Albright College Unit 6 Civil Services and Governments Human Capital Summary Thought Paper – Unit 6 For each unit, students must submit a paper that summa

Albright College Unit 6 Civil Services and Governments Human Capital Summary Thought Paper – Unit 6

For each unit, students must submit a paper that summarizes and analyses the assigned readings. An exemplary paper will prove to the professor that the student has read all materials in their entirety and spent time comparing, contrasting, and thinking about these materials. These papers will be submitted on Moodle, in the assignment submission link within each unit. Format: 1.5 spacing, no space between paragraphs, page numbers, 11-point Calibri font, proper citations, no page minimums.

2 page summary analysis on the following readings from the following text :

Unit 6. People in government

Kettl, Chapter 9

Radin, B. A. (2000). The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 111-135.

Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.

Heinrich, C. J., & Marschke, G. (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 183-208.

Behn, R. D., & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(4), 470-489.

Kotter, J.P. (1990). What leaders really do Harvard Business Review, 79 (11), 85–97.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business review, 73(2), 59-67.

Rainey, H., & Thompson, J. (2006). Leadership and transformation of a major institution: Charles Rossotti and the Internal Revenue Service. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 596-604.

Lambright, W. H. (2001). Transforming government: Dan Goldin and the remaking of NASA. Washington, DC: The IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Case Study HKS 1477.0 (Oklahoma’s Milestones Reimbursement System: Paying for What You Get)

Kettl, D. F. (2017). The politics of the administrative process, Washington, DC: CQ Press. 7th Edition ISBN: 9781506357096 (previous editions will suffice; rental or online versions will save you substantial money)

Shafritz, J.M, & Hyde, A.C. (2017). Classics of public administration. Cengage. 8th Edition. ISBN-10: 1305639030, ISBN-13: 9781305639034 (previous editions will suffice; rental or online versions will save you substantial money)

