Suchergebnisse

This article reviews Deil Wright's textbook, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, and assesses its current relevance to its field of coverage. Wright's last edition of this book was published in 1988. This article, after describing significant lessons from the textbook, summarizes Wright's related research and commentary from the following two decades, and also analyzes three current intergovernmental topics based on four of Wright's most important metaphors and historical observations. The 1988 book remains relevant to intergovernmental relations today, though it only tangentially informs the more cross-sectoral turn that the field has taken in recent years.

This article reviews Deil Wright's textbook, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, and assesses its current relevance to its field of coverage. Wright's last edition of this book was published in 1988. This article, after describing significant lessons from the textbook, summarizes Wright's related research and commentary from the following two decades, and also analyzes three current intergovernmental topics based on four of Wright's most important metaphors and historical observations. The 1988 book remains relevant to intergovernmental relations today, though it only tangentially informs the more cross-sectoral turn that the field has taken in recent years. Adapted from the source document.

This article establishes and tests a scheme for studying as well as implementing managing-for-results (MFR) reforms. Previous research on MFR and "reinvention" divides between survey-based research, which has a potential to overstate the level of success in implementing best practices such as strategic planning and outcome measurement, and case-based research, much of which identifies difficulties with the implementation of these reform techniques. This article assesses the extent to which variation in MFR implementation occurs in 24 "reputation leader" municipalities and the likely human dimensions that affect MFR implementation across the study jurisdictions. These include the extent to which employee participation is a part of the reform and employee buy-in is pursued, the presence of sustained and persistent leadership on behalf of the reform, and the establishment and nurturing of a supportive organizational culture underlying reform efforts. This analysis produces a more robust classification and framework for studying and implementing MFR.

This article compares two philosophical & empirical approaches to the study of administrative performance across the American states. The Government Performance Project's "Grading the States" series relies on a traditional top-down management reform & improvement philosophy. Its corresponding survey & measures recognize strong management systems surrounding the executive & staff services. The American State Administrator's Project includes measures of "reinvention," several policy initiatives from a bottom-up perspective that emphasizes client interests & facilitation of line agency innovations. The survey instruments, administrative aims, & implications of each reform strategy are discussed. 4 Tables, 42 References. Adapted from the source document.

Executive leadership in state government is examined at two levels, both from the perspectives of the heads of state administrative agencies responding to mail question surveys in 1994, 1998, and 2004. At one level, the status and strength of the governor in controlling and leading the executive branch are assessed. At the second (agency) level, state executives (and their agencies) are assessed on four criteria that are connected, directly or indirectly, with the aims of the Winter Commission: leadership, responsiveness, reforms (at the agency level), and performance (through contracting). State administration generally reflects a balance between continuity and change, with more of the former at the gubernatorial (and legislative) level, and more of the latter at the state agency level.

AbstractIn the summer 2006 edition ofState Politics and Policy Quarterly, Michael Baranowski and Donald Gross examined two methods of measuring influence over state agency activities: freestanding versus paired comparison. Their analysis led them to conclude that the paired-comparison measures might be theoretically superior, but are often impractical. Using the American State Administrator Project (ASAP) surveys, we supplement Baranowski and Gross's analysis by identifying conditions that sometimes make freestanding instruments superior measures and, at other times, paired comparisons both superior and practical to use.

In the summer 2006 edition of State Politics and Policy Quarterly, Michael Baranowski and Donald Gross examined two methods of measuring influence over state agency activities: freestanding versus paired comparison. Their analysis led them to conclude that the paired-comparison measures might be theoretically superior, but are often impractical. Using the American State Administrator Project (ASAP) surveys, we supplement Baranowski and Gross's analysis by identifying conditions that sometimes make freestanding instruments superior measures and, at other times, paired comparisons both superior and practical to use. Adapted from the source document.