977476

Reinventing Government in the American States: Measuring and Explaining
Administrative Reform
Authors(s): Jeffrey L. Brudney, F. Ted Hebert and Deil S. Wright
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1999), pp. 19-30
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/977476
Accessed: 28-03-2016 12:02 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley, American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 218.106.182.54 on Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:02:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Reinventing Giovernment in the
Amefican States: Masurng and
Explain ing Adm~initrfve Reform
Jeffrey L. Brudney, University of Georgia
F. Ted Hebert, University of Utah
Deil S. Wright, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
This study examines whether reinventing government is the state
reform wave of the 1990s. Using a mailed survey of more than
1200 agency heads, who represent 93 types ofagencies across all
50 states, it examines the extent to which agencies have imple-
mented 11 reinvention reforms. Although some proposals are
more widely adopted than others, correlation analysis indicates
that state agencies consider the reinvention reforms as a package or
program. A scale measuring the degree of "reinvention implemen-
tation "at the agency level is developed, and a general model con-
sisting offive categories of explanatory variables is proposed and
tested to accountfor variation in implementation. Categories of
independent variables include (1) state reform efforts, (2) agency
type, (3) agency characteristics, (4) influence of the environment
of the agency, and (5) agency director's background and attitudes.
While the results indicate that agencies are selectively adopting
specific reinvention reforms-most notably, strategic planning
and some reforms addressing customer service-and that afew
states are more active than others, the principal conclusion is that
a concerted reinvention movement does not appear to be under-
way across state governments.
Reform waves flowing across the American
political landscape are not new. In the states
they have paralleled and sometimes preceded
national government reforms that began early in
this century and extended into recent decades
(Garnett, 1980; Conant, 1988, 1992). Shortly
after the federal Taft Commission proposed
management reforms in 1912, states set a pat-
tern of examining their structures for possible
reorganization. Garnett (1980) identified state
reorganization waves associated successively
with the Taft Commission, the Brownlow
Committee of the 1930s, and the first Hoover
Commission of 1947-49. Conant suggested a
fourth wave of reform in the 1960 to 1980 peri-
od that included more than 20 successful
comprehensive state reorganizations (1988,
894). We examine the nature of state reforms
in the current decade.
That state-level comprehensive reforms in the
1990s might center on "reinventing govern-
ment" should come as no surprise. In their
book, Reinventing Government, Osborne and
Gaebler (1992) raised issues that confront state
administrators and cited state leaders' experi-
ences in developing "entrepreneurial govern-
ment." From these examples they sought to
identify "common threads" to offer as guides
(19). After examining one state (Minnesota) in
depth, Barzelay (1992) described a "post-bureau-
cratic paradigm" that he argued marks this next
reform. The National Commission on State and
Local Public Service, chaired by former Missis-
sippi Governor William Winter, assembled a set
of scholarly papers and held regional hearings to
explore steps to "revitalize state and local gover-
nance" (Thompson, 1993, 1). The commission
ultimately issued recommendations overlapping
with reinvention. The American states appear
to be adopting some changes that are consistent
with reinvention recommendations. To explore
this development, we surveyed state agency
directors in late 1994 and early 1995 and exam-
ine here the scope, content, and implementation
of reinvention reforms across the 50 states near
the midpoint of the present decade.
Public Administration Review * January/February 1999, Vol. 59, No. 1 19

From the National Level to the States:
Characteristics of Reinvention Reforms
As candidates in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore
accepted the reinvention challenge at the national level:
We can no longer afford to pay more for-and get
less from-our government. The answer for every
problem cannot always be another problem or
more money. It is time to radically change the
way the government operates-to shift from top-
down bureaucracy to entrepreneurial government
that empowers citizens and communities to
change our country from the bottom up (Clinton
and Gore, 1992, 23-24).
The administration's National Performance Review
(NPR) represented a turning point in federal administra-
tive reform. Analysts have carefully reviewed the many
specific proposals that emerged from it, as well as the
more general reinvention proposals, and tried to place the
reforms in a systematic framework. These proposals
came from many sources. Osborne and Gaebler
described writing their book as a process in which they
"journeyed through the landscape of governmental
change" and "sought constantly to understand the under-
lying trends" (1992, 19). Their search produced ten
principles that they used to organize the book. These
principles have been variously described as a "constella-
tion of ideas" (Frederickson, 1996, 263), a "global move-
ment" present in the private sector and all government
levels and drawing on reforms in the U.S. and abroad
(Kamensky, 1996, 248-49), a "conflated aggregation"
(Fox, 1996, 258), a "grab bag" from which "everyone
who is interested gets to pick his or her own particular
purpose" (Nathan, 1995, 213); and "a collage of fashion-
able approaches to reforming organizations" (Arnold,
1995, 414).1
Critics of reinvention (and of the National Perfor-
mance Review, specifically) have targeted its deviation
from the long-established administrative management
tradition. In that tradition, founded in reform efforts
stretching back to the Brownlow Committee Report of
1937 and beyond, prime emphasis had been given to
strengthening the executive branch and, particularly, the
authority of the chief executive to exercise policy leader-
ship (R. Moe, 1994; Arnold, 1995). In reviewing the
National Performance Review, Moe (1994) contended
that reinvention's focus on results over process rests on a
considerable misunderstanding of the importance of the
rule of law in American public administration. Whereas
earlier reforms emphasized presidential management
responsibilities and the creation of institutions and tools
to strengthen the presidency, the National Performance
Review furthers the declining role that has characterized
the office of President in recent decades. In Ronald
Moe's view, "The Gore Report... constitutes a major
attack on the administrative management paradigm with
its reliance upon public law and the President as Chief
the mid-1990s, some states were actively
implementing reforms that could be labeled 'reinvention,"
particularly those components associated with
total quality management (TQM).
Manager" (1994, 117).
Congress does not fare well under the National Perfor-
mance Review either. Legislative micromanagement,
criticized by reinvention reformers, has been used to
political advantage by members of Congress; it is a means
for legislative control of administration. Implementing
reinvention's prescriptions (with their focus on results
and customer satisfaction over process controls) will
sharply limit opportunities for Congress to influence
administrative agencies-unless Congress drastically
alters how it exercises oversight and provides direction
(Rosenbloom, 1993).
Carroll (1995) and Kettl (1995) have identified several
important intellectual traditions that underlie rein-
vention. They include public choice theory (Olson,
1971; Ostrom, 1973), privatization (Savas, 1987), re-
engineering (Hammer and Champy, 1993), total quality
management (Carr and Littman, 1990; Cohen and
Brand, 1993), and new organizational economics (Barney
and Ouchi, 1986). This is a large debt, and the wide
diversity of contributions makes it difficult to determine
whether one specific reform in itself represents reinven-
tion.
By the mid-1990s, some states were actively imple-
menting reforms that could be labeled "reinvention," par-
ticularly those components associated with total quality
management (TQM). A survey in 1992 found that total
quality management programs were underway in 31
states (Kravchuk and Leighton, 1993). The Council of
State Governments identified 27 states that had created
steering committees or task forces to address total quality
management and 17 that had formed public-private part-
nerships to do so (Chi, 1994, 12-14). Berman (1994)
surveyed directors of state departments of health, educa-
tion, welfare, transportation, and corrections, and found
that 58 percent had implemented total quality manage-
ment in at least one service they provided.
In reinvention efforts extending beyond total quality
management, Florida's governor sought implementation
in part by "sunsetting" the state's old personnel manage-
ment system (Wechsler, 1994; Durning, 1995). Oregon
implemented an elaborate system of measuring program
outcomes (Walters, 1994). Texas adopted a system of
performance review that became a model for portions of
the National Performance Review (Kamensky, 1996).
States have privatized various activities, including health
and mental health services, using vouchers and contracts.
Governor Weld of Massachusetts made privatization a
20 Public Administration Review , January/February 1999, Vol. 59, No. 1

