Encyclopedia of public administration

and public policy

Encyclopedia of public administration

and public policy

DAVID SCHULTZ

Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy

Copyright © 2004 by David Schultz

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by anymeans, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information

storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. Forinformation contact:

Facts On File, Inc.132 West 31st StreetNew York NY 10001

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy / [edited by] David Schultzp. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-8160-4799-51. Administrative agencies—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Executive

departments—United States—Encyclopedias. 3. United States—Politics and government—Encyclopedias. 4. Political planning—United States—Encyclopedias. 5. Public policy (Law)—United States—Encyclopedias. I. Schultz, David A. (David Andrew), 1958– .

JK9.E526 2003320.973′03—dc21

2003040803

Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities forbusinesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales

Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755.

You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.factsonfile.com

Text and cover design by Cathy RinconLine art by Patricia Meschino

Printed in the United States of America

VB Hermitage 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

In memoriam: Tina and Megan, forever.8

LIST OF ENTRIES vii

PREFACE xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii

CONTRIBUTORS xv

ENTRIES A–Z 1

APPENDICES 469

INDEX 505

C O N T E N T S

AARPaccountabilityAddams, Janeadministrative discretionadministrative ethicsadministrative law judgeAdministrative Procedure Actadministrative searchesadministrative theoryadvisory opinionaffirmative actionagenda settingAid to Families with

Dependent Childrenalternative dispute resolutionAmerican Federation of State,

County, and MunicipalEmployees

American Society of PublicAdministration

Americans with Disabilities Actof 1990

AmtrakAppropriations Committeearbitrary and capriciousarbitrationArrow’s ParadoxauditingBarnard, Chester IrvingBill of Rightsblock grantsBoard of County Commissioners

v. Umbehrbondsbounded rationality

Bowsher v. SynarBranti v. FinkelbriberyBrownlow CommissionBudget and Accounting Act of

1921budgetingbudget stabilization fundsbureaucracyBureau of the BudgetBush, George H. W.Bush, George W.business-to-business electronic

commercecabinet departmentsCalifornia v. Cabazon Band of

Mission Indianscampaign financeCarter, Jimmycase studycategorical grantsCentral Intelligence Agencycharter schoolChevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural

Resources Defense CouncilCigarette Labeling and

Advertising ActCitizens to Preserve Overton

Park, Inc. v. Volpecity managerscivil libertiescivil rightsCivil Service Reform Act of

1978Civil Service Reform League

civil service systemClean Air ActClean Water Act of 1972Clean Water Act of 1977Clinton, William JeffersonclotureCommission on Civil Rightscommittee systemcommunity action agenciescomparable worthconference committeeconflict of interestCongressional Budget OfficeconstituencyconsultantConsumer Product Safety

Commissionconsumer protection on the

Internetcontractualismcontrolco-optationcopyrightcorporate social responsibilitycorporatizationcost-benefit analysiscyberneticsDahl, Robertdelegation doctrineDennis v. United Statesde novo hearingDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of CommerceDepartment of DefenseDepartment of Education

vii

L I S T O F E N T R I E S

viii List of Entries

Department of EnergyDepartment of Health and

Human ServicesDepartment of Housing and

Urban DevelopmentDepartment of the InteriorDepartment of JusticeDepartment of LaborDepartment of the TreasuryDepartment of Veterans Affairsderegulationdescriptive representationdigital divideDillon’s Rulediscretiondiscriminationdistributive policydouble dippingDrug Enforcement

Administrationdrug policyearmarked revenueearned-income tax credite-governmentElrod v. Burnseminent domainEmployee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974enterprise zonesenvironmental impact

statementEnvironmental Protection

AgencyEqual Employment

Opportunity ActEqual Employment

Opportunity Commissionequal protection clauseEthics in Government ActEuropean Unionevents of 11 September 2001excise taxexecutive leadership systemExecutive Office of the

President

Executive Order 10988executive privilegeex parteex parte Curtissexternalitiesfact-findingFair Labor Standards Actfaith-based initiativesFamily and Medical Leave ActFarm Credit AdministrationfeatherbeddingFederal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Deposit Insurance

CorporationFederal Election Campaign ActFederal Executive InstitutefederalismFederal Labor Relations

AuthorityFederal Maritime CommissionFederal Mediation and

Conciliation ServiceFederal RegisterFederal Reserve BoardFederal Reserve SystemFederal Trade Commissionfiscal policyflat taxFollett, Mary ParkerFood and Drug Administrationfood stampsforeign policyformal hearingFreedom of Information Actfree ridergambling policyGantt, Henry LaurenceGantt chartgarbage-can modelGarcia v. San Antonio Mass

Transit AuthorityGeneral Accounting OfficeGeneral Agreement on Tariffs

and Tradegeneral-obligation bondgeneral revenue

general scheduleGeneral Services

AdministrationGilbreth, Frank Bunker, and

Lillian Evelyn Moller Gilbrethgoal displacementGoldberg v. KellyGoldwater-Nichols Department

of Defense ReorganizationAct of 1986

Goodnow, Frank J.Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993Grace CommissionGramm-Rudman Actgrants-in-aidGulick, Lutherhard lookHatch Actshealth maintenance

organizationHeckler v. Cheneyhome ruleHoover, J. EdgarHoover CommissionHouse Ways and Means

Committeehousing policyHull-Househuman relationsHumphrey’s Executor v. United

StatesImmigration and Naturalization

Service (INS) v. Chadhaimplementationimpoundmentincome taxincremental budgetingincrementalismIndian Gaming Regulatory ActIndividuals with Disabilities

Education Actinformal hearinginstitutional reform litigationintergovernmental relations

List of Entries ix

Iran-Contrairon law of oligarchyiron trianglesJackson, Andrewjob specializationJohnson, Lyndon BainesJoint Chiefs of Staffjudicial review of

administrative actionjurisdiction, governments, and

the internetKeynesianismlawLaw Enforcement Assistance

ActleadershipLegal Services Corporationlegislative oversightlegislative vetoLincoln, AbrahamLindblom, Charleslobbyinglobbyistlocality paymagnet schoolsmanagement by objectivesmanagement information

systemMaslow, AbrahammediationMedicaid and Medicaremerit systemMerit Systems Protection

BoardMinnowbrook Conferencemonetary policyMorrison v. OlsonMyers v. United StatesNader, RalphNational Aeronautics and

Space Administrationnational debtNational Labor Relations BoardNational Performance ReviewNational Science Foundation

National Security Act of 1947National Security CouncilNational Transportation Safety

Boardnatural resource damage

assessmentsneutral competencenew public administrationNixon, Richardnongovernmental

organizationsnonprofit corporationnonprofit sectorNorth American Free Trade

Agreementnotice and commentNuclear Regulatory

CommissionOccupational Safety and

Health AdministrationOffice of Government EthicsOffice of Management and

BudgetOffice of Personnel

ManagementO’Hare Truck Service, Inc. v.

City of NorthlakeombudsmanoutsourcingPatent and Trademark OfficePeace CorpsPendleton ActPentagonperformance auditingperformance budgetingperformance managementperformance measuresperformance reviewPersonnel Administrator of

Massachusetts v. Feeneyplanned programming

budgeting systemplanningplanning, history ofPlunkitt, George Washington

pocket vetopolice powerpolicy advicepolicy designpolicy evaluationpolicy formulationpolicy impactpolicy implementationpolicy outputpolicy windowpolitics-administration

dichotomyPOSDCORBpostmodern public policyprivacyprivatizationprocedural due processprogram evaluationprogram evaluation and review

techniqueprogressive property taxproject managementpublic-choice theorypublic employment relations

boardspublic goodspublic interestpublic personnel systempublic policypublic-private partnershipspublic works infrastructureracial profilingRANDReagan, Ronaldredistributive policyred tapereductions in forceregulationregulatory captureregulatory policyregulatory taxRehabilitation Act of 1973representationrepresentative bureaucracyreproductive freedom

x List of Entries

revenue sharingrisk managementrules committeesRutan v. Republican Party of

Illinoissales taxsales taxes on remote commerceSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002satisficingschool vouchersscientific managementsecretary of defensesection 8 housingSecurities and Exchange

CommissionSelective Service SystemSeminole Tribe of Florida v.

FloridaSenior Executive Serviceseparation of powerssexual harassment policySimon, HerbertSmall Business Administrationsocial capitalsocial entrepreneurshipSocial Security AdministrationSouth Dakota v. Dole, Secretary

of Transportationsovereign immunityspoils system

state-level administrativeprocedures acts

strategic managementstrategic planningstreet-level bureaucratstrict scrutinysubgovernmentssubstantial evidencesunset clausessuper-majority votingsupplemental security incomesupply-side economicssuspect classificationsystems analysisTaft-Hartley ActTammany Halltax increment financingTaylor, Frederick WinslowTaylorismteledemocracyTemporary Assistance for

Needy FamiliesTenure of Office Act of 1867Theory XTheory YTheory Ztotal quality management and

continuous qualityimprovement

transactional costs

tribal nation sovereigntytriple bottom lineunfunded mandatesUnited States ConstitutionUnited States foreign policyUnited States Postal

ServiceUnited States v. National

Treasury Employees UnionUnited States v. WurzbachU.S. Department of Statevalue-added taxVermont Yankee Nuclear

Corporation v. NRDCveterans preferencevetoViolence against Women

ActWaldo, DwightWar Powers ActWatergatewater rightsWeber, Maxwelfare economicswelfare reformWhyte, William H.Wickard v. FillburnWilson, WoodrowWorld Trade Organizationzero-based budgeting

Government can make life more tolerable. Be itdefending national borders, putting out fires,educating children, enforcing antidiscriminationlaws, or tending to the aged, ill, or handicapped,public administrators, civil servants, and govern-ment bureaucracies perform many thanklessservices that social and economic institutionsalone neither can nor want to undertake. Yet it isthese tasks that enrich people’s lives, making itpossible not simply to live, but to live well.

