What Difference Does Reform Make?

Abstract

A large part of the literature on public administration in the United States consists of uncritically held normative statements. Whether the subject is the organization of the Executive Branch, civil service, budgetary reform, the creation of metropolitan governments, the role of the expert, or the forms of urban administrative activity, unexamined normative assumptions are more important in determining the results of inquiries than is observation of what happens. “The Political Implications of Budgetary Reform”, “The Political Economy of Efficiency,” and “Rescuing Policy Analysis from Planning, Programming and Budgeting System” are concerned with the different impact of program versus line item budgeting. A thoroughgoing normative bent would also offer the special advantage of highlighting the lack of descriptive propositions on which to base reforms. The chapter suggests that much greater stress on what actually happens, on the development of descriptive (positive) theory is in order.