Institutional Values and the Governance Role of the Civil Service
DRAFT
Please do not cite without the authors’ permission
James R. Thompson and Lauren Bowman
Department of Public Administration
University of Illinois – Chicago
For presentation at the Public Value Consortium Biennial Workshop
University of Illinois – Chicago, Chicago, IL
June 2012
Institutional Values and the Governance Role of the Civil Service
While scholars opine about whether the civil service is simply an instrument for carrying
out policy or part of the bedrock of our system of governance, little research has been conducted
into how the role of the civil service is understood in practice. This paper employs a public
values framework to investigate how key stakeholders have perceived the role of the civil service
since its inception. Specifically, we analyze primary documents associated with key episodes in
the evolution of this important institution to identify whether these stakeholders have
conceptualized the role of the civil service in governance as predominantly instrumental or
constitutive.
The origins of the “crisis of legitimacy” (Morgan, 1998) that confronts the American
administrative state can be traced to the creation of the civil service in 1883 and the subsequent
rapid growth in the size of the federal bureaucracy (U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1958). Prior
to that time, the administrative function was clearly subordinate to the policy-making function
with government workers subject to appointment and removal by their elected overseers. The
creation of the civil service legitimized professional and technical proficiency as an alternative
source of authority. Reconciling the exercise of this authority with democratic precepts has
remained an issue since. Mosher (1982, p. 70) poses the question; “How can a public service
which is neutral in political matters and which is protected be responsive to a public which
expresses its wishes through the machinery of elections, political parties and interest groups?”
Of the different formulations that have been put forward in response to this dilemma, the most
widely-accepted is that premised on a “politics-administration dichotomy.” Pursuant to the
dichotomy, careerists in the bureaucracy are presumed to serve in an exclusively instrumental
role such that administrative discretion is exercised strictly pursuant to the direction of elected
1
overseers.
The purported dichotomy served as a major point of contention in the early years of the
public administration discipline. The work of Frank J. Goodnow (1900, p. 22) is often cited as a
source of the idea that the administrative and policy-making functions operate independently;
There are, then, in all governmental systems two primary or ultimate functions of
government, viz, the expression of the will of the state and the execution of that will.
There are also in all states separate organs, each of which is mainly busied with the
discharge of one of these functions. These functions are, respectively, Politics and
Administration.
In his famous “debate” with Herman Finer, Friedrich (1968, p. 415) took sharp issue with
Goodnow commenting, “Public policy, to put it flatly, is a continuous process, the formation of
which is inseparable from its execution. Public policy is being formed as it is being executed,
and it is likewise being executed as it is being formed.” This observation served as a basis for the
notion of “administrative responsibility” pursuant to which Friedrich argues that the exercise of
professional discretion on the part of administrators be recognized and legitimized.
Although long since debunked on empirical grounds the dichotomy remains well rooted
in the discipline. The focus of debate has shifted, however, from whether the dichotomy exists
to whether an alternative formulation for legitimizing the exercise of authority by the
bureaucracy can be devised. One such formulation is the famous “Blacksburg Manifesto”
(Wamsley et al. 1990) issued by a group of academics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. In
stating that, “there is no dichotomy” (p. 42) they recognize a need to establish an alternative
basis of legitimacy for the bureaucracy. John Rohr (1990), a member of the group, finds the
source of that legitimacy in the intentions of the reformers. He argues that although not given
2
formal recognition in Constitution, “The Public Administration” is nevertheless consistent with
the ideas of the framers and in fact corrects “defects” in the document for example, relating to
citizen representation in government. The Blacksburg group proposes, “The Agency
Perspective” as an approach to recognizing that the bureaucracy, “is part of the governance
process, that it is administration in a political context and competence directed toward the public
interest.” (Wamsley et al., p. 39).
The “Constitutive” Role of the Bureaucracy
Cook (1996), like the Blacksburg group, observes that the bureaucracy plays an important
“constitutive” role in our system of governance but that that this role has never been accorded
legitimacy. Cook (14) explains that, “Political institutions are constitutive in the sense that they
are among the fundamental elements, or constituent parts of the whole system of government and
politics created by a constitution—what is commonly called a regime.” Cook contends that,
“public administrators and their organizations not only help to serve the goals, wants, and needs
of the people; they also help to determine those goals, wants, and needs, in complex and
sometimes worrisome ways” (3).
Cook (1996, 20) proposes that the bureaucracy be granted legitimacy in part on the basis
that it promotes key regime values such as, “stability and continuity in public policy, a reliance at
least in part on special knowledge and expertise in public decision making, and perhaps most
important, the need to balance reasoning about means and ends, that is, practical reason.” The
Blacksburg group makes a similar argument in contending the bureaucracy plays a key role in
promoting the “public interest.”
