accountabilitybloke

A major regret…

When I attended graduate school at Colorado-Boulder from 1968-1974, Kenneth Boulding was in the economics department and associated with some institute on campus. Although I did take a seminar in development economics, I now regret not having reached out to him or taken a course form him — his work on The Image played a major role in my dissertation research. But at the time there was only one seminar he offered regularly — I cannot recall its subject or title, but it had one text: Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. I suspect I might have avoided that course because reading Smith did not seem relevant at the time….

Fast forward a quarter century (plus) later and I find myself undetaking a “close reading” of Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS). I had given it a superficial read years ago, and more recently have focused on certain sections and the secondary literature; but this close reading exercise is really deepening my appreciation of Smith as a significant social theorist whose contributions in that role are little known or appreciated.

I have to admit that, were I given the opportunity to teach a doctoral level course on the theory of accountability and governance (can’t do that now since we have no PhD students at UNH) I would emulate Boulding by working off of a single Smith text, but my selection would be TMS…

June 11th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Moving targets and bridge crossings….

Writing a paper focused on various explanations of the financial crisis is one of those “aiming at a moving target” experiences. The Planet Money folks at NPR are making matters worse with their terrific segments (for the various NPR news shows and This American Life. In a move that is a bit strange, last Friday they offered some “outtake” material (listen here - first 17:20 of podcast) from the TAL show that would not air until Sunday — but fortunately I did not get to those until after hearing the Watchmen podcast. Put the two together in Sunday-Friday sequence and you really have a terrific bit of informative reporting….

Also included in the Friday show was a piece (starting at about 17:20) about an “oath” taken by Harvard MBA grads last week (also here) — an oath that would (if taken seriously) commit the takers to a carerr of “creating social value” in addition to the value they create for corporate share/stakeholders. This sounded awfully familiar, since one of the most notable themes of Mark Moore and his colleagues at the JFK School “down the road” (actually, across the bridge) from HBS is teaching their public administration/affairs folks to “create public value”( also here). Sure enough, the student interviewed as part of the Planet Money piece was actually a student at JFK as well…..

June 11th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Proposition 8 Lawsuit — Brilliant!!!

Having been distracted from blogging by both Twitter and Facebook, I am posting today an item that will not “fit” either. It is a message/post (now email) to the Slate Political Gabfest in reaction to some comments in their latest podcast (about halfway through) made about the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit filed by Ted Olson and David Boies. Here is the email:

Was a bit taken aback by the dismissiveness of both Emily [Bazelon] and David [Plotz] to the federal lawsuit filed by Olson and Boies. Characterizing it as a bad move by two well-meaning biking buddies indicated that neither of you seemed to explore the basis of the suit — and relied mainly on the superficial reports in the press. OK, David can be forgiving for that — he is not a lawyer. But Emiliy — please don’t tell me that you cannot see the constitutional basis for this action….

I am no lawyer, but I have studied some Con Law related to my work and writing, and it seems clear to me that current precedent does provide the basis for a strong case against the State of California not on the basis of any federal rights related to marriage, but rather the Court’s past rulings against state actions (even by popular vote) that violated equal protection of the laws.

1. The California Supreme Court’s ruling opening the way to gay marriage was based on equal protection provisions of the state constitution at that time. Any legislative act or referendum that violated that provision of the state constitution was just that — unconstitutional. Thus the Court’s initial ruling.

2. Last November the referendum in Prop 8 was actually an amendment to the state constitution explicitly designed to make an exception to the equal protection application. Thus, this past week’s ruling by the same court was not a change of mind, but rather a change made in light of an explicit adjustment in the state constitutional provision under which the first ruling was made. (And since the new constitutional provision did make the change retroactive, the marriages already performed had to stand — no ex post facto, and all that…)

3. That said, the constitutional change by referendum, explicitly removing rights previously determined to exist under California law, constituted a state action in violation of the US Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.

THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER GAY MARRIAGE IS GUARANTEED UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. RATHER IT IS WHETHER A STATE (OR ITS VOTERS) CAN EXPLICITLY AND INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE THE GUARANTEES OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

THE ANSwER IS NO.

The precedent? Well, if you consider the logic of Brown and other civil rights cases, what was found unconstitutional were those actions (e.g., Jim Crow laws) that explicitly denied equal protection of the laws of Blacks in the access to and use of public services such as education, public transportation, etc. More directly are those reapportionment cases where the explicit attempt to deny equal representation (one man (sic)/one vote) by legislation or state constitutional provisions to establish a state legislative chamber representing “counties” or other nondemographic division. And most relevant is the 1964 case of Lucas v. Forty?Fourth General Assembly of Colorado where the Court held that efforts to get around one-person/one-vote through constitutional amendments put befor ethe voters were indeed unconstitutional….

Bottom line, Olson and Bois have firm constitutional grounds for their challenge. The irony is that there would be no case if the anti-gay marriage forces had not been successful — for as long as the state had not taken the step of explicitly exempting gay couples from an already established right to marriage, there would be no federal case….

The lawsuit is not only not frivolous, it is brilliant in its logic and worthy of going forward….

May 30th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Outliers and thin “Air”….

Reading Steven Johnson’s interlude on the appearance of “genius” in folks like Joseph Priestly after having read Gladwell’s Outliers, it is clear that “culture rules!” is the now dominant social paradigm. Years have been spent debunking (and now fending off) the “supernaturalist force” schools that attributed much of what happens to empirically unknowable agents (e.g., evil incarnate) or ideas (e.g., Hegel), and the popular literature (e.g., Gladwell and Johnson) seems now set to undermine the “genius” and “great man” perspectives which are so ingrained in our social, political and economic activities.

But the “culture rules!” folks have their hands full. Bad habits are tough to break — even (and perhaps especially) among academics (e.g., I still have colleagues who implicitly and explicitly adhere to theories of evil when trying to explain bureaucratic behavior; see here, but also here and here). They also have to factor in “chance” (as both Gladwell and Johnson do) when considering why a certain person or idea emerges at a given place or time.  And as they have for years, the culture theorists have to contend with strong reactions from the the hard core fundamentalists in both the religious and “objective science” communities…..

April 12th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Mining the “crisis”….

Writing a paper on the world financial crisis is like shooting at fast-moving target, and I am in awe of the folks at blogs like Baseline Scenario who write a consistently high quality analysis almost everyday (and sometimes twice a day). It’s taking me a lot longer to get a useful “handle” on the subject, but there are certain themes that I feel comfortable in pursuing (at least for the moment).

I suspect what I am searching for is the appropriate metaphor to apply to the current situation. The imagery of the current language is generated by words like “meltdown,” collapse, etc — but mostly “crisis.”

We apply the term “crisis” with such ease because it seems to fit the situation. But I wonder if it is a fruitful word to use to help us understand what is going on. We are in, no doubt, a critical circumstance — but what does that mean?

Not much help in the public administration literature that I can find, although there are articles on crisis management (more later). In the social services literature, however, there are some “classic” expositions from the individual level. Lydia Rapoport’s 1962 article is often cited, and there she offers a view of crisis as a situation in which a “steady state” condition is upset in such a way that normal coping mechanisms prove insufficient. Modifying her approach somewhat, we can posit the ingredients of a crisis as (1) an event which triggers (2) a reaction to the perceived threat posed by the event, and (3) the perception that existing problem-solving mechanisms will not be adequate. There are lots of potential here, despite the fact that Rapoport relies mainly on the mental health literature and its implications for social work theory and practice (i.e., dealing with the individual and the family).

In 1974, Rosemary Lukton published an article in the same journal (Social Service Review) that offers an overview of “crisis theory” as it developed in the social work and mental health fields over the previous decade or so. That literature seems a worthy metaphor to mine in light of the current “crisis” view of the global financial situation. Since my goal is an analysis of the role that “accountability” has played (is playing) in the current debate over “causes and cures” of the “meltdown” (another wonderful metaphor), this seems an interesting avenue to pursue. Add to that the literature on “crisis management” in public management and one can actually get excited about the task at hand….

April 11th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Mr Bailey and Mr Potter….

[In a week or so I will be delivering a paper on accountability and the current financial crisis, and I have been struggling with the most effective way to make my argument. The drafting process has been tough, but it seems to be coming together. I thought it might be helpful to get some reaction to bits and pieces of the paper as they go through revisions. Here, sans cites or links, is the opening section. Comments welcome...]

Prologue: Mr. Bailey and Mr. Potter

If we have contributed nothing else to the advancement of world culture, Americans have certainly made our mark in the area of memorable movie characters. It is perhaps a tribute to our superficiality as a nation that we are bound together by our common cinematic experiences and the shared mythologies drawn from the “silver screen” and its TV-VHS-DVD progeny. From memorable lines such as “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” to “Play it again, Sam” and “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,” we have been able to connect despite our diversity and prejudices. Similarly, certain characters have emerged as iconic representations of what Americans both aspire to be and seek to avoid.

Assuming an anthropological perspective, we can extend that observation about Americans and their beloved (or despised) cinema characters to enhance our understanding and appreciation of the current efforts to deal with the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions. This more than a mere “academic” exercise, for in fact there is a proliferation of metaphorical and analogical references made to cinematic narratives in the mass media as well as the fast expanding new media forms.

Consider, for example, the sense of “outrage” unleashed by the recent news regarding the payment of bonuses to AIG officials who were at the center of the unit responsible for the corporation’s collapse. The anger was already building before news of the bonuses triggered everything from a very public expression of indignation from the President to street protests and even physical threats to AIG officials. One particular pre-bonus outburst by a major business commentator (Rick Santelli of CNBC) became a YouTube hit and gave a taste of what was to come. In their efforts to describe the sense of outrage, however, many references were made to lines spoken more than three decades earlier by Howard Beale, a character in Paddy Chayefsky’s “Network” played by Peter Finch:

I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it.

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!!”"

The relevance of Beale was not lost on many commentators, the the “Howard Beale” moment was duly noted by several.

In the pantheon of American film characters, however, Beale is a minor icon whose name and outrage emerge infrequently and who quickly fades into the background until the next relevant episode of collective indignation emerges in our increasingly mediated society. More considerable importance would be placed on characters who have become an constant reference point for successive generations. The sustained popularity of these characters might be due in part to the repeated screenings or mention of the film on TV and in other media outlets, but there is also some moral attraction (or guilty pleasure in some cases) that also contributes to their prominent place within our cultural iconography. Mention “Dorothy” or the “Tinman” to most Americans, and you will likely generate a common response based on shared familiarity without having to be more specific. Inquire further of the individuals about what these or other characters from The Wizard of Oz represent to them, and you are probably going to find a surprising degree of consensus on some basic “American” values. (At times it is the actor rather than the character that generates the shared response. Consider, for example, the values associated with roles played by actors such as Clint Eastwood, John Wayne or Henry Fonda.)

Which brings me to the subject of this discussion: the characters highlighted in what some regard as the best American movie ever made (an opinion held by its director as well as many critics): It’s A Wonderful Life. Released in 1946 to rather mixed reviews, by the 1970s it became a “seasonal” (for its association with Christmas and angels) favorite broadcast with considerable frequency; (copyright limits comment here) in recent years is likely to be found in a typical family collection of VHS and DVD videos. But beyond its status among the classics of American cinema, the film created two memorable characters who have been elevated into that pantheon of widely identifiable icons: George Bailey and Henry Potter.

