Diffusion of Civil Service Reform: the Federal and State Governments
| DOI | 10.1177/0734371X8200200204 |
| Author | Dennis L. Dresang |
| Published date | 01 March 1982 |
| Date | 01 March 1982 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
35
DIFFUSION
OF
CIVIL
SERVICE
REFORM:
THE
FEDERAL
AND
STATE
GOVERNMENTS
Dennis
L. Dresang
University
of
Wisconsin-Madison
Abstract
Concepts
and
strategies
for
improving
public
personnel
management
emanate
from
all
levels
of
government
and
diffuse
from
one
jurisdiction
to
another.
Rarely
is
the
diffusion
random.
This
study
identifies
the
patterns
of
diffusion
among
state
governments
in
the
periods
immediately
before
and
after
the
passage
of
the
Civil
Service
Reform
Act
of 1979
and
suggests
reasons
for
those
patterns.
Introduction
The
history
of
civil
service
reform,
like
the
history
of
many
other
policy
areas,
is
replete
with
examples
of
jurisdictions
borrowing
innovations
from
each
other.
The
basic
principles
and
wording
of
the
Pendleton
Act
of
1883,
establishing
the
federal
merit
system,
were
secured
by
U.
S.
reform
leaders
from
the
authors
of
British
civil
service
reform
(Hoogenboom,
1968).
Although
reform
advocates
in
the U. S.
were
primarily
concerned
about
the
effects
of
patronage
appoint-
ments
in
city
and
state
governments,
their
initial
success
was
at
the
federal
level.
With
the
Pendleton
Act
adopted,
advocates
for
change
at
the
state
and
local
level
had
the
legitimacy
and
the
extra
leverage
they
needed
to
achieve
success
there
too.
The
federal
government
used
both
carrot
and
stick
in
diffusing
the
merit
system
concept.
Since
the
Social
Security
Act
of
1935,
most
federal
programs
involving
state
and
local
administration
have
insisted
that
personnel
systems
used
in
federally
funded
programs
comply
with
minimal
merit
principles.
All
but
a
handful
of
states
responded
by
establishing
a
merit
system
for
all
their
employees,
not
just
those
involved
with
federal
programs.
The
federal
govern-
ment
has
also
insisted
that
state
and
local
governments
satisfy
certain
equal
employment
opportunity
principles,
health
and
safety
policies,
and
testing
and
selection
procedures
(Shapek,
1976:
41-51~.
Until
the
recent
budget
cuts
ordered
by
President
Reagan,
the
programs
and
provisions
of
the
Intergovernmental
Personnel
Act
of
1970
provided
funds
and
technical
assistance
for
the
improve-
ment
of
public
personnel
management
at
the state
and
local
level.
The
national
government
has
not
been
the
sole
source
of
innovation.
New
York
City,
for
example,
led
the
way
in
the
development
of
classification
systems.
Wisconsin
led
in
collective
bargaining
-
an
area
where
the
federal
government
To continue reading
Request your trial