Although the term “politics-administration dichotomy” is associated with the Progressive
Era of 1900-1926, Cook (1996) contends that the conceptualization of the administrative role as
3
predominantly instrumental in nature can be traced to the founding. He states that a majority of
delegates at the Constitutional Convention, “embraced the instrumental conception and argued
that administrators ought to be evaluated on how well they served the ends of the Constitution, as
those ends might be further shaped and refined exclusively by the people and their elected
representatives” (43). According to Cook (94), “the Progressive Era served largely to reinforce
the prevailing conception of administration as purely instrumental and subordinate to the popular
will.”
Although the perception of the role of the bureaucracy as instrumental has been
dominant, Cook contends a minority view anchored in Hamilton’s vision of a more robust
governance role for the administrative function has persisted. For example, Cook (1996) notes
that whether or not the bureaucracy should play a constitutive role in governance was the
underlying issue in the debate during the Constitutional Convention over whether department
heads should be subject to removal by the president. Although the view in favor of that
proposition prevailed, according to Cook the minority’s vision would have provided, “an
independent constitutional foundation for administration that might more securely legitimate the
constitutive qualities envisioned by Hamilton” (43).
Gawthrop (1998) also investigates attitudes toward the administrative element during the
early years of the republic, contending that the entire exercise of constitution-writing and statebuilding, including the development of administrative capacity, was oriented toward
“democratic” values. He states that the prevailing sentiment at the time was that, “What was
ratified by the people of each state was more than a set of procedures for the establishment of a
new government….a new way of life was ratified…in which each citizen agreed to a life of
service in the name of democracy” (2). Richardson (1997, 26) references the Federalist Papers
4
in similarly concluding that the founders envisioned a substantive role for administrators in the
governance process. He states that, “Hamilton asserted that a strong and competent public
administration would command public support and ‘promote private and public morality by
providing them with effective protection’” (27).
Bureaucracy and the Evolution of the Administrative State
The focus of this study is the ongoing debate over the appropriate role of the bureaucracy
in our system of government. Of particular interest is whether and how attitudes in this regard
have evolved over time. Cook (1996) contends that the conceptualization of the role of the
bureaucracy as instrumental has been dominant through each successive era; the founding, the
era of spoils, the creation of a civil service, the New Deal and the “post-New Deal era.” Such a
conceptualization was embedded even in the Pendleton Act, the movement in support of which
was substantially moral in content. For example, he quotes Herbert Kaufman’s (1965, 39)
observation that,
The assumption imbedded in the [Pendleton] Act—indeed, in the philosophy of civil service reform—is that the civil service is a 'neutral instrument; without policy preferences
of its own (taken as a body) and without any inclination to attempt to impose any policy
on the country. For civil service reformers, the civil service was like a hammer or a saw;
it would do nothing at all by itself, but it would serve any purpose, wise or unwise, good
or bad, to which any user put it.
Cook contends that in the New Deal era, “The conception of public administration in the
Brownlow Report was…decisively instrumental” (111), adding that, “Public administration
moved to a central place in the regime, but it became, more fundamentally than ever before, an
instrument in service to an externally defined purpose” (112). In contrast, Gawthrop (1998, 7)
5
concludes that, “the sharply drawn demarcation lines that had separated the bureaucratic
apparatus of government from the policymaking levels were erased virtually overnight during the
New Deal,” and that, “Roosevelt revived and emphatically stressed the first value dimension of
public service that was created in the initial decades of the new Republic-a democracy
committed to the common good.”
A Public Values Perspective.
That attitudes regarding the appropriate role of the bureaucracy in our system of
governance are expressed in terms of values and that the distinction between substantive and
instrumental values parallels the distinction in governance roles as either “constitutive” or
instrumental allows empirical investigation of these various propositions.
Substantive values are analogous to what Jorgensen & Bozeman (2007) call “prime
values.” “A prime value”, they contend, “represent[s] an end state of preference. The central
feature of a prime value is that it is a thing valued for itself, fully contained, whereas an
instrumental value is valued for its ability to achieve other values (which may or may not
themselves be prime values)” (373). Jorgensen and Bozeman observe that some values such as
“accountability” can be categorized as instrumental in nature because, “a person can be
responsible to all sorts of people” (364). However, not all values are so easily categorized such
that rather than a sharp dichotomy, Jorgensen and Bozeman suggest, “a highly differentiated
hierarchy of values, with gradations of preference for each” (373).
