eBook - ePub
Public Administration and Public Affairs
Nicholas Henry
This is a test
Buch teilen
- 514 Seiten
- English
- ePUB (handyfreundlich)
- Ăber iOS und Android verfĂŒgbar
eBook - ePub
Public Administration and Public Affairs
Nicholas Henry
Angaben zum Buch
Buchvorschau
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Quellenangaben
Ăber dieses Buch
Public Administration and Public Affairs demonstrates how to govern efficiently, effectively, and responsibly in an age of political corruption and crises in public finance. Providing a comprehensive, accessible and humorous introduction to the field of Public Administration, this text is designed specifically for those with little to no background in the field. Now in its 13th edition, this beloved book includes:
-
- Engaging, timely new sections designed to make students think, such as "Why Are So Many Leaders Losers?" and "Even Terrorists Like Good Government"
-
- Comparisons throughout of the challenges and opportunities found in the nonprofit sector vs. the public sector (sections such as "The Dissatisfied Bureaucrat, the Satisfied Nonprofit Professional?")
-
- Extensive new material on e-governance, performance management, HRM, intersectoral and intergovernmental administration, government contracting, public budgeting, and ethics.
The 13th edition is complete with an Instructor's Manual, Testbank, and PowerPoint slides for instructors, as well as Learning Objectives and Self-test Questions for students, making it the ideal primer for public administration/management, public affairs, and nonprofit management courses.
HĂ€ufig gestellte Fragen
Wie kann ich mein Abo kĂŒndigen?
Gehe einfach zum Kontobereich in den Einstellungen und klicke auf âAbo kĂŒndigenâ â ganz einfach. Nachdem du gekĂŒndigt hast, bleibt deine Mitgliedschaft fĂŒr den verbleibenden Abozeitraum, den du bereits bezahlt hast, aktiv. Mehr Informationen hier.
(Wie) Kann ich BĂŒcher herunterladen?
Derzeit stehen all unsere auf MobilgerĂ€te reagierenden ePub-BĂŒcher zum Download ĂŒber die App zur VerfĂŒgung. Die meisten unserer PDFs stehen ebenfalls zum Download bereit; wir arbeiten daran, auch die ĂŒbrigen PDFs zum Download anzubieten, bei denen dies aktuell noch nicht möglich ist. Weitere Informationen hier.
Welcher Unterschied besteht bei den Preisen zwischen den AboplÀnen?
Mit beiden AboplÀnen erhÀltst du vollen Zugang zur Bibliothek und allen Funktionen von Perlego. Die einzigen Unterschiede bestehen im Preis und dem Abozeitraum: Mit dem Jahresabo sparst du auf 12 Monate gerechnet im Vergleich zum Monatsabo rund 30 %.
Was ist Perlego?
Wir sind ein Online-Abodienst fĂŒr LehrbĂŒcher, bei dem du fĂŒr weniger als den Preis eines einzelnen Buches pro Monat Zugang zu einer ganzen Online-Bibliothek erhĂ€ltst. Mit ĂŒber 1 Million BĂŒchern zu ĂŒber 1.000 verschiedenen Themen haben wir bestimmt alles, was du brauchst! Weitere Informationen hier.
UnterstĂŒtzt Perlego Text-zu-Sprache?
Achte auf das Symbol zum Vorlesen in deinem nÀchsten Buch, um zu sehen, ob du es dir auch anhören kannst. Bei diesem Tool wird dir Text laut vorgelesen, wobei der Text beim Vorlesen auch grafisch hervorgehoben wird. Du kannst das Vorlesen jederzeit anhalten, beschleunigen und verlangsamen. Weitere Informationen hier.
Ist Public Administration and Public Affairs als Online-PDF/ePub verfĂŒgbar?
Ja, du hast Zugang zu Public Administration and Public Affairs von Nicholas Henry im PDF- und/oder ePub-Format sowie zu anderen beliebten BĂŒchern aus Politics & International Relations & Public Affairs & Administration. Aus unserem Katalog stehen dir ĂŒber 1Â Million BĂŒcher zur VerfĂŒgung.
Information
PART
I
In Defense of Governing Well
Bureaucracy is in our bones. Prehistoric evidence unearthed at archeological digs suggests that the rudiments of a bureaucratic social order were in place 19,000 years ago.1
DO WE NEED GOVERNMENT?
Not everyone agrees that bureaucracy and government are basic to society. Some contend, in a distorted extension of Thomas Paineâs dictum âthat government is best which governs least,â that the very best government is no government at all. As a prominent conservative explains, âWhat holds together the conservative movementâ is that conservatives âwant the government to go away.â2
The Wrecking-Crew View
It has been argued that, when those who want the government to go away are in power, they deliberately delegitimize government in the eyes of the public. Restrained by only what is politically infeasible, these âno-government conservativesâ3 act as a âwrecking crewâ that sabotages governmental competence; tolerates, even encourages, corruption; and privatizes or sheds altogether core public responsibilities.4 It is this perspective that has encouraged the founding of roughly a thousand extreme anti-government groups (the number varies widely from year to year), such as those that influenced the bombers of a federal building in 1995, that killed 168 adults and children, and the armed takeover and trashing of federal facilities in Oregon, in 2015, resulting in one death by shooting.
