Are defense studies relevant to the study of public administration? Students of public administration, regulatory processes, public bureacracy, and policy studies rarely focus on defense as their substantive area, leaving the field to those trained in defense studies and international relations. The result is negligible attention to the domestic political aspects of defense policy and minimal understanding of the administrative aspects of defense policy. The authors' goals are to (1) establish why gap exists, (2) draw parallels with similar arguments that are giving way under scruting in other fields of study, and (3) identify the gains to be made by bridging the gap. Specifically, they suggest work from the new economics of organization, as applied to other policy areas, as a means to highight the political and administrative challenges of defense procurement. Traditionally, procurement processes have received heavy, yet simplistic, criticism from scholars of defense policy who argue for deregulation of the process to emphasize outcomes rather than processes, and efficiency rather than procedural accountability. Mayer and khademian argue that a more relistic examination of procurement in a political context of multiple and competitive principals illustrates the difficulty of demanding accountability (especially for outcomes) when goals are diverse and heavily debated, measured with difficulty, and the purchases are "lumpy" and time intensive.

Public administration review PAR

March/April 1996 Volume 56 Number 2