REspond to students
1st discussion
To determine which model of bureaucracy best explains the way the government currently operates, one would have to choose a specific department of the government to examine. The government of the United States is a large and complex system. While there are many similarities between branches/departments, there are bound to be differences too. However, in attempt to answer the prompt in the style it was asked, overall, I think the federal government functions in the style of the Monopolistic Model. The federal government is the highest ruling level within the U.S. which means that many of its departments are able to function as monopolies in an industry. Chapter 15.3 of our class textAmerican Government 2e, gives a few examples of this including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Bureau of Consular Affairs (BCA). If you as a U.S. citizen wish to obtain a passport you can only do so through the BCA. Another example that comes to mind is the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Although there may be smaller agencies which do similar things as the IRS & CDC, such as state level tax collecting agencies, or health departments (private and public), these smaller agencies are not competition for the federal departments. Because of their function and status, they are unlikely to encounter true competition, and therefore function much like a monopoly. However, as I stated earlier there will be exceptions due to differences between departments. The one that I thought of first is the United States Postal System (USPS). With the decrease in people sending “snail mail” and the rise of competitors for shipping packages such as the United Parcel Service (UPS) and Amazon, I think the USPS is losing its status as a monopoly.
I am not sure there is a way to improve the patronage system to be more efficient. According to the key terms section of chapter 15 our class textAmerican Government 2e, patronage is“the use of government positions to reward individuals for their political support.” I believe the merit system is much more efficient than the patronage system which is inherently broken. If one were attempting to keep the patronage system while increasing efficiency, I would propose that those who are given jobs as a reward for patronage be given low level positions with high amounts of on the job training. I would propose that those positions have the possibility of job advancement if the patrons work hard and prove themselves to be competent in the department/position which they fill/would be promoting into. This would work as a hybrid between the patronage and merit system. Loyal supporters are rewarded with jobs, but they must undergo extensive training to ensure they are properly equipped to fulfill their duties. In addition, if they wish to advance or hold a higher position, they must show that they are qualified to do so (much like the merit system). I think that there would be a few advantages to such a system, but I do not know if they would outweigh the disadvantages. Since the patronage system seeks to reward party loyalty and effort, it seems likely that it would produce a pool of highly motivated candidates. By awarding low ranking positions and incorporating on the job training, it ensures that those awarded positions know what they are doing and have to work to retain their job or advance. In addition, it would open up an alternative method of advancement through on the job experience (it could be fashioned similar to apprenticeships) instead of relying on heavy levels of schooling (which many highly intelligent, motivated, and skilled people may not have access to).
2nd discussion
The acquisitive model best characterizes today's government's best competitive nature. As funds decline, some government agencies are fighting against others to survive and advance their agendas.
When those in government talk about privatization, they often indicate to one of a host of recognizable models that differing degrees accommodate the private sector's market forces into public function. These comprise the use of contractors to supply products and/or services, the allocation of public vouchers with which people can buy government-controlled facilities on the private market, the arrangement of government grants to private organisations to supervise public programs, the association with a private organization to finance a government program, and even the complete divestment of a function from the public.
Improving government staff indicates more than fighting in public life against corruption and inertia. It calls for a review of specific current values and fundamental concerns and involves altering one set of problems to another. If patronage were all bad, it would simplify the reformer's job. Without affecting our party system and the connections between the Federal government's legislative and executive branches, it cannot be completely removed. Therefore, the reform of the civil service is not about exchanging good for bad; it is rather about either tolerating a needed evil or fundamentally changing the structure.