Rehash of Old MaterialAuthor(s): Mason AndersonSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1969), pp. 430-431Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/973259 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 01:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.63 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:47:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

430 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

Another useful clarifying distinction is be- tween "systematic analysis" and "the systematic generation of analysis." Analysis which is generated in a loosely systematized manner may still be systematic in its execution. Analysis which is generated by the irregular process of budgetary change may still be exhaustive in its scope. PPB program categories are designed to aid both the systematic generation of analysis (as discussed above) and the conduct of syste- matic analysis itself. (It facilitates the compari- son of each possible use of a given budget increment against many possible alternative uses.) However, Wildavsky is probably correct in arguing the costs of program structures out- weigh their benefits especially when there are alternative mechanisms for accomplishing the same objectives. (And especially since the pro- gram structures are often ignored in practice.)

The very fact that an organization has a unit whose responsibility is doing analysis means that in some sense, "a system for analysis" has been established. Truly ad hoc or spontaneous analysis would mean that anyone, anywhere in the organization, would be free to pursue analy- sis whenever the opportunity presented itself. But this would mean that those who saw the opportunities might not have the time or re- sources to follow through. So a system must be developed for channeling information about opportunities for analysis to the analytical unit. The analytical unit must develop a system for choosing among these opportunities or alternatively a system for creating its own op- portunities. (A system for generating or com- missioning analysis.) The analysis done must be brought to the attention of decision makers (systematically or sporadically.) The analysis done may or may not be used or applied ("a system for the application of analysis"). Finally the conduct of the analysis itself may or may not be systematic. All of these elements of an analytical system, some of them, or none of them may be highly systematized or loosely systematized. Therefore, it is difficult to charac- terize one analytical system as more or less systematic than another. These judgments will remain largely qualitative. However, some ele- ments of any analytical system must remain loosely systematized. Policy analysis can never become totally ad hoc or sporadic. On the other

hand, PPB, (in conception if not in practice) is a system for analysis whose component ele- ments are highly systematized along several dimensions. Wildavsky's analysis is valuable for its suggestion that the problems facing the United States government require certain ele- ments of the analytical system in use to be more loosely systematized.

In the past, discussion of PPB has been clouded by semantic confusions between "sys- tems for analysis" (analytical systems), "sys- tematic analysis," "the systematic generation of analysis," and "the systematic feeding of analy- sis to decision makers." The word system has been bandied about indiscriminantly. (Hence the largely fruitless debate on terminology- PPB or PPBS. It should be clear that PPB? is one type of informational and analytic system. Moreover, there are an infinite variety of PPB systems. I prefer to use the term PPB to dis- cuss the phenomenon in use in the federal government today, and it is constantly changing. There is no one, authoritative PPBS.) It is im- portant to realize that there are many elements of an information and analytical system, some of which should be highly systematized, others of which should be less highly systematized, depending upon the particular needs of the or- ganization involved. Professor Wildavsky points us in this direction; however, his own paper also suffers from the semantic confusion exist- ing in the literature.

GEORGE DOUGLAS GREENBERG Research Fellow,

The Brookings Institution

Rehash of Old Material

TO THE EDITOR:

I read the articles in the March/April 1969 Symposium with care, as a practitioner in a local (state) governmental jurisdiction, and tried to assess their value as related to the fol- lowing question: Did the authors have any- thing to offer a local government in the process of implementing a PPBS system? My answer is: Frederick Mosher did, the rest did not. I

JULY / AUGUST 1969

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.63 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:47:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMUNICATIONS 431

would think that the academic and research people who offered these articles would have provided new knowledges, but just the reverse was true, the articles are basically rehashes of old materials. Mr. Capron was honest and ad- mitted he had a very meager knowledge of state government.

Mr. Mosher showed real understanding and innovation in his article. His general remarks were very good, but even more constructive were the special problems of the states to which he alluded. I would recommend that Mr. Mosher's comments be read carefully by all local government personnel who are interested in PPB systems. He covered the subjects that are germane to those involved, and he is to be congratulated.

A constructive suggestion is that the editor of the PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW look toward people, perhaps less well-known, but willing and able to deal with the real problems. Those involved in this sort of work are earnest- ly looking for new knowledge to solve the many problems that exist.

MASON ANDERSON

More Views on PPB

TO THE EDITOR:

For several years polemicists and propagan- dists have debated about some imaginary PPB that neither exists nor works. Now PAR has done a useful service in publishing a variety of views concerning the actualities of PPB. Some of the views are unfavorable, but at least they are directed at the experiences of governments, not at the inflated views of promoters and pub- licists. Professor Mosher has correctly pointed to overselling as one of the main defects in the introduction of PPB. However necessary or understandable salesmanship might have been, it has engendered much misunderstanding, false expectations, and adverse reaction.

As observers come to grips with the PPB, the distance between the pros and the cons shrinks. Despite the strong words, the differences be- tween Mosher and Wildavsky on the one hand,

JULY / AUGUST 1969

and Capron and myself on the other hand, are comparatively few, and small by comparison with the growing areas of agreement. Yet there are some differences; concerning these, I would like to append one or two comments to my previously published views.

1. PPB will not be easy; if it were, it would have been here decades ago. Yet, by adhering to a textbook version of PPB, Mosher tends to overestimate the diffi- culties. There are problems with objec- tives, but PPB can sidestep them by downgrading the importance of explicit, a priori agreement on objectives. It is becoming increasingly common to deal with issues and problems and to leave the question of objectives to later stages of analytic development. I would not agree with Mosher that there has been a "heavy emphasis upon the quantitative measurement of outputs." The great problems of quantitative measurement can be mitigated by using measurements carefully and selectively. Among sensible PPB practitioners it is generally agreed that the measurement of objectives and results will be the last area to be tackled.

2. PPB has moved in some of the direction suggested by Mosher and Wildavsky. An- alysis is increasingly selective and pointed to areas where the returns appear to war- rant the costs. The U.S. Bureau of the Budget, for example, recently established procedures that would substantially re- duce the number of analyses done via PPB, and would establish standards of budgetary relevance for the selection of analytic studies.

3. Wildavsky once regarded PPB as harm- ful, a threat to our political processes and values. Now - without taking back a single word-he finds that PPB is a paper tiger, incapable of impacting on bud- getary decisions. The trouble with his views, whether the earlier or the current ones, is that Wildavsky confuses program structures and PPB. This error leads to a completely incredible remark that "the fixation on program structure is the most pernicious aspect of PPBS." Most state and local governments have given com-

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.63 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:47:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions