Reinvention and the Principal-Agent Model

Main Article Content

J. Ramón Gil-García

Resumen

Existe una interesante polémica en el sector público, derivada de las tensiones existentes entre desempeño y flexibilidad administrativa por un lado, y rendición de cuentas y control, por el otro. El propósito de este artículo es discutir la utilidad del modelo agente principal para un mejor entendimiento de las tensiones entre desempeño y rendición de cuentas, así como analizar las similitudes y contradicciones de esta perspectiva teórica en comparación con el movimiento de “reinvención del gobierno” de la década de los noventa en Estados Unidos.

Article Details

Como citar
GIL-GARCÍA, J. Ramón. Reinvention and the Principal-Agent Model. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, [S.l.], n. 31, ene. 2003. ISSN 2448-5799. Disponible en: <https://convergencia.uaemex.mx/article/view/1646>. Fecha de acceso: 06 jul. 2020
Palabras clave
reinvención; gobierno; agente; principal; desempeño
Sección
Artículos

Citas

Aberbach, J. D. (1990), Keeping a Watch ful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight , Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Aberbach, J. D. and B. A., Rockman (1997), “Bureaucracy: Control, Responsiveness, Performance”, in A. Baaklini and H. Desfosses (eds.), Designs for Democratic Stability.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 73-95 pp.

Barzelay, M. (2001), The New Public Management. Improving Research and Policy Dialogue, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Behn, R. D. (2001), Rethinking Democratic Accountability , Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.

Brudney, J.L. et al. (2000), “Concluding Perspectives”, in Brudney, J.L. et al., Advancing Public Management. New Developments in Theory, Methods, and Practice, Washington, DC: George Washing ton University Press.

Derthick, M. (1990), Agency Un der Stress: The Social Security Administration in American Government, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

DiIulio, J. D. (1994), “Principled Agents: The Cultural Bases of Behavior in a Federal Government Bureaucracy”, in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(3), 277-318 pp.

Green, M.T. (2000), “Local Heroes? Reinvention Labs in the Department of Defense”, in Brudney, J.L. et al. (2000), Advancing Public Management. New Developments in Theory, Methods, and Practice , Washington, DC: George Washington University Press.

Kettl, D. F. (1993), Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Kettl, D.F. and J.D., DiIulio (1995), In side the Reinvention Machine. Appraising Governmental Reform, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Kettl, D.F. (1997), “The Global Revolution in Public Management”, in Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(3), 446-462 pp.

Kettl, D.F. (2000), The Global Public Management Revolution. A Report on the Transformation of Governance, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Light, P. C. (1997), The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work 1945-1995, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lipsky, M. and S., Smith (1989-1990), “Non profit Organizations, Government and the Welfare State”, in Political Science Quarterly, 104(4), 625-648 pp.

Moe, T. M. (1984), “The New Economics of Organization”, in American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739-777 pp.

Osborne, D. and T., Gabler (1992), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the Public Sector, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Radin, B. (1995), “Varieties of Reinvention: Six NPR ‘Success Stories’, in Kettl, D.F. and DiIulio, J.D., Inside the Reinvention Machine. Appraising Governmental Reform, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Rosenbloom, David H. (2001), “History Lessons for Reinventors”, in Public Administration Review 61, march/april, 161-165 pp.

Scholz, J. T. (1991), “Cooperative Regulatory Enforcement and the Politics of Administrative Effectiveness”, in American Political Science Review, 85(1), 115-136 pp.Wood, B. D. and R.

W., Waterman (1991), “The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy”, in American Political Science Review, 83 (3), 801-828 pp.