Public v. Private Organizations
Public Organizations:
An Essential Distinction
• The purpose of public organizations
• Market failures or incapacities
• Public goods and free riders
• Externalities or spillovers
• Political rationales for government
– Expectancy Theory
Concept of Public Values
• Parallel to market failures.
• Public Administration Values:
–
–
–
–
–
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Social Equity
Individual Rights
Political Responsiveness
Mark Moore and Public Values
• Public managers “must produce something
whose benefits to specific clients outweigh the
costs of production.”
• Moore envisions a proactive public manager.
• It’s not all about efficiency.
Agencies, Enterprises, and Hybrid Organizations
The continuum between government ownership and private enterprise. Below the line are arrangements
colloquially referred to as public, government-owned, or nationalized. Above the line are organizational forms
usually referred to as private enterprise or free enterprise. On the line are arrangements popularly
considered neither public nor private.
Private nonprofit
organizations totally
reliant on government
contracts and grants
(Atomic Energy
Commission,
Manpower
Development
Research
Corporation).
Private corporations
reliant on
government
contracts for most
revenues (some
defense contractors,
such as General
Dynamics
Crummen).
Heavily regulated
private firms
(heavily regulated
privately owned
utilities).
Private
corporations with
significant funding
from government
contracts but
majority of
revenues from
private sources.
Private corporations
subject to general
government
regulations such as
affirmative action,
Occupational Safety
and Health
Administration
regulations.
Government
ownership of part of a
private corporation
Government
agency
State-owned
enterprise or
public
corporation
(Postal Service,
TVA, Port
Authority of NV)
Government
sponsored
enterprise,
established by
government but
with shares traded
on stock market
(Federal National
Mortgage
Association).
Government
program or
agency operated
largely through
purchase from
private vendors
or producers
(Medicare,
public housing)
Private
enterprise
Public and Private Ownership and Funding
Public Ownership
Department of Defense
Public Funding Social Security
(taxes,
Administration
government
Police departments
contracts)
Private Funding
(sales, private
donations)
U.S. Postal Service
Government-owned utilities
Federal Home Loan Bank
Board
Private Ownership
Defense Contractors
Rand Corporation
Manpower Development
Research Corporation
Oak Ridge National
Laboratories
General Motors*
IBM
General Electric
Grocery store chains
YMCA
*These large corporations have large government contracts and sales but attain
most of their revenues from private sales and have relative autonomy to withdraw
from dealing with government.
Source: Adapted and revised from Wamsley and Zald (1973).
“Publicness”: Political and Economic Authority
Economic
Authority
Private firm
managed by
owner
Closely held private
firm, professionally
managed
Corporation with
shares traded
publicly on stock
market
Private
nonprofit
organization
Professional
association
Small
voluntary
association
Governmentindustry research
cooperative
Corporation
heavily reliant on
government
contracts
Research
university
Governmentsponsored
enterprise
Government
corporation or
government
organization funded
through user fees
Government
agency (funded
from taxes)
Political
Authority
Source: Adapted from Bozeman (1987).
Typology of Organizations Created By Cross-Classifying Ownership, Funding, and
Mode of Social Control
Ownership
Bureau
Funding
Mode of
Social
Control
Representative
Study
Example
Public
Polyarchy
Meier (1993)
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Government corporation Public
Private
Polyarchy
Walsh (1978)
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation
Government-sponsored
enterprise
Private
Public
Polyarchy
Musolf and
Seidman (1980)
Corporation for Public
Broadcasting
Private
Private
Polyarchy
Mitnick (1980)
Private electric utilities
Public
Public
Market
Barzelay (1992)
Government printing office that
must sell services to
government agencies
Public
Private
Market
Aharoni (1986)
Airbus
Private
Public
Market
Bozeman (1987)
Grumann
Private
Private
Market
Williamson (1975)
IBM
Public
Regulated enterprise
Governmental
enterprise
State-owned enterprise
Government contractor
Private enterprise
Source: Adapted and revised from Perry and Rainey (1988).
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
I. Environmental factors
I.1. Absence of economic markets for outputs; reliance on governmental
appropriations for financial resources
I.1.a. Less incentive to achieve cost reduction, operating efficiency, and effective
performance
I.1.b. Lower efficiency in allocating resources (weaker reflection of consumer
preferences, less proportioning of supply to demand)
I.1.c. Less availability of relatively clear market indicators and information (prices, profits,
market share) for use in managerial decisions
I.2. Presence of particularly elaborate and intensive formal legal constraints as a
result of oversight by legislative branch, executive branch hierarchy and oversight
agencies, and courts
1.2.a. More constraints on domains of operation and on procedures (less autonomy for
managers in making such choices)
1.2.b. Greater tendency for proliferation of formal administrative controls
1.2.c. Larger number of external sources of formal authority and influence, with greater
fragmentation among them
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public Organizations: A
Summary of Common Assertions and Research Findings
I.3. Presence of more intensive external political influences
1.3.a. Greater diversity and intensity of external informal political influences on
decisions (political bargaining and lobbying; public opinion; interest-group, client, and
constituent pressures)
1.3.b. Greater need for political support from client groups, constituencies, and formal
authorities in order to obtain appropriations and authorization for actions
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public Organizations: A
Summary of Common Assertions and Research Findings
II. Organization-Environment Transactions
II.1. Public organizations and managers are often involved in production of public
goods or handling of significant externalities. Outputs are not readily
transferable to economic markets at a market price.
II.2. Government activities are often coercive, monopolistic, or unavoidable.
Government has unique sanctioning and coercion power and is often the sole
provider. Participation in consumption and financing of activities is often
mandatory.
II.3. Government activities often have a broader impact and greater symbolic
significance. There is a broader scope of concern, such as for general public
interest criteria.
II.4. There is greater public scrutiny of public managers.
II.5. There are unique expectations for fairness, responsiveness, honesty,
openness, and accountability.
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
III. Organizational roles, structures, and processes
III.1. Greater goal ambiguity, multiplicity, and conflict
III.1.a. Greater vagueness, intangibility, or difficulty in measuring goals and
performance criteria; the goals are more debatable and value-laden (for example,
defense readiness, public safety, a clean environment, better living standards for
the poor and unemployed)
III.1.b. Greater multiplicity of goals and criteria (efficiency, public accountability and
openness, political responsiveness, fairness and due process, social equity and
distributional criteria, moral correctness of behavior)
III.1.c. Greater tendency of the goals to be conflicting, to involve more trade-offs
(efficiency versus openness to public scrutiny, efficiency versus due process and
social equity, conflicting demands of diverse constituencies and political
authorities)
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
III.2. Distinctive features of general managerial roles
III.2.a. Recent studies have found that public managers’ general roles involve many
of the same functions and role categories as those of managers in other settings but
with some distinctive features: a more political, expository role, involving more
meetings with and interventions by external interest groups and political authorities;
more crisis management and “fire drills”; greater challenge to balance external
political relations with internal management functions.
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
III.3. Administrative authority and leadership practices
III.3.a. Public managers have less decision-making autonomy and flexibility
because of elaborate institutional constraints and external political
influences. There are more external interventions, interruptions, and
constraints.
III.3.b. Public managers have weaker authority over subordinates and lower
levels as a result of institutional constraints (for example, civil service
personnel systems, purchasing and procurement systems) and external
political alliances of subunits and subordinates (with interest groups,
legislators).
III.3.c. Higher-level public managers show greater reluctance to delegate
authority and a tendency to establish more levels of review and approval and
to make greater use of formal regulations to control lower levels.
III.3.d. More frequent turnover of top leaders due to elections and political
appointments causes more difficulty in implementing plans and innovations.
III.3.e. Recent counterpoint studies describe entrepreneurial behaviors and
managerial excellence by public managers.
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
III.4. Organizational structure
III.4.a. Numerous assertions that public organizations are subject to more red tape,
more elaborate bureaucratic structures.
II.4.b. Empirical studies report mixed results, some supporting the assertions about
red tape, some not supporting them. Numerous studies find some structural
distinctions for public forms of organizations, although not necessarily more
bureaucratic structuring.
III.5. Strategic decision-making processes
III.5.a. Recent studies show that strategic decision-making processes in public
organizations can be generally similar to those in other settings but are
more likely to be subject to interventions, interruptions, and greater
involvement of external authorities and interest groups.
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
III.6. Incentives and incentive structures
III.6.a. Numerous studies show that public managers and employees perceive greater
administrative constraints on the administration of extrinsic incentives such as pay,
promotion, and disciplinary action than do their counterparts in private organizations.
III.6.b. Recent studies indicate that public managers and employees perceive weaker
relations between performance and extrinsic rewards such as pay, promotion, and job
security. The studies indicate that there may be some compensating effect of service
and other intrinsic incentives for public employees and show no clear relationship
between employee performance and perceived differences in the relationship between
rewards and performance.
