HY 357 Lecture Notes - Lecture 19: National Partnership For Reinventing Government, Dan Quayle
6 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Controlling the Size of Bureaucracy
In the 1980s and 1990s, calls for controlling the federal bureaucracy became commonplace. The
public saw the bureaucracy as being too large and lacking in accountability. Indeed, the number
of civilian employees of the federal government declined slightly over the last 25 years.
Bureaucracy can be reduced in a number of ways, although success is often limited.
Appointment power and presidential persuasion
The president appoints the key members of the federal bureaucracy. If committed to controlling
the size of government, the president will select people who are determined to streamline and
increase the efficiency of the departments or agencies they lead. A president can give ongoing
direction by conferring frequently with cabinet secretaries on policy matters and demonstrating a
keen interest in their work. Under such influence, an agency may become more innovative and
productive.
Reorganization
Since the 1960s, various government agencies have been moved from one cabinet department to
another, and the functions of the departments themselves have been redefined. For example, the
former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split into the Department of Health
and Human Services and the Department of Education. A serious question remains, however,
whether reorganization really improves governmental efficiency. Bureaucracies take on a life of
their own and, once created, are difficult to dismantle. President Ronald Reagan failed in his
plans to eliminate, or at least downgrade, the departments of Energy and Education, and during
his term, the Veterans Administration was added to the cabinet. On the other hand, President
George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program expanded the responsibilities of the
Department of Education.
Privatization and deregulation
Some critics of the size of government argue that certain responsibilities should be turned over to
private enterprise, which can carry out programs with less cost and more efficiency. The example
frequently cited compares Federal Express to the U.S. Postal Service. Privatization has been
most successful when undertaken by local government.
Deregulation means that the federal government reduces its role and allows an industry greater
freedom in how it operates. A reduction in the federal government's responsibility certainly
affects the size of the bureaucracy. However, the consequences of deregulation may outweigh
the benefits, as seen in the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s following deregulation of the
savings industry.
The power of the budget
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
In the 1980s and 1990s, calls for controlling the federal bureaucracy became commonplace. The public saw the bureaucracy as being too large and lacking in accountability. Indeed, the number of civilian employees of the federal government declined slightly over the last 25 years. Bureaucracy can be reduced in a number of ways, although success is often limited. The president appoints the key members of the federal bureaucracy. If committed to controlling the size of government, the president will select people who are determined to streamline and increase the efficiency of the departments or agencies they lead. A president can give ongoing direction by conferring frequently with cabinet secretaries on policy matters and demonstrating a keen interest in their work. Under such influence, an agency may become more innovative and productive. Since the 1960s, various government agencies have been moved from one cabinet department to another, and the functions of the departments themselves have been redefined.