Going beyond the 'continuities, "the National
Performance Review and other reinvention efforts extend
to elements that are new, to issues not addressed
significantly by earlier governmental reforms.
central theme of his administration (Wallin, 1997).
Responding to a national poll conducted by the Council
of State Governments in 1993, nearly 80 percent of state
human and social service departments indicated that
their use of privatization had expanded in the previous
five years (Chi, 1993, 19).
The activities mentioned in these examples from the
states represent movement in the direction urged by rein-
vention advocates. Yet, the extent to which the many
reinvention recommendations have been adopted, and
the specific state agencies that have adopted them, remain
open questions. To what degree is reinvention the reform
wave of the 1990s in the American states? No analysis or
comparison of reinvention across the states has appeared
in the literature. We make such a comparison here by
examining reinvention at the level of individual state
agencies. In addition, we seek to explain variation in the
extent to which reinvention reforms have been imple-
mented.
Conceptualizing and
Measuring Reinvention
Measuring and explaining reinvention required that it
be conceptualized in a manner amenable to measurement
across the states and across individual agencies. Two pos-
sibilities existed. The first was simply to rely on in-
dividual state administrators, through survey methodol-
ogy, to indicate whether or not they had "reinvented their
agencies." While this option might have been faithful to
the eclectic spirit of reinvention reforms, it would have
required that we accept the possibility that reinvention in
one agency might be defined quite differently from rein-
vention in another. On the other hand, a careful review
of reinvention literature revealed commonalities among
recommended reforms. Several reforms appeared with
some frequency.
Kettl's (1995) sympathetic review of the foundation of
reinvention is particularly helpful with respect to mea-
surement. Noting that proponents of the National Per-
formance Review "cared far less about theory than about
quick results" (32), he nevertheless identified the princi-
pal ideas that underlie the reinvention movement. In
two respects, a tension has pervaded administrative re-
form throughout the 20th century, and with reinvention
both features of this tension continue. First, reinvention
reflects tension between Hamiltonians and Madisonians
in American politics-between those who value strong
executive authority and those who would restrain the
executive with strong legislative checks. Reinvention rep-
resents principally the Hamiltonian point of view (Kettl,
1995, 33-34), an assessment shared by Frederickson
(1996). The second long-standing tension is centraliza-
tion vs. decentralization. To what extent do upper-level
executives limit the flexibility of those at lower levels?
Reinvention, in supporting employee empowerment,
generally favors decentralization of decision making
(Kettl, 1995, 34-35; R Moe, 1994).
Going beyond the "continuities" (to use Kettl's word),
the National Performance Review and other reinvention
efforts extend to elements that are new, to issues not
addressed significantly by earlier governmental reforms.
These issues arise principally from the "new economics"
of organizations (T. Moe, 1984; Garvey, 1992; DiIulio,
Garvey, and Kettl, 1993, 24-28). In this view of organi-
zation, basic relationships are contract-like and call for
explicit agreements. When managers deal with sub-
ordinates, they are encouraged to do so in terms of pro-
duction goals. Competition (among employees and
among organizations) can be used to create performance
incentives that lead to improved service to customers-
who are the best judge of results (Kettl, 1995, 36-37).
Here, unlike previous reorganization efforts, the focus is
on "changing the internal culture of government agencies
by changing the incentives employees face in doing their
work, rather than investing the administration's political
capital in restructuring the missions and organization of
the government" (Kamensky, 1996, 248).
This perspective on reinvention, which was not care-
fully articulated by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) or in the
documents of the National Performance Review, gener-
ates a number of specific recommendations about cus-
tomer service and performance measurement. They are
given special emphasis in the National Performance
Review report (1993, 7), in which the Clinton adminis-
tration sets out its reform objective to "measure our suc-
cess by customer satisfaction." Reinvention has addition-
al goals. Based on Kettl's (1995) analysis, it is reasonable
to anticipate that under the reinvention rubric, reformers
will attempt both to improve customer service and to
relax the narrow controls that both chief executives and
legislatures hold over administrative agencies, thereby
shifting the locus of decision-making and empowering
employees. "If empowering employees is the 'how' of
NPR, customer service is the 'why"' (Kettl, 1995, 53).
To measure state agencies' adoption of reinvention
reforms, this study collected reports from senior state
administrators on actions their agencies have taken to
implement 11 specific proposals recommended by rein-
vention advocates. The study was undertaken as part of
the American State Administrators Project, a systematic
survey of over 1,200 state agency directors. The data set
encompasses heads of agencies across all 50 states. A
total of 93 different agencies are represented, spanning
the gamut from Education to Child Labor to State Lot-
Reinventing Government in the American States 21