Despite the important role that governmentplays in our lives, many of its organizations andfunctions remain a mystery to the average citi-zen. The Encyclopedia of Public Administrationand Public Policy is written to help dispel thismystery and clarify what government agenciesand their public administrators do and why.

Encyclopedia of Public Administration andPublic Policy is designed to provide students, thegeneral public, and perhaps even experts in thefield a reference tool that will allow them tounderstand government and its policy processesmore fully. The emphasis is not just on one levelof government, but all levels and around theworld. Moreover, this volume seeks to includetraditional terms while also discussing emergingtrends affecting the performance of publicadministrators and agencies. These trendsencompass changes in technology and new orga-

nizational models to deliver public services,including the use of private, nonprofit, andinternational entities to undertake functions tra-ditionally thought reserved for only the publicsector.

Encyclopedia of Public Administration andPublic Policy not only examines the organiza-tions of government but also the process of howpolicies are made and evaluated. It discusses sev-eral specific areas of public policy, seeking toinform readers of the actual impact of the gov-ernment on their lives.

Encyclopedia of Public Administration andPublic Policy is the product of many differentpeople, ranging from academics and lawyers togovernment officials. It includes writers fromthroughout the United States and the world, giv-ing the volume a flavor for how government andthe policy process are viewed from numerousperspectives. While not claiming to be the finalword on the topic, Encyclopedia of PublicAdministration and Public Policy covers a lot ofground, providing readers with a quick yet sub-stantial reference.

David SchultzHamline University

Saint Paul, Minnesotadschultz@hamline.edu

P R E F A C E

xi

xiii

Encyclopedia of Public Administration and PublicPolicy is the product of the work of more than124 individuals, without whose expertise thisvolume would never have been possible. Theydeserve more credit and thanks than I could everoffer them. Their willingness to draft and redraftessays and to volunteer at the last minute tomake changes or prepare new topics was criticalto the success of this volume.

Moreover, while oftentimes I would like toclaim that I have an encyclopedic mind, I real-ized how little I truly knew when I began this

project. Contributors suggested many of theterms and essays, adding to the richness anddiversity of Encyclopedia of Public Administrationand Public Policy. The task of editing, while oftenonerous, was more than compensated by what Ilearned and the new friends I made in doing thisproject.

No doubt, I may have neglected to acknowl-edge all of those who contributed to this project,but these oversights are not intentional, and Iapologize in advance for them.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

MEGAN ALESSANDRINI, University of Tasmania,Australia

ARI-VEIKKO ANTTIROIKO, University of Tampere,Finland

GAYLE R. AVANT, Baylor University

WILLIAM D. BAKER, Arkansas School forMathematics and Science

BRANDON BARTELS, The Ohio State University

BRUCE L. BIKLE, California State University atSacramento

J. MICHAEL BITZER, University of Georgia

KATE BOROWSKE, Hamline University

MICHAEL W. BOWERS, University of Nevada, LasVegas

EERO CARROLL, Swedish Institute for SocialResearch, Stockholm University, Sweden

EUGENE CLARK, University of Canberra, Australia

DOUG CLOUATRE, Kennesaw State University

MICHAEL COMISKEY, Pennsylvania StateUniversity

ELIZABETH CORLEY, Columbia University

DOUGLAS CRAWFORD-BROWN, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill

RICHARD P. DAVIS, Jacksonville State University

YASMIN A. DAWOOD, University of Chicago

BRIAN DERDOWSKI, JR., New Jersey

DAVID I. DEWAR, McMaster University, Canada

LISA DICKE, Texas Tech University

CRAIG DONOVAN, Kean University

DAVID EDWARDS, University of Tennessee,Chattanooga

GEOFF EDWARDS, Griffith University, Australia

JOLLY ANN EMREY, California State University,Los Angeles

FRAN EQUIZA, Instituto Internacional deGobernabilidad, Barcelona, Spain

JAMES C. FOSTER, Oregon State University

SHARON FRIEDRICHSEN, City of San Francisco

MARK FUNKHOUSER, City of Kansas City, Missouri

MILA GASCÓ, Instituto Internacional deGobernabilidad, Barcelona, Spain

ERNEST ALEXANDER GOMEZ, MPA

KATHLEEN GRAMMATICO, University of Virginia

JAMIE F. GREEN, National Institutes ofHealth/National Cancer Institute

JONATHAN GREENBLATT, United States Departmentof Education

JAMES GUTHRIE, Macquarie Graduate School ofManagement, Sydney, Australia

DONALD P. HAIDER-MARKEL, University of Kansas

CHERYLYN A. HARLEY, The Center for New BlackLeadership

C O N T R I B U T O R S

xv

xvi Contributors

BRADLEY D. HAYS, University of Maryland

MICHAEL HENRY, Grant MacEwan College

JESSICA L. HILLS, University of California, SanDiego

STEVE H. HOLDEN, University of Maryland,Baltimore County

STEVEN G. JONES, University of Charleston

JAMES H. JOYNER, JR., Troy State University

ROGER L. KEMP, Meriden, Connecticut

STEPHEN KENDAL, University of Canberra,Australia

LA LORIA KONATA, Georgia State University

STEVEN G. KOVEN, University of Louisville

DANIEL C. KRAMER, College of Staten Island,CUNY

ROBERT S. KRAVCHUK, Indiana University

MARTHA M. LAFFERTY, Tennessee Fair HousingCouncil

DANIEL LEVIN, University of Utah

DAHLIA BRADSHAW LYNN, University of SouthernMaine

ANGELA MAGARRY, Tasmania, Australia

GRAHAM MAGARRY, Tasmania, Australia

PATRICK N. MALCOLMSON, St. Thomas University,Canada

ROBERT W. MALMSHEIMER, SUNY College ofEnvironmental Science and Forestry

MATHEW MANWELLER, University of Oregon

JOHN LYMAN MASON, Rhodes College

TRACY MCKAY MASON, University ofNebraska–Lincoln

DAVID A. MAY, Eastern Washington University

LAWRENCE MAYER, Texas Tech University

GREGORY MCCARTHY, Adelaide University,Australia

OLIVIA M. MCDONALD, Regent University

SUSAN MCWILLIAMS, Princeton University

SUSAN GLUCK MEZEY, Loyola University Chicago

CHRISTOPHER Z. MOONEY, University of Illinois atSpringfield

VERNON MOGENSEN, Kingsborough CommunityCollege, CUNY

RAISSA MUHUTDINOVA-FOROUGHI, University ofUtah

RICHARD MUNCEY, Government of SouthAustralia

TINA NABATCHI, Indiana University

STEVE NOBLE, Kentucky Assistive TechnologyService Network

DOUGLAS D. OFIARA, Muskie School of PublicService, University of Maine

TIMOTHY J. O’NEILL, Southwestern University

JASON PALMER, United States General AccountingOffice

DEMETRA M. PAPPAS, Bryant College

MELISSA PAVONE, City University of New York

SCOTT PETERS, Illinois Institute of Technology

ANTHONY PETROSINO, American Academy of Arts& Sciences

PAUL L. POSNER, United States GeneralAccounting Office

JOAN ORIOL PRATS, Instituto Internacional deGobernabilidad, Barcelona, Spain

STEVEN PURO, St. Louis University

MARK RAGAN, Rockefeller Institute ofGovernment

CAROLE RICHARDSON, American University

Contributors xvii

LESELE H. ROSE, University of Utah

RICK SARRE, University of South Australia

GREGORY D. SAXTON, SUNY Brockport

STEFFEN W. SCHMIDT, Iowa State University, NovaSoutheastern University OceanographicCenter

ROBERT A. SCHUHMANN, University of Wyoming

DAVID SCHULTZ, Hamline University

PATRICK G. SCOTT, Southwest Missouri StateUniversity

OLGA SEKULIC, Court Attorney for the New YorkState Unified Court System in Manhattan

HOLLY TAYLOR SELLERS, University of Connecticut

CELIA A. SGROI, Oswego State University, SUNY

LINDA K. SHAFER, Allegheny College

ELSA M. SHARTSIS, M.S., Urban Planning

STEPHEN K. SHAW, Northwest NazareneUniversity

BOB SHEAD, BDO Kendalls

BRIEN SHELLEY, Princeton University

MAURICE C. SHEPPARD, Alma College

MICHAEL SHIRES, Pepperdine University

GILBERT B. SIEGEL, University of SouthernCalifornia

KATHLEEN M. SIMON, Appalachian StateUniversity

BRENT C. SMITH, Western Michigan University

CHRISTOPHER E. SMITH, Michigan State University

T. JASON SODERSTRUM, Iowa State University

JERRY E. STEPHENS, United States Court ofAppeals, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

JOHN B. STEPHENS, University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill

TODD STEPHENSON, Development Associates, Inc.

