The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks stunned Americans. They also created new and unprecedented challenges for public administration, in theory and practice. A careful look at these challenges, however, reveals a familiar core: At its foundation, homeland security is about one of public administration's oldest puzzles—coordination. Although the field has a great deal to say about solving this puzzle, homeland security introduces new and especially difficult dimensions: matching place-based problems with functionally organized services; defining and achieving a minimum level of protection that all citizens ought to receive; building a reliable learning system for problems that, with luck, occur only rarely; balancing the new homeland security mission with existing missions that remain important; and meeting citizens' expectations in a fragmented governance system. These challenges demand a new, more effective system of contingent coordination, one that flexibly develops and matches government's capacity to new and unpredictable problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Carpenter, D. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). Administrative reform policy: The challenges of turning symbols into practice. Paper presented at the Sixth National Public Management Research Conference, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington
4.
Dahl, R. (1947, winter). The science of public administration. Public Administration Review, 7, 1-11.
5.
Dalton, P. (2002). Combating terrorism: Intergovernmental cooperation in the development of a national strategy to enhance state and local preparedness [Statement]. (GAO-02-550T). Washington DC: General Accounting Office.
6.
Donahue, J. (1997). Disunited states. New York: Basic Books.
7.
Emmerich, H. (1971). Federal reorganization and administrative management. University: University of Alabama Press.
8.
Falkenrath, R. (2000). The problems of preparedness: Challenges facing the U.S. domestic preparedness program [BCSIA Discussion Paper 2000-28, ESDP Discussion Paper ESDP-2000-05]. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Available at ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/Library.nsf/pubs/ESDP5Falkenrat
9.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2001). Semi-annual report: April 1, 2001-September 30, 2001. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of the Inspector General, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.fema.gov/ig/0401_sar.htm
Frederickson, H. G., & LaPorte, T. (2002, September). Airport security, high reliability, and the problem of rationality. Public Administration Review, 62, 33-43.
12.
Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 1-45). New York: Institute of Public Administration.
13.
Hatry, H. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
14.
Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. New York: Viking.
17.
Khademian, A. (2002). Working with culture: How the job gets done in public programs. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
18.
Landau, M. (1969, July-August). Redundancy, Duplication, and the Problem of Duplication and Overlap. Public Administration Review, 29, 346-358.
19.
LaPorte, T. (1996). High reliability organizations: Unlikely, demanding and at risk. Journal of Crisis & Contingency Management, 4, 55-59.
20.
LaPorte, T., & Consolini, P. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of high-reliability organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 1, 19-47.
21.
LaPorte, T., & Thomas, C. (1996). Regulatory compliance and the ethos of quality enhancement: Surprises in nuclear power plant operations. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 5, 111-139.
22.
Light, P. (1997). The tides of reform: Making government work 1945-1995. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Posner, P. (2002). Combating terrorism: Intergovernmental partnership in a national strategy to enhance state and local preparedness [Statement] (GAO-02-547T). Washington DC: General Accounting Office.
31.
Provan, K., & Milward, H. B. (2001, July/August). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 414-423.
32.
Rivlin, A. (1992). Reviving the American dream: The economy, the states and the federal government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
33.
Seidman, H. (1998). Politics, position, and power: The dynamics of federal organization (5th ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
35.
Short, L. (1923). The development of national administrative organization in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Macmillan.
37.
Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state: The expansion of national administrative capacities 1877-1920. New York: Cambridge University Press).
38.
Taylor, F. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers.
