerable debate in the nation’s into balance. Under these pressures, states did make capital, the destinations for all that stimulus cash many cuts to programs and services while also coming initiated rancorous arguments among the members up with new or enhanced revenue sources to help bring of Congress. One of the greatest sticking points in the their budgets in line. But even with significant changes negotiations involved the transfer of federal money to both revenue and spending policies, the absence of to state governments that were feeling the full force federal stimulus dollars in 2011 had left states with of the recession on their budgets. In 2009, state some of their deepest deficits ever and more difficult budgets were being battered by the combination decisions to make. 170 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations their status as governments in their own right. A block grant is distributed in accor- dance with a statutory formula for use in a variety of activities within a broad functional area, largely at the recipient’s discretion. For example, the community development block grant program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, funds community and economic development programs in cities, counties, Indian reservations, and US territories. The nature of the block grant allows these jurisdictions to allocate the funds to supplement other resources in ways they choose. The problem with block grants is that Washington loses con- trol and the money may be spent even less wisely than it would if more federal strings were attached. THE DEVOLUTION REVOLUTION The dilemmas of intergovernmental relations illustrated so clearly by the problem of federal–state financial relationships have always been critical issues in demo- cratic federations. The only certainty here is that the states have become addicted to intergovernmental funding. The question remains whether their political leaders will gradually wean them from it or feed their habit. On this front there is good news and bad news. The good news is that many state governments seem genuinely caught up in the devolution revolution. In late 1994, all of the Republican gover- nors and governors-elect met in Williamsburg, Virginia—the colonial capital of that state. Representing a clear majority of the states (30) with an overwhelming majority of the population (70 percent), they issued the “Williamsburg Resolve,” which called for reversing the power that had been going to Washington since the New Deal. They said grandiose things appropriate to the place where Patrick Henry said in 1775, “Give me liberty or give me death!” California Governor Pete Wilson said that the “states are not colonies of the federal government.” Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin said they should no longer have to go to Washing- ton “on bended knee to kiss the ring.” The bad news is that this is somewhat hypocritical. After all, what their “resolve” essentially calls for is the federal money without the federal strings. But these “strings” have important public policy implications—like ensuring the relatively equal treatment of all citizens no matter in which state they may reside. The current movement toward devolution is similar to the Sagebrush Rebellion. This term, first heard in the 1980s, covers any number of dissatisfactions—hardly a rebellion—that some people in the states of the American West have with the federal government’s management and use of the federal lands within their bor- ders. In general, they feel that the states should have more control over the lands and how they are used. The counterargument is that such lands are national trusts and can only legitimately be dealt with by representatives of the national gov- ernment. According to historian Robert Hughes in The Culture of Complaint (1993), the American West “is archetypally the place where Big Government is distrusted, the land of the independent man going it alone. Yet much of it—states such as Arizona, for instance—has depended, not marginally or occasionally but always and totally, on federal money from Washington for its economic exis- tence.” Consequently, “the Southwestern states could never have been settled at their present human density without immense expenditure of government funds The Devolution Revolution 171 on water engineering. They are less the John Wayne than the Welfare Queen of American development.” Yet these western states, mostly Republican at that, do not like to be reminded of the role that Washington played in creating and economically developing them. The federal lands within them belong just as much to the rest of the nation. While the political leaders of these western states are quick to assert their “rights” over federal lands, other citizens of other states are just as quick to note that these lands were paid for, indeed fought for, by the entire country. The latest wrinkle in this Sagebrush Rebellion is to resurrect Gifford Pinchot’s definition of conservation as the “wise use” of resources (Jensen and Guthrie, 2006). But this modern wise-use movement is not traditional conservation but a cover for those who advocate greater economic development of public lands. By asserting the legitimacy of multiple uses of public lands, they seek to roll back envi- ronmental protections now extant. One legal technique to achieve this rollback is to assert county supremacy by means of local land-use ordinances. This has engen- dered considerable conflict between local officials and federal land managers. The only certainty here is that as one contemplates the vast expanses of federal land in the West, much litigation can be seen on the horizon. The web of intergovernmental relations is such a tangled one that there are no easy solutions to the understandable desire for devolution. Even a national admin- istration completely sympathetic to the devolutionist will find it difficult to return powers and lands back to the states. It will take far more than a Williamsburg Resolve and a Sagebrush Rebellion to simply locate, let alone repeal, two centuries’ worth of centralizing legislation. In fact, in some cases it may be the states them- selves that spearhead campaigns against the weakening of central authority. In an interesting reversal of the dynamic of the Williamsburg Resolve and Sagebrush Rebellion, many state governments in the northeastern United States have joined together not to protest federal intervention but to instead fight against the lack of federal effort in the area of environmental protection. According to the Chris- tian Science Monitor, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, angered by the EPA’s March 2005 mercury emission standards, brought suit against the federal government on the grounds that the new federal rules are not strong enough to meet the intent of the Clean Air Act (Miller, 2005). Just two years earlier, nine northeastern states banded together to challenge EPA rules that would exempt thousands of industrial air pollution sources, including coal-fired power plants, from the new Clean Air Act standards for emission. In these two instances the states joined forces to encourage the national government to increase its regulation of activities at the state and local levels. Now in 2015, the EPA has pushed further, following President Obama’s issu- ance of an executive order that requires the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 2008 levels and to increase as “the percent of federal energy (electric and thermal) consumption from clean energy sources to 25% by 2025. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a Clean Power Plan that requires states to meet carbon dioxide emission standards for existing power plants by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The consequences of this are so severe for many states, that the Supreme Court has taken the step of staying the EPA’s regulations until the suit by the states can be heard. 172 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations The Public-Choice Solution The Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, which was continued by the 1990s Repub- lican Congress, coincided with public administration’s increasing embrace of public-choice theory. This theory rejected the concept of welfare economics that emerged out of the New Deal: that when private markets failed, the government had to step in to effectively carry out the public interest, and the governmental level best suited to do this was the federal one. Public-choice theory seriously questioned whether such governmental deci- sions really represented the wishes of the majority of citizens. More emphatically, public choice denounced governments as being basically inefficient and completely lacking in incentives to perform well unless the expansion of their own programs and the increase of their budgets were involved. The better solution, public-choice advocates argued, was to place governmental action (and expenditures) at the low- est possible levels—that is, at the local government level. The feeling here was that local governments would provide more experimentation, true competition, and innovation. At the local level, citizens could “vote with their feet”—that is, if the citizens had access to appropriate information, they would be able to readily com- pare the levels of taxation to the quality of services they received. They could then reject inefficient or unresponsive governments by voting down budgets, by voting out big spenders, or even by moving elsewhere—or not moving in at all. Thus the solution to devolution offered by the public-choice advocates is to increase the discretion in the hands of the individual voter by maximizing “user-pay systems” (whether for trash collection or through fees at state park camping grounds) and by placing vouchers (for schools or housing) for spending in the hands of recipients rather than compelling them to use particular government services or institutions. Welfare Reform Perhaps the best example of the give-and-take aspect of the federal system is that if a government function is not working at one level, it can be shifted onto another level to see if it can be done any better. A good example of a program that has bounced between the intergovernmental levels is welfare. When the Social Secu- rity Act was passed in 1935, it included a small program to help widows and orphans. This was the origin of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the program by which the federal government matched state spending on welfare. AFDC provided federal funds, administered by the states, for children living with a parent or a relative who met state standards of need. The program was controver- sial because of charges that it not only promoted illegitimacy but also encouraged fathers to abandon their families so they could become eligible for AFDC. In 1995 more than 13 million people were receiving AFDC, up from just over 2 million in 1955 (see Table 4.6). Claiming that the system had produced “welfare queens”—women conceiving children out of wedlock to qualify for AFDC benefits—and a cycle of generational poverty encouraged by the welfare system, the Republican-controlled Congress in 1995 decided to act. It would change the system by giving the problem back to the states. Welfare was a local problem to begin with. The tradition of the county poor farm or workhouse can be traced back to sixteenth-century England. The money The Devolution Revolution 173 spent on AFDC would be converted to block grants with which the states in their 50 varieties of wisdom would decide who was worthy of the new-style welfare and under what conditions. In essence most of the federal strings would be removed, and the states would overall get less than before, but they would have far greater discretion on how to spend it. Thus a comprehensive welfare reform bill was passed by Congress in 1996. This repealed the entitlement aspect of AFDC and was signed into law by President Clinton. The states—with the encouragement of the federal government—got busy simultaneously reinventing welfare programs while seeking to discourage the expansion of the welfare rolls by holding fathers more responsi- ble for supporting their children. Simply put, the problem has proved so difficult that Congress is seeking to put it back on the states. Even without reform we would expect welfare rolls to decrease when jobs are plentiful. But other, more lasting factors are at work as well—factors that suggest that the rolls will not “automatically” go up with a modest economic downturn. A look at the table below, which lists the states in rank order in terms of the per- cent of the state’s population that receives public assistance, in the first decade of post-welfare reform looks desperately random. TABLE 4.6 Number and Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance 2000–2012 2000–12 Rate 2000 % of Population 2012 % of Population of Change United States 2,738,475.00 2.6 3,341,535.00 2.9 0.3 Alaska 16,085.00 7.2 16,654.00 6.6 –0.7 Maine 18,230.00 3.5 28,647.00 5.2 1.7 Vermont 11,014.00 4.6 11,931.00 4.6 0.0 Oregon 43,378.00 3.2 63,241.00 4.2 1.0 California 489,643.00 4.3 514,798.00 4.1 –0.2 Washington 79,644.00 3.5 106,169.00 4.0 0.5 District of Columbia 10,604.00 4.3 10,456.00 3.9 –0.4 Michigan 102,844.00 2.7 147,791.00 3.9 1.2 Minnesota 47,469.00 2.5 79,147.00 3.7 1.2 Pennsylvania 130,764.00 2.8 184,003.00 3.7 0.9 Hawaii 22,742.00 5.9 1,692.00 3.4 –2.5 Mississippi 17,653.00 1.7 37,090.00 3.4 1.7 New York 292,031.00 4.2 245,761.00 3.4 –0.8 Oklahoma 41,254.00 3.1 48,674.00 3.4 –3.0 Tennessee 51,208.00 2.3 84,566.00 3.4 1.1 Ohio 127,520.00 2.9 152,277.00 3.3 0.4 Massachusetts 53,237.00 2.2 79,566.00 3.2 1.0 Nevada 14,351.00 1.9 32,079.00 3.2 1.3 Connecticut 40,111.00 3.1 42,755.00 3.1 0.0 Rhode Island 18,855.00 4.6 12,621.00 3.1 –1.6 (Continued) 174 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations TABLE 4.6 (Continued) 2000–12 Rate 2000 % of Population 2012 % of Population of Change Idaho 8,900.00 1.9 17,634.00 3.0 1.1 New Hampshire 8,532.00 1.8 15,705.00 3.0 1.2 New Jersey 66,837.00 2.2 95,245.00 3.0 0.8 South Dakota 4,078.00 1.4 9,427.00 2.9 1.5 Kentucky 44,327.00 2.8 47,602.00 2.8 0.0 New Mexico 27,562.00 4.2 21,184.00 2.8 –1.4 Arkansas 18,581.00 1.8 30,414.00 2.7 0.9 Delaware 7,099.00 2.4 9,009.00 2.6 0.2 Iowa 29,552.00 2.6 32,286.00 2.6 0.0 Maryland 32,754.00 1.7 56,782.00 2.6 1.0 MissourI 45,675.00 2.0 60,584.00 2.6 0.6 Illinois 102,467.00 2.3 120,276.00 2.5 0.2 Montana 10,122.00 2.8 10,325.00 2.5 –0.3 Utah 11,962.00 1.7 21,499.00 2.4 0.7 Arizona 50,757.00 2.7 55,881.00 2.3 –0.3 Florida 97,461.00 1.5 163,237.00 2.3 0.7 Colorado 26,949.00 1.6 44,180.00 2.2 0.6 West Virginia 18,763.00 2.6 16,105.00 2.2 –0.4 Wisconsin 27,415.00 1.3 49,280.00 2.2 0.8 Indiana 49,013.00 2.1 51,433.00 2.1 0.0 Kansas 18,752.00 1.8 22,980.00 2.1 0.3 Nebraska 17,811.00 2.7 15,717.00 2.1 –0.6 North Carolina 53,033.00 1.7 75,302.00 2.0 0.3 Virginia 36,369.00 1.4 59,501.00 2.0 0.6 Alabama 26,901.00 1.6 35,646.00 1.9 0.4 Georgia 48,052.00 1.6 65,212.00 1.8 0.2 Texas 161,059.00 2.2 160,852.00 1.8 –0.4 Wyoming 3,646.00 1.9 3,851.00 1.7 –0.2 South Carolina 19,001.00 1.3 29,052.00 1.6 0.4 Lousiana 30,448.00 1.8 26,581.00 1.5 –0.3 North Dakota 5,562.00 2.2 4,411.00 1.5 –0.7 Source Note: US Census Bureau Public Assistance Receipt 2000-2012 American Community Surveys 2012 ESA Defintions: Public assistance income provides cash payments to poor families or individuals and includes Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and General Assistance (GA). TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1997 through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, often referred to as “welfare reform.” Unlike AFDC benefits, TANF benefits are time limited, require most adult recipients to work, and give states increased flexibility in program design. GA, also known as General Relief in some areas, usually refers to programs that provide income support to adults without dependents. Public assistance income does not include Supplemental Security Income (SSI), non-cash benefits from programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Food Stamps, or separate payments received for hospital or other medical care. To qualify for public assistance benefits, the income and assets of an individual or family must fall below specified thresholds. The Devolution Revolution 175 This 1937 picture, with its juxtaposition of rich and poor, has long symbolized welfare in a land of plenty. But the photo, taken in Louisville, Kentucky, is triply misleading. First, it is not about traditional welfare at all; the people waiting in the bread line were the victims of flooding. Second, it implies that most welfare recipients are black, when almost twice as many welfare recipients are white. This was as true in 1937 as it is today. According to the US Census Bureau figures, about twice as many whites receive welfare as blacks do. However, just about one-third of all blacks receive welfare, while only about 10 percent of whites do (Charlotte Observer, September 11, 1997). Finally, the United States does not have the “world’s highest standard of living” when judged by overall social indicators such as infant mortality. A United Nations report ranked the United States 4th in overall quality of life (behind Canada, France, and Norway) and 17th in poverty levels behind almost all of the major industrialized states, despite the fact that the United States has the highest per capita income. It is just that this income isn’t as evenly distributed as in the 16 other countries with lower poverty rates (Pittsburgh Post Gazette, September 9, 1998). Source: WH.Gov/Immigration, January 2013 Devolution means that welfare isn’t what it used to be; most importantly, it is no longer an entitlement. Such diversion tactics are now commonplace. California, Kansas, Florida, Oregon, and New York, among other states, all seek to direct applicants into jobs or one-time cash payments (they cannot then reap- ply for a prescribed period). This leads to the second major new factor. The tra- ditional welfare office is evolving into a new administrative animal. According to Rachel L. Swarns (1998), in New York City “job centers are replacing welfare offices. Financial planners are replacing caseworkers. And the entire bureaucracy is morphing into the Family Independence Administration. In truth the same workers still do business in the same buildings, but the city has been infected by a name-changing frenzy that has been sweeping the country. Massachusetts’ 176 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations Department of Public Welfare is now the Department of Transitional Assistance. Florida’s welfare program is now the Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency Program.” Indicative of this major change in terminology is the 1998 decision of the American Public Welfare Association (which represents social service agen- cies) to change its name after 66 years to the American Public Human Services Association. Devolution may not yet have killed welfare in fact, but it has cer- tainly killed it in name. Welfare is just one example of how the age of devolution is bringing us back to the first principles of the age of revolution. Alexander Hamilton, the high priest of an energetic national government among the founding fathers, felt strongly that essentially local issues, as he wrote in The Federalist, No. 17 (1787), “can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction.” Hamilton believed it “improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the [local] powers . . . because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would con- tribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.” Will a rollback of the welfare state contribute to the “dignity” and “splendor” of the federal government? In a reversal of policy that is as stealthy as it seeks to be comprehensive, welfare reform itself is being reformed with little-noticed additions to economic stimulus laws and revised regulations. The only certainties here are that welfare will increase, that this will be paid for with public funding, and that the political drama over the role of welfare rolls will play seem- ingly forever. The Race to the Bottom The ultimate devolution, of course, is to get government out of a particular activ- ity altogether. Certainly, privatization or marketization, has a role to play here. But those who would privatize many aspects of the welfare system are relying on private charitable giving to make up the difference between reduced government spending and the actual life-sustaining needs of the poor. But the very welfare pro- grams that are being criticized were created in the first place because private charity proved insufficient. Charity notwithstanding, the real issue in the devolution of welfare programs is that of a “race to the bottom.” In this race states and their counties increas- ingly lower their welfare benefits to discourage the out-of-state poor from moving in to collect more generous aid than was possible where they were. “Generous” states increasingly resent the fact that “stingy” states are effectively exporting their poor. This is the crux of the intergovernmental welfare dilemma. A state designs a responsible welfare system to take care of its own only to become a welfare magnet to outsiders. But by “racing to the bottom” in terms of benefits, states discourage the out-of-state poor from moving in. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan offered this explanation: “The hidden agenda of the Devolution Revolution is a large-scale withdrawal of support for social welfare, no matter how well conceived. The result would be a race to the bottom, as states, deprived of federal matching funds, com- pete with one another to reduce spending by depriving their own dependent popu- lation of help” (1995, p. D-15). The Devolution Revolution 177 There is already a major differential among the states. The block granting of federal welfare funding that withdraws the federal matching requirement (which was, in effect, an entitlement to the states) may make that differential far worse. Now that welfare eligibility is state (as opposed to nationally) determined, the dif- ferential in benefits can vastly increase. Many states now offer a low level of ben- efits. Conversely, some states have maintained fairly substantial benefits but have dramatically reduced the amount of time one can receive government support. The block grant reforms now allow them to offer no benefits. As this problem shows, the core issues of intergovernmental relations can be reduced to stark realities. It comes down to this: intergovernmental fiscal arrangements ultimately determine— for a large class of citizens—who eats and who goes hungry. Why Illegal Immigration Is an Intergovernmental Mess and A CASE STUDY Will Remain So If you would like to get into a heated debate with someone, illegal immigration would be a good topic to chose. In the United States today there are few issues that draw more emotional reactions than the government’s policies for dealing with illegal or unauthorized immigrants. From border security to the provision of social services to illegal residents, there seem to be a countless number of elements to this polarizing issue. And as the nation struggles over the illegal immigration quandary, the issue has become a perennial point of contention within the federal system of government. With the national, state, and local governments all playing key roles in the management of illegal immigration issues, it is inevitable that this topic will illustrate the complexity of intergovernmental relations in the United States today. As with so many other aspects of public administration, the United States Constitution says very little about the subject of immigration. While never mentioning the word “immigration,” the Constitution addresses naturalization of citizens in two places: Article I, Section Eight, authorizes Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and the Fourteenth Amendment declares “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” With such scant direction from the highest law in the land it has fallen on generations of public officials to manage the process by which foreign-born individuals enter into citizenship. While the process of becoming a citizen has been under the federal government’s auspices, the management of the flow and treatment of those illegally entering the United States has been much more fragmented. Ports of (continued) 178 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations A CASE STUDY Continued entry, border crossing patrols, and customs operations are run by the federal government, with penalties such as incarceration carried out by federal authorities. Although the issue of border security and the prevention of illegal residents from entering the country are the domain of the feds, there is very little satisfaction with the way the powers in Washington, DC have dealt with the issue. According to the Pew Hispanic Center there were approximately 11.7 million illegal immigrants living in the United States in 2012, with almost six in ten coming from Mexico. In addition there were 4.5 million US born children whose parents were unauthorized aliens at the time of their birth. To deal with this vast population of illegal immigrants and their American born children, state and local governments have struggled to provide support services. From schools to medical care, illegal immigrants require many of the same services needed by legal immigrants and citizens. However, unauthorized aliens are likely to have paid less in taxes than citizens because of “under the table” employment options which often allow them to work for undocumented and untaxed cash as part of the nation’s already vast underground tax- evading economy. In addition, their often poor economic conditions, their lack of health insurance, and language barriers require more public social services than average Americans. The failure of the federal government to stop the influx of these illegal aliens or to adequately compensate state and local governments for the costs entailed in providing social services for them has led to many initiatives emerging from state capitals, counties, and even cities. The gut issue here is not so much the immigrants themselves, who tend to be an overall plus for the economy, but the costs of servicing their needs. To the extent that the federal government fails to control its international borders, it is forcing—mandating—state and local governments to provide billions of dollars in educational, medical, and other social services to the illegal immigrants without reimbursement. This is why illegal immigration is the mother of all unfunded mandates. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, over 5,000 immigration bills were submitted by state lawmakers between 2007 and 2012, with 1606 introduced in 2011 alone. This flurry of bills came as a major federal immigration overhaul bill that was supported by President Bush failed to emerge from Congress. In the void left by the federal government’s inactivity, the state bills have tended to be punitive to illegal immigrants. Among the approaches most commonly employed by states have been policies that deny illegal immigrants access to government programs and laws that penalize employers for hiring undocumented workers. In some cases states have passed laws that strip government funding to The Devolution Revolution 179 charitable organizations if they use the money to provide services to illegal immigrants. Perhaps the most famous example of a state policy targeting unauthorized aliens is Arizona’s Bill 1070 which was passed by the state legislature in 2010 and quickly signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Bill 1070 required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual’s immigration status when stopped for any legal matter and that suspicion of an individual being an unauthorized alien was a lawful reason for a police officer to stop them. The law also imposed stiff penalties on anyone that sheltered, hired or transported an illegal alien in Arizona. Although incredibly conterversial, Bill 1070 was seen as a model for other states, with five states adopting similar laws in 2011. Not surprisingly the federal government, under the leadership of President Obama, challenged the constitutionality of the Arizona Law on the grounds that it interfered with immigration powers vested with the federal government. In June of 2012 the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States found that most of Bill 1070, including a provision requiring individuals to carry papers documenting citizenship, were unconstitutional because they are preempted by federal law. The decision in this case did uphold the portion of the law that gave Arizona law enforcement officials the ability to determine the immigration status of an individual that has been detained if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an unauthorized alien. While states such as Arizona have thrown themselves headlong into the immigration fracas, many of the most contentious battles in the immigration tempest have occurred at the municipal level. Surprisingly, many of the most controversial actions have not occurred in major cities or communities on the Mexican border, but in smaller towns far away from the highest concentrations of illegal residents. For example, the small northeastern Pennsylvania city of Hazelton drew national attention when it adopted an ordinance that fined businesses and landlords who employ or house illegal immigrants. A recent surge of Hispanic residents to the formerly homogeneous city pushed the issue onto the public agenda in Hazelton, but as can be expected in a federal system, Hazelton’s laws would not be left to the city’s residents to decide. Instead, the Hazelton laws are being challenged in federal court largely on the grounds that municipalities have no right to preempt federal authority on immigration issues, and that the Hazelton laws clash with federal antidiscrimination and fair- housing laws. While the federal courts did find Hazelton’s law unconstitutional in July of 2007, it seems clear that the outcome of the case did not end the intergovernmental mess that engulfs this issue. In the wake of the case (continued) 180 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations A CASE STUDY Continued several states including Oklahoma, Colorado, and Virginia decided to curtail medical care, mortgage loans, and other benefits for illegal immigrants as the national economy soured. And back on the west coast there were renewed efforts in California to place a question on the ballot that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare benefits for their children, and impose new rules for birth certificates. But as some states and municipalities were ratcheting up their efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, others have begun to take on a more supportive stance regarding unauthorized aliens living within their borders. In 2013 a number of states including Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado and Oregon adopted laws that provided in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants who graduated from the state’s public high schools. In that same year, nine other states passed laws that gave unauthorized aliens the ability to obtain driver’s licenses. So as states and local governments vacillated in terms of their policies towards illegal aliens, the federal government’s inability to adopt even modest reforms to immigration policy remained on full display. After the 2012 presidential election where seven out of ten Hispanic voters voted for Barack Obama, many Republican leaders called for a new approach to immigration that was more supportive of illegal immigrants already in the United States. This revised strategy drew support from key GOP figures such as Senator John McCain of Arizona and rising Republican star and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, ultimately passing the Senate by over a two to one margin in the summer of 2013. This bill provided a path for citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants while simultaneously boosting border security to unprecedented levels. Of course a bill passed in one house of Congress does not make a law and in this case the immigration reform efforts went nowhere in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. But following the elections of 2014 when the Republicans won back control of the US Senate and strengthened their hold in the House, an emboldened President Obama announced a new executive policy regarding immigration that by-passed Congress. The essence of the Obama Plan to overhaul the broken immigration systems was to tell the nearly 5 million “illegal” immigrants estimated to be in the US that they won’t be deported if they can pass a simple background check and pay their taxes to assure that they are not a threat to national security or public safety. While the next chapter is still to be written in terms of what will ultimately be approved in the form of congressional legislation, the interesting point, not to be lost on those still trying to figure out what the federal government will do in terms of emerging new laws and policies on marijuana. Only here the national government choses to create a policy of non-enforcement for the larger numbers of people affected. The Devolution Revolution 181 FIGURE 4.3 President Obama’s “Common-Sense Immigration Reform Proposal” For Discussion: Why have state and local governments become more active in regulating illegal immigrants during recent years? How does the design of American federalism lead to the types of intergovernmental conflicts found in the area of immigration? 182 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations SUMMARY The process of intergovernmental relations is federalism in action. It is the complex network of day-to-day interrelationships among the governments within a federal system. It is the political, fiscal, programmatic, and administrative processes by which higher units of government share revenues and other resources with lower units of government, generally accompanied by special conditions that the lower units must satisfy as prerequisites to receiving the assistance. The US Constitution created the permanent features of intergovernmen- tal relations in the United States. The popular image of the federal system as a layer cake, with each layer of government neatly on top of the other, is deceptive. The reality is more like a marble cake, in which the cooperative relations among the varying levels of government result in an intermingling—not a layering—of activities. The key word in the new American thrust toward decentralization or devolu- tion is mandate: one level of government requires another to offer—or pay for— a program as a matter of law or as a prerequisite to partial or full funding for either the program in question or other programs. Mandates are orders. The movement toward devolution is spurred on by jurisdictions and constituencies that increas- ingly resent taking such orders. Fiscal federalism refers to the financial relationships that exist between units of government in a federal system. A central question is frequently asked about fiscal federalism: why can’t the citizens of the states just keep their money (meaning have their federal taxes reduced) rather than paying it to the federal government so that it can be returned in grants and services? The only certainty here is that the states have become addicted to intergovernmental funding. This trend is accelerating with public expenditures for health care The question remains whether their political leaders will gradually wean them from it or feed their habit. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a federal system of government? 2. Why is the American federal system considered to be more like a marble cake than a layer cake? 3. Why are mandates such a cause of friction in intergovernmental relations? 4. Why are federal grant programs so important to state and local governments? 5. Is the movement toward devolution more of a threat or an opportunity for national governments in a federal system? KEY CONCEPTS Accountability The extent to which one must answer to higher authority—legal or organizational—for one’s actions in society at large or within one’s particular organizational position. Elected public officials are theoretically accountable to the political sovereignty of the voters. In this sense, appointed officials—from file clerks to cabinet secretaries—are less accountable than elected officials. The former are accountable mainly to their organizational supervisors, while the latter must answer to their constituents. Key Concepts 183 Bill of Rights The first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Only a few individual rights were specified in the Constitution that was ratified in 1789. Shortly after its adoption, however, ten amendments—called the Bill of Rights—were added to the Constitution to guarantee basic individual liberties. Block grant A grant distributed in accordance with a statutory formula for use in a variety of activities within a broad functional area, largely at the recipient’s discretion. Categorical grant A grant that can be used only for specific, narrowly defined activities— for example, to construct an interstate highway. Council of government (COG) An organization of cooperating local governments seeking a regional approach to planning, development, transportation, environment, and other issues. Cruel and unusual punishment The criminal penalty prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, which not only bars government from imposing punishment that is barbarous but, as the US Supreme Court has announced, forbids punishment that society’s “evolving standards of decency” would mark as excessive. Devolution The transfer of power from a central to a local authority. Fiscal federalism The financial relations between and among units of government in a fed- eral system. The theory of fiscal federalism, or multiunit government finance, is one part of the branch of applied economics known as public finance. Grodzins, Morton (1917–1964) A University of Chicago political scientist. Who likened American federalism to a marble cake as opposed to layers of distinct governance. Grant An intergovernmental transfer of funds (or other assets). Since the New Deal, state and local governments have become increasingly dependent on federal grants for an almost infinite variety of programs. Great Society The label for the 1960s domestic policies of the Johnson administration, which were premised on the belief that social and economic problems could be solved by new federal programs. This was Johnson’s effort to revive the federal reform presence in social change represented in the Progressive movement, the New Deal, and the Fair Deal. Interstate compacts Formal arrangements entered into by two or more states, generally with the approval of the US Congress, to operate joint programs. Keynes, John Maynard (1883–1946) The English economist who wrote the most influential book on economics of the last century, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). Keynes founded a school of thought known as Keynesian economics, which called for using a government’s fiscal and monetary policies to positively influence a capital- istic economy and developed the framework of modern macroeconomic theory. Mandates One level of government requiring another to offer—and/or pay for—a program as a matter of law or as a prerequisite to partial or full funding for either the program in question or other programs. Medicaid The federally aided, state-operated, and state-administered program that pro- vides medical benefits for certain low-income people in need of health and medical care. Authorized by 1965 amendments to the Social Security Act, it covers only members of one of the categories of people who can be covered under the welfare cash payment programs—the aged, the blind, the disabled, and members of families with dependent children where one parent is absent, incapacitated, or unemployed. Necessary and proper clause That portion of Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution (sometimes called the elastic clause) that makes it possible for Congress to enact all “neces- sary and proper” laws to carry out its responsibilities. 184 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations Pinchot, Gifford (1865–1946) America’s first professional forester, who is credited with coining the term conservation. Twice governor of Pennsylvania (1923–1927; 1931–1935), he became internationally famous as President Theodore Roosevelt’s partner in making con- servation a national issue. Pitt, William (1708–1778) The First Earl of Chatham, known as the Great Commoner for his leadership in the House of Commons. The City of Pittsburgh is named in his honor. Historians call him “the elder” because his son with the same name was later prime minister. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arizona v. United States (2012) 567 US. Articles of Confederation (1781) “Article III”, in Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774–1789. Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie. Avail- able from https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html Bennett, Clay (2007) “When Illegal Migrants Flood a City,” Christian Science Monitor (July 31). Bryce, James (1891) The American Commonwealth. Chicago: C.H. Sergel & Co. Cook, Gareth G. (1995) “Devolution Chic: Why Sending Power to the States Could Make a Monkey Out of Uncle Sam,” Washington Monthly (April). Davis v. Bandemer (1986) 478 US 109. Ehrenhalt, Alan (1995) “The Locust in the Garden of Government,” Governing (March). Furtwangler, Albert (1984) The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich) (2005) 545 US 1. Greenhouse, Linda (2007) “Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases,” New York Times (April 3). Grodzins, Morton (1966) The American System, ed. Daniel J. Elazar. Chicago: Rand McNally. Hamilton, Alexander (1788) The Federalist No. 17, The Federalist Papers (Signet Classic, 2003). New York: The New American Library. Hughes, Robert (1993) The Culture of Complaint. New York: Oxford University Press. Jensen, Clayne R. and Steven Guthrie (2006) Outdoor Recreation in America, 6th ed. New York: Macmillan. Keynes, John Maynard (1964) The General Theory of Employment. New York: Harcourt. Kettl, Donald F. (2000) “The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution, and the Role of Government,” Public Administration Review 60. Kim, Seung Min (2013) “Immigration reform bill 2013: Senate passes legislation 68–32” Politico (June 28). Available from <http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration- bill-2013-senate-passes-93530.html#ixzz2rQ8LQlH1> Louisiana v. Hays (1995) 515 US 737. Madison, James (1789) The Federalist #10. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1961. Marketplace Fairness Act (2016) Who supports the Marketplace Fairness Act? Available at http://marketplacefairness.org/support/ McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 17 US 316. McPherson, James (1988) Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press. Melton, Buckner F., Jr, ed. (2004) “Jefferson, Thomas” in The Quotable Founding Fathers. Washington DC: Potomac Books. Miller, Sara B. (2005) “Northeast Battles Its Status as US ‘Tailpipe,’” Christian Science Monitor (April 1). Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (1995) “The Devolution Revolution,” New York Times (August 6). Recommended Books 185 National Conference of State Legislatures (2007) “2007 Enacted State Legislation Related to Immigrants and Immigration” (August 15). National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (2016). Available from http:// <www.norml.org>. Obama, Barack (1995) Dreams from My Father. New York: NY Times Books. Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler (1992) Reinventing Government. Boston: Addison- Wesley. Passel, Jeffrey (2007) “Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population,” Pew Hispanic Center (March 21). Passel, Jeffrey S. (2013) “Population Decline of Unauthorized Immigrants Stalls, May Have Reversed,” The Pew Hispanic Center (September 23) Available from <http:// www.pewhispanic.org/2013/09/23/population-decline-of-unauthorized-immigrants- stalls-may-have-reversed/> Pew Hispanic Center (2013) A Nation of Immigrants: A Portrait of the 40 Million, Including 11 Million Unauthorized. Available from <http://www.pewhispanic.org/ 2013/01/29/a-nation-of-immigrants/> Pooley, Eric (1995) “Things That Make Rudy Nuts: The Mayor’s Real Top Ten List: Unfunded Federal, State, and Judicial Mandates That Push the City into the Red,” New York Times (January 30). Printz v. United States (1997) 521 US 899. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) 504 US 298. Russakoff, Dale and Rene Sanchez (2003) “Begging, Borrowing for Security: Homeland Burden Grows for Cash-Strapped States, Cities,” Washington Post (April 1). Sanford, Terry (1967) Storm Over the States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shanahan, Eileen (1991) “Going It Jointly: Regional Solutions for Local Problems,” Gov- erning (August). Swarns, Rachel L. (1998) “A New Broom Needs a New Handle: Welfare as We Know It Goes Incognito,” New York Times (July 5). Timbs, John (1880) “1763 statement by William Pitt, the elder, in the British House of Lords,” in Anecdote Lives of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, and Edmund Burke. Lon- don: Richard Bentley & Sons. Vobejda, Barbara, and Judith Havemann (1998) “States’ Welfare Shift: Stop It Before It Starts,” Washington Post (August 12). Wogan, J.B. (2013) “Alabama’s Anti-Immigration Law Gutted.” Governing (November 13, 2013) <http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/gov-alabamas-anti-immigration-law- dies-amid-hunger-for-reform.html> Wright, Deil S. (1988) Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. RECOMMENDED BOOKS Conlan, Timothy (1998) From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-Five Years of Inter- governmental Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. The history of American federalism from the 1970s through the 1990s. Filippov, Mikhail, Peter C. Ordeshook, and Olga Shvetsova (2004) Designing Federalism: A Theory of Self-Sustainable Federal Institutions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. An analysis of the factors that led to the development of successful federalist systems—from a global perspective. Kamarck, Elaine and Joseph S. Nye (2002) Governance.com. Washington, DC: Brookings. While many of the contributions deal with technology and governance, this remains an importance first work in laying out the foundations of governance from a PA perspective. 186 CHAPTER 4 Intergovernmental Relations Laurence, L. and Robert K. Christensen (2012) American Intergovernmental Relations, 5th edn. Widely considered as the replacement to Deil Wright’s classic textbook on IGR, this edition includes new selections on the judiciary’s role in modern governance. Posner, Paul L. (1998) The Politics of Unfunded Mandates: Whither Federalism? Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. The origins and politics of congressional requirements for state and local governments to implement federal policies. CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability CHAPTER OUTLINE Keynote: Niccolò Machiavelli, the Codes of Honor, Conduct, and Preeminent Public Administration Ethics 203 Ethicist 187 Honorable Behavior 203 Was “Deep Throat’s” Behavior The Origins and Nature of Honorable? 