RUTH ANN STRICKLAND, Appalachian StateUniversity

BETH SIMON SWARTZ, Cornell University

STEVEN L. TAYLOR, Troy State University

CAROL TEBBEN, University of Wisconsin,Parkside

SHARON TIMBERLAKE, Muskie School of PublicService, University of Maine

SHANN TURNBULL, Macquarie University,Australia

KELLY TZOUMIS, Roosevelt University

PEKKA VALKAMA, University of Tampere, Finland

RICHARD J. VAN ORDEN, Portland State University

JOHN R. VILE, Middle Tennessee State University

A. J. L. WASKEY, Dalton State College

LYNNE A. WEIKART, Baruch College of PublicAffairs

GEOFF WITHERS, Colorado Commission onTaxation

RAYMOND B. WRABLEY, JR., University ofPittsburgh at Johnstown

ULF ZIMMERMAN, Kennesaw State University

AARP AARP, formerly known as the AmericanAssociation of Retired Persons, is a nonprofit andnonpartisan membership organization that advo-cates on behalf of its membership. It is consid-ered one of the more powerful lobbying groupsin the United States.

The AARP was founded in 1958 by Dr. EthelPercy Andrus, a retired educator from California.To gain membership in AARP a person must be 50years of age or older. The latest available informa-tion from AARP’s 2001 annual report had mem-bership totaling more than 35 million and revenueof $595 million. A third of the members are underthe age of 60, 46 percent are 60 to 74 years of age,and 21 percent are 70 years of age or older. Abouthalf of all members are working either full- orpart-time, and the rest of the members are retired.AARP’s motto, spoken by its founder, Dr. Andrus,is to serve, not to be served. The vision of AARP isto excel as a dynamic presence in every commu-nity, shaping and enriching the experience ofaging for each member and for society.

Efforts of the association are focused on fourspecific areas: health and wellness, economicsecurity and work, long-term care and independ-ent living, and personal enrichment.

The AARP has a long history of advocacy forpeople age 50 and older and has gained a reputa-tion as one of the fiercest lobbying organizationson Capitol Hill. In recent years advocacy effortshave been focused on the following issues:

1. Ensuring the solvency of Social Security2. Protecting pensions3. Fighting age discrimination4. Providing prescription drug coverage in

Medicare5. Protecting patients in managed care and long-

term care6. Antipredatory home loan lending

AARP sponsors various programs for itsmembers. The largest programs are the 55 ALIVEdriver safety program, AARP Tax-Aide, and theSenior Community Service Employment Pro-gram (SCSEP). The 55 ALIVE program providesdriver education to older drivers, which canlower the costs of their automobile insurancerates. Tax-Aide provides free tax return prepara-tion primarily for low- and middle-income peo-ple age 60 and over.

Approximately 2 million people receivedassistance with their taxes during the 2001 tax

1

A

2 accountability

season. The Tax-Aide program is staffed by morethan 30,000 volunteers. AARP’s third-largest pro-gram, SCSEP, trains and transitions low-incomeolder persons into paid employment. The place-ment rate in 2001 was 54 percent. AARP haslocal offices around the United States that partic-ipate in advocacy efforts and offer such programsas summarized above for members.

For more informationAARP. http://www.aarp.org

Jamie Green

accountability Accountability is an essentialconcept for all democratic governments as itunderpins the processes by which people, electedas politicians or appointed to public office,

demonstrate that they are acting responsibly. Thetrust and confidence in governments provided byrobust accountability processes explain whycommunities and individuals allow themselvesto be governed in a free society.

There are various definitions of accountabilityin the public sector, but there appears to be gen-eral agreement that an essential element is exter-nal scrutiny. Scrutiny occurs when politicians,public officials, or agencies charged with specificresponsibilities are called to explain their actionsor decisions to a person or body with authority(for example a minister reporting to Parliament),or to the community directly, and to accept appro-priate sanctions or directions. Scrutiny to demon-strate accountability can occur in three ways.

Political accountability ultimately occursthrough the ballot box. Although elections are a

More than 1,000 members of the AARP rally on the front steps of the Pennsylvania state capitol, seeking expansion of adrug prescription program, on 16 April 2001, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (WILLIAM THOMAS CAIN/GETTY IMAGES)

Addams, Jane 3

clear test of the collective accountability of gov-ernments, politicians, and their parties, electionsare sometimes considered only partly effective asan accountability mechanism because they areinfrequent and do not explicitly consider allissues for which governments are responsible.Parliaments or legislatures are a primaryaccountability mechanism where individual min-isters are questioned on their actions, their poli-cies are debated, and in particular, theirmanagement of public finances closely exam-ined. Scrutiny by the media, industry bodies,unions, and increasingly, special interest groups(for example Amnesty International and Green-peace) is also now a significant part of the politi-cal accountability process.

Managerial accountability has risen inimportance in recent years as public administra-tion has increasingly adopted concepts largelydrawn from the private sector. Managerialaccountability is important in terms of definingthe trail of authority from public agency staffthrough agency chief executives to ministersand then to Parliament and the community.However, managerial accountability is limitedin that it only focuses on the individual rela-tionships without considering the overallaccountability of public officers to the commu-nity they serve. A particularly difficult area isthat of ensuring adequate accountability forpublic services provided by the private sectorthrough contracts or privatization.

Legal accountability reflects the requirementthat governments and public officials must workwithin the law, which defines not only the thingsthat can or cannot be done but, in many cases,also how things must be done. While govern-ments may seek to change laws, this is notalways possible due to political constraints, andthey must therefore act within existing legalrequirements and processes. Many jurisdictionsnow also provide for more direct public account-ability through an ombudsman, “freedom ofinformation” and “whistle-blower” legislation,and through administrative appeals tribunals.

Other definitions include individual account-ability in terms of professional requirements,codes of conduct and personal ethical standards,the controls of peer pressure and social norms,responsiveness to the needs of citizens, and therequirement for community consultation. Whileuseful in understanding the various ways inwhich politicians and other public officials areexpected to act and respond, it is important thatthese other definitions do not detract from thecore concept of external scrutiny.

Not surprisingly, accountability comes at acost. These costs include the cost of elections, theprotocols required for parliamentary inquiries,and the extensive documentation required to sup-port public works and procurement processes.Accountability processes also sometimes lead tominor reductions in efficiency in the provision ofpublic services. However, the real or perceivedcosts of public accountability are a small price topay for the demonstration of transparency andhonesty in democratic governments. A majorchallenge for public administrators is therefore toprovide cost-effective services while also meetingappropriate accountability requirements.

For more informationHughes, Owen E. Public Management and Administra-

tion: An Introduction, 2d ed. New York: Macmil-lan, 1998.

Richard Muncey

Addams, Jane (1860–1935) social worker,philanthropist Jane Addams was a U.S. philan-thropist, social worker, Progressive politician,and Nobel Prize winner at the end of the 19thand the beginning of the 20th centuries.

(Laura) Jane Addams (6 September 1860–21 May 1935) is widely credited as the founderof the modern discipline of social work, but shecould also be regarded as a sociologist of the so-called Chicago school. It is in Chicago that shealso was most active as a social philanthropistand Progressive politician. A local social service

4 Addams, Jane

foundation that she opened in 1889 on theChicago West Side, Hull-House, still existstoday.

Addams’s political activities included serviceon Chicago’s Board of Education (starting in1905), presidency of the National Conference ofCharities and Corrections (starting in 1909), anddelegacy at the Progressive Party convention in1912, where she seconded Theodore Roosevelt’snomination as its presidential candidate. Morebroadly, it has been said that Addams, as an earlyadvocate of urban social renewal, was indirectlyinvolved in “every major social reform between1890 and 1925.”

Finally, Addams was a foremost advocate offeminist thought, perhaps best known for hersuffragette pamphlet “Why Women ShouldVote” (1915) and as a pacifist and international-ist. In the last of these capacities, she came outin opposition to the U.S. entry into the FirstWorld War, and participated as delegate at the1915 International Congress of Women con-vened at The Hague. She was then to be recog-nized as the first American woman to receive theNobel Peace Prize in 1931. This illustriouscareer had modest if predictive beginnings. Shewas born in Cedarville, Illinois, the eighth ofnine children, as the daughter of a mill ownerand local political leader. Because of a congenitalspinal defect and later heart trouble, Jane wasplagued by poor health throughout her life butbecame better after her spinal difficulty wasremedied by surgery.

After college studies and extensive travelingin the 1880s, Addams went on to found the phil-anthropic social service foundation of Hull-House on Chicago’s West Side in 1889. Theservices offered to poor people ranged fromkindergarten sessions to continuing adult educa-tion. Cultural and recreational facilities, as wellas an employment exchange, were added later.The broader civic and political activities Addamspursued were to follow as her reputation grew.Unable to attend the Nobel Prize ceremony, shedied in 1935 of a combination of heart trouble

and cancer and was interred in her birthplace ofCedarville after a farewell ceremony in the court-yard of Hull-House.

