Hierarchy comprises the historic home of the field of public administration, and therefore the character of administration in hierarchy, if not its underlying cultural biases, should be immediately familiar Max Weber's classic concept of bureau cratic organization—based on rule of law, written rules and regulations, hierar chial structure, division of labor, and specialized competence—mirrors orgam zation in hierarchial culture Woodrow Wilson's prescription that public administration be separate from politics and policy, and Frederick Taylor's em- brace of scientific method in organizing work and search for the "one best way"
further supplement the model The essential characteristics of administration in hierarchy often constitute the starting point for empirical research in public ad ministration—as well as state administration
Most empirical research on state administration documents some aspect of the cultural type, state administration in hierarchy One recent case study vividly details this ideal cultural type and its continuing hold on the practice of state
1 Fredenck Wirt identifies state implementation as a fruitful topic for research on political cultures but concludes no research in this phase is known (Wirt 1991 9)
82 Flentje
administration (Barzelay, 1992) While analyzing administrative reforms under- taken in the 1983-90 penod in Minnesota state government and specifically in the Minnesota Department ol Administration, Michael Barzelay identifies "the reigning bureaucratic paradigm" which resulted from Progressive-era ideals, "a compelling system of beliefs m the early twentieth century " This belief system of public administration "promised order and rationality m that new domain of public affairs denominated as administration The theory also provided a reason to believe that the work of public servants served the public interest'' Serving the public interest meant a government "cleansed of particularism,"
requiring that all segments of state administration be subordinate to the collective good of state government (Barzelay, 19924, 22-27, 117, 122)
The preference for order, rationality, and service in the public interest, ac- cording to Barzelay, led to a number of related administrative beliefs and prac- tices, as follows
On authority and structure Specific delegations of authority define each role m the executive branch Officials carrying out any given role should act only when expressly permitted to do so either by rule or by instructions given by superior authorities in the chain ot command Authonty was the right to make decisions and demand obedience from subordinates on matters re- lated to the grant of authority Formal structure referred to the system of superior-subordinate relationships, which matched delegated authority with subdivided functions ultimately to the level of individual positions (Barzelay, 1992 5, 126)
On rules The bureaucratic paradigm encouraged control activities to develop ever-denser networks ot rules in response to changing circumstances or new problems When rule systems became extremely complex, staff opera- tions of substantial size—located m both statt and line agencies—were needed to understand, administer, and update them (Barzelay, 1992 124, see also Bardach and Kagan, 1982 34-39)
On uniform rules and procedures In exercising authority, officials should apply rules and procedures in a uniform manner The failure to obey rules should be met with an appropriate penalty (Barzelay, 1992 124)
On control Within the bureaucratic reformer's vision of government, control was the liteblood of efficient administration [carried out through]
accounting systems, budgetary freezes, reorganizations, reporting require- ments, and countless measures to reduce the exercise of discretion by most public employees Control was essential to realize the aim of a unified executive branch to purge administrative decisions of particularistic in- fluences (Barzelay, 1992 123-124)
On professionalism and expertise The purpose of the bureaucratic reforms was to enable government to serve the public interest A central element of that strategy was to recruit, develop, and retain experts in such fields as accounting, engineering, and social work This strategy was de- signed not only to achieve results, but also to use expertise as a way to legiti-
State Administration in Cultural Context 83 mate the actions of unelected officials in an administrative state [T]hese officials came to presume that the public interest was served whenever they applied their various bodies of knowledge and professional standards to ques- tions within their respective domains of authority [D]ecisions made in accord with professional standards were congruent with citizens collective needs (Barzelay, 1992 117-119)
The executive reorganization movement which has swept through state governments in waves throughout most of this century reinforces beliefs and practices associated with state administration in hierarchy The most important benefits of state reorganization
are the rationalizing of the executive branch machinery and the expansion of the chief executive's formal powers over the consolidated executive branch departments These changes seem to be necessary conditions for enabling a state's chief executive to be the "center of energy, direction, and administra- tive management" (Conant, 199271)
In a 50-year review of administration in state governments, Bowling and Wnght conclude that compared to the late 1940s, administrative structures are reorga- nized and central control is strong
The void in central controls which existed in the 1940s has been filled Most state administrations have experienced a major turnabout, with the governor exerting a centralizing force Centripetal forces in state administration in the 1990s are in sharp contrast to the centrifugal factors dominant in the 1940s (Bowling and Wnght, 1998 57)
This enthusiasm for hierarchial administration is also promoted through materials of the governors' vehicle for collective action, the National Governors' Associa- tion (Governing the American States , 1978)
Another state study documents the enduring viability of Wilson's politics- administration dichotomy in state administration Based on a survey of 847 state administrators in 10 states, Richard Ellmg concludes that "these state administra- tors continue to believe that maintaining some sort of politics-administration sep- aration is a good way to assure efficient and effective administration of the pub- lic's business " Similarly, these state managers "tend to believe that good management is enhanced to the extent that the influence of external political actors is reduced '' Nearly two-thirds of these managers viewed legislative review of proposed administrative rules and regulations as not positive in terms of the effect on the implementation of agency programs They also expressed a similar negative assessment of whistle-blowing, which was likely viewed as an act of disobedience and a threat to agency administration (Ellmg, 1992 90-92, 97, 196) In a study of state educational structure, Frederick Wirt found that states with hierarchial cultures had more centralized control and less local autonomy
84 Flentje
in education (1977:177-79). Further, an in-depth, six-state study of state policy in education found that political cultures ' 'roughly distinguish which state policy mechanisms and program approaches are selected"(Marshall et al., 1989:159).
