Program bugeting and the performance movement

177 18 0
  • Loading ...
1/177 trang
Tải xuống

Thông tin tài liệu

Ngày đăng: 23/11/2016, 16:27

Public Management and Change Series Beryl A Radin, Series Editor Editorial Board Robert Agranoff Michael Barzelay Ann O’M Bowman H George Frederickson William Gormley Rosemary O’Leary Norma Riccucci David H Rosenbloom Titles in the Series Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values, Beryl A Radin Charitable Choice at Work: Evaluating Faith-Based Job Programs in the States, Sheila Suess Kennedy and Wolfgang Bielefeld The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the Twenty-first Century, Rosemary O’Leary and Lisa Blomgren Bingham, Editors The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform, Donald P Moynihan The Future of Public Administration around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective, Rosemary O’Leary, David Van Slyke, and Soonhee Kim, Editors The Greening of the U.S Military: Environmental Policy, National Security, and Organizational Change, Robert F Durant High-Stakes Reform: The Politics of Educational Accountability, Kathryn A McDermott How Management Matters: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform, Norma M Riccucci Implementing Innovation: Fostering Enduring Change in Environmental and Natural Resource Governance, Toddi A Steelman Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations, Robert Agranoff Measuring the Performance of the Hollow State, David G Frederickson and H George Frederickson Organizational Learning at NASA: The Challenger and Columbia Accidents, Julianne G Mahler with Maureen Hogan Casamayou Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge, Norma M Riccucci Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism, Barry Bozeman The Responsible Contract Manager: Protecting the Public Interest in an Outsourced World, Steven Cohen and William Eimicke Revisiting Waldo’s Administrative State: Constancy and Change in Public Administration, David H Rosenbloom and Howard E McCurdy The Elusive Quest for Efficiency in Government William F West georgetown university press washington, d.c Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C www.press.georgetown.edu © 2011 by Georgetown University Press All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data West, William F  Program budgeting and the performance movement : the elusive quest for efficiency in government / William F West       p cm —  (Public management and change series)  Includes index  ISBN 978-1-58901-777-1 (pbk : alk paper)  Total quality management in government—United States  Program budgeting—United States  Managerial accounting— United States  I Title  JK468.T67W47 2011  352.4'8—dc22                                                            2011003840 This book is printed on acid-free paper meeting the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence in Paper for Printed Library Materials 15 14 13 12 11    First printing Printed in the United States of America For the children CONTENTS List of Illustrations  viii Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations x 1  Introduction: Lessons Not Learned  2  A Brief History of Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems  3  The Survival and Evolution of Program Budgeting at the Department of Defense  29 4  NOAA’s Adoption of PPB and Matrix Management  52 5  Evaluating NOAA’s Management Initiatives  74 6  PPB and the Holy Grail of Performance Management  99 7  Administrative Doctrine and Administrative Reality  117 Appendix 139 References 147 Index 157 ILLUSTRATIONS Table 4.1 NOAA Program Structure with Program Managers  68 Figures 3.1 The Defense PPB System  45 4.1 NOAA Organization  57 5.1 NOAA Agency Budget Trend by Percentage of Total, 1998–2010   82 5.2 Total Percentage Change across Agencies, 1999–2010   83 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T  his study relies heavily on interviews and e-mail exchanges with public servants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Department of Defense, the US Department of Homeland Security, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and other organizations I cannot name them here for reasons of confidentiality, just as I am not able to provide specific attribution for many of the quotations and other observations used in the text I am nonetheless grateful to the busy people who indulged my questions and in some cases commented on things that I had written Some would endorse my conclusions and some would not, but they were all intelligent, thoughtful, and more than generous with their time I would also like to thank Arnie Vedlitz and the Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Bush School of Government and Public Service of Texas A&M University for supporting portions of this research under a grant from NOAA In addition, the Sara Lindsey Chair has provided critical funding without which it would have been difficult to complete this research, and the Bush School has been a very supportive environment for scholarship Several people provided direct assistance and advice with this project Eric Lindquist and Katrina Mosher collaborated with me on an earlier study of planning, programming, budgeting at NOAA that was published in Public Administration Review Kallie Gallagher collected data and Sarah Jackson helped with editing and formatting the manuscript Both were extremely capable and conscientious research assistants In addition, a number of professional colleagues offered valuable feedback on various parts of this work They include Clinton Brass, Brian Cook, Bob Durant, George Frederickson, Vance Gordon, Jeryl Mumpower, Harvey Tucker, and Wendy Wagner Beryl Radin was particularly helpful for her support and suggestions throughout, and both she and Don Jacobs of Georgetown University Press were patient in waiting for me to finish this project and were otherwise a pleasure to work with I am also grateful to Sara Lindsey, whose endowed chair has facilitated my research, and to Sam Kirkpatrick for his professional support Joe Cooper had nothing to with this project but has always been a standard of excellence Most of all, I would like to thank my wife, Pat, and my children for putting up with me 152 | References ——— 2008 The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press Moynihan, Donald P., and Alasdair S Roberts 2010 “The Triumph of Loyalty over Competence: The Bush Administration and the Exhaustion of the Administrative Presidency.” Public Administration Review 70, no 4:572–81 NASA Advisory Council 2006 “Meeting Minutes,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, February 8–9 National Commission on the Public Service 2003 Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center for Public Service Niskanen, William A 1968 “The Peculiar Economics of Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 58, no 2:293–305 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce) 2002 Bureau Restructuring Plan Based on Instructions Provided by the Office of Management and Budget, Bulletin 01-07 Washington, DC: NOAA ——— 2004 New Priorities for the 21st Century: NOAA’s Strategic Plan Washington, DC: NOAA ——— 2005 “NOAA History.” www.history.noaa.gov/noaa.html ——— 2008 Business Operations Manual Washington, DC: NOAA NOS (National Ocean Service) 2009 “About the National Ocean Service.” http:// oceanservice.noaa.gove/about/ Novick, David 1954 Which Program Do We Mean in “Program Budgeting?” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation ——— 1969 “The Department of Defense.” In Program Budgeting: Program Analysis and the Federal Budget, 2nd ed., edited by David Novick New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston OAR (Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research) 2005 “NOAA Research.” www oar.noaa.gove/climate/climate_arl.htm OMB (Office of Management and Budget) 2001 Workforce Planning and Restructuring Bulletin 01-07, Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President ——— 2008 Guide to the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Guidance 2008-01 Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler 1992 Reinventing Government Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Pietrafesa, Leonard J 2004 “Cover Letter Accompanying the Review of Organization and Management of Research in NOAA by the Research Review Team.” NOAA, Washington, DC Pitter, Shanna 2010 “From PBES to SEE: Strategy Execution Evaluation at NOAA.” www.start.nesdis.noaa.gove/star/documents/meetings/GPM2010/dayOne/ Pitter.pdf President’s Advisory Council on Executive Reorganization 1971 A New Framework: Report on Selected Independent Regulatory Agencies Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office President’s Committee on Administrative Management 1937 Report with Special Studies Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office (Commonly referred to as the Brownlow Committee Report.) Proxmire, William 1970 “PPB, the Agencies, and the Congress.” In Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis, edited by Robert H Haveman and Julius Margolis Chicago: Markham References  |  153 Radin, Beryl A 2000a Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Comes of Age Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press ——— 2000b “The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (1): 111-35 ——— 2002 The Accountable Juggler Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press ——— 2006 Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press Rivlin, Alice M 1970 “The Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Some Lessons from Experience.” In Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis, edited by Robert H Haveman and Julius Margolis Chicago: Markham Robb, Charles S 1996–97 “Rebuilding a Consensus on Defense.” Parameters 26, no Roberts, Nancy 2000 “The Synoptic Model of Strategic Planning and the GPRA.” Public Productivity and Management Review 23, no 3:297–311 Robinson, Marc, and Jim Brumby 2005 Does Performance Budgeting Work? An Analytical Review of the Empirical Literature Working Paper WP/05/210 Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund Rubin, Irene S 2003 Balancing the Federal Budget: Eating the Seed Corn or Trimming the Herds? New York: Chatham House Sabatier, Paul A 1988 “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.” Policy Sciences 21:129–68 Sayre, Wallace S 1951 “Trends of a Decade in Administrative Values.” Public Administration Review 11, no 1:1–9 Schattschneider, E E 1960 The Semisovereign People New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Schick, Allen 1966 “The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform.” Public Administration Review 26: 243–58 As cited here, reprinted in Planning, Programming, Budgeting: A Systems Approach to Management, 2nd ed., edited by Fremont J Lyden and Ernest G Miller Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing, 1970 ——— 1973 “A Death in the Bureaucracy: The Demise of Federal PPB.” Public Administration Review 33:146–56 Schilling, Thomas C 1968 “PPBS and Foreign Affairs.” The Public Interest, Spring, 26–36 Schlesinger, James R 1997 “The Office of the Secretary of Defense.” In American Defense Policy, Seventh Edition, edited by Peter L Hays, Brenda J Vallance, and Alan R Van Tassel Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Seidman, David R 1970 “PPB in HEW: Some Management Issues.” In Planning, Programming, Budgeting: A Systems Approach to Management, 2nd ed., edited by Fremont J Lyden and Ernest G Miller Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Seidman, Harold 1975 Politics, Position, and Power New York: Oxford University Press Seidman, Harold, and Robert Gilmour 1986 Politics, Position, and Power, 4th ed New York: Oxford University Press Shapiro, Martin 1988 Who Guards the Guardians? Athens: University of Georgia Press Shelby, Richard 2009 “Opening Statement of Ranking Member Richard Shelby, Hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 154 | References Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to Examine the Proposed Department of Commerce Budget for Fiscal Year 2010.” US Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC, April 23 Simon, Herbert A 1946 “The Proverbs of Administration.” Public Administration Review 6:53–67 ——— 1947 Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations New York: Macmillan Simon, Mary Ellen 1983 “Matrix Management at the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission.” Public Administration Review 43, no 4:357–61 Showstack, Randy 2008 “NOAA Budget Increases to $4.1 Billion, But Some Key Items Are Reduced.” EOS 89, no 8:74–75 Smithies, Arthur 1969 “Conceptual Framework for the Program Budget.” In Program Budgeting: Program Analysis and the Federal Budget, 2nd ed., edited by David Novick New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston Stewart, Richard B 1975 “The Reformation of American Administrative Law.” Harvard Law Review 88 (June): 1667–1814 Taylor, Frederick W 1911 Principles of Scientific Management New York: Harper and Brothers Taylor, Maxwell D 1959 The Uncertain Trumpet New York: Harper and Brothers Terry, Larry D 2005 “The Thinning of Administrative Institutions in the Hollow State.” Administration and Society 37:426–44 Truman, David B 1951 The Governmental Process New York: Alfred A Knopf Tullock, Gordon 1965 The Politics of Bureaucracy Washington, DC: PublicAffairs US Army War College 1999 How the Army Runs: A Senior Leader’s Handbook Carlisle, PA: US Army War College US Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources 1969 Our Nation and the Sea: A Plan for Action Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office US Commission on Ocean Policy 2004 An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century http:// oceancommission.gov Van Riper, Paul P 1958 History of the United States Civil Service Evanston, IL: Rowe, Peterson ——— 1984 “The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Concept or Reality?” In Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public Administration, edited by Jack Rabin and James S Bowman New York: Marcel Dekker Waldo, Dwight 1948 The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration New York: Ronald Press Walker, David 2003 Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense GAO-03-98 DoD Challenges Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office Weber, Max 1947 The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by A M Henderson and Talcott Parsons Glencoe, IL: Free Press West, William F 2005 “The Institutionalization of Regulatory Review: Organizational Stability and Responsive Competence at OIRA.