Addams was herself ambiguous, even criti-cal, toward welfare voluntarism, also advocat-ing a strong role for government action. Thusher life included local government service aswell as private social involvement and supportto trade unionism. This was evident not least inher personal participation in the (ultimatelydefeated) campaign to save the Italian-Ameri-can anarchist labor activists Sacco and Vanzettifrom execution. Addams was arguably alsoopposed to liberal individualism, since sheemphasized community-based social integra-tion. Finally, beyond suffragism, Addams’s femi-nism has remained relevant also for present-daygender struggle. Residents of Hull-House wereinstrumental in bringing family-planning serv-ices to Chicago and in opposing withholding ofabortion services, elements in a fight for repro-ductive rights that still divides America today.

For more informationAddams, J. The Second Twenty Years at Hull-House.

New York: Macmillan, 1930.Addams, J. Twenty Years at Hull-House. New York:

Macmillan, 1910.Addams, Jane. “Why Women Should Vote.” In Woman

Suffrage: History, Arguments, and Results, edited byF. M. Borkman and Annie G. Poritt, 131–150. NewYork: National Woman Suffrage Publishing, 1915.

Elshstain, Jean Bethke. Jane Addams and the Dream ofAmerican Democracy: A Life. New York: BasicBooks, 2002.

Fischer, M. “Philanthropy and Injustice in Mill andAdams.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly24, no. 4 (1995): 281–292.

Haslett, D. C. “Hull-House and the Birth ControlMovement: An Untold Story.” Affilia—Journal ofWomen and Social Work 12, no. 3 (1997): 261–277.

“Jane Addams, Mother of Social Work.” http://www.execpc.com/~shepler/janeaddams.html.

Jane Addams Hull House Association. http://www.hullhouse.org/.

administrative ethics 5

Selmi, P. “Social Work and the Campaign to Save Saccoand Vanzetti.” Social Service Review 75, no. 1(2001): 115–134.

Siegfried, C. H. “Socializing Democracy: Jane Addamsand John Dewey.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences29 no. 2 (1999): 207–230.

Eero Carroll

administrative discretion Administrativediscretion refers to the power of administrativeofficials to make decisions based upon theirjudgement of what is the best course of action ina particular case.

Discretion is the liberty or power a personhas to decide or act according to his or her ownjudgement. Discretionary authority is necessaryin government because not all actions can bedecided based upon general rules. Governmentofficials must therefore have some flexibility indeciding how or when a rule ought to beapplied.

There is some tension between the ideal ofthe rule of law and the granting of discretionarypowers to government officials. The rule of lawmeans that all government authority is derivedfrom and limited by law. Discretionary authority,however, grants power to an official to decide ona course of action based upon his or her view ofwhat is best in the situation. It is for this reasonthat discretionary authority is normally limitedby law and open to review by the courts. A gov-ernment official may be empowered by legisla-tion to exercise discretion within particularcircumstances, but the decisions must still beimpartial and reasonable. There are always legallimits to the freedom given administrative offi-cials to make discretionary decisions.

The discretion given to government officialsto implement policies decided upon by electedofficials is one of the gray areas in which the dis-tinction between politics and administration isblurred. While we normally think of politics asthe area in which policy is determined, how thepolicy is subsequently implemented can have

important political implications. While a policymay set out rules that govern how an administra-tive agency is to proceed, the interpretation ofthose rules is often left to the agency. Moreover,the power to make and enforce regulations isoften delegated to administrative agencies. Thestatute granting such power may be of such gen-eral language that the government agency inquestion is then allowed to exercise substantialdiscretion in the formulation and application ofthe regulations. In recent years, this issue hasbeen most pressing in the areas of environmentalregulation and policing.

The essential problem posed by administra-tive discretion is to find the proper balancebetween giving nonelected governmental offi-cials too much power to make public policy, andrestricting the discretionary power of such offi-cials to the point where they lack the flexibilitynecessary to make decisions appropriate to spe-cific circumstances.

For more informationBarth, Thomas. “The Public Interest and Administra-

tive Discretion.” American Review of PublicAdministration 22 (1992): 289–300.

Dickinson, John. Administrative Justice and theSupremacy of Law in the United States. New York:Russell and Russell, 1927.

Lowi, Theodore J. The End of Liberalism, 2d ed. NewYork: Norton, 1979.

Patrick N. Malcolmson

administrative ethics Administrative ethicsrefers to the ethics or morality in public serviceorganizations, distinct from ethics in the politicaland business spheres.

Features of an ethical bureau include freedomfrom corruption (using official resources orpower for private purposes), natural justice (allsupplicants receive a fair, unbiased hearing),availability of employment to all citizens (notjust an elite class) on merit, good work valuegiven for salaries paid, and avoidance of waste.

6 administrative ethics

Economic efficiency, narrowly defined, is notnecessarily a criterion. An overriding obligationis to serve the public interest and the well-beingof society. Due diligence in data gathering, con-sultation, analysis, mature reflection, and peerreview are also necessary: slipshod work habitsare unethical.

The search for methods of ensuring the hon-esty of officials dates back as far as recorded his-tory. For example, the Code of Hammurabi(Babylonia, 1729 B.C.E.) includes rules for judgesand military officers. China introduced merit-based examinations for entrance to an independ-ent, nonpartisan public service in 622 C.E., morethan 1,200 years before the West (1854 inBritain, 1883 Pendleton Act in the UnitedStates). But it is to Aristotle and the ancientGreeks that the West owes its conception of citi-zenship, the high ethical duty of a citizen toserve the city-state, and the separation of privatefrom public activity.

Administrative ethics are important for sev-eral reasons. First, in politics, it is easy to fallinto the habit of regarding one’s own cause asnoble and one’s opponents as the personificationof all that is wrong with the country. Adminis-trative ethics is a bulwark against dramatizationof issues. Although civil service operations canbe separated from partisan activity, there is anintensely value-laden dimension to a great dealof a bureau’s functions. Profoundly ethical ques-tions of who benefits from the resources andpower of the state arise during both policy for-mulation and delivery of street-level services.The theoretical notion that politicians make pol-icy and hand it down to robotic functionaries toimplement is simply unrealistic and does notacknowledge the service’s primary role in origi-nating good policy.

The worth of an ethical civil service is acutelyobvious when it is absent, for without it a gov-ernment cannot even undertake reform. Thisapplies to both totalitarian and democraticrégimes. An unethical service loses effectiveness

and the capacity to actually implement govern-ment decisions.

Across the English-speaking world, therespect that the community holds for governmen-tal institutions declined in the final decades of the20th century. The symptoms can become the dis-ease, as the failures of a compromised bureau-cracy lead to pressure to reduce it further, leadingin turn to a reduced institutional capacity to copewith the problems confronting society. In particu-lar, lapses in ethical conduct by leaders dent thecredibility of the institutions they represent. Apublic servant or a bureau may be completely eth-ical yet still make dramatic mistakes that damagethe community’s well-being for a long time.

Approaches to administrative ethics can beclassified in several ways. One way is to distin-guish normative or objective approaches, whichset out some ideal standards of behavior withwhich officials are expected to comply, from pos-itivist, relativist, or subjective approaches, inwhich situations are judged on their merits byparticipants at the time: good ends can justifyunethical means. The positivist approach is lessof a defense against “whatever it takes” behaviorby an official’s superiors.

An alternative classification contrasts princi-pled with procedural approaches. By the princi-pled approach, civic virtue is the goal of publicadministration, and the best method of achievingit is to appoint only people of upright characteras leaders. In this view, public life is seen as toofluid to rely on written regulations.

The procedural approach emphasizes obser-vance of laws and codes of ethics. It assumes thatthe absence of wrongdoing constitutes goodadministration. This legalistic or mechanisticapproach has its roots in behaviorism, the theorythat humans act mainly in response to externalstimuli: punishment and reward. It emphasizestechnical efficiency in achieving ends handeddown from outside. This approach is stronger inthe behaviorist United States than in Europe orthe Commonwealth’s parliamentary systems. Thefatal flaw in this pragmatic approach is that the

administrative ethics 7

concept of ethics without an underlying moralpurpose is a hollow shell. It can amount to moti-vation to do the right thing only because of therisk of being caught doing wrong. It can lead totechnical compliance (observing the letter of thelaw while evading its spirit). It does not remedywrongs that result from acts of omission. Codesdo, however, help even the highly principled toknow just what their rights and duties are: notevery ethical situation is clear-cut.

Ethics do not arise in a vacuum. A bureau’sethical outlook is derived from five main inter-twined sources:

First there is personal morality, or the motivesthat drive individuals. Modern economics claimsthat bureaucrats are essentially selfish and con-tinually seek to increase their own wealth, status,and position. As a generalization, in the long-established democracies, this assertion is plainlyfalse. So many studies have shown that civil pub-lic servants are not motivated solely by pay andconditions that it is a puzzle that anyone couldimagine otherwise. Personal morality derivesfrom several sources, including: human geneticinheritance, upbringing and environment (chil-dren soak up family attitudes, teenagers imitatepeers, employees absorb their workplace’s cul-ture), religion, and reason (an ethical life bringslife satisfaction).

