In recent years numerous bills have been introduced in Congress to establish a major study effort patterned after the two Hoover Commissions of some thirty years ago. The continuing interest in creating a "new Hoover Commission" has prompted questions about the earlier efforts to restructure national government. What were the Hoover Commissions? Ho

Savoie considers the war of reform waged by the leaders of these major industrial countries. Reagan declared that he had come to Washington to "drain the swamp" of bureaucracy, and set up the Grace Commission to investigate the operation of the U.S. government. Thatcher and Mulroney were equally committed to reform and initiated wide-ranging changes. By the end of the 1990s, the changes were dramatic. Many governments operations had been privatized in all three countries, and new management techniques had been introduced. In Great Britain, one observer judged that the changes were historically as important as the collapse of Keynesian economics. Is government now better in these countries, and was political leadership right in focusing on management of the bureaucracy as the villain? Savoie suggests that the reforms overlooked problems now urgently requiring attention and, at the same time, attempted to address non-existent problems. He combines theory and research based on sixty-two interviews, nearly all with members of the executive branch of the governments of Britain, Canada and the United States.

Examines how state government policies and their historic beginnings have present-day effects on their residents' political lives and on population health, especially for marginalized groups.

As the scope and size of the U.S. government has expanded, the importance of good management to the success of a presidency has also increased. Although good management cannot guarantee political or policy success, poor management can certainly undermine good policy and political efforts. In this second edition of The Managerial Presidency James P. Pfiffner brings together both classic analyses and more recent treatments of managerial issues that affect the presidency. Some of the foremost presidency scholars have contributed to this volume, including Richard Neustadt, Charles O. Jones, Hugh Heclo, George Edwards, and Louis Fisher. This second edition includes more recent scholarship by Roger Porter, Steven Kelman, Peri Arnold, and Ronald Moe. The focus of this collection is the extent to which presidents can exercise control over the executive branch bureaucracies and whether it is wise for them to exert that control. Part one deals with the question of how to organize the White House staff. If this organizational problem is not resolved, solving the broader problems of organization and policy will be that much more difficult. Part two addresses the question of how much control presidents should exert over the departments and agencies of the executive branch and how the White House staff and other political appointees relate to career civil servants. The final section examines presidential managerial reform efforts and the congressional role in managing the government. Although the contributors to this collection do not all agree on how the presidency should be managed, there is surprising consensus on which questions ought to be asked. The analyses addressing those questions will be of interest to students and scholars of the modern presidency as well as those interested in executive leadership and public administration.

This handy reference work is ideal for either the experienced practitioner or the neophyte, representing an institution or client whose interests involve United States banking regulation. Banking Regulation in the United States analyzes and discusses the pattern of banking regulation, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the systems structure, the sources of governing law and the nature and reasons for the changes that gives this field its peculiar volatility.

The Unwieldy American State examines controversies over federal administrative law in the 1940s and 1950s. The seemingly arcane procedures used by federal administrative agencies to make rules, draft policies, and issue orders were a major political issue in the years following World War II, as politicians and lawyers tried to shape rules according to their own political preferences. Reforms changed both administrative operations and the public discussion surrounding them and made the administrative state more difficult to attack.

In Administrative Renewal, the periodic efforts to reorganize the executive branch during the 20th century are examined and analyzed. Receiving special attention are the landmark commissions, such as the Hoover Commissions of mid-century, to determine how they influenced the theory and practice of democratic administration

The authors examine some of the key strategies past presidents have used to lead the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch. Although centralizing power among the White House staff became the preferred alternative during the 20th century, the authors argue that this strategy insulates the president from valuable knowledge and experience in the departments and agencies. This shortcoming, combined with the unchecked proliferation of departments and agencies, has made it difficult for the president to develop meaningful, trusting relationships with each cabinet member. A comprehensive reorganization, such as the one recommended in 2003 by the National Commission on the Public Service (also known as the Volcker Commission) cold redress some of the inherent limitations of centralizing power in the white House. Reducing the number of cabinet secretaries, for instance, could improve the chances that these secretaries will develop more effective, direct, and hands-on relationships with future presidents. Missing from the case for comprehensive reorganization, however, is a systematic study of cabinet agency performance. Before launching into large-scale reorganization, a careful inquiry should be undertaken of the successes and failures of the largest cabinet agencies: the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security.

The prevailing notion that the best government is achieved through principles of management and business practices is hardly new—it echoes the early twentieth-century "gospel of efficiency" challenged by Dwight Waldo in 1948 in his pathbreaking book, The Administrative State. Asking, "Efficiency for what?", Waldo warned that public administrative efficiency must be backed by a framework of consciously held democratic values. Revisiting Waldo's Administrative State brings together a group of distinguished authors who critically explore public administration's big ideas and issues and question whether contemporary efforts to "reinvent government," promote privatization, and develop new public management approaches constitute a coherent political theory capable of meeting the complex challenges of governing in a democracy. Taking Waldo's book as a starting point, the authors revisit and update his key concepts and consider their applicability for today. The book follows Waldo's conceptual structure, first probing the material and ideological background of modern public administration, problems of political philosophy, and finally particular challenges inherent in contemporary administrative reform. It concludes with a look ahead to "wicked" policy problems—such as terrorism, global warming, and ecological threats—whose scope is so global and complex that they will defy any existing administrative structures and values. Calling for a return to conscious consideration of democratic accountability, fairness, justice, and transparency in government, the book's conclusion assesses the future direction of public administrative thought. This book can stand alone as a commentary on reconciling democratic values and governance today or as a companion when reading Waldo's classic volume.