Government Growth in an Age of Improvement Essay

Democratic accountability is supposed to be alive and well in any political system rather than a government ran on â€Å"auto-pilot† at the expense of neglected and so expected taxpayers and rightful citizens. Introduction It should sound ironical that the president should continue to choose cabinet and sub cabinet officers and both the president and the congress continue to remain accountable to the American people through elections and exercise the power of the purse unlike in other democratic countries a great lack of interest in political administration is evident in the United Nations, resulting to deeper strains in American Society at large. The US has never created a high level, government-wide-civil service or a highly skilled and experienced top executive political manpower. The control of government policies is vested in an informal enduring series of â€Å"iron triangles† who are a link between particular program proposed to the relevant executive bureau, congressional committees and interest groups clientele the iron triangles are disastrously incomplete since they hardly understand changes in politics and administration but rather look for the powerful actors with whom to do business (P. 88). The job of presidential appointees in controlling their own actions and managing the bureaucracy are ultimately complicated. The problem arises where politicians, officials and their fellow travelers fail to meet what the public can understand and accept; thus registering large strains of American politics and society. Organized politics are dissolved and organizational life throughout the nation is politicized. Government Growth in an Age of Improvement The late 1950s and entire 1960s witnessed a wave of federal initiatives in health, civil rights, education, housing, manpower, income maintenance, transportation and urban affairs all associated with low government expenditure. Newer types of welfare concerns such as consumer protection, the environment, cancer prevention, energy, etc. have characterized an ambitious, reform minded period and a big government. However, there has been astonishingly little increase in the overall size of the federal executive establishment. Federal employment never grew either in comparison with spending and regulations (P. 89). Higher costs of existing policies are just one explanation of expanding government and stable bureaucracy and has been important in income maintenance programs. Another explanation is lack of administering programs directly to general population but rather act through intermediary organizations such as state governments, city halls, third party payers, consultants, contractors etc. making the contract between the ordinary citizen and a federal bureaucrat quite rare. This promotes the idea of government by remote control. This in essence is advantageous to the federal government builds support for policies, translating otherwise indivisible collective goods into terms suitable for distributive politics (P. 91). Sidestepping the tremendously difficult task of creating a broad national consensus for the governments administered activities is another advantage. This method of policies has led to mushrooming of federal regulations much in common with federal spending – the government can use regulations and tell the public and private bureaucracies what to do. The federal policy makers are left to distribute funds and bear blames when things go wrong. The style of retailing promises of improved policies and wholesaling the administrative headaches connected with delivery has left the people to expect the government to solve problems but not to get in anyone’s way in the process (P. 93). These results to policy pile up. Washington has in the end been put to the worst of both world-blamed for poor delivery by its public customers and besieged with bills from its middlemen. The possibility of both politicizing organizational life and depoliticizing democratic leadership is an area of concern. Since 1950s greatest policy growth was advocated – programs seeking social betterment in terms of civil rights, income, housing, environment, consumer protection etc. otherwise known as welfare policies. The idea of compensation is a theme in the clamor of group politics meaning that the federal government should put things right fits well for the groups that are disadvantaged and special treatment is required for truly equal opportunity to prevail and for those representing the disadvantaged. The government action is required to redress the impact of the selfish private interests. The prevalent feeling in the US that â€Å"there oughtta be policy† and the connotation of getting in on society’s compensations is decidedly positive. New initiatives in federal funding and regulation have infused old and new organizations with public policy dimensions, especially when such groups are used as administrative middlemen (P. 96-97). Expanding welfare policies on indirect administration have encouraged the development of specialized subcultures composed of highly knowledgeable policy makers some of whom have advanced professional degrees and commonly shared detailed understanding of specialized issues (P. 100-101). Employees in the field and in Washington who perform the routine chores associated with direct administration have become less prominent whereas those with necessary technical and supervisory skills have become more important. This in essence, results to expansion of the upper and middle levels of officialdom rather than increase the overall size of the bureaucracy. More technical skills and higher supervisory levels have become a requirement. Stable sets of clear goals in all modern organizations, even non profit oriented are the causes of increasing complexities and specializations affecting leaders. The pressure for more expert staff assistance have become immense for decision makers in governments where policy goals have been neither stable nor clear in the last twenty years and this applies to legislators and public executives (P. 101). Weakness in executive leadership below the level of the president have never really been due to interest groups, party politics or congress, rather the problem lies on the lack of any democratically based power political executives yet their popular mandate to act in the bureaucracy secondhand, from either an elected chief executive in congress political democrats further weaken the scenario. As much as political administrators become close to specialized policy networks the gap between them and the ordinary citizen widens a typical presidential appointee hardly gets time to see or listen to an ordinary member of the public. Only a minority of citizens gets a chance to be moralized in the various networks while those who are not policy activists depend on the ability of the government institutions to work on their behalf (P. 118). Conclusion More communication may need to be involved incase the gap between the policy networks and the bulk of the population is created by information. Policy forensics among the networks yield more experts making more sophisticated claims and counter claims that non-specialists becomes inclined to concede everything and believe nothing that he hears. Many factors and events are linked to these changing public attitudes. The prominence of issue networks is bound to aggravate problems of legitimacy and public disenchantment. The influential systems for knowledgeable policy making tend to make democratic politics difficult (P. 118-119). References Hugo Heclo, 2007 â€Å"Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. †