Thomas. (2003). Bureaucratic Landscapes
This book "addresses the increasingly complex questions of how societies come to understand, cofront, and cope with both the sources and manifestations of present and potental environmental threats."
Under what conditions do individuals in different public agencies cooperate with one another?
-external threats (i.e. litigation)
-epistemic communities
-identical goals
-interdependency
-joint/enhanced benefits
-leadership driven/involvement
Thomas argues two main drivers of cooperation, epistemic communities and external threats, i.e. lawsuits. But without epistemic communities, and the presence of lawsuits, would not cooperation still exist? the line managers were not interested in biodiversity, but were quite concerned about the lawsuits pending against them. The line managers didn't care about the OWL! they didnt want to get sued. Are goals NOT important? Does Thomas argues that autonomy, budgets and turn (30)are more important. Or in the case studies he presented were goals very clear? (chapter 6)
Actors:
Line Managers-provide stability and certainty for an organizational unit.
Professional Staff-less concerned with stability. Define problems, recomend solutions and follow SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. interagency cordination could be a socially constructed management practice; it depends on the organization, itself. For example, an ecological organization crosses multiple jurisdictions, thus, they would be more inclined to cooperate.
Field Staff-compare them to street level bureaucrats. They live and work in the local communities and understand and identify with the community need, thereby generating social capital.
Due to the emphasis C. Thomas places on Leaders and line managers, and the amount of discresion they play as individuals, plus their nature to act self-interests (they dont care about the own) Thomas is a rational Choice theorist.
This book examines two case studies in order to determine what elicits cooperation: The Klamath Bioregion in Northern Ca, and the South Coast Bioregion in So. Cal.
Under what conditions do individuals in different public agencies cooperate with one another?
-external threats (i.e. litigation)
-epistemic communities
-identical goals
-interdependency
-joint/enhanced benefits
-leadership driven/involvement
Thomas argues two main drivers of cooperation, epistemic communities and external threats, i.e. lawsuits. But without epistemic communities, and the presence of lawsuits, would not cooperation still exist? the line managers were not interested in biodiversity, but were quite concerned about the lawsuits pending against them. The line managers didn't care about the OWL! they didnt want to get sued. Are goals NOT important? Does Thomas argues that autonomy, budgets and turn (30)are more important. Or in the case studies he presented were goals very clear? (chapter 6)
Actors:
Line Managers-provide stability and certainty for an organizational unit.
Professional Staff-less concerned with stability. Define problems, recomend solutions and follow SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. interagency cordination could be a socially constructed management practice; it depends on the organization, itself. For example, an ecological organization crosses multiple jurisdictions, thus, they would be more inclined to cooperate.
Field Staff-compare them to street level bureaucrats. They live and work in the local communities and understand and identify with the community need, thereby generating social capital.
Due to the emphasis C. Thomas places on Leaders and line managers, and the amount of discresion they play as individuals, plus their nature to act self-interests (they dont care about the own) Thomas is a rational Choice theorist.
This book examines two case studies in order to determine what elicits cooperation: The Klamath Bioregion in Northern Ca, and the South Coast Bioregion in So. Cal.
posted by meredith c. at 7:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home