Public Organization Review

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 317–328 | Cite as

Bureaucratic Power: Security and the National Response Plan

Article
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

The National Response Plan was created by the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of organizing disaster relief services by coordinating activities of cabinet departments and independent agencies. A case study of the Plan's creation shows that the Department has skillfully used its sources of administrative power to build a latent control network with little or no oversight, raising questions of accountability and ultimate security. Variables discussed here promote building of a theory of bureaucratic power.

Key words

Security Bureaucratic power Emergency response 

References

  1. Allison, G. T. 1986. The power of bureaucratic routines: the Cuban missile crisis. In Rourke F. E. (Ed.) Bureaucratic power in national policy making. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 87–105.Google Scholar
  2. Burke, J. P. 1987. A prescriptive view of the implementation process: when should bureaucrats exercise discretion? Policy Studies Review 7(1):217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eisner, M. A., Meier, K. E. 1990. Presidential control versus bureaucratic power: explaining the Reagan revolution in antitrust. American Journal of Political Science 34(1): 269–287.Google Scholar
  4. Etzioni-Halevy, A. 2002. Administrative power as elite power. Israeli Affairs 8(4): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Federal Emergency Management Agency 2004. National incident management system. www.fema.gov/nims.
  6. Glasser, S., & Grunwald, M. 2005. The steady buildup to a city's chaos. Washington Post Online, September 11, www.washingtonpost.com.
  7. Graham, B. 2005. Military expands homeland efforts. Washington Post Online, July 6, 2005. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070501669, Accessed: July 12.
  8. Holden, M. Jr. 1986. Imperialism in bureaucracy. In Rourke F. E. (Ed.) Bureaucratic power in national policy making. Little Brown, Boston, MA, pp. 28–44.Google Scholar
  9. The Homeland Security Act of 2002. PL 107–296.Google Scholar
  10. LeMay, M. 2006. Public administration: clashing values in the administration of public policy. Wadsworth, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, E. 1980. Public entrepreneurship: toward a theory of bureaucratic political power. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  12. Long, N. E. 2000. Power and administration. In Stillman R. J. (Ed.) Public administration, cases and concepts. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, pp 103–108.Google Scholar
  13. Michaud, N. 2002. Bureaucratic politics and the shaping of policies: can we measure pulling and hauling games? Canadian Journal Political Science 35(2): 269–300.Google Scholar
  14. Moe, T. M. 1982. Regulatory performance and presidential administration. American Journal Political Scince 26:197–224.Google Scholar
  15. The National Emergencies Act of 2002 50 U.S.C. 1601. et. seq.Google Scholar
  16. Peters, G. B. 1989. The politics of bureaucracy. Longman, White Plains, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Robert T. 1974. Stafford Disaster Assistance Act of 1974. PL 93–288.Google Scholar
  18. Schmitt, E., Shanker, T. 2005. Military may propose an active duty force for relief efforts. New York Times. October 11, 2005: A-13.Google Scholar
  19. Simon, H. A., Smithburg, D. W., Thompson, V. A. 1986. The struggle for survival. In: Rourke F. E. (Ed.) Bureaucratic power in national policy making. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
  20. United States Department of Homeland Security 2003. Department of Homeland Security Facts–2003. www.dhs.gov.
  21. United States Department of Homeland Security 2004a. The National Response Plan, Full Plan. www.dhs.gov.
  22. United States Department of Homeland Security 2004b. The National Response Plan, Base Plan and Appendices. www.dhs.gov.
  23. United States Department of Homeland Security 2005a. Fact sheet: national response plan.www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0581.xml, November 2005.
  24. United States Department of Homeland Security 2005b. Department of Homeland Security Announces Completion of National Response Plan. www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_ release/press_release_0582.xml, January 6, 2005.
  25. United States Department of Homeland Security 2005c. Performance and Accountability Report 2004. http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=58&content=4207.
  26. United States Department of Homeland Security 2005d. Budget of the Homeland Security Department FY 06. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/dhs.html.
  27. Weber, M. 1986. Essay on bureaucracy. In Rourke F. E. (Ed.) Bureaucratic power in national policy making. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 62–86.Google Scholar
  28. West, W. 1998. Oversight committees in the house of representatives. Congress and Presidency 25(2): 147–161.Google Scholar
  29. West, W. 2005. Neutral competence and political responsiveness: an uneasy relationship. Policy Studies Journal 33(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. The White House 2004. Summary of homeland security presidential directives. November 22, 2005. www.firstgov.gov.
  31. The White House 2005. Improving homeland security. www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland, October 2005.
  32. Wilson, J. Q. 1986. The rise of the bureaucratic state. In Rourke F. E. (Ed.) Bureaucratic power in national policy making. Little Brown, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 125–148.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science DepartmentKennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA

Personalised recommendations