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (March): 76–93 West, William F., and Joseph Cooper 1989 “Legislative Influence v Presidential Dominance: Competing Models of Bureaucratic Control.” Political Science Quarterly 104 (Winter): 581–606 White, Leonard D 1926 Introduction to the Study of Public Administration New York: Macmillan References  |  155 Wildavsky, Aaron 1969 “Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS.” Public Administration Review 29 (March): 189–202 ——— 1973 “If Planning Is Everything Maybe it’s Nothing.” Policy Sciences 4:127–53 ——— 1974 The Politics of the Budgetary Process Boston: Little, Brown ——— 1988 The New Politics of the Budgetary Process Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman Williams, Cindy 2007 Paying for Homeland Security: Show Me the Money Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Security Studies ——— 2008 Strengthening Homeland Security: Reforming Planning and Resource Allocation Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government ——— 2010 “Getting Inside the Budget Process for Homeland Security.” Security Studies Program at MIT 1129707 http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/ Williams520Presentation.ppt Willoughby, William F 1919 An Introduction to the Study of the Government of Modern States New York: The Century Co Wilson, James Q 1989 Bureaucracy New York: Basic Books ——— 1975 “The Rise of the Bureaucratic State.” The Public Interest 41 (Fall): 77–103 Wilson, Woodrow 1887 “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly (June): 197–222 Index Note: Page numbers in italics represent tables and figures administrative doctrine and the federal government, 7, 117–38; competing perspectives, 119–25; considering alternatives to managerialism and businesslike efficiency prescribed by PPB and MFR, 125–36; criticisms of the traditional model, 122–24; differences between traditional model and performance movement, 126–27; diminished enthusiasm for pluralism today, 128, 138n10; goal of bounded rationality, 123, 124–25, 129; New Deal expansion of federal bureaucracy, 11, 20, 123; NPM/MFR and the traditional model, 126–29, 132, 137n7; persistence of traditional model in performance movement, 126–29, 138n8; pluralist alternative/critique of traditional model, 124–25, 126; the politics/administration dichotomy, 121–22, 123–24; Progressive Era thinkers, 119–22, 126, 130, 137n3; scientific and business models, 121–22; traditional model, 119–22, 126–27, 137n3 Appleby, Paul, 123–24, 131, 134–35 Army Corps of Engineers, 54 Art, Robert, 47 Ash Council (President’s Advisory Council on Executive Reorganization) (1971), 53, 126 Baumgartner, Frank R., 132 Behn, Robert, 100, 119 BENS report (2000), 44, 129 BOB See Bureau of the Budget (BOB) bounded rationality, 26, 123, 124–25, 129 Brownlow, Louis, 124 Brownlow Report, 124 Budget and Accounting Procedures Act (1950), 11 Budgeting and Accounting Act (1921), 11 Bureau Movement, 121, 127 Bureau of Fisheries, 54, 55 Bureau of Reclamation, 131 Bureau of the Budget (BOB): ambivalence and inconsistencies concerning importance of the program memorandum at DoD, 25; focus on budgeting for management, 11; guidelines for implementing PPB’s extension throughout the civilian bureaucracy, 21; no serious effort to standardize PPB, 31 See also Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bush, George W Bush administration: and DHS, 142–43; and NOAA program budgeting, 87; and PART reviews, 1, 52, 102, 113, 115; President’s Management Agenda, 64, 73n5, 102 capabilities-based planning, 50 Chertoff, Michael, 142, 143 Chief Financial Officers Act (1990), 144 civilian bureaucracy See PPB’s extension throughout the civilian bureaucracy Clinton administration: National Performance Review, 60, 61–62, 101, 127, 136; and NOAA, 60, 61–62, 87 Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), 55, 56, 59 Coast and Geodetic Survey, 54 Coast Guard, 54, 141–42 Combatant Commands, 36, 43 comprehensive rationality, 26 Congress: committees and political obstacles to planning, assessment, and integration, 112– 14; creation of DHS, 114, 118, 139; and demise of PPB in civilian bureaucracy, 24–25; and DoD policymaking and budgeting, 46–47; failure to use performance data generated by GPRA, 113; fragmentation of power in the committee system, 24–25, 113–14; indifference to performance-based management and performance data, 113–14; and NOAA budget, 79–80, 92, 93–94; and NOAA’s effectiveness, 60; and NOAA’s responsibilities, 93, 97n7; and PART’s implementation, 113; PPB and congressional budgetmaking/ appropriations processes, 20 Consumer Products Safety Commission, 71 Cook, Brian, 122 Cost Analysis Improvement Group, 42 Defense Systems Acquisitions Review Committee, 42 Department of Commerce, US: and creation of NOAA, 53–54; and NOAA’s budget, 70, 80, 81, 92 158 | Index Department of Defense, US (DoD) [early PPB system at], 1, 2–3, 9–28; and abandonment of “massive retaliation” as basis for national security policy, 18–19; the adoption of PPB, 2, 9, 12–19; competition based on rational analysis through PCPs, 18, 42, 50; costeffectiveness analyses, 19, 35; DPMs and policymaking agenda, 18, 32, 40–41, 42; early effects of program budgeting, 18–19, 32–33, 51, 114; Enthoven and, 16, 39, 40, 41; Five-Year Force Structure and Financial Program, 17; hierarchical program structure and framework for allocation of resources, 16–17; Hitch as comptroller, 16, 41; instrumental analyses to overcome vested interests and doctrinal orthodoxies, 19; intellectual and practical antecedents, 11–12; Kennedy administration, 12–13, 17, 39; McNamara’s role, 2, 9, 15–18, 29–30, 32, 38–41, 44–45, 51, 75, 107, 114; means-end analysis and planning, 17; mechanisms for ensuring that annual budgets would follow plans, 17; new military tactics and provisions to implement, 19; the Office of Systems Analysis (OSA), 16, 18, 33, 40–41; “program elements” grouped according to principle objectives, 16–17; and RAND Corporation, 13, 16, 30; response to postwar management problems, 13–15; stakeholders’ input, 17–18 Department of Defense, US (DoD) [evolution of PPB at], 4, 5–6, 29–51, 45f; attenuation of the advisory role of policy analysts, 29–30; and capabilities-based planning, 50; centralization of authority in the OSD, 30–31; charges of parochialism and lack of coordination, 35–37, 97n3; coherent mission lending itself to hierarchical ordering, 30, 47–48; crosscutting analyses, 30–31, 35, 38, 48, 107, 111, 114–15; decentralization and fragmentation (backlash against McNamara’s system), 39–43, 48; decline in systems analysis and weaker role for OSA, 33, 40–41; explaining the diminished impact of PPB since the 1960s, 38–47, 48, 114–15; growth of defense spending in the 1960s, 30; human resources at DoD, 30; inadequate goals and performance measures, 35; inclusiveness, 42–43; increased bureaucratization and complexity, 44–46, 45f, 48; increased differentiation of DoD itself, 42–43; the incremental character of resource allocation, 37–38; inherent obstacles, 49–50; lack of discipline and incremental decision making, 37–38; and McNamara, 38–41, 44–45, 51; merging programming with budget review, 49; the military’s resistance to adopting new routines and requirements, 31, 47–48, 117–18; obstacles to objective performance assessment, 49; the Office of PA&E, 41, 44; poor accounting practices, 34–35; problem of resource-constrained planning and analysis, 37; Quadrennial Defense Reviews, 50, 51; reasons PPB survived at DoD, 30–31, 47–48, 117–18; and recent reform proposals (Rumsfeld’s review and recommendations), 48–49; reintroduction of operational concept of fixed bases for services, 40; renaming the system PPBES, 28n1, 49; replacement of DPMs by POMs, 40–41, 43, 48, 49; the role of Congress in policymaking and budgeting, 46–47; sources of resistance to PPB, 39–40; subsequent effects and principle critiques over past three decades, 33–38, 114–15, 116n11; and subsequent secretaries of defense, 40 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, US (HEW): Office of Systems Analysis at, 29; PPB at, 22, 23–24 Department of Health and Human Services, US (HHS): challenging task of managing, 135; Office of Planning and Development at, 29; recent analysis of limitations of performance budgeting at, 107 Department of Homeland Security, US (DHS), 5, 99, 139–43; advocates of PPB an antidote to budgetary inertia, 97n2; appointment of a chief financial officer, 140; challenges impeding PPB implementation, 141–42; creation of, 58, 139; critics of PPB’s failed impact on resource allocation/program budgeting, 141, 142–43; and Hurricane Katrina, 110, 142; implementation of PPB, 110, 117, 118, 136, 141–43; lack of strong leadership commitment, 108, 142–43; the Office of PA&E and its functions, 117, 140, 141, 142; origin and structure of PPB at, 114, 139–41; planning stage, 140; preparation of Integrated Strategic Assessment Reports, 140; preparation of the secretary’s Integrated Planning Guidance (IPG), 140; programming phase and preparation of Resource Allocation Plans (RAPs), 140; seven strategic goals with specific performance objectives and measures, 140; struggles with developing meaningful performance indicators, 141; turnover among officials and vacancies in directorships, 108, 141 Index  |  159 Department of the Interior, US, 53 Department of Natural Resources, US, 53, 59–60 Department of Transportation (DOT), 54, 105, 111 DHS See Department of Homeland Security, US (DHS) DoD See Department of Defense, US (DoD) [early PPB system at]; Department of Defense, US (DoD) [evolution of PPB at] draft presidential memorandums (DPMs) and policymaking agenda at DoD, 18, 32, 40–41, 42 Earth Observation Summit, 69 economic efficiency, criterion of, 12 Eisenhower, Dwight, 14, 39 Endangered Species Act (1973), 55 Enthoven, Alain, 44, 50; as head of Office of Systems Analysis, 16, 39, 40, 41; on programming process at DoD, 50; and the reallocation of resources at DoD based on DPMs, 18, 19, 32; reflections on role of PPB at DoD, 32–33, 50, 51, 116n11 Environmental Data Center, 55 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 53 Environmental Research Laboratories, 55 Environmental Science Services Administration, 53–54 executive leadership: reconciling with separation of powers in American government, 124, 130, 137n6; and traditional model of public administration, 124 Federal Emergency Management Agency, US (FEMA), 142 Frederickson, David, 103–4, 107, 108 Frederickson, George, 103–4, 107, 108 Freedman, James, 128 Gaebler, Ted, 101 GAO See Government Accountability Office, US (GAO) Gates, Robert, 50 Gaus, John, 134 Gilmour, John, 109, 116n10 Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (1986), 42–43 Goodnow, Frank, 121–22 Gordon, Vance C., 39, 42 Gore, Al, 101 Government Accountability Office, US (GAO): assessments of political obstacles to PPB implementation, 112–13; and the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act (1950), 11; critiques of DoD’s parochial service orientations, 36; critiques of inadequate goals and performance measures at DoD, 35; critiques of poor accounting practices in DoD, 34; on obstacles to developing objective performance measures at scientific agencies, 88; practitioners of performance-based management at, 118; reports on limitations of performance movement, 24, 88, 106–7, 112–13; reports on performance budgeting and GPRA requirements, 104, 105–6, 108–9, 110–11, 112 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 1, 3, 6–7, 62, 102, 104–6, 127, 136–37; Congress’s failure to use performance data generated by, 113; critics, 117, 136; and implementation of PPB at NOAA, 52, 61–62, 87; and PART reviews, 62, 102, 116n4; and the performance movement, 99, 101–2, 104–6, 110–11, 113; and problem of managerial authority, 112 GPRA See Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Great Society programs, 20 Griffin, Michael, 144 Gulick, Luther, 120, 122, 124 Heclo, Hugh, 132 Herring, Pendleton, 123 Hitch, Charles, 9–10, 16, 44, 50, 51; as comptroller at DoD under McNamara, 16, 41; on problems limiting DoD’s effectiveness in the 1950s, 14; and the reallocation of resources at DoD based on DPMs, 32; skepticism about extension of PPB throughout civilian bureaucracy, 21–22, 74; on stakeholders and PPB at DoD, 17–18 Hoover Commission (1949), 11 House and Senate Consolidated Appropriations Committee, 60 incrementalism, concept of, 27, 132–33 incremental decision making, 37–38, 132–33 Jack, Bryan C., 39, 42 Johnson, Lyndon: extension of PPB to entire federal government, 2, 9, 20–22; failure of PPB and lack of leadership support, 25; and problems limiting DoD’s effectiveness in the 1950s, 15 Joint Chiefs of Staff, 28n5; DPMs submitted to, 