Public Administration and the Modern State

Assessing Trends and Impact

J. Lehrke, E. Bohne,J. Graham,J. Raadschelders, E. Bohne, J. Graham, J. Raadschelders

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137437495
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The challenges faced by the public sector are many and varied. Civil services at the forefront of tackling pressing problems in a whole range of areas from climate change to income inequality are being allocated less money to do so. This collection explores how public sectors have adapted to address the demands placed on them in the 21st Century.

Part I

Normative Perspectives on the State

1

Attending to Mission-extrinsic Public Values in Performance-oriented Administrative Management: A View from the United States

David H. Rosenbloom

In the United States, the academic fields of public administration and public management are diverging. Public management focuses primarily on the orthodox values of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, favorable benefit–cost ratios, and performance measurement. It is also concerned with the “tools” of public management and the key elements of contemporary collaborative governance, including outsourcing, designing contracts, managing and monitoring contractors, and steering within the framework of networks. It views accountability from the perspectives of obtaining results (outcomes) and creating value for money. Results are overwhelmingly defined in terms of core mission objectives and the operations that are ancillary to their achievement, such as deploying financial, human, and other resources efficiently and cost-effectively. Public administration is also interested in all of the above. However, it retains the field’s historic interest in public values and processes. This analysis contends that although mission-extrinsic public values can be difficult to measure, a balanced scorecard approach is feasible. Moreover, failure to incorporate such values into contemporary performance-oriented public management risks impeding their attainment and adversely affecting the quality and character of government and administration.

The problem of mission-extrinsic public values

Mission-extrinsic public values are problematic in contemporary performance management because they are not typically central or ancillary to the achievement of public agencies’ core missions. In Koppell’s terms, these values are not ‘mission-related’ (2003, pp. 72–5). Rather they resemble “non-mission preferences.” Mission-related activities can be defined as operations that ‘strike at the center of an organization’s function’ and ‘relate to the utilization of an organization’s core technology or competence’ (Koppell, 2003, p. 73). By contrast, non-mission preferences address ‘the manner in which an agency pursues its policy objectives’. They ‘are often procedural in character’ and ‘distinguished by their broadness’ (Koppell, 2003, p. 73).

Building on Koppell (2003), these preferences can be either integral or extrinsic to achieving core mission objectives. They are integral when they produce better core mission results. For instance, the core mission of the US federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to ‘protect human health and the environment’ (EPA, 2012). It does this by making rules, such as for clean air, according to non–mission-related procedural preferences for transparency and public participation mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, as amended. Arguably, these procedures reduce litigation and/or yield better rules and are therefore integral to the EPA’s achievement of its core mission.

Non–mission-related preferences may also be extrinsic to the achievement of agencies’ core mission objectives. In this case, they: (1) do not support achieving the central purposes, core activities, and raison d’être of agencies and programs; (2) are unrelated to an agency’s specialized competencies and technologies; (3) promote preferences that are extraneous to organizational missions and may even impede them; (4) are imposed across all agencies in one-size-fits-all fashion that is not strategically tailored to individual missions; and (5) are not necessarily supported by agency leaders and personnel.

Not all preferences rise to the level of public values. Those that do are generally associated with political system attributes or macropolicy objectives. They enjoy legitimacy by virtue of their authoritative allocation by lawful governmental action and/or their broad and widely accepted base in professional, social, economic, or political practice. They are found in constitutions, public laws, executive orders, judicial decisions, and other official proclamations and regulations that control agency operations as well as in regime values (Rohr, 1978; Rosenbloom, 2012a, 2012b).¹ The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to develop environmental impact statements for actions significantly affecting the environment, seeks to promote the macropolicy objective of having a ‘national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; […] promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; [and] […] enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation[…]’ (Government of the United States, 1970). As Van Ryzin (2011) and Wichowsky and Moynihan (2008) observe, such attributes and policies are related to trust in government and “citizenship outcomes” of critical importance to vibrant democracy. These outcomes include social capital, efficacy, political participation, and civic engagement. For example, freedom of information relates to the political system attribute of transparency, which promotes accountability and an informed citizenry. It is a mission-extrinsic public value for the overwhelming number of agencies, the National Archives and Records Administration being the primary exception.