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
III.7. Individual characteristics, work-related attitudes and behaviors
III.7.a. A number of studies have found different work-related values on the
part of public managers and employees, such as lower valuation of monetary
incentives and higher levels of public service motivation.
III.7.b. Numerous highly diverse studies have found lower levels of work
satisfaction and organizational commitment among public than among private
managers and employees. The level of satisfaction among public sector
samples is generally high but tends consistently to be somewhat lower than
that among private comparison groups.
Distinctive Characteristics of Public Management and Public
Organizations: A Summary of Common Assertions and Research
Findings
III.8. Organizational and individual performance
III.8.a. There are numerous assertions that public organizations and employees
are cautious and not innovative. The evidence for this is mixed.
III.8.b. Numerous studies indicate that public forms of various types of
organizations tend to be less efficient in providing services than their private
counterparts, although results tend to be mixed for hospitals and utilities. (Public
utilities have been found to be efficient somewhat more often.) Yet other authors
strongly defend the efficiency and general performance of public organizations,
citing various forms of evidence.
A Framework for Organizational Analysis ( Elaboration of Figure 1.1)
Goals / Values
(Chapters 6, 11)
Auspices : Public or
Private Nonprofit,
Hybrid
(Chapter 3)
Leadership / Strategy
(Chapters 7, 11)
Culture
(Chapter 11)
Structures
Environments
(Chapters 4, 5)
Processes
Specialization/Division of
Responsibility
Departmentalization/Subunits
Hierarchy/Centralization
Formalization/Rules and
Regulations
(Chapter 8)
Power Relationships
Decision Making
Communications
Change/Innovation
(Chapters 7, 12, 13)
Incentives
(Chapters 9, 10)
Tasks / Technology
(Chapters 8)
PEOPLE
GROUPS
Cohesion
Teamwork
(Chapter 12)
INDIVIDUAL
Values/Motives
Perception/Attributions
Motivation
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Commitment
(Chapters 9, 10)
Organizational
Performance /
Effectiveness
(Chapters 6,
14)
The Environment of Public
Management
General Environmental Conditions
• Technological conditions
• Legal conditions
• Political conditions
• Economic conditions
• Demographic conditions
• Ecological conditions cultural conditions
General Environmental Conditions
• Technological conditions: the general level of knowledge and capability in science, engineering,
medicine, and other substantive areas; general capacities for communication, transportation, information
processing, medical services, military weaponry, environmental analysis, production and manufacturing
processes, and agricultural production.
• Legal conditions: laws, regulations, legal procedures, court decisions; characteristics of legal
institutions and values, such as provisions for individual rights and jury trials as well as the general
institutionalizations and stability of legal processes.
• Political conditions: characteristics of the political processes and institutions in a society, such as the
general form of government (socialism, communism, capitalism, and so on; degree of centralization,
fragmentation, or federalism) and the degree of political stability (Carroll, Delacroix, and Goodstein,
1988). More direct and specific conditions include electoral outcomes, political party alignments and
success, and policy initiatives within regimes.
• Economic conditions: levels of prosperity, inflation, interest rates, and tax rates; characteristics of
labor, capital, and economic markets within and between nations.
• Demographic conditions: characteristics of the population such as age, gender, race, religion, and
ethnic categories.
• Ecological conditions: characteristics of the physical environment, including climate, geographical
characteristics, pollution, natural resources, and the nature and density of organizational populations.
• Cultural conditions: predominant values, attitudes, beliefs, social customs, and socialization
processes concerning such things as sex roles, family structure, work orientation, and religious and
political practices.
Research on Environmental Variations
• Notable contributions to this line of research include
Selznick, Lawrence, and Lorsch; Burns and Stalker;
and James Thompson
Research on Environmental Variations
• Phillip Selznick
• TVA and the Grass Roots (1966)
• Environmental influences play a crucial role in the
institutionalization of processes.
• Values, goals, and rules become firmly established not
so much because of efficiency but because of
environmental influences.
Phillip Selznick (1966)
• Co-optation is “the process of absorbing new elements into the
leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a
means of averting threats to its stability or existence.”
• Basically, it can mean either shared power and authority or sharing
of responsibility and participation without actual redistribution of
power. It usually happens when an organization is “out of synch”
with its environment (lack of legitimacy, lack of mobilizing power).
• Often the goal of co-optation is “the sharing of public symbols or
administrative burdens of authority and public responsibility, but
without an actual transfer of power.” The organization needs to
make sure the co-optation doesn't get out of hand. The organization
needs participation, but too much participation may threaten
leadership (hence the inherent dilemma and tensions).