42; and Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act, 43; and postwar management problems at DoD, 13–14 160 | Index Joint Defense Capabilities Study Team (JDCST), 2004 report on effects of program budgeting at DoD, 33–34, 36, 37 Jones, Bryan D., 132 Jones, L R., 31, 37–38, 40, 41, 42, 45–46 Kaboolian, Linda, 127 Kaldor-Hicks Principle, 12 Kaufman, Herbert, 124 Kennedy, John F Kennedy administration: concern about imbalanced defense posture and national security policy, 18–19; and program budgeting at DoD, 12–13, 17, 39 Kingdon, John W., 132 Kissinger, Henry, 111 Laird, Melvin, 39–40 Landau, Martin, 2, 133 Lautenbacher, Conrad, 93; appointments at NOAA, 65; career and background, 64–65; implementation of PPB at NOAA, 4, 73, 75, 78, 79, 85; and internal program review team (PRT) recommendations (2002), 63–65; and matrix management at NOAA, 71; and NOAA’s program budgeting and fiscal environment, 85, 87, 97n4; and obstacles to program budgeting at NOAA, 95, 98n8; the 2008–12 AGM, 69 LeMay, Curtis, 15 Lewis, David, 109, 116n10 Lieberman, Joseph, 139 limited successive comparisons, 27 Lindblom, Charles E., 27 Long, Norton, 131, 133–34 Lubechenco, Jane, 95–96 Lynn, Lawrence, 119–20, 121, 136 Madisonian system of democracy, 27, 119, 124– 25, 138n10 See also pluralist model of public administration Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (1976), 55 managing for results (MFR), 1, 3, 99–106, 116n2, 118; assumptions that private-sector management is superior to public, 99–100, 116n1; considering alternatives to managerialism and businesslike efficiency prescribed by, 125–36; criticisms and limitations, 106–16, 118–19; empirical constraints to promoting coordination and efficiency within federal government, 129–30; goals of promoting effective management, 103– 6; institutional manifestations, 100–103; limitations of “strategic planning” and organizational integration, 109–11; limits on comprehensiveness, 114–15; and needs of stakeholders, 100, 116n2, 137n7; and NPM, 99–101; organizational incentives and capacity, 107–9; and performance budgeting under GPRA requirements, 62, 104– 6; planning process, 100; political obstacles to planning, assessment, and integration, 112–14; the problem of managerial authority, 111–12; and the traditional model of administrative doctrine, 126–29, 132, 137n7; the validity of performance measures, 1, 109 See also Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); performance movement (and PPB) Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), 55, 59 Marine Minerals Technology Center, 54 Marine Protection, Restoration, and Sanctuaries Act (1973), 55 Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act (1966), 53 Marine Sport Fishery Program, 54 Marvin, Keith, 22, 23, 25 matrix management at NOAA, 64, 71–72, 74; history of the matrix concept, 71; matrix concept and team approaches, 71, 73n7; and Office of PPI, 72 McCaffery, Jerry L., 31, 37–38, 40, 41, 42, 45–46 McNamara, Robert: backlash against management system at DoD, 39–43, 48; career and background, 15–16; and diminished impact of PPB at DoD since the 1960s, 38–41, 44–45, 51; and PPB system at DoD, 2, 9, 15–18, 29–30, 32, 38–41, 44–45, 51, 75, 107, 114; willingness to use his authority to implement PPB and systems analysis, 31 McNicol, David L., 39, 42 Melkers, Julia, 100–101 Mercer, John, 116n3 Meyer, John, 23 MFR See managing for results (MFR) Minerals Management Service, 132 Mintzberg, Henry, 118, 129 Mosher, Frederick, 120 Moynihan, Donald, 100, 107, 113, 128–29 National Academy of Public Administration, 64, 136 National Acid Precipitation Act (1980), 56 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 5, 99, 143–46; the Augustine Report, 143–44; budgetary decision making and resource allocation, 145–46; challenges of managing missions and mission Index  |  161 directorates, 143; creation of Office of PA&E, 144; formal establishment of PPB in 2005 by Administrator Griffin, 144; the four mission directorates and control account managers, 144; hierarchically ordered set of goals, subgoals, themes, programs, and missions, 144; implementation of PPB, 145–46; leadership support for PPB, 108, 145; obstacles to PPB implementation, 146; origin and structure of PPB, 143–44; planning process, 144; programming process, 144; tensions between PA&E and mission managers, 145; transparency and predictability, 145 National Commission on the Public Service, 58 National Data Buoy Project, 54 National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS), 55, 56; functions shared with other NOAA components, 58; and NOAA’s budgetary changes under PPB, 79–80, 82f; and NOAA’s matrix programs, 74 National Hurricane Center, 93 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 54–55, 56, 89; functions shared with other NOAA components, 58; and NOAA’s budgetary changes under PPB, 82f; and NOAA’s matrix programs, 71, 74 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [organizational structure and functions], 52–57, 72; allegations of ineffectiveness, 60; assistant administrators reporting to NOAA administrator, 57; Clinton administration’s National Performance Review, 60, 61–62; compliance with GPRA, 61–62; creation of, 53–55, 72; critics and reorganization proposals, 59–60; the current organization, 56–57, 57f; expanding responsibilities at, 55–56; external concerns, 59–61; generic constraints, 61–62; interrelated functions and overlap between/within components, 58–59; management challenges and increased pressures for organizational reform, 58–63, 72; Office of PA&E, 41, 64, 67, 70, 83–85, 87, 88–89, 90–91; Office of PPI, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73n6, 83–84, 87, 88–89, 90–91, 95, 96–97; OMB’s 2001 directive that agencies streamline organizational structures, 61–62; original components (federal entities included within), 54; and the performance movement, 61–62; pressures to relate its scientific activities to tangible societal benefits, 59; restructuring and its limitations, 62–63, 72; Science Advisory Board’s review team report on NOAA’s effectiveness, 60–61, 62–63; six major line components, 54–55, 56–57, 57f National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [adoption of PPB and matrix management], 4–5, 52–73, 74, 108, 117, 118, 136; actors, 67–68, 71–72; adoption of PPBES, 63–67, 74, 118; Annual Guidance Memorandum (AGM), 69; the budgeting phase (managed by the CFO), 70; development of a program plan (PP) and a program decision memorandum (PDM), 70; the execution phase, 70; executive council, 67–68, 70; extending goals of GPRA and the President’s Management Agenda, 64, 73n5; Goal Assessments, 69; Lautenbacher’s appointments (former DoD specialists and personnel), 65; Lautenbacher’s commitment to military system of financial management, 65; Lautenbacher’s implementation of PPB, 4, 73, 75, 78, 79, 85; Lautenbacher’s 2002 report and