A bright line does not always separate mission-extrinsic public values from others or non–mission-related preferences. Here, it is important to draw a distinction between what is extrinsic on the one hand and what is overhead, staff as opposed to line, and mission-supporting activity such as human resources management, budgeting, and information technology on the other. Activities and operations that contribute to an agency’s ability to implement its core mission are integral, rather than extraneous. However, distinguishing between the two may sometimes be difficult or impossible. For instance, whether workforce diversity is a mission-supporting component of human resources management for all or some agencies or a manifestation of the mission-extrinsic public value of equal employment opportunity is an open empirical question and the focus of much research on representative bureaucracy (Dolan and Rosenbloom, 2003). Nevertheless, the distinction holds up reasonably well overall and is central to the different foci of public management and public administration.

US mission-extrinsic public values

It would be difficult to generate a comprehensive list of mission-extrinsic public values in US federal administration. However, in addition to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 1966) and NEPA, the following is an illustrative list of mission-extrinsic public values regarding system attributes and macropolicy objectives:

Political system attributes (examples):

(A) Statutes:

• Administrative Procedure Act (1946): public and stakeholder participation in rulemaking, transparency, fairness in administrative adjudication, and accountability and adherence to the rule of law through judicial review of agency actions.

• Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972): stakeholder representation and participation in agency decision making.

• Privacy Act (1974): protection of individual personal privacy.

• Government in the Sunshine Act (1976): transparent decision making by multiheaded boards and commissions.

• Negotiated Rulemaking Act (1990): direct stakeholder participation in writing substantive (legislative) administrative rules.

• Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government (OPEN Government Act, 2007): improved transparency under FOIA.

(B) Executive orders (subject to subsequent revocation and amendment):

• 12866 (1993): general rulemaking guidelines and obtaining the views of state, local, and tribal governments.

• 13132 (1999): vibrant federalism.

• 13576 (2011): efficient, effective, and accountable government.

• 13579 (2011): periodic review of regulations by independent regulatory agencies.

• 13610 (2012): identifying and reducing regulatory burdens.

(C) Judicial decisions:

• Goldberg v. Kelly (1970): procedural due process in welfare administration.

• Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1970): promotes principled and neutral decision making in federal agency adjudication.

• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971): promotes the rule of law in agency discretionary actions.

• Mathews v. Eldridge (1976): structure of procedural due process in safety net administration.

• Elrod v. Burns (1976): makes most partisan dismissals of public employees unconstitutional.

• Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982): public administrators’ liability for constitutional torts.

• Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985): procedural due process in the dismissal of civil servants.

• Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990): makes political party affiliation an unconstitutional basis for personnel actions affecting most public employees.

(D) US Constitution:

• Article I, section 9 (‘a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time’): transparency.

• Article II, section 3 (the president ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’): rule of law.

Macropolicy objectives (examples):

(A) Statutes:

• Regulatory Flexibility Act (1980) and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (1996): assessing negative impacts of agency actions on small businesses and governments.

• Paperwork Reduction Acts (1980, 1995): reduction of the burdens associated with agencies’ collection information from private entities.

• Assessment of Regulations and Policies on Families Act (1998): consideration of the impact of agency actions on family structure.

(B) Executive orders (subject to subsequent revocation and amendment):

• 12606 (1987): impact of agency-proposed rules and actions on family structure.

• 12873 (1993): evaluation of environmental aspects of goods and services purchased.

• 12898 (1994): environmental justice.

• 13101 (1998): recycling and reducing waste.

• 13148 (2000): environmental management systems (for example, to reduce pollution).

• 13423 (2007): environmental sustainability in purchasing goods and services.

• 13524 (2009): acquisition of environmentally friendly products (for example, energy efficient, recycled, and so on).

• 13621 (2012): educational excellence for African Americans.

(C) Judicial decisions:

• Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (1994): protection of personal privacy under the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act.