I have attached a sample that was provided by professor below : Thought Paper – Unit 6
For each unit, students must submit a paper that summarizes and analyses the assigned readings. An
exemplary paper will prove to the professor that the student has read all materials in their entirety and
spent time comparing, contrasting, and thinking about these materials. These papers will be submitted on
Moodle, in the assignment submission link within each unit. Format: 1.5 spacing, no space between
paragraphs, page numbers, 11-point Calibri font, proper citations, no page minimums.
2 page summary analysis on the following readings from the following text :
Unit 6. People in government
Kettl, Chapter 9
Radin, B. A. (2000). The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal
management reform: square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 10(1), 111-135.
Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures.
Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.
Heinrich, C. J., & Marschke, G. (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance
management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 183-208.
Behn, R. D., & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting.
Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(4), 470-489.
Kotter, J.P. (1990). What leaders really do Harvard Business Review, 79 (11), 85–97.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business review,
73(2), 59-67.
Rainey, H., & Thompson, J. (2006). Leadership and transformation of a major institution: Charles
Rossotti and the Internal Revenue Service. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 596-604.
Lambright, W. H. (2001). Transforming government: Dan Goldin and the remaking of NASA.
Washington, DC: The IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Case Study HKS 1477.0 (Oklahoma’s Milestones Reimbursement System: Paying for What You Get)
Kettl, D. F. (2017). The politics of the administrative process, Washington, DC: CQ Press. 7th Edition
ISBN: 9781506357096 (previous editions will suffice; rental or online versions will save you substantial
money)
Shafritz, J.M, & Hyde, A.C. (2017). Classics of public administration. Cengage. 8th Edition. ISBN-10:
1305639030, ISBN-13: 9781305639034 (previous editions will suffice; rental or online versions will save
you substantial money)
I have attached a sample that was provided by professor below :
An Example of an Exemplary Thought Paper
POLS 5001
August 30, 2015
Thought Paper Number One
This week’s readings were largely built on the basis of the different types of accountability found in the
public sector. Kettl’s (2012) focus was, naturally, more broad. In chapter one, he speaks at length about the
foundations of accountability in government through events such as the handling of Hurricane Katrina by
the Bush administration, the handling of the BP oil spill by government as well as BP itself, and the New
Deal Era reforms government expansion. In chapter two, he defines public administration and the modern
“administrative state” and also gives the reader examples of how and why government has grown as much
as it has since World War II. In chapter three, he explains what government does and the mechanisms it
uses to carry out these missions. Romzek and Dubnick (1987) go in depth on the different kinds of
accountability and their appropriateness using the Challenger tragedy as an example. Finer (1941) rebuts a
colleague on the nature of administrative responsibility and explains his views on the topic. Rosenbloom
(1983) discusses different approaches to public administration as well as its organizational structure and
view of the individual. These ideas will be discussed at length in this essay.
Kettl’s book, The Politics of the Administrative Process, seeks to give the reader a fundamental view and
understanding of public administration. In chapter one, the reader sees the vital importance of
accountability and the abject consequences that can take place when administrators are not held
accountable. The reader is brought into a scene of absolute disaster in the wake of the BP oil spill in April
of 2010 and the technological and procedural failures that led to it. As a result, 4 million barrels of oil were
spilled into the Gulf of Mexico and eleven people lost their lives (2 Kettl 2012). Kettl takes the reader
through the attempts to stop the spilling of oil by BP, its subcontractors, and the government alike; he
ultimately concludes that “[t]he story of the BP spill is the essence of public administration…we, as a
people, identify the problems that we expect government will solve…” (4 Kettl 2012). This statement is
true, but as Kettl elaborates there is more to the public’s expectation. They also expect the public
administration to be, “…effective…efficient…and accountable…” (4 Kettl 2012). The quest for
government with these qualities leads us to the concept of bureaucratic responsibility which, according to
Kettl is made up of two parts: accountability, defined as “…obedience to the law…officials’
directions…efficiency and economy,” and ethical behavior, defined as “…adherence to moral standards…”
(7 Kettl 2012). For a proper understanding of these concepts, a greater examination of accountability is
necessary. Particularly, different approaches are needed due to the wide-range of tasks undertaken by
different agencies through different times in a rapidly changing culture. Those approaches are: legal
boundaries, political challenges, and evolving policy problems. Issues of legal boundary arise when
governmental power and the rights of the individual; particularly, in America, it is a fine-line between
granting the government enough power to do its job, but not so much that it could trample over the
individual which led to the creation of the politics-administration dichotomy in the Progressive Era (1112 Kettl 2012). Political challenges was the natural follow-up to legal boundaries because, unlike the
wishes of the Progressives and the aforementioned politics-administration dichotomy, public
administration is inherently political. This led to problems during the Great Depression and New Deal
eras; with expanding government it became harder to tie intent of a law into its execution which led to an
acceptance professional norms would guide administrators (13-14 Kettl 2012). Alas, even this would
become even more complex with evolving policy problems. Federal, state, and local policy became more