For the purpose of this analysis, we engage in an exercise that Jorgensen and Bozeman
resist which is to categorize each on their master list of “public values” as either substantive or
instrumental. Our premise is that to the extent that a stakeholder group articulates the role of the
bureaucracy in substantive terms, they implicitly accord that institution a constitutive role in our
6
system of governance. Thus, for example, we categorize the values of “stability and continuity”
(Cook, 1996, 20) as substantive on the grounds that such values are ends in themselves. The
value of “the public interest” promoted by the Blacksburg group serves as another example of a
substantive value. The values of “efficiency” and “effectiveness” in contrast are regarded as
instrumental on the grounds that the they pertain more to means than to ends. The value of
“merit,” central to the analysis in light of our focus on the institution of the civil service is
categorized here as instrumental on the basis that merit is of interest primarily as a means toward
the end of good government.
Although we started with Jorgensen and Bozeman’s (2007) master list of public values,
that list evolved in the course of analysis. We added to the Jorgensen-Bozeman list values, both
substantive and instrumental, identified during the process of coding the primary documents and
omitted from the final list values to which no reference was made in the documents. The final,
revised list of values and the overall incidence of each is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 about here
The Civil Service as a Proxy for the Bureaucracy
The institution of the civil service serves as a proxy for “the bureaucracy” in this
investigation notwithstanding important distinctions between the two. Whereas the bureaucracy
existed from the earliest years of the Republic, the civil service was not created until almost a
century later. Thus our investigation of attitudes toward this key institution begins in 1883 rather
than 1789. While something is lost in the omission of 100 years of history, there are
nevertheless advantages to focusing on the civil service. One is that, with regard to our approach
of coding primary documents, there have been periodic expressions of opinion by key groups of
where and how the bureaucracy/civil service fits in our system of governance during the
7
evolution of this important institution. Each “episode” in this evolution therefore allows an
investigation of the attitudes of key stakeholders including the president, Congress, members of
the civil service, and outsiders. A second is that the civil service is associated with a set of
distinctive values including what have been categorized here as instrumental values such as merit
and neutrality as well as substantive values such as public service and the public interest. The
“bureaucracy” in contrast is less distinct and less likely to induce clear expressions of opinion.
Finally, it was the creation of the civil service and the introduction of the idea that authority be
exercised on a basis other than strict hierarchical accountability to elected officials that prompted
the “crisis of legitimacy” referenced above.
Table 2 shows lists the eight “episodes” in the evolution of the civil service employed for
purposes of this analysis. The primary documents related to each episode identified and coded as
part of this analysis are also listed. Many such documents were obvious candidates for analysis.
For example, we included the Pendleton Act, the Brownlow Commission report, the personnelrelated sections of the First and Second Hoover Commissions, the “accompanying” reports of the
National Performance Review on “Reinventing Human Resources” and the “Office of Personnel
Management.” Other documents included were those that included clear expression of attitudes
by one or another of the stakeholder groups on the role of the career bureaucracy in governance.
For example, we included the comments made by various members of Congress during passage
of the Pendleton Act, Truman’s letter transmitting reorganization plans made pursuant to the
recommendations of the First Hoover Commission to Congress, and excerpts from Jimmy
Carter’s State of the Union message in which he references the Civil Service Reform Act. Table
2 lists the stakeholders that authored each document. Apparent from the table is that public
documents disclosing attitudes were not identified for each group and episode. For example, the
8
attitudes of “outsiders” toward the civil service were available in the form of the two Hoover
Commission reports but not for the Civil Service Reform Act or the reports of the National
Performance Review which were authored by civil servants themselves.
Table 2 about here
Research Questions
The following questions served as a focus of our investigation:
•
What governance-related values have key stakeholders associated with the civil service at
key points in the evolution of that institution?
•
To what extent do such value associations suggest that members of these groups assigned the
civil service a constitutive or alternatively an instrumental role in governance?
•
Can any kind of ebb and flow of attitudes toward the bureaucracy over time be detected? For
example, has the instrumental conceptualization of the bureaucracy’s role always prevailed
as Cook suggests, or have there been periods, such as with the passage of the Pendleton Act
when the disposition of key groups was favorable to a more constitutive role for the
bureaucracy?
•
To what extent has there been variation among the different groups in their attitudes. For
example, have permanent members of the federal establishment themselves been more
sympathetic to a “constitutive” role for the civil service than have the president, the Congress
and/or outsiders?
Findings
As shown in Table 1, we found 446 separate references to a governance-related value
with which one or another of the three groups associated the civil service in the thirty documents
coded. Of the 446 references, 283 of the references were to instrumental values and 163 were to
9
substantive values. The overall incidence of substantive values to the total number of value
references therefore was 36%. The most widely cited single value was “merit” with 60
references. Other widely referenced instrumental values include “efficiency,” “neutrality,” and
“performance.” The most widely cited substantive value was “representativeness.”
