Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
john gaus ecology of administration |
JohnGaus ecology of administration stressed that public administration isinfluenced by its setting or its ecology. Ecology deals with allinterrelationships of living organisms and their environment. Thus, anecological approach to PA builds from the ground up; from a place to the peoplewho live there. We look at human societies as natural environment. He isattacking the traditional approach and machine metaphor developed by Wilson andWeber strict view on separation of politics and administration. This approachmetaphor is an organism which its environment effects this organism. Tounderstand the organism, one must understand the political environment thateffects it. FurtherBeard has formulated bills of axioms of environment in which environmental S0*| |
|
|
beard bill of axioms |
FurtherBeard has formulated bills of axioms of environment in which environmentalchange is linked with resulting public administration. They are the following:1. Continuous, efficient discharge of functions by government is necessary fora great society. 2. As complexity grows, so do the functions of the governmentand the relationship between those functions and people. 3. Government isstrong in proportion to its capacity to deliver function for the people 4.Legislating respecting these functions is easy, enforcement is not easy. 5.Effective and wise administration is central prerequisite for survival orgovernment and society 6, Administration should be drawn from diverse anddifferent classes, talents, religions, open with education and subjected tocriticism. If not, it could cause for developing a bureaucracy dangerous tosociety. 7. Administrative system must operate to keep alive local andindividual responsibilities, not just central government. | |
|
|
ecological approach to pa builds from what eleements |
Anecological approach to Public administration builds from elements of 1. People.2. Place 3. Physical technology/ Social technology 4. Wishes and ideas 5.Catastrophe 6. Personality. The “rawmaterial of politics” and administration are in themselves the raw material ofa science of administration. The changes in the distribution of people of agovernmental unity by time, age, and place throw a light on the origins ofpublic policy and administration. Movementfrom Farms to Cities from 18th Century to 20th Century led to no jobs for the old. This created a pension society.Hence the factors of people and place are intertwined. Their potent effect ongovernment and public services depend on the need of people in that area. Also,changes in place, or use of resources and products of place are coercive intheir effect upon PA. The change of physical technology is demonstrated in theadaption of cars and its role of high way expansion developed by politicalforces created by physical invention. These elements are useful in explain the ebb and flow offunctions of government.
|
|
|
elements of ecology |
PeoplecontractionAging populationDiverse population PlaceClosely intertwined with peopleBuilt environmentInfrastructure needsLand use
Physical technology, e.g. invention ofRailroads,AutomobilesAirplanesAtomic energyComputers Social technology e.g.Invention of socialinstitutionsPolicing wishes and ideas can precipitate actionIdeas can become powerful agents forchange CatastropheChanges peoples’ attitudesPromotes collective actionGenerates both short-term and long-term eFects |
|
|
elements of ecology in robertson case |
Theseelements were also demonstrated in the case study on Robertson. Running this bureauinvolves all 7 ecological factors influenced by Gaus 1. People- Robertson work requireshe interact daily with numerous members of the public. His intense involvementindividually and collectively shapes effective performance 2. Place- thelandscape of LA determines nature of administrative needs and challenges. Thegeographic spread and varied terrain deals with road maintenance. 3.Physical/social technology- successfully organizing human and financialresources to solve day to day problems of street maintenance. The innovativetechnologies he employs to promote service delivery efficiency. 5. Wishes andideas- he is the man in the middle of intense demands from public and withinbureaucracy (subordinates) and above political officials. 6. Catastrophe- hecopes with crisis unplanned events that makes news headlines. His response showthe importance of administrator’s gifts in confronting these challenges. 7.Personality- his hard work, ethical judgment, responsibility, feel forcommunity, work with different backgrounds, and comprehension of politicalpriorities. |
|
|
interactions with citizens |
Hisinteractions with citizens were very positive. Interviews with members ofsociety revealed his character. He usedthe public to help him acquire new resources for his bureau (Infor sharing andeducation) Develop relationships that will allow him to convince the public tochampion for his bureau. The citywide neighborhood council-citizen participate wasbad, but Robertson embraced these councils. He attended a lot of these meetingdespite the long hours. Motivation for going to these meeting is to show hecares and show genuine interest. In doing so, they are most likely to trusthim. He followed the philosophy a leader can’t lead from behind. His conductwith citizens was a model for his subordinates. He combined citizen control andmanipulation with the citizens. He listened to demand, complaints, suggestions,and then tells them what he cannot do. He often finds himself challengingcitizens on something they are misinformed about. This became opportunities toeducate citizens on how government works. For example, he made presentations onhow street is done. This honesty and info sharing is part of process ofempowering citizens. In his speeches, he would turn an angry crown to one thatis willing to collaborate through manipulation. He fueled anger and channeledanger to advocate for his bureau. He made meetings on new programs and getinput from council leaders. Showed council that they’re important and haverole. He shared power. He partnership with citizens is shown in this example.He made the effort to find office space for neighborhood council. He did thisbecause show of respect for efforts of citizens. Office space is essentialrequirement for their work. The outcome of this is increased funds through cityparticpary budget process and increased funds then help the citizens. |
