Line Agencies Research Articles

Observations on the Role of Consultants in the Public Sector

Citizens have always expressed concern with their government's methods of spending their money. The intensity of these concerns has varied cyclically in American history, and governmental structure and efficiency is once again undergoing a period of thorough examination. Given the startling increases in the federal budget from $70 billion in 1954 to one-half trillion dollars in 1978, the present reexamination seems appropriate. The major focus of the current review is upon the reorganization of federal agencies. The need for greater order, simplicity, and efficiency in government was an issue in the 1976 presidential campaign. The line agencies do not carry out the government's work alone, however, and as the other papers in this symposium have indicated, outside consultants also play a major role in the conduct of the government's business. The Office of Management and Budget has begun to study consultants as well as the agencies themselves and has requested reports on the use of consultants from nearly 200 federal agencies. Federal policymakers are interested in streamlining the functioning of both the bureaucracy and their associated consultants. These policy-makers have indicated their concerns regarding these tasks, and a Chicago Tribune article has noted that, privately, Carter advisers admit that reforming consultants may be more difficult than reorganizing the government. '

The Local Government Annual Report as a Policy Planning Opportunity

Governmental responsiveness and accountability have become major issues. A feeling has arisen that what government does, it does not do very well. A leading candidate for the most likely campaign promise of the late 1970's is the vow to make government answerable to the people. Local governments, which are close to and generally accessible to the public, feel direct consumer pressure most dramatically. Would-be investors, frightened by the New York fiscal crisis, are also skeptical of municipal actions and are more critically analyzing local policies and accomplishments before committing their funds. Investor desires are indirect but very powerful pressures for improved responsiveness and accountability. With all this important influence mobilized to make local governments toe the mark, distinct improvements should be forthcoming. Neither a mayor nor a bond rating service can bring about major improvements in either responsiveness or accountability, however, unless the consumer public is also actively patrolling these same topics. Such citizen vigilance is not easily accomplished; information on which to make decisions about local government performance is difficult to obtain and interpret. Much of the information generated by local government is to verify compliance with legal requirements and is illsuited for other uses. Parallel to the information problem is the people problem. There is no general agreement on what defines responsiveness or accountability except in a narrow, legal context. Many local officials have found their government to be unresponsive. To avoid having cherished ideas or policies disappear or suffer serious distortions, it is not uncommon for these officials to create planning (or similarly named) staffs charged with the responsibility of tracking and promoting their priority actions within the local bureaucracy. Even this strategy does not ensure responsiveness. Policy staffs rarely have a permanent niche in the power structure and often can be out-maneuvered or out-waited on major issues by line agencies. If not outwaited, policy staffs may be handicapped by vague man-

Professional Fiefdoms Appraised: The Case of Social Services

Much of recent discussion in regard to public services has been about which plane of government in the federal system should do what, and what the scale of the units should be. There is a constant quest for the right territorial unit. This essay will address a different question which is no less pertinent to our times and only a little less pertinent to American federalism-one that is often linked to questions of scale or plane but is obviously distinct from it. This is the issue of generalist versus specialist administration of government functions. The choice is not either-or, of course. The issues are ones of proportion and balance: what is the right mix as among the professional specialists who tend to dominate the line agencies in American executive branches and others in executive positions, be they elected chief executives, political appointees at the top levels of departments, or career generalists in staff units such as budgeting or planning and evaluation.

