Municipal Management Tools from 1976 to 1993 : An Overview and Update

Throughout this century, municipal governments have pursued a variety of strategies to enhance their ability to deliver services effectively and efficiently Some might argue that the road to improved management capacity has been filled with potholes, but the desire to find better ways to do things has never stopped gaining momentum. Local officials have been pressed forward by the academic writings of authors such as Woodrow Wilson and Luther Gulick, the shrewd exhortations of reformers such as Richard Childs, the formative influence of the International City Management Association (ICMA) and other professional groups, the early Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capacity-sharing efforts of the federal government, taxpayer revolts, and current societal demands for improved quality and customer service. Indeed, a whole profession has developed that hinges on its ability to apply the "expertise and knowledge of local government and management to urban service delivery" (Nalbandian, 1990, p. 659). Perhaps the clearest expression of this commitment to management excellence can be found in the growing inventory of management tools that have spread throughout municipal government (Hatry, 1981). Although most of these tools have been transplanted from either the private sector or other levels of the federal system, municipal governments have in many ways become a kind of laboratory, constantly experimenting with new management tools, adapting them to fit their own needs, and often improving them in the process. They have adopted such tools as management by objectives (MBO), zero-based budgeting, and planning, programming, and budgeting systems, which were once intended to revolutionize the administration of the federal government, and they have long used other critical tools such as performance monitoring, productivity improvement programs, and program evaluation. In recent years,