Second, there are values that come from theprofessions. These are the standards upheld byone’s trade or profession, which can include pub-lic administration. Standards can be unwrittentraditions, advisory codes, conditions of mem-bership, or regulatory codes that qualify a personto practice. A skilled employee brings contactsand ethical obligations deriving from their mem-bership in a network of trained specialists.

Third, there are procedures, i.e., the bureau’sinternal procedures and culture. Features con-ducive to ethical conduct include: leaders whoconsistently behave ethically; a structure thatassigns accountabilities clearly; appointment pro-cedures that are based upon equity and merit,encourage diversity (to resist “groupthink”), mar-

ginalize those who behave unethically, and offerfair pay differentials; a culture that respects inclu-sion, consultation, and compassion (so-calledfeminine values) to offset the more usual compet-itive, hierarchical, and individualist (masculine)values; and a “code of ethics” outlining cherishedvalues or principles, perhaps distinguishable froma more prescriptive “code of conduct,” which out-lines expected behaviors and invites compliance.The ethical standards of an organization are theresponsibility of the entire organization, not justthe corrupt individuals in it. Apples go bad mostreadily when the barrel is contaminated.

Fourth, the Constitution defines a code of con-duct because it is the external governmental struc-ture within which the bureau operates. Featuresconducive to ethical conduct include: a benignconstitutional framework; effective machinery-of-government arrangements that uphold the dignityof government; and a core of adequately remuner-ated, nonpartisan civil servants with security oftenure, separated from the noise and interestsinherent in the political sphere.

Finally, a community sets ethical valuesthrough the expectations regarding the conductof their governments. High expectations can leadto high performance, and low expectations willbecome self-fulfilling. Individuals expect theirgovernments to act in the interest of the commu-nity and vote accordingly.

It would be wonderfully inspiring if these fivedimensions all reinforced each other; but thisdoes not universally happen. The potential forconflict is clearly visible in the traditional axiomthat describes a civil servant’s duty: to protect thepublic interest while serving the government ofthe day.

An ethical service is continually exposed topoliticization and undermining from those whostand to gain from improper conduct. Repeatedrestructuring, a shift from tenured to contractemployment, and a focus on financial measures ofperformance can compromise traditional ethicalvalues. The worldwide trend since the early1970s to deregulation, outsourcing, and private-

8 administrative law judge

public joint ventures has blurred the fundamentaldifferences between public and commercialorganizations and has given rise to some notori-ous scandals. Clouded accountability and secrecyin commercial transactions tend to lead to con-flicts of interest and then corruption.

Although unethical conduct is corrosive, anindividual of upright character and consciencecan still achieve ethical results while all aroundothers are serving only themselves. The Nurem-berg defense (“I was only obeying orders”) is nota valid defense.

Ethics can be learned. Knowledge of ethicscan help civil servants to resolve conflicts andobservers of government to recognize andapplaud ethical behavior when they see it.

Who is responsible for holding officials toaccount for meeting ethical standards? Every cit-izen. This includes customers who use govern-ment services, media who demonstrate that theyknow the difference between ethical and unethi-cal behavior, and electors who do no more thanvote every few years.

For more informationCommittee on Standards in Public Life. http://www.

public-standards.gov.uk.Cooper, Terry. Handbook of Administrative Ethics. New

York: Marcel Dekker, 1994.Singer, Peter. How Are We to Live?: Ethics in an Age of

Self-interest. Melbourne, Victoria: Text Publish-ing, 1993.

Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowl-edge. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1998.

Geoff Edwards

administrative law judge An administrativelaw judge is a government official who presidesover a dispute between two parties, one of whichis usually an administrative agency, in a govern-ment decision or action.

Administrative law judges, commonly referredto as ALJs, are similar to judges. ALJs preside

over hearings in which an individual or groupcontests an agency decision or rule. Much like ajudge in court, the ALJ serves as an independentand impartial reviewer of the agency actions andthe claims made by those contesting the agency’sactions. Again, like a judge, an ALJ usually has alegal background and has served in some capac-ity as an attorney or legal adviser. Unlike a judge,however, ALJs may work within the agency itself,but they often must maintain their independenceto judge the agency’s actions.

ALJs in the United States are required to con-duct their hearings according to the federalADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (APA), particu-larly sections 554, 556, and 557. Most ALJs per-form their work in adjudication, or trial-typehearings. Under the sections of the APA, thesetrial-type hearings must be performed withincertain guidelines. For example, under section554, individuals who contest an agency actionmust: be informed of the time, place, and natureof the hearing; and have an opportunity to sub-mit facts and have them considered. Moreover,the presiding individual may not consult a per-son or group on a fact in question unless all theinterested groups are involved as well.

During the course of a hearing, an ALJ maydo a number of activities, including: administer-ing oaths and affirmations, issuing subpoenas,passing judgment on “offers of proof” or evi-dence, regulating the course of the hearing,keeping the records of the hearing, and holdingconferences for the “settlement or simplificationof the issues” between the contesting parties.Once the ALJ makes her ruling on a matter, thatruling is considered to be the decision of theagency. The agency or the other party may appealthe ALJ’s ruling in the matter to the agency heador to a court of law.

ALJs can be at the center of a conflict withintheir professional responsibilities, and scholarshave noted two competing ideas centering onALJs’ responsibilities. Because ALJs are inde-pendent and impartial judges of an agency’sactions, they are guided by the ideas of fairness

administrative searches 9

and acceptability toward the private parties whochallenge an agency’s action (the judicial modeof ALJs). However, because many ALJs workwithin an administrative agency, adjudication ispart of an agency’s policy-making process. Aspart of the policy process, ALJs should be guidedby accuracy and efficiency toward the agency’smission (the institutional mode of ALJs).

For more informationAsimow, Michael R., Ronald M. Levin, and Arthur Earl

Bonfield. State and Federal Administrative Law. St.Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1998.

J. Michael Bitzer

Administrative Procedure Act The Ad-ministrative Procedure Act (APA) is designed toensure uniformity and openness in the proce-dures followed by federal agencies. The basicpurpose of the APA is to ensure that the generalpublic, businesses, and other organizationshave access to information about federal agen-cies and agency regulations and other policiesand procedures that may affect them. The APAis the major source for federal agency adminis-trative law. State agencies’ administration andregulation are governed by comparable statelaws.

Federal regulatory agencies, such as theENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, are empow-ered by Congress to make and enforce regula-tions (also called rules) that have the full forceand effect of law. Generally, such regulations arebased in statute and are issued by regulatoryagencies in order to implement specific statu-tory requirements.

The APA includes specific requirementsrelated to this process, often called the rule-mak-ing process. One important requirement is thatall proposed rules must be published in the Fed-eral Register. The public must be given the oppor-tunity to comment and suggest changes before arule takes effect. The new rule cannot take effectuntil a minimum of 30 days has elapsed. Some

rule making may also include public hearings, ifspecified in the underlying statute.

In addition to requirements related to thefederal rule-making process, the APA includesother provisions. It requires federal regulatoryagencies to make available to the public infor-mation concerning their functions, policies,and procedures. For example, when a federalagency is reorganized, a description of the neworganizational structure must be published inthe Federal Register. The APA also requiresdescriptions of and information on the avail-ability of forms necessary to comply withagency requirements to be issued. Agency man-uals and procedures must be made available tothe general public. It includes provisions gov-erning access to agency information andrecords, conditions under which an agency canrefuse to provide information, and agencyrecord-keeping and reporting requirementsrelated to withholding information.

For more informationU.S. Gov Info/Resources. Administrative Procedures

Act. U.S. Code. Title 5, part I, chap. 5. Availableonline. URL: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blapa.htm.

Mark Ragan

administrative searches Administrativesearches are searches permitted by statute thatare normally used by government agencies tomeasure compliance with rules or for health orpublic safety. The most common administrativesearch most Americans are familiar with is thesearch of carry-on luggage at an airport. Otheradministrative searches might include a gamewarden inspecting a hunter’s vehicle and pack forgame birds or animals, or a building inspectorinspecting a building for compliance with appro-priate building and safety codes.

Administrative searches are not required tomeet the burden of probable cause that a lawenforcement officer has to meet to conduct a

10 administrative theory

search. Using the examples above, by taking ahunting license or by buying a ticket from an air-line, the individual has been placed on notice thathe/she is subject to search for safety in the case ofairlines and bag limits in the case of the hunter.

Administrative searches sometimes producecriminal evidence. For example, if your bag isinspected at the airport for explosives andweapons, but the search reveals drugs or othercontraband, you could be arrested because youin effect “gave permission” for the search by pre-senting the bag at the security checkpoint. Yougive up some privacy in order to ride the com-mercial airliner. If criminal evidence is discov-ered, courts have ruled that the search is validand the evidence can be used in a criminal trial.The choice in this case is either submit to thesearch or do not ride the airliner.