Examples of the substantive values referenced and the contexts in which they were
referenced follow;
•
Continuity: “The other requirement is that there must be numerous trained, skilled and
nonpartisan employees in the Federal service to provide continuity in the administration of
the Government’s activities.” (Second Hoover Commission, 1955)
•
Ethical consciousness: “In essence, we call for a renewed sense of commitment by all
Americans to the highest traditions of the public service – to a public service responsive to
the political will of the people and also protective of our constitutional values; to a public
service able to cope with complexity and conflict and also able to maintain the highest ethical
standards….” (First Volcker Commission, 1989).
•
Nondiscrimination: “As a fundamental part of protecting merit principles, employees
individually need strong protection from arbitrary or capricious personnel actions and from
discrimination based on politics, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, marital status,
or handicap.” (Personnel Demonstration Project, 1978, p. 53)
Examples of the instrumental values referenced and the contexts in which they were referenced
include the following;
•
Accountability: “The recommendations in this report will create a system in which the
President, Congress, and through them, citizens will hold agency managers accountable for
mission accomplishment while adhering to principles of merit, equity and equal
10
opportunity.” (Reinventing Human Resource Management, Accompanying Report of the
National Performance Review, 1993, p. 3).
•
Efficiency: “The commission believes that its recommendations and suggestions are designed
throughout to simplify and expedite Federal personnel management, contribute to higher
employee morale and efficiency and thereby raise generally the level of service to the
people.” (Second Hoover Commission, Report on Personnel and Civil Service, 1955, p. 87)
•
Merit: “The reorganization of the Civil Service Commission as a central personnel
managerial agency of the President would greatly advance the merit principle in the
government and would lead to the extension of the Civil Service.” (Brownlow Commission
Report, 1937, p. 10).
Table 3 shows the incidence of substantive values relative to the total number of value
references by, 1) reform episode, and 2) group. No pattern in the incidence of references to
substantive values is apparent over time when investigated by reform episode. In fact, the
incidence of references to substantive values remains relatively constant over the 120-year period
varying with a fairly narrow range of between 29% (Volcker II) and 45% (NPR). One could
hypothesize that the relatively high incidence of references to substantive values in the NPR is
attributable to the fact that the NPR staff consisted predominantly of civil servants and because
civil servants may see their governance role in more substantive terms than do outsiders.
Table 3 about here
Table 4, which summarizes the incidence of the different type of values by group, shows
some support for this conclusion. When overall incidence of references by category is
summarized by group (Congress and the president, civil servants, and outsiders) the incidence of
references to substantive values by the civil servants was higher at 40% than for either outsiders
11
(35%) or the President/Congress (32%).
Table 4 about here
Table 5 shows how references to each of the individual values varied over time. The
table illustrates that the bureaucracy was accorded value in providing “continuity” during the
first period covered (1883-1955) but not in the second period (1978-2003). Similarly the value
of “ethical consciousness” was associated with the civil service during the first period but not the
second. “Performance” as a value (categorized as instrumental), in contrast, was widely
referenced during the second period but not all during the first. “Representativeness,” “nondiscrimination” and “protection of individual rights,” all related to social equity concerns, were
first cited relative to the CSRA.
Table 5 about here
Discussion
The data provides support for Cook’s (1996) thesis that the bureaucracy/civil service has
always been conceptualized in predominantly instrumental terms. Further, although the
instrumental conception is consistent with the politics-administration dichotomy, it preceded the
Progressive Era when the dichotomy was formally articulated. Of note is the substantial
consensus across the three groups investigated (President/Congress, the civil service, and
outsiders) as to the appropriateness of the instrumental role of the bureaucracy/civil service in
governance.
Also of note however is that notwithstanding the dominance of the instrumental
conceptualization, throughout the period studied there has been acceptance of the idea that the
bureaucracy/civil service should play a constitutive role in governance. Perceptions of the
governance role of bureaucracy/civil service are thus more nuanced than often portrayed. Even
12
Cook (1996) and the Blacksburg group (1990) tend to frame the issue as either instrumental or
constitutive whereas this analysis suggests that it is and will remain both. The question thus is
one of where the balance of sentiment lies. Regardless of the dominance of the instrumental
conception, there is a basis in sentiment on which those who favor legitimizing a constitutive
role for the bureaucracy/civil service can build to promote their views.
That the values with which the bureaucracy/civil service has been associated (see Table
5) have shifted over time is consistent with ideas put forth by Lynn and Klingner (2010, 49) who
identify six stages in the, “evolution of public HRM systems and values in the United States.”
Table 6 shows instances of agreement as well as disagreement between our findings and those of
Lynn and Klingner’s with regard to value associations by period. For example, our findings
confirm their thesis that “social equity” emerged as a key value in the 1965-79 period.