For example, the study documented that elites in states having political cultures with hierarchial tendencies opposed local control by school administrators and favored state mandates with respect to student discipline. Specifically, elites in Arizona and West Virginia "opposed the strengthening of local administrators' control by giving them more discretion, by reorganizing their districts, and by mandating their evaluation and employee discipline programs," and "favored more control of students by mandating their discipline and modifying their sus- pension or expulsion regulations . . . " (Marshall et al., 126).
The values and administrative practices associated with state administration in hierarchy likely permeate, or at least in the past have permeated, a number of substantive fields that fall within the jurisdiction of state government. In environ- mental regulation, for example, a dominant view of ideal state administration has been termed command-and-control enforcement, which includes "the reliance on formal, precise, and specific rules; the literal interpretation of rules; the reli- ance on the advice of legal technicians (attorneys); the quest for uniformity; and the distrust of and an adversarial orientation toward the regulated" (Shover et al., 1986:11). According to this model of state regulation, vigorous enforcement coupled with sanctions and penalties effectively corrects violations of environ- mental laws and deters potential violators. While strict adherence to the law would limit administrative discretion, Hunter and Waterman found that state en- vironmental regulators "respond to political clues from their hierarchial super- ordinates" (1996:195).
Brendon Swedlow discerns a hierarchial world view in the first two reform movements in the field of mental health—the first, ' 'collecting all undesirables in asylum warehouses," and the second, "psychiatric treatment in state hospi- tals." Both reforms, according to Swedlow, exhibited a paternalistic belief that
"some of us can decide that some others are different and therefore deserve to be treated differently. Psychiatrists replaced wardens as the new custodians of these others' welfare. The hierarchical doctor-patient relationship was substituted for the hierarchical keeper-kept relationship . . ."(1994:73).
Swedlow then reviews civil commitment procedures for the mentally ill to illustrate how professionals "make decisions for the rest of us" based on state authority exercised through the courts and professional standards interpreted by psychiatrists. The suggested legal standard for civil commitment, with the hierar- chical meaning inserted in parentheses by Swedlow, is as follows:
Would a reasonable man (as determined by the court), given the patient's serious illness and suffering (as determined by the court's confidence in the testifying psychiatrist), be willing to give up a certain amount of freedom in
State Administration in Cultural Context 85 that particular institution in exchange tor a treatment that (according to the psychiatrist) in similar cases produces a specific range of results'? (1994 74)7
This procedure helped to preserve proper roles in the administration of mental health and assure the maintenance of social order in the community—underlying values of state administration in hierarchy According to Swedlow, "Judges and psychiatrists retain their unique, well delineated place in the society in part by being able to make certain sorts of decisions for other people which of course also 'helps' those people retain their 'mentally ill' roles or positions" (1994 74- 75)
Lawrence Mead (1997) and associated researchers document a recent wave of state paternalism that has permeated the administration of numerous social services including those dealing with welfare, teenage pregnancy, child support, homelessness, drug addiction, and public education In this "new paternalism"
the collective interests of the state override individual choice "Society claims the right to tell its dependents how to live "(1997 4) In welfare, tor example, Mead finds that
administrators prescribe certain responses such as work and require the cli ents to conform [P]enalties are imposed if people fail to comply The goal is to supervise behavior, largely outside institutional walls, some- thing that can be done by routines where staff members check up on cli ents The idea is that the poor need support, but they also require structure And behavioral rules are to be enforced through government (Mead, 1997 21-22)
James Q Wilson summarizes the prescription underlying the research of Mead and his associates as follows
[P]aternahsm needs to be revived and strengthened where it is already ac cepted (the schooling of children) and enlarged and extended for people—
the homeless, criminals, drug addicts, deadbeat dads, unmarried teenage mothers, and single mothers claiming welfare benefits—who have by their behavior indicated that they do not display the minimal level of self-control expected of decent citizens (Wilson, 1997 340-341)
When carried to the extreme, state administration in hierarchial culture re veals totalitarian impulses and loss of individual liberty Early in the 20th century certain states enacted laws that gave state officials and medical professionals authority to sterilize inmates of state institutions In Kansas during the height of
86 Flentje
the Progressive era, for example, state lawmakers authorized superintendents and wardens of state hospitals and prisons to initiate sterilization if he or she
believes that the mental or physical condition of any inmate would be im- proved thereby or that procreation by such inmate would be likely to result in defective or feeble-minded children with criminal tendencies, and that the condition of such inmate is not likely to improve so as to make procreation by such persons desirable or beneficial to the state (my emphasis) (Kansas,
1913, 1917)
Once the administrator's recommendation was reviewed and sanctioned by supe- rior state officials and medical officers, the treatment could be executed Presum- ably, the state would then benefit