204 Honor 190 Standards of Conduct 205 National Honor 191 Why Honor Precedes Ethics 192 Whistleblowing 206 Dimensions of Honor 193 Protecting the Public’s Right to Know 206 Regime Values 194 Protecting Whistleblowers 207 Corruption in Government 195 The Challenge of Accountability 210 Bribery 195 Constitutional and Legal Constraints 212 Watergate 196 Obsessive Accountability 213 Avoiding Accountability 214 Lying for Your Country 196 The Dirty Hands Dilemma 197 Legislative Oversight 215 Lying about Sex 198 Hearings 215 Casework 217 Hierarchy of Ethics 200 The Four Levels of Ethics 200 A Case Study: The Gas Chamber of The Iran-Contra Affair 201 Philadelphia 217 The Higher Law Defense 202 KEYNOTE: Niccolò Machiavelli, the Preeminent Public Administration Ethicist It has been more than five centuries since his birth, but Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) remains the most quoted, most read, most interpreted, and most mis- understood public policy adviser who ever lived. By the time William Shakespeare wrote Richard III in 1592, he could assume that his audience would be familiar with Machiavelli’s diabolical reputation. Thus Shakespeare could have his title character introduce himself as being so evil that he could “set the murderous Machiavelli to 187 188 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability school.” Similar references to Machiavelli as the personification of evil abound in the plays and literature of Shakespeare’s time and have continued ever since. But it’s a bum rap. Machiavelli was really a nice guy. Indeed, he is an exem- plar as a public administrator and policy analyst. Born into a family of ancient nobility but persistent impoverishment, he was educated well enough to become a civil servant and sometime ambassador for Florence beginning in 1498. He was an honest, truthful, and competent employee. But his was a patronage position (there being no merit system then), and he lost his job and nearly his life with a shift in the political winds of 1512. Thereafter, he eked out a living on a meager farm left to him by his father. His greatest desire was to go back to work for his beloved Florence, now in the control of the Medici family. So, like many a high-level political appointee out of power, he wrote a book (indeed several) to demonstrate his usefulness to potential employers. In his most famous private letter (dated December 10, 1513), quoted by biographer Giuseppe Prezzolini, he expresses hope that “if it [his book The Prince] were read, they [the Medici] would see that for . . . fifteen years I have Why is this man smiling? Princeton professor Maurizio Viroli titles his biography of Machiavelli Niccolò’s Smile and then goes to great length—indeed, book length—to explain how the smile in this portrait is indicative of the subtlety of his mind. But because the portrait was painted several years after Machiavelli died, we may surmise that this is not necessarily his real smile. Enigmatic smiles are a hallmark of old portraits. (Remember the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci.) Then remember the reason that practically none of these old portraits have toothy smiles as is common today: bad teeth. Until modern dentistry, even the richest people had terrible teeth—not to mention breath. So it is reasonable to conclude that Niccolò’s smile is more dental than mental. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Keynote: Niccolò Machiavelli, the Preeminent Public Administration Ethicist 189 been studying the art of the state.” He even offers proof of his honesty as a past and potential employee: “As a witness to my honesty and goodness I have my poverty” (Prezzolini, 1967). Because Machiavelli, despite constant efforts, never did get the government job he so coveted, after working on his farm all day, he spent his nights working on the most enduring books of political philosophy produced during the Italian Renais- sance. The Prince (1532) and The Discourses (1531) were important political and military analyses that led to the use of the term Machiavellianism to refer to cun- ning, cynical, and ruthless behavior based on the notion of the end justifying the use of almost any means. What Machiavelli actually noted in The Prince was that a ruler would be judged by results—and through this—his methods will always be judged positively. Machiavelli, as one of the first policy advisers, developed a set of prescriptions and proscriptions for his prince that were designed to ensure that the prince would flourish politically. Machiavelli offers a set of axioms and ideas about obtaining power, holding on to power, and using power to gain advantage: Q Men should either be treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries—for heavy ones they cannot. [Potential organizational or political rivals should be either made part of your team or “destroyed”—fired or killed—because if left in place, they will, like a snake, bite you in the rear when you least expect it.] Q Princes ought to leave affairs of reproach to the management of others, and keep those of grace in their own hands. [The good news a leader delivers with a maximum of publicity; the bad news is quietly announced by a low-level assistant.] Q It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope. [It is as James Madison, a reader of Machiavelli, wrote in The Federalist, No. 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” To this extent the US Constitution with its system of checks and balances is reflective of Machiavelli.] Q Princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles. [This advice may sound familiar to anyone who has been deceived by a leader, such as when President Richard Nixon said, “I am not a crook,” or when president Bill Clinton told the nation, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”] If lying politicians have a patron saint, it must be Machiavelli, who wrote in The Prince, “It is necessary that the prince should know how to color his nature well, and how to be a great hypocrite and dissembler. For men are so simple, and held so much to immediate necessity, that the deceiver will never lack dupes.” Machiavelli’s ideal prince would not be a traditional man of honor; his word would not be his bond. Machiavelli’s advice was “not to keep faith when by so doing it would be against his interest and when the reasons which made him bind himself no longer 190 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability exist” (Machiavelli, 1532, pp. 64–65). This was the kind of thing that made people suspect that not only was Machiavelli not a gentleman, but his books were not fit reading for gentlemen either. Machiavelli, in his advice, disregarded the issue of morality—apart from those circumstances where it was prudent or necessary for the prince to appear to be moral. Yet this was essentially ethical because the lying was for the good of the state. Machiavelli’s theory of lying was a restatement of Plato’s noble lie from Book 3 of The Republic, in which he asserts that the guardians of a society may put forth untruths necessary to maintain social order. But, alas, Machiavelli’s books failed in their initial purpose to get him into a job and out of poverty. While his manuscripts circulated privately among his friends, The Prince was not published until five years after his death. Only then did it become a sensation. Posthumously, Machiavelli has been a great success. Much like a modern rapper who becomes more and more famous as critics denounce his vile lyrics, Machiavelli became notorious because he was denounced by all three of the major political factions of his time: the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, and the Republicans. Because it was so widely denounced, The Prince became all the more widely read—or, rather, misread. Readers seeking to find evil found it. But a more subtle and modern reading finds it less and less evil and more and more practical. Machiavelli’s book of advice to would-be leaders is the progenitor of all “how-to-succeed” books that advocate practical rather than moral actions. For Discussion: Why is Machiavelli still so critically important for understanding the mechanisms of power in public policymaking and administrative practices? What current public figures have followed Machiavelli’s example and have written articles and books specifically so they could influence public policies and/or gain public office? THE ORIGINS AND NATURE OF HONOR Our modern concepts of honor have their origins in ancient Greece and Rome. The classic example of honorable public service was Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the Roman patrician who has become the symbol of republican virtue and personal integrity. In 458 bc, when Rome was threatened with military defeat, Cincinnatus, a farmer, was appointed dictator by the Senate to deal with the emergency. Legend has it that he literally abandoned his plow in midfield to take command. Within 16 days he defeated the enemy, resigned from the dictatorship, and returned to his plow. Ever since, politicians have been insincerely asserting how much they yearn to give up power and return to the farm, as Cincinnatus did. This is a very strong theme in American political history. Until the twentieth century, it was thought politically indecent to publicly lust after political power. Politicians were expected to sit contentedly on their farms, metaphorically behind their plows, until they were called to service. George Washington is one of the few genuine Cincinnatus figures in world history. Indeed, Lord Byron (George Noel Gordon) in his 1814 Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte, called Washington “the Cincinnatus of the West.” Garry Wills writes The Origins and Nature of Honor 191 in Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (1984), [On Decem- ber 23, 1783, at the end of the Revolutionary War, General George Washington] “spoke what he took to be his last words on the public stage; ‘Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theater of Action  .  .  .  I here offer my commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.’ At that moment, the ancient legend of Cincinnatus—the Roman called from his plow to rescue Rome, and returning to this plow when danger had passed—was resurrected as a fact of modern political life” (Wills, 1984). The example of Cincinnatus is still with us today. It is even unconsciously evoked for a modern public that never heard of the ancient Roman. For example, Ronald Reagan is quoted by E. G. Brown in Reagan and Reality: “One thing our founding fathers could not foresee  .  .  .  was a nation governed by professional politicians who had a vested interest in getting reelected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then looking forward to getting back to the farm.” The modern term limits movement is at its core an effort to legislate Cincinnatus- type behavior—to send them back “to the farm” (Brown, 1970, p. 51). Of course, both Cincinnatus and Washington were not merely farmers. They both had major estates with slaves to do the heavy lifting. Modern political leaders not only lack slaves, but they also do not even have farms anymore. Having no honorable and luxurious place to which to retreat when recalled from public life, they fight all the harder to stay in the game. Shakespeare’s Marc Antony was right. We are “all honorable men”—and women. Our culture inculcates us with concepts of honor from childhood. Much of our sense of honor comes from observing the actions of family and neighbors. The rest comes from the media. Many people get their first conscious lessons in honor from movies. Westerns directed by John Ford and others taught Americans the “code of the West.” They taught you that one’s word was sacrosanct and thus was not given lightly, taught you when an insult was so bad that it warranted violence, and taught you, above all, to protect the weak—all notions from medieval chivalry. Later, space “westerns” such as Star Trek and Star Wars taught a new genera- tion the intergalactic concept of honor, which, of course, was no different from the medieval concept. Some things have not changed in a thousand years. Thus young people still learn what it means to be honorable by listening to (and watching) the sagas of their culture. Star Trek as a transmitter of notions of honor is just a mod- ern version of the eighth-century Beowulf or the eleventh-century Song of Roland. Honor has been and remains one of the core influences of human behavior. It is often more important than life itself. The founders of the United States in the last sentence of their 1776 Declaration of Independence stated, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Their lives were not sacred. Their fortunes were not sacred. But their honor was. National Honor Once reserved for the nobility, since the eighteenth century honor has become increasingly democratized. As absolutist governments declined, national honor (once solely the concern of individual monarchs) became a factor that influenced 192 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability whole peoples. No less a pragmatist than President Woodrow Wilson felt the pull of national honor. In 1916 he asserted that “the nation’s honor is dearer than the nation’s comfort; yes, than the nation’s life itself” (Wilson, 1916, p. 28). Thus a collective democratic citizenry, no less than a defenseless maiden, may espouse the motto “death before dishonor.” This notion is more than melodramatic hyperbole. During World War II, the French dishonored themselves by surrendering so quickly to the Germans in the spring of 1940. They were not willing to fight the Nazis in the streets of Paris and see their beautiful city destroyed. But the British, expecting an invasion soon afterward, were willing to sacrifice London. When Winston Churchill told the House of Commons on June 4, 1940, immediately after the Dunkirk evacuation that “we shall defend our island, what- ever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,” he meant exactly that. Indeed, he later wrote in his postwar memoirs, Their Finest Hour (1949), that “we were prepared to go to all lengths. I intended to use the slogan ‘you can always take one with you.’” Suicidal? Perhaps—but honorable all the same. When General Charles de Gaulle fled to England rather than surrender, he was asked why he was there. He replied, “I am here to save the honor of France.” There is still debate about whether he succeeded or not. (At least he tried!) The US involvement in the Vietnam War can also be viewed through the per- spective of national honor. As the costs of the war became more than the American public was willing to bear, the nation’s leaders struggled to find a way for the United States to leave Vietnam while maintaining its appearance as a strong and proud world power. Even when the chances of military success in Vietnam became remote, the United States continued to send troops into the field, as diplomats tried to negotiate an acceptable peace. In 1973 President Richard M. Nixon addressed a national audience that he had concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam. Ultimately, it can be argued that Nixon’s agreement brought neither real peace nor real honor to the United States, yet the importance of maintaining an appearance of honor was essential to any plan that extricated the United States from its involvement in Vietnam. As the United States scaled down its military operations in Iraq in 2008, the issue of maintaining national honor was once again playing a significant role in the decision-making process on the removal of combat troops. During the 2009 presidential campaign then candidate Barack Obama was adamant that if elected he would have American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Like Nixon before him, Obama would not declare victory in Iraq, but instead attempted to preserve American honor while recognizing the limited success of our efforts there. Still, the US completed its final withdrawal of American military forces by the end of 2011. Why Honor Precedes Ethics Honor comes before ethics because a person without honor has no moral compass and does not know which way to turn to be ethical. Honor goes to the essence of public affairs; since ancient times only individuals perceived to be honorable could be trusted with the public’s business. Of course, honor always has a context, and it is The Origins and Nature of Honor 193 always influenced by the prevailing organizational and political culture. Melvin M. Belli, the American attorney, relates a story that illustrates this point. In the early 1950s Belli traveled to Paris to represent his client, movie star Errol Flynn, who had a legal tangle with a French firm over the profits from a movie. When Belli arrived, the French lawyer on the case advised him that there was nothing to worry about: “We have given the judge 200,000 francs and the case is in the bag.” When Belli wondered aloud what would happen if the other side were to give the judge 300,000 francs, his French associate became indignant and replied, “But Monsieur, we are dealing with a respectable judge. He is a man of honor. He would not think of taking from both sides” (Belli, 1976, p. 130). This French judge’s concept of honor was quite unlike the apocryphal American judge who, after taking bribes from both sides in a dispute, decided to try the case on its merits. Which judge is more ethical? Dimensions of Honor Honor has many dimensions. The most obvious and superficial kind is ex officio. This is the Latin phrase meaning “by virtue of the office.” Many people hold posi- tions on boards, commissions, councils, and so on because of another office they occupy. For example, the mayor of a city may be an ex officio member of the board of trustees of a university in that city. Thus “honorable” is the form of address used for many public officials, such as judges, mayors, and members of the US Congress. Here honorable does not necessarily imply personal honor or integrity; it merely signifies current (or past) incumbency. Consequently, even after Richard M. Nixon disgraced himself and was forced to resign as president in 1974, he was still for- mally “The Honorable” in terms of formal address. Honor is also a function of the outward perception of one’s reputation. Repu- tation in business, whether of an individual or an organization, is a highly valued asset. Indeed, when businesses are sold, they often sell for sums far in excess of their book value because of their intangible goodwill or reputation in the community. Goodwill Q True honor begins with personal integrity and honesty. It goes beyond Benja- The reputation and built-up business of min Franklin’s famous admonition from his Poor Richard’s Almanac that “honesty a company. It can is the best policy.” Think how cynical Franklin’s statement is—it seems to have been be generally valued derived from Cervantes’s Don Quixote, anyway. Honesty is not worthwhile for its as what a company own sake; it is simply the optimum policy—one choice from among many. But true would sell for above honesty, as opposed to policy honesty, is the essence of a person of honor. Such peo- the value of its physical property, ple act with integrity. This is at the core of honor. Those who have integrity live up money owed to it, and to their stated principles, values, and most importantly, their word. A person whose other assets. word is his or her bond gives the full faith and credit of his or her whole being to keeping commitments. Sometimes this is almost frivolous, as it was when the legendary Abraham Lincoln walked miles through the snow to return a book by a promised date. But far more often one’s word is the coin of the administrative realm. Things happen because one person tells something to another. This integrity of communication is essential for the smooth functioning of organizations that, in essence, are merely information-processing structures. This is why codes of honor (or integrity) first evolved among the military. Because lives, indeed whole battles, depended on the 194 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability accuracy of information sent up the chain of command, it was imperative that an ethic of honesty be instilled. This is still true today. If the word of an officer is not known to be good, that officer has lost his or her effectiveness to his or her superior. A second but more subtle meaning of integrity is integrated strength or char- acter. A building that holds together is said to have structural integrity. Individuals, who have character, as demonstrated by an observable long period of acting with Gravitas Q integrity, are said to have gravitas, or as the British put it, “stability”—meaning that Intellectual weight. they are seated firmly enough in their convictions that they are not easily swayed. A politician must Thus those who have integrity have a sure sense of right from wrong; they know exhibit a certain degree of gravitas what their core beliefs are, and what they will or will not do, no matter what the if he or she is to be pressure. taken seriously for high office. Regime Values Administrators with integrity understand that they have a special moral obligation to the people they serve. They take seriously what John Rohr calls the “regime values” of their jurisdiction. In constitutional systems these values are established by the constitution, whether written, as in the United States, or unwritten, as in the United Kingdom. To a person of honor, an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” is a serious matter. Thus, according to Rohr, the Constitution “is the moral foundation of ethics for bureau- crats” (Rohr, 1986, p. 70). Those senior administrators who gain reputations for being ethical and honorable abide by a new-fashioned noblesse oblige. Originally the “nobility obliged” by leading in war and demonstrated their honor and valor by taking physical risks to prove their courage—to demonstrate on the field of honor (a battlefield) just how honorable they were. Lacking a traditional nobility, republican governments give leadership roles to senior bureaucrats and elected officials. Once in office, their fellow citizens rightly expect them to take moral and career risks, parallel to the traditional risks of combat, to protect their fellow citizens, the regime, and their constitution. And they must be heroic enough to risk not just their lives but their livelihoods as well. Louis Brandeis, later to be an associate justice of the US Supreme Court, argued in the 1910 Glavis-Ballinger case that public administrators “cannot be worthy of the respect and admiration of the people unless they add to the virtue of obedience some other virtues—virtues of manliness, of truth, of courage, of willingness to risk position, of the willingness to risk criticism, of the willing- ness to risk the misunderstanding that so often comes when people do the heroic thing” (McCulloch, 1952, p. 2). It is often said that managers are paid more than workers because they are paid to take risks, to make decisions that can cost them their jobs. Public managers live in an even riskier environment. Not only must they take normal management risks, but they must also risk their careers, their reputations, sometimes even their lives, to protect the values of the regime. It is simply a matter of honor. All too often managers and employees fall from honor—or it may be that they never had it in the first place. Lapses take many forms. The two most common lapses of honor and honesty are corruption and lying. Corruption in Government 195 TABLE 5.1 American Government Officials Charged/Convicted of Public Corruption under Federal Law 1993–2001 2005–2014 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2014 Totals Totals Federal Officials Charged 627 459 502 445 425 364 4983 8886 Convicted 595 392 414 390 426 364 4511 8148 Awaiting Trial 118 107 1131 State Officials Charged 113 51 95 96 93 80 936 2065 Convicted 133 49 61 94 102 109 845 1860 Awaiting Trial 51 57 33 Local Officials Charged 309 255 224 309 270 231 2515 5387 Convicted 272 169 184 232 257 252 2136 4690 Awaiting Trial 148 148 100 Private Citizens Involved Charged 322 292 266 313 294 330 2725 5886 Convicted 362 243 261 311 276 300 2420 5256 Source: Report on the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity Section for 2014, Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department Of Justice CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT Recurrent scandals and instances of official mischief in government, no matter how much they threaten to cost, pose a great threat to the democratic notions of the rule of law. When a public official misuses his or her office for self-gain, then the rule of law no longer prevails, and there is, in effect, a return to tyranny. By engaging in such self-aggrandizement, corrupt representatives of the people illegally put them- selves above the law. Moreover, a public official’s act of wrongdoing is destructive of the claim that in a democracy all individuals are equal. Just like the pig in George Orwell’s Animal Farm who cannot accept the idea that “all animals are equal,” these self-interested officials in effect are saying, “but some of us are more equal than others.” The porcine imagery continues when you think of them not only feed- ing at the public trough, but also “hogging” more than their share. Corruption Q The unauthorized Bribery use of public office Corruption also undermines economic rights. Consider bribery when it occurs for private gain. The most common forms within the competitive process of governmental purchasing. When contracts are of corruption are awarded illegally by means of bribes, the losing competitors can be said to have had bribery, extortion, and their rights to a fair and impartial bidding process abridged. The public’s right to the misuse of inside have purchases made in the most efficient and least costly fashion is also subverted. information. 