Specifically, we find that the value of “nondiscrimination” is first cited in association with the
CSRA. However, contrary to their framework, we find that social equity remained relevant
through 2003 when the Second Volcker Commission report was issued. Consistent with their
thesis, we find that “efficiency” has been a dominant value throughout the history of the civil
service. However whereas they suggest that “individual rights” was a dominant value as early as
1883, we found no association of the civil service with “individual rights” until the CSRA in
1978. Also, whereas they identify “responsiveness” as an important value for the entirety of the
period covered, the first reference to responsiveness that we identified was in 1978.
Table 6 about here
The Civil Service, Leadership and Public Discourse
This study has utilized public discourse to reveal the attitudes of key stakeholders toward
the governance role of the civil service over time; discourse is thus employed in a derivative
13
form. A series of authors however, have highlighted how discourse, rather than derivative, may
actually drive legitimating processes. Bohman (1996, 5) for example, outlines a, “deliberative
model of democratic legitimacy,” in which emphasis is placed on the process through which
governance-related decisions are made;
it is crucial that citizens (and their representatives) test their interests and reasons in a
public forum before they decide. The deliberative process forces citizens to justify their
decisions and opinions by appealing to common interests or by arguing in terms of
reasons that ‘all could accept’ in the public debate.
Hurrelmann et al. (2005, 121) also relate the process of legitimation to discourse;
The norms and values central to the perception of a political system as legitimate are
established, modified or re-established in public discourses. Such discourses guide and
legitimate political action by shaping acceptable, hegemonic, or collectively binding
interpretations of social and political events and relationships; they justify or contest
normative criteria for the attribution of legitimacy, and debate the extent to which these
criteria are met. These discursive processes can result either in the legitimation or in the
delegitimation of a political order.”
These studies point to the possibility that expressions of the type analyzed here are
actually in themselves an element of the legitimating (or delegitimating) process. When a
prominent group, identifies a need to, “exercise democratic control over the permanent civil
service to avoid the dangers of bureaucracy” (Brownlow Committee Report, p. 8), that group is
thereby shaping public attitudes as to the bureaucracy’s appropriate role in governance, it is
providing legitimacy to the idea that such role is appropriately subordinate and instrumental.
If legitimacy is secured (or denied) through discursive processes then proponents of the idea that
14
the bureaucracy be accorded a constitutive role in governance, in turn, need to make those
processes a focus.
Among the proponents are members of the Blacksburg group who make the case for such
a role in commenting, “We see no way of arresting the pathologies of our political system and
coming to grips with the sizeable problems of our nation’s political economy without a new way
of thinking about, speaking of and acting toward The Public Administration” (Wamsley et al.
1990, p. 34). Cook (1996, p. 179) too considers an expanded role for the bureaucracy in
governance as central to confronting governance challenges;
The development and refinement of a constitutional theory of public administration that
has as its object the promotion of practical reason through constitutionally anchored
responsible discretion…is critical to dispelling the sense of loss of control and
endangerment to self-government that so vexes the public and political leaders in the
United States.
Although Cook does not reference discourse theory as such, he observes that members of the
bureaucracy are well positioned to participate in governance-related discourse by virtue of their
centrality to the governance process and the routine contacts that in which they engage with
citizens. He (1996, 144) points out, administration, “influences what ideas about the regime
citizens hold and it shapes the relations that develop among citizens—because it interacts
extensively with citizens on a daily basis and is the institutional setting for much interaction
among citizens of various kinds.”
As Heclo (2000) points out however, an obstacle to the civil service taking on a more
proactive role is the lack of a leader to make the case for an alternative vision. Elected officials,
including a series of presidents, have found it expedient to make the bureaucracy the enemy and
15
therefore to perpetuate the instrumental/subordinate conceptualization. Heclo (2000) identifies
the Office of Personnel Management as the presumptive leader of the federal civil service. From
his perspective, however, OPM has largely abdicated a leadership role; “instead of an overall
institutional intelligence embodying civil service values, one finds ‘a vacuum for a central body
that can provide leadership in promoting the use of human resources management” (228).
Unless and until the leadership problem is solved, it seems that attitudes and institutional roles
are unlikely to change.
16
Reference List
Benn, S. I. & Peters, R. S. (1959). Social Principles and the Democratic State. London: George
Allen & Unwin LTD.
Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Cook, B. J. (1996). Bureaucracy and Self-Government: Reconsidering the Role of Public
Administration in American Politics. Baltimore, MD.
Flathman, R. E. (1966). The Public Interest: An Essay Concerning the Normative Discourse of
Politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Friedrich, C. J. (1968). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In
A.A.Altshuler (Ed.), The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy (pp. 414-432). New York:
Dodd, Mead & Company.
Gawthrop, L. C. (1998). Public Service and Democracy. New York: Chatham House Publishers.
Goodnow, F.J. (1900). Politics and Administration. New York: MacMillan.