|
|
arnstiens ladder to circle |
arnstiens ladder is based on public partipation. The more the participation the more you empower the citizen and in consequence the more power is lossed in administrative and polictical power. As one moves up latter from manipulation at bottom to citizen control on top citixzens gain power, goverment loses it. The ladder has been revised to a circle. The circle accentuates that citizen particpation is not fact becasue the administrator can actually get more power by the citizen who can give them information. The public administrator is in the middle of the circle and using different startegies (citizen control, manipulation, therapy, informing, consultatiopn, placation, partnerships and delegated power) These are tools and you choose these tools depending on the particular situation |
|
|
interactions with subordiantes |
Heinteractions with subordinates was he would mentor and lead by example anddevelop relationships. There are two stories that demonstrate how he usedtherapy, partnership, delegated power. 1. His leadership during catastrophicstorm in 2005. 2. Public response to the deaths of two employees. He combinedpartnership and delegated power during the 2005 rainstorms. He would work everyday outside. His motivation to work alongside employees was to lead by example.He seeked to accomplish two things 1. Develop future leader 2. Make moreinformed decisions. If there is trust, there is mutual respect down thehierarchy. He used therapy and info sharing during the deaths of two employees.When worker fell down sinkhole he respionded by clearing the rumors andprovided a full report. He also gave employees freedom to seek counseling, taketime off, and any necessary action to heal. He informs of bureau policywithout concern of rank. With mutual respect, subordinated want to follow him. |
|
|
interactions with manager |
Lastly, his interactionswith mangers. His behavior was not restricted to crisis. He orientated towardpartnership. In this example, Robertson and his bureau were delegated new responsibilitiesHe used to collaborate and delegating power across government agency. This caseRobertson bureau could have handled but it was not under their authority. Thedepartment of Rec and Parks had to cut limbs, if not they will fall and causedamage. Dept. of Rec requested to provide workers from his bureau to help. Thechoice of waiting for authorization of funds or move forward without it. Hechose that citywide perspective not bound by department lines of jurisdiction.Damage could be done if he waited. Demonstrated manner of workingcollaboratively. ry a@}| |
|
|
lessons learned by robertson |
The lessons we learn fromthis case it that using multiple strategies to achieve efficiency. Aprofessional manager who understand s politics of administrating agency. Hedoes not sacrifice expertise for sake of politicians or irate citizens. Buildtrust with who he serves by partnership and info sharing. His political side isshown as he handles rules. Despite Weber’s strict and firm bureaucracy ofrules, he believes that there are too many rules and we should bend rules toreach goal of policy. Get political behind the scene if necessary not to helpthe politician but the community. Manipulation of citizen is justifiable ifit’s used to open minds and prepare them for new info. His advice is: 1. Pursueinterest of agency and people agency serves by building relationships withdifferent stakeholders. 2. Use multiple political tools to develop theserelationships 3. Exercise political skill with transparency and no bias. 4.Honesty and integrity. _{ |
|
|
power is public administration |
Power is an ephemeral substance that is part of thedisorderly, fragmented, decentralized landscape of American publicadministration. There is power everywhere flowing from sides of organizationand up to the center from constituent parts. |
|
|
fluid sitation arised from what? |
This fluid situation arises from the failure of theAmerican party system to protect administrators from political pressures and toprovide adequate direction and support for government bureaus and agencies. Frɞ:|
|
|
|
party system fails to do what? |
A party system fails to develop consensus ofleadership and programs that make possible administration on the basis ofacceptable decisional premises. The administrators are left to their owndiscretion, public agencies forced to enter the business of building,maintaining and increasing their political support. Administrators seek tobuild strong public relations and mobilize political support by developingwhole range of action designed to secure enough customer acceptance to surviveand develop consensus to program formulation and execution. They succeed ifthey understand the political environment and political resources. Each agencyin American executive branch must fend for itself grasping its own share ofresources It raises the issue of the decentralized nature of theAmerican political system that put administrators in the midst of interestgroups.e[| |
|
|