196 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability This kind of corruption makes a mockery of economic considerations. The few that greedily feed at the public trough deny the rights of others to enter a fair system of economic competition. Of course, viewed systemically, bribery is an important element in any politi- cal system. It supplements the salaries of various public officials. This is especially true in societies where public sector salaries are unreasonably low. Some police officers, customs agents, and building inspectors, for example, would be unable to maintain their standard of living if it were not for such informal salary increments. Additionally, such income supplement programs forestall the need for politically unpopular, precipitous tax hikes that would bring the legal wages of such officers up to reasonable levels. Systematic bribery allows business operators, dependent on the discretionary powers of public officials for their livelihood, to stabilize the relationships essential for the smooth functioning of their businesses. After all, many regulations that govern safety or conditions of business operation may not be universally applicable, reasonably enforceable, or economically feasible. Bribery’s occasional exposure by the press serves to foster the political alienation of the elec- torate, which in turn encourages cynicism and reduces support for the democratic processes of government. While it is possible to quibble over the particulars of any given instance or non-instance of bribery, its pervasiveness in too many communi- ties is generally not contested except by the most naive or the most corrupt. Bribery is even an important and time-honored tool of foreign policy. Of course, the United States does not have to bribe a foreign government to influence its support on some international issue. It can achieve the same effect by granting or withholding military or economic aid. Watergate A society’s humor is a good indicator of its political corruption. For example, many analysts predicted that President Nixon would eventually be forced from office because of the Watergate scandal once Johnny Carson, the most popular, most mainstream, and most middle-of-the-road of American comedians, started telling jokes on his Tonight Show that were premised on the belief that the president of the United States was dishonest. The jokes were a bellwether because most of the audience—that is, most of mainstream America—accepted the premise. Comedians do not lead public opinion, but they certainly reflect it. The same is true today in Russia. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote that “corruption reaches right into the leadership.” His indicator of this is the often told joke “about a man who drives into Moscow from the countryside and parks his new car right outside the Kremlin’s Spassky Gate in Red Square. A policeman comes along and tells the man, ‘Look, you can’t park here. This is the gate all our leaders use.’ The man answers ‘Don’t worry. I locked my car.’” LYING FOR YOUR COUNTRY The public officials who have the greatest reputation for lying are ambassadors— the highest ranking of all diplomats, sent as the personal representatives of one head of state to another. Sir Henry Wotton (1568–1639), Queen Elizabeth Lying for Your Country 197 I’s ambassador to Venice, was the first of many wits to write that “an ambas- sador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the commonwealth” (Lee, p. 307). Often ambassadors are not trusted to lie well enough, so their governments pur- posely misinform them to ensure that their false representations will seem all the more sincere. Thus the Japanese ambassador to the United States in 1941 did not know of the impending Pearl Harbor attack, the German ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1941 was not told of the coming invasion, and the US ambassador to the United Nations in 1961, Adlai Stevenson, was not told of the Bay of Pigs landing. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in The Prince (1532) that it may be necessary for the prince to be a “hypocrite” and a “dissembler.” This was the kind of thing that made people suspect that Machiavelli was not a gentleman. A true gentleman had to abso- lutely keep his word. Not to do so would “prove” that he was not a gentleman— and that he was without honor. Thus lying became as unforgivable an act of moral courage as cowardice was of physical courage. Of course, that was only if you got caught! The Dirty Hands Dilemma When do desirable public ends justify the lying means? When is doing evil accept- able to produce a greater political good? The “dirty hands dilemma” is a graphic phrase for this problem. Public officials dirty their hands when they commit an act generally considered to be a wrong to further the common good. This is a dilemma in the sense that doing bad seems to lead to something good. Thus public officials need to decide if they are willing to engage in wrongdoing for the sake of a The Difference Between Honest Graft BOX 5.1 and Dishonest Graft “Everybody is talkin’ these days about Tammany men public improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the that they’re goin’ to lay out a new park at a certain distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft. place. There’s all the difference in the world between the I see my opportunity and I take it, I go to two. Yes, many of our men have grown rich in politics. that place and I buy up all the land I can in the I have myself. I’ve made a big fortune out of the game, neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its and I’m gettin’ richer every day, but I’ve not gone in plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which for dishonest graft—blackmailin’ gamblers, saloon- nobody cared particular for before. keepers, disorderly people, etc.—and neither has any Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price of the men who have made big fortunes in politics. and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of There’s an honest graft, and I’m an example of how course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft.” it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.” Just let me explain by examples. My party’s in Source: William Riordon, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (New York: power in the city, and its goin’ to undertake a lot of McClure, Phillips, 1905). 198 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability perceived good deed. Of course, as a general rule they are prohibited from engaging in wrongdoing. Thus the dirty hands dilemma is the product of a tension between perceived professional obligations and long-standing moral obligations that are the standards of everyday life. Machiavelli did not see this as a problem at all. He held that the rules of moral- ity in everyday life should not be applied to the acts of public officials when they are carrying out their professional roles and responsibilities to further the common good. As Machiavelli expressed it in The Discourses, “When the act accuses, the result excuses.” But can we divorce the person from his or her administrative role? If any moral judgment is to be made, it must be made about the office or the gov- ernmental unit in which the official is housed. We should not apply the ordinary standards of right and wrong to the extraordinary situation of a person who is act- ing only as a bureaucratic functionary. Others argue that it is a mistake to confuse the role of public official with the person who temporarily holds that role; moral rules are still applicable to the acts of the person who commits wrongs, whether that person be a public official or not. There can be little doubt that the most common form of the dirty hands dilemma in public administration is lying. Lying can take many forms: direct false- hoods, exaggerations, omissions, evasions, deceptions, duplicity, and so on. Do public officials have a special obligation to tell the truth? Do their offices permit them special excuses to depart from truth telling? It can be argued that because knowledge is the cornerstone of democracy, an informed public is a prereq- uisite for a democratic government. Hence, citizens have an inherent right to know the truth of public issues so that they can make intelligent decisions as voters and constituents. When public officials decide to dirty their hands, whether by direct falsehood or by omission, evasion, or whatever, they are abridging the public’s right to know. There is, on this account, then, a special obligation for public officials to tell the truth based on this inherent need of democracy. On the other hand, it also can be argued that public officials in a democracy may be excused at times from the general obligation of truth telling. There may be dire situations or times of crises that threaten the government and its people. Under such conditions it may be permissible for a public official to deceive the public for its own good. In other words, when public officials take their oaths of office, they are sworn to do everything in their power to ensure the survival of the government and the safety of the public. It is the very nature of public office, then, that excuses the public official who lies for the public good because the public good is essentially what the official is required to protect. If such protection in times of war or crises entails that officials engage in deception, then so be it. They are only fulfilling the responsibilities of their office. The argument for excusing lies by officials has a long history. The first instance of it appears in Plato’s Republic, in which the term “royal lie”—referring to lies for the public good—was first coined. Lying about Sex When essayist Charles Dudley Warner (1829–1900) wrote in 1871 that “politics makes strange bedfellows,” (Warner, 1904, p. 88) he was referring to the fact that political necessity so often forces unlikely pairs to work together for a common Lying for Your Country 199 goal—not that politicians must necessarily end up in bed with strangers. Yet those who have a passion for politics all too often have a problem with their passions. American presidents are no exceptions. The multitudinous, miscella- neous trysts of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson are recent examples that have been thoroughly documented by historians. President Bill Clinton was unique only in that he has been forced to admit to such infidelities while in office. Until recently, lies about the sexual activities of consenting adults would not have been of concern to a textbook on public administration. But President Clin- ton changed that in 1998 when he told one lie after another about his Oval Office encounters with Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern with whom he eventu- ally admitted having a relationship “that was not appropriate.” And none of this would have come to public attention, no lies would have publicly been told, except for the involvement of the US Supreme Court. In an important modern Supreme Court decision about the presidency, the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 (William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones) that a sitting president could be sued by a private citizen seeking money damages in a civil suit for conduct alleged to have occurred before the president took office. Jones claimed that she was sexually harassed by Clinton while he served as gover- nor of Arkansas years earlier. President Clinton urged the Court to delay the suit until he left office, claiming that the chief executive should not be burdened and distracted by having to defend against civil suits, except in far more exceptional circumstances. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens rejected Clinton’s argument and concluded that that it would be highly unlikely that allowing the Jones case to proceed would generate a flood of other suits against this or other presidents, and, in any event, Stevens noted, the lower court judge could always defer such a case when it appears that to proceed would hamper a president’s ability to do his job. What neither the members of the Court nor the public knew at the time was that President Clinton’s testimony about Monica Lewinsky in a sworn deposition in the Jones case would set off a political firestorm powerful enough to threaten Clinton’s presidency. Whether the Supreme Court’s decision to permit civil actions against sitting presidents will result in future political and legal battles for presidents can- not be known. It is possible that the ever-present existence of powerful and well- funded political opponents anxious to “trap” presidents in sworn statements in civil suits was underestimated by the Court. When audiotapes of Lewinsky’s telephone conversations about the affair with President Clinton with her “friend” Linda Tripp surfaced early in 1998, two things happened: (1) a special prosecutor (Ken Starr), who had earlier been authorized by Congress to investigate alleged illegalities by the Clintons in other matters, sought and gained the permission of the Clinton-appointed attorney general to expand the investigation into possible perjury by the president in his Jones statements; and (2) many times and before many audiences, the president emphatically denied having had sexual relations with Lewinsky. There is little doubt that he would have continued to lie about the affair had not physical evidence become available that supported Lewinsky’s testimony to a grand jury that both she and the president had lied in their Jones case depositions. 200 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability What got the president into legal trouble was not his multiple infidelities but the allegations of perjury about them. The party line from the White House after the confession was that because this whole scandal was about sex, it didn’t rise to an impeachable offense. As with Watergate, it was not so much the initial “crime” as it was the cover-up—the lies—that forced Nixon from office and brought Clinton to impeachment. This question was so troubling and Clinton’s behavior was con- sidered so reckless that in the fall of 1998 the House of Representatives impeached him for perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton was tried by the Senate early in 1999 and was acquitted because there was nowhere near the constitutionally required two-thirds vote needed for his removal from office. Clinton remained president because many senators who believed he was guilty as charged felt that lying about sex was too petty a reason to remove a president. HIERARCHY OF ETHICS The public administrator is frequently adrift in a sea of competing duties and obli- gations. This kind of conflict occurs when an individual is called on to perform My Lai Q mutually exclusive acts by parties having legitimate “holds” on that person. For The South Vietnamese example, a rising young manager may not make it to the “big” meeting if he must at village where hundreds that moment rush his child to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. When of old men, women, such conflicts arise, most individuals invoke a hierarchy of role obligation that and children were gives some roles precedence over others. To most fathers, their child’s life would murdered in 1968 by a US Army unit be more important than a business meeting—no matter how “big.” Real life is not commanded by always so unambiguous, however, and role conflict is a common dilemma in the Lieutenant William world of work. Calley Jr. Despite The “Nuremberg defense” is the often-used excuse of those caught performing complaints by several illegal acts for their political or military superiors: “I was only following orders.” soldiers, the US Army sought to ignore or The term and the tactic come from war crimes trials in Nuremberg, Germany, of cover up this atrocity top Nazi leaders in the aftermath of World War II. The fallacy of this defense is until congressional that no soldier (or civilian employee) can be required to obey manifestly illegal inquiries and press orders. Indeed, as was even shown in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, reports forced a a soldier (or civilian employee) has a positive obligation to disobey such orders. comprehensive investigation that Fortunately, few officials have to suffer angst over war crimes. But what about fix- led to Calley’s ing traffic tickets, forcing a tax audit on someone, or pressuring employees to buy court-martial. tickets to political dinners? Same issue, smaller stakes! The Four Levels of Ethics In public administration there is a hierarchy of levels of ethics, each of which has its own set of responsibilities. First, there is personal morality—the basic sense of right and wrong. This is a function of our past and is dependent on factors such as parental influences, religious beliefs, cultural and social mores, and one’s own personal experiences. Second in the hierarchy is professional ethics. Public administrators increas- ingly recognize a set of professional norms and rules that obligate them to act in Hierarchy of Ethics 201 certain “professional” ways. Such guidelines are codified by professional associa- tions such as the American Society for Public Administration and the International City Management Association. However, occupations such as law and medicine, while operating within public administration, also have their own independent professional codes. A third level of ethics is organizational. Every organization has an environment or culture that includes both formal and informal rules of ethical conduct. Public organizations typically have many such rules. Public laws, executive orders, and agency rules and regulations all can be taken as formal organizational norms for ethical behavior. Finally, there are social ethics. The requirements of social ethics oblige mem- bers of a given society to act in ways that both protect individuals and further the progress of the group as a whole. Social ethics are formal to the extent that they can be found in the laws of a given society, informal to the extent that they are part of an individual’s social conscience. The Iran-Contra Affair Good offices Q The disinterested To illustrate the conflicting nature of responsibility and different levels of ethical use of one’s official obligations, consider the Iran-Contra affair in general and the actions of Oliver position, one’s office, North in particular. to help others settle The Iran-Contra scandal arose in the fall of 1986, when it was revealed that their differences; an offer to mediate a the Reagan administration had secretly sold arms to the government of Iran (so dispute. Iran would use its good offices to gain the release of American hostages in Leba- non) at higher than normal prices and used the “profits” to fund the Contras in Contras Q Nicaragua. The controversy grew into a scandal because it was illegal to sell arms The US-backed “democratic to Iran, illegal to fund the Contras beyond limits set by Congress, and against the resistance movement” expressed policy of the United States to negotiate for, let alone trade arms for, the in Nicaragua. The release of hostages. Because the Iran-Contra operation was undertaken primarily Contras opposed the by the National Security Council without the formal approval of the departments communist Sandinista of Defense and State, the affair called into question the coherence of the Reagan government. They disbanded administration’s foreign policy. in 1990 after the As the major operative in the scheme, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of democratically elected the US Marine Corps, assigned to the White House National Security Council, government replaced serves as a case study in the conflict of responsibility. North has admitted that the Sandinista regime. he found it necessary to lie to Congress about the Iran-Contra arms deal in order In 2007, Daniel Ortega, one of the to further what he called national security goals. Thus, by overseeing the illegal leaders of the Contras sales of arms to Iran and channeling profits from the transactions to the Contras was democratically in violation of the law, North reached a decision that one set of responsibilities elected president of was higher than another. He justified his lies to Congress as necessary for national Nicaragua. security. North violated the formal rules of organizational ethics and social ethics in illegally supplying military aid to the Contras and in lying to Congress to cover it up. However, he argued that he upheld his own personal morality and sense of duty to the country by acting as he did. Caught between his own interpretation of what is right and wrong on the personal level and that which his organization and society had deemed to be right and wrong, North chose the former over the 202 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability latter. For many, he was a hero for doing so. Yet for many others, his actions were criminal and unconstitutional. The Higher Law Defense When North’s secretary, Fawn Hall, was called to testify during the 1987 con- gressional hearings on the scandal, she asserted, “I felt uneasy but sometimes, like I said before, I believed in Colonel North, and there was a very solid and very valid reason he must have been doing this for and sometimes you have to go above the written law, I believe” (Morgan and Pincus, p. A1). In her pedestrian way Ms. Hall defended North by asserting the ancient idea of a higher law: the notion that no matter what the laws of a state are, there remains a higher law to which a person has an even greater obligation. A higher law is often appealed to by those who wish to attack an existing law or practice that courts or legislators are unlikely or unwilling to change. In a famous speech in the Senate on March 11, 1850, William Henry Seward of New York argued against slavery by asserting that there is a higher law (even above the Constitution), which “regulates our authority.” Martyrs throughout the ages have asserted a higher law in defiance of the state, thus earning their martyrdom. The classic presentation of this concept is in Sophocles’ fourth-century bc play Anti- gone, in which the heroine defies the king, asserts a higher law as her justification, and “forces” the king to have her killed. Because the courts of any state will only enforce the law of the land, appealing to a higher law is always chancy business. Examples of Americans who have appealed to a higher law and wound up in jail as a result are Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Vietnam War resisters. Oliver North was convicted and would have gone to jail except that his conviction was overturned on a legal technicality. Thus he had all the glory of being a martyr with none of the pain of serving a prison sentence. As the North case suggests, responsibilities can conflict because there are mul- tiple levels of ethics and morality, each with its own set of obligations and duties. One of the most difficult aspects of being a public administrator is managing the conflict of responsibilities between the competing claims of stakeholders and the varying levels of ethics. BOX 5.2 Thomas Jefferson on Higher Law A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, end to the means. of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous Source: Thomas Jefferson, letter to John B. Colvin, September 20, adherence to written law, would be to lose the law 1810. Codes of Honor, Conduct, and Ethics 