Heclo, H. (2000). The future of merit. In J.P.Pfiffner & D. A. Brook (Eds.). The Future of Merit:
Twenty Years after the Civil Service Reform Act. (pp. 226-237). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hurrelmann, A., Krell-Laluhova, Z., Lhotta, R., Nullmeier, F., & Schneider, S. (2005). Is there a
legitimation crisis of the nation-state? In S.Leibfried & M. Zurn (Eds.), Transformations
of the State? (pp. 119-137). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jorgensen, T. B. & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society,
39, 354-381.
Kaufman, H.J. (1965). The growth of the federal personnel system. In W.S. Sayre (Ed.) The
Federal Government Service. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lynn, D. and Klingner, D.E. (2010). Beyond civil service: The politics of emergent paradigms.
In Condrey, S.E. (Ed.). Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government,
Third Edition. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. F. (1998). Bureaucracy and the American Constitution: Can the triumph of
instrumentalism be reversed? Public Administration Review 58[5], 453-463.
Mosher, F. (1982). Democracy and the Public Service, Second Edition. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Perspective. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson and Company.
Richardson, W.D. (1997). Democracy, Bureaucracy, and Character: Founding Thought.
Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Rohr, J. (1990). The Constitutional case for public administration. In Wamsley, G.L., Bacher,
R.N, Goodsell, Kronenberg, P.S., Rohr, J.A., Camilla M. Stivers, C.M., White, O.F., &
Wolf, J.F.Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sorauf, F. J. (1957). The public interest reconsidered. Journal of Politics, 19, 616-639.
U.S. Civil Service Commission. (1958) Biography of an Ideal: The Diamond Anniversary
History of the Federal Civil Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Wamsley, G.L., Bacher, R.N, Goodsell, Rohr, J.A., Camilla M. Stivers, C.M., White, O.F., &
Wolf, J.F. (1990). Public administration and the governance process: Shifting the
political dialogue. In Wamsley, G.L., Bacher, R.N, Goodsell, Kronenberg, P.S., Rohr,
J.A., Camilla M. Stivers, C.M., White, O.F., & Wolf, J.F.Refounding Public
Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Table 1
List of values categorized by type with incidence
Public Value
accountability
businesslike approach
conscientious
continuity
democracy
effectiveness
efficiency
employee morale
energy
enterprising
equity
ethical consciousness
fairness
good management/administration
hardworking
independence
innovation
leadership
loyalty
merit
neutrality
nondiscrimination
openness
originality
parsimony
performance
professionalism
protection of individual rights
public interest
public service
quality service
representativeness
responsiveness
incidence substantive instrumental
18
18
1
1
2
2
11
11
2
2
19
19
37
37
10
10
1
1
2
2
10
10
15
15
14
14
23
23
2
2
1
1
10
10
1
1
10
10
60
60
34
34
12
12
8
8
1
1
6
6
48
48
9
9
15
15
11
11
14
14
6
6
27
27
6
6
446
163
283
Note: Based on Jorgensen & Bozeman (2007) with additions (in italics) and deletions
Table 2
Key episodes in the history of the civil service
Stakeholder group
President Congress outsiders
Key episode in the history of the civil service/document (See also Appendix A)
civil service
Pendleton Act
P 1: Transcript of Pendleton Act.pdf
P 2: Chester Arthur_Third Annual Message.pdf
P 3: Speech of Senator Hawley.pdf
P 4: Speech of Senator McPherson.pdf
P 5: Speech of Senator Miller.pdf
x
x
x
x
x
Brownlow Commission
P 6: Report.pdf
P 7: Roosevelt_Statement to congress_Reorganization.pdf
P 8: Executive Order 8743 Extending Civil Service.pdf
P 9: Transmittal to Congress of the Reed Committee Report.pdf
x
x
x
x
Hoover I
P11: PersonnelManagementHoover.pdf
P12: PersonnelReportToCongress.pdf
P13: Special Message to the Congress Reorganization Plans.pdf
P14: Special Message to the Congress Summarizing the New Reorganization Plans.pdf
x
x
x
x
Hoover II
P15: Personnel and Civil Svc.pdf
P16: PersonnelIntro1.pdf
P17: PersonnelIntro2.pdf
P18: Letter to Philip Young.pdf
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Volcker I
P29: Leadership_for_America-_Rebuilding_the_Public_Service_Report.pdf
x
x
x
x
x
x
CSRA
P19: Personnel Management Project.pdf
P20: Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 Statement on Signing S.pdf
P21: Interview With the President Remarks and a Question.pdf
P22: The State of the Union Annual Message to the Congress1978.pdf
P23: The State of the Union Annual Message to the Congress1981.pdf
NPR
P24: NPR Personnel.pdf
P25: Reinventing Human Resource Management.pdf
P26: Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials.pdf
P27: Remarks on the National Performance Review and an Exchange With Reporters.pdf
Volcker II
P30: Revitalizing the Federal Government Report.pdf
Table 3
Incidence of value type by 1) reform episode, and 2) group
Episode in the history of the civil service
No. of
references
Pendleton Act
incidence
incidence substantive
incidence
incidence
substantive - -President- substantive - substantive Congress
overall
outsiders civil service