Both characters are “bankers” in the town of Bedford Falls. George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart) heads the small building and loan association which he reluctantly takes over after his father’s unexpected death. Such associations (predecessors of today’s US savings and loan banks) were not technically banks, but rather mechanisms for pooling the savings of individuals who lacked access to mortgage credit from mainstream banks. In a community such as Bedford Falls, the building and loan association would maintain a depositer’s (or even borrower’s) relationship with the local mainstream bank. In the film the local bank is owned by Henry F. Potter (Lionel Barrymore) whose wealth and economic control of the town extends well beyond his interest in the bank. A major subplot of the film is Potter’s desire to gain control of building and loan association and its assets and the efforts of Bailey’s father (and subsequently George Bailey as well) to resist such a takeover.

The pervasive influence of these two characters in America’s postwar popular culture can not be overstated, and the contrasting images of bankers and the banks they operate is having important policy implications as the US government deals with the current crisis. Putting aside the criminal act committed by Potter that is central to the film’s plot (he essentially steals an $8000 deposit from the association that would have kept it solvent), each represents a distinct example of the kind of individual we rely on to run one of the core institutions in our economy: banks. As such, each reflects a different view of who we “entrust” and therefore who we regard as having the integrity we expect of people in powerful (or pivotal) positions.

On the one hand, there is George Bailey who Americans trust because overtime he demonstrated a caring and compassionate attitude toward others in the community, and especially to those who are part of his association of savers. His treatment of people is the foundation for the expectation that while he will follow the rules and standards of good banking, he can also be expected to take into account the needs and circumstances of others with whom he has established a relationship of mutual respect. The immigrant family that needs special consideration for a loan, the taxi operator who requires some slack in his mortgage payment schedule — these are the risks that the Bailey bankers are expected to take. It is an image that finds much support in American culture.

On the other hand we have Mr. Potter — a character whose subscription to the logic of “greed is good” is articulated decades later by “Wall Street’s” Gordon Gekko.  Eliminate the criminality of his actions, however, and you have another model of the ideal American banker — an individual who maintains the integrity of his bank by avoiding high risk loans to those same immigrants and taxi drivers. He too represents trust and integrity, but in a way that director Frank Capra portrays as evil. It is clear that Capra skews our choice — we certainly would favor the integrity of Bailey over the integrity of Potter.

Take the characters out of the scripted context of Bedford Falls and place them in the circumstances of the the past decade and Americans might wish there were more Henry Potters making decisions about loans and risk. At least that is the way many Americans are viewing the current crisis when thinking about what needs to be done to reform the system. Handing over the failing banks to the Potters is found to be increasingly desirable, and if we cannot find an individual driven to Potter-like integrity by greed, then perhaps we can impose and enforce regulatory constraints that will rein in any Baileyist tendencies. That said, the Bailey-like character retains a powerful attraction as the ideal banker we all want for our local communities….

Which brings us to a reality check, for it is obvious that neither cinematic characterization has a place in the complex narratives that unfolded over the past ten years. The individuals who populate the modern banking system — whether they sit in the local bank manager’s seat in Butte, Montana or in front of an array of Bloomberg terminals in some global money center office overlooking the Hudson or the Thames — would hardly fit the image of either Bailey or Potter. Theirs is a world driven by investments rather than loans, or securitized assets rather than mortgages, of Gaussian copula functions rather than flawed human judgment. As the financial bubble expanded in recent years, the compassionate risk taking of George Bailey was replaced by the urgency to feed the securitization monster, and the risk averse greed of Henry Potter has been set aside in favor of the Gordon Gekko gamble.

But despite the changed realities, the Bailey-Potter imagery remains a powerful force to be contended with as we search for answer to the current problems on our financial markets.
….

[More to come]

March 24th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

The intellectual stimulus of crises….

Some thoughts while engaging in my now standard routine of checking the morning offerings online….

There is something to be said for a crisis like the one we are in the midst of — it certainly gets the intellectual juices flowing both individually and collectively. Difference today, however, is that we can do more than scream in the dark or kick dogs as a means for expressing ourselves. Thank goodness for blogs and tweets and Facebook postings….