Americans do not subscribe to the wrecking-crew view. Out of thirteen major issues, majorities state that the federal government should play a major role in twelve (the exception is space exploration). Most Republicans and Democrats agree that Washington should play a prominent role in controlling terrorism, responding to natural disasters, and managing food, medicine safety, infrastructure, and even immigration.5
Perhaps the clearest and most critical example of the wrecking-crew mentality is that of regulation, an area often touted by these advocates as a burden from which Americans demand relief. Yet, when queried about regulating specific industries, three times more citizens, on average, want more regulation than those who want less.6
Underlying the wreckersâ ideology is their belief that more governmental regulation equals fewer jobs, and vice versa. Research, however, consistently shows that there is no evidence supporting this view. In the aggregate, the jobs lost to regulation (for example, the jobs lost in a factory that produced lead additives for gasoline because of air pollution regulations) are replaced elsewhere in the economy (e.g., in a factory that makes catalytic converters, which control automobile emissions). It is, in short, a wash.7
Wrecking Government and Wrecking America
That the public could benefit from more responsible regulation of some industries seems plausible. Consider some evidence.
Wrecking the Environment On April 20, 2010, BPâs (formerly British Petroleum) thirty-story-tall Deepwater Horizon oilrig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, listed, and sank. Eleven crewmenâs lives ended, and the most disastrous oil spill in American history began. Ultimately, nearly 5 million barrels of crude polluted the Gulf. The company could not have been drilling in the Gulf had it not received a federal permit to do so.
Which BP had indeed received, despite its spectacularly tawdry safety record. Over the three years preceding the spill, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration cited BP for 760 âegregious willfulâ safety violations. These are the agencyâs most severe violations out of five types, and apply only to violations of those rules that are âdesigned to prevent catastrophic events.â How many citations for egregious willful violations had all other oil companies combined accumulated over the same period? One.8
The regulatory agency that had licensed BP to drill in the Gulf was the Minerals Management Service (MMS), a little-known bureau of 1,700 employees created by the interior secretary in 1982. It is charged with issuing permits to, and collecting royalties from, companies that drill offshore.
MMSâs regulatory record was at least as tawdry as BPâs safety record. The agency, which collects more non-tax revenueâ$9 billion per yearâthan any other, had for decades failed to collect billions in royalties due it.9 MMSâs administrators âroutinely overruled staff scientists whose findings highlight the environmental risks of drilling,â and scientists ârepeatedly had their scientific findings changed to indicate no environmental impact.â It would slander boilerplate to apply that term to BPâs 582-page âoil spill response planâ that it submitted to MMS to establish the Deepwater Horizon. Besides stating that âno significant adverse impacts are expectedâ from a spill, it notes that walruses (which have not wallowed in the Gulf since the Ice Age) would be protected; provides an address for the ârapid deployment of spill response resourcesâ that turned out to be that of a Japanese home shopping network; and ânever once discusses how to stop a deepwater blowout âŠ. Nobodyâ at MMS âread it.â10
Nor, apparently, had anyone read any of the nearly identical plans, âall written by the same tiny Texas subcontractor,â submitted by the four other major offshore drillers, all but one of which also referenced those walruses in the Gulf.11 All five of the major companiesâ spill response plans amounted to the longest works of maritime fiction since Moby-Dick.
MMS was also riddled with corruption. According to a federal report, the agency had a âculture of ethical failure.â Not surprising in light of the fact that three out of every four of the more than 600 lobbyists who lobby for the oil and gas industry are former federal employees, including two former directors of MMS. âNowhere has government and industry coziness been on display more clearly than at MMS.â12
Besides being incompetent and corrupt, MMSâs administrators were just plain dumb. During the week following the presidentâs declaration of a moratorium on offshore drilling and the issuance of waivers, with oil still gushing into the Gulf, MMS granted seven permits and five waivers.13
In 2011, the Government Accountability Office belatedly declared the management of oil and gas resources to be a âhigh-risk areaâ that required extra federal attention to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; it still remains one.
In the midst of the spill, MMS was hastily renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, an exhaustingly long moniker that should discourage future journalistic coverage of the agency.
Wrecking the Economy Three decades after the steady deregulation of the financial sector that began in the early 1980s, Americaâs foremost business magazine stated that, âIt is chillingly clear that U.S. financial institutions have for a good while been regulated no more stringently than, say, demolition derby drivers.â14
Demolition is a fitting word. In the late 2000s, the United States narrowly escaped economic collapse. Near, or perhaps at, the heart of that barely-missed meltdown were over-the-counter derivatives, which are highly leveraged financial exotica, such as mortgage-backed securities, that many analysts think caused the crisis. In 2003, the legendary investor, Warren Buffet, dubbed these derivatives âweapons of mass financial destruction,â and warned that they involved âhuge-scale fraud.â15
Derivatives were introduced in the 1980s and flourished in a secretive, âcompletely dark marketâ about which regulators were also in the dark.16 When the derivatives market peaked in June 2008, its face (or ânotionalâ) value was an absurd and inconceivable $683 trillion,17 and almost all of it was owned by Americaâs biggest banks.
When the ...