Reorganization and the Bottom Line
研究了政府重组能否真正降低成本、平衡预算和提升绩效，基于1982-1983年新泽西州重组的实证数据，发现当前学界过度强调重组的政治象征意义而忽视其实际效果。
Many candidates for the presidency, including Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, have promised to reduce the cost and improve the performance of government. At the state level, gubernatorial candidates often make similar promises. Once elected, some of these new chief executives actually do attempt to follow through on their promises. They generally appoint a study commission to analyze the organization and administration of the executive branch, and these commissions usually find that the government is badly organized, poorly managed, and suffering from outdated administrative practices and procedures. ' Reorganization is the remedy often prescribed for the ills identified; the anticipated results are big savings (economy) and improved service delivery (effectiveness). In sharp contrast to this optimistic political rhetoric, reorganization for economy and efficiency has been largely discredited in the contemporary academic literature. Indeed, modern political scientists tend to think of reorganization as a political rather than an administrative tool. Some scholars, like March and Olson, emphasize its potency as a symbolic tool that chief executives can use to manipulate public opinion.2 Others, like Seidman, stress its value as a tactical vehicle for limiting or enhancing individual and group access to the decision-making process.3 Yet, despite the popularity of this political model of reorganization, the fact remains that most of the existing work on reorganization is either conceptual or anecdotal. Empirically based studies of the bottom line results of reorganization are almost nonexistent, and thus our knowledge of the consequences of reorganization remains limited.4 The purpose of this paper is to take a careful look at some of the old but important questions about reorganization and the bottom line. Specifically, three questions are investigated: (1) Can reorganization be an effective tool for reducing the cost of government? (2) Can it be used successfully to reduce budget deficits or to balance budgets? (3) Can it be an effective tool for improving governmental performance? The data for this analysis are drawn from a statewide reorganization that took place in New Jersey during 1982 and 1983. Data sources include state budget documents, official state publications, press reports, and the published and unpublished material from the reorganization itself. In addition, 135 interviews were conducted with public sector managers and private sec* Chief executives at both the national and state levels regularly promise to reduce the cost and improve the performance of government by overhauling the bureaucracy. Modern political scientists, however, tend to dismiss these claims as empty rhetoric. Indeed, reorganization for economy and efficiency (the traditional model) has been largely discredited in the contemporary academic literature, and it has been replaced by a new (political) model. Yet, the fact remains that we know very little about the bottom line results of reorganization because empirical analysis is almost nonexistent. In this paper, the bottom line results of a 1982 statewide reorganization in New Jersey are systematically analyzed. Based on the findings of this analysis, the author concludes that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction with the current and nearly exclusive emphasis on the political dimensions of reorganization.