Failure to recognize that executive administration is 
a political process as much as is enacting legislation 
tends to lull reorganizers into thinking of organiza- 
tion mechanically. In fact, administration has been 
referred to as the “eighth political process.” * Reor- 
ganization is thus more than the mere drafting of 
uncluttered organizational charts. 
It must also be recognized that no matter how the 
Government is organized, it is impossible to define 
and design programs in such a way as to eliminate 
all overlaps and potential conflicts among agencies— 
should that objective be considered desirable. At 
best, we can achieve no more than a less than op- 
timal solution under any reorganizational scheme. 
Reorganization can even be counter-productive un- 
Jess the net gains in efficiency offset the losses that 
inevitably result from reestablishing group dynamics, 
restructuring agency loyalties, and overcoming psy- 
chological impacts on personnel. 
Although reorganization is ultimately aimed at 
changing the character and behavior of an organiza- 
tion, it can work in a negative manner by making 
change more difficult than it was before. If the net 
result of reorganization is to pile administrative 
echelon upon administrative echelon in an unre- 
mitting quest for coordination, symmetry, logic, and 
comprehensive order, the lines of communication 
may be stretched, morale lowered, and administra- 
tive entropy increased. Thus, there are negative 
factors associated with reorganization as well as 
positive potentials. Lest the result be a zero-sum 
game, the advantages and disadvantages must be 
weighed carefully. Because of this, reorganization 
is seldom implemented unless there is an obvious 
discontinuity or dysfunction in achieving a primary 
national goal. Of the eight attempts at wholesale 
reorganization of the Federal Government since the 
turn of the century, only incremental changes were 
made in each case, and those were generally in areas 
of major Government commitment, e.g., energy, 
housing, transportation, space, welfare, and environ- 
ment. In other words, reorganization does not breed 
importance—importance breeds the need to reor- 
ganize. 
The Trilogy of Organization 
Too often reorganization of the executive branch 
is discussed as though governmental processes are 
an undifferentiated continuum from enactment of 
legislation through execution. There are actually 
three distinct executive functions to be considered: 
(1) formulation of policy, (2) implementation of 
programs, and (3) establishment of priorities. The 
first, formulation of policy, is centered in the White 
House within the executive branch. The second, 
implementation, involves execution by the agencies. 
The third, priority, is established by the budget 
process. 
Government reorganization is most frequently dis- 
cussed in the context of agency implementation, yet 
this might not be the weakest link in the chain of 
“functional policy.” Ocean policy, for instance, is 
made at every step in the governmental process from 
enactment of legislation through administration of 
the programs in the field. The whole can be more 
than the sum of the parts. Each of the three govern- 
mental functions must be considered separately and 
jointly with respect to the effectiveness of the Federal 
Government in allocating the use of and protecting 
the Nation’s ocean and coastal resources. 
Nor can the linkages between the Congress be 
ignored in any organizational scheme. Congress both 
establishes policy through legislative authority and 
participates in setting priorities through appropria- 
tions. The evolution of objectives and the statement 
of purpose is requisite to the development of national 
policy and often results from spirited interaction 
between the Executive and the Congress. Organiza- 
tion of the Federal Government’s administrative 
framework to pursue national goals is a responsi- 
bility shared by the President with the Congress, 
through its oversight and investigative activities, and 
is an important factor in ensuring the effectiveness 
of public policy. Budget requests and appropriations 
serve as indicators of relative priorities among ocean 
programs as well as between ocean activities and 
other budgetary items competing for finite Federal 
funds. In the aggregate, these three processes deter- 
mine functional ocean policy. 
Formulation of Ocean Policy 
“Policy,”—by definition, is the goals, plans, and 
procedures_of_a government—body. It embraces, 
therefore, both substance and procedure. Although 
the point of departure for developing national policy 
is the identification of “national goals,” this is an 
optimistic concept that in reality seldom evolves as 
"Paul Appleby. Policy and Administration. Montgomery: Uni- 
versity of Alabama Press, 1949. 
a conscious process. Although consensus on tra- 
ditional values is common, agreement on specific 
policies that government should follow is extremely 
rare.° In the conventional sense, however, national 
ocean policy is set by the interaction of the legis- 
® Michael N. Davidson, Alan M. Hershy, and John M. Bayne. 
One Nation, So Many Governments. New York: Lexington Book, 
1977, p. 141. 
IX-3 
