Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:12:08.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Management Improvement in the States*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Karl A. Bosworth
Karl A. Bosworth
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the wake of the Hoover Commission reports, a great majority of the states authorized special inquiries into the organization and operation of their executive institutions. With very few exceptions, the numerous postwar movements for state reorganization appear to have resulted in only moderate or negligible legislative acceptance of the reorganization proposals. The spectacle of such meager accomplishment from so much effort invites reflection on the politics of management improvement in the states.

Through the generous cooperation of professional colleagues about the country, data were assembled on the successes and failures of these reorganization movements, upon the initiation, organization, and scope of the surveys, and upon the methods of presenting the survey reports to the legislatures and to the public. The data cover thirty states, in twenty-four of which the state legislature has had at least one chance to consider commission recommendations. In the remaining six states the reports are still in the process of preparation, or await legislative consideration. Included in the twenty-four are four states in which the study group has made some reports but continues in existence to make further reports, so that the success of the efforts in these states must be, tentatively judged on the basis of legislative reception of reports so far received.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 1953 , pp. 84 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Indiana, Maine, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

2 I am indebted for insights into these New Jersey matters to William Miller, Princeton Surveys, and Paul M. Douglas, Oberlin College.

3 Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Ohio.

4 Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

5 The eight states are Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Virginia. In the ninth state, Colorado, the governor appears to have cooperated in at least some parts of the movement. The influence of governors in these matters is illustrated by developments in Louisiana and Rhode Island where substantial major and moderate-scale reorganizations were adopted under the leadership of governors, without benefit of reorganization commissions. In Louisiana the changes were both in the direction of disintegration and integration, while in Rhode Island they were in the direction of integrating both central and departmental administration.

6 Langmuir, John D., “New Hampshire Secures Partial Reorganization,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 39, pp. 344–46 (07, 1950)Google Scholar.

7 The states in which specific constitutional proposals were not made are Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

8 Letter from George H. Deming, University of New Hampshire.

9 Letter from George R. Sherrill, University of South Carolina.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.