complex as it spread to partner among different branches and with the private sector. As more agencies
were created and intertwined with one another this led inevitably to more questions about who is
ultimately accountable (14-16 Kettl 2012). Kettl admits that there is no “…magic solution,” to these
problems, but the most accountable government hinges on the concepts of “…balance between external
and internal controls,” and ultimately “ethical behavior by administrators,” (17-18 Kettl 2012).
In chapter two, Kettl switches gears and explains to the reader exactly what public administration is. Kettl
gives the reader a plethora of examples including law enforcement, subways, and transit authorities (29-30
Kettl 2012). Essentially, it is anything that the public as a whole has decided is so important that we
should be doing it collectively, as a whole through government. Kettl continues by the government’s
growing size since World War II into an “administrative state” ideally a “…bigger bureaucracy for a
strong, vibrant democracy,” (31 Kettl 2012). The downside to such growth, red tape. Kettl defines the term
to mean, “…slicing through the paperwork to solve the real problems,” (33 Kettl 2012). This term is often
used by bureaucrat bashers to call for the shrinkage of government and elimination and sizing down of
government, but as Kettl points out the public continues to count on that bureaucracy for services it needs
and wants and often complains about what government does not do (33 Kettl 2012). Consistent with the
public’s often contradictory view of bureaucracy, they view it in contradictory ways as well. On one hand
it is “…red tape bound civil servants…” who are “inefficient, unresponsive, negative, bored, impolite, and
unhelpful…” while on the other they are viewed as “…all too-efficient officials who have amassed
tremendous power and who arbitrarily decide matters without due process,” (34 Kettl 2012). Obviously,
neither of these views are the truth and, furthermore, they aren’t consistent with one another, but,
regardless, these views within the public persist. Next, Kettl tries to better define what public
administration is. Since this is such an inexact science, this is not easy and has never been defined
particularly well by any of the great thinkers who have spoken about. Rather than take the question head
on, Kettl decides the best way to define public administration is to separate it from private administration.
(37 Kettl 2012). He starts by invalidating the argument that administration is administration no matter its
setting by citing the experiences of those who have moved from positions of upper management in the
private sector into the public and follows that up by saying that one, “…most crucially, public
organizations do the public’s business-they administer law,” and two there are, “…important differences
in character…fundamentally different processes…and work in a different environment,” (39 Kettl 2012).
There also exists the key distinction that public administration is working on a legal framework and as
such has characteristics such as “…career service…measures of performance…competing
standards…public scrutiny…persuasion…[and] oversight,” (40-41 Kettl 2012). Although these concepts
may exist within private organizations, they are fundamentallydifferent in terms in public administration.
The two also differ greatly on the topics of policy execution and policy formation. Though both types of
organizations execute policy, the scope of that policy and the consequences for failure couldn’t be more
different. If the board of a company decides to take a course of action policy has been formed. It will
implement the policy through its own hierarchal bureaucracy. If the policy fails, the company may lose
money; at worst, the company may go out of business In contrast, public policy is created by “elected
policymakers” who are held accountable to the people, meaning that much of the public has to agree
which is an incredibly difficult thing to do in its own right (42 Kettl 2012). On the execution side, public
administrators from all levels and agencies must coordinate as appropriate, and the consequences for
failure are immense. In the cases of the BP oil spill and Hurricane Katrina, people die. As Kettl states,
“[p]ublic policies, no matter how bold or innovative, are worthless if government cannot carry them out,”
(43 Kettl 2012). In closing, Kettl offers three concepts to frame the reader’s thinking of public
administration:
1. Public administration is timeless but is time bound
2. Public administration is universal but is also culture bound and varies with situations
3. Public administration is complex but is intelligible only by a simplified model or a step-by-step
combination of such models”
In chapter three, after getting the best definition possible of public administration in the second chapter,
Kettl moves forward to discuss what that administration does and the means by which is does it. Kettl first
discusses Americans “ambivalent” and revolutionary attitude toward government and, in recent decades,
flat-out mistrust (59 Kettl 2012). In fact, trust in government began to decline sharply during the Vietnam
and Watergate eras. It muddled along at about average until a spike right 9/11 to sharply decline again
through the Bush and Obama years (60 Kettl 2012). Not only do Americans not trust their government to
do the right thing, they also do not trust the government to spend money economically. In fact, “[a]
Gallup survey in 2009 found that Americans believed that half of all federal spending was wasted, up from
forty percent in 1979…” (61 Kettl 2012). Clearly Americans distrust their government, but what is to be
done about that? Kettl notes on page sixty-two, that running against big government has become a
campaign strategy, but when those same individuals are elected they find themselves unable to “cut”
government like that had imagined in their campaign slogans. In order to give the reader the proper
context to understand the growth of government in recent decades, Kettl offers up the following numbers
for combined spending of federal, state, and local governments, “…spent $1.6 billion in 1902, saw that
amount rise to $70.3 billion in 1950, and to $5 trillion in 2008,” (64 Kettl 2012). To understand these
numbers fully one must consider the expansion in services that government offers and how it relates to
federalism and the classic cake analogy. Kettl also gives the reader a summary of what each level of
