COMPARING BUSH–CHENEY AND CLINTON–GORE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: ARE THEY MORE ALIKE THAN DIFFERENT?
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00012.x |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
| Author | MICHAEL E. MILAKOVICH |
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 2, 2006 (461–478)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
COMPARING BUSH – CHENEY AND
CLINTON – GORE PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: ARE THEY MORE
ALIKE THAN DIFFERENT?
MICHAEL E . MILAKOVICH
Successful performance management strategies are intrinsically linked to the political
environment in which public policy-making occurs. Since the mid-1990s, many gov-
ernments have re-examined how to simultaneously reduce costs, increase perfor-
mance and achieve results. Public agencies are experimenting with performance
measurement and management systems designed to meet public policy goals and
respond to citizen demands. Various reform models have been proposed and public
administrators now expend considerable time, effort and resources exchanging ‘ best
practices ’ , fi nding ‘ best value ’ , and ‘ rethinking ’ government operations. Although
equally important, less effort has been devoted to performance management (PM)
within increasingly complex, ideologically charged and politicized decision-making
environments. Despite signifi cant increases in productivity, more theoretical and em-
pirical research is needed to assist public managers in applying private market-based
alternatives to public service delivery structures. This article compares the PM initia-
tives of the Clinton – Gore Administration in the United States, known as the National
Performance Review (NPR), with President Bush ’ s Presidential Management Agenda
(PMA). Following the comparison, a theory-based research agenda is proposed to
determine which of many approaches best ‘ fi ts ’ the varied and often contradictory
systems for delivering public services in a decentralized governance system.
Government agencies struggle continuously to fi nd the best strategies to
implement politically mandated reforms within traditional rules-driven
bureaucracies. Strategic needs, as well as the organizational dynamics of
Michael E. Milakovich is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of
Miami, Coral Gables.
462 MICHAEL E. MILAKOVICH
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 2, 2006 (461–478)
diverse cultural, social, and political environments, determine which theo-
retical models, if any, can be successfully applied. Various alternatives should
receive scrutiny, especially with regards to accountability, citizenship, com-
petition, needs of recipients and equity of services provided to citizens (see
Wilson 1989 ; Fredrickson 1996; Blanchard et al. 1998; Box 1998; Behn 1999;
Beckett 2000; Haque 2001; Alford 2002; Gormley and Balla 2004 ). Since the
mid-1990s, different reform models have been implemented within existing
organizational structures; at the same time, less effort has been devoted to
determining how to improve performance within increasingly complex and
politicized decision-making environments.
During the past decade, the US federal government has initiated compre-
hensive and controversial legislation supporting downsizing, e-government,
reinvention and results-oriented management, as well as encouraging agen-
cies to establish standards, monitor results and post key performance
measures. The full impact of this aggressive decade-long drive to improve
effi ciency, measure results, and increase productivity is only now being felt
( Osborne and Plastrik 1997; Kettl 2000a; Beam 2001; Bouckaert and Peters
2002; Bruel 2003 ). Unlike the situation in the early 1990s, all US cabinet-level
federal agencies now have Chief Operating Offi cers (COOs) and Chief
Financial Offi cers (CFOs) to provide comprehensive performance measures
and detailed fi nancial statements to Congressional committees, the Offi ce of
Management and Budget (OMB) and to the President. In addition, some
agencies also have Chief Information Offi cers (CIOs) to coordinate and direct
improved communication and e-government initiatives. Public management
capacity has been strengthened since in most agencies these positions did
not even exist a decade ago.
Despite diligent efforts to promote PM strategies, public agencies still face
diffi cult dilemmas: should they deploy the bottom-up, incremental, mixed,
participatory ‘ reinvention ’ models proposed by the Clinton – Gore Admini-
stration or should they implement the ‘ pure ’ top-down corporate private-
market-based approach espoused by the Bush Administration. Alternatively,
should they perhaps fi nd a middle ground or ‘ hybrid ’ approach, such as
cooperative public-private-non-profi t partnerships with a mix of public,
private and non-government participants? Or should they just do nothing
at all and wait for the next round of reforms? The rationales for each of these
strategies are as varied as the political ideologies and theories supporting
them. Partly in response to budgetary restraints, changing national priori-
ties, defi cit spending and fi scal stress, the Bush Administration favours the
broader use of private alternatives such as competitive outsourcing as a
performance management measure.
Privatization and outsourcing are politically attractive productivity im-
provement and cost saving measures that also raise serious questions about
accountability, competition, democracy, equity and management oversight
( Behn 1999; Beckett 2000; Deleon and Deleon 2002; Gormley and Balla 2004 ).
As quasi-monopolistic service providers, most governments are isolated
To continue reading
Request your trial