tery to Transportation. Not all agencies appear in every
state. The agencies can be grouped in a number of
meaningful ways, including natural resources and trans-
portation (26.0 percent of all agencies in the data set),
human services (22.3 percent), regulatory (12.2 percent),
fiscal and nonfiscal staff (12.1 percent), economic devel-
opment (8.2 percent), criminal justice (8.0 percent), and
other agencies (11.3 percent). A complete discussion of
the survey methodology, response rate, and the reinven-
tion items can be found in the Methodology Box. The
major goals of this inquiry are to describe the extent of
adoption of reinvention reforms in the states and to
account for differences across state agencies in implemen-
tation.
The Scope of Reinvention
Recognizing the variety of proposals that advocates of
reinvention have forwarded, the questionnaire of the
American State Administrators Project approached
measurement by asking administrators whether their
agencies had implemented specific changes. We included
in the survey a set of 11 items based on major reinven-
tion literature (e.g., Barzelay, 1992; Osborne and Gae-
bler, 1992). Each item was designed to capture a princi-
pal reinvention theme and, together, to represent the new
paradigm.
Table 1 displays these 11 items and shows the extent
to which reinvention has been implemented across the
states. If the criterion is "full implementation," reinven-
tion has not made much headway in the states, according
to the state agency directors. The first column of Table 1
indicates that none of these reforms has been "fully
implemented" in as many as two-fifths of state agencies,
and only one (strategic planning) in substantially more
than one-fifth.
Four of the reforms directly address improvement of
customer service (recommendations for training pro-
The data used in this analysis are drawn from the American State Administrators Project, a mailed survey of
heads of state agencies completed by 1,229 respondents in late 1994 and early 1995. Survey questionnaires were
distributed to heads or directors of 93 types of agencies in the 50 states. Because some agencies are not represented
in all states, the total population of agency heads surveyed was 3,365. The response rate was 37 percent. To assess
possible response bias, telephone calls were made to a five-percent sample of nonrespondents (N = 110). Respon-
dents and non-respondents did not differ significantly (p < .10) on the five personal attributes examined (gender,
age, years in state government, years in agency, and years in current position). A smaller sample of nonrespondents
(N = 35) was asked by telephone four attitudinal questions regarding the respective influence of the governor and
the legislature over their agencies. Again, respondents and nonrespondents did not differ significantly (p < .10) on
any of the four items.
Since "reinvention" incorporates numerous specific proposals, the survey included a set of 11 items devised from
the major reinvention literature (e.g., Barzelay, 1992; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Each item was constructed to
tap a principal reinvention theme and, as a group, to represent this paradigm. Each administrator was asked to
report the actual level of change in his or her own agency on each reform proposal, responding to the following
question:
From time to time, state agencies undertake to change the way they do things. Please indicate the
extent to which your agency has implemented each of the following over the last four years:
no changes considered; considered, no action yet; action(s) planned;
partially implemented; fully implemented
* Training programs to improve client or customer service;
* Quality improvement programs to encourage team problem solving and to empower employees;
* Benchmarks for measuring program outcomes or results;
* Strategic planning that produces dear agency mission statements;
* Systems for measuring client or customer satisfaction;
* Simplification and relaxation of human resource (personnel) rules;
* Increasing manager's discretion to transfer funds or carry over year-end funds;
* Privatization of major programs;
* Reduction in the number of levels in the agency hierarchy;
* Decentralization of decision making to lower organizational levels;
* Greater discretion in procurement of goods and supplies.
The response to each reform was assigned a score ranging from 0 for "no change considered" to 4 for "fully
implemented." The dependent variable used in the analysis is an additive scale based on summing responses across
the 11 items. Across all agencies, the mean on the scale is 22.64, and the standard deviation is 7.31 (range: 0 to
44).
22 Public Administration Review * January/February 1999, Vol. 59, No. 1

Table 1
State Agency Implementation of Reinvention Recommendations
Reinvention Recommendation Fully Partially or Fully
Implemented Implemented
Percentage* Percentage**
Training programs to improve customer service 20.4 81.5
Strategic planning to produce clear mission statements 39.3 79.4
Quality improvement programs to empower employees 16.7 76.6
Benchmarks for measuring outcomes 14.3 62.0
Decentralization of decision making 12.4 54.7
Systems for measuring customer satisfaction 11.7 51.7
Reduction in hierarchical levels 16.6 38.8
Greater discretion in procurement 7.1 36.0
Simplification of human resource rules 5.0 28.9
Privatization of major programs 5.2 23.0
Greater discretion to carry over funds 5.4 21.3
*Percentage of agency heads who indicated that the recommendation is fully implemented.
**Percentage of agency heads who indicated that the recommendation is either partially
implemented or fully implemented.
grams to improve customer service, quality improvement
programs, benchmarks for measuring outcomes, and sys-
tems for measuring customer satisfaction). Just over 20
percent of the agencies report that training programs to
improve customer service have been fully implemented-
the highest level achieved by any of these four recom-
mendations. Only 11.7 percent report that they have
fully implemented systems for measuring customer satis-
faction.
Two of the eleven recommendations address structural
or organizational issues-reduction in the number of
hierarchical levels and decentralization of decision mak-
ing. These recommendations are central to reinvention
reform themes because they would move authority closer
to the levels of program implementation. Here, accep-
tance by state agencies is modest. The recommendation
to reduce hierarchical levels is fully implemented by only
16.6 percent of the responding agencies and the proposal
to decentralize decision making by only 12.4 percent.
Table 1 includes three recommendations to relax
administrative rules. Sometimes requiring state actions,
these reforms are least widely accepted. Only about 5
percent of agencies report that they have fully imple-
mented the recommendations that human resource rules
be simplified and that greater discretion be permitted in
carrying over year-end funds. Just over 7 percent have
fully implemented recommendations to expand discre-
tion in procuring goods and supplies. Somewhat surpris-
ingly, given the copious attention it has received, the
recommendation for privatization of major programs has
been fully implemented by only 5.2 percent of respond-
ing agencies (note, though, the restriction to "major pro-
grams").
The second column of Table 1 shows the percentage of
agencies that have "partially or fully implemented" each
of the reinvention reforms, and the results differ only
modestly. As might be expected, given the greater lati-
tude implicit in this criterion, much more reinvention ac-
tivity seems apparent. Yet, only six of the 11
recommendations have been partially or fully
implemented by a majority of agencies. The rec-
ommendation for "customer service training"
leads the way in implementation (81.5 percent),
followed closely by "strategic planning" (79.4
percent) and "quality improvement programs"
(76.6 percent). Despite the reinvention empha-
sis on customer service, implementing "systems
for measuring customer satisfaction" falls only
sixth in order of frequency (51.7 percent). As
was evident from examination of "full imple-
mentation," relatively few agencies (about 20 to
30 percent) report much progress in relaxing
controls over administrative procedures (human
resource rules, procurement rules, limitations on
carrying over funds), even though these recom-
mendations are central to reinvention proposals.
Clearly, implementation of the reinvention
reforms seems limited. Nevertheless, we were interested
in whether these reforms might be adopted as a group or
"package" by state agencies. To explore this possibility,
we examined the correlation coefficients among the 11
reinvention reforms shown in Table 1. Consistent with
this expectation, all items are positively intercorrelated
minimally at the .001 level of statistical significance; the
product moment correlation coefficients range from r =
.11 (between "privatization" and "training to improve
customer service" and between "privatization" and
"strategic planning") to r = .41 (between "decentralization
of decision making" and "reduction in hierarchical lev-
els"). Thus, there is some support for the existence of a
reinvention program: State administrators tend to imple-
ment (or not implement) the reinvention reforms as a
unit or package of reforms. Agencies that implement one
proposal are likely to implement others.
Comparing the States
In addition to reporting on their own agencies, the
directors were asked whether their states had undertaken
reinvention or similar reforms in the last four years.
Almost two-thirds of those responding reported that their
states had done so. Of these, three-quarters said that
their own administrative agency had been affected.
These figures are high, even granting the national atten-
tion reinvention has received. About half of all agency
heads (46.7 percent) said that their own agencies have
been affected by their state's reinvention efforts.
There are, however, dramatic differences across the
states. This finding should have been expected, given
that individual governors or other state leaders may have
chosen to promote reinvention (or not to do so). To
explore these cross-state differences, Table 2 presents state
reinvention scores based on the responses of administra-
tors to the question asking whether their states had
undertaken reinvention. "State reinvention" in the table

