Change and Continuity in State Administration: Administrative Leadership across Four Decades

Abstract

governments are the keystones of the federal system. This assertive metaphor takes on added significance as the states are increasingly challenged by Supreme Court decisions, fiscal pressures, federal mandates, selective devolution, and policy implementation complexities. The political challenges must be addressed in the broad arena of electoral politics by governors, legislators, courts, and other constitutional or institutional actors. But few, if any, political problems do not translate into policy issues that pose questions of administrative organization and implementation. It is therefore appropriate to focus on administrative structures and leaders in the American states. Governors may set the tone and the temper of major issues on a state's agenda. Legislators and courts regularly address a panoply of particular problems. Most of what state government does from the standpoint of public policy and problem resolution, however, passes through the operational structures of state administrative agencies. The number, variety, and significance of these agencies, and especially their leadership, deserve greater attention. The quantitative and qualitative growth of state government has been visible but largely neglected in the administrative arena. We argue for enhanced attention to administration in the states. Our point about the neglect and inattention to state administration should be placed in proper context. The Public Administration Review (and many other journals of the same kind) reflect an increased awareness of state policy issues and functions. State finances have gained a deserved share of visibility, including borrowing (Hildreth, 1993), debt (Bahl and Duncombe, 1993; Regans and Lauth, 1992), fiscal stress and financial crises (Bahl and Duncombe, 1992; Cahill and James, 1992; Kee and Shannon, 1992; Joyce and Mullins, 1991), and budgeting (Lee, 1991, 1997; Rodgers and Joyce, 1996; Stanford, 1992, 1993; White, 1993). Major domestic policy issues have likewise been addressed from a state-level orientation. These issues include health care policy (Jones and Johnson, 1995; Leichter, 1992; Shumaker, 1995), Medicaid (Buchanan, Cappelleri, and Ohsfeldt, 1991; Schneider, 1988; Schneider, Jacoby, and Coggburn, 1997), and economic development (Burnier, 1991; Reed, 1994; Waits, Kahalley, and Heffermon 1992;). The states have also been the focus of an array of particular cross cutting issues that are common or longstanding administrative questions. Included in this category are issues such as strategic planning (Berry, 1994; Berry and Wechsler, 1995), gender (Bullard and Wright, 1993; Guy, 1993; Kelly, et al., 1991; Riccucci, 1994), and personnel practices (Hays and Kearney, 1992; Jaegal and Cayer, 1991). Despite the range and relevance of the above issues to state government and administration, there are significant gaps in this literature. Limited focus on state administration exists from two standpoints: (1) the overall structure(s) for administration in the states, and (2) the characteristics or attributes of administrative leadership in the states. Also missing is a long-term perspective on state administration. Recently, selective attention has been devoted to short- and long-term shifts in state administrative structural and organizational features (Bowling and Wright, 1998; Cox, 1994; Elling, 1992; National Commission, 1993; Thompson, 1993). Changes in those structural features form the context for this micro-level analysis of administrative leaders in the American states. We document trends, features, and qualities of top-level state executives (agency heads). Prior to presenting findings and interpretations about state administrators we offer brief observations about the general significance of public administration in state government. The Significance of State Administration There are multiple reasons why the administrative status and capacity of the states are of major significance. …