Knowledge Management in Fiscal Policy Formation

The task of this article is to examine policy making in fiscal management in order to see how the theme of knowledge as occurs in budgeting, taxing, and managing aggregate demand. The importance of who-knows-what as prelude to who-gets-what in this area is substantial, for there are important benefits to be won and lost here. In budgeting, policy choices directly affect what will be done by government, determining how much will be spent to do what for the benefit of which clienteles. In taxing, policy choices decide who will pay for those budget choices, determining which taxpayers and sources of income will be directly affected by changing the tax rates or changing the tax base. In managing the economy policy choices involve adjusting the economy to run near full employment with minimal price inflation, using a set of tools which have the capacity to affect either the tax side or the expenditure side of the budget. These adjustments affect what will be done for the individual through the budget process, or what may be done to the individual through tax policy. Analyzing American society and government, James Carroll1 cautions us about the advance of the technological state-a state where experts in the executive office, in the bureaucracy, in Congress, and in related interest groups and professional networks often make policy by default, largely because the constitutional framework does not recognize the existence of a bureaucracy that is as important as or more important than the presidency, the judiciary, and the legislature. Carroll concludes that three phenomena have contributed to the rise of knowledge-based politics. First is the emergence of information networks constituted of large bureaucracies, their legislative supporters, and reference groups which influence public policy. The second is the failure of general public interest groups to emerge.2 The third is the development of forms of expertise which express value choices in a seemingly value neutral way.3 Carroll predicts the future will bring the development of the innovative This will protect the individual and society from the free play of organized technical power by making changes in the operation of government to provide citizens with the means to exercise influence. These changes include extending the ability of Congress to know what the Executive Branch is doing, encouraging the Office of the President to extend its scrutiny of the executive apparatus, making line agencies more representative of diverse interests in society, and developing the access of the citizen to the judiciary as a means of controlling government. None of these recommendations is new, but Carroll hopes their combined weight will slow the advance of the technocratic state. There are, however, factors in this equation that do not permit easy resolution. Where there is ambiguity, knowledge becomes power. Fiscal policy making, like other policy processes, is characterized by the presence of ambiguity, policy making by experts, and the dominance of expertise. Limited access by non-experts seems to be a predominant theme of this policy area. To examine the complexity of this problem, let us turn first to the area of management of the economy.

Improving the livelihoods of the poor and marginalized in Nepal through leasehold forestry and livestock program: A review of institutional constraints and opportunities

The study looks at the opportunities and constraints of the contributions made by forest institutions to improve the livelihoods of the poorest, through an analysis of the Leasehold Forestry (LF) programme in Nepal - a forestry programme that aims to help alleviate poverty of forest dependent communities by leasing degraded land to the poorest. Data and analysis were primarily based from review of literature, consultations with key informants, field visits, and complemented by the authors' direct involvement in the implementation of LF programme. Although intended to improve the lives of the poorest, the LF programme could negatively affect the poorest when it excludes them or when it causes their displacement from the land that the poorest depend for their livelihoods. Such negative impacts of LF program can be attributed to its improper implementation and design. To improve its effectiveness and impact, awareness campaigns should be improved using diverse modes of communication, more line agencies should be involved in the implementation by transferring the implementation responsibility to a district-level project coordination committee, and some programme provisions should be changed in favour of the poor. Key words: Forest institutions, leasehold forestry, poverty alleviation, Nepal doi: 10.3126/banko.v18i2.2168 Banko Janakari, Vol. 18, No. 2, 10-17

Interagency Communication at the Regional Level

regional, state, and local levels. My purpose in this discussion is to assist the unborn historian by describing at least one method of operating on the regional level which has been productive of excellent results. Whether this brief story of our experience in New England will be of benefit to the living as well as the unborn is problematical. Generally speaking, students of public administration have had rather exceptional opportunities during the past three years to observe and study many new developments in the field of governmental activities. Some of these undoubtedly will disappear after the war. Others will remain. In toto they will have exerted a considerable influence on our political life. We know that even before we actively entered the the defense program had brought about the creation of many new federal agencies. Sweeping decentralization moves followed, affecting many of the old line agencies as well as the war babies, and the levels of administration and operation mentioned above became as crowded (and as dangerous!) as prewar highways. A period of fumbling and stumbling was inevitable, with the confusion worse confounded by the establishment of new agencies under state and local governments, and the appearance of a wide and wild variety of private and quasi-public organizations. 64 The detailed reasons for the confusion