Another form of administrative search oftenused in criminal justice is the search of a personor his/her house if that person is under parole orprobation supervision. Here again the expecta-tion of privacy is reduced for the probationer orparolee. Probation and parole officers can searchtheir clients because of the need for effectivesupervision and to maintain public safety (in thiscase to prevent the offender from committingnew crimes).

The issue, then, is the expectation of privacy,and the Fourth Amendment right to be free fromsearches without warrant is diminished whenthere is a public interest—such as fish and gamebag limits, airline safety, or offender supervi-sion—that has been authorized by the legislatureor by administrative rule. The history of adminis-trative searches suggests that the courts havefound such searches to be “reasonable” and thusnot prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of theConstitution.

For more informationBlack’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. St Paul, Minn.: West, 1999.Holtz, Larry E. Contemporary Criminal Procedure, 2d

ed. Binghamton, N.Y.: Gould Publications, 1992.

Bruce L. Bikle

administrative theory Administrative the-ory establishes the principles, processes, andarrangements by which the activities of govern-ment are administered and controlled. The groupof people undertaking these tasks is usuallydescribed collectively as the public or civil serv-ice (and individually as public officials, publicservants, or civil servants) and is usually consid-ered as separate from other groups of peopleserving the state such as the armed forces,judges, or the police.

From the ancient Egyptian, Roman, andGreek civilizations onward, administrative sys-tems have existed to manage the affairs of state.The early administrative systems had importantdifferences from those of today, as they werebased on the loyalty of the individual official to aparticular person such as a king, emperor, orminister rather than loyalty to an organizationand the state itself. Appointments to positions aspublic officials were often made on the basis ofpersonal relationships, such as family membersor friends, or by buying positions for personalgain.

The positions were often only part-time,undertaken in addition to other sometimes con-flicting interests. These early administrative sys-tems were often criticized because they wereopen to corruption and personal gain by the indi-vidual public official. They were often also notvery efficient or effective, as there was uncer-tainty or inconsistency in an approach based onindividual interpretation rather than one derivedfrom an agreed collective body of knowledge.

The development of the modern professionalpublic service traces its origins to mid-19th-cen-tury reforms in Britain, the United States, andearlier reforms in Europe. These reforms intro-duced major changes in public administration,removing patronage and introducing merit-basedselection for appointment of public officials.They also led to a set of principles for the organi-zation of public administration that had wide-spread acceptance by the start of the 20thcentury and continued to dominate thinking on

administrative theory 11

public administration until quite recently. Twomajor influences on the development of thisnow-traditional model of public administrationwere Woodrow Wilson in the United States andthe German sociologist Max Weber. Wilson heldthat government strategy and policy should bedeveloped by politicians separate from its imple-mentation by public officials. Weber describedthe key principles of a bureaucratic structure,which could apply in either public or privateorganizations, but was most developed in thepublic sector. Public-sector bureaucracies reflect-ing these principles have specific external andusually legislatively defined responsibilities;operate within a rational set of rules and proce-dures applying to all public officials; are struc-tured as a formal hierarchy so that an individual’sauthority derives from position and not personalcircumstances; keep written documents asrecords; and have officials in full-time rolesrequiring specialized training. As a result of thegeneral acceptance of this model of publicadministration, public services during this timewere usually characterized by formal hierarchicalbureaucracies directly providing services to thecommunity; a culture emphasizing processrather than outcomes; and politically impartialcareer public servants with generally lifetimetenure to ensure provision of advice to politi-cians “without fear or favor.”

However, the experiences of the 1930sonward showed that many of the principles ofthe traditional or classical model of publicadministration, as it is sometimes called, wereinconsistent with observed behaviors. In particu-lar, the view that public administration was sepa-rate from the political process was challenged asthe development and analysis of public policy,with its implicit value judgments, increasinglywas undertaken by the public service. By the1970s, the traditional model of public adminis-tration was increasingly under attack, as was alsothe very role and scope of government and itsactivities that established the nature of the publicservice. Financial constraints on governments

challenged the efficiency of direct service pro-vision. Increasing market competition fromglobalization highlighted the significance ofpublic-sector effectiveness on overall economicperformance. Changing attitudes to governmentwere largely driven by political and economictheory, in particular neoliberalism (sometimescalled economic rationalism) and public choicetheory, and by new approaches in organizationaland management thinking that reflected privatesector practices. Together these influences chal-lenged the view that an impartial hierarchicalbureaucracy was the most efficient way of deliv-ering public services. From the late 1970sonward, many Western democratic governments,led by the United States and Britain, restructuredtheir public services by privatizing or contractingout many services and introducing managementconcepts into public service agencies that drewlargely on private-sector practices. This “newpublic management,” or “managerialism,” isnow generally characterized by the developmentof professional managers with defined responsi-bilities for specific activities and clear accounta-bility for effective use of resources; explicitstatements of goals, targets, and performancemeasures; organizational arrangements struc-tured around specific products or services; a focuson results rather than procedures; and increasedcompetition through contracting and tenderingfor services.

While the new public management has nowlargely replaced the traditional public adminis-tration in the public services of most Westerndemocracies, it is not without its critics. Therecognition of the interdependence and interac-tion between the public service and politiciansraises important questions of accountability forthe values and judgments underlying publicmanagement decisions, and also for the controlof services now delivered by private suppliers onbehalf of government. A key strength of the tra-ditional public administration model was itsfocus on ethical behavior and impartiality. Realtensions exist for public service managers who

12 advisory opinion

try to improve efficiency in service deliverythrough greater use of market mechanisms but atthe same time need to demonstrate honesty anduse of equitable selection processes. Representa-tion of the public as “customers” or “clients” ofpublic-sector agencies has been criticized as lim-iting the different types of relationships a com-munity should have with its government.Increasing calls for a more collaborative form ofpolicy development and implementation of pub-lic services is now occurring, drawing on the effi-ciencies of the new public management modelbut also recognizing the unique role of the publicservice that separates it from the commercialworld. In the future, there appears to be a moveaway from a “one size fits all” approach in theprovision of public services to a pluralistapproach that changes over time, location, andcontext. Increasingly, the scope and nature ofpublic services are tailored to the nature of theservice provided and the specific needs and cir-cumstances of the community served, but theyare also consistent with the underlying philoso-phy of the government of the day.

For more informationHughes, Owen E. Public Management and Administra-

tion: An Introduction, 2d ed. New York: Macmil-lan, 1998.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. Reinventing Gov-ernment: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Trans-forming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1992.

Richard Muncey

advisory opinion An advisory opinion is ajudicially issued opinion as to the legality of aproposed piece of legislation or administrativepolicy upon request by a particular branch ofgovernment or administrative agency.

In the United States, the federal courts areprohibited from issuing advisory opinions basedon the Constitution’s requirement of a case orcontroversy as well as its doctrine of separation

of powers. The case or controversy mandate, orwhat has come to be known as justiciable issues,is found in Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Con-stitution. This development by the framers of theConstitution was a sharp break with the tradi-tional English legal system of the 18th century,which regularly issued advisory opinions uponrequest. The framers were highly concerned withkeeping the powers of the three branches sepa-rate and distinct.

The Constitution’s division of powers amongthe three branches of government bolstered thecases-and-controversies prohibition against advi-sory opinions. The first chief justice of theUnited States, John Jay, denied Secretary of StateThomas Jefferson’s request for advice on thelegality of the Neutrality Proclamation that keptthe United States out of the French Revolution.In a letter addressed to President George Wash-ington, Jay wrote that the separation of powersinstituted by the Constitution “create[s] strongarguments against the propriety of our extra-judicially deciding questions alluded to [in Jef-ferson’s letter requesting advice], especially asthe power given by the Constitution to the Presi-dent, of calling on the heads of departments foropinions, seems to have been purposely as well asexpressly united to the executive department.”Throughout its history, the federal judiciary hasstrictly followed Jay’s reasoning that constitu-tional design forbids advisory opinions.

However, advisory opinions are not unheardof within the United States. Many state constitu-tions, such as those of Michigan, Colorado, andFlorida, presently permit their courts to advisethe legislature and/or executive on pending legis-lation. Additionally, administrative agencies atthe state and federal level have begun to issueadvisory opinions interpreting their rules andregulations in advance of any controversy orlegal action. However, in all cases, advisory opin-ions are usually narrowly tailored to address aspecific piece of legislation or regulatory rulerather than hypothetical issues and are nonbind-ing in nature.

affirmative action 13

Internationally, the practice of court-issuedadvisory opinions still flourishes. The Interna-tional Court of Justice, the judicial branch of theUnited Nations, regularly issues advisory opin-ions on international law when requested to doso by authorized agencies.

Bradley D. Hays

affirmative action Affirmative action involvespolicies that attempt to enhance educational andemployment opportunities for particular individ-uals within society who traditionally have beendenied these opportunities due to reasonsbeyond those of merit. Historically, these individ-uals have not been provided equal educational oremployment opportunities for reasons based onissues of race, color, religion, gender, nationalorigin, and socioeconomic factors. While thepublic sector has taken the lead in developingand implementing affirmative action policies andprograms, many private institutions and organi-zations have voluntarily also become increas-ingly active in this area.

