"Local Officials' Reaction to Federal "Capacity-Building

Two recent publications of the American Society for Public Administration have focused on current developments in our federal system. In September of 1973, Leigh Grosenick edited The Administration of the New Federalism: Objectives and Issues.2 A special issue of the Public Administration Review was issued in December of 1975 entitled Policy Management Assistance: A Developing Dialogue. Both of these publications are concerned with the evolution of law and policy at the national level-especially grant-in-aid relations with state and local governments. Numerous other publications have also focused on these same concerns. 3 The central thrust of current activities is to decentralize decision-making authorities from Washington to state and local governments. Revenue sharing and block grants are major dimensions of this evolution. Some related-efforts include the creation of ten standardized federal regions, increased authority for federal regional directors, further development of sub-state districts, and integrated grant experiments. As Leigh Grosenick has pointed out, one persistent theme throughout these developments is that . . state and local governments are poorly managed and are therefore unable to meet their responsibilities for providing effective public service.4 This theme, in concert with the federal government's apparent desire to increase state and local discretion over federal dollars, has led federal officials to conclude that capacity-building is needed at the state and local levels of government. Capacity-building is defined by Philip Burgess as

Business · Political science · Corporate Taxation and Avoidance · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Public Administration

• Capacity Building and the Elements of Public Management

  Paul Burge, Philip M Burgess•Public Administration Review•1975

  Add to list