viewpoint Lynton K. Caldwell Indiana University
Changing the structure of government On March 25, last, President Niuon, in a special message to the Congress, submitted one of the most sweeping reorganization proposals ever advanced in relation to the executive branch. Noting the growing evidence of the impatience of people with the performance of government, the President pointed out that whereas far-reaching and fundamental changes have occurred in the character of the nation in the last 20 years alone, the same basic organization chart has set the framework of governmental action for decades. There have been piecemeal and ad hoc changes, but there has been almost no considered review of the basic structures of the federal executive since the 18th century. In the 1930’s, the President’s Committee on Administrative Management was largely concerned with the organization of the presidential office. A decade later, the Hoover Commission gave detailed consideration to organization and procedures in the executive branch, but primarily with the view to making the existing structure work better. The Nixon proposals would fundamentally change the structure. In his State of the Union Message on January 22, the President had indicated his intention to submit reorganization proposals to the Congress, consolidating seven of the “domestic” departments into four. The new “superdepartments,” as they have been called, are titled Natural Resources, Human Resources, Community Development, and Economic Affairs. Various aspects of science and technology relating to the environment would be found in each of the proposed departments, although the largest single concentration would be in the Department of Natural Resources. Four of the five divisions of this department would be primarily environment-related-e.g., Land and Recreation, Water Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, and Oceanic, Atmospheric, and Earth Sciences. In addition to these structural changes, the President proposed measures to strengthen the authority and the coordinative capability of the departmental cabinet-level secretary, and to encourage decentralization of federal decision-making and regional coordination. What has the President hoped to accomplish by these recommendations? The purpose clearly articulated in his Special Message to the Congress was to increase greatly the capability of the federal government to perform the tasks that have been assigned to it. The need, said the President, was for a goal-centered government. “Instead of grouping activities by narrow subjects or by limited constituencies,” be said, “we should organize them around great purposes of gov-
ernment in modern society.” His recommendations generally followed those of the Advisory Council on Executive Reorganization (Ash Council) which had been charged to consider “the organization of the executive branch as a whole in light of today’s changing requirements of government.” The President’s rationale for executive reorganization and the principles be enunciated in his Special Message surely move in the right direction. Nevertheless, certain questions remain to be answered, among them some pertaining to the environment as a focus for national policy. For example, it is not clear how the Environmental Protection Agency would relate to the proposed Department of Natural Resources. It is not necessary, and it may not be desirable, for all environment-related activities to be brought under the same departmental roof; nevertheless, in the interest of responsible government, it would be desirable to know how their functions were delineated. Among the pressing public problems of the coming decades will be many relating to man-environment relationships. Many of these problems will not have previously been confronted, or confronted effectively by government. I t has not been obvious how to organize the government to cope with problems of the environment, but the President’s reorganization proposals provide an opportunity for the Congress and the nation to consider how the. environmental issues, in relation to the other concerns of society, may most effectively be served through the structuring of government, There is, therefore, an opportunity, and I would say an obligation, for persons versed in management, science, and technology to consider the implications of alternative patterns of organization to the effective administration of environmental programs.
Lynfon Caldwell is professor of political science at Indiana U. He is also director, studies in public policy f o r science and technology
Volume 5, Number 7, July 1971 575