203 CODES OF HONOR, CONDUCT, AND ETHICS It was a code of honor that forced Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of The Federalist and the first US secretary of the treasury, to face Aaron Burr, then vice president of the United States, in an 1803 duel (pistols at ten paces) that ended with Hamilton’s death. Duelists have often been occupants of the White House. Andrew Jackson was notorious for it—though not as president. Today, disagreements that once would have warranted duels are decided in the courts or the tabloids. Dueling over honor has not subsided; it has only taken new forms. Honorable Behavior We still expect that our leaders will act honorably—meaning responsibly—and we disdain them when they do not. Almost everybody has heard of the 1912 Titanic disaster, in which many of the richest men in the world quietly went to their deaths when they could have taken the places of women and children in the lifeboats. The Titanic followed the tradition of the “Birkenhead Drill.” When a British ship, the HMS Birkenhead, was sinking in 1852, the captain asked the men to “stand fast” so that the women and children could have the lifeboats. More than 400 men, including the captain, drowned. Ever since, “women and children first” has been the informal law of the sea because no man of honor could dispute it. And a ship’s captain, responsible for all souls on board, was, as a matter of honor, traditionally expected to be the last one off of his sinking ship. Thus the world was appalled when Captain Yiannis Avranas was among the first to abandon his sinking Greek cruise ship, the Oceanos, off the coast of South Africa in 1991. Hundreds of pas- sengers, many elderly, were left to fend for themselves. (The South African military eventually rescued everyone with helicopters.) As Captain Yiannis cravenly told reporters who asked him why he left his ship so soon, that regarding his order to abandon ship, it didn’t matter what time he or anyone left. The order was for everyone and they can chose to leave or stay. But his cowardly act was not morally different from the executive who arranges a golden parachute for himself while hundreds of employees who depended on his leadership are left with only pink slips and worthless stock certificates. Codes of honor have their origins in ancient precepts about how a person should behave in the face of danger, when confronted with temptation, or before authority figures. Much of what are still considered important elements of honor- able behavior is contained in the Bible’s Ten Commandments. Thus it is still hon- orable behavior not to kill, steal, bear false witness, nor covet thy neighbor’s wife. As life grew more complicated, codes evolved for occupations as varied as clerics, masons, and warriors. The latter is both the most famous and most important, because those who feel a sense of traditional honor in their breasts today ulti- mately derive these emotions from medieval knights, eighteenth-century military and naval officers, and nineteenth-century British gentlemen. But the honor of knights and gentlemen was highly stratified. Remember, they were gentlemen in the first place not because they were “gentle” (with women and horses!) but because of their genetic origin (Latin gentilis, “of a clan”), their breeding. Even today, polite people, those who ape upper-class manners, are called 204 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability “well bred”—as if they were! Gentlemen were bound to act honorably only toward others of their own class. Consequently, if an ordinary citizen, having taken a dis- like to Alexander Hamilton’s face, had challenged him to a duel, he would not have been obligated to accept. There would have been no dishonor in declining. But a gentleman had always to defend his name, his reputation, his honor before members of his own class. According to historian Robin Gilmour, traditional honor to a gentleman “meant paying one’s gambling debts, but not the tradesman’s bill; deceiving a husband, if need be, but not cheating him at cards; insulting a servant with impunity, but one’s equals only at the risk of a duel. The testing ground for one’s courage, and therefore the justification for the whole bizarre code, was the gentleman’s readiness to defend his honor with his life” (Gilmour, 1981, p. 28). Was “Deep Throat’s” Behavior Honorable? Honorable behavior and ethical actions can sometimes seem at odds with one another. With the 2005 disclosure of Mark Felt as the informant “Deep Throat” in the Watergate scandal, the conflict between maintaining honor and acting ethi- cally received increased public attention. During the investigation of the Watergate break-in, Felt, an FBI deputy director, provided Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with detailed information about the Nixon admin- istration’s efforts to cover up its involvement in illegal activities. The information Felt supplied proved essential in helping Woodward and Bernstein to expose the details of the White House’s role in Watergate and helped lead to Nixon’s unprece- dented resignation from the presidency. While many might think that Felt’s role in this historic event was courageous and served the greater interest of the nation, Felt himself harbored misgivings about the honor of his actions. In the process of revealing his long-sought identity to the public, Felt expressed serious concern about how the FBI would regard his role in the Watergate episode. In the Vanity Fair article in which the identity of “Deep Throat” was revealed, author John D. O’Connor wrote that Felt “seemed to be struggling inside with whether he would be seen as a decent man or turncoat.” He continued, “Deep in his psyche, it is clear to me, he still has qualms about his actions, but he also knows that historic events compelled him to behave as he did: standing up to an executive intent on obstructing his agencies’ pursuit of the truth” (O’Connor, 2005, p. 86). Judging from the reaction of many of Felt’s contemporaries to his revelation, his concern about being perceived as a “turncoat” was quite warranted. Former Nixon speechwriter and TV pundit Pat Buchanan stated, “I don’t think he is a hero at all. . . . Here’s a man who has been entrusted with a high honor, deputy chief of the FBI, sneaking around at night, handing out materials he got from a legitimate investigation to the Washington Post.” Conversely, Terry Lenzner, a senior counsel on the Senate Watergate committee, said, “The reason Felt turned into Deep Throat was that he had a sense that [FBI Director L. Patrick] Gray was participating in the cover-up and that it would destroy the reputation of the FBI. He was a classic FBI guy. His motives were that he had to protect the FBI. And he did.” Clearly, one man’s traitor is another’s hero. Codes of Honor, Conduct, and Ethics 205 Standards of Conduct Many civilian government agencies now have standards of conduct, formal guide- lines, for ethical behavior. Their objective is to ensure that employees refrain from using their official positions for private gain. Typically, a variety of prohibited activ- ities seek to ensure that employees conduct themselves in a manner that would not offer the slightest suggestion that they will extract private advantage from public employment. All too frequently, standards of conduct are used to say the obvious. For example, the British Cabinet Office created a document meant to be helpful to new cabinet ministers. Paragraph 55 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” offers the unsurprising advice that ministers “have a duty to refrain from asking or instructing civil servants to do things they should not do.” Standards are often part of a state’s formal legal code; thus violations can carry severe penalties—though never as draconian as articles of war. For example, the honest graft described by George Washington Plunkitt earlier in this chapter is now illegal in most jurisdic- tions in the United States. But because it was once both legal and quite common, we can surmise that ethical progress is being made. While standards of conduct are always related to a specific organization, codes of ethics are wide in scope and encompass a whole profession or occu- pational category. A code of ethics is a statement of professional standards of conduct to which the practitioners of a profession say they subscribe. Codes of ethics are usually not legally binding, so they may not be taken too seriously as constraints on behavior. They sometimes become significant factors in political campaigns when questionable behavior by one side or the other is attacked or defended as being within or without a professional code. Professional groups also hide behind codes as a way of protecting (or criticizing) a member subject to public attack. President Ronald Reagan took the attitude “that people should not require a code of ethics if they’re going to be in government. They should determine, themselves, that their conduct is going to be beyond reproach.” Never- theless, the problem remains that some people need help in determining just what constitutes ethical behavior. So codes are useful, but standards have the kind of teeth that can put you in jail. BOX 5.3 Standards of Conduct Versus Codes of Ethics Standards Codes Created by government Created by professional societies Very specific Generally general Applicable to bureaucrats Applicable to members of a profession Often enforced Seldom enforced Legal penalties for violation Professional sanctions may apply 206 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability WHISTLEBLOWING Protecting the Public’s Right to Know Whistleblowing refers to what happens when an employee decides that obliga- tions to society come before obligations to an organization. Thus, a whistleblower is an individual who believes the public interest overrides the interests of his or her organization and publicly blows the whistle on—exposes—corrupt, illegal, fraud- ulent, or harmful activity. Whistleblowers in our society are not well received. Children have long been taught not to be a “squealer”. Whistleblowers run the risk of being ostracized by their co-workers, losing their job, and being blacklisted in their field. Two famous early whistle-blowers were A. Ernest Fitzgerald and Daniel Ellsberg. Fitzgerald was a senior career executive who was the Deputy for Management Systems in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, who in 1968 testi- fied before a congressional committee about cost overruns on the Air Force’s giant C-5A military cargo plane. The Air Force, which had not acknowledged the cost overruns, stripped him of his primary duties of overseeing cost reports on the major weapon systems and assigned him to essentially clerical tasks. A year later the Air Force reorganized Fitzgerald’s office and abolished his job. Fitzgerald appealed the Air Force action. After almost four years of litigation, Fitzgerald was reinstated to his original civil service position and given back pay. In the case of Daniel Ellsberg, even greater stakes were involved. Ellsberg was a former Defense Department employee who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the media. The Pentagon papers were an unedited and unexpurgated record of the step-by-step judgments that brought American involvement in Vietnam to its peak point by the end of the Johnson Administration. A historian’s dream because of the raw data involved, this essentially shapeless body of material was destined to become a cause celebre when Ellsberg turned over 47 volumes of these officially classified documents to the New York Times and the Washington Post in 1971. The Nixon Administration got an injunction to prevent their publication but the US Supreme Court would later dissolve the injunction in its ruling (New York Times v. United States [1971]) allowing the papers to be published. Ellsberg was then charged with espionage, but the case was dismissed when it was shown that the Nixon administration authorized a burglary to steal Ellsberg’s medical records from his psychiatrist’s office. The then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright said of the papers: “Most of the mate- rial should not have been secret in the first place . . . I still do not see the harm that came from it, other than the fact that there is a violation of the law . . . I can disapprove of the leaking of the documents, but at the same time I disapprove just as heartily of the abuse of the classification power.” Ellsberg wanted the truth about US policy in Vietnam to be revealed to the American public. Thus he was willing to risk jail to expose the incompetence (and deception) he believed existed at the highest levels. The Fitzgerald and Ellsberg affairs triggered a great deal of discussion in the media and government about the need to protect whistleblowers. When the Civil Service Reform Act was passed in 1978, it included provisions to protect Whistleblowing 207 whistleblowers—primarily employer retaliation—among its list of prohibited per- sonnel actions. The Civil Service Reform Act defined whistleblowing as revealing illegal actions, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or danger to the public’s health or safety. These provisions were the culmination of a 20-year history of encouraging and safeguarding public disclosure. In 1958, Congress had passed a Code of Ethics of Government Service, which exhorted federal employees to expose corruption and to place loyalty to the highest moral principles above loyalty to their agencies. The impact of this was negligible. Another step forward involved the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 which provided for the public availability of information, unless the information falls within one of the specific categories exempt from public disclosure. Exempt records are those whose disclosure would impair rights of privacy or national security. Virtu- ally all agencies of the executive branch of the federal government have issued reg- ulations to implement the Freedom of Information Act. These regulations inform the public where certain types of information may be readily obtained, how other information may be obtained on request, and what internal agency appeals are available. The Freedom of Information Act provided would-be whistleblowers with a statutory justification for exposing misconduct. After all, such disclosures were vindications of the public’s right to know. Two years later, in 1968, the US Supreme Court gave whistleblowers some con- stitutional support. The Court held in Pickering v. Board of Education that when public employees’ right to freedom of speech are in question, the special duties and obligations of public employees cannot be ignored; the proper test is whether the government’s interest in limiting public employees’ “opportunities to contribute to public debate is . . . significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contri- bution by any member of the general public.” But in 2006, the Supreme Court nar- rowed the freedom of speech principle for public employees in Garcetti v. Ceballos, ruling when they made statements as part of their work duties, their speech did not exempt them from disciplinary action or even dismissal. In 2014, the Court ruled again on the matter of freedom of speech for public employees. In Lane v. Franks, the court protected an employee who had testified in a criminal prosecution case where a legislator had set up a ghost job position for herself. The state legislator was ultimately convicted, but the public employee was terminated from his employment. The court’s newest member, Justice Sotomayor, wrote the short unanimous opinion that “the first amendment protects a public employee who provided truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the course of their ordinary job duties.” Protecting Whistleblowers But Congress has long recognized that there is more to protecting the public’s right to know than simply guaranteeing freedom of speech. There has always been a special interest in encouraging employees to disclose information about illegal and waste- ful activities—something more would have to be done to make employees feel safe from retaliation. There were only a few anti-retaliation statutes in effect—basically limited laws that made it illegal to take punitive actions against employees for such 208 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability things as testifying before Congress or for assisting in civil rights investigations. To provide comparable protection to whistleblowers for federal employees, the Civil Service Reform Act empowered the newly created Merit System Protection Board with authority to reverse the removal, demotion, or suspension of employees who had been the victim of retaliation. Even more importantly, the act authorized an Office of Special Counsel to prosecute any official responsible for acts of unlawful retaliation. TABLE 5.2 Federal and State Laws on Whistleblowing The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) protects employees from retaliation if they reveal safety and health issues, environmental hazards, other public safety problems—along with fraud or criminal acts in the workplace. Employers may not demote, cut wages or hours, or terminate employees who have lodged whistleblowing complaints. While OSHA covers more than 60% of whistleblowing complaints among private Federal sector employees, there are 16 other industry specific whistleblowing protections in other statues from Health Care (The Affordable Care Act) to Finance (Sarbanes-Oxley). Federal workers are covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 that amended the Civil Service Reform Act. These initial protections were upgraded with new legislation—the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. States with States with States with States with No Laws Laws Protecting Laws Protecting Laws Protecting Laws Protecting Both Public and Public Public Private Sector Private Sector Employees (All Employees Employees Employees Public) (State only) California Alaska Alabama North Dakota Arkansas Connecticut Arizona Colorado DC Florida Delaware Indiana Georgia Hawaii Illinois Iowa Idaho Louisiana Pennsylvania Kansas Maryland States Maine South Carolina Kentucky Mississippi Massachusetts Utah Missouri Montana Michigan Oklahoma Nevada Minnesota Washington New Mexico Nebraska West Virginia North New Hampshire Carolina New Jersey South Dakota New York Texas Ohio Vermont Oregon Virginia Rhode Island Wisconsin Tennessee Wyoming Whistleblowing 209 Since 1978, whistleblowing protections have grown considerably. Following the federal model, at least 35 states have enacted their own statutes with various provisions protecting employees. And state courts often have found it unlawful, even without the existence of statutory protections, for an employer to terminate someone’s contract who has made a disclosure that serves the public interest. Congress has also enacted addi- tional laws that provide whistleblowing protections—regardless of whether the employee is in the private or public sector, to protect specific disclosures of viola- tions in health care, work safety, environment, transportation, finance, etc. For federal workers, Congress has now acted twice to strengthen and improve the safeguards included in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1979. In 1989, it enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act, which first created and entrusted a separate US Office of Special Council (outside of the USMSPB) to enforce whistleblowing pro- tection laws. The act allowed federal employees to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to seek redress for alleged acts of retaliation involving previously non-appealable personnel actions, such as undesirable reassignments and poor performance ratings. Whereas the CSRA listed protections for whis- tleblowing by enumerating various prohibited personnel actions, the new act gave whistleblowers special rights of action or appeals, allowed them to seek injunctions against what they felt were punitive actions, and lowered the burden of proof to the personnel action taken against whistleblowers, as opposed to having to demon- strate intent to retaliate. More recently, in 2012, The Whistle Blower Protection Enhancement Act revis- ited and strengthened some of the 1989 protections. The law simplified taking punitive actions against supervisors who were found to engage in retaliation and shifted the burden of proof to the organization to show it hadn’t retaliated in personnel actions taken against whistleblowers. The right to contact and commu- nicate with Congress was strengthened. Another provision eliminated the “first whistleblower loophole” which had limited protections to just the employee who first disclosed the issue—and extended them to other employees who reported mis- conduct after the first reported instance. But despite the existence of these many whistleblowing laws, whistleblowing is not primarily a legal matter. The existence of legal protections alone will not encourage employees to disclose information. Surveys by the Merit Systems Pro- tection Board have shown that employees primary concern in confronting fraud, waste, abuse is whether there is someone somewhere who will be willing to receive this information—which is inherently “bad news”—and be prepared to help cor- rect the problem. The MSPB revisited the state of whistleblowing in the federal government in a 2011 report and noted that not much has really changed in terms of employee per- ceptions. While perceptions among employees (comparing surveys from 1992–2010) show a decrease in “perceived wrongdoing”, there was no change in the percent of employees (about one-third of employees who “believed that they had been identified as the reporter of wrongdoing indicated that they subsequently experi- enced or been threatened with reprisal.” The MSPB surveys showed the following reasons that employees considered in making a decision to blow the whistle on their employer. 