is the proportion of the administrators from each state
who indicated that in the last four years their state had
"undertaken changes or 'reforms' that go by such names
as (reinventing government,' 'redesigning government,' or
creating 'entrepreneurial government."'
The state reinvention scores range from a high of 1.00
in New Jersey (all administrators agree that the state is or
has been involved in reinvention) to a low of .14 in
Table 2
State Mean Reinvention and Reinvention Implementation
State State Reinvention
Reinvention* Implementation** N
New Jersey 1.0000 20.7333 15
Utah 0.9677 25.0345 29
Kansas 0.9474 20.1053 19
Massachusetts 0.9333 25.8000 15
Virginia 0.9333 24.0667 15
Oregon 0.9310 28.0357 28
Connecticut 0.9286 26.3077 13
Arizona 0.9048 25.7143 21
Nevada 0.9048 20.0000 20
Florida 0.9000 28.3158 19
Michigan 0.8966 22.2333 30
Delaware 0.8571 20.3636 22
Ohio 0.8519 23.4643 28
South Carolina 0.8421 26.1111 18
Iowa 0.8421 24.0556 18
Minnesota 0.8276 26.9310 29
Texas 0.8000 27.6000 15
Indiana 0.7826 23.3636 22
Oklahoma 0.7778 27.0000 27
New York 0.7778 25.6250 8
West Virginia 0.7576 23.0313 32
Hawaii 0.7391 20.4583 24
Wyoming 0.7273 23.1000 30
California 0.7273 20.2500 12
South Dakota 0.7143 23.1579 19
Missouri 0.7097 22.0968 31
Washington 0.7059 26.0588 17
Maine 0.7000 21.7778 18
Wisconsin 0.6857 23.5882 34
Kentucky 0.6800 21.5000 24
Colorado 0.6071 24.3226 31
Montana 0.5946 23.3947 38
Georgia 0.5714 22.2500 20
Maryland 0.5294 20.2188 32
Nebraska 0.5200 21.4800 25
North Dakota 0.5000 22.7037 27
Alaska 0.5000 19.7097 31
New Hampshire 0.5000 18.6957 23
Vermont 0.4762 19.8696 23
North Carolina 0.4444 20.1667 30
Illinois 0.4286 22.8750 16
Mississippi 0.4000 21.8500 30
Tennessee 0.4000 20.0000 20
Rhode Island 0.3913 18.2609 23
Arkansas 0.3750 21.1250 16
Pennsylvania 0.2800 21.1200 25
Louisiana 0.2727 23.4000 10
Idaho 0.2727 23.0476 21
New Mexico 0.2727 18.6000 20
Alabama 0.1429 17.8182 22
*The proportion of administrators in a state who report that their state has
undertaken reinvention or similar reforms in the last four years.
**Additive scale based on administrators' reports of implementation of eleven
reinvention reforms in their own agencies, averaged across agencies in each state.
Alabama (14 percent say that the state is or has been in-
volved). Several states that are noted for their reinvention
efforts are highly ranked: Florida, Minnesota, Oregon,
and Massachusetts. In Utah, ranked second, Governor
Michael Leavitt made Osborne and Gaebler's Reinventing
Government a significant feature of his administration,
distributing copies to state cabinet members and other
administrators. In Connecticut, ranked seventh, Gover-
nor Lowell Weicker took the lead to implement a num-
ber of administrative reforms that are central to reinven-
tion efforts-including total quality management and
outcomes measurement (Kravchuk, 1993).
Table 2 displays a second "reinvention implementa-
tion" measure for each state, constructed by creating an
additive scale based on the adoption of the 11 principal
reinvention items by agencies (see Table 1). The second
column of Table 2 is the average of this scale across all
agencies in the state. This state-level scale ranges from a
high of 28.3 (Florida) to a low of 17.8 (Alabama). The
two reinvention measures correlate at r = .55. Hence,
when agency heads perceive a reinvention movement in
their state, it is likely (although not guaranteed) that their
agencies will have considered or implemented such
reforms. Such "slippage" between state policy on the one
hand and implementation on the other is not uncommon
nor confined to reinvention (Palumbo and Calista,
1990).
Explaining Reinvention
Earlier efforts at comprehensive state management
reform often called for significant organizational restruc-
turing, e.g., combining agencies, creating cabinet struc-
tures, eliminating elected positions and governing boards,
and significantly changing reporting authority. By way of
contrast, many reinvention proposals can be accom-
plished through agency initiative alone; legislative action
is not required. Consequently, unlike those earlier
reforms that were frequently a product of a major reform
commission, study group, or similar enterprise, reinven-
tion may have resulted from a governor's initiative or may
simply have been undertaken by a motivated agency
director. This difference, as well as the presence of other
factors or variables, prompted us to search for an explana-
tion of the variation in reinvention across state agencies.
The American State Administrators Project (ASAP)
survey incorporated a variety of potentially important
variables to account for variation in the adoption of rein-
vention reforms across agencies. Toward this purpose, we
develop a general model consisting of five categories of
explanatory variables:
* State reform effort
* Agency type
* Agency characteristics
* Influences of the environment on the agency
* Agency director's background and attitudes
24 Public Administration Review * January/February 1999, Vol. 59, No. I

