The Reinventing Government Movement: A Review and Critique

Abstract

ABSTRACT The approach to administrative reform in the public sector commonly known as government has in recent years been embraced by many elected officials and public managers. Under this reform agenda, modifications to numerous administrative practices are contemplated and, while some of the proposed changes may be desirable, others could have unanticipated and unattractive consequences. This article reviews the origins of the reinventing government movement and analyzes the central themes underlying proposals for reform associated with reinvention. The article then examines how the proponents of reinvention have failed to recognize fully the inherently political nature of public administrations and how many of their proposals may be insufficiently sensitive to questions of equity in the public service especially those reforms that address issues associated with human resources management. INTRODUCTION In the United States general misgivings about the exercise of government authority and widely-shared reverence for the operation of free-market economic systems reflect anti-statist attitudes whose roots can be traced backward at least as far as the struggle for independence and the framing of the Constitution (Stillman, 1991). As the Twentieth Century unfolded, however, rapid industrialization, urban growth and decline, the development of new technologies, and a host of other forces, including the increasing importance of international affairs, converged to make the emergence of a massive administrative state unescapable. The resulting dissonance between the prevalence of anti-bureaucratic values on one hand and the imperative of modern government on the other has produced a situation in which recommendations for reform aimed at improving the economy and efficiency of Government operations occur with relative frequency and regularity.1 Proposals for reform have often placed a heavy emphasis on the idea that governments should be run more like businesses. Even when reformers ostensibly acknowledge differences between management in the private and public sectors, specific suggestions are often based on business practices. This is especially true, it seems, with respect to reform efforts that address human resources management issues. In the state of Georgia, for example, a leader of the governor's recent successful effort to abolish merit system protections for state employees argues that public workers should have no protections from dismissal that private employees do not have. Why should government be any different? this official asked (Atlanta Constitution, 1995). Arguments like this one resonate well with the American people and they are characteristic of much of the recent struggle for change in public management. Yet, despite the popularity of the application of private sector management practices to government, there are numerous legal and other distinctions that can be drawn between government and business and there are important values in government that sometimes take precedence over economy and efficiency.2 In addition, government often takes on difficult tasks that businesses cannot or will not tackle (Lindblom, 1977; Rainey, 1997). Nevertheless, we appear now to be immersed in yet another reform effort resting heavily on private-sector concepts oriented primarily toward improving the economy and efficiency of public-sector operations. This most recent wave of reform is premised on the belief that we must do nothing less than reinvent the manner in which government conducts its affairs. CENTRAL THEMES IN THE MOVEMENT The current drive for the reinvention of government has in the past few years taken on the characteristics of a fully developed social or political movement with organizations dedicated to its promotion, conferences designed to motivate followers, and publications written to further spread the word. To some extent, the reinvention campaign operates to serve political interests. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 48 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.