E. Application in Other States
VII. CONCLUSION
During the three decades between 1960 and 1990, the executive branch of govern- ment was modernized in the states. While the degree of modernization varied from state to state, no state was left untouched by the powerful forces that pro- pelled the drive to modernize. These forces included citizen demands for better governmental performance, the new breed of legislators who recognized that ef- fective administration was the key to making policy mandates work, the desire to emulate or keep up with other states, governors who recognized that they could not effectively govern under the old organizational mode, the expansion of state service and regulatory activities, and other conditions specific to each state.
In this chapter, the discussion of modernization initiatives and the results of those initiatives have focused on large-scale or comprehensive initiatives. Dur- ing the 1960s and '70s, this type of initiative was undertaken in many states.
30 Conant Important outcomes of those initiatives included the restructuring of the executive branch, the expansion ol gubernatorial authority, and the expansion ol gubernato- rial capacity to manage the executive branch agencies Dunng the 1980s, the focus of elected and administrative officials in the states shifted away from large- scale modernization efforts Only the Governor's Management Improvement Pro- gram in New Jersey (1982-1984) fits the definition employed here of a large- scale modernization initiative While this initiative differed from previous large- scale initiatives in a variety of ways, it does seem to be an appropriate model for future modernization initiatives in states that have a ' 'cabinet'' structure
In states that have a pretraditional or traditional structure, a large-scale modernization initiative aimed at establishing the cabinet structure may be a pre- condition tor more effective administrative management Whether the cabinet model and the concept of administrative management will serve as normative ideals for modernization initiatives in the 21st century is, however, an open ques- tion Downsizing, contracting out, reengmeenng, and remvention have been the principal management "drives" in both the national government and the private sector during the 1990s As of this writing, there is no particular reason to think that the appeal of these approaches will soon fade In fact, the reduction of op- erating costs (economy), which downsizing, contracting out, reengmeermg, and remvention seem to have as their primary objective, may be positioned at the top of governatorial and legislative agendas If this does happen, the assembly of information about these approaches will be an important task for public admin- istration scholars who want to contribute to the debate about modernization initia- tives in the states
REFERENCES
Bell, G (1974) State administrative activities, 1972-73, Book of the States 1974-75, Council of State Governments, Lexmgton, KY
Beyle, T (1982) The governors and the executive branch, Book of the States 1982-83, Council of State Governments, Lexmgton, KY
Bosworth, K (1953) Management improvement in the states, American Political Science Review, 47 84-89
Buck, A E (1938) Reorganization of State Government in the United States, New York Municipal League, Columbia University Press, New York
Conant, J K (1986a) Reorganization and the bottom line, Public Admimstration Review, 46(1)48-56
Conant,! K (1986b) State reorganization a new modeP State Government, 58(6) ISO- 138
Conant, J K (1988) In the shadow of Wilson and Brownlow executive branch reorgani- zation in the states, 1965-79, Public Administration Review, 48(5) 59-69
Consequences of "Modernization" 31 Conant, J K (1989) The growing importance of state government Handbook of Public
Administration (J E Perry, ed), Jossey Bass, San Francisco
Conant, J K (1992) Executive branch reorganization in the states, 1965-1991, Book of the States 1992-93, Council of State Governments, Lexmgton, KY
Elhng, R (1983) State bureaucracies, Politics in the American States (V Gray, H Jacob, and K Vines, eds, 4th ed), Little, Brown, Boston
Garnett, J L (1980) Reorganizing State Government The Executive Branch, Westview Press, Boulder, CO
Garnett,! L (1983) Management structures, State and Local Government A dmimstration (J Rabin and D Dodd, eds), Marcel Dekker, New York
Sabato, L (1983) Good bye to Good time Charlie, Congressional Quarterly Press, Wash mgton, D C
President's Committee on Administrative Management (1937) Report of the President's Committee, Government Printing Office, Washington, D C
Wilson, W The study of administration, Political Science Quarterly, 11(2) 192-222
3
State Administration and Intergovernmental
Interdependency:
Do National Impacts on State Agencies Contribute to
Organizational Turbulence?
Deil S. Wright and Chung-Lae Cho
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Any attempt to understand the functioning of state government and administration in the American political system must take account of the concepts of federalism (FED), intergovernmental relations (IGR), and intergovernmental management (IGM). The distinctive features of these three concepts and the contrasts among them are summarized in Figure 1. That figure also displays along a time line the approximate evolution in the development of the three terms in the U.S. historical experience (Wright, 1990, 1997, 1998). Of special relevance to this essay on state administration is the distinctive and prominent roles played by "leading actors" under each concept. Those featured actors are:
FED: Popularly elected generalists (PEGs) IGR: Appointed administrative generalists (AAGs) IGM: Program policy professionals (PPPs).