For those of us in academe who have long had the opportunity of spewing forth before a captive (if not always attentive) audience (that is assuming we could remain minimally “on topic” for the day — easier for us poli sci folks than for chemists, I suppose), the new venting technology is just what the proverbial doctor ordered….

Point is, crises have a way of stimulating interest in questions and puzzles that we otherwise never contend with or think about, and rarely (if ever) discuss with friends and colleagues. Today anyone with some savvy and interest in a topic has several venues for expression and (even better) exchanges of ideas. And given the quality of some of the bloggers, tweeters, streamers and posters (sic) out there, one can argue that this crisis has generated one hell of a public seminar for those who bother to put together the curriculum.

Yes, there are the “know nothing” bloggers and the frenzy feeding news outlets to deal with; but in relatively short order one is able to put together a first rate, customized virtual seminar space that engages some truly thoughtful folks. And putting that seminar together is not too difficult thanks to links and feeds. Start with the brilliant work of NPR’s Planet Money and you soon find yourself hooked into (and on) Baseline Scenario which gets you to Economist’s View which leads to getting hooked on Krugman and Samuelson which has you getting tweets from those who lead you to still other posts and comments which leads on and on and on…..

All this becomes obsessive, of course — and before long you find yourself responding: initially by screaming in the dark or kicking the nearest dog. But eventually you have to use one of the “voicing” mechanisms that today’s technology provides. And pretty soon you are not merely observing the seminar, but becoming part of it. Which obligates you in some sense to “pass it on” by inserting links that will prod the rare reader of one’s own thoughts to explore the intellectual terrain you have covered…..

But then you run out of time and realize that the links will have to wait until later in the day….

March 23rd, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Someone find that Blackberry….

Hate to be put in position of agreeing with the WSJ editorial page, but the AIG story is much more complicated than the bonus issue that has everyone going for the jugular of some (not so innocent) scapegoats.

In this case Obama has dropped his stay-the-course, we-will-get-through-this demeanor and joined the “I’m mad as hell” crowd. If he is sincere, fine; but this is getting to seem like a unnecessary and distracting feeding frenzy that is getting a boost not only from Obama but also his brain trust. Is finding common cause with the “know nothings” (of whom we expect no better) worth the price? I don’t think so.

Perhaps the best (and actually worse) example came from the US Senator from Iowa — a somewhat moderate Republican, Charles Grassley has made every perceived misstep of the White  into a major crime. Populism is to be expected, but when it gets to the point of idiotic rhetoric, one has to wonder….

“The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”
Besides being offensive and wrong in so many different ways (e.g., I don’t recall reading about any Japanese corporate heads taking their lives — the embarrassment is enough in that society… He obviously has seen one WWII movie too many), his rhetoric is the kind of don’t-bother-me-with-the-facts reaction that results from the mad-as-hell approach.

As silly as such comments are, Grassley and others can be expected to keep up this populist harangue — and that makes it unnecessary for the White House to do the same. And yet they have decided to do so….

The Obama team is giving every indication of losing its “cool”, and one can trace this back to the boneheaded and unnecessary fight they picked with Limbaugh who (along with the GOP in general) was well on the path to self-destruction. Obama’s sanctioning this shift in public demeanor may be great fun for Emmanuel and others, but it is a mistake and indicates that the President and his closest advisers have in fact started to settle into the much feared “bubble”.

Where the hell is that Blackberry….

March 17th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Of executioners and chimps….

It has now been a few days since “catching” this damn head cold, and each night is proving more difficult — so I plug in my iPod and lay there in the dark wheezing and listening to the backlog of podcasts (the wheeze is very musical — I find myself stopping the podcast to figure out whether it is me or some background music…)

It is now around 6AM and having just listened to (among other things) this week’s podcast of This American Life, I am compelled to post one of my intermittent blogs. The episode is titled “Human Resources” and it is (as Ira Glass organizes it) in three acts (with a nice Prologue). Each is (as is usual with this show) a small bit of genius….