administration is plagued with what problem
|
Plagued with the problem: whom is one loyal to? Thereis no precise consensus on what should be done and who should be obeyed.Problem will not resolve until system established organized disciplinedpolitical party where president find continuing majorities in congress |
|
|
why must administrators budget power |
Thelifeblood of administration is power. Power attainment, maintenance, increase,dissipation & loss are subject that administrators can’t ignore. Theanalysis of where power is derived and its limitations is a budgetingprocedure. Budgeting of power is a basic subject matter of a realistic scienceof administration. In Weber’s strict form of bureaucracy, power is in the topof the hierarchy. However, political power is needed throughout the wholeorganization. .Yet power is not concentrated by structure of government orpolitics into hands of a leadership with capacity to budget it among diverseset of administrative activities. To deny that power is derived exclusivelyfrom superiors is to assert subordinates stand in a situation where they fendfor themselves and acquire support on their own. Political power flows fromsides and up organization to the center. It is clear that American system hasno clear focal point of power and leadership to separate politics andadministration. The subordinates cannot depend on formal chain of command todeliver political power to do their jobs. So they must use resources availablethrough the hierarchy. Administrative power is political power. Politicians usepower to their influence and as should administrators use the power. Useadministrative rationality which is using discretion in a rational way. Theidea is that because power and resources is a competition, in order to havemaximum efficiency you need to be expert in political system. They have to be apower player and build, for example, political capital. They cannot bepowerless to resist political pressures. For example, the Department of labor,administrator create alliances with unions. They use the unions to push back inanother president who comes in and tries to take you out. Must build alliances by doing favors to gainpolitical power. |
|
|
example of budgeting power
|
Anexample of the need to budget political power as if it were resources isdemonstrated in the case study on NASA who faced political pressures to meet adeadline. They ignored the engineer recommendation and in result cost peoplelives. If the engineers had more political power or alliances to fight back thepolitical pressures they could have prevented this. This is also shown in theCentralia case if Scanlon had more political power and was more political savvyhe could’ve saved the miners life instead of following Weber’s strictbureaucracy of just doing your job and separating politics and administration.He fell into political pressure and risked losing his job is he had donesomething. hemseltq| |
|
|
why system allows for no protection to administrator |
TheWilson formulated the strict dichotomy of politics and administration on aparliament system and has influenced classical view of administration of thebelief. However a parliament has a responsible party system where once majoritywins the minority has no power. Therefore, there are more direct and clear lawsand less discretion for administrator. However in the United States system,after an election the minority still has power. In congress there is noresponsible party system where the majority party is the same as the President.Therefore, because the two parties have to negotiate there is vague laws whichgive the administrator discretionary power. The minority can then lobby theadministrator to implement it in their way. Therefore, the system fails toinsulate public administrators from politics. The decentralized system wherepower is fluid and separate many power sources can lobby the administrator.This leaves the administrator powerless to resist political pressure. The partysystem in there United States are partisan. We may have disciplined party, but notbenefits because of checks and balances (filibuster, veto) which make itimpossible to separate politics from administration. Administrator influence onpolicy impacts the political debate between democrats and republicans. Youcan’t insulate, therefore, administrators should have political power toresist. The decentralized nature of the American political system putsadministrators in midst of interest groups. Since parties failed to discussissues, mobilize majority, can create working consensus on measures, the taskis left to the administrators. The agencies must devote to create a decision onadequate consensus to permit administration. The mandate that these partiesdon’t supply must be attained by public relation and mobilization of support.The party system provides no representation for group interest. The weakness inthe party structure permit and makes necessary dimension of politicalactivities of administrative branch It permits because 1. It fails to protectadministrators 2. Fails to provide adequate direction and support. Makesnecessary because it fails to develop a consensus on a leadership and programthat allows administration. Failureof the American Party system to insulate Pas from political pressure makes itnecessary for Pas to be skilled power players/ politicians. If PAs were able toimplement decisions “based on a consensus political program and decisionalpremises, American PA would be much easier.i |
|
|
what is the kestnbaum commision |
