Search FCW


Subscribe Now!
Table of Contents
Sprint
Business
BPM
CXOs
Columns
Columnists
Defense
E-Government
Elections 2008
Enterprise Architecture
Funding
Homeland Security
Health IT
IPv6
LOB
Management
Procurement
Privacy
Policy
Program Management
State and Local
Security
Technology
Telework
Training and Certification
Workforce

More Topics
resourcecenter
Home
Letters to the Editor
Current Issue/Download
Print/Online Archives
Editorial Calendar
researchstore
resourcecenter
Communications for Continuity Operations

Oracle Resource Center
NEW! Transforming Data Center
Managed Services
Service Oriented Architecture
Training & Simulation
Networking Communications
Security Directives and Compliance
Data Center Virtualization
Air Force ELSG Contract Guide

More >>



Latest News
ADVERTISEMENT





 

Government Inc.

Policy-makers have worked hard to make the federal government run more like a business, but how far can they go?

By Michael Hardy
Published on December 4, 2006

Comment

Click here to comment on this article


Related story links

Senior execs unhappy with performance pay

BTA sets standards for transformation

Striking the right balance for customer service

DOD plans major overhaul of service buys

Politics changes A-76 landscape

New Tools for Implementing "Most Efficient Organizations" in the Federal Government


Newsletters

You might also be interested in these FCW newsletters:

Daily

To learn more, click here.


In recent decades, government leaders have tried to make government run more like a business and less like a bureaucracy. The Bush administration adopted a management agenda that rewarded agencies for business practices borrowed from the corporate world. The leaders’ ideas about entrepreneurial government gave new meaning to the term public service.

Few policy experts agree, however, on whether the Bush administration has been successful at transforming the federal government into a businesslike enterprise. Major transformations do not occur in just one or two presidential terms, most organizational experts say. But some — including a number who have been the staunchest advocates of the President’s Management Agenda — say they now doubt whether initiatives such as performance-based pay and business consolidation will achieve the objectives that they had wanted.

Many see limitations to how far the administration can go with business-oriented initiatives focused on customer service, procurement reforms and job outsourcing.

When the Bush administration took office in January 2001, “I think a lot of people came in thinking a lot of things would translate, and then a lot of them changed their minds,” said Renee Courtland, a former senior political aide and policy analyst in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. She is now a senior associate at Dutko Government Markets, a lobbying and marketing company.

The idea of transforming the federal government into Government Inc. didn’t begin with the Bush administration. The Clinton administration based its National Performance Review on similar ideas about improving government performance and efficiency. In a 1999 paper, a University of Nebraska professor, Richard Box, described the situation. “The public sector faces increasing demands to run government like a business, importing private-sector concepts such as entrepreneurism, privatization, treating the citizen like a ‘customer’ and management techniques derived from the production process,” Box wrote. “The idea that government should mimic the market is not new in American public administration, but the current situation is particularly intense.”


upcoming event

Green Computing Summit, Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, DC
December 2 - December 3, 2008

Trusted Internet Connection and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative, The Willard Intercontinental Hotel, Washington, DC
December 4, 2008


 

head
fcw
issue
First Name State
Last Name Zip
Title Email