Devolution
At the same time that globalization has internationalized much of American policy，devolution has localized other arenas.As much of the work in public administration over the last two decades has shown，the federal government's work is carried out through an elaborate network of contracting，intergovernmental grants，loans and loan guarantees，regulations，and other indirect administrative approaches.
...Welfare reform is a case in point.The federal government“ended welfare as we know it”by passing the job to the states.The states，in turn，have typically devolved the task to their counties，and the counties in turn have contracted for-profit and nonprofit organizations to deliver welfare reform and，in some cases，to serve as managing contractor for the entire effort.Moreover，welfare reform is really a multi-faceted connection among job assessment，job training，job placement，and family support programs.Effectively managing welfare reform requires tightly coordinating these different programs—each often managed in turn by nongovernmental contractors.The result is an extended chain of implementation.A vastly complex network produces the program，and no one is in charge of everything.
...In short，welfare reform turned the existing system on its ear.Government workers found themselves managing contractors instead of delivering services.Contractors，many of whom had substantial experience managing social services but did not have a track record of running such a broad or ambitious effort，had to find employees and develop mechanisms for the new program....These contractors，in turn，hired subcontractors to conduct front-line operations.
...Welfare reform marks the maturation of a generation long trend that fundamentally transformed community governance.It is a trend with great political attraction:It wires local nongovernmental groups directly into the service system，and it allows government to increase its reach without increasing its size.It spreads administrative responsibility，and hence political risk.It provides a way to tailor broad programs to community needs.Having forged partnerships that serve so many interlocking purposes，it will be hard for governments to undo them.
Similar forces have transformed environmental policy.The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency does very little itself.The Justice Department litigates on its behalf.Private contractors clean toxic waste sites in the Superfund program.State governments do much of the enforcement.Congress mandates the EPA to set national environmental standards，and the EPA conducts some enforcement activity.Despite its image in the popular(and sometimes congressional)mind，most of the EPA's important functions occur through partnerships with the states and private contractors.(https://www.daowen.com)
To some degree，of course，the EPA has relied on such partnerships since its creation.As it has moved on to tougher environmental problems—especially problems that cross the lines among its traditional air，water，and soil offices—these partnerships have become far more important to its operations.Indeed，the EPA faces a second generation of environmental problems，such as nonpoint-source pollution and global warming，for which its first generation tactics，including inspection and litigation，have proven weak.
...In general，the lower the level of government in the United States，the more the government is engaged in direct service delivery.At every level，however，partnerships，with both governmental and nongovernmental partnerships，have proliferated at an accelerating rate.That has made government both horizontal—in search of service coordination and integration with nongovernmental partners in service provision—and vertical—through both traditional hierarchical bureaucracies and multilayered federalism.It is not so much that the horizontal relationships have supplanted the vertical ones;rather，the horizontal links have been layered on top of the vertical ones.That，in fact，was one of the implicit precepts of the“reinventing government”movement of the 1990s.
Therein lies the central challenge for domestic governance:More than a century's worth of administrative theory，since Woodrow Wilson's classic paper on public administration(1887)，shapes the theory and practice of vertical relationships.Since the New Deal，this approach has defined the analytical and normative orthodoxy of American government.Reformers have focused on reorganizing administrative structure and reshaping organizational processes(especially budgeting and personnel).Elected policymakers have seen in these vertical relationships the cornerstone of bureaucratic responsibility:delegation of authority to administrators in exchange for accountability for results.The hierarchical chain，driven by authority，provided the critical linkage between front-line workers and policymakers.
The spread of horizontal relationships muddies that accountability.They replace hierarchical authority with networks—sometimes formally constructed through contracts and other legal agreements，sometimes informally drawn through pragmatic working relationships.It is impossible to dispute the existence and importance of these networks.It is easy to bet on their permanence.Since the maturation of traditional administrative theory in the 1930s，interorganizational networks have been steadily growing in importance，and they show no sign of fading away.Welfare reform，Medicaid，and Medicare cement their continued existence.
For public administration，the challenge is reconciling the management and accountability challenges of these networks with the bedrock that hierarchical authority has long provided.How can government ensure accountability in extended service networks where administrative responsibility is widely shared and where no one is truly in charge?How can government，structured and staffed for an era when vertical relationships dominated，build the capacity to manage horizontal partnerships effectively?...