This study classifies U.S. federal agencies into five types, based on Lowi’s well-known policy scheme. It constructs and tests five hypotheses to identify any structural differences in formalization, span of control, headquarters ratio, and personnel mobility between five types of agencies. The five hypotheses were generally confirmed. One important contribution of this study is that it made the first attempt to do hypothesis testing on Lowi’s agency types. Another contribution of this research is in its sub-classification of Lowi’s fourth category, constituent agencies, into staff and foreign defense agencies. According to the data analyses, each type of these agencies had distinctive organizational structures compared with other types. This legitimizes the sub-classification of constituent agencies. Consequently, this study argues that any significant differences in organizational structures were contingent on the type of policy mission pursued by an agency. Thus, civil service reformers should carefully consider various structural elements that are contingent on the type of agency when implementing reforms.
AckroydS.KirkpatrickI.WalkerR. M. (2007). Public management reform in the U.K. and its consequences for professional organization. Public Administration, 85, 9-26.
2.
BlauP. M. (1968). The hierarchy of authority in organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 453-467.
3.
BlauP. M.ScottW. R. (1962). Formal organization: A comparative approach. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
4.
BohteJ.MeierK. J. (2001). Structure and the performance of public organizations: Task difficulty and span of control. Public Organization Review, 1, 341-354.
5.
BurnsT.StalkerG. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, England: Tavistock.
6.
CableD. M.JudgeT. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-348.
7.
ChunY.RaineyH. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 1-30.
8.
ClugstonM.HowellJ. P. (2000). Dispositional influences on pay preferences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 311-320.
9.
CohenM. (1970). The generalist and organizational mobility. Public Administration Review, 30, 544-552.
10.
CondreyS. E.BrudneyJ. L. (1992). Performance-based managerial pay in the federal government: Does agency matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 157-174.
11.
CrozierM. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
DaftR. L. (2013). Organization theory and design (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
13.
DahlR. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review, 7, 1-11.
14.
DoddL. C.SchottR. L. (1979). Congress and the administrative state. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
EtzioniA. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
17.
FerejohnJ. (1985). “Comment” on Theodore J. Lowi’s the state in politics: The relation between policy and administration. In NollR. G. (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences (pp. 67-105). Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
ForesterJ. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44, 23-31.
19.
GoodsellC. T. (1981). Looking once again at human service bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 43, 763-778.
20.
GoreAl. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and costs less: report of the national performance review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
GouldnerA. W. (1954). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
22.
GraicunasV. A. (1937). Relationship in organization. In GulickL.UrwickL. (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 183-187). New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.
23.
GulickL. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In GulickL.UrwickL. (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 1-49). New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.
24.
HafnerD. L. (1994). Presidential leadership and the foreign policy. In DeeseD. A. (Ed.), The new politics of American foreign policy (pp. 36-58). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
25.
HageJ.AikenM. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 72-91.
26.
HallR. H.JohnsonN. J.HaasJ. E. (1967). Organizational size, complexity, and formalization. American Sociological Review, 32, 903-912.
HammondT. H. (1990). In defense of Luther Gulick’s ‘Note on the theory of organization.’Public Administration, 68, 143-173.
29.
HenemanR. L.WernerJ. M. (2005). Merit pay: Linking pay to performance in a changing world (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
30.
IngrahamP. W. (1991). Of pigs in pokes and policy diffusion: Another look at pay-for-performance. Public Administration Review, 53, 348-356.
31.
KaufmanH. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
32.
KelloughJ. E.LuH. (1993). The paradox of merit pay in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13, 45-64.
33.
KettlD. F. (1995). Building lasting reform: enduring questions, missing answers, In KettlDonald. F.DilulioJohn J.Jr. ed., Inside the reinvention machine: appraising governmental reform. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
34.
KimY. (2007). Differentiation of bureaucracies and their responses to reform: A question for Max Weber and an answer for civil service reformers. PhD Dissertation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
35.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
LightP. C. (1999). The true size of government. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
37.
LowiT. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies and political theory. World Politics, 4, 677-715.
38.
LowiT. J. (1972). The four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298-310.
39.
LowiT. J. (1979). The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United States (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
40.
LowiT. J. (1985). The state in politics: The relation between policy and administration. In NollR. G. (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences (pp. 67-97). Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
LynnL. E. (1981). Managing the public’s business. New York, NY: Basic Books.
42.
McGregorE. B. (1974). Politics and the career mobility of bureaucrats. American Political Science Review, 68, 18-26.
43.
McKelveyB. (1982). Organizational systematics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
MeierK. J. (1980). Measuring organizational power: Resources and autonomy of government agencies. Administration & Society, 12, 357-375.
46.
MeierK. J. (1993). Politics and the bureaucracy. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
47.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2000). Ode to Luther Gulick: Span of control and organizational performance. Administration & Society, 32, 115-137.
48.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 455-470.
49.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2003). Span of control and public organizations: Implementing Luther Gulick’s research design. Public Administration Review, 63, 61-70.
50.
MertonR. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18, 560-568.
51.
MintzbergH. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
National Research Council. (1991). Pay for performance: Evaluating performance appraisal and merit pay. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54.
NewmanM. N. (1994). Gender and Lowi’s thesis: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review, 54, 277-284.
55.
OhS. S.LewisG. B. (2009). Can performance appraisal systems inspire intrinsically motivated employees?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 158-167.
56.
ParsonsT. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
57.
PerrowC. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194-204.
RadinB. A. (2000). The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 111-135.
60.
RaineyH. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
61.
RaphaelE. (1967). The Andersen-Warton hypothesis in local unions: A comparative study. American Sociological Review, 32, 768-776.
62.
RipleyR. B.FranklinG. A. (1991). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
63.
RosenbloomD. H. (2001). History lessons for reinventors. Public Administration Review, 61, 161-165.
64.
SayreW. S. (1951). Trends of a decade in administrative values. Public Administration Review, 11, 1-9.
65.
SchickA. (1970). The cybernetic state. Society, 7(4), 14-26.
66.
SchickA. (1971). Toward the cybernetic state. In WaldoD. (Ed.), Public administration in a time of turbulence (pp. 214-233). Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing.
67.
ScottW. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
68.
SimonH. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6, 53-67.
69.
SimonH. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: The Free Press (Original work published 1947)
70.
SpitzerR. J. (1983). The Presidency and Public Policy : The Four Arenas of Presidential Power. University, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
71.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
72.
ThompsonJ. D.TudenA. (1959). Strategies, structures, and processes of organizational decision. In ThompsonJ. D.HammondP. B.HawkesR. W.JunkerB. H.TudenA. (Eds.), Comparative studies in administration (pp. 195-216). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
73.
ThompsonV. (1961). Modern organizations. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf.
74.
TolbertP.HallR. H. (2009). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
75.
UrwickL. F. (1956). The manager’s span of control. Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 39-47.
76.
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (2003). The United States government manual 2003/2004. Washington, DC: The U.S. Government Printing Office.
77.
WaldoD. (1961). Organization theory: An elephantine problem. Public Administration Review, 21, 210-225.
78.
WarwickD. P. (1975). A theory of public bureaucracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
