This article uses the normative framework provided by the concept of autonomy grounded in subordination to view competing institutional pressures in three government agencies (the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, and the Department of Justice). This framework suggests that the proper perspective for viewing an agency in a government of separate but shared powers is one of balancing responsibility to multiple masters. The use of the subordinate autonomy framework fosters an attitude that embraces the ambiguity and tensions of governance, and will heighten awareness of what it means to practice administrative statesmanship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barth, T. J.
(1993). Constitutional subordinate autonomy: Serving multiple masters—A normative theory in practice. Administration & Society, 25(2), 160-182.
2.
Berman, L.
(1979). The office of management and budget and the presidency, 1921-1979. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Cooper, T.
(1990). The responsible administrator. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Executive Office of the President
. Report of the National Performance Review. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and costs less. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.
Frederickson, G.
(1991). Toward a theory of the public for public administration. Administration & Society, 22, 395-417.
6.
Heclo, H.
(1975). OMB and the presidency—the problem of "neutral competence."Public Interest, 38, 80-98.
7.
Heclo, H.
, & Salamon, L. (1981). The illusion of presidential government. Boulder, CO: Westview.
8.
Meador, D. J.
(1980). The President, the Attorney General, and the Department of Justice. Charlottesville, VA: White Burkett Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia.
9.
March, J. G.
, & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York, NY: The Free Press.
10.
Mosher, F.
(1979). The GAO: The quest for accountability in the federal government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11.
Mosher, F.
(1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York, NY: Oxford University.
12.
Nalbandian J.
(1989). The U.S. Supreme Court's "Consensus" on Affirmative Action. Public Administration Review, 49(1), 38-45.
13.
Rohr, J.
(1978). Ethics for bureaucrats. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
14.
Rohr, J.
(1986). To run a constitution. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
15.
Quinn, R. E.
, & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377.
16.
Terry, L. D. (1989). A Theory of Administrative Conservatorship. Unpublished dissertation. Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
17.
Schein, E.
(1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18.
Schein, E.
(1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
19.
Selznick, P.
(1987). The Idea of a Communitarian Morality. California Law Review, 75, 460.
20.
Wamsley, G.
(1994). An Attempt to Summarize the Blacksburg and Agency Perspectives. Unpublished manuscript. Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va.
21.
Winter Commission
. (1993). Hard Truths/Tough Choices: An Agenda for State and Local Reform. Albany: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