State Reform Effort
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it is possible that
states have been engaged in two government reform
efforts. The first is the principal focus of this article,
reinvention. In some states reinvention has been a cen-
tralized undertaking, a governor's program, much as the
National Performance Review became an initiative associ-
ated with President Clinton and Vice-President Gore at
the national level. To the extent that this is the case, we
expect that agencies in those states will be more likely to
implement reinvention reforms. This hypothesis is sup-
ported by findings that administrators identified the gov-
ernor's interest as one of the most important elements in
stimulating adoption of total quality management
reforms (Berman, 1994). The item in the American
State Administrators Project survey that assessed a state-
wide reinvention initiative is the first one presented in
Table 2, asking whether the administrator's state had
recently undertaken a reinvention effort.
The second reform is structural change or "reorganiza-
tion" of the sort endorsed by earlier reform movements.
As noted above, the states have a long history of pursuing
structural reforms (Garnett, 1980), and some have con-
tinued to do so in recent years (Conant, 1992). Whether
these structural reform efforts by individual states have
hindered or assisted reinvention reforms is difficult to
determine. Perhaps executives, legislators, and adminis-
trators grow weary of reform, and further changes of any
kind are difficult to achieve. Conversely, implementing
structural reforms may require the participants to reex-
amine agencies' roles and responsibilities and to innovate,
thereby "unfreezing" their organizational culture and
facilitating further change, such as that encompassed by
reinvention.2 To explore the effect of structural reform
on implementation of reinvention, the American State
Administrators Project survey inquired whether the state
had experienced a major reorganization (structural
reform) in the past ten years (1 = no; 2 = yes).
Type of Agency
We anticipate that different types of agencies will vary
in the degree to which they have implemented reinven-
tion proposals. Barzelay (1992) paid special attention to
Minnesota's principal staff agencies and their need to
reconceptualize their work as providing services rather
than enforcing rules. They hold responsibility for human
resources and financial control. Advocates of reinvention
demand that they relinquish that control to line man-
agers and, hence, target staff agencies for major reforms.
The central importance of such "red tape reduction" to
reinvention makes it probable that these agencies will be
particularly likely to adopt changes.
Two groups of agencies in many states are given con-
siderable institutional independence: agencies classified as
"elected officials,"' including state auditors, treasurers, sec-
retaries of state, and attorneys general; and "regulatory
agencies," some of which report to independent boards.
Historically, the separately elected officials have been iso-
lated from the governor, a fact decried by traditional
reformers who have argued for concentrating executive
authority in the governor's hands (Garnett, 1980). Inde-
pendence of the regulatory agencies is more recent in ori-
gin but may be nearly as complete, as far as the governor
is concerned. This independence from state leadership,
and potentially from the reinvention movement itself,
leads to the hypothesis that these two groups of agencies
will rank lower in the extent to which they have imple-
mented reinvention (coded 1 if the agency is elected or
regulatory and 0 otherwise).
Agency Characteristics
Agencies may be swayed toward or away from rein-
vention by internal characteristics or external relation-
ships. One of the former is size. Plausibly, size could act
as a barrier by making implementation a more difficult
task. On the other hand, if states are to maximize the
effect of reinvention reforms, a number of moderately
large to larger agencies must be brought on board.
Epstein contended, moreover, that reinvention should be
seen as an investment strategy, requiring resources:
"Many basic requirements for sustaining a high-perform-
ing organization (such as investing in employees, modern
technology, and capital improvement) are much easier to
meet when the organization has access to resources for
investment" (1993, 358). We anticipate, then, that size
(measured here by number of employees) will be positive-
ly related to implementation of reinvention reforms.
A second hypothesis is that state agencies confronting
a dynamic environment are more likely to implement
reinvention. Agencies facing dramatic changes in bud-
gets, policies, resources, clientele, and other arenas may
be especially receptive to reinvention recommendations
that purport to ease the managerial challenges thus creat-
ed. To test this possibility, agency heads were asked to
evaluate the scope of changes that had taken place in
their agencies' priorities in the previous four years (1 =
none; 2 = minor shifts; 3 = moderate shifts; 4 = major
shifts).
A third agency characteristic that may affect response
to reinvention is the agency's direct link to the governor
through the appointment process of its head. Governors
have long been deeply involved in organizational reform
(Conant, 1992). Some (at least) are leading reinvention
efforts. Gubernatorial appointment of the agency head
was scored as a dummy variable (1 = appointed by gover-
nor; 0 = appointed by other means).
Influences of the Environment on the Agency
Prior research has examined the influence of important
environmental actors over state agencies (Brudney and

