This article examines the organizational reputation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) using Daniel Carpenter’s reputation and power theory as a theoretical and methodological base. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is utilized to guide and organize case selection, as it is the legal mandate behind BLM authority and represents the fullest extent of the agency’s activities. The findings of this case study indicate that the BLM has a negative reputation in all but the legal-procedural dimension. Three implications are identified: (a) FLPMA serves only to define the procedural-legal aspect of public planning process, (b) the inability of FLPMA to define a purpose to public lands management has its root in the large scope of activity required of the BLM by FLPMA, and (c) finally, retention has placed the BLM and the federal government in a precarious position of an owner rather than custodian of the public lands.
CarpenterD. P. (2001a). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
CarpenterD. P. (2001b). The political foundations of bureaucratic autonomy: A response to Kernell. Studies in American Political Development, 15, 113-122.
6.
CarpenterD. P. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
CarpenterD. P.KrauseG. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 26-32.
8.
CooperC. F. (1962). Grazing practice on public lands. [Private grazing and public lands, Wesley Calef]. Ecology, 43(2), 354-355. doi: 10.2307/1932009
9.
CulhaneP. J. (1981). Public lands politics: Interest group influence on the forest service and the bureau of land management. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
10.
de TocquevilleA. (2002). Democracy in America: The complete and unabridged Volumes I and II. New York, NY: Bantam Classic.
11.
ElazarD. J. (1988). Land and liberty in American civil society. Publius, 18(4), 1-29.
12.
FairfaxS. K. (2016). Thinking the unthinkable: States as public land managers. Retrieved from http://www.ti.org/Fairfax.html
13.
FossP. (1960). Politics and grass: The administration of grazing on the public domain. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
GroenleerM. L. P. (2014). Agency autonomy actually: Managerial strategies, legitimacy, and the early development of the European Union’s agencies for drug and food safety regulation. International Public Management Journal, 17, 255-292. doi:10.1080/10967494.2014.905416
16.
HowardB. C. (2016, January4). Why federal lands are so wildly controversial in the west. National Geographic. Available from news.nationalgeographic.com
IrlandL. C. (1975). Citizen participation—A tool for conflict management on the public lands. Public Administration Review, 35, 263-269. doi:10.2307/974761
19.
JosephR. (2006). FLPMA turns 30: The Bureau of Land Management also celebrates its 60th birthday. Rangelands, 28(5), 16-23.
20.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
MarciaY. (2004). Property rights and sacred sites: Federal regulatory responses to American Indian religious claims on public land. The Yale Law Journal, 113, 1623-1662. doi:10.2307/4135775
23.
MuirW. K.Jr. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
NelsonR. H. (2006). Valuing nature: Economic analysis and public land management, 1975-2000. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65, 525-558.
25.
NewswanderC. B. (2012). Moral leadership and administrative statesmanship: Safeguards of democracy in a constitutional republic. Public Administration Review, 72, 866-874.
26.
OpieJ. (1990). Opportunity and challenge: The story of BLM, by James Muhn, Hanson R. Stuart. Agricultural History, 64, 114-115.
RichardsR. T.HuntsingerL. (1994). Variation in BLM employee attitudes toward environmental conditions on rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 47, 365-368.
30.
RohrJ. A. (1989). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
31.
SchwabE. A. (1985). Public lands politics: Interest group influence on the forest service and the Bureau of Land Management, by Paul J. Culhane. The Journal of Politics, 47, 1308-1309. doi:10.2307/2130841
32.
SkillenJ. R. (2008). The nation’s largest landowner: The Bureau of Land Management in the American West. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
33.
SpicerMichael W. (1995). The Founders, the Constitution, and Public Administration: A Conflict in World Views. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
34.
SvejcarT.BoydC.DaviesK.MadsenM.BatesJ.SheleyR.. . . HavstadK. (2014). Western land managers will need all available tools for adapting to climate change, including grazing: A critique of Beschta et al. Environmental Management, 53, 1035-1038.
35.
TorellL. A.RimbeyN. R.Van TassellL. W.TanakaJ. A.BartlettE. T. (2003). An evaluation of the federal grazing fee formula. Journal of Range Management, 56, 577-584. doi:10.2307/4003931
36.
TurnerC. (2014, May6). The revolt that wouldn’t die: The latest Sagebrush Rebellion flare-up in Nevada was unusually fierce. High Country News. Available from http://www.hcn.org
37.
WeaverG. D. (1969). Nevada’s federal lands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 59, 27-49.
38.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
39.
WorkmanJ. P. (1994). Higher federal grazing fees: Impacts on Utah ranches. Rangelands, 16(1), 7-8.
40.
YesilkagitK. (2004). Bureaucratic autonomy, organizational culture, and habituation: Politicians and independent administrative bodies in the Netherlands. Administration & Society, 36, 528-552. doi:10.1177/0095399704268501
