Suchergebnisse

The adoption of "smart practices" requires that smart practices can actually be identified for the areas of public policy in which we are interested. For the problem of designing structures for public agencies, however, identifying smart practices is not easy. This article explores the reasons for the substantial conservativism, lasting over 50 years, regarding the structural design of the U.S. intelligence community. One central argument is simply that it was very difficult to discover a clearly superior structure; in fact, the long‐standing structure may have had some unrecognized virtues. But the other central argument is that one smart practice may have emerged since the 9/11 attacks: It involves the creation of problem‐focused interagency centers that are intended to enhance the sharing and integration of information within the intelligence community. These conclusions about redesigning the structure of the intelligence community are based on the arguments of Luther Gulick on methods of departmentalization and Martin Landau on redundancy and system reliability.

The adoption of "smart practices" requires that smart practices can actually be identified for the areas of public policy in which we are interested. For the problem of designing structures for public agencies, however, identifying smart practices is not easy. This article explores the reasons for the substantial conservativism, lasting over 50 years, regarding the structural design of the U.S. intelligence community. One central argument is simply that it was very difficult to discover a clearly superior structure, in fact, the long-standing structure may have had some unrecognized virtues. But the other central argument is that one smart practice may have emerged since the 9/11 attacks: It involves the creation of problem-focused interagency centers that are intended to enhance the sharing and integration of information within the intelligence community. These conclusions about redesigning the structure of the intelligence community are based on the arguments of Luther Gulick on methods of departmentalization and Martin Landau on redundancy and system reliability. Adapted from the source document.

Understanding governance in the world's democracies requires study of the political institutions — the chief executives, the bureaucracies, and the legislatures — most involved in national policymaking. There are many approaches to the study of these institutions. This article examines the potential of an approach which is relatively unfamiliar to most students of governance: the development of formal mathematical theories of political institutions. The costs and benefits of this approach are discussed, various types of formal theories are surveyed, and a variety of possible applications to some central problems of governance are described.

Information processing & policy making, in any kind of institution, involve the making of comparisons. For information processing, the comparisons are among bits of data; for policy making, the comparisons are among alternative options. Illustrations from a wide range of institutions are used to examine how hierarchies structure the making of comparisons. 3 Figures, 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article reviews a debate in public administration which occurred some 40 years ago between two giants of public administration, Luther Gulick and Herbert Simon. Simon is generally considered to have 'won' the debate in the 1940s and 195Os, and there is good reason to think that this 'victory' turned the field of public administration in a direction very different from where it had been headed previously. The paper makes two arguments. The first argument is that a close examination of the key articles – Gulicks 'Notes on the Theory of Organization' (1937) and Simon's The Proverbs of Administration' (1946) – shows that Gulicks essay was not nearly as vulnerable to Simon's criticisms as has commonly been assumed. In general, Gulicks arguments are richer and far more subtle than Simon recognized. The second argument has a more current focus: had Gulicks approach been pursued in the ways Gulick suggested, there is reason to think we would know considerably more about the design of organizational structures than we currently do.