Hebert, 1987). In their study, based on data from the
1978 American State Administrators Project, Brudney
and Hebert found that "the legislature exerts a consis-
tently high level of influence, rivaled only by the gover-
nor, whose influence is much more variable.... Clientele
groups and professional associations manifest successively
less influence over state administration" (1987, 203-205).
Here the expectation is that the influence of these four
types of environmental actors-governor, legislature,
clientele groups, and professional associations-will have
specific effects on agencies' willingness to undertake rein-
vention.
As noted above, reinvention has been promoted by
some governors. Yet, reinvention reforms may not offer
an unqualified advantage to the governor. In general,
reinvention would shift influence toward the executive
branch but still require decentralization to line agencies.
The net effect might not be to strengthen the governor's
position. Durning maintained that governors will gen-
erally prefer traditional reforms to reinvention, because
the latter would reduce governors' control over adminis-
trators and, potentially, their ability to raise resources for
future campaigns (1995, 51). By contrast, Frederickson
argued, "[I]t is clear that the reinventing government
movement is generally popular with elected executives
(mayors, governors, presidents). It is a reform ideally
suited to executive electoral politics" (1996, 266, italics in
original). Similarly, Peri Arnold suggested that reinven-
tion "is disconnected from the problem of executive man-
agement and has become an instrument of presidential
public politics" (1995, 416). It is more a response of
executives to deal with the public's anger toward gov-
ernment than a management tool.
There is wider agreement that reinvention is intended
to reduce legislative influence over administrative agen-
cies (Rosenbloom, 1993; R. Moe, 1994; Kettl, 1995).
Legislatures, including Congress at the national level,
have not been deeply involved in the reinvention process.
A key issue is stated well by Kettl:
Congress, by practice and the Constitution,
attacks problems by passing laws. The NPR seeks
to solve problems by improving performance.
Congress as an institution works on the input side.
The NPR focuses on the output side. Congress
has little incentive to worry about results and uses
the separation of powers to absolve itself from
complicity in the executive branch's performance
problems (1995, 69).
Although Kettl refers to Congress and the National Per-
formance Review, his concerns apply with equal force to
state legislatures. At issue in both instances is whether it
is appropriate for the legislature to participate as co-man-
ager of administrative agencies (Gilmour and Halley,
1994), and just how this can be achieved in practice.
Interest groups and professional associations (repre-
senting agency employees and, in an important sense,
highly specialized and significant interest groups as far as
Reinvention has been promoted by some
governors. Yet, reinvention reforms may not of er
an unqualified advantage to the governor.
these state agencies are concerned) also constitute critical
actors in the agency environment. Each might influence
the agency's reaction to reinvention proposals. Reinven-
tion is designed to alter relationships between agencies
and the public-and, therefore quite possibly, between
agencies and interest groups. Arnold (1995) suggested
that reinvention reformers attempt to overcome pluralist
politics and replace it with productive government, a gov-
ernment that would be subject to market tests (415).
But, "For good or ill, interest group politics affects gov-
ernment's policy making and implementation because
American government is both constitutional and open.
From Red Tape to Results [the National Performance
Review report] fails to recognize the nature of the govern-
ment that it intends to redesign" (Arnold, 1995, 415).
What, then, can be said about the likely influence of
environmental actors on agencies' adoption of reinven-
tion proposals? That some governors support reinvention
suggests that gubernatorial influence will encourage
adoption, but the advantage to governors is not unquali-
fied. With reinvention, legislatures clearly stand to lose a
degree of control and influence. Where legislatures exer-
cise strong influence over agencies, we hypothesize that
those agencies will be less likely to implement reinven-
tion. Similarly, interest groups (and professional associa-
tions) may not gain from reinvention. A contrary possi-
bility, though, is that strong interest groups in the
agency's environment would encourage reinvention
implementation. This may reflect groups' support for
the changed organizational culture reinvention seeks to
effect. The influence score for each actor (governor, leg-
islature, interest groups, professional associations) is
based on administrators' assessments of influence across
four important domains: agency budget level, budgets for
specific programs, major policy changes, and agency
rules/regulations (scale: 0 = low to 12 = high).
Agency Director's Background and Attitudes
Respondents to the American State Administrators
Project survey are administrative heads of state agencies, a
position that would allow them to exercise considerable
influence over adopting reinvention reforms, if they
endorse them. While the survey lacks any direct measure
of their support for reinvention, it did include an item
that asked the agency heads to indicate, on a scale from
low (1) to high (7) the level of importance they attached
to several goals. Following the rhetoric of reinvention,
we expect that the extent to which the administrator val-
ues the goals of customer service and organizational lead-

ership would be associated with implementation of rein-
vention reforms.
The ability to exercise influence over the organization
is critical to the adoption of reinvention reforms.
Osborne and Gaebler (1992) expected administrators to
function as "entrepreneurs" in accepting and strengthen-
ing responsibility for improved programs and services. In
his survey of selected state agencies, Berman (1994) iden-
tified "initiatives from agency directors" as the most fre-
quently indicated reason for implementing total quality
management. To assess administrators' conceptions of
influence over their agencies, the American State Admin-
istrators Project survey asked respondents about the
amount of influence they exerted on major agency policy
decisions (1 = low; 4 = high). High influence should be
associated with greater implementation of reinvention.
Finally, the prior experiences and political views of
state administrators may also influence the extent to
which they support reinvention reforms. Because some
reinvention reforms are drawn from the private sector
and, in general, focus on contract relationships, we antic-
ipate that extensive private-sector experience and conser-
vative political orientation will lead to support for these
reforms. To examine these hypotheses, we asked admin-
istrators whether they had ever held a position in the pri-
vate (for profit) sector, and if so, for how many years, and
the degree to which they considered themselves more
conservative (1) or liberal (7).
Findings: Accounting for Reinvention
To explain the implementation of reinvention across
state agencies, we employ the reinvention implementa-
tion score introduced in the second column of Table 2.
The dependent variable here is the agency-level reinven-
tion score, an additive scale formed by summing the
scores on the adoption of the 11 principal reinvention re-
forms for each agency. Table 3 presents the results of the
regression analysis of this scale on the independent vari-
ables discussed above. The model can account for 18
percent of the variation in reinvention across state agen-
cies (R2). Although this figure may seem modest, the
model does satisfy many of the relationships hypothesized
to hold between the explanatory variables and the imple-
mentation of reinvention at the agency level.
For example, as we had anticipated-and as was sug-
gested by the correlation between the two state-level
implementation scores in Table 2 (r = .55)-state efforts
to engage in "reinventing government" appear to stimu-
late agencies to adopt specific reforms. Although many
of these reforms had received extensive national publicity
and had been promoted through training events and pro-
fessional associations, the results of the regression analysis
indicate that a concerted statewide effort is an important
factor in stimulating adoption of reinvention reforms at
the agency level.
State efforts to accomplish structural reform or reorga-
nization over the previous ten years also appear to facili-
tate implementation of reinvention reforms. This find-
ing is noteworthy, since some features of reinvention run
counter to earlier reform efforts that tended to focus on
strengthening the governorship and hierarchical control
by that office. It supports the notion that having under-
taken relatively recent reforms, even those of a more tra-
ditional sort, may have "unfrozen" state bureaucracy,
helping to facilitate reinvention.
Agency type also has relationships to reinvention
implementation in the predicted directions. As hypothe-
sized, the regression coefficient for staff agencies demon-
strates a positive and significant association with reinven-
tion. Staff agencies (for example, finance and human
resources) appear especially likely to have implemented
recommendations for reinvention. By contrast, the regu-
latory/elected agencies appear less likely to have done so.
The level of statistical significance for this variable (p <
.13) falls just above the conventional level for rejection of
the null hypothesis of no relationship. Nevertheless, the
negative coefficient (b = -1.06) suggests that elected and
regulatory agencies are less inclined to adopt reinvention
reforms because they don't have particularly strong rea-
sons to follow chief executive leadership, and possibly be-
cause their client relations are sharply different from
those of most other types of agencies.
All three of the agency characteristics included in the
model yielded anticipated results. Larger agencies, which
may have more adequate resources and may be more cru-
cial to mounting meaningful change in state bureaucracy,
Table 3
Multiple Regression Analysis of
Reinvention Implementation across State Agencies
Independent Variable b
State reform effort
State reinvention 2.81
State structural reform 1.32**
Agency type
Staff 2.17**
Regulatory/elected -1.06
Agency characteristics
Size .0003***
Governor's appointment of agency head 1.52**
Priority change 1. 15***
Influence of the environment on the agency
Governor's influence -.12
Legislature's influence .07
Interest group influence .28**
Professional association influence .02
Agency director background/attitudes
Organizational leadership goal .70*
Customer service goal .71*
Years in private sector -.005
Conservatism-liberalism -.39*
Agency director's influence 1.06**
R/R2 .43/.18
Sig. .00001
N 853
*Statistically significant at p = .05
**Statistically significant at p = .01
***Statisticaly significant at p = .001