government in the proverbial cake spends money on. Sixty-five percent of the federal government’s
budget is spent on entitlements; twenty-eight percent and twenty percent of state budgets are spent on aid
to local governments and public welfare, respectively; thirty-five percent of local government budgets are
spent on elementary and secondary education (65-69 Kettl 2012). While observing the budgetary data it is
clear that government has gotten bigger, but, according to Kettl, what most Americans don’t realize is
that, “…government has grown fastest at the state and local levels,” (70 Kettl 2012). Left out of this
discussion so far are the mechanisms governments use. These accomplished using direct and indirect tools.
Direct administration is easily recognizable, it includes what we see every day, such as, “…police and fire
protection to air traffic control and inspection of food safety…” (73 Kettl 2012). The indirect tools, which
comprise a majority of the government’s budget, are much more complex and include tools like
“grants…contracts…regulations…tax expenditures…[and] loan programs,” (73-76 Kettl 2012).
Herman Finer’s 1941 essay, Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government, outlines his view
on the nature of responsibility and accountability in government and is largely a rebuke of his colleague
(and possible adversary?) Professor Carl J. Friedrich’s views on the subject. Finer argues that
administrative responsibility is not only as important as efficiency in a democracy, but that it also “…a
contributor to efficiency in the long run,” (335 Finer 1941). Professor Friedrich believes that in the face of
structures that ensure accountability and responsibility of public administrators would negatively impact
efficiency and that the best way to ensure accountability and responsibility is through “…deference or
loyalty to professional standards,” (335 Finer 1941). Finer holds the contrary view of “…distinguishing
responsibility as an arrangement of correction and punishment even up to dismissal of politicians and
officials,” (335 Finer 1941) It is already clear in the larger scope of these readings, that Finer is in favor of
the formal, external accountability systems of political and professional origin; while Friedrich is in favor
of an internal form of accountability stemming from bureaucratic and professional origin. Finer goes on to
explain his view in more detail before critiquing Friedrich’s. He describes the state of the modern
government (circa 1941) and its “…repressive, controlling, remedial…” entangling and overlapping duties
in all sectors of society (335 Finer 1941). This great scope of government has led him to believe that public
administrators must not be allowed to “…decide their own course…” and that they must be “…
responsible to the elected officials of the public…” because of this great power that they wield (336 Finer
1941). He defines responsibility in two ways: one it “…may mean that that X is accountable for Y to Z,” or
it “…may mean an inward personal sense of moral obligation,” (336 Finer 1941). By his previous
statements, the reader can clearly discern that he is of the first school of thought while Friedrich is of the
second. Finer goes on to state three doctrines that democratic governments are built on to ensure
responsibility of those in government. These are: one, “…the mastership of the public,” two,
“…recognition that this mastership needs institutions…for its expression,” and three, “…the authority and
power to exercise an effect…” (337 Finer 1941). Finer moves forward to channel Montesquieu and
demonize “public-spirited zeal” and recognize the fact that “virtue itself hath need limits,” (338 Finer
1941). He expunges on this topic further by talking about the fear of public monopolies and potential
grievous acts that they can commit. He summarizes them in two ways, one, these government monopolies
take away the ability of the consumer to “…cast a more than daily vote most effectively for the producer
he prefers,” and two, “…making concessions ex gratia to “subjects,” (338 Finer 1941). All of these
arguments about the potential evils committed by unaccountable government, justify his belief in a strong
organizational accountability and further lead him to doubt the opinion of Friedrich. He goes forward to
criticize Friedrich’s article by summarizing it belittling to the people and putting administration outside of
their control. He goes on to say that though administrators may do what “looks like legislation” by
interpreting law, but that is essential that we keep them out of these grounds as they are not elected to
represent the public (343 Finer 1941).
In David Rosenbloom’s 1983 article, Public Administration Theory and the Separation of Powers, he
synthesizes the different approaches to public administration and relates how they all represent the
concept of the separation of powers. The Managerial Approach to public administration “grew largely out
of the civil service reform movements of the late 19th century,” and sought to make public administration
more “businesslike” as discussed at length by Woodrow Wilson during his time as a scholar (219
Rosenbloom 1983). Wilson set forth three core values for this approach: one, “what government can
properly and successfully do,” two, “how it can do these proper things” with efficiency, and three, “at the
least possible cost either of money or of energy,” (220 Rosenbloom 1983). The managerial approach
viewed Max Weber’s idealized bureaucracy focused on “functional specialization,” hierarchy, and
remaining politically neutral as the ideal organizational structure (220 Rosenbloom 1983). This approach,
fittingly with its bureaucratic view, views individuals as “impersonal” regardless of how or why the
individual is interacting with the administration (220 Rosenbloom 1983). The political approach to public
administration, is “ultimately a problem in political theory” according to Wallace Sayre (221 Rosenbloom
1983). This approach grew out of the New Deal and World War II eras because of raid government
expansion. It “stresses the values of representativeness, political responsiveness, and accountability,” (221
Rosenbloom 1983). This is largely explained by the era in which it grew. An era of ever expanding
government made people fearful of what would happen if that government were to be unchecked and not
ultimately accountable to the people; thus, it is largely put in a contrasting manner with the managerial
ap…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment