The Thinning of Administrative Institutions in the Hollow State

• Author: Larry D. Terry
• Date: 01 September 2005
• Published date: 01 September 2005
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399705277136
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0095399705277136ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / September 2005Terry / THINNING OF ADMINISTRATIVE INSTITUTIONS

THE THINNING OF ADMINISTRATIVE

INSTITUTIONS IN THE HOLLOW STATE

LARRY D. TERRY

The University of Texas at Dallas

During the past 20 years or so, governments worldwide have embarked on an ambitious

journeyto improve government performance. Relying on a multitude of administrative tech-

nologies broadly classified under the heading of the New PublicManagement (NPM), re-

formers have sought to radically change the manner in which the public’sbusiness is con-

ducted. Although the verdictis still out, evidence is accumulating that NPM philosophy and

practices may have produced unintended consequences. The author argues that in addition

to contributingto an increasingly hollow state, NPM philosophy and practices have contrib-

uted to a phenomenon described as the thinning of administrative institutions.Thin institu-

tions areweak; they lack the capacity for good administration—a requirementfor maintain-

ing the American people’s confidence in government.

Keywords: thin institution; hollow state; new public management; reform

Students of administration remain generally of the opinion that the values

and practices of American Business can be accepted for governmental ad-

ministration with only slight reservations. There is an aura of explicit doubt

and skepticism about all of these tenets.

—Dwight Waldo (1984)

Milward, Provan,and Else (1993) introduced the term hollow state into

the public affairs community. Drawing on the private-sector idea of the

hollow corporation, Milward and his associates use the metaphor of the

hollow state to “describe the nature of the devolution of power and

426

AUTHOR’SNOTE: This article draws on a chapter in The Administrative State Reconsid-

ered,with John Cadigan, Robert Durant, Donald Kettl, Howard McCurdy, PatriciaIngraham,

Norma Riccucci, David Rosenbloom, Barbara Romzek, and Larry D. Terry, which is being

published by Georgetown University Press.

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 37 No. 4, September 2005 426-444

DOI: 10.1177/0095399705277136

© 2005 Sage Publications

decentralization of services from central governments to subnational gov-

ernments, and by extension to third parties—nonprofit agencies and pri-

vate firms—who increasingly manage in the name of the state” (p. 193).

Stated simply, the hollow state refers to the extent to which governments

are directly involved in providing services. Although scholars have used

other terms to describe the same phenomenon, the metaphor of the hollow

state is now widely recognized as the term of choice among those who talk

and write about the changing nature of the public sector.1

When Milward and his coauthors (1993) directed our attention to the

hollow state, the phenomenon was in its infant stages of development, but

it was rapidly maturing as administrativetechnologies such as contracting

out, deregulation, and other forms of privatization gained widespread

popular and political support. As the march toward an increasingly hol-

low state proceeded with deliberate speed, writers across a spectrum of

disciplines sought to understand its nature, characteristics, and admini-

strative requirements as well as its implications for democratic gover-

nance (Milward, 1996; Milward & Provan, 2000; Peters, 1994). These

scholarly efforts have provided important insights into the hollow state

phenomenon.

Wenow know a great deal about the hollow state. We know that public

managers need different competencies and skill sets to effectively func-

tion in the hollow state (Johnston & Romzek, 1999; Kettl, 1993; Milward,

1994; Praeger & Desai, 1996; Savas, 2000; Van Slyke, 2003; Wallin,

1997). We know that an increasingly hollow state raisesimportant ques-

tions about democratic accountability and, in turn, the legitimacy of the

administrative state (Bardach & Lesser, 1996; Box, Marshall, Reed, &

Reed, 2001; Milward & Provan, 2000; Peters, 1994; Terry, 1998a).

Finally,we know that administrative technologies primarily used to create

the hollow state are integral components of a global revolution in public

management broadly described as the New Public Management (NPM;

Aucoin, 1995; Boston, Martin, Pallot, & Walsh, 1996; Hood, 1991,

1995a, 1995b; Kettl, 1997). This revolutionary approach to public man-

agement and its effect on administrative institutions forced to function in

an increasingly hollow state is the focus of our attention.

In this article, I argue that NPM philosophy and practiceshave contrib-

uted to an increasingly hollow state with thinning administrative institu-

tions. I make the case that thin administrative institutions are fragile

(Comfort, 2002). Fragile institutions lack the integrity and, in turn, the

capacity to effectively serve the public good. In pursuing this line of

Terry / THINNING OF ADMINISTRATIVE INSTITUTIONS 427