The Kestnbaum Commission made substantial contribution to AmericanIntergovernmental relations during post ww2 era that provided political andjustification for cooperative federalism. . It lent energy to push for creating permanent ACIR, brought attentionto issues of intergovernmental coordination and management in the White Houseand executive branch, supported development of subcommittees onintergovernmental relation in house and senate, and enclosed continued relianceon and expansion of federal categorical grants in aid. Cooperative federalismis epitomized in this report. He stressed that effective intergovernmentalmanagement and coordination as cornerstone for sound intergovernmentalpractices
|
|
|
two part kestnabaum commission organised into |
It is organized into two parts 1. The historical overview of the Americana's federal system 2. The studies of federal and state relations with inspecific functional areas. <)| |
|
|
five themes of kestnbaum commision |
It also had five themes: 1. the merit of federalism 2. Cooperativefederalism 3. Federal forbearance 4. State and local modernization 5.Initialization of intergovernmental coordination and analysis:.|
|
|
|
cooperative federalism key to cooperative federalism and how they used it., |
Cooperative federalism is not competing for authority butthe different level of government working together in meeting demands usingdifferent methods such as grants in aid. They key to cooperative federalism is money, grants in aid. They usedthis in three different ways 1. Revenue sharing 2. Block grants (broad) 3.Categorical grants (specific). Throughout the 50s and 60s cooperativefederalism blossomed. This is demonstrated as Eisenhower provided a massivefederal aid to highways. Also in the 50 there was an expansion of publichealth, agriculture, urban renewal grants. This continual expansion of grantaccelerated efforts to manage cooperative relationships. The rapid increase inprogrammatic complexity frayed administrative relationship, raiseintergovernmental relation tensions, and prompted management reforms andcoordinating efforts. The problems of cooperation were becoming apparentbecause 1. It was a naïve assumption the different levels off government haddifferent needs and goals it also did not account for competition forresources. The complexity, conflict, and concerns over performance were growingin the grant system while new forces, new problems, and new policy instrumentswere driving intergovernmental system toward an opportunistic model. |
|
|
unravelling of cooperative federalism four trends |
The paradigm of cooperative federalism was unraveling andwas apparent in these four broad trends that cut across fiscal, managerial, andanalytical domains. 1. Proliferation of federal mandates, preemptions andincreasingly intrusive grant programs shifted away the vertical relationship incooperative. This was moving system away from reliance on grants and incentivestoward instruments that impose sanction on preempt and coopt state and localauthority. These developments led to characterize era as coercivefederalism. 2. From intergovernmentalmanagement to performance management was an evolution that carries risk offurther federal co-optation of policy agency. It was based on outcome basedaccountability. This can have centralizing effect in the system. The tensionwas seen in Bush PART as administrators seek to connect performance ratingswith budgetary consequences, block grants became target for reduction andtermination. 3. Erosion of institutionalized systematic analysis inIntergovernmental system and a concomitant increase in instrumental advocacy.Since the 70s the network of federal offices and agencies established toimprove and rationalize Intergovernmental management has been diminished,removed and transformed into instruments of advocacy. Tools and processes ofintergovernmental analysis has diminished. Demonstrated in the removal of ACIR.4. Federal tax policy making has increasingly deported from a traditionalstance of federal deference towards state and local governments to one offederal disregard. The report recognized the value of having different levelsof government focus on different sources of tax revenue. However, fiscaldeference has diminished and become federal disregard. This decline has beenaided in the same process of deinstitionalization. For example, the U.S.treasury department of state and local finance was important office oninformation and expertise on intergovernmental finance. It was diminished. { |
|
|
opportunistic federalism |
This unraveling led to opportunistic federalism.Opportunistic federalism is a system that allows actors in system to pursuetheir personal interest with little regard for institutional and collectiveconsequence. Everyone has a turf to defend and must seek opportunity to defendthemselves by being a power player and using opportunity to build politicalcapital. Opportunistic policy makersseek to achieve their own political goals 1. Federal mandates 2. Policypreemptions 3. Prescriptive mandates. States display this behavior to localgovernment and both state and local act opportunistically when they directfederal grants to se4rve parochial needs. They adopt opportunistic strategiesthat place individual political and jurisdictional interest above shared goals.This federalism I not driven by one party. Both conservative and liberal bothwilling to preempt and mandate. For example, Bush No child Left Behind. Thischange from cooperative to opportunistic is caused by the social, economic, andpolitical changed in the U.S.of fedrK| |
|
|
how do opportunistic policy makers seek to achieve their own political goals |
als 1. Federal mandates 2. Policy preemptions 3. Prescriptive mandates.efe>| |
|
|
social changes contributed to OF |