Affirmative action initiatives are developedand implemented usually for some of the follow-ing reasons: (a) to redress of past discriminatoryactions; (b) to enhance hiring, promotion, oradmission opportunities; and (c) to create a rep-resentative workforce to enhance organizationalperformance. It is important to understand affir-mative action as an antidiscrimination policy todistinguish it from passive nondiscriminationpolicies. President John Kennedy established theterm affirmative action in 1961 when he askedgovernment contractors to expand employmentopportunities. In general, affirmative action poli-cies attempt to support basic individual freedomsas embodied in the Bill of Rights and the CIVILRIGHTS clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution.

Contemporary civil rights policies have theirbeginnings in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PublicLaw 88-352 (2 July 1964), which prohibits dis-

crimination in public employment and accommo-dations, particularly in the case of black Ameri-cans. Consequently, federal agencies andcontractors are required to develop “affirmativeaction plans” to show their intent to expandopportunities for underrepresented individuals.Later amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964more broadly define the responsibilities andduties of the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM-MISSION (EEOC), established by the act, towardimplementing and enforcing these policies. Origi-nally, affirmative action policy pertained only tothe federal government, but following SupremeCourt review of these policies, they now include

University of Cincinnati student gathers with severalhundred other protesters, from a group callingthemselves “By Any Means Necessary,” to rally in favorof affirmative action on 23 October 2001 in downtownCincinnati. (GETTY IMAGES)

14 affirmative action

state and local government. Critics of affirmativeaction contend these policies violate the principalof equality under the law, while advocatesrespond that discrimination is, by definition,unfair treatment of people because they belong toa certain group. It is in this area where the debateover “goals and timetables” versus “quotas”arises.

Following President Johnson’s issuance ofExecutive Order 11246 (1965) ordering govern-ment contractors to set “goals and timetables” toensure equal employment opportunities for allcitizens, the debate over these measures beginsand intensifies. According to the principle ofaffirmative action, a “goal” is a reasonable objec-tive enacted to expand opportunities to targetpopulations within the context of the merit sys-tem of employment. In contrast, a “quota”restricts employment or development opportu-nities to members of particular groups by estab-lishing a required number of proportionaterepresentation that organizations are obliged toattain regardless of merit system requirements.According to this view, “quotas” are incompati-ble with merit-based public administration. TheEmployment Standards Administration’s Officeof Federal Contract Compliance Programs(OFCCP) is the federal government agency thatmonitors and enforces the development andimplementation of these “goals and timetables”standards.

The history and development of affirmativeaction is best understood by reviewing SupremeCourt decisions concerning this matter. Forinstance, Regents of the University of California v.Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 387 (1978), addresses theissue of qualification versus minority preference.In Bakke, the Court decided that universitiescould consider minority status regarding admis-sions due to the unique characteristics of institu-tions of higher education.

However, in Bakke, the Court was badly splitover exactly how race could be considered inadmissions. Four justices ruled that race shouldnever be considered in admissions and therefore

would have declared all affirmative action pro-grams to be unconstitutional. Another four jus-tices would have upheld the use of race inadmissions as a remedial measure to make up forpast discrimination. In the middle was JusticeLewis Powell who struck down admissions poli-cies that solely used race in admissions, but hepermitted race to be used as one of several factorsconsidered by schools admissions decisions.Critical to his argument was that promoting adiverse educational environment was a com-pelling interest that permitted schools to adoptaffirmative action programs.

As a result of the Bakke decision, schools con-tinued to employ affirmative action and considerrace when making admissions decisions. How-ever, because the Bakke decision was so split,there were questions regarding whether promot-ing diversity really was grounds enough to sup-port the constitutionality of affirmative action. In2003, the Supreme Court resolved this questionin two decisions: Gratz v. Bollinger, 123 S.Ct.2411 (2003), and Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S.Ct.2325 (2003).

In Gratz, the Supreme Court declared uncon-stitutional an undergraduate University of Michi-gan admissions policy that automatically gaveAfrican Americans, Hispanics, and Native Amer-icans an extra 20 points out of a scale of 150points in a “Selection Index” that was used todecide who would be admitted to the school.The Court argued that the automatic assignmentof these 20 points did not allow for individual-ized consideration in admissions decisions andtherefore unfairly benefited some on the basis oftheir race.

Meanwhile, in Grutter, the Supreme Courtupheld a law school admissions policy for theUniversity of Michigan that used race as one ofseveral factors to be positively considered whenmaking acceptance decisions. Writing for themajority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreedwith much of Powell’s decision in Bakke that pro-moting a diverse educational environment was acompelling government interest and that so long

agenda setting 15

as race was not the sole factor in making anadmissions decision, this type of affirmativeaction policy was permissible. O’Connor alsostated that she hoped that in 25 years affir-mative action would no longer be neededbecause of the progress made in moving theUnited States toward a more racially neutral andequal society.

As a result of these two decisions, affirmativeaction is now permitted in two situations: First,to remedy past discrimination and, second, topromote diversity in a school setting. What impactthese decisions will have in other settings, suchas in the workplace, remains to be seen.

For more informationEdley, Christopher. Not All Black and White: Affirma-

tive Action and American Values. New York: Noon-day Press, 1998.

Rubio, Philip F. A History of Affirmative Action,1617–2000. Jackson: University Press of Missis-sippi, 2001.

Maurice C. Sheppard

agenda setting Agenda setting is a requisitestep of policy making and is practiced by a rangeof people—for example, from ordinary citizens,interested groups, elected representatives, lobby-ists, up to the president.

From the policy and public administrationperspectives, an agenda is a series of problems,questions, or concerns to which governmentalofficials and their political associates give theirattention. After the problem on the agenda isexamined, alternatives are discussed, a choice ismade (e.g., a congressional vote), the decisionis formalized (e.g., a bill becomes public law),and the decision must be implemented (e.g., aregulatory agency writes the administrativerules and oversees the implementation).

After individuals, politicians, or administra-tive officials identify a problem or set of prob-lems that they believe should be addressed bypolicy makers with the goal of changing public

policy, they must employ a variety of steps andmethods to ensure that government officials findthe issue(s) on their agenda. For instance, peoplemay lobby their elected representatives about theneed to pay attention to a certain problem; thepresident may approach congressional membersor agency heads in an attempt to advance hisagenda; or academics may propose or critiquepolicy formulation.

John Kingdon advances three explanations ofhow governmental agendas are set: problemrecognition, developments in the politicalsphere, and the visibility of participants. The firstexplanation is problem recognition; that is, whenthe government or policy makers recognize acertain condition as a problem that the govern-ment should address and resolve, it has a betterchance of first appearing on and then movingthrough the policy agenda. Kingdon’s secondexplanation has to do with the political environ-ment; that is, while the power of lobbyists is notinsubstantial, if they are lobbying for policy thatgoes against the national mood and goals ofelected officials, that policy is unlikely to appearon the policy agenda. Last, a policy or problem ismore likely to appear on the agenda when it isadvanced by visible policy participants—forinstance, the president, close presidential aides,or elected officials. Policy participants with lesspolitical visibility include, for instance, academ-ics and bureaucrats.

The ability of a group to set a problem on apolicy agenda and then to ensure the policy isaddressed and results in a legislative decisiondepends on an array of factors, including thepersistence of nongovernmental actors (e.g.,interest groups) and events outside the controlof government. For instance, violence againstwomen was a problem long before Congresspassed the Violence against Women Act in1994. Nonetheless, certain events in the 1990s(e.g., the 1992 sexual assault of both femalenaval officers and female civilians by navypilots at the Tailhook Convention) and theunrelenting activism of national interest groups

16 Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(e.g., the National Coalition against DomesticViolence) kept the issue of domestic violencein national attention.

For more informationKingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public

Policies, 2d ed. New York: Longman, 1995.

Linda K. Shafer

Aid to Families with Dependent ChildrenAid to Families with Dependent Children(AFDC) was the primary U.S. welfare programuntil 1996. Initially enacted in the 1930s as theAid to Dependent Children program, it was partof the landmark legislation that created theSocial Security program. The program wasintended to provide income support for childrendeprived of parental support due to the incapac-ity or absence of a parent, replacing widely vary-ing programs in the states. Other provisions ofthe Social Security Act, notably benefits for fam-ilies in which a wage earner died or becameincapacitated, served as the basic social insur-ance program for working families. The Aid toDependent Children program would provide forchildren who lost the support of a parent whohad not contributed sufficiently to the SocialSecurity program to provide coverage for thefamily.

Over the next four decades, the programremained basically unchanged. Notable expan-sions during this period included the addition ofbenefits for an adult in the family, and the optionto include benefits to two-parent families, theAFDC Unemployed Parent program.

Under the AFDC program, the federal gov-ernment provided matching funds for stateexpenditures, based on a formula that took intoaccount state per-capita income. The federal por-tion of funding varied from 50 to 80 percent ofthe costs of the program. The program wasadministered in most states by a state agency,though in a number of the more populous states,the program was supervised by a state agency but

administered by counties. The federal govern-ment established rules under which the programwas administered and required states to submitplans that described the program and the optionschosen.