210 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability TABLE 5.3 Factors in Deciding Whether to Report Wrongdoing Factors in Deciding Whether to Report Wrongdoing Percentage agreeing Activity might endanger people’s lives 97% Activity was serious in terms of costs to Government 92% Something would be done to correct the activity 90% Protection from any sort of reprisal 85% Activity was serious ethical violation, although the 82% associated monetary costs were small Identity would be kept confidential 80% The wrong doers would be punished 71% Positive recognition by management for a good deed 34% Eligible to receive a cash award for making report 16% Source: US MSPB Report: research Highlights 2013 www.mspb.gov/studies THE CHALLENGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY Accountability is the extent to which one must answer to higher authority—legal or organizational—for one’s actions in society at large, or within one’s particular organizational position. Elected public officials are theoretically accountable to the political sovereignty of the voters. In this sense, appointed officials—from file clerks to cabinet secretaries—are less accountable than elected officials. The former are accountable mainly to their organizational supervisors, while the latter must answer to the people of their jurisdiction. Administrative accountability is that aspect of administrative responsibility by which officials are held answerable for general notions of democracy and moral- ity as well as for specific legal mandates. The two basic approaches to adminis- trative accountability were first delineated by political scientists Carl J. Friedrich (1901–1984) and Herman Finer (1898–1969). Friedrich argued that administrative responsibility can be ensured only internally, through professionalism or profes- sional standards or codes, because the increasing complexities of modern policies require extensive policy expertise and specialized abilities on the part of bureau- crats. Finer, on the other hand, argued that administrative responsibility could be maintained only externally, through legislative or popular controls, because inter- nal power or control would ultimately lead to corruption. The tension between these two approaches continues today. Thus the challenge of accountability is to find a balance between completely trusting government officials to use their best professional judgment in the public’s interest, and watching them so closely through legislative committees or executive review agencies that it inhibits their ability to function. Because we aspire to a democratic form of government, we need to consider how the links between democratic government and public administration work. What are the things we do, must do, and indeed must avoid if we are to be public The Challenge of Accountability 211 administrators in a democracy rather than cogs in a despotic mechanism? Under Apparatchiks Q the totalitarian communism of the former Soviet Union, the Russians had a word This Russian word for a bureaucrat for people who served the apparatus of state without question. They were called is now used apparatchiks—a term implying that the individual mindlessly follows orders. What colloquially to refer stops us from being apparatchiks in all but name? to any administrative The answer to this question is that public administrators in a democracy work functionary. within the rule of law—a governing system in which the highest authority is a body of law that applies equally to all (as opposed to the rule of men, in which the per- sonal whim of those in power can decide any issue). The idea of the desirability of a “government of laws, and not of men” can be traced back to Aristotle. The earliest American reference is in the 1779 Massachusetts Constitution. John Marshall also used this succinct legal description in Marbury v. Madison (1803): “The govern- ment of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” The rule of law and the concomitant notion that no one is above the law have been continuously critical concepts. When Ford succeeded Nixon (who was forced to resign because of his illegal activities during the Watergate scandal), he told the nation right after tak- ing the oath of office (August 9, 1974), “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men” (Ford, 1987, pp. 40–41). This was difficult for many citizens to reconcile with his pardon of Nixon one month later, and was viewed as a major Pardon Q factor in Ford not being elected in the 1976 President’s race. An executive’s granting of a release In democratic societies, we require our administrators to work within a system from the legal of democratic accountability, respond to a complex system of checks and balances, consequences of a and be subject to scrutiny by official auditors, by the media, and by community criminal act. This watchdogs and whistleblowers (as Finer advocated). But in the end, they are indi- may occur before or vidually responsible for their own ethical and honorable behavior (as Friedrich after indictment or conviction. The US believed). We often (but not always) remove from office those public administra- president’s power tors who seek to ignore their responsibilities to democracy. Occasionally, as in the to pardon people case of J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, there will be public administrators in demo- for federal offenses cratic societies who seem to be above the law. But they, too, will fall from power is absolute except in the end. for convictions in impeachment cases. Sometimes we purposely create public institutions that seem to have an “above A pardon prior to the law” status. Security organizations sometimes seem to have this characteristic, indictment stops all best exemplified by the fictional British secret agent James Bond’s “license to kill.” criminal proceedings. Intelligence agencies have always had a certain mystical quality—perhaps because This is what happened they are so associated with fictional exploits. This even affects presidents. Arthur M. when President Gerald Ford pardoned Schlesinger Jr., in A Thousand Days (1965), quoted President John F. Kennedy: “If Richard M. Nixon someone comes in to tell me this or that about the minimum wage bill, I have no hes- in 1974 for all itation in overruling them. But you always assume that the military and intelligence offenses that he “has people have some secret skill not available to ordinary mortals” (Schlesinger, 1965, committed or may pp. 258–259). The review of the policies and activities of US intelligence agencies by have committed or taken part in while appropriate legislative review committees was not formally done by the Congress president.” until the 1970s, when reports of FBI and CIA abuses of their operating mandates encouraged both houses of Congress to create committees that would systemati- cally and formally watch over the intelligence operations of the executive branch. 212 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability Arbitrary Q Parliamentary systems, which are used in most of the world, have far less opportu- Decided on the nity for comparable oversight because prime ministers, who ultimately direct intelli- basis of individual gence agencies, lead both the executive and the legislative branches of government. judgments that do not meet commonly More generally, however, abuse of authority in public administration is a cen- understood rules of tral target for condemnation in democratic societies and a likely route to disgrace procedure and hence and dismissal. Yet, in many societies around the world, to hold official office, to be may not appear a public administrator, is to be able to take arbitrary decisions, to confer benefits on justifiable to those family and friends, and to be open to corrupt, unethical—even inhuman—behavior. seeking to explain them to others or So we must ask, what legal and institutional arrangements, conventions, and ethi- to replicate them in cal values essentially distinguish democratic from despotic public administration? similar circumstances. In truly democratic societies—as opposed to those that are democratic in name only—there is a framework of constitutional, legal, and procedural requirements that subjects public administrators to rigorous monitoring and oversight by a dem- ocratic legislature, independent courts, and other institutions at arm’s length from the government. This leads to the expectation on the part of public administrators that, for the most part, they must work in the open, not only expecting, but also welcoming the scrutiny of elected representatives and the others whose task it is to make public accountability work. Constitutional and Legal Constraints Like it or not, public administrators always work within some kind of legal frame- work. In Europe, particularly in Germany, the legal setting of public administra- tion is so all-encompassing that a senior official normally cannot be appointed without a formal law degree. In other parts of the world, a law degree is usually not required, but some understanding of constitutional and administrative law is. For American public administrators, the Constitution serves as an invisible fence surrounding their field of operation. Specific laws deriving from it delineate and regulate in finer and finer detail what public administrators can do to whom, and when, and how, they can do it. David H. Rosenbloom states that there are three reasons why public adminis- trators should understand the Constitution: 1. Public administration must have democratic policy very much at heart so that managerial and political approaches are taken that are compatible with constitutional principles and values. 2. Many public administrators in America take an oath to support the Constitu- tion, and this may be more important than routine administrative functions. 3. Public administrators may be personally liable for civil damages if they act in contravention to the Constitution. (Rosenbloom, 1993) As Rosenbloom emphasizes, it is no easy task to achieve the necessary under- standing of the Constitution, because its contemporary meaning extends not only Case law Q All recorded judicial to the letter of the document, but also to case law and extensive interpretation, and administrative derived from legal, philosophical, moral, and political considerations as to how the agency decisions. law should be applied. The Challenge of Accountability 213 Public administrators in each policy domain—health, civil defense, educa- tion, or whatever it may be—need to maintain an awareness that the Constitution impacts what they can do by virtue of specific judgments and case law in the past, or alternatively because in a general sense what they propose to do may be seen to conflict with the Bill of Rights or some other fundamental constitutional precept. For example, in Wood v. Strickland (1975) the US Supreme Court held that a school board member (and by implication other public employees) is not immune from liability for damages “if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the students affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student.” Obsessive Accountability It was Napoléon’s foreign minister Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand who is usually credited with first warning of “too much zeal” in matters of administrative affairs. Yet it is an excess of zeal, in the form of obsessive attention to minor details, that so often leads to incompetence in modern organizations. Some of this dysfunctional zeal is caused by aberrant personalities, but the real culprit is the formally man- dated zeal of governing rules and regulations. Much required zeal is good. No one can argue with requirements for punctuality. But once organization-wide standard procedures are established for major functions, there is an inevitable tendency for minutiae to be covered as well. These minutiae then, quite literally, take more time than they are worth. For example, in 1993 the US GAO (Now the Government Accountability Office) reported that “each year the military spends some $20 million moving and storing a half-million items worth less than the cost of processing.” Thus a US base in Europe returns a few dollars’ worth of metal bolts or nylon cord to a Defense Department warehouse in Ohio. But because it costs $40 to process these small items, it would have been far less expensive to give or throw away the stuff. How- ever, there is no provision in the rules for disposing of unneeded items in this way. Such practices would give too much discretion to individual employees. The formal organization, in its zeal to prevent theft, mandates many such wasteful practices. Peter Drucker maintains that organizations, most typically governments, that are obsessed with accountability are inherently less competent than they might be. New procedures are created in response to possible or previous abuses. Because individuals once showed themselves incapable of being responsible for specified organizational assets, discretion over them was taken out of their hands and given to unemotional, unbending, and, in some circumstances, irrational procedures. Accountability was placed in procedures rather than in individuals, the rationale being that the honest administration was too important a matter to leave to an individual’s discretion. It is precisely because of governments’ attempts to assign accountability for everything they control that public management operations grow to be outrageously expensive when compared to similar functions in private industry. According to Drucker (1969), government must always tolerate this extra expense—not out of some unwarranted affection for red tape but because a “little dishonesty” in government is a corrosive disease that rapidly spreads to infect the 214 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability entire polity. To fear such corruption is quite rational. Consequently, government “bureaucracy” and its attendant high costs cannot and should not be eliminated. While the high costs of accountability can never be totally eliminated, some of the dysfunction of its associated procedures can be mitigated. Such mitigation frequently has organizations bending, ignoring, and subverting regulations in the interests of good management. The discretion that the regulations deny to the executive may be restored by the machinations of administrative operatives. When the flexibility deemed essential for mission accomplishment is formally denied to line managers, it is almost invariably obtained informally through administrative finesse. This is an idea that has not only been demonstrated in countless empirical studies, but also sanctioned and revered in American popular culture. The nation has a tremendous appetite for movies and television programs about war and other violent escapades. As any aficionado with sufficient exposure to this genre of enter- tainment can explain, you cannot have a successful military operation without a scrounger in your unit—at least not according to Hollywood’s version of World War II. A scrounger was that member of the team who was assigned to obtain all the essential requirements of the mission that could not be obtained through offi- cial channels. It hardly mattered what methods the scroungers used to secure the needed supplies as long as they succeeded—and there were no official complaints. When mandates from on high reflect neither administrative wisdom nor experience, they are viewed as barriers to managerial effectiveness—which must be overcome. There is even significant evidence that organizational superiors dis- Realpolitik Q courage subordinates from reporting fully just how they have accomplished their A German word, missions because of concerns for formal or legal culpability. According to public now absorbed into English, meaning the administration scholar Herbert Kaufman, executives “may resort to the strategy politics of realism; of discouraging feedback about administrative behavior because they privately an injunction not to approve of the behavior they know they should, according to law and morality, allow wishful thinking prevent” (Kaufman, 1975, p. 65). Thus rookie police officers are told by their more or sentimentality to experienced associates that they will have to forget what they learned at the police cloud one’s judgment. At its most moderate, academy before they can operate effectively—and survive—in a real-world situ- the word is used ation. Any new public manager must suffer through an on-the-job acquisition of to describe an overly administrative realpolitik. They learn by the unfortunate consequences of violating cynical approach, norms that are discovered only when they are breached. one that allows little room for human altruism, that always Avoiding Accountability seeks an ulterior motive behind another The public rightly expects an executive to be accountable for the actions of the sub- actor’s statements or ordinates he or she has selected, whether or not the executive had actual knowledge justifications. At its of the actions. It is based on the belief that the selection of subordinates and the strongest, it suggests monitoring of their behavior is an executive responsibility. Nowhere is primitive that no moral values should be allowed to ritual or Machiavellian feigning more apparent than in the periodic assumption of affect the single- full responsibility by an organization’s chief executive. Although one of the advan- minded pursuit of tages of delegating a problem is the ease with which the cunning leader can shift one’s own self-interest the blame for the situation if it sours, modern executives are seldom so crude as to or patriotism. It also lay blame. The appropriate tactic is to assume full responsibility for the situation. makes an absolute assumption that any Paradoxically, in assuming full responsibility, the executive is seemingly relieved of opponent will certainly it. Political scientist Murray Edelman observed that whenever this ritual is enacted, behave in this way. all of the participants tend to experience “a warm glow of satisfaction and relief that Legislative Oversight 215 responsibility has been assumed and can be pinpointed. It once again conveys the message that the incumbent is the leader, that he knows he is able to cope, and that he should be followed” (Edelman, 1967, p. 79). In reality, however, this ritual proves to have no substance. It “emphatically does not mean that the chief executive will be penalized for the mistakes of subordinates or that the latter will not be penalized.” This is the tactic that President Richard M. Nixon employed when he first addressed the nation concerning the Watergate scandal in the spring of 1973. He boldly proclaimed that all of the possibly illegal actions of the White House offi- cials were his responsibility and that he fully accepted that responsibility. Certainly, Nixon did not mean to imply—at that point in time—that he should be punished for the transgressions of his underlings. Nor did Ronald Reagan in 1987 when he took full responsibility for the Iran-Contra affair. Bill Clinton, during an August 17, 1998, television address to the nation, took full responsibility for lying to his wife, his cabinet, his staff, and his nation about his affair with White House intern Mon- ica Lewinsky. But his hopes that this would be enough to stop an impeachment inquiry were short-lived. Government officials of lesser rank are no less sophis- ticated with their manipulations of the ritualistic and symbolic aspects of their offices. Of course, the risk they take is that the legislature will investigate the situ- ation thoroughly enough to expose any wrongdoing. LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT While constitutional and legal frameworks themselves amount to a passive exercise of democratic control over the discretion of public administrators, there is no sub- stitute for active control through energetic elected representatives. The main reason the US Congress (or a state legislature or a city council) monitors the activities of executive branch agencies is to determine if the laws are being faithfully executed. After all, the president has the constitutional obligation (given in Article 2, Section 3) to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Congressional oversight is designed in our system of “checks and balances” to check that he does. Hearings Oversight takes many forms. The most obvious are the annual congressional hear- ings on agency budget requests, in which agency activities have to be justified to the satisfaction of the Congress. Both the House and the Senate hold budget hearings. But only the Senate holds hearings on the confirmation of major appointees such as cabinet secretaries and Supreme Court nominees. Any member of Congress can instigate an investigation. Many of these inves- tigations are small matters concerning the interests of a single constituent (see the following section on casework). But if something significant turns up worthy of a larger inquiry, an appropriate committee or subcommittee always has the right to initiate a further examination. The oversight function is primarily implemented through the process of hearings that often call for sworn testimony from officials, through consultancy reports, and through the publication of findings. Committees that have investigated scandals such as Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair, and issues such as whether gay people should be permitted to serve in the military, illustrate how important and central a role this aspect of democratic government 216 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability can be. In consequence, those who become chair of an influential committee of Congress occupy powerful positions indeed. The entire Congress is in effect a permanently sitting grand jury always wait- ing to hear of improper acts by executive branch agencies so that hearings can be launched and witnesses called. Some members of Congress are so zealous in their oversight concerns that they will go to the trouble of traveling all over the world (at government expense) to see how federal programs and policies are operating. These visits are derisively called junkets, but they are an important part of the oversight process. Some members of Congress simply cannot understand why it is necessary to vote for money for American forces in NATO unless they first visit Europe and make a thorough investigation of the situation. Of course, the oversight function may be abused, especially when it is done for partisan advantage. Such political oversight often happens when the executive and legislative branches of a government are controlled by opposing parties; then its BOX 5.4 What’s the Matter with New Jersey? Despite its reputation, New Jersey is really a lovely three mayors, two assemblymen, and five rabbis (yes, place to live. Its beautiful beaches, rolling countryside, rabbis!) were among 44 Garden State residents and quaint towns are often overshadowed by popular indicted in a bizarre international money-laundering images of hazardous waste dumps, refineries, and mob scheme. A two-year federal probe uncovered an array violence. While the Garden State often suffers from of violations that included illegal sales of freshly an undeserved reputation as an inhospitable place to harvested body parts for transplant (need a new liver reside, there is one area where New Jersey’s negative or kidney?), bribes to secure government approval of image is well deserved—political corruption. Over the developments, and the illegal passing of millions of years, the number of New Jersey public officials being dollars in cash, including nearly $100,000 stuffed into indicted for corruption has regularly been among the an Apple Jacks cereal box. The corruption plot was highest of any state.1 And while the number of cases so strange that in all likelihood even the producers of corruption is by itself impressive, the details of the of HBO’s long-running mob saga The Sopranos may cases are what really make New Jersey the epicenter have passed on the story for fear of being accused of of ethical lapses among public officials. going too far. But in the real world of Garden State In their book Soprano State, Bob Ingle and Sandy governance, this over-the-top corruption scandal McClure detail a seemingly unending series of ethical was just another example of why New Jersey has violations and outright corruption by the Garden State’s earned its reputation for a political culture in which elected officials and public administrators. Many of corruption is just another word for doing these cases read more like fiction than reality. From a business. US Senator running for governor who breaks up with his union-leader girlfriend and then gives her a $6 million parting gift without disclosing the information, Source: Data from Ingle and McLure (2009) and Halbfinger to a Newark mayor who spends his last days in office (2009). on a taxpayer-financed junket to Brazil, the stories are rich in detail about the blatant disregard for ethics Author’s postscript: For the record, New Jersey does not have the among New Jersey’s political figures. highest rate of federal public corruption convictions among public officials—California does, followed by Illinois. And the rate of Perhaps the pinnacle of New Jersey’s tradition of annual convictions of public officials in New Jersey has declined corruption took place in the summer of 2009, when by more than half over the last 5 years. Legislative Oversight 217 purpose may be to embarrass the administration. Two famous examples of this are the Democratic Party-sponsored Watergate hearings of 1973–1974, which helped force Republican President Richard Nixon to resign in 1974, and the Republi- can Party-sponsored Whitewater hearings of 1995–1996, which were designed to embarrass the Democratic President Bill Clinton. Of course, whether an oversight action is simply in the interest of good government or whether it is a play in a game of partisan one-upmanship is in the eye of the beholder. Casework Casework is the term used for the services performed by legislators and their staffs at the request of and on behalf of constituents. For example, a US representative may be asked to discover why a Social Security check has been delayed or why a veteran’s claim for benefits has been denied. Casework is an important means by which legislators maintain oversight of the bureaucracy and solidify their political base with constituents. Casework offers many advantages for legislators. First, it’s cheap and isn’t con- troversial. For