Government agencies exercise bureaucratic autonomy when they are able to pursue their goals independent, and sometimes in defiance, of political superiors. Over the last three decades, research in the area of bureaucratic autonomy has provided numerous examples of relatively autonomous agencies and has generally recognized the desire of administrators to carve out greater autonomy for their organizations, but the question of how administrators consciously or unconsciously pursue autonomy remains a rich and largely unexplored area of research. Most theories of bureaucratic autonomy typically fall into two categories: an autonomy based on task-specificity that is contingent on the function and expertise of the organization and the ability of the agency to accept or reject new tasks; and a reputation-based autonomy contingent on the ability of the agency to build and maintain a constituency and to secure a reputation for effectiveness that makes it politically difficult for elected officials to influence agency action. This study applies a discourse analytic approach to the study of autonomy in two agencies established during the Cold War whose primary function is the distribution of federal grants-in-aid: the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Institute of Mental Health. Drawing on the theory and practice of discourse analysis, this study seeks to expand upon existing perspectives by better understanding how storylines help administrators to define the agency's mission and tasks and to develop its reputation for effectiveness. The findings suggest that storylines serve as causal drivers toward autonomy, operating in complex ways to influence individual decisions such as the scope of agency services and appropriations. They also suggest that storylines operate over time to both construct the circumstances that lead to greater autonomy and are simultaneously made more or less persuasive by those circumstances. / Ph. D.

Who is the American bureaucracy's master in national government? At least three different sets of answers have been proposed. The first answer claims a single master of American bureaucracy, be it the president, Congress, or the courts. The second denies that there is any master over the bureaucracy and claims the existence of bureaucratic autonomy. In the middle of the two theories, there lies multiple masters theory. This dissertation attempts to advocate multiple masters theory by answering such questions as "Is the conception of multiple masters only theoretically conceivable, or is it historically supported?" or "Does the historical record suggest that multiple masters scheme was seriously in play in actual American constitutional dialogue?" To be a master, one should have at least one of the following powers - budget, personnel, information, and regulatory review. This dissertation focuses on one of them - the appointing power. To look at it historically, this dissertation chose four distinct periods of American history. They are the founding era, Jacksonian era, Republican era, and the Carter Administration. These eras were related to the four important civil service reform acts: the two Tenure of Office Acts of 1820 and 1867, Pendleton Act of 1883, and the CSRA of 1978. Congressional debates recorded in Congressional Record were analyzed to find evidences supporting multiple masters perspective. There were evidences that support the significant existence and role of the multiple masters perspective in all the four eras analyzed. Although weakened in the 1978 debate, the multiple masters theory was supported in important congressional debates by leading politicians of the day, providing historical foundation for the theory. The multiple masters perspective provides a need to construct a normative foundation for bureaucrats to adopt, because bureaucrats, in many cases, cannot avoid making decisions on which master to choose and which to ignore at a given time on a given issue. Under the multiple masters scheme, bureaucrats may have to play the role of balance wheel in the constitutional order, using their statutory powers and professional expertise to favor whichever constitutional masters need their help to preserve the purpose of the Constitution itself. / Ph. D.

O objetivo geral deste trabalho é compreender as razões da autonomia burocrática das organizações financeiras internacionais. O objetivo específico é entender porque o Banco Mundial alcançou um grau maior de autonomia do que o Fundo Monetário Internacional a despeito de possuírem estruturas de governança parecidas e terem sido criados no mesmo contexto histórico. Acreditamos que as razões desta diferença residem na burocracia com expertise mais diversificada do Banco Mundial em contraste a burocracia com expertise mais rígida do FMI. Uma burocracia mais diversificada aumenta as possibilidades de formação de coalizões com ONGs em torno de policies de interesse da burocracia. Estas coalizões aumentam os custos de intervenção dos Estados para alterar ou barrar as policies defendidas pelo corpo burocrático. Assim, nossa hipótese é a seguinte: quanto maior a diversidade de expertise da burocracia internacional maior será a possibilidade de formação de coalizões com ONGs em torno de policies de seu interesse e, conseqüentemente, maior será sua autonomia burocrática. Do ponto de vista teórico utilizamos a teoria agente-principal para discutir burocracias internacionais. Do ponto de vista metodológico utilizamos o método comparativo com base em instrumentos qualitativos de análise e estatística descritiva. / The main goal of this dissertation is to understand the building of bureaucratic autonomy among international financial organizations. The specific goal is to understand why the World Bank has reached more bureaucratic autonomy than the International Monetary Fund regardless the fact that both have similar institutional structures. We believe that the reason for such difference is a more diverse expertise of the World Bank compared to the IMF. We claim that a more diverse bureaucracy increases the likelihood of coalition formation with NGOs. Such coalitions aim to support policies that are important for both the bureaucracy and the NGOs. Consequently, they increase the costs for both State intervention and State control over the organization. The higher costs of intervention and control allow bureaucrats to act more freely according to their interests. Hence, our hypothesis is the following: the more diverse the bureaucratic expertise, the more likely is the formation of coalitions between bureaucracy and NGOs, and the greater the costs for State control and intervention. Higher intervention and control costs, in turn, increase bureaucratic autonomy. We use mainly qualitative research methods with some descriptive statistics.

O objetivo geral deste trabalho é compreender as razões da autonomia burocrática das organizações financeiras internacionais. O objetivo específico é entender porque o Banco Mundial alcançou um grau maior de autonomia do que o Fundo Monetário Internacional a despeito de possuírem estruturas de governança parecidas e terem sido criados no mesmo contexto histórico. Acreditamos que as razões desta diferença residem na burocracia com expertise mais diversificada do Banco Mundial em contraste a burocracia com expertise mais rígida do FMI. Uma burocracia mais diversificada aumenta as possibilidades de formação de coalizões com ONGs em torno de policies de interesse da burocracia. Estas coalizões aumentam os custos de intervenção dos Estados para alterar ou barrar as policies defendidas pelo corpo burocrático. Assim, nossa hipótese é a seguinte: quanto maior a diversidade de expertise da burocracia internacional maior será a possibilidade de formação de coalizões com ONGs em torno de policies de seu interesse e, conseqüentemente, maior será sua autonomia burocrática. Do ponto de vista teórico utilizamos a teoria agente-principal para discutir burocracias internacionais. Do ponto de vista metodológico utilizamos o método comparativo com base em instrumentos qualitativos de análise e estatística descritiva. / The main goal of this dissertation is to understand the building of bureaucratic autonomy among international financial organizations. The specific goal is to understand why the World Bank has reached more bureaucratic autonomy than the International Monetary Fund regardless the fact that both have similar institutional structures. We believe that the reason for such difference is a more diverse expertise of the World Bank compared to the IMF. We claim that a more diverse bureaucracy increases the likelihood of coalition formation with NGOs. Such coalitions aim to support policies that are important for both the bureaucracy and the NGOs. Consequently, they increase the costs for both State intervention and State control over the organization. The higher costs of intervention and control allow bureaucrats to act more freely according to their interests. Hence, our hypothesis is the following: the more diverse the bureaucratic expertise, the more likely is the formation of coalitions between bureaucracy and NGOs, and the greater the costs for State control and intervention. Higher intervention and control costs, in turn, increase bureaucratic autonomy. We use mainly qualitative research methods with some descriptive statistics.

No description available.