Reflections on State Reorganizations

Abstract

Never before in the long history of our state governments have there been so many studies of the structure of state administration under way at one time.' There are several reasons for the present concerted effort to improve state administrative organization. Some of the interest is related to recent special developments in present-day American government; but, in great part, the motivation is simply a continuation of the thinking that has been behind the administrative reorganization movement since its inception nearly half a century ago. Many of the states that are now considering what should be done to overhaul the structure of their administration have been prompted to do so by the recent popularization of the administrative reorganization idea brought about by the Hoover Commission report and by public interest in it. The very association of the name of the ex-President with the reorganization movement gives it respectability among many conservative leaders in state government who might otherwise have stood apart from it, or, indeed, even opposed it. It is also true that the present high level of federal taxation has made for an understandable reluctance to levy more taxes for state purposes to offset both threatened, and, in some instances, actual deficits now appearing in state budgets. Reserves accumulated in wartime are rapidly disappearing. Rather than load the taxpayer more, state officials are willing to consider altering the administrative status quo. This motivation for the improvement of state administration almost invariably brings to the fore the loosely used and slogan. In the past, embracing reorganization with this thought uppermost has resulted in disappointment: that either efficiency or economy has been enhanced has been difficult to prove. Yet whether the slogan suggests a reduction in the number of dollars spent for state government or greater efficiency, and hence economy, of both manpower and materials in achieving administrative objectives, the possibilities of the catchword attract many today. Worthy as efficiency and economy may be as aims in government, however, it now seems clear that selling reorganization on the basis of cutting costs has dangers. Very little is known about what really inspires efficiency. The morale studies made by James C. Worthy within Sears-Roebuck and Company indicate that following the time-honored principles of so-called good administration may actually lower morale and productivity, especially where