the price of some minor staff time, a politician can make a voter happy. After dealing with thousands of cases over several years, this can pay back big on election day. Of course, there is always the danger that the legislator will not be able to solve the constituent’s problem. But if the situation is handled with promptness and tactfulness, the case can still be a net gain from a public relations viewpoint. Even if the “customer” did not get what was wanted from the bureau- cracy, a perception of fair treatment will still go a long way. Agency administrators can also benefit from good casework service. The responsive handling of constituent problems will tend to make legislators more receptive to next year’s budget requests. And a pattern of similar casework com- plaints could indicate administrative problems that need to be fixed before the numbers explode. Naturally, there is a thin line between administrative trouble- shooting and special treatment. This is a line that astute administrators must walk straight—well, almost straight! The Gas Chamber of Philadelphia: How a 1977 Incident at Independence Mall Illustrates the “Banality of Evil” Concept First Applied to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi A CASE STUDY Holocaust Administrator Preview It was a dark and stormy night somewhere. But it was mainly dark on the night of May 11, 1960 in Argentina. Three men in a car were waiting for a bus bringing commuters home from jobs in the city to arrive in a distant working class suburb of Buenos Aires. As the bus pulled away from its stop, a (continued) 218 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability A CASE STUDY Continued middle aged balding man with glasses began walking in their direction. As he approached the car, two of the men jumped out, overpowered the astonished commuter and shoved him into the back seat. The car then drove away as fast as it could without attracting attention. This was a kidnapping. The man taken was Adolf Eichmann, one of the leading public administrators behind one of history’s greatest crimes, the murder of more than six million European Jews. His kidnappers were Israeli agents. This quest for vengeance had a surprising result. The kidnappee, who was thought to be the personification of evil, turned out to be so ordinary that subsequent events cause people to question the nature of evil itself—and where it comes from. From Argentina to Israel Eichmann was surprised; and surprisingly talkative. As soon as he realized that his captors were not planning to kill him, he confessed to his part in the systematic round up, deportation and murder of millions of innocent civilians. From his point of view he was merely a high level clerk only rising to rank of lieutenant colonel; never even a full colonel. He was just another cog in a vast murdering machine; a cog that was only following orders from above. After a few weeks of interrogation in a safe house, his Israeli captors smuggled Eichmann out of Argentina by sedating him and passing him off as a sleepy crew member of an El Al civilian aircraft. Once he was safely locked up in a Jewish jail, the Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, announced to the world that his country had captured one of the prime movers in the World War II German effort to exterminate the Jews. The Argentine government was appropriately indignant. There were claims that some corrupt officials had been making substantial money by allowing Nazi war criminals on the run to hide out in their country under assumed names. This snatching of one of their “customers” was bad for business. But the Israelis were adamant that despite Argentinean complaints of an illegal kidnapping and violations of international law, Eichmann would go on trial in Israel. The fourteen-week-long courtroom drama that followed in 1961 was an international sensation. The Israeli state used the trial to educate the world through the media about the nature, mechanics, and duration of the Holocaust. A special bullet-proof glass box was built for Eichmann to sit in during the court sessions so he would be protected from the angry and aggrieved relatives of his victims. The mild-mannered bespectacled man sitting in the glass booth became the iconic image of the proceedings. Eichmann was charged most famously with “crimes against humanity.” This was the post-World War II phrase for the murder and ill treatment of civilians. According to the 1945 charter of the International Military Tribunal (the legal framework for the post-war Nuremberg Trials in Germany) Legislative Oversight 219 crimes against humanity consisted of: “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts against any civilian population before or during war; or persecution on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.” Ironically, Eichmann was equally guilty of murder under German military law in existence at the time, as if the Nazis paid any attention to the subtleties and niceties of the law. Nevertheless, Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code of 1872, which according to American Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor, remained in effect throughout World War II read: “If execution of an order given in line of duty violates a statute of the penal code, the superior giving the order is alone responsible. However, the subordinate obeying the order is liable to punishment as an accomplice if . . . he knew that the order involved an act the commission of which constituted a civil or military crime or offense.” Consequently, Eichmann’s basic defense that he was “only following orders” would not have been acceptable, in theory, even in a contemporary German court. It has long been and remains a maxim in the military services of major industrial states that clearly illegal orders are not to be obeyed. Thus, Eichmann had no viable courtroom defense under German or international law. In the end he was found guilty. Everyone knew he would be. After all, he was no anonymous concentration camp guard but the well-known and highly visible administrative head of a massive operation to deport Jews to extermination camps in Eastern Europe. There were survivors: those few that survived the round-ups, and those few that survived the camps. And many of these survivors were now Israelis, locally available and ready to offer their testimony to the court and to history. Ninety of these survivors testified against Eichmann at the trial. Eichmann was so guilty of so many crimes that at the time of his sentencing Israel, for the only time in its history, set aside its policy of not using capital punishment and sentenced him to die. Thus in 1962, after his verdict had been appealed and reviewed, he was hanged. His body was then cremated. His ashes were then taken by boat to international waters (so they would not remain in Israeli territory) and dumped into the Mediterranean Sea. The Banality of Evil The trial, one of the first to be broadcast on live television, generated a lot of journalism and one very important book. In the provocative Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963), based on a series of New Yorker magazine articles on the trial, Hannah Arendt herself a Jewish refugee from Nazi persecution, looked at the murderer of millions of innocent civilians and found him to be merely a banal bureaucrat, (continued) 220 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability A CASE STUDY Continued a functionary who might otherwise have been perfectly harmless and led a normal life. This highly controversial analysis implied that too many other “normal” people might have done the same under the circumstances; that too many otherwise normal people were just waiting to do the same when circumstances permitted. Arendt was both a serious academic political theorist with major books already to her credit and a public intellectual much like her contemporaries Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith. While solidly engaged in the academic world they also wrote popular works and used the media to popularize their ideas and themselves. The New Yorker articles and the ensuing book made Arendt not just popular, but notorious. Here was this Jewish intellectual forced out of Europe by the Nazis seemingly defending this mass murderer by saying that he was just a guy with a job that just happened to involve the large scale murder of men, women and children. But she never defended Eichmann. She merely offered an explanation of how he, or anyone, could do what he did. She completely agreed that he fully deserved the death penalty for his crimes. Nevertheless, outrage followed. For example, in a stinging rebuttal to Arendt’s contention, historian Barbara W. Tuchman wrote in The New York Review of Books (May 29, 1966) that: “Eichmann was an extraordinary, not an ordinary man, whose record is hardly one of the ‘banality’ of evil. For the author of that ineffable phrase—as applied to the murder of six million—to have been so taken in by Eichmann’s version of himself as just a routine civil servant obeying orders is one of the puzzles of modern journalism. From a presumed historian it is inexplicable.” This was nasty stuff. Tuchman, the author of The Guns of August, the classic analysis of the origins of World War I, was then America’s bestselling non- academic historian and a Pulitzer Prize winner. To call Arendt, whose academic credentials were impeccable, a “presumed historian” was insult indeed. But this is just one example of the blitz of criticism that stormed over Arendt. Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” was heavily criticized at the time because it seemed to offer justification for horrendous crimes. However, subsequent social science research, historical analysis and recent events have supported her analysis. She has been vindicated. The initial criticism of her has been effectively forgotten. The Milgram Experiments The best known controlled experiments of her concept were conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram (1933–1984) just a few months after the start of the Eichmann trial. After reading of Arendt’s “banality of Legislative Oversight 221 evil” thesis in the New Yorker articles on the Eichmann trial, Milgram sought to discover if ordinary people would harm otherwise innocent subjects if told to do so by an authority figure. In his now classic Obedience to Authority (1974) he reported that almost all (37 out of 40) of the ordinary citizens agreed to inflict pain by electric shock on subjects when told to do so by a phony authority figure. And they did inflict pain, so they thought. But the pain, too, was phony. When a button was pressed actors pretended to be hurt by electric shocks. But Milgram proved his point—and Arendt’s too. In the contest of morality versus authority, authority won. The banality thesis seemed to be confirmed; and this has also been the case in subsequent experimental research. The Death Trains of the Reichsbahn The Holocaust as a major field of modern history has come into its own since the Eichmann trial. This has presented ever increasing support for Arendt. One of the most apt analyses is provided by Raul Hilberg, a Holocaust historian who has paid particular attention to the German railroads. Remember that it was Eichmann who was responsible for rounding up and transporting the Jews by train to the extermination camps in Poland. He set the schedules, arranged for the trains, and had soldiers gather and force the unlucky passengers onto the overcrowded wagons. To prevent panic, they were deviously told they were to be resettled in Eastern Europe. For obvious reasons these death camps were built in isolated areas that were easily accessible only by rail. In the three-year period between October 1941 and October 1944 the Reichsbahn (German railroad) transported about half of the doomed to their final destination. According to Raul Hilberg, “throughout that time, despite difficulties and delays, no Jew was left alive for lack of transport” (Hilberg, 1961). This story poses in a gruesomely direct manner a central issue of modern bureaucracy. In 1942 the German Railroad network employed roughly 1.8 million people, about 500,000 of whom were German civil servants. Aside from moving the condemned, the system transported military as well as civilian personnel and freight. Despite bombings and occasional breakdown, the system operated some 20,000 trains a day over a system that encompassed almost all of Europe. The technical skills required to compose timetables, assemble trains, and retain knowledge of what trains were going where represented a considerable managerial accomplishment. Moreover, since the Reichsbahn had to be paid for its services, whether performed for the military or other users, rates and accounting procedures had to be established and maintained. While the Holocaust was large-scale mass murder, it was also a large-scale administrative endeavor—with Eichmann (continued) 222 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability A CASE STUDY Continued in charge of the complicated arrangements to move the condemned to their final destination. There is no doubt that those associated with Jewish transports were aware of both the conditions under which their passengers were shipped and the fate that awaited them at their destinations. But were the railroad workers themselves trapped by the system, or did they share in its objectives and strive to make it more effective? One common view is that because dictatorial regimes rule through terror, those under their control had no choice but to do the bidding of the ruling group. As Hilberg explains, in this view, “the soldiery, functionaries, and small entrepreneurs are all considered members of a broad mass that is held down, silenced, and oppressed.” Yet this view may be too unrealistic, too easy. Hilberg argues that to say that the railroads were merely “a means to an end” is too simplistic; for many of the rail workers, these means were the end. As bureaucrats and technocrats they worked ceaselessly to increase the capacity of the network for all the transports projected in the German Reich, and to the very end they found purpose in that endeavor. In short, “no matter whether the purpose was preservation of life or infliction of death, the Reichsbahn made use of the same rules, the same channels, the same forms” (Hilberg, 1961). There were no resignations or protests within the ranks of the organization; only a few requested transfer. Does the nature of bureaucracy necessarily subsume the human element? Is there something about the nature of bureaucracy which differentiates it from other forms of social organization? Yes. A bureaucracy’s elaborate system of rules and procedures as well as its hierarchical structure makes it easier for individual bureaucrats to accomplish their functions while at the same time providing a ready rationalization for disrupting and even destroying the lives of innocent people. To the extent that the administrators of the Reichsbahn worked on the basis of “orders from above,” it is clear that those making decisions were pretty much isolated from the human consequences of their choices. There is a considerable difference between scheduling and assembling trains on the one hand, and pulling some passengers’ corpses out of the overcrowded freight cars at the final destination, on the other. This, of course, is not to suggest that bureaucrats—even those of the Reichsbahn— do not also bring great happiness to many people, but to simply state that the many advantages of bureaucratic impersonality frequently hide an ethical flaw. Studies such as Hilberg’s examination of the Reichsbahn’s operations during World War II support Arendt’s banality thesis. Eichmann, for purposes of the Holocaust, was effectively the head of the Reichsbahn’s efforts. But what about the thousands of railroad employees who worked under his orders? They saw people so forced into cattle cars that there was only room to stand; even the dead were not allowed to lie down. They, too, had to stand Legislative Oversight 223 until the end of the line which was often days away. The railroad workers knew of and, just as Eichmann, participated in the horrors. Yet after the war, feeling innocent of any war crimes themselves, they returned to transporting ordinary freight and were never again associated with mass murder. Additional Support of the Banality Thesis The Holocaust is a word now uniquely associated with the German effort to kill off the Jews. Subsequent but loosely parallel efforts to murder an entire religious or social group is now referred to as ethnic cleansing; such an antiseptic and hygienic phrase for the mass murder of innocent civilians. Since World War II major instances of such “cleansing” have occurred in Cambodia in southeast Asia, in Rwanda in the middle of tropical Africa, in the Sudan in central Africa, in Bosnia and Croatia in southeast Europe, and, most recently, in Iraq. In each instance the murderers were so numerous, for the most part such ordinary people, that it has been virtually impossible to bring even a small fraction of them to justice. Instead, as the violence died down because of changing circumstances, the “evil doers” just went back to their regular jobs. While some high profile killers were prosecuted, the banal ones just got on with their banal existence—not knowing that, in so doing, they were reinforcing the thesis of a refugee professor from the Holocaust now best known for explaining the banality of their evil acts to the world. The Gas Chamber of Philadelphia Historians have often written of the civilian bureaucrats in Nazi Germany who cooperated to murder millions of victims in concentration camps. However, you probably haven’t heard of the few American bureaucrats, just ordinary workers, who nearly gassed to death hundreds of innocent people because, like the Germans, they were only following orders. It happened in Philadelphia’s Independence Mall, a several block landscaped area in front of Independence Hall, the building in which the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. Under this mall a 3-level, 650 car parking garage was built to accommodate all the visitors to the historic sites. Normally people come and go at odd times and the cashiers at the underground garage exits are not overburdened. On the night of July 4th, 1977, Independence Day, there was a big celebration with fireworks and music as might be expected. After it was over, the crowd went to their cars in the underground garage, started their engines and sought to drive home. But, because of stalled and illegally parked cars, there were not sufficient exit lanes open. The ventilation system of any underground garage cannot cope with the exhaust fumes of hundreds of automobile engines running at once. But the cashiers’ duty was clear—collect payment from every car before it leaves. Because this was a slow process, (continued) 224 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability A CASE STUDY Continued the fumes built up. Some people began to get sick. But the cashiers, in best bureaucratic fashion, kept methodically collecting their tolls. The backup was made only worse by the refusal of the cashiers to allow vehicles to leave the garage until their drivers had stopped to pay the parking fee—even though many people were obviously passing out from the exhaust fumes. For only a few dollars you could exit this impromptu municipal gas chamber. The problem was that you had to still be alive when it came your turn to pay. These minimum wage cashiers were about to inadvertently kill hundreds of innocent civilians because they had to follow orders and policies. They felt that they had no discretion. It may have been your life; but it was their job! Were they any different from those railroad workers in Germany? Tragedy was only averted when firefighters wearing gas masks ordered the motorists to turn off their engines and walk out—if they could. Then the police ordered the cashier to just open the gates and let everyone that still could drive out—without paying. This certainly goes far in proving 1930s’ Chicago gangster Al Capone’s famous remark that “you can go a lot further with a kind word and a gun than just with a kind word alone.” In the end over 60 people were taken to area hospitals. No one died. But it was close. Had the police and firefighters arrived only a few minutes later, there would have been a “holocaust;” hundreds dead and only a few sad overwhelmed minimum wage cashiers to blame—the “banality of evil” in action yet again. Administrative Evil Thirty five years after Arendt’s “banality of evil” first shocked the world, a team of public administration academics took the concept to its logical conclusion. In Unmasking Administrative Evil, Guy B. Adams and Danny L. Balfour bemoan the fact that public administration as an activity has no clear values, no ethical standards adequate enough to prevent administrative evil, the using of existing bureaucratic organizations following specific, preset rules and procedures to achieve reprehensible public policies. All the advantages of bureaucratic impersonality so praised by sociologist Max Weber in his classic analysis of bureaucracy suddenly seems far less advantageous when it is realized that such impersonality can be used for evil as well as good. And the individuals themselves within the bureaucratic structures, such as the German railway workers during World War II, may not even realize or admit to themselves that they are participating in an evil enterprise. Thus, the evil is “masked” as the title of their book suggests. According to Adams and Balfour: “The significance of the connections between the Holocaust and the civil service in Germany is such that responsibility for the event shifts to include not only those who planned and committed overt acts of killing innocent human beings but also Legislative Oversight 225 routine and seemingly neutral acts of state.” Furthermore, “without the full complicity of professional civil servants (and myriad other professionals), it is virtually inconceivable that the mass murder of Europe’s Jews could have been accomplished.” They concluded, as we must also, that the history of the Holocaust and state sponsored evils in the decades since World War II “seriously call into question the adequacy of the ethical foundations of modern public administration” (Adams and Balfour, 1998). The problem is that public administration merely reflects the cultural norms, beliefs and power realities of its society. Local laws may sanction innocuous acts of administration by otherwise well-meaning bureaucrats that yield evil results. But what about ethics? Ethics are for philosophers and academics. In the real world there is only power and law tinged by compassionate corruption—violating the organizational rules or the law of the state to prevent administrative evil. Fortunately, there are always some bureaucratic heroes who see such a higher duty. Still, there is often a thin line between a thwarter of evil for the greater good and a disloyal subordinate who takes it upon himself to subvert government policy. It is just through such compassionate corruption that Hannah Arendt was able to escape death at the hands of the Nazis and come to the United States in 1941. Hiram Bingham IV (1903–1988) as the American Vice-consul in Marseille, France, helped over 2,500 Jews escape the death camps by issuing them entry visas to the United States in direct defiance of US State Department policy. When his superiors discovered what he was doing, he was abruptly transferred to Portugal and passed over for promotion. Only after his death in 1988, when his family discovered a vast trove of letters and documents from his time in France, did his heroic role get publicized. Consequently, in 2002 US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a “courageous dissent” award to his children and in 2006 the US Postal Service issued a commemorative stamp with his likeness. The Bingham case illustrates the central problem with being such a bureaucratic hero. All too often your career is ruined and you only get praised posthumously, if at all. But Bingham remains an exemplar to us all. This was the man who saved the life of the woman (and her husband and mother) who first suffered from and then conceptualized the “banality of evil” as she stared at the personification of evil in his glass booth in an Israeli courtroom. They were both made world famous by the trial. She became one of the best known and most controversial public intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. He in contrast was converted into bits of burnt calcium for the creatures of the sea. For Discussion: Can you think of any historical instances in which the “banality of evil” could have been observed in the workings of government bureau- cracies in the United States? What would you do if you found yourself in a bureaucratic position performing perfectly legal duties that ultimately resulted in an evil end? 226 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability SUMMARY Honor comes before ethics because a person without honor has no moral compass and does not know which way to turn to be ethical. Honor goes to the essence of public affairs. Since ancient times, only individuals perceived to be honorable could be trusted with the public’s business. Recurrent government scandals, no matter how much they cost, pose a great threat to the democratic notions of the rule of law. When a public official misuses his or her office for self-gain, then the rule of law no longer prevails, and there is, in effect, a return to tyranny. Do public officials have a special obligation to tell the truth, or do their offices permit them special excuses to depart from truth telling? Because knowledge is the cornerstone of democracy, an informed public is a prerequisite for a democratic government. Hence, citizens have an inherent right to know the truth of public issues. On the other hand, there may be times of crisis when it may be permissible for a public official to deceive the public for its own good. In public administration there is a hierarchy of levels of ethics: personal moral- ity, professional ethics, organizational ethics, and social ethics. This last level obliges members of a given society to act in ways that both protect individuals and further the progress of the group as a whole. Codes of honor have their origins in ancient precepts about how a person should behave in the face of danger, when confronted with temptation, or before authority figures. Many civilian government agencies now have parallel stan- dards of conduct, formal guidelines for ethical behavior, which seek to ensure that employees refrain from using their official positions for private gain. Administrative accountability is that aspect of administrative responsibility by which officials are held answerable for general notions of democracy and morality as well as for specific legal mandates. In democratic societies administrators are required to respond to a complex system of checks and balances and to be subject to scrutiny by official auditors, the media, and community watchdogs and potential whistleblowers. Public Administration has greatly expanded the rights (and even the responsibilities) and protections for whistleblowing, especially in the federal government. While a government’s constitutional and legal frameworks are a passive exer- cise of democratic control over the discretion of public administrators, there is no substitute for the active control of energetic elected representatives. This control, known as legislative oversight, takes many forms. The most obvious form is the annual congressional hearings on agency budget requests, in which agency activi- ties have to be justified to the satisfaction of Congress. