In this article, we use the Bush administration’s management grades to analyze whether programs administered by senior executives are better managed than those administered by political appointees requiring Senate confirmation. We explain the administration’s management grading scheme and how it can be informative for evaluating comparative management quality. We explain why senior-executive-run programs should be better managed than appointee-run programs and test our claim with data on 234 federal programs. We find that political-appointee-run programs earn systematically lower grades in most management areas. We conclude that a systematic review of the proper role of political appointees in federal program management should be considered.
Ban, C., & Ingraham, P. W. (1990). Short-timers: Political appointee mobility and its impact on political-career relations in the Reagan administration. Administration and Society, 22, 106-124.
2.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law?Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Bilmes, L. J., & Neal, J. R. (2003). The people factor: Human resources reform in government. In J. D. Donahue & J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), For the people: Can we fix public service? (pp. 113-133). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
4.
Bok, D. (2003). Government personnel policy in comparative perspective. In J. D. Donahue & J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), For the people: Can we fix public service? (pp. 255-272). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Brauer, C. (1987). Tenure, turnover, and postgovernment employment trends of presidential appointees. In G. C. Mackenzie (Ed.), The in-and-outers: Presidential appointees and transient government in Washington (pp.174-194). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Chang, K., Jordan, S. V., Lewis, D. E., & McCarty, N. M. (2003, April). The tenure of political appointees. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
8.
Chang, K., Lewis, D. E., & McCarty, N. M. (2000, September). Turnover among political appointees. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
9.
Dodd, L. C., & Schott, R. L. (1979). Congress and the administrative state: Viewpoints on American politics. New York: Wiley.
10.
Donahue, J. D. (2003). In-and-outers: Up or down? In J. D. Donahue & J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), For the people: Can we fix public service? (pp.55-71). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
11.
Donahue, J. D., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (Eds.). (2003). For the people: Can we fix public service?Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
12.
General Accounting Office. (1994). Political appointees: Turnover rates in executive schedule positions requiring senate confirmation. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
Heclo, H. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
14.
Joyce, P. G. (1990). An analysis of the factors affecting the employment tenure of federal political executives. Administration and Society, 22, 127-145.
15.
Lewis, D. E. (2003). Presidents and the politics of agency design: Political insulation in the United States government bureaucracy, 1946-1997. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
Light, P. (1995). Thickening government: Federal hierarchy and the diffusion of accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
17.
Lucier, C., Schuyt, R., & Spiegel, E. (2003). Deliver or depart: CEO succession 2002. Strategy+Business31, 32-45.
18.
Mackenzie, G. C. (Ed.). (1987). The in-and-outers: Presidential appointees and transient government in Washington. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
Maranto, R. (1998). Thinking the unthinkable in public administration: A case for spoils in the federal bureaucracy. Administration and Society, 29, 623-642.
20.
McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 3, 243-277.
21.
McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrol versus fire alarm. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 165-177.
22.
Michaels, J. E. (1997). The president’s call: Executive leadership from FDR to George Bush. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
23.
Moe, T. M. (1982). Regulatory performance and presidential administration. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 197-224.
24.
Moe, T. M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The new direction in American politics (pp. 235-271). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
25.
Moe, T. M. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), Can the government govern? (pp.267-329). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
26.
Nathan, R. P. (1975). The plot that failed: Nixon and the administrative presidency. New York: John Wiley.
27.
Nathan, R. P. (1983). The administrative presidency. New York: John Wiley.
28.
National Commission on the Public Service. (2003). Urgent business for America: Revitalizing the federal government for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
29.
Peacock, M. (2003, June 13). Program performance and the FY 2004 budget process. Forum presented at the Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
30.
President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. (1999, June). Science at its best, security at its worst: A report on security problems at the U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1974). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
32.
Stanley, D. T., Mann, D. E., & Doig, J. W. (1967). Men who govern: A biographical profile of federal political executives. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
33.
Tendler, J. (1997). Good government in tropics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2002, July 12). Instructions for the Program Assessment Ratings Tool. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2003a). Budget of the United States government FY 2004: Performance management and assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2003b). Budget of the United States government FY 2004: Rating the performance of federal programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37.
U.S. President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. (1999, June). Science at its best, security at its worst: A report on security problems at the U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
U.S. Senate. (2000). Policy and supporting positions. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