the internal program review team (PRT) recommendations, 63–65; matrix management, 64, 71–72, 74; planning and budgeting offices at NOAA headquarters, 67; planning phase, 69, 73n6; the PPBES program structure, 65–67, 68t; and PPB premises regarding fiscal commitments and multiyear budgets, 65; and PPB premises regarding how to assess spending and accountability, 65; preparation of an Annual Business Report, 70; process of implementing PPB, 69–70; Program Baseline Assessments, 69, 84–85, 87; program development, 70; the programming stage, 69–70; a program review, 70; recommended reorganization among three line divisions, 63–64; the strategic plan and articulation of five goals, 65–66, 74; the 2008–12 Annual Guidance Memorandum (AGM), 69 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [evaluating effects of PPB and matrix management], 4–5, 74–98; additional responsibilities burdening line personnel, 83–85, 95; allocation of budgetary resources and competition for resources, 79–80, 93–94; allocation of budgetary resources/redistributive effects of PPB, 80–82, 82f, 83f, 94, 97n2; allocation of resources among line components, 80–81, 82f, 83f; the boundaries of cooperation framed within program and goal 162 | Index National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) continued teams, 90–91, 95, 98n8; the changes instituted (that went beyond earlier efforts at planning and coordination), 78–79; competing loyalties and crosscutting analysis, 80–81, 90–91; the difficulty of hierarchical integration, 89–90, 97n5; explaining the interviewees’ differing assessments, 75–76, 97n1; improving communication and coordination (across organizational boundaries), 77, 94; inadequate guidance (inhibiting implementation of reforms), 85–86; individual actors interviewed, 75–76; intended effects of management initiatives, 76–82, 94–95; internal and external politics, 93–94; and NOAA’s compliance with GPRA, 77–78, 105; and NOAA’s strategic plan and goals, 78, 89; the Obama administration and new head Lubechenco, 95–96; obstacles to change, 76, 82–94, 95; obstacles to performance measurement/assessment, 88–89, 109; obstacles to precise measurement of effects of PPB, 75; and PART reviews, 52, 62, 73n3, 92–93; planning, performance assessment, and accountability (relationships between organizational objectives and activities), 77–79; PPI’s 2009 evaluation of PPBES, 95, 96–97; problems of accountability and authority (planning and programming vs budgeting and execution), 91–93, 111; resource constraints, 83–85; tensions over managerial values/scientific values, 84–85, 86–88, 95, 108; the 2010 replacement of PPB with Strategy Execution Evaluation (SEE), 96–97 National Oceanographic Data Center, 54 National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center, 54 National Ocean Service (NOS), 55, 56; functions shared with other NOAA components, 58; and NOAA’s budgetary changes under PPB, 82f; and NOAA’s matrix programs, 71, 74 National Performance Review, 60, 61–62, 101, 127, 136 National Security Act (1947), 13, 16, 28n5 National Weather Service, US (NWS), 55, 56, 77; and NOAA’s budgetary changes under PPB, 82f; and NOAA’s matrix programs, 74 NESDIS See National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS) New Deal, 11, 20, 123 New Public Management (NPM), 7, 99–101, 137n7; assumptions that private-sector management is superior to public, 99–100, 116n1; and top-down planning, 132; and traditional model of administrative doctrine, 126–29, 132, 137n7 New York Bureau of Municipal Research, 28n2 Nixon, Richard/Nixon administration: Ash Council on Executive Reorganization, 53, 126; backlash against McNamara’s management system at DoD, 39–40; creation of NOAA, 53–54; and role of Congress in DoD policymaking and budgeting, 47 NOAA See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [adoption of PPB and matrix management]; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [evaluating effects of PPB and matrix management]; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [organizational structure and functions] NOAA Marine and Aviation Operations (MAO), 57 Novick, David, 18 NPM See New Public Management (NPM) NWS See National Weather Service, US (NWS) OAR See Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), NOAA Obama, Barack/Obama administration, 95–96 Ocean Pollution Planning Act (1978), 55 Ocean Thermal Energy Conservation Act (1980), 56 Office of Management and Budget (OMB): abandonment of PPB, 22; and challenges of developing government-wide performance plans, 111; and challenges of managerial authority, 111–12; and DHS, 114, 142; failures at systematic crosscutting analysis, 115; NOAA and the 2001 directive that agencies streamline organizational structures, 61–62; and NOAA’s budget, 80, 92–93; and NOAA’s effectiveness, 61; and NOAA’s PART reviews, 62, 92–93; and PART process during Bush administration, 1, 62, 102, 113, 115 Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), NOAA, 56; and criticisms of NOAA’s effectiveness, 60; and NOAA’s budgetary changes under PPB, 82f; and NOAA’s matrix programs, 71, 74, 77; overlapping functions shared with other NOAA components, 56, 58, 59; program offices, 73n1; research laboratories, 73n2; restructuring/consolidation of Boulder Index  |  163 laboratories into Earth System Research Lab, 62–63, 73n4 Office of Personnel Management, 108 Office of Planning and Development at the Department of Health and Human Services, 29 Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) at DoD, 41, 44 Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) at NASA, 144, 145 Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) at NOAA, 41, 64, 67, 70, 83–85, 87, 88–89, 90–91; competing loyalties and crosscutting analysis, 90, 91; establishment of, 64, 67; failure to anticipate the difficulties of additional demands, 84–85; obstacles to performance measurement/performance assessment, 88–89; programming stage led by, 70; resource constraints and small staff size, 83–84; tensions over managerial values versus scientific values, 87 Office of Program Planning and Integration (PPI) at NOAA, 64, 67, 69, 72, 73n6, 83–84, 87, 88–89, 90–91, 95, 96–97; competing loyalties and crosscutting analysis, 90, 91; creation of, 64, 67; and matrix management, 72; obstacles to performance measurement/performance assessment, 88–89; planning phase led by, 69, 73n6; PPI’s 2009 evaluation of PPBES, 95, 96–97; resource constraints and small staff size, 83–84; tensions over managerial values versus scientific values, 87 Office of Sea Grant Programs, 54 Office of Systems Analysis (OSA) at DoD, 16, 18, 33, 40–41 Office of Systems Analysis (OSA) at HEW, 29 Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) at DoD, 30–31, 39–41; and charges of DoD’s parochialism, 35–37; and postwar management problems, 14, 16; recent reform proposals to involve at