These three sets of actors, as discussed below, interact within and between each level or plane of governance.
To understand the idea of a governmental plane as well as the involvement of the three types of officials, a visual image is useful. Figure 2 represents the
33
34 Wnght and Cho
(1) Leading Actors INTERGOVERNMENTAL (2) Central Features MANAGEMENT
(IGM)
(3) Authority Patterns (1) Program/Policy ... _ ... _ . .. Professionals (4) Conflict Resolution
Methods
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
(IGR)
(2) Problem Solving, Networking, Coping (3) Non-Hierarchical (4) Negotiation, Dispute
Settlement
FEDERALISM
(1) Appointed Administrative Centralists (2) Participants' Perceptions,
Financial Policies/Patterns (3) Perceived Hierarchy
* ' (4) Games, Coalitions, Markets (1) Popularly Elected Political Generalists (2) Constitutional - Legal, Institutional - Political (3) National Supremacy
(4) Elections, Laws, Court Decisions
1790 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Figure 1 Historical evolution of mterjurisdictional concepts federalism (FED), inter- governmental relations (IGR), and intergovernmental management (IGM)
three levels ot government(s) in the United States when viewed as planes of governance The three-dimensional rectangular cube depicts each junsdictional level (national, state, local) as a vertical plane standing on edge (upright), parallel to the other planes
This conceptualization does not deny the presence of some (or several) patterns ot hierarchy in vanous mterjurisdictional relationships One that first comes to mind is Dlllon's Rule, which defines (for most American states) the fundamental legal subordination of local governments to state governmental pow- er(s) Local legal subservience, however, is only one aspect of a wide range of state-local relations (Zimmerman, 1995) A broader understanding of state-local dynamics lends credence to the idea that state-local as well as state-national and national-local relations can be properly viewed as interjunsdictional interactions that occur between and among planes of governance
The arrays of reciprocal arrows that connect the three planes convey the multiple and varied interactions Absent from Figure 2 are the intraplane interac- tions, ot which two are most obvious First, within the state plane are the 50 American states, so there are 50 sets of state-local and state-national relations as well as all the permutations of interstate relations within the state plane Second,
Intergovernmental Interdependences 35
National
Figure 2 Planes of governance in the United States national, state, and local planes and intergovernmental interactions Arrows indicate intergovernmental interactions and influence, not necessarily in proportion to the number and direction of the arrows
within the local plane are over 86,000 local governments (counties, cities, school districts, etc) There are therefore innumerable inter-local interactions, all of which take place within the confines of a particularized set (one of 50) of state- local relations. In short, Figure 2 is grossly oversimplified The figure helps, how- ever, to establish the essential idea of planes of governance
With this simplified visual framework as a starting point let us return to the three types of leading actors identified earlier PEGs, AAGs, and PPPs. Our aim is to locate each set of actors within the respective three planes.
Figure 3 helps illustrate the positions of these actors Two new features appear in Figure 3 First, a cylindrical core is inserted within the rectangular cube This core traverses and connects the three planes of governance, from national to local. The second new feature is the display of short-hand terms for the three sets of actors on the edges, inside the margins, and in the central core
The focus of this essay can be specified visually within the framework of Figure 3 It is within the state governance plane and on the types of state adminis- trative agencies located in that plane, especially the administrators who head those agencies The agencies, and their respective agency heads, cluster predomi- nantly into two categories (1) program policy professionals (PPPs) located
36 Wnght and Cho
NATIONAL
PEGs
PEGs
Figure 3 Planes of governance in the United States distinctive positions and roles of three types of mtragovernmental and intergovernmental actors PEGS, popularly elected generahsts, AAGs, appointed administrative generahsts, PPPs, program policy profes- sionals
chiefly in the central cylindrical core of the cube, and (2) appointed administrative generahsts (AAGs), who occupy spaces within the state plane between the inte- rior edges of the plane and the cylindrical core The third set of actors, the PEGs, are ones for whom we have only a limited set of representatives These are the elected heads of several types of state agencies of which the four most common are attorneys general, auditors, secretaries of states, and treasurers These popu- larly elected officials are not representative of the most powerful PEGs occupying the edges of the state plane—namely, governors and legislators Nevertheless, these popularly elected administrators are directly accountable to the voting pub- lic In this respect their roles, actions, and attitudes offer a relevant, albeit imper- fect, set of clues as to how other PEGs may participate in the state governance plane
I. FLUIDITY AND INTERDEPENDENCY: THE POLICY