Significance of Co-optation
• Co-optation is significant to organizational analysis
because it represents a change or broadening of
leadership. It also tells us that every adaptive structure
evolves to meet its basic needs for survival and develops
methods of self-defense.
• One can explain organizational behavior by examining
the function or structure of the organization in relation to
these needs. The organization strives for security and
stability of formal and informal relations.
• Importance of “agency capture” and “entangling
alliances”
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967)
• They define differentiation as “the state of
segmentation of the organizational systems into
subsystems, each of which tends to develop
particular attributes in relation to the requirements
posed by its relevant external environment.”
• They define integration as “the process of achieving
unity of effort among the various subsystems in the
accomplishment of the organization's task.“
Lawrence and Lorsch
• Organizations must balance differentiation and integration to be
successful. Those organizations who manage to achieve high
sub-unit differentiation and yet still maintain high integration
between sub-units seem to be best equipped to adapt to
environmental changes.
• Groups that are organized to perform simpler, more certain tasks
(such as production groups) usually have more formal structures
than groups focusing on more uncertain tasks (for example,
research and development).
Burns and Stalker
•
Through their theory of mechanistic and organic systems, Tom Burns and
G. M. Stalker have provided a way to understand which organization forms
fit to specific circumstances of change or stability.
•
In their highly influential work “The Management of Innovation” (1961) they
provide the characteristics of mechanistic versus organic systems.
Mechanistic Versus Organic
• Tasks are separated.
• Tasks are narrowly
defined.
• Has a hierarchy with
centralized top-down
control.
• Rules are pervasive.
• Communication is
vertical.
• Employees contribute to
shared tasks.
• Teamwork redefines tasks.
• Is flatter with less hierarchy.
• There are fewer rules.
• Knowledge and control of
tasks are located anywhere
in the organization.
• Communication is
horizontal.
Why Is This Important?
• Essential organization goals or tasks require certain
organizational environments.
• The impact of these organizational forms on
individuals is different.
• Managers find the mechanistic form provides a
greater sense of security when dealing with their
environment than the organic form.
• Either form may be appropriate in particular
situations.
Contingency Theory
• An organization’s structure must be adapted to
contingencies.
• In simple, homogenous, and stable environments,
organizations can successfully adopt mechanistic and
centralized structures.
• In more complex environments, successful organizations
must be organic and less decentralized.
Contingency Theory
• Capacity
• Domain consensus and choice
• Turbulence and interconnectedness
• Stability, dynamism, change rates
Descriptive and Analytic Dimensions of
Organizational Environments
• Capacity
• Homogeneity-heterogeneity
• Stability-instability
• Domain consensus-dissensus
• Turbulence
Recent Trends in Research on
Organizational Environments
• Population ecology—a deterministic viewpoint.
Populations vary because of their environments.
• Resource-dependence: Organizations depend on their
environment for critical resources. Organizations
exchange to gain resources, which in turn alters the
power-dependence dynamic.
• Transaction costs: Make-buy decisions can be examined
in terms of the cost of the exchange. All governance forms
have unique competencies.
• Studies of institutionalization
o Isomorphism
o Coercive isomorphism
o Normative isomorphism
Types of Isomorphism
•
•
•
•
Institutional – similarities b/t organizations
Coercive – forced by laws
Normative - accreditation
Mimetic - imitation
Descriptive and Analytical Dimensions of
Organizational Environments
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aldrich (1979)
Capacity: the extent to which the environment affords a rich or lean
supply of necessary resources
Homogeneity-heterogeneity: the degree to which important
components of the environment are similar or dissimilar
Stability-instability: the degree and rapidity of change in the
important components or processes in the environment
Concentration-dispersion: the degree to which important
components of the environment are separated or close together,
geographically or in terms of communication or logistics
Domain consensus-dissensus: the degree to which the
organization’s domain (its operating locations, major functions and
activities, and clients and customers served) is generally accepted
or disputed and contested
Turbulence: the degree to which changes in one part or aspect of
the environment in turn create changes in another; the tendency of
changes to reverberate and spread
Major Environmental Components for Public Organizations
General Values and Institutions of the Political Economy
Political and economic traditions
Constitutional provisions and their legislative and judicial development
Due process
Equal protection of the laws
Democratic elections and representation (republican form)
Federal system
Separation of powers
Free-enterprise system (economic markets relatively free of government controls)