0.44
substantive
instrumental
4
5
substantive
instrumental
12
23
Brownlow Commission
0.44
0.34
President - Congress
0.26
substantive
instrumental
6
17
substantive
instrumental
6
6
outsiders
0.50
Hoover I
0.22
substantive
instrumental
8
29
President - Congress
0.15
substantive
instrumental
2
11
substantive
instrumental
6
18
outsiders
0.25
Hoover II
0.39
substantive
instrumental
18
28
President - Congress
0.50
substantive
instrumental
4
4
substantive
instrumental
14
24
outsiders
0.37
CSRA
0.34
substantive
instrumental
41
79
President - Congress
0.32
substantive
instrumental
7
15
substantive
instrumental
34
64
civil service
0.35
Volcker I
0.44
substantive
instrumental
18
23
substantive
instrumental
46
57
NPR
0.44
0.45
President - Congress
0.50
substantive
instrumental
2
2
substantive
instrumental
44
55
civil service
0.44
Volcker II
0.29
substantive
instrumental
16
39
Total
substantive
instrumental
163
283
446
0.29
Table 4
Incidence of value type by group
President - Congress
0.32
substantive
instrumental
25
54
outsiders
0.35
substantive
instrumental
60
110
civil service
0.40
substantive
instrumental
78
119
Table 5a - Individual value by reform episode
Key episode in the history of the
civil service/document
accountability
businesslike
approach
conscientious continuity democracy
effectiveness
efficiency
0
1
employee
morale energy enterprising equity
Pendleton Act
substantive
instrumental
Brownlow Commission
substantive
Hoover I
substantive
instrumental
Hoover II
substantive
instrumental
CSRA
substantive
instrumental
Volcker I
substantive
instrumental
NPR
substantive
instrumental
Volcker II
substantive
instrumental
TOTALS:
3
0
1
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
18
1
2
3
2
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
0
9
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
0
19
37
10
1
2
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
2
0
10
Table 5b - Individual value by reform episode
Key episode in the history of the
civil service/document
good
nonethical
consciousness fairness management hardworking independence innovation leadership loyalty merit neutrality discrimination
Pendleton Act
substantive
instrumental
Brownlow Commission
substantive
Hoover I
substantive
instrumental
Hoover II
substantive
instrumental
CSRA
substantive
instrumental
Volcker I
substantive
instrumental
NPR
substantive
instrumental
Volcker II
substantive
instrumental
1
TOTALS:
15
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
1
0
13
1
0
0
1
3
0
4
0
23
2
0
2
0
3
0
0
1
10
1
2
9
9
17
11
0
0
0
2
0
0
7
14
5
5
4
60
34
1
2
1
0
9
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
14
0
0
10
3
12
Table 5c - Individual value by reform episode
Key episode in the history of the
civil service/document
protection of
individual
public
rights
interest
openness originality parsimony performance professionalism
public
service
quality representative- responsiveservice
ness
ness
Pendleton Act
substantive
instrumental
Brownlow Commission
substantive
Hoover I
substantive
instrumental
Hoover II
substantive
instrumental
CSRA
substantive
instrumental
Volcker I
substantive
instrumental
NPR
substantive
instrumental
Volcker II
substantive
instrumental
0
TOTALS:
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
9
1
0
0
18
0
14
0
48
9
1
0
1
0
4
1
1
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
5
5
1
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
17
0
3
0
6
0
0
2
15
11
14
6
27
6
Table 6
Comparison of value associations with period – Lynn & Klingner (2010) vs. Thompson &
Bowman (2012)
Public Value
responsiveness
Lynn & Klingner (2010)
Thompson & Bowman
(2012)
efficiency
Lynn & Klingner (2010)
Thompson & Bowman
(2012)
social equity
Lynn & Klingner (2010)
Thompson & Bowman
(2012)
individual rights
Lynn & Klingner (2010)
Thompson & Bowman
(2012)
individual accountability
Lynn & Klingner (2010)
Thompson & Bowman
(2012)
limited government
Lynn & Klingner (2010)
Thompson & Bowman
(2012)
community responsibility
Lynn & Klingner (2010)
Thompson & Bowman
(2012)
Stage of Evolution - Past Paradigms
People
Professionalism Performance (1965(1883-1932)
(1933-1964) 1979)
x
x
Privatization
(1980present)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Appendix A
Primary documents reviewed by reform episode
Episode
Document
Location
The Pendleton Act
http://ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=48&title=Tra
nscript+of+Pendleton+Act+%281883%29
Pres. Chester A. Arthur, Third Annual Message
Speech of Senator Hawley, Dec. 13, 1882
Speech of Senator McPherson, Dec. 15, 1882
Speech of Senator Miller, December 15, 1882
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29524&st=An+act+to+regul
ate+and+improve+the+civil+service+of+the+United&st1=#axzz1mxBSmr5n
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/gildedage/teachers/civilservice-group1.html
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/gildedage/teachers/civilservice-group8.html
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/gildedage/teachers/civilservice-group7.html
Pendleton Act
Brownlow Commission
President’s Committee on Administrative Management (1937). Report with
Special Studies, Washington; United States Government Printing Office.
