Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A number of researchers assert that relations between careerists and political appointees in Washington typically start badly but improve over the course of an administration. This article tested that proposition by surveying 1,04S high-level careerists and 242 political appointees serving in the Washington, DC offices of 15 federal organizations. In defense organizations, both career and noncareer officials felt that relations started well and changed little over the course of the Reagan administration. In domestic organizations, both appointees and careerists felt that career-noncareer relations were problematic but improved since the first years of the administration. Apparently, however, these findings reflect leadership changes in a few organizations rather than a broader movement.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aberbach, J. , & Rockman, B. (1976). Clashing beliefs within the executive branch: The Nixon administration bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 70, 456-468.

Around the agencies . (1985). National Journal, 17, 2270-2271.

At the agencies . (1985). National Journal, 17, 1484-1485.

Brauer, C. (1986). Presidential transitions: Eisenhower through Reagan. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brauer, C. (1987). Tenure, turnover, and postgovernment employment trends of presidential appointees. In G. C. Mackenzie (Ed.), The in-and-outers (pp. 174-194). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Burford, A. , & Greenya, J. (1986). Are you tough enough?. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cole, R. , & Caputo, D. (1979). Presidential control of the senior civil service: Assessing the strategies of the Nixon years. American Political Science Review, 73, 399-413.

The decision-makers [special issue]. (1985). National Journal, 17.

Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.

10.

Durant, R. (1990). Beyond fear or favor: Appointee-careerist relations in the post-Reagan era. Public Administration Review, 50, 319-331.

11.

Gaertner, G. H. , Gaertner, K. N. , & Devine, I. (1983). Federal agencies in the context of transition: A contrast between democratic and organizational theories. Public Administration Review, 43, 421-432.

12.

Ingraham, P. , & Ban, C. (1984). Legislating bureaucratic change: The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Albany: State University of New York Press.

13.

Lorentzen, P. (1985). Stress in political-career executive relations. Public Administration Review, 45, 411-414.

14.

Lynn, L. (1982). The Reagan administration and the bureaucracy. In L. Salamon & M. Lund (Eds.), The Reagan presidency and the governing of America (pp. 345-375). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

15.

Nathan, R. (1983). The administrative presidency. New York: Wiley.

16.

Newland, C. (1983). A mid-term appraisal —the Reagan presidency: Limited government and political administration. Public Administration Review, 43, 1-21.

17.

Pfiffner, J. (1987). Political appointees and career executives: The democracy-bureaucracy nexis in the third century. Public Administration Review, 47, 57-65.

18.

Pfiffner, J. (1990). Establishing the Bush presidency. Public Administration Review, 50, 64-73.

19.

Randall, R. (1979). Presidential power versus bureaucratic intransigence: The influence of the Nixon administration on welfare policy. American Political Science Review, 73, 795-810.

20.

Rector, R. , & Sanera, M. (1987). Agency deflection. In R. Rector & M. Sanera (Eds.), Steering the elephant: How Washington really works. New York: Universe.

21.

Rosen, B. (1986). Crisis in the U.S. civil service. Public Administration Review, 46, 207-214.

22.

Rubin, I. (1985). Shrinking the federal government. New York: Longman.

23.

Salamon, L. , & Lund, M. (Eds.). (1982). The Reagan presidency and the governing of America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

24.

Van Riper, P. (1958). History of the United States civil service. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

25.

Waterman, R. (1989). Presidential influence and the administrative state. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Does Familiarity Breed Acceptance?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References