The regulatory framework included federalrules for establishing conditions of eligibility, forcounting income and resources, and for provid-ing due process protections for applicants andrecipients. On the other hand, states had flexibil-ity when it came to the amount of AFDC pay-ments. States established “need standards,” theamount of money that a family of a given sizewould need in order to pay for basic needs, suchas shelter and clothing. In addition, the compu-tation of the amount of the benefit varied fromstate to state, Some states provided the fullamount of the gap between the need standardand the family’s income, others a percentage ofthe gap. Still other states had separate paymentstandards. Thus, payment amounts varied signif-icantly from state to state.

Although AFDC benefits were intended to betemporary, the number of recipients and thelength of time that they remained on the welfarerolls grew steadily over time. Social scientistssuggest that in combination with other societalfactors, such as an increase in the percentage ofillegitimate births, an unintended effect of theAFDC program was the creation of a “culture ofpoverty,” in which families remained on theAFDC rolls from one generation to the next.They also suggest that the limitation of benefitsto families where one of the parents was absentdiscouraged marriage and increased illegitimacy.In 1996, approximately 4.5 million familiesreceived AFDC; total federal and state expendi-tures in that year exceeded $24 billion.

These and other factors led to major effortsto reform the program in 1988 and again in1990. In 1988, the Family Support Act addedwork requirements, created the Job Opportu-nity and Basic Skills training program, and forthe first time provided significant fundingfor child care. But these changes did not have

alternative dispute resolution 17

the intended effect. By 1996, a consensus ofnational politicians, state governors, and pro-gram administrators came together to radicallyredesign the program. AFDC was replaced bythe TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIESprogram, a block grant to states that emphasizeswork and family self-sufficiency.

See also WELFARE REFORM.

For more informationDepartment of Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/

AFDC/afdcbase98.htm.

Mark Ragan

alternative dispute resolution Alternativedispute resolution, commonly known as ADR,covers a wide range of activities other than full-scale litigation—including fact-finding, media-tion, arbitration, minitrials, and othertechniques—to end a dispute.

ADR almost always uses one or more inde-pendent and impartial third parties who do nothave a stake in the outcome of a dispute. Theyhelp resolve disputes in various ways. The majorways are: (1) as experts who determine a particu-lar point of fact or scientific standard [fact find-ers]; (2) as process managers helping thedisputants seek a voluntary resolution [mediators];(3) as investigators who respond to employeegrievances or customer complaints [ombuds-men]; and (4) by offering binding decisions akinto magistrates or judges [arbitrators].

The basic similarity of ADR processes is thatthey are not contested hearings before a judge,and they seek to expedite a resolution to a suit,dispute, grievance, or problem.

ADR dates back centuries in diplomacy andlaw, as well as in other cultural, religious, andcommunity-based ways to resolve disputes.More recently, ADR in the United States dates tofederal labor-management legislation of the1920s and 1930s. ARBITRATION was created as away to promptly resolve shop-floor and otherworkplace disputes so as to avoid labor unrest.

One common form of arbitration is state govern-ment “lemon laws” covering consumer–autodealer disputes over alleged defects in new cars.

A second wave of U.S. ADR dates from the1960s and 1970s. Social movements of the1960s stressed the dissatisfaction or disdain fortraditional courts and a greater interest in lessformal, grassroots, and more collaborativeapproaches for resolving disputes. Civil justicereformers embraced ADR as a needed responseto an overburdened judiciary. However, ADRtechniques such as arbitration of commercialcontract disputes and mediation of neighbor-hood conflicts had been in use much earlier. Awider range of ADR methods became promi-nent, with some reformers envisioning a “multi-door courthouse” where ADR finds the right “fitfor the fuss.” Consequently, some recast ADR asappropriate dispute resolution, changing thefocus from what ADR is not (i.e., litigation andjudicial hearings) to a philosophically betterway to resolve disputes.

Fact finding provides for experts selected bythe disputants to research or examine a particu-lar aspect of a problem and make a specific find-ing or recommendation. It does not resolve thewhole dispute, but rather settles a question offact. A similar, evaluative form of ADR is earlyneutral evaluation (ENE). Unlike arbitration,ENE does not call for formal, extensive presen-tation of fact and law, instead offering a previewof the contours of the dispute. The evaluatorcomments on points of law, and important orunclear facts, and may offer a nonbinding opin-ion. The minitrial or summary jury trial rangesfrom half-day exercises of lawyers’ basic argu-ments to the hearing of witnesses and a judg-ment rendered by a surrogate judge or jury. Aminitrial proceeds with less time and expensethan a court hearing as a way to assist dis-putants’ negotiations. Conciliation and MEDIA-TION are where the impartial intervener does notoffer opinions about an outcome for the disputebut may make suggestions. Some processes com-bine methods, such as med-arb, where the medi-

18 American Association of Retired Persons

ator, if unsuccessful, provides an arbitrated out-come.

Issues about ADR include whether the pur-ported savings of cost and time are realized, sincethe large majority of lawsuits never go to trial.Also, some see ADR as “second-class justice” withless protection of individual rights. ADR’s infor-mality may allow for exploitation of less experi-enced or powerful parties by those of greaterwealth or knowledge. Finally, variations on sepa-rate ADR methods, such as med-arb, raise con-cerns about a disputant’s understanding of theprocess and appropriate standards of practice.

For more informationPeacemakers Trust. http://www.peacemakers.ca/

bibliography/bib2ADR.html.

John B. Stephens

American Association of Retired PersonsSee AARP.

American Federation of State, County, andMunicipal Employees (AFSCME) The Amer-ican Federation of State, County, and MunicipalEmployees (AFSCME) is a labor union that rep-resents employees of state, county, and municipalgovernments, public and private hospitals,school districts, universities, and nonprofitagencies. With 1.3 million members in 2002,AFSCME is the largest union affiliated with theAmerican Federation of Labor–Congress ofIndustrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). AFSCMErepresents members in contract negotiations andgrievance and arbitration hearings; lobbies polit-ical officials; conducts research on issues of inter-est to members; provides education to membersand leaders; and organizes new members andbargaining units.

AFSCME was first chartered as an independ-ent member of the AFL in 1936. Arnold Zanderwas elected as AFSCME’s first international pres-ident. The union emerged out of the efforts of

Wisconsin state employees to protect the state’scivil service system, under which employees heldjobs on the basis of merit rather than politicalconnections. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s,AFSCME lobbied state and local governments topass or strengthen civil service laws. During thisperiod, AFSCME competed with the communist-influenced State, County, and Municipal WorkersAssociation (SCMWA) to organize publicemployees. There was little precedent for unionsof public employees, and many states madeunion activities difficult. By the 1950s, AFSCMEhad become more militant in pressing for publicworkers’ rights and collective bargaining as ameans to improve their working conditions. In1958, New York City mayor Robert Wagnersigned an executive order granting collective bar-gaining rights to unions representing cityemployees, and in 1961 President John Kennedyissued a similar executive order legitimizing col-lective bargaining for federal employees. A morefavorable climate for public-sector unions hadbeen created, and AFSCME’s membershipsoared. In the 1960s, under the leadership ofPresident Jerry Wurf, AFSCME worked closelywith the Civil Rights movement. In 1968 Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr., traveled to Memphis,Tennessee, to support AFSCME’s efforts to organ-ize black sanitation workers. Following Dr.King’s assassination in Memphis, the city agreedto recognize the workers’ union, AFSCME Local1733.

AFSCME is a democratically run union gov-erned by a constitution. AFSCME’s biennial con-vention is the highest decision-making body inthe union. Convention delegates adopt poli-cies and set the direction for the union. Belowthe international level, “councils,” “locals,” and“affiliates” are also governed by constitutionsand conventions of elected delegates.

AFSCME is active in state and national poli-tics and is regarded as a major supporter of liberalcauses. In 2002, AFSCME was by far the biggestpolitical contributor among public-sector unions.It contributed almost $5 million to political

American Society of Public Administration 19

candidates, 99 percent of them Democrats.Besides its political contributions, AFSCMEemploys full-time lobbyists who testify in Con-gress and lobby members of the House of Re-presentatives and Senate. It also conducts voterregistration and get-out-the-vote drives anduses radio, television, and print media to publi-cize AFSCME’s goals and positions on issues.AFSCME has supported increases in the mini-mum wage and has opposed privatization ofSocial Security. It has criticized free-trade agree-ments like NAFTA (NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADEAGREEMENT) and GATT (GENERAL AGREEMENT ONTARIFFS AND TRADE) and has opposed efforts tocontract out government services (use moreprivate contractors to perform governmentservices).

For more informationAmerican Federation of State, County, and Municipal

Employees. http://www.afscme.org.

Raymond B. Wrabley, Jr.

American Society of Public Administra-tion (ASPA) The American Society of PublicAdministration (ASPA), founded in 1939, devel-oped in response to major changes in the way theadministration of public entities and bureaucra-cies was being directed and operated. The ASPAorganization currently strives to establish andpromote professionalism in public administra-tion as well as the fostering of concepts that aidin the progression of the theory and the researchof administration. In addition, ASPA promotesadvocacy for public administration and for pub-lic service in general. Generally speaking, themission of ASPA is to advance excellence in thefield of public administration through the link-ing of theory and practical application.

It is a mild point of controversy as to whatspurred the creation of ASPA, but