Background
Gormley grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pittsburgh in political science in 1972.
( The Politics of Public Utility Regulation focuses on th...)
The Politics of Public Utility Regulation focuses on the important and increasingly controversial issues of utility regulation by combining a sophisticated understanding of these issues with a rigorous examination of various regulatory arrangements across the American states. It draws on interviews with participants in twelve states: public utility commissioners, commission staff members, utility company executives, governmental consumer advocates, and citizen activists. In addition to offering an up-to-date, comprehensive survey of regulatory politics at the state level, Gormley makes specific proposals for regulatory reform and emphasizes the importance (and difficulty) of assuring both expertise and accountability. Students of politics and public policy will find the state-level approach useful in examining the strategies of the “New Federalism” that transfer more and more formerly federal responsibilities to the states.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0822934795/?tag=2022091-20
( Americans are just emerging from one of the great refor...)
Americans are just emerging from one of the great reform eras in our historyan era in which we attempted to control public bureaucracies through interest representation, due process, management, policy analysis, federalism, and oversight. The United States has, in fact, undergone an institutional realignment and has emerged with a weaker, less autonomous bureaucracy. In a book that will interest not only public administration specialists but students of American government generally, William Gormley examines the consequences of the reform efforts of the 1970s and 1980s and seeks to understand why, despite an astonishing number of these efforts, we remain dissatisfied with the results. "The American bureaucracy is beleaguered and besieged," writes Gormley. ". . . Unfortunately, the bureaucracy's critics are equally capable of blunders." The author explains our situation by analyzing a spectrum of controls ranging from catalytic to hortatory to coercive. Catalytic controls--such as proxy advocacy, environmental impact statements, and freedom-of-information acts--are most flexible, while coercive controls--such as legislative vetoes, executive orders, and judicial take-overs of state institutions--are most rigid. While recommending that controls be tailored both to issues and to bureaucracies, Gormley shows that coercive interventions (or muscles) often generate new bureaucratic pathologies without eradicating old ones. In contrast, catalytic controls (or prayers) energize the bureaucracy without predetermining a hastily crafted response. Originally published in 1989. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069160648X/?tag=2022091-20
( The United States spends more on programs for the elder...)
The United States spends more on programs for the elderly than it does on programs that enhance child development and improve child welfare. Why has public policy neglected the development phase of young Americans' lives not only in substantive dollars spent, but also in program design and implementation? Noted child care and education policy expert William Gormley highlights the portrayal of children's issues in both the mass media and in public policymaking to explain why children have gotten short shrift. A key explanation is the limited mass media coverage of strong arguments in support of children's programs. After documenting changes in rhetoric on children and public policy over time and variations across policy domains and government venues, Gormley demonstrates that some "issue frames" are more effective than others in persuading voters. In two randomized experiments, he finds that "economic" frames are more effective than "moralistic" frames in generating public support for children's programs. Independent voters are especially responsive to economic frames. In several illuminating case studies, in Connecticut, Utah, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, he finds that strong rhetoric makes a difference but that it is sometimes eclipsed by even stronger political and economic constraints. Voices for Children offers a fresh perspective on raging debates over child health, child poverty, child welfare, and education programs at the federal and state levels. It finds some hopeful examples that could transform how we think about children's issues and the kinds of public policies we adopt.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815724020/?tag=2022091-20
Gormley grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pittsburgh in political science in 1972.
Gormley is an advocate of Pre-kindergarten, and has extensively studied programs in Oklahoma, calling it a "beacon for early childhood advocates."
In 1976, he received his Doctor of Philosophy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also in political science.
Gormley, a scholar of child care and education, is also the co-director of the Center for Research on Children. He then taught at the State University of New York and the University of Wisconsin, from 1980 to 1990. In 1991, Gormley became a Professor of Government and Public Policy at Georgetown University, where he still teaches.
He served as interim dean of the Georgetown Public Policy Institute from 2008-2010.
( The Politics of Public Utility Regulation focuses on th...)
( Americans are just emerging from one of the great refor...)
( The United States spends more on programs for the elder...)