an earlier stage of PPB, 49 OMB See Office of Management and Budget (OMB) operations research, World War II era, 12, 13 Osborne, David, 101 OSD See Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) at DoD Pareto Optimality (criterion of economic efficiency), 12 parochialism and PPB, 35–37, 97n3, 108 PART See Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), 1, 99, 102–3, 113, 115; and GPRA, 62, 102, 116n4; and NOAA, 52, 62, 73n3, 92–93; and OMB, 1, 62, 92–93, 102, 113, 115; and political indifference to performance measures, 113, 116n10 performance-based management See managing for results (MFR); performance movement (and PPB) performance budgeting, defining, 11–12 performance movement (and PPB), 6, 99–116, 118; assumptions that private-sector management is superior to public, 99–100, 116n1; challenges and limitations of “strategic planning” and organizational integration, 109–11, 116n9; comparative analyses of program outputs and outcomes, 105– 6; considering alternatives to managerialism and businesslike efficiency prescribed by, 125–36; criticisms of, 2–3, 4, 25–27, 51, 116n11, 117, 118–19; explaining the longevity of, 117–19, 136–37; formal systems of planning and assessment, 4–5, 6–7, 77–78, 109, 126, 129, 134; and the goals of MFR, 103–6; and the GPRA, 62, 99, 101–2, 104–6, 110–11, 113; institutional manifestations, 100–103; introductions of performance-based budgeting at all levels of government, 100–101; limitations, 106–16; managing for results (MFR), 99–100, 106–16, 116n2, 118; needs of stakeholders, 100, 116n2, 137n7; the New Public Management (NPM), 99–101; and NOAA, 61–62, 111; organizational incentives and capacity, 107–9; parochialism, 35–37, 97n3, 108; PART reviews, 62, 73n3, 99, 102–3, 113, 115; planning process, 100; pluralist critique/explanations for failure, 2, 5–6, 25–27, 116n11; and policy analysis in federal agencies, 107–8; political obstacles to planning, assessment, and integration, 112–14; the problem of managerial authority, 111–12; synoptic planning, 104– 5; top-down planning, 132; and traditional model of public administration, 126–29, 138n8; validity of performance measures and obstacles to measurement, 1, 109; Wildavsky’s conceptual indictments of PPB, 2, 5, 26–27, 51, 116n11, 118 pluralist critique of PPB: and bounded rationality, 26; and the concept of incrementalism, 27; and decision making in the public sector, 26; explanations for failure/longterm ineffectiveness, 2, 5–6, 25–27, 116n11; Wildavsky’s conceptual indictments, 2, 5, 26–27, 51, 116n11, 118 164 | Index pluralist model of public administration, 124– 25, 126; criticisms of the traditional model, 122–24; and diminished enthusiasm for pluralism, 128, 138n10 See also administrative doctrine and the federal government Policy and Administration (Appleby), 123–24 The Politics of the Budgetary Process (Wildavsky), 27 POMs See program objective memorandums (POMs) PPB (planning, programming, budgeting): complementary functions, 9–10; and criterion of economic efficiency, 12; defining program budgeting/performance budgeting, 11–12; institutional vestiges at federal agencies, 29; intellectual and practical antecedents, 11–12; the logic of program budgeting, 9–10; operations research during World War II, 12; pluralist critique, 2, 5–6, 25–27, 51, 116n11, 118; post-World War II, 11–12; programming function, 9–10; and program structure, 10; Progressive Era budgeting concepts, 11, 27; reasons for studying, 29; reemergence at civilian agencies, 2; systems analysis (cost-effectiveness analysis), 9–10, 12, 19, 22, 35; theoretical advantages embedded in fundamental ideas, 10; Wildavsky’s conceptual indictments of, 2, 5, 26–27, 51, 116n11, 118 See also Department of Defense, US (DoD) [early PPB system at]; Department of Defense, US (DoD) [evolution of PPB at]; managing for results (MFR); performance movement (and PPB); PPB’s extension throughout the civilian bureaucracy PPBES (planning, programming, budgeting execution systems), 28n1, 49; NOAA program structure, 65–67, 68t; NOAA’s adoption of, 63–67, 74, 118; PPI’s 2009 evaluation of NOAA’s system, 95, 96–97; renaming of the DoD system, 28n1, 49 PPBS (planning, programming, budgeting systems), 28n1 PPB’s extension throughout the civilian bureaucracy, 2, 9, 20–27, 74; BOB guidelines for implementation, 21; bureaucratic resistance, 24; the complexity of PPB and the analytical resources it required, 23–24; congressional committee system and appropriations/budgetmaking, 20, 24–25; the difficulty of objective measurements of costs and benefits, 22; and diversion of funds and attention to Vietnam War, 24, 30, 84; explanations for failure and demise, 9, 21–25, 27–28; five-year program and financial plans, 21; Johnson’s 1965 memorandum, 2, 9, 20–22; lack of leadership support at executive and agency levels, 25; lack of personnel (staffing) needed, 23–24; the pluralist critique/explanations for failure, 2, 5–6, 25–27, 116n11; program memoranda to justify each program, 21; program structures, 21; reasons for survival at DoD, 30–31, 47–48, 117–18; relationship between program budgeting and the structure of the federal bureaucracy, 22–23; response to fragmentation/redundancy of Great Society programs, 20; specific analytic studies, 21; stated goals and rationale, 20–21 President’s Management Agenda (Bush administration), 64, 73n5, 102 Program Change Proposals (PCPs), 18, 42, 50 program objective memorandums (POMs), 40–41, 43, 48, 49; elimination of DPMs and replacement by, 40–41, 43, 48, 49; and Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act, 43; simplifying the preparation of, 49 Progressive Era thinkers: program budgeting, 11, 27; traditional model of public administration, 119–22, 126, 130, 137n3 Proxmire, William, 20 public administration models See administrative doctrine and the federal government Radin, Beryl, 100, 103, 109, 116nn6–7, 117, 135 RAND Corporation, 13, 28n3; postwar developments in defense policy, 13–14; and PPB at DoD, 13, 16, 30 Reagan administration, 101; budget cuts and NOAA, 60; Grace Commission, 126 Reinventing Government (Osborne and Gaebler), 101, 127, 136 Report of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S Space Program (Augustine Report) (1990), 143–44 Ridge, Tom, 141, 142, 143 Rivlin, Alice, 22, 23–24 Roberts, Nancy, 104–5 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 124 Rouse, Andrew, 22, 23, 25 Rumsfeld, Donald, 28n1; and complexity of the current PPB process, 46; DoD review and reform recommendations, 48–49 Sabatier, Paul, 132 Sayre, Wallace, 134 Schick, Allen, 11–12, 24, 25, 107 Index  |  165 Schilling, Thomas, 31, 39 Science Advisory Board, NOAA, 60–61, 62–63 scientific management, 120–21 Seidman, David, 25 Senate Armed Services Committee, 118 Senate Homeland Security Committee, 139 Senate Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, 15 Shelby, Richard, 79–80 