are more likely to have implemented reinvention reforms.
Agencies with directors appointed by the governor may
receive particular encouragement and support for under-
taking these reforms, and the regression results show that
they are more likely to have implemented them. The
regression analysis also indicates that agencies experi-
encing dramatic shifts in priorities have been more recep-
tive to reinvention recommendations.
Of the variables measuring the influence of key politi-
cal actors on the agency (governor, legislature, clientele
groups, and professional associations), only one is signifi-
cantly related to reinvention: the influence of interest
groups. This finding suggests that strong interest group
support can encourage reinvention reforms. Perhaps the
reforms work to soften procedural rules and expand room
for interest group influence in agency processes.
Finally, the regression analysis demonstrates that sever-
al features of the administrator's background and atti-
tudes are related to implementation of reinvention
reforms in the agency. Taken together, they suggest that
agency heads are in positions to influence the degree to
which their organizations will adopt these reforms. Table
3 shows a positive association between administrators
who place a high value on organizational leadership and
agencies' implementation of reinvention. The same
holds true for valuing customer service-the relationship
is positive and significant, as anticipated. Although the
direction of influence cannot be determined in these
cross-sectional data, commitments to these goals are
strongly associated with acceptance of reinvention
reforms. Somewhat surprisingly, private-sector experi-
ence is not related to adoption of reinvention. However,
agencies headed by administrators who classified them-
selves as more conservative than liberal are more likely to
implement the reforms. The role of administrators in
affecting the reinvention process is confirmed by the item
tapping the degree of influence expressed by the adminis-
trator over major policy decisions. This variable is posi-
tively related to the implementation of reinvention.
Conclusion
This research has conceptualized and measured "rein-
venting government" at the agency level, drawn compar-
isons across the states, and developed and tested a model
to explain variation in the implementation of reinvention
across agencies in the 50 states. The database for the
study consists of a national sample of more than 1,200
state agency directors. Rather than asking this group
simply whether reinvention had been undertaken in their
agencies, the concept was operationalized based on their
responses to a set of 11 specific reforms proposed by re-
invention advocates. The directors assessed the degree to
which each reform had been implemented in their agen-
cies. The sum of those scores for an agency represents
the extent to which reinvention had been achieved and
constitutes the primary focus for the empirical inquiry.
The model framed an explanation of the implementa-
tion of reinvention based on several independent vari-
ables. The empirical results of regression analysis sub-
stantiated most of the hypothesized relationships. The
variables significantly related to reinvention implementa-
tion are noteworthy. They include the general
reform/reorganization mood of the state, the specific type
of agency, several agency characteristics, and interest
group influence on the agency. Particularly intriguing
among the explanatory factors are the attributes or atti-
tudes of the individuals heading the agencies. These vari-
ables highlight the consequential roles of top administra-
tors in state government and suggest that leadership and
management do make a difference.
Administrators' reports of the extent of adoption of
the 11 reinvention items are intercorrelated, thus suggest-
ing that when agency leaders are drawn to reinvention,
they attempt to implement several of the reforms rather
than just one. This finding might have been anticipated,
given that advocates conceive of these reforms as a pack-
age or group, an "extended family of ideas," to use Barze-
lay's apt phrase (1992, 116). Governors in several states
have placed a set of reinvention reforms on their political
agendas (Ferguson, 1996), and this study found that in
some states a substantial proportion of administrators
consider reinvention a statewide initiative.
While some evidence supports the existence of a pro-
gram of reforms that can be characterized as "reinven-
tion" at the agency level, it was critical to determine
whether a concerted reinvention movement is underway
across the states. Is reinvention a fifth wave of state
government reform? Such a movement does not appear
operative for several reasons. First, the analysis showed
that among agencies and across the 50 states, the level of
implementation varies substantially, even though some
states have actively pursued reinvention reforms. Less
than 40 percent of state agencies have fully implemented
the most widespread reform (strategic planning). Most
of the reform proposals have been fully implemented by
only 10 to 20 percent of state agencies, although the
extent of partial implementation is higher. Second, rela-
tively few agencies have gone far to relax controls over ad-
ministrative procedures, even though doing so is central
to reinvention reform. Third, the measure of implemen-
tation aggregated to the state level takes on relatively
small values, ranging from a low of approximately 17.8 to
a high of 28.3, on a scale where 44 would indicate com-
plete adoption of a reinvention program. Finally, while
many of the variables included in the explanatory model
appear to have the effects anticipated, they do not pro-
vide a very complete (statistical) explanation of reinven-
tion. Variance not accounted for here is likely due to
highly specific circumstances of state administration. If
the adoption of reinvention hinges on such idiosyncratic
factors, it falls far short of a "movement" sweeping the
states.
Reinventing government has received wide publicity
28 Public Administration Review * January/February 1999, Vol. 59, No. I