A substantial proportion of federal mandates and regulations includecivil right and environmental protection (ex. Voting Rights Act, The clean airact, Civil rights act of 1964, Americans with disability act, Safe drinkingwater act). The civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s and environmentalmovement of 60s and 70s contributed to the development of such laws and to thisexpansive federal role they entailed. This expansive role led for a moreassertive style in intergovernmental relations |
|
|
economic changes contributed to OF |
Economic changes contributedto the accretion of federal preemption statutes. The nationalization of economyhas expanded federal role in regulating economic affairs. Globalization ofeconomy has increased support of federal preemption of state economicregulation by national and International Corporation. Business sector had an increase in federalpreemptions of state regulatory authority. Fiscal policy the state and localgovernment can’t do much because amount of revenue they can collect and thereis no way to assure that money stays in their borders. Money can leave. As the economy changed it caused tension,competition, and opportunistic federalism. |
|
|
politcal changes contibuted to OF |
The development in thepolitical system has undermined state and local government’s ability tomoderate such federal policies. Individualization in political system has bothdiminished state and local influence and convinced congress “to make it theirown” encouraging proliferation of narrowly targeted categorical grant andincreasing earmarks. There also has been a weakening of political party asnationalization of parties made it harder for lobbyist tin Washington. Alsothere is an increase in polarization of parties. The sharp increase in partisanand ideological polarization since the 70s. This is demonstrated in Congress bythe decline in the number and influence of moderates in both parties andincrease in partisan. Polarization significant administratively becausepolitical moderates’ generally strongest advocate of traditionalintergovernmental management concerns and supports positive government, andemphasize on efficiency, decentralizations and cooperation. |
|
|
positive development s of opportunistic federalism |
Fortunately, positivedevelopments are beginning to emerge in the paradigms of public management,institutional support for intergovernmental analysis, horizontal federalism,and specific tools of policy design. A varietyof developments hold promise for intergovernmental management. 1. Rebuildingintergovernmental analysis. In the era considered “executive federalism”congress and staff have taken the Initiative and renewed interest in IGR. Thisis demonstrated in the enactment of the federal financial assistant managementimprovement act of 1999 which has spurred many grant-management initiatives inthe executive branch. 2. Its efforts to meld intergovernmental flexibility andperformance management. A promised benefit of performance management is itcould combine accountability and flexibility. You are required to provideresults but could negotiate in how you go about meeting them. Program waiversare a used tool that have the potential to increase flexibility and performanceaccountability (welfare, Medicaid). 3. Developing new analytical frameworks.The perspectives of third-party governance reflects increasingly sophisticatedunderstanding of changes in system of governance. Government to governancesignifies what government does today indirectly. Today, intergovernmentalmanagement fits with emerging framework of third-party governance and bothfield should profit and interplay with each other. The change is complementedby another developing framework: network management. Where authority and power are shared andcooperation must be negotiated. 4. Us of cooperative state policy making. Thepositive signs of health of American federalism is continuing level of policyinnovation by state government. One cooperative venture in states efforts toforge a common sales tax system for internet age. Also, multistate cooperationhas developed around environmental policy issues. |
|
|
plusses in managerial initiatives and benefits for administrators |
The plusses allowsconsiderable latitude for effective managerial initiatives to occur throughoutvarious entities with in federal system. The case study Wichita Confrontscontamination demonstrates that administrators can derive benefits fromopportunistic federalism. It can spur effective managerial innovationand initiative through the IGR system. This case study shows howRobertson ability to be politically conscious administrator allowed him toutilize the complex political system to achieve his goal. He had to deal withintergovernmental bodies the EPA and KDHE and other pressure groups like theschool board, banks, public, to get on board with him to clean up polluted areaand protect property values. Only way to do that is persuade banks to continuelending in that area. EPA gives him two options 1. Force the ones who did it toclean up 2. EPA superfund (more money, more time. Both were bad options so hedeveloped a third option. He decided best option politically is city take wholeresponsibility. He struck a deal with biggest polluters and divided area into 3parts. He then convinced people that the property values will go up. Had tohave the state level EPA be in charge of oversight. He provided legalprotection from liability by providing a certificate which removes them forliability. He created a unique decrement financial plan to pay for it. He alsohad to change legislation to give them an exemption. He achieved all of thiswithout stepping on political toes and be political savy. This studyillustrates the complexities of intergovernmental relations. He saw opportunityin failure by understanding the complexity and knowing the ray of optionsavailable to reach goal. Achieves aplan, but one that develops with intergovernmental framework. envirP{ |