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Why is honor, both national and personal, such a critical aspect of public administration? 2. Is corruption in government any worse than in the private sector, or is it just more visible? 3. Is it ever appropriate for a government official to lie to the public? 4. How does a hierarchy of ethics govern the behavior of people holding public office? Key Concepts 227 5. Do public employees need special protections—i.e. whistleblower laws—to protect the public interest or should they simply rely on their constitutional right to freedom of speech? 6. What means do all legislators have to hold their government’s bureaucracy account- able to its legislature? KEY CONCEPTS Accountability The extent to which one must answer to higher authority—legal or organizational—for one’s actions in society at large or within one’s particular organizational position. Bribery The giving or offering of anything of value with intent to unlawfully influence an official in the discharge of duties; a public official’s receiving or asking for anything of value with the intent to be unlawfully influenced. Code of ethics A statement of professional standards of conduct to which the practitioners of a profession say they subscribe. Codes of ethics are usually not legally binding, so they may not be taken too seriously as constraints on behavior. Common law The totality of judge-made laws that initially developed in England and con- tinued to evolve in the United States. Whenever this kind of law—which is based on custom, culture, habit, and previous judicial decisions—proved inadequate, it was supplanted by statutory laws made by legislatures. But the common law tradition, based on precedent, is still the foundation of the American legal system, even though much of what was originally common law has been converted into statutes over the years. Congressional oversight The total means by which the US Congress monitors the activities of executive branch agencies to determine if the laws are being faithfully executed. Grand jury A group of citizens selected to review evidence against accused persons to deter- mine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring the accused to trial—to indict or not to indict. A grand jury usually has from 12 to 23 members and operates in secrecy to protect the reputation of those not indicted. Grand juries have been both criticized for being easily manipulated tools in the hands of prosecutors and praised for protecting the rights of those falsely accused. Hearings A legislative committee session for hearing witnesses. At hearings on legisla- tion, witnesses usually include specialists, government officials, and representatives of those affected by the bills under study. Subpoena power may be used to summon reluctant wit- nesses. The public and press may attend open hearings but are barred from closed (execu- tive) hearings. Honor The internalized moral compass by which individuals ascertain correct behavior in public and private life; the perception by others of one’s reputation for integrity. Integrity The core of honor. Those who have integrity live up to their stated principles, values, and, most importantly, their word. A person whose word is his or her bond gives the full faith and credit of his or her whole being to keeping commitments. Machiavellian Referring to Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), the Italian Renaissance political philosopher whose book of advice to would-be leaders, The Prince (1532), is the progenitor of all “how-to-succeed” books. Its exploration of how political power is grasped, used, and kept is the benchmark against which all subsequent analyses are judged. Machia- velli’s amoral tone and detached analysis have caused him to be both soundly denounced as well as greatly imitated. While his name has become synonymous with political deception, no other writer has given the world such a brilliant lesson in how to think in terms of cold political power. 228 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability Rule of law A governing system in which the highest authority is a body of law that applies equally to all (as opposed to the traditional “rule of men,” in which the personal whim of those in power can decide any issue). Scandal In religion, an offense committed by a holder of high office. The term has been popularized to cover the commission of any action considered a demeaning of the responsi- bilities of office by the holder of that office. Standards of conduct A compendium of ethical norms promulgated by an organization to guide the behavior of its members. Many government agencies have formal codes (or stan- dards) of conduct for their employees. Transparency As far back as The Federalist Papers (1787), James Madison and others have argued that public access to government records and information was essential for democ- racy. In the current view, transparency (or more simply public disclosure of government information) has become a foundation in public administration for ensuring accountability and public participation. The Obama Administration’s effort to promote transparency at the federal level was entitled the Open Government Initiative. Watergate The scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. Water- gate itself is a hotel-office-apartment complex in Washington, DC When individuals associ- ated with the Committee to Reelect the President were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters (then located in the Watergate complex) in 1972, the resulting cover-up and national trauma was condensed into one word: Watergate. The term has grown to refer to any political crime or instance of bureaucratic corruption that under- mines confidence in governing institutions. Whistleblowing Federal statutes protect the actions of “whistleblowers” who disclose information that they reasonably believe is evidence of illegality, gross waste or fraud, mis- management, abuse of power, general wrongdoing, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provided specific protection for whistleblowers at the federal level. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Guy B. and Balfour, Danny L. (1998) Unmasking Administrative Evil. New York: Routledge, p. 54. Arendt, Hannah (1963) Eichman in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil New York: Penguin. Belli, Melvin M. (1973) Review of The Finest Judges Money Can Buy by Charles Ashman in the New York Times Book Review (November 18). Belli, Melvin M. (1976) My Life on Trial. New York: Morrow. Bingham, Robert K. Courageous Dissent. Moore’s Hill, IN: Tribune. 2007 Brown, E. G. (1970) Reagan and Reality. New York: Praeger. Churchill, Winston (1949) Their Finest Hour. Boston: Mariner Books. Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681 (1998). Drucker, Peter F. (1969) “The Sickness of Government,” Public Interest 14 (Winter). Dynes, Michael and David Walker (1995) The New British State. London: Times Books. Edelman, Murray (1967) The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Finer, Herman (1941) “Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government,” Public Administration Review 1. Ford, Gerald (1987) A Time To Heal. Norwalk, CT: Easton Press. Friedrich, Carl J. (1940) “The Nature of Administrative Responsibility.” In Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bibliography 229 Friedman, Thomas (1995) “Foreign Affairs: Russian Roulette”, New York Times, May 3, 1995. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 US 410. Gilmour, Robin (1981) The Idea of the Gentleman in the Victorian Novel. London: George Allen and Unwin. Halbfinger, David (2009) “44 Charged by US in New Jersey Corruption Sweep,” New York Times (July 23). Heyer, Paul (2012) Titanic Century: Media, Myth, and the Making of a Cultural Icon. Santa Barbara: Praeger Publishers. Hilberg, Raul (1961) The Destruction of the European Jews. New York: Quadrangle Books. Hinks, Peter P. and John McKivignan (2006) Encyclopedia of Anti-slavery and Abolition. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Greenwood Press. Ingle, Bob and Sandy McLure (2009) The Soprano State: New Jersey’s Culture of Corrup- tion. New York: St. Martins Press. Kaufman, Herbert (1975) Administrative Feedback. Washington: Brookings Press. Jos, Philip H., Mark E. Tompkins and Steven W. Hays (1989) “In Praise of Difficult Peo- ple: A Portrait of the Committed Whistleblower,” Public Administration Review 49 (November–December). Lane v. Franks (2014) 134 S. Ct. 2369. Lee, Sidney, ed. (1990) “Wotton, Henry” in Dictionary of National Biography 63. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Machiavelli. Niccolò (1532) The Prince and the Discourses. New York: Modern Library (1990). Madison, James (1788) The Federalist, No. 51. The Federalist Papers (Signet Classic, 2003). New York: The New American Library. Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 US 137 (1803). McCulloch, Winifred (1952) The Glavis-Ballinger Dispute. Huntsville, IL: University of Ala- bama Press ICP Case Series no 4. Miceli, Marcia and Janet Near (1992) Blowing the Whistle. New York: Lexington Books. Milgram, Stanley (1974) Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper Collins. Morgan, Arthur E. (1974) The Making of the TVA. New York: Prometheus Books. Morgan, Dan and Walter Pincus (1987) “Hall testifies of necessity to go above written law.” Washington Post, June 10, p. A1. Muller, Julius (ed.) (2012) Presidential Messages and State Papers vol 10. Charleston, SC: Nabu Press. Mustafa, Husain and Anthony A. Salomone (1971) “Administrative Circumvention of Pub- lic Policy,” Midwest Review of Public Administration 5, No. 1. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 US 713. O’Connor, John D. (2005) “I’m the Guy They Called Deep Throat,” Vanity Fair (June). Orwell, George (1946) Animal Farm. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) 391 US 563. Plato (2000) The Republic. New York: Dover. Popkin, James (1993) “Wasteline: By the Book,” US News & World Report (May 24). Prezzolini, Guiseppe (1967) Machiavelli. New York: Farrar. Rohr, John (1986) Ethics for Bureaucrats, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker. Rosenbloom, David H. (1993) Public Administration, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sayre, W. (1948) “The Triumph of Techniques over Purpose,” Public Administration Review 8 (Spring). Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. (1965) A Thousand Days. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Smith, Goldwin (1899) The United Kingdom: A Political History vol. 1. New York: McMillan. 230 CHAPTER 5 Honor, Ethics, and Accountability Thompson, Dennis F. (1985) “The Possibility of Administrative Ethics,” Public Administra- tion Review (September–October). Tuchman, Barbara (1966) “Review of Justice in Jerusalem” New York Review of Books May 29, 3, 12. US Supreme Court (1998) William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones 520 US 681 (1997). Warner, Charles Dudley (1870) My Summer in a Garden. Boston: James R. Osgood & Co. Wilson, Woodrow (1916) Addresses of President Wilson, January 27–February 3, 1916, Volume 563, Issue 51. US Government Printing Office. Wills, Garry (1984) Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment. New York: Doubleday. Wood v. Strickland (1975) 420 US 308. RECOMMENDED BOOKS Adams, Guy B. and Danny L. Balfour (2009) Unmasking Administrative Evil, 3rd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Finally, a book that seeks out the evil that lurks within gov- ernment bureaucracies, and explains how ordinary people doing their normal profes- sional duties can take part in evil without being aware of it. Dobel, Patrick (1999) Public Integrity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. A reflective and somewhat provocative assessment—see especially his Chapter 6 “Getting Out—The Eth- ics of Resigning from Office.” O’Leary, Rosemary (2006) The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerilla Government. Wash- ington: CQ Press. Partly a case book, but more an inside look using real public admin- istrators’ experiences confronting ethical situations involving public policy dissents and professional political disagreements over policy ends and means. Madsen, Peter and Jay M. Shafritz (1992) Essentials of Government Ethics. New York: New American Library. A collection of writings on government ethics from ancient times to the present. Rohr, John A. (1989) Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values. New York: Marcel Dekker. The original presentation of the concept of regime values, which holds that the most fundamental principles of a polity—such as its constitution—should be the primary guide to ethical behavior. CHAPTER 6 The Evolution of Management and Organization Theory CHAPTER OUTLINE Keynote: Reorganization at the State The Period of Orthodoxy 250 Department is Nothing New 232 Paul Appleby’s Polemic 251 Luther Gulick’s POSDCORB 251 The Origins of Public Management 235 The Many Meanings of The Continuing Influence of Ancient Bureaucracy 252 Rome 236 All Government Offices 253 The Military Heritage of Public All Public Officials 253 Administration 237 A General Invective 253 Max Weber’s Structural Arrangements 254 The Evolution of Management Principles 239 Neoclassical Organization Comparing Military and Civilian Theory 255 Principles 239 Herbert A. Simon’s Influence 257 The Principles Approach 241 The Impact of Sociology 257 What is Organization Theory? 242 “Modern” Structural Organization Classical Organization Theory 243 Theory 259 Adam Smith and the Pin Factory 244 Basic Assumptions 259 Mechanistic and Organic Systems 259 The Origins of Scientific Management 246 Systems Theory 260 The Staff Concept 246 Cybernetics and Complex Adaptive The Influence of Frederick W. Taylor 247 Systems 260 Fayol’s General Theory of Collaborative Management 262 Management 250 A Case Study: The Critical Importance of Administrative Doctrine 263 231 232 CHAPTER 6 The Evolution of Management and Organization Theory KEYNOTE: Reorganization at the State Department is Nothing New The US Constitution made no provisions for creating the elements of the executive branch of government. So newly inaugurated President George Washington estab- lished five executive departments to manage the business of the new republic: War, Justice, Treasury, Post Office, and State. The State Department, while the smallest of these five cabinet organizations, has always been regarded as the most prestigious of the five. After all, the first Secretary of State was future president Thomas Jefferson. During the early decades of the new nation the office was considered a stepping stone to the presidency. Six Presidents (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren and Buchanan) did this; but none since the Civil War. Hillary Clinton seems likely to end this streak in 2016. The State Department holds another dubious distinction—it easily outdistances all cabinet rivals in terms of being reorganized. In fact, the paper on which the leg- islation establishing the department in July of 1789 as the Department of Foreign Affairs was hardly dry, when in September it was reorganized as the Department of State. It shortly added new functions becoming responsible for supervising the Mint, Patents, and the Census. A short history of State Department reorganizations in its first century would include a dozen major change efforts; for example, in 1873 the department turned over responsibilities for US territories to the newly cre- ated Department of the Interior. In 1910 it was first reorganized along geographic lines: Western Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, and Latin America would each get an Assistant Secretary. Africa wouldn’t get one until 1958. During the twentieth century, the State Department seemed to be constantly redesigning its structures to liaison with new international organizations, man- age foreign economic aid (both the Agency for International Development and the Peace Corps originated as State Department agencies), and tackle new roles for disarmament, peacekeeping operations, protecting oceans and natural resources. Throughout all these reorganizations, there has been a vigorous debate about the roles, responsibilities, and independence of its diplomats, known collectively as the the US Foreign Service. A closer look at many of the reorganizations will also show that they often happened under the auspices of a strong secretary of state or a president bent on making change in how foreign policy was made. Fast forward to 2010 and a very different type of reorganization effort is under- way at State. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opted to use a Defense Depart- ment strategic planning model called the QDR or Quadrennial Defense Review. With this approach, every four years the military does a total review of where it’s been, how its mission and demands are shifting, and how it should rethink its structure and capabilities. Clinton launched the parallel but newly named QDDR or Quadrennial Diplomacy and Diplomatic Review to do the same kind of long range projective thinking for State. The ultimate goal of this approach is not only to stay ahead of current problems, but more importantly to try to ascertain where the future will be. Perhaps the biggest change that came out of the 2010 QDDR was—wait for it—a major reorganization. The new Department of State can be seen on the Counselor (C) United States Secretary of State Department of State (S) Chief of Staff United States Agency for United States Mission (S/COS) International Development to the United Nations Deputy Secretary of State Deputy Secretary of State D D – MR Executive Secretariat Office of US Foreign Assistanc e (S/ES) (F) Executive Secretary Director Under Secretary for Under Secretary for Under Secretary for Under Secretary for Civilian Under Secretary for Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Arms Control and Public Diplomacy Security, Democracy and Political Affairs Management Energy and Environment International Security Affairs and Public Affairs Human Rights (P) (M) (E) (T) (R) (J) South and Central Economic & Business Arms Control, Education and Cultural Comptroller, Global Conflict & Stabilization African Affairs Verification, and Administration Asian Affairs Affairs Affairs Financial Services Operations (AF) Compliance (A) Assistant Secretary (SCA) (EB) (AVC) (ECA) Assistant Secretary (CGFS) (CSO) Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Director Assistant Secretary European and Western Hemisphere International Security International Human Resources Counterterrorism Keynote: Reorganization at the State Department is Nothing New Energy Resources Budget and Planning (HR) (CT) Eurasian Affairs Affairs and Nonproliferation Information Programs (ENR) (BP) Director General of the Coordinator and (EUR) (WHA) Assistant Secretary (ISN) (IIP) Director Foreign Service and Director Ambassador-at-Large Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Coordinator of Human Resources Oceans and Int'l East Asian International Information Resource Democracy, Human Environmental and Political-Military Affairs Public Affairs Consular Affairs and Pacific Affairs Organizations Management Rights, and Labor Scientific Affairs (PM) (PA) (CA) (EAP) (IO) Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary (IRM) (DRL) Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary (OES) Chief Information Officer Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Office of the Chief Office of International Narcotics Near Eastern Affairs Diplomatic Security Economist Medical Services and Law Enforcement (NEA) (DS) Assistant Secretary (OCE) Assistant Secretary (MED) (INL) Director Assistant Secretary Foreign Service Overseas Buildings Population, Refugees Institute Operations and Migration (FSI) (OBO) (PRM) Director Director Assistant Secretary Office of Management Office to Monitor and Policy, Rightsizing and Combat Trafficking Innovation in Persons (M/PRI) (TIP) Director Ambassador-at-Large Office of Global Criminal Justice Office of the Office of (GCJ) Intelligence and Office of the Office of Global Office of the Special Envoys Office of Inspector Civil Rights Ambassador-at-Large Legislative Affairs Legal Adviser Office of Policy Chief of Protocol Women’s Issues Global AIDS Research General Planning (S/OCR) and Special (H) (L) (S/CPR) (S/GWI) Coordinator (INR) (OIG) (S/P) Director Representatives Assistant Secretary Legal Adviser Ambassador Ambassador-at-Large (S/GAC) Assistant Secretary Inspector General Director Ambassador-at-Large Approved March 2014 Source: US State Department, Department of State Organization Chart, March 2014. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/187423.pdf; http://www.state.gov/r/ pa/ei/rls/dos/99484.htm