Simon, Herbert, 26, 123 Smith, K Wayne, 18, 19, 32–33, 51, 116n11 Stans, Maurice, 53–54 Stewart, Richard, 125 strategic planning, 109–11, 116n9; challenges of anticipating future demands, 109–10; challenges of plotting a course for an organization as integrated whole, 109–11, 116n9; challenges of specifying hierarchical relationships between means and ends, 111; GPRA and one-size-fits-all model, 110–11 Strategy Execution Evaluation (SEE) at NOAA, 96–97 Stratton Commission, 53, 54 Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee, 20 Sustainable Fisheries Act (1996), 55 Symington Commission (1960 report), 14–15 synoptic planning, 3, 45, 104–5, 110, 136 systems analysis: as antecedent to PPB, 12; program budgeting and cost-effectiveness analysis, 9–10, 12, 19, 22, 35 Taft Commission (1912), 28n2 Taylor, Frederick, 120 Taylor, Maxwell, 14 Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Program, 43 traditional model of public administration and the federal government, 119–22, 126–27; administration as a science, 119–22, 126– 27, 137n3; considering alternatives to, 125– 36; criticisms of, 122–25, 126; differences from performance movement, 126–27; and doctrine of strong executive leadership, 124; efficiency as bureaucracy’s primary goal, 120–21; and goal of bounded rationality, 123, 124–25; and misgivings about government power in American political culture, 128, 138n9; and New Deal expansion of federal bureaucracy, 123; NPM and MFR, 126–29, 132, 137n7; persistence in today’s performance movement, 126–29, 138n8; pluralist critique of, 124–25, 126; the politics/administration dichotomy, 121– 22, 123–24; Progressive Era thinkers, 119– 22, 126, 130, 137n3; the school of scientific management, 120–21; scientific and business models for public administration, 121– 22; similarities with performance movement (MFR and NPM), 127 United States Lake Survey, 54 Vietnam War, 19, 24, 30, 84 Waldo, Dwight, 121, 137n6 Weather Bureau, 54 Weber, Max, 120 welfare economics, 12 White, Leonard, 122 Wildavsky, Aaron: and bounded rationality, 26; and concept of incrementalism, 27; conceptual indictments of PPB in the civilian bureaucracy, 2, 5, 26–27, 51, 116n11, 118; and decision making in the public sector, 26; reflections on early role of PPB at DoD, 33; on requisites for program budgeting in defense, 30 Williams, Cindy, 97n2, 114, 141, 142–43 Willoughby, Katherine, 100–101 Wilson, Woodrow, 120–22 World War II: postwar antecedents to PPB, 11–12; the War Department’s use of operations research, 12, 13 [...]... speak to the competing explanations that were offered for its abandonment forty years ago? The current use of program budgeting remains limited, notwithstanding the magnitude of the defense budget and the importance of the other agencies that have recently adopted it Yet PPB can also be viewed as an extension of the current performance movement that has had such a significant impact on the theory and practice... independently from one another (Marvin and Rouse 1970, 447) Among others, these included levels of staffing and expertise, the degree to which the process was centralized at the departmental level, the manner in which analysis was used by executives, and the degree to which program structures either coincided with or cut across organizational boundaries (Marvin and Rouse 1970) Failure and Abandonment Although... 1965) RAND also designed program budgeting as an antidote to the problems of fragmentation and parochialism that beset DoD DoD was created by the National Security Act of 1947 to coordinate policy and operations across the services (earlier, the army and navy had been separate departments, and the air force had been an increasingly independent component of the former),4 and the formal powers of the secretary... be reviewed and amended by the secretary and only then sent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the individual services for their comments The secretary would use this feedback to formulate a final version for submission to the president (Gordon, McNicol, and Jack 2008) DPMs were taken seriously within DoD precisely because they were prepared for the White House Moreover, they gave McNamara the initiative... nuclear and a conventional nature Among the beneficial casualties were the B-70 bomber, the Skybolt missile-delivery system, and the F-111 fighter The successes claimed for PPB also included the development of new military tactics and the provision of the equipment and organizations needed to implement them An example here is the concept of airmobile warfare, which came to play a prominent role in the. .. memoranda, these were intended as analyses of how agency activities contributed to program goals and of how program goals served the interests of the American people Program memoranda were designed to afford policymakers a clear understanding of the rationale behind agency goals and the means chosen to achieve those goals (Bureau of the Budget 1970) ■ Special analytic studies that would justify the. .. effort to promote MFR at the federal level in the United States GPRA thus requires agencies to engage in strategic planning for the purpose of articulating their objectives and identifying the activities that contribute to these goals; ■ measure the effectiveness of these activities in terms of their contributions to the goals they serve; and ■ use this performance information for the purpose of allocating... performance orientation was rendered more appealing by the dramatic expansion of government programs and agencies that occurred during and after the New Deal, and by the management challenges that accompanied this development The focus on budgeting for management was reflected in the growth of the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) and in that organization’s increased preference... more As a prelude to the discussion of these issues in subsequent chapters, it is useful to examine the character of PPB and its growth and demise in the 1960s The Logic of Program Budgeting Charles Hitch, who is often referred to as the father of PPB, describes the system of program budgeting that he created and instituted at DoD as consisting of two complementary functions: 1 programming—to provide... projected needs, the purpose of the Five-Year Force Structure and Financial Program was to ensure that the planning and the comparison of alternative means would take into account the full costs and benefits of program elements Although a critical goal of PPB was to centralize control over DoD policy in the Office of the Secretary, it did not seek to stifle input from stakeholders within the organization
- Xem thêm -

Xem thêm: Program bugeting and the performance movement, Program bugeting and the performance movement, Program bugeting and the performance movement

Gợi ý tài liệu liên quan cho bạn

Nạp tiền Tải lên
Đăng ký
Đăng nhập