Examines the political history of administrative reform undertaken by 20th-century presidents. Attempting to explain the growth of modern bureaucracy within an 18th-century framework and the expansion of presidential control over administrative powers, the author explores the relationship between administrative theory and the dilemmas posed for a developing administrative state by the separation of powers. He also looks at and compares successive cases of presidentially initiated comprehensive reform planning, in order to understand the implications for the president's institutional role. Paper edition (unseen), $25.00. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

This volume proposes a capacity-centered approach for understanding American bureaucracy. The administrative institutions that made the country a superpower turned out to be fragile under Donald Trump’s presidency. Laboring beneath systematic accusations of deep statism, combined with a market oriented federal administration, bureaucratic capacity manifested its decay in the public health and constitutional cataclysms of 2020, denting America’s global leadership and contributing to its own people’s suffering. The authors combine interviews with a historical examination of federal administrative reforms in the backdrop of the recent pandemic and electoral tumult to craft a developmental framework of the ebb and flow of capacity. While reforms, large and small, brought about professionalization and other benefits to federal administration, they also camouflaged a gradual erosion when anti-bureaucratic approaches became entrenched. A sclerotic, brittle condition in the government’s capacity to work efficiently and accountably arose over time, even as administrative power consolidated around the executive. That co-evolutionary dynamic made federal government ripe for the capacity bifurcation, delegitimization, and disinvestment witnessed over the last four years. As the system works out the long-term impacts of such a deconstruction, it also prompts a rethinking of capacity in more durable terms. Calling attention to a more comprehensive appreciation of the dynamics around administrative capacity, this volume argues for Congress, citizens, and the good government community to promote capacity rebuilding initiatives that have resilience at the core. As such, the book will be of interest to citizens, public reformers, civic leaders, scholars and students of public administration, policy, and public affairs.

A pioneering model for constructing and assessing government authority and achieving policy goals more effectively Regulation is frequently less successful than it could be, largely because the allocation of authority to regulatory institutions, and the relationships between them, are misunderstood. As a result, attempts to create new regulatory programs or mend under-performing ones are often poorly designed. Reorganizing Government explains how past approaches have failed to appreciate the full diversity of alternative approaches to organizing governmental authority. The authors illustrate the often neglected dimensional and functional aspects of inter-jurisdictional relations through in-depth explorations of several diverse case studies involving securities and banking regulation, food safety, pollution control, resource conservation, and terrorism prevention. This volume advances an analytical framework of governmental authority structured along three dimensions—centralization, overlap, and coordination. Camacho and Glicksman demonstrate how differentiating among these dimensions better illuminates the policy tradeoffs of organizational alternatives, and reduces the risk of regulatory failure. The book also explains how differentiating allocations of authority based on governmental function can lead to more effective regulation and governance. The authors illustrate the practical value of this framework for future reorganization efforts through the lens of climate change, an emerging and vital global policy challenge, and propose an “adaptive governance” infrastructure that could allow policy makers to embed the creation, evaluation, and adjustment of the organization of regulatory institutions into the democratic process itself.