Values and performance criteria for government organizations
Competence
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Social Equity
Individual Rights
Responsiveness
Accountability, legality, responsiveness to rule of law and governmental authorities,
responsiveness to public demands
Adherence to ethical standards
Openness to external scrutiny and criticism
Major Environmental Components for Public Organizations
Institutions, Entities, and Actors with Political Authority and Influence
Chief executives
Executive staff and staff offices
Legislatures
Legislative committees
Individual legislators
Legislative staff
Courts
Other government agencies
Oversight and management agencies (GAO, OMB, OPM, GSA)
Competitors
Allies
Agencies or governmental units with joint programs
Other levels of government
“Higher” and “lower” levels
Intergovernmental agreements and districts
Interest groups
Client groups
Constituency groups
Professional associations
Policy subsystems
Issue networks
Inter-organizational policy networks
Implementation structure
News media
General public opinion
Individual citizens with requests for services, complaints, and other contacts
General Values and Institutions of the
Political Economy
• Political and economic traditions
• Constitutional provisions and their legislative and judicial
development
–
–
–
–
Due process
Equal protection of the laws
Federal system
Separation of powers
Values and Performance Criteria for
Government Organizations
• Competence
–
–
–
–
–
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Individual Rights
Social Equity
Responsiveness
• Responsiveness
– Accountability, legality, responsiveness to rule of law and
governmental authorities
– Adherence to ethical standards
– Fairness, equal treatment, impartiality
– Openness to external scrutiny and criticism
Institutions, Entities, and Actors with
Political Authority and Influence
• Chief executives
– Executive staff and offices
• Legislatures
– Legislative committees
– Individual legislators
– Legislative staff
• Courts
Institutions, Entities, and Actors with
Political Authority and Influence
• Other governmental agencies
–
–
–
–
Oversight and management agencies
Competitors
Allies
Agencies or governmental units with joint programs
• Other levels of government
– “Higher” and “lower” levels
– Intergovernmental agreements and districts
Public Organizations and the Public
• Public managers are influenced by public opinion,
including the following:
• The public’s general attitude about government
• The public’s attitudes toward specific policies
• Public organizations need support from
– Mass publics—broad diffuse populations
– Attentive publics—more organized groups that are interested in
specific agencies
• The public manager’s concern is to maintain enough
authority and discretion to meet organizational goals.
• Bureaucratic power is essential to the fundamental
organizational process of gaining financial resources,
grants, and other resources from the environment.
Sources of Political Authority and Influence
• Chief executives
• Legislative bodies
• Courts
• Government agencies
• Other levels of government
• Interest groups
• Policy subsystems and policy communities
• News media
• Public opinion
• Individual citizens
Two Views
• Discussion falls into two camps.
• Bureaus and bureaucrats are seen as independent and influential.
• Bureaus and bureaucrats are impotent.
• Both views have some merit. Bureaucratic power is a dynamic
mixture of both conditions.
• There are numerous cases showing agencies’ responsiveness to
president, courts, and Congress.
• There is also evidence of “bottom up” processes with agencies
independently initiating policy.
• Proactive behavior of public mangers is a common theme in leadership
literature.
Sources of Political Authority and Influence of Institutions, Entities, and Actors in the Political
System
Chief Executives
• Appointment of agency heads and other officials
• Executive staff and staff offices (for example, budget office)
• Initiating legislation and policy directions
• Vetoing legislation
• Executive orders and directives
Legislative Bodies
• Power of the purse: final approval of the budget
• Authorizing legislation for agency formation and operations
• Approval of executive appointments of officials
• Oversight activities: hearings, investigations
• Authority of legislative committees
• Initiating legislation
Courts
• Review of agency decisions
• Authority to render decisions that strongly influence agency operations
• Direct orders to agencies
Government Agencies
• Oversight and management authority (GAO, OMB, OPM, GSA)
• Competitors
• Allies
• Agencies or government units with joint programs
Sources of Political Authority and Influence of Institutions, Entities, and Actors in the Political System
Other Levels of Government
• “Higher” and “lower” levels
• Intergovernmental agreements and districts
Interest Groups
• Client groups
• Constituency groups
• Professional associations
Policy Subsystems and Policy Communities
• Issue networks
• Inter-organizational policy networks
News Media
• Constitutional protections of freedom of the press
• Open meetings laws, sunshine laws
General Public Opinion
• Providing (or refusing to provide) popular support
Individual Citizens
• Requests for services, complaints, other contacts
Chief Executives
• The executive office rivals the legislative branch for strongest
influence.
• This includes presidents, governors, and mayors.