The Prologue is about someone whose job was to fire folks — an HR professional who Glass calls “the executioner”. This (along with Act One) will certainly become part of my case in MPA courses (I really do not like to teach the HR portion — but this stuff makes it interesting). Since he has himself has been “executed” (more than likely through outsourcing), the conversation is a bit more interesting. What is fascinating to me is the management of words during the firing process — not so much to make someone feel positive about what is happening to them, but to make them acquiesce (shades of Murray Edelman).

Act One is about the “Rubber Room” (actually rooms) used by the New York City Department of Education for purposes of “reassigning” teachers determined (for a variety of reasons) to be problems at their former location. Put in perspective (only one percent of NYC teacher, and some are there for short periods, others for long periods), the rubber room arrangement seems very bureuacratically rationale. In that respect it is a great condensed case study of what Ralph Hummel describes in his The Bureaucratic Experience — and so still another instructional resource has fallen into my lap (but oh, those poor people….). (There is a documentary in the works on this…)

Act Two about “The Plan” seems a bit out of place among the segments (even more so than the Chimps segment that follows). It is, however, a terrific example of conspiracy theory thinking which many folks rely on when trying to make sense of the political world. I use the idea of “making sense” in a number of courses — from American government (have even integrated the idea in our textbook) to basic PA and organization theory. This is a keeper….

Finally, Act 3 — the Chimp segment — is a bit weird at first blush, but it can serve a number of purposes. There is, of course, the ethical dimension about our treatment of non-human species (see Nussbaum’s Frontiers of Justice), but there is also the interesting aspect of implementing a formal public policy — they refer to it as the Clinton Chimp Act. The intersection of ethics and policy are interesting enough, but then you add in the observations of a New York Times reporter (who is the main source in the segment), and you have the final reason why listeing to TAL is so valuable…..

Enough — I feel a chill coming on — literally…

March 9th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments

Stewart vs Beale (CNBC)….

I realize it isn’t healthy to obsess about one’s financial status these days, but I am sure I’m not alone in taking a peek now and again at the Dow Jones average. Unfortunately, the best place to see such information during the day is on one of the financial news or cable news channels. During my lunch break at home I make the mistake of tuning in CNBC, and it is a pity that I don’t turn off the sound. The noontime show is called Power Lunch, and however it was initially conceived, it has turned into a platform for some commentators who have captured center stage at that channel and rendered the operation useless as a business news source.The basic format is a multi-box screamfest of (for the most part) really obnoxious ideologues (with a decent reporter like John Harrow thrown into the mix — who is typically silenced by the mob) who have lost all touch with the real world outside their Wall Street bubbles. For example: http://tinyurl.com/bk5wka.

(There must be something in the “water” that business reporters drink — Lou Dobbs was once a reasonably able business journalist, but he certainly transformed himself into a self-declared advocate for the middle class in what has to be the least credible show on CNN).

Tonight’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart provides a pretty credible indictment of CNBC, and one hopes that they will take the criticism seriously (even though it was presented in the satirical tone that Stewart is so good at). He starts with a comment about the recent Santelli rant that can only be described as Howard Beale-ish (“I am as mad as hell…”) and then offers clips to document the poor quality of analysis and advice that has made the channel into a joke. Yes, Bloomberg is boring, but at least they maintain their integrity as journalists.

The second segment of tonight’s Daily Show was an effective counter to growing chorus of Obama critics who point to the falling stock market as an indicator of presidential popular and/or success. Well worth watching — as is the third segment: and interview with Joe Nocera of the New York Times whose very existence puts to rest the idea that reporting on Wall Street cannot be credibly accomplished. For those who seek to escape the CNBC trap, Bloomberg and NPR’s Planet Money are the right places to go for up-to-date information and a clear understanding of what is going on….

March 5th, 2009 Posted by mjd | accountabilitybloke | no comments