and prestigious political endorsements, but it appears to
be more of a ripple than a reform wave at the state level.
After careful analysis of the patterns of past reform waves
in the states, Richard Chackerian (1996) concludes that
large-scale state executive branch reorganizations have
tended to be associated with long-term economic
declines. He concludes that because the United States
may be enjoying the early phase of a long-term economic
expansion, "the emphasis on reinvention may well be
near its end" (44).
Perhaps Chackerian is correct that large-scale state
government reform is unlikely at this particular juncture
in the United States. Alternatively, it may be premature
to pass firm or final judgment on reinvention's success in
the states. There is a clear possibility, though, that the
reforms urged under the "reinvention" banner will not be
widely and quickly adopted across the states.3
Jeffrey L. Brudney is professor of Political Science and
director of the Doctor of Public Administration (DPA)
program at the University of Georgia.
F. Ted Hetoert is professor of Political Science at the
University of Utah.
Deil S. Wright is alumni distinguished professor of
Political Science and Public Administration at the Uni-
versity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Acknowledgement
We wish to acknowledge the assistance and support of this
research provided by the Earhart Foundation of Ann Arbor,
Michigan, and the Institute for Research in Social Science at
the University of North Carolina, as well as helpful comments
on an earlier draft of this article provided by James Anderson,
Lois Wise, and Dale Krane. An earlier version of this article
was presented at the 1997 meeting of the American Political
Science Association.
Notes
1. In the course of their book, Osborne and Gaebler (1992)
list reform steps in the following categories: public/private
partnerships (including various forms of privatization);
empowering citizens and clients; minimizing rules and
being guided by missions; measuring outcomes; redefining
clients as customers; preventing needs from arising/antici-
pating problems; don't just spend-earn/entrepreneurial
government; decentralizing authority; employing competi-
tion/market oriented government; catalyzing all sectors-
public, private, voluntary.
2. The importance of unfreezing in order to achieve organiza-
tion change was first noted by Lewin (1951). See also
Brown (1995).
3. It is important to monitor any further state adoption of
reinvention reforms. The 1998 American State Administra-
tion Project survey is collecting data on the scope and depth
of reinvention efforts near the end of the decade.
References
Arnold, Peri E. (1995). "Reform's Changing Role." Public
Administration Review 55(1): 407-417.
Barney, Jay B. and William G. Ouchi, eds. (1986). Organiza-
tional Economics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barzelay, Michael (1992). Breaking through Bureaucracy: A
New Vision for Managing in Government. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Berman, Evan (1994). "Implementing TQM in State Govern-
ments: A Survey of Recent Progress." State and Local Gov-
ernment Review 26(1): 46-53.
Brown, Andrew (1995). Organization Culture. London: Pit-
man Publishers.
Brudney, Jeffrey L. and F. Ted Hebert (1987). "State Agencies
and their Environments: Examining the Influence of
Important External Actors." The Journal of Politics 49(1):
186-206.
Carr, David K. and Ian D. Littman (1990). Excellence in Gov-
ernment: Total Quality Management in the 1990s. Arling-
ton, VA: Coopers and Lybrand.
Carroll, James D. (1995). "The Rhetoric of Reform and Polit-
ical Reality in the National Performance Review." Public
Chackerian, Richard (1996). "Reorganization of State Gov-
ernments: 1900-1985." Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theoy 6(1): 25-47.
Chi, Keon S. (1993). "Privatization." State Trends &- Forecasts
(The Council of State Governments) 2(2).
(1994). "Total Quality Management." State
Trends & Forecasts (The Council of State Governments)
3(2).
Clinton, Bill and Al Gore (1992). Putting People First. New
York: Times Books.
Cohen, Steven and Ronald Brand (1993). Total Quality Man-
agement in Government: A Practical Guide for the Real
World San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conant, James K. (1988). "In the Shadow of Wilson and
Brownlow: Executive Branch Reorganization in the States,
1965-1987." PublicAdministration Review 48(5): 892-902.
(1992). "Executive Branch Reorganization in the
States, 1965-1991." Book of the States, 1992-93. Lexing-
ton, KY: Council of State Governments.
Dilulio, John J., Jr., Gerald Garvey, and Donald F. Kettl
(1993). Improving Government Performance: An Owner's
Manual. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Durning, Dan (1995). "Governors and Administrative
Reform in the 1990s." State and Local Government Review
27(1): 36-54.
Epstein, Paul D. (1993). "Reinventing Government Is Not
Enough: Invest in Government Productivity Growth."
Public Productivity and Management Review 16(4): 357-369.
Ferguson, Margaret Robertson (1996). "Gubernatorial Policy
Leadership in the Fifty States." Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association,
San Francisco, CA, 29 August-i September.
Fox, Charles J. (1996). "Reinventing Government as Post-
modern Symbolic Politics." Public Administration Review
56(3): 256-262.
Frederickson, H. George (1996). "Comparing the Reinventing
Government Movement with the New Public Administra-
tion." PublicAdministration Review 56(3): 263-270.
Garnett, James L. (1980). Reorganizing State Government: The
Executive Branch. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Garvey, Gerald (1992). Facing the Bureaucracy: Living and
Dying in a Public Agency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilmour, Robert S. and Alexis S. Halley, eds. (1994). The
Struggle for Control between Congress and the Executive.
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Hammer, Michael and James Champy (1993). Reengineering
the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New
York: Harper Business Books.
Kamensky, John M. (1996). "Role of the 'Reinventing Gov-
ernment' Movement in Federal Management Reform."
PublicAdministration Review 56(3): 247-255.
Kettl, Donald F. (1995). "Building Lasting Reform: Enduring
Questions, Missing Answers." In Donald F. Kettl and John
J. DiIulio, Jr., eds., Inside the Reinvention Machine: Apprais-
ing Governmental Reform. Washington: Brookings Institu-
tion.
Kravchuk, Robert S. (1993). "The 'New Connecticut': Lowell
Weicker and the Process of Administrative Reform." Public
Kravchuk, Robert S. and Robert Leighton (1993). "Imple-
menting Total Quality Management in the United States."
Public Productivity and Management Review 17(1): 71-82.
Lewin, Kurt (1951). "Frontiers in Group Dynamics." In Kurt
Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science, edited by Dorwin
Cartwright. New York: Harper and Row.
Moe, Ronald C. (1994). "The 'Reinventing Government'
Exercise: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the
Consequences." Public Administration Review 54(2): 111-
122.
Moe, Terry M. (1984). "The New Economics of Organiza-
tion." American Journal of Political Science 28 (4): 739-
777.
Nathan, Richard P. (1995). "Reinventing Government: What
Does It Mean?" Public Administration Review 55(2): 213-
215.
National Performance Review (1993). Report: CreatingA Gov-
ernment That Works Better and Costs Less. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Olson, Mancur (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public
Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Govern-
ment: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the
Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books.
Ostrom, Vincent (1973). The Intellectual Crisis in American
Public Administration. University, AL: University of Alaba-
ma Press.
Palumbo, Dennis J. and Donald J. Calista, eds. (1990). Imple-
mentation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box.
New York: Greenwood.
Rosenbloom, David H. (1993). "Have an Administrative Rx?
Don't Forget the Politics!" Public Administration Review
53(6): 503-507.
Savas, E. S. (1987). Privatization: The Key to Better Govern-
ment. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Thompson, Frank, ed. (1993). Revitalizing State and Local
Public Service. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wallin, Bruce A. (1997). "The Need for a Privatization Pro-
cess: Lessons from Development and Implementation."
Public Administration Review 57(1): 11-20.
Walters, Jonathan (1994). "The Benchmarking Craze." Gov-
erning 7(7): 33-37.
Wechsler, Barton (1994). "Reinventing Florida's Civil Service
System: The Failure of Reform." Review of Public Personnel
Administration 14(2): 64-76.

977476

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to 977476

Similar to 977476 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

977476