I. Introduction

Aikin, Charles; Koenig, Louis W.

doi:10.2307/1950234

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meriam and Schmeckebier (1939) not only discussed the structural reorganization of executive departments with the possible curtailment of functions and activities but also debated the best relative roles for presidents and congress. In 1949, the American Political Science Review published a symposium on the Commission on the Executive Reorganization of Government (often known as the first Hoover Commission) that tried to relate its recommendations to political issues facing departments and other entities (Atkin and Koenig, 1949). Rather than a timeline of activities, Mosher (1968) focused on themes the early reorganization commissions emphasized with an eye to relate them to the evolution of American civil service concepts and democracy.…”

Section: Studying Reorganizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

James G. March and management history: the case of government reorganizations

Schachter

2021

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine March and Olsen’s 1983 study of American Government reorganization attempts between 1904 and 1980 in relation to three debates in management history scholarship. Can explorations of the past yield innovative interpretations of the present and future organizational activities? What is the role of multiple perspectives in understanding complex reality? How should management historians react to the differences in power held by various actors in historical scenarios and to the absence of documented evidence of the stances of many traditionally underrepresented groups? Design/methodology/approach The paper analyzes March and Olsen’s 1983 historical study on federal government reorganizations in relation to twentieth-century political science/public administration scholarship from 1919 to the present showing the unique focus and conclusion of March and Olsen’s work. The paper relates this focus and conclusions to three management questions. Findings This analysis shows that March and Olsen’s interpretation of American reorganization has had a significant impact on the work of political scientists studying programs that did not exist in 1983; this impact suggests how historical scholarship can invigorate understanding of current programs. The analysis also gives evidence to support March and Olsen’s focus on the importance of considering multiple perspectives to interpret complex realities. The analysis concludes that despite March’s acknowledging the importance of anti-establishment scholarship, March and Olsen’s 1983 work did not explore the role of power differentials or the voices of the oppressed in government reorganizations. Originality/value The value of this paper is that it seeks to relate March and Olsen’s work to a scholarship domain where it has not often been considered. Management historians lament that their work and concerns have often been considered peripheral by the greater management field. By showing how a major management theorist such as March used historical analysis to further understanding of contemporary organizations the paper heightens the visibility and importance of management history work.

show abstract

Section: Studying Reorganizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

James G. March and management history: the case of government reorganizations

Schachter

2021

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Veterans as a Social Movement: The American Legion, the First Hoover Commission, and the Making of the American Welfare State

Burtin

2020

Soc. sci. hist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges the conventional view of veterans’ politics in the United States as an “iron triangle” or a “subgovernment,” terms that connote a low-profile field dominated by a small number of elite actors operating consensually behind closed doors. It shows instead that veterans’ affairs were at the center of a heated national debate to which both grassroots activists and national leaders contributed as part of a larger social movement, as demonstrated by the controversy over the First Hoover Commission. Created by Congress in 1947 to find ways to make the executive branch more efficient, the commission’s proposals to reform veterans’ affairs were all defeated by the countercampaign of the largest and most influential veterans’ group of the era, the American Legion. Former soldiers were not alone (they benefited from the assistance of key state actors such as the heads of the Veterans Administration and of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs) but their mobilization proved decisive. This episode shows that even veterans of World War II, traditionally seen as the most deserving cohort of former soldiers in US history (the “Greatest Generation”), had to organize to defend their benefits against attacks. The privileged position of veterans in the US welfare state is therefore less the result of their exalted cultural status (as is often presumed) than of their ability to mobilize politically and to override the preferences of significant numbers of public and private actors—just like any other group making claims on the state.

show abstract

The Worldwide Founding of Ministries of Science and Technology, 1950–1990

Jang

2000

Sociological Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the increasing involvement of the state in science, in particular the establishment of a new cabinet-level ministry for science and technology by 146 countries from 1950 to 1990. As confirmatory analyses to test hypotheses, I employ event history techniques—piecewise exponential models with period-specific effects. The results show that although internal, functional conditions exerted a positive influence on the adoption rate of science ministries during the earlier period (1950–70), institutional effects have become more influential over time (1971–90). The increasing institutional effects were supported by three findings. First, the baseline founding rate of science ministries during the later period is significantly higher than that of the earlier period, which indicates that the ministry of science and technology became an expected and legitimated governmental structure since the late 1960s. Second, the amount of global organizational discourse on science and national development has a positive and significant effect on the founding of science ministries throughout the world in the later period. Third, direct linkage to international science organizations and discourse, as measured by the number of memberships of each country in the International Council of Science Unions (ICSU), strongly affects the founding of science ministries during both periods and even more strongly during the latter one.

show abstract

I. Introduction

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

James G. March and management history: the case of government reorganizations

James G. March and management history: the case of government reorganizations

Veterans as a Social Movement: The American Legion, the First Hoover Commission, and the Making of the American Welfare State

The Worldwide Founding of Ministries of Science and Technology, 1950–1990

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About