• Board of County Commissioners, Wabaunsee County v. Umbehr (1996): protects free speech rights of government contractors.

• National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish (2004): protection of personal privacy under FOIA.

(D) US Constitution:

• Article VI, clause 3 (‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States’): religious freedom.

• Various amendments guaranteeing civil rights and liberties, informational and decisional privacy, and equal protection of the law.

Taken together, these and other mission-extrinsic public values enable government to leverage agencies’ legal, organizational, staff, and financial resources in the pursuit of objectives that are extraneous to the main purposes for which such administrative units were created and empowered.² They enable government to use public administration as a tool not just for attaining core mission results but also for contributing to the achievement of a variety of political system and macropolicy goals. They determine what substantial components of national, state, and local administrative systems and their personnel do. They contribute a great deal to the definition of what public administration is.

The institutional politics of mission-extrinsic public values

Public values, whether mission extrinsic or otherwise, are politically charged. In the United States, presidents and congresses often impose them on public administration as part of a separation of powers struggle over governmental process and policy preferences. In 1946, Congress repositioned itself vis-à-vis the federal bureaucracy by enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), reorganizing itself, calling on its committees to exercise ‘continuous watchfulness’, defined by some members as ‘supervision’, over the agencies and programs under their jurisdictions, and gaining greater control over agencies’ spending on public works projects (Rosenbloom, 2000). These measures brought greater transparency to administrative activity. Congress sought to turn the agencies into its adjuncts or extensions for legislative functions, most notably rulemaking. The act was also viewed as ‘a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government’ (US Congress, 1946, p. 2190; Rosenbloom, 2000, p. 38). President Harry Truman signed the APA, which was opposed by some agencies, but supported by his attorney general, Tom Clark, and the Bureau of the Budget, although the latter expressed concern that it reflected ‘legalistic rather than administrative thinking’ (Brazier, 1993, p. 329; Rosenbloom, 2000, p. 35). President Lyndon Johnson signed FOIA even though he thought that ‘the goddam bill will screw the Johnson administration!’ (Warren, 1982, p. 180). By contrast, President Gerald Ford vetoed major amendments to FOIA in 1974 only to witness an override and their enactment by Congress.

Likewise, presidents can use executive orders, such as those mentioned earlier dealing with environmental matters, to infuse administrative operations with mission-extrinsic public values and to extend the scope of government. They often do this in the face of congressional opposition or intransigence. For instance, in April 2012, an increasingly frustrated President Barack Obama exclaimed, ‘If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them’ (Savage, 2012). In September, considerable partisan criticism in Congress notwithstanding, he issued Executive Order 13627 on Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts.

The federal judiciary also plays a major role in US public administration. It forces mission-extrinsic public values into administration by defining the constitutional rights of individuals who come into contact with agencies as clients and customers, public employees, prisoners, public mental health patients, and contractors, and in street-level regulatory encounters (Rosenbloom et al., 2010). In efforts to remedy breaches of constitutional rights, federal district courts have taken control of state prison and local public school systems, public mental health facilities, and racially discriminatory public personnel hiring and promotion processes. The courts have also done much to establish the boundaries of public employees’ and contractors’ liability for constitutional torts and the scope of judicial review of administrative action. Administrative rulemaking, adjudication, and enforcement processes are heavily affected by judicial decisions as is compliance with transparency statutes, the Privacy Act, and a host of administrative law regulations. The judiciary has been so active in infusing public administration with constitutional procedural due process, equal protection, and First Amendment rights that, in one view, it has entered into a ‘partnership’ with administrators (Bazelon, 1976).

Can the public administration community create mission-extrinsic public values?

The desirability of mission-extrinsic public values is inherently contestable. Professor Steven Kelman, a leader ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• Part I: Normative Perspectives on the State
• Part II: Protecting State
• Part III: Participatory State
• Part IV: Transparent State
• Part V: Multilevel State
• Concluding Observations: The State Is Here to Stay: We Cannot Live with It, We Cannot Live without It
• Bibliography
• Name Index
• Subject Index