Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPark, Soo-Youngen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T20:15:44Zen
dc.date.available2014-03-14T20:15:44Zen
dc.date.issued2005-08-22en
dc.identifier.otheretd-08262005-220709en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/28804en
dc.description.abstractWho is the American bureaucracy's master in national government? At least three different sets of answers have been proposed. The first answer claims a single master of American bureaucracy, be it the president, Congress, or the courts. The second denies that there is any master over the bureaucracy and claims the existence of bureaucratic autonomy. In the middle of the two theories, there lies multiple masters theory. This dissertation attempts to advocate multiple masters theory by answering such questions as "Is the conception of multiple masters only theoretically conceivable, or is it historically supported?" or "Does the historical record suggest that multiple masters scheme was seriously in play in actual American constitutional dialogue?" To be a master, one should have at least one of the following powers - budget, personnel, information, and regulatory review. This dissertation focuses on one of them - the appointing power. To look at it historically, this dissertation chose four distinct periods of American history. They are the founding era, Jacksonian era, Republican era, and the Carter Administration. These eras were related to the four important civil service reform acts: the two Tenure of Office Acts of 1820 and 1867, Pendleton Act of 1883, and the CSRA of 1978. Congressional debates recorded in Congressional Record were analyzed to find evidences supporting multiple masters perspective. There were evidences that support the significant existence and role of the multiple masters perspective in all the four eras analyzed. Although weakened in the 1978 debate, the multiple masters theory was supported in important congressional debates by leading politicians of the day, providing historical foundation for the theory. The multiple masters perspective provides a need to construct a normative foundation for bureaucrats to adopt, because bureaucrats, in many cases, cannot avoid making decisions on which master to choose and which to ignore at a given time on a given issue. Under the multiple masters scheme, bureaucrats may have to play the role of balance wheel in the constitutional order, using their statutory powers and professional expertise to favor whichever constitutional masters need their help to preserve the purpose of the Constitution itself.en
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartdissertation_final_ETD.pdfen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectcivil service reformen
dc.subjectbureaucratic autonomyen
dc.subjectmultiple mastersen
dc.subjectCivil Service Reform Acten
dc.subjectTenure of Office Acten
dc.subjectPendleton Acten
dc.titleWho Is Our Master? -Debates during Civil Service Reforms-en
dc.typeDissertationen
dc.contributor.departmentPublic Administration and Public Affairsen
dc.description.degreePh. D.en
thesis.degree.namePh. D.en
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.disciplinePublic Administration and Public Affairsen
dc.contributor.committeechairRohr, John A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberWamsley, Gary L.en
dc.contributor.committeememberHult, Karen M.en
dc.contributor.committeememberLane, Larry M.en
dc.contributor.committeememberWolf, James F.en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08262005-220709/en
dc.date.sdate2005-08-26en
dc.date.rdate2005-11-11en
dc.date.adate2005-11-11en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record