• Chief executives presumably have the greatest formal power over
bureaucracies in their jurisdictions.
• Influence powers are complex and dynamic.
• Methods of influence include the following:
– Chief executives can appoint agency heads.
– Resources of executive offices can enhance influence.
– The executive branch proposes the initial budget, although legislature
approval is necessary.
– Chief executives can issue executive orders.
Legislative Bodies
• Formal legal authority over agencies comes in many forms.
Examples include
– Legislatures
– Councils
– Commissions
• Legislative bodies have substantial authority over agencies.
–
–
–
–
Enabling statutes detail agency authority but can be amended.
Statutory authority can be vague or specific.
Legislative branch controls budgets.
Oversight includes hearings, reports, and investigations.
• Formal authority always operates in a political context.
• Formal authority can weaken or bolster agency.
Limits on Legislative Power
• Agencies are typically the experts – Principal/Agent
Relationship
• Implementation is a source of power.
• Close scrutiny over an agency often has minimal political
payoff.
– Could jeopardize relationships
– Eliminate potential sources of favors for constituents
Courts
• Some experts claim courts exert powerful controls over
bureaucracy, while others see them as ineffectual.
• Courts confine agencies to statutory authority.
• Courts require agencies to follow due process in
rulemaking.
Government Agencies and Other Levels of
Government
• Relationship of bureaucracy to other bureaucracies and
different levels of government can be complex.
• Interdependencies require cooperation.
• Grants sometimes require coordination between
agencies.
• Federal system fragments authority.
• Agencies sometimes compete for resources and control
over programs.
Interest Groups
• Support of organized groups is essential to the wellbeing of an agency.
• The role of interest groups is controversial.
• Following are some criticisms:
– There is a danger that special interest politics will further
fragment the system, complicating communication and
coordination.
– The system favors some powerful private interests over public
interest.
– Agencies can become “captive.”
Interest Groups
• Support from constituent groups can
• Bolster and legitimize agency work
• Defend an agency against budget cuts
• Provide an agency with important information and expert reports
• Give rise to various viewpoints through competition
News Media
• Media attention varies by administration and agency.
• Media attention can shift unpredictably.
• Media tend to take an adversarial stance.
• Bad press can damage budgets, programs, and careers.
• Agencies value good coverage and spend a least five hours per
week on matters pertaining to media (Graber, 2003).
• Media serve as watchdogs, reporting government waste and
abuses.
Public Opinion
• It’s often difficult to gauge what the public really wants.
• The public regards some agencies as more important than
others (for example, police, defense).
• Public sentiment can help or hinder public management.
• Hargrove and Glidewell (1990) propose an agency
classification in relation to public opinion.
• How does the public perceive the agency’s clientele?
• Is the agency respected?
• How important is the agency?
Public Opinion
• A general level of support affects an agency’s ability
to maintain a base of political support.
– Praise for New York fire fighters after 9/11 is an example.
– Periods of antigovernment sentiment often prompt reforms.
New institutions and structures can upset the organization
and present numerous challenges.
– Changes might include
• New lines of authority
• New reporting requirements
Different Ways to Describe the Main Actors
in the Policy Process
• Iron Triangle
– This is an old name to describe the relationship between
bureaucracy, congressional committees, and interest groups.
– It is relatively stable.
– Entry into the triangle is rare.
• Issue Network
– Businesses, organizations, bureaucracies, individuals, legislative
committees and subcommittees all have interests in policy. All
attempt to influence the development and execution of public
policy.
• Barriers to entering the network are rather low.
• Those actively involved in the network at any one time will fluctuate,
and levels of activity will fluctuate.
Iron Triangle
Congress
Low regulation
Can lobby for agency support
Kingdon’s Streams Metaphor
Problem Stream
Window of
Opportunity
Policy Stream
Political Stream
Time
Kingdon’s Agendas, Alternatives, and Public
Policies: Basic Theory
• Three separate and independent streams come together
in an evolutionary manner.
• This presents windows of opportunity.
• The interactions of the streams are highly fluid:
– Coupling of problems and policies
– The role of entrepreneurs
Kingdon’s Streams Metaphor
• An adaptation of the “garbage can” model
• The streams:
– The state of politics and public opinion (the politics stream)
– The potential solutions to a problem (policy stream)
– Attributes of problems and the attention to them (problem
stream)
Kingdon’s Streams Metaphor
• Streams are parallel and somewhat independent of each
other.
• Policy entrepreneurs try to join the streams in a “window
of opportunity.”
• Window of opportunity is the possibility of policy change.