Roosevelt, Message to Congress Recommending Reorganization of the Executive
Branch, January 12, 1937
Transmittal to Congress of the Reed Committee Report on Civil Service.
Executive Order 8743 Extending Civil Service.
April 23, 1941
Have saved in file.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15343&st=reorganization&s
t1=#axzz1mxBSmr5n
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16080&st=civil&st1=preside
nt%5C%27s+committee#axzz1oebmIUKB
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16105&st=civil&st1=preside
nt%5C%27s+committee#ixzz1oecwAnNf
U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government
(1949). A Report to Congress, Washington: GPO.
Personnel management; a report to the Congress, February 1949
Pres. Harry S. Truman: Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan
5 of 1949: Civil Service Commission. June 20, 1949
Pres. Harry S. Truman: Special Message to the Congress Summarizing the New
Reorganization Plans. March 13, 1950
Pres. Harry S. Truman: Special Message to the Congress Summarizing the New
Reorganization Plans. April 10, 1952
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015022751757?urlappend=%3Bseq=284
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015020808187
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13219&st=civil&st1=commi
ssion+on+organization#ixzz1oehtlK2x
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13725&st=civil&st1=commi
ssion+on+organization#ixzz1oejplPM
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14456&st=civil&st1=commi
ssion+on+organization#ixzz1oekX9shK
Hoover 1
x
x
Hoover 2
U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government
(1955). Final Report to Congress, Washington: United States Government Printing
Office.*
Personnel and civil service; a report to the Congress. United States.
Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower: Letter to Philip Young, the President's Adviser on
Personnel Management, in Response to Report on Hoover Commission
Recommendations.
January 26, 1956
Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower: Annual Budget Message to the Congress: Fiscal Year
1955.
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
Personnal Management Project, vol. 1
Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With a
Group of Editors and News Directors.
July 28, 1978
Pres. Jimmy Carter: Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 Statement on Signing S. 2640
Into Law.
October 13, 1978
Volcker 1
http://www.archive.org/stream/finalreportofsel06unit/finalreportofsel06unit_dj
vu.txt
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3969017
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=10616&st=hoover&st1=com
mission#ixzz1n3FMqmDM
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9919&st=civil+service&st1=
reorganization#ixzz1oeo3hdcH
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015030792058?urlappend=%3Bseq
=19
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=31134&st=civil+service+refo
rm+act&st1=1978#ixzz1nS6XifGJ
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29975&st=civil+service+refo
rm+act&st1=1978#ixzz1nS7LwvSD
Pres. Jimmy Carter: The State of the Union Annual Message to the Congress
January 25, 1979
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=32735&st=civil+service+refo
rm+act&st1=1978#ixzz1nS8UlSDV
Pres. Jimmy Carter: The State of the Union Annual Message to the Congress
January 16, 1981
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44541&st=civil+service+refo
rm+act&st1=1978#ixzz1nS9Cf72D
Leadrship for America: The report of the national commission on the
public service, 1989
Congressional Record, January 1999
National Performance Review
Office of Personnel Management : accompanying report of the ... National
Performance Review (U.S.)
Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials
September 7, 1993
Pres. William Clinton: Remarks on the National Performance Review and an
Exchange With Reporters
March 3, 1994
Volcker 2
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951d002794107
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=60034&st=civil+service&st1
=national+performance#ixzz1p7ThWCuN
Press Briefing by Leon Panetta, Director of Office of Management and Budget,
and Elaine Kamarck, Senior Policy Adviser to the Vice President
March 3, 1994
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49742&st=national+perfor
mance+review&st1=#ixzz1ncSB06Fq
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59783&st=civil+service&st1
=national+performance#ixzz1p7TQBM5Shttp://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in
dex.php?pid=59783&st=civil+service&st1=national+performance#ixzz1p7TQBM5
S
Reinventing human resource management: Accompanying Report of the Nation
Performace Review, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Vice President
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029950493
Urgent business for America: Revitalizing the federl government for the 21st
century