The Organizational Dynamics of Service Provision in a Machine and a Reform County Agency

Abstract

The political environment of a tax-supported agency is a potentially critical variable affecting the organization's structure and processes. Internal organizational dynamics in turn affect the efficiency and innovativeness of service delivery. Machine and reform governments are very different political environments for public agencies. In particular, machines have highly concentrated power over agencies and use the agencies for placement of patronage workers. Reform governments have much more diffuse power and a general policy of noninterference with public agencies. This research examines the organization's response to political control of its budget and to patronage placements. The method was a case study of two county health departments using long-term observation and formal and informal interviewing. Important differences were found between the machine and reform county health departments. Hypotheses are developed that will explain the differences based on the interaction of budget constraints, the level of professionalism, and level of political control over agency staff.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ABERBACH, J. D. , & WALKER, J. L. The attitudes of blacks and whites toward city services. In J. P. Crecine (Ed.), Financing the metropolis. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1970.

ALFORD, R. T. , & SCOBLE, H. M. Bureaucracy andparticipation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

ANTUNES, G. , & MLADENKA, K. The politics of local services and service distribution. In L. H. Masotti & R. L. Lineberry (Eds.), The new urban politics. Cambridge: Ballinger, 1976.

BANFIELD, E. C. , & WILSON, J. Q. City politics. New York: Knopf, 1963.

CLARK, T. N. Community structure, decision-making, budget expenditures, and urban renewal in 51 American communities. American Sociological Review, 1968, 33, 576-593.

CYERT, R. M. , & MARCH, J. G. A behavioral theory of thefirm. Englewood Cliffs: N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

DOWNS, A. Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.

EISINGER, P. K. The pattern of citizen contacts with urban officials. In H. H. Hahn (Ed.), People and politics in urban society. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972.

GRAY, V. Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 1174-1185.

10.

GREENSTONE, J. D. , & PETERSON, P. E. Reformers, machines, and the War on Poverty. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), City politics and public policy. New York: Wiley, 1968.

11.

GREENSTONE, J. D. , & PETERSON, P. E. Race and authority in urban politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

12.

LINEBERRY, R. L. , & FOWLER, E. Reformism and public policies in American cities. American Political Science Review, 1967, 61, 701-716.

13.

MINTZBERG, H. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979.

14.

MOORE, W. E. The professions: Roles and rules. New York: Sage, 1970.

15.

PERROW, C. A framework for comparative organizational analysis. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 194-208.

16.

PFEFFER, J. Organizational design. Arlington Heights: AHM, 1978.

17.

THOMPSON, J. D. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

18.

TUCKER, S. Power, politics, and human services organizations: A case study of the political environments of two county health departments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1980.

19.

U. S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS . County and city databook 1977. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1978.

20.

WALKER, J. L. The diffusion of innovation among the American states. American Political Science Review, 1969, 63, 880-899.

21.

WAMSLEY, G. L. , & ZALD, M. N. The political econony of public organizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973.

22.

WEBER, M. The theory of social and economic organization. A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons. , Trans:, T. Parsons , (ed.) New York: Macmillan, 1947.