FEMA and the witt revolution: Testing the hypothesis of "bureaucratic autonomy"

Public Organization Review

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 291-305

  Corrêa d'Almeida, André ^a   Klingner, Donald E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Bureaucratic autonomy; FEMA; Leadership; Networked governance; Politics and administration; Public management

Indexed keywords

EID: 55749113861     PISSN: 15667170     EISSN: 15737098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11115-008-0060-9     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Balla, S. J. 1998. Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 92(3): 663-673.
2. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. 1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Bawn, K. 1995. Political control versus expertise: Congressional choices about administrative procedures. American Political Science Review, 89(1): 62-73.
4. Bea, K. 2005. Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential declarations, eligible activities, and funding. congressional research service report for Congress. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress.
5. Bishin, B. G. 2003. Independently validating ideology measures: A look at NOMINATE and Adjusted ADA Scores. American Politics Research, 31(4): 404-425.
6. Carpenter, D. P. 2001. The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1-25.
8. Council for Excellence in Government. 1997. [On-line] FEMA Reborn. Available at: http://www.excelgov.org/index.php/keyword= a4338f4e563847&PHPSESSID=4b248c1cffe690e239d7f17d801ccc. [Retrieved February 1, 2007].
9. Ellig, J. 2000. Learning from the leaders: Results-based management at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. 1997a. State capability assessment for readiness: States Senate Committee on Appropriations. Washington, DC: FEMA.
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 1997b. Strategic Plan, FY 1998 through FY 2007.
12. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 1999a. Impact. FEMA employees' newsletter.
13. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. 1999b. [On-line] FEMA High Impact Agency Year 2000. Goals Status Report. Available at www.fema.gov/ about/goalchart2.htm [Retrieved February 1, 2007].
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 1999c. FEMA Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 1998.
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2007. [On-line] Available at www.fema.gov/mit/cb_prog.htm [Retrieved February 1, 2007].
16. GovExec 1999. Mastering Disaster. [On-line] Available at http://www.GovExec.com/gpp/0299fema.htm [Retrieved February 1, 2007].
17. Haddow, G., & Bullock, J. 2006. Introduction to emergency management. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann College, 2nd edition.
18. Horn, M. J. 1995. The political economy of public administration: institutional choice in the public sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Ink, D. 2006. An analysis of the house select committee and White House reports on Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 66(6): 800-812.
20. Junger, S. 1997. The perfect storm. New York: The Fourth Estate.
21. Kettl, D., & Fesler, J. 2005. The politics of the administrative process. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 3rd edition.
22. Kingdon, J. S. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policy. Boston: Little, Brown.
23. March, J. G. 1998. [On-line] Myths of management. Available at http://www.fenews.com/fen42/inside_black_box/black_box.html [Retrieved February 1, 2007].
24. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
25. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. 1984. The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review, 78: 734-749.
26. McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. 1983. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
27. Moe, T. M. 1984. The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4): 739-777.
28. Mushkatel, A. H., & Weschler, L. F. 1985. Emergency management and the intergovernmental system. Public Administration Review, 45, Special Issue: Emergency Management: A Challenge for Public Administration, 49-56.
29. National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] 1993. Coping with catastrophe: Building an emergency management system to meet people's needs in natural and manmade disasters. Washington, DC: NAPA.
30. Roper, L. D. 2001. [On-line] Political-party composition of Congress and Presidents 1867-2000. Available at http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/ politics/congress.htm [Retrieved February 1, 2007].
31. Schneider, S. K. 1998. Reinventing public administration: A case study of the federal emergency management agency. Public Administration Quarterly, Spring, 35-77.
32. Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of man. New York: Wiley.
33. Sylves, R. 2005. The President's emergency powers. Wilmington, DE: University of Delaware.
34. Wilson, J. Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
35. Wise, C. R. 2006. Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what's missing. Public Administration Review, 66(3): 302-318.
36. Witt, J. L., & Morgan, J. S. 2003. Stronger in the broken places: nine lessons for turning crisis into triumph. 2New York: Times Books.
37. Wolf, P. 2003. What I learned from James Lee Witt. The APSA Public Administration Section's Electronic Newsletter, 2(1).
38. Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. W. 1993. The dynamics of political-bureaucratic adaptation. American Journal of Political Sciences, 37(2): 497-528.
39. Woolley, J. T. 1993. Conflict among regulators and the hypothesis of congressional dominance. The Journal of Politics, 55(1): 92-114.