Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Texas is unique among the American states in its approach to human resources (HR). Specifically, the state has no central HR (or ?personnel?) office and no comprehensive set of centrally prescribed HR policies and procedures. Instead, the HR function is almost completely decentralized, giving state agencies considerable latitude in designing and implementing their respective HR programs. Given that contemporary calls for HR reform emphasize themes like decentralization and deregulation, Texas represents an excellent case study for understanding the practical implications of this approach to HR. After describing Texas? complicated HR system, the paper reports findings from a survey of the state?s HR directors. Respondents generally had favorable feelings about HR effectiveness in their respective agencies, and they did not readily perceive the most egregious forms of equity and political abuse. However, a comparison of respondents with and without reported HR expertise revealed significant differences of opinion on many important HR issues.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper analyzes the politics and social service outcomes of the second round of decentralization in Poland. Poland's 1999 public administration reform reduced the number of provinces from 49 to 16, restored 373 counties, and decentralized public programs and services to these two levels. In the process it dramatically altered many programs in social services previously administered on higher levels including residential nursing homes, orphanages, adoption services, rehabilitation centers, and services for the disabled. It also provided the potential for increased citizen participation in social service programming. While the reform intended to improve services and participation, outcomes in these areas for social service delivery often failed to meet these goals. Many of these unsatisfactory outcomes can be traced back to the politics of reform development. Conflicting ideologies and pressures on policy actors stemming from a variety of historical, institutional, political and international sources resulted in compromises that caused unfavorable public service outcomes. Most significant for immediate outcomes was the tension between neoliberal and neotraditional ideologies espoused by reformers. This paper addresses a gap in decentralization studies by connecting the politics of decentralization with specific outcomes for public services on subnational levels of government.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper I test the claims that government decentralization can strengthen democracy by considering one form of decentralization: the decentralization of health service administration to community boards. Based on comparison of four poor communities in Peru, two of which experienced community-based decentralization of health service administration, and two similar communities that did not, I evaluate whether or not community-based decentralization initiatives do indeed promote or strengthen social capital and local democratic practices.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper we use a broad cross-national sample to test decentralization’s relationship with two important indicators of the quality of governance: efficiency and effectiveness. Contrary to much of the conventional wisdom, we find that the effects of decentralization are minimal when controlling for basic structural variables such as per capita GDP and degree of democracy. In addition we find that different types of decentralization—fiscal, administrative, and political—have differing and sometimes opposing impacts on the quality of governance. Finally, we find that political decentralization in particular is associated with higher government efficiency among high GDP per capita countries while it is associated with lower government efficiency among low GDP per capita countries.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Texas is unique among American state governments in its approach to human resources (HR). Specifically, the state has no central HR (or “personnel”) office and no comprehensive set of centrally prescribed HR policies and procedures. Instead, the HR function is almost completely decentralized, giving state agencies considerable latitude in designing and implementing their respective HR programs. Given that contemporary calls for HR reform emphasize decentralization, Texas represents an excellent case study for understanding the practical implications of a decentralized approach to HR. The paper examines findings from a recent (2002) survey of Texas’ state agency HR directors. The HR directors were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements related to HR centralization-decentralization. Generally, results suggest that respondents do not see the putative benefits of a centralized HR model. However, contingency table and regression analyses reveal important relationships between respondents’ demographic characteristics and opinion. Respondents from small state agencies, those who perceive that they do not have requisite HR expertise, and those with lower levels of educational attainment hold significantly different opinions on the benefits of centralized HR.