-17 Footnotes Jacob K. Javits, "The Need for National Planning, Wall Street Journal, 2/ George A. Steiner, Managerial Long-Range Planning, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1963 pp. 2-3. 3/ "Corporate Planning - A Sometimes Thing," The Commercial and Financial Chronicle, August 25, 1975, p. 12. 4/ David W. Ewing, The Human Side of Planning, Tool or Tyrant? New York, Mcmillan, 1969, p. 16. 5/ "Corporate Planning - A Sometimes Thing," op. cit., p. 11. 6 Patrick H. Irwin, "Why Aren't Companies Doing A Better Job of Planning?" Management Review, November 1971, p. 11. 7/ E. Kirby Warren, Long-Range Planning, The Executive Viewpoint, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1966, pp. 2-3. 8/ Robert J. Mockler, "Theory and Practice of Planning," in Robert J. Mockler, editor, Readings in Business Planning and Policy Formulation, New York, Appleton Century Crofts, 1972, p. 103. 9 Murray L. Weidenbaum and A. Bruce Rozet, Potential Industrial Adjustments to Shifts in Defense Spending, Menlo Park, California, Stanford Research Institute, 1963, p. 20. 10/ George A. Steiner, "Long-Range Planning," in Mockler, op. cit., p. 3. 11/ Mockler, "Theory and Practice of Planning," op. cit., p. 507 12/ Irwin, op. cit., p. 12. 13/ Ewing, op. cit., p. 9. 14/ "Corporate Planning - A Sometimes Thing," op. cit., p. 12. 15/ "For a National Economic Planning System," Challenge, March/April 1975, pp. 52-53. 16/ Daniel P. Moynihan, "The Future of Federalism," in U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, American Federalism, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1975, p. 98. 17 Malcolm H. Sherwood, Jr., "The Definition of Planning," in Mockler, op. cit., p.41. 18/ Robert G. Murdick, "Nature of Planning and Plans," Advanced Management Journal, October 1965, p. 40. -18 19/ David Ewing, Long-Range Planning for Management, New York, Harper & Row, 1964, p. 3. 20/ "For a National Economic Planning System," op. cit., p. 52. 21/ Ibid., p. 53. 22/ "Planning Economic Policy, An Interview With Hubert H. Humphrey," Challenge, March-April 1975, p. 23. 23/ T. A. Murphy, "National Planning," Wall Street Journal, August 18, 1975, p. 7. 24/ "For a National Economic Planning System," op. cit., p. 53. 25/ "Planning Economic Policy," op. cit., p. 23. 26 Herbert Stein, Economic Planning and the Improvement of Economic Policy, Washington, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1975, p. 25. 27/ Planning National Economic Policy, op. cit., p. 24. 28/ Cited in David Novick, editor, Current Practice in Program Budgeting, New York, Crane, Russak, 1973, p. 22. 29/ Ibid. 30/ Bertram Gross and Michael Spring, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1967, p. 9. 31 Harold Henry, "Formal Long-Range Planning and Corporation Performance," in Subhash Jain and Surendra Singhvi, editors, Essentials of Corporate Planning, Oxford, Ohio, Planning Executives Institute, 1973, p. 31. 32 R. Hal Mason, "Developing & Planning Organization," in Mockler, op. cit., p. 103. 33 Ewing, op. cit., p. 19. 34 Jack W. Carlson, "Recent U.S. Federal Government Experience With Program Budgeting, in Novick, op. cit., pp. 210, 216. 35/ John Jewkes, The New Ordeal By Planning, London, MacMillan, 1968, p. xi. 36 John Sheahan, "Planning in France," Challenge, January/February 1975, p. 18. Murray L. Weidenbaum, "Shortcomings of Business Planning," in Jain and Singhri, op. cit., p. 319. 37 38/ Ibid, p. 320. 39/ Cited in "Corporate Planning: Piercing Fog in the Executive Suite," Business Week. April 28, 1975, p. 48. 40/ "Corporate Planning - A Sometimes Thing," op. cit., p. 25. 1. 2. 3. Working Papers Center for the Study of American Business Murray L. Weidenbaum, "The Distribution of Tax Incentives", Murray L. Weidenbaum, "The New Wave of Federal Government Regulation of Business", April, 1975. James B. Burnham, "The Inflation Ratchet and the Relevance of Adam Smith", May, 1975. 4. Joseph W. Towle, "Are Businessmen Ethical", July, 1975. 5. John Rutledge, "Irving Fisher and Autoregressive Expectations", 6. Murray L. Weidenbaum, "A Proper Concern for the Future: The Debate Over Saving, Investment, and Capital Shortages", November, 1975. 7. 8. Armand J. Thieblot, Jr., "Government Interference with the Development of Small Business", December, 1975. James F. Ragan, Jr., "Minimum Wage Legislation and the Youth Labor Market", January, 1976. 9. Murray L. Weidenbaum, "The Contrast Between Government Planning and Business Planning: Market Orientation Versus Centralized Control", February, 1976. RfF Resources for the Future, inc. 1755 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. / WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 / CABLE: RESOURCES / PHONE: 462-4400 March 19, 1976 The Honorable John Glenn Dear Senator Glenn: The The issues raised in your letter of March 4 are fundamental to American life, and I am pleased to reply to your queries. questions you raise are not easily answerable by any amount of research; instead, answers must come from the basic philosophy of the respondent, from his knowledge accumulated over years of professional activity, and hopefully from such wisdom as he has been able to acquire. My reply to your questions is written in this spirit. The first major question raised in your letter relates to the role that government should play in setting long-term goals and in the development of strategies. It seems to me that an answer to this question must fall in two parts. First, government simply must play a major role in the establishment of goals and strategies. It is unarguable, I think, that government today plays a major role in the lives of everyone in our country. Whether one endorses or condemns specific government programs, I do not see how anyone can deny their importance. For government to initiate and carry out specific programs without goals is like a ship sailing without a compass. There must be some agreement on where we wish to go, else movement and activity are likely to be pointless or worse. Government is admittedly an imperfect institution, but democracy and the Constitution, and the government based upon them are not only all we have, but the best our combined ingenuities have been able to create until now. Governmental processes are the best device we have for national debate on goals and strategies, and hopefully for some resolution of the issues. But, second, I think everyone is concerned lest government grow too powerful, too pervasive in its roles with ordinary citizens. There is always the danger of improper use of government power. Most of us feel that the power of our federal government has been misused in a number of ways in recent years, and certainly the same is true of government power in other countries. I do not go to the extreme of proposing that government be made impotent or be severely shackled, simply because in the exercise of its proper responsibilities it may go astray. My view is that government must not be the only mechanism for the formulation of national goals and strategies. It has, in my view, a great, even a vital, role to play, but I feel that other mechanisms or institutions must also exist and be active. I agree fully with the statements in your letter about the need for citizen participation in government and in goal-setting and strategy-formulation generally. It is not easy to secure satisfactory citizen participation, as I am sure you fully realize. All too often the citizens who take an active role are those with a private ax to grind, who use their participation in government primarily for their own narrow ends, while the great mass of citizens slumbers on peacefully, awakening only late to protest. The second major question raised in your letter relates to what the government is now doing on goal setting and in the formulation of strategies, and as to the deficiencies in those activities. I agree very much with your letter, that many activities are currently underway in one part or another of the federal structure. In fact, the very proliferation of such efforts is good evidence that none of them is adequate, and the volume of reports is as confusing as it is helpful. The various activities mentioned in your letter are fragmented, often not well coordinated, and often the results are not used. These statements are as true for nongovernmental and for quasi-governmental activities as they are for strictly governmental ones. Nonprofit research organizations, such as I have been connected with for some years, and educational institutions are perhaps not wholly blameless in this situation, although we have often found it difficult to feed the results of our research into the national policyforming process. The present efforts of the federal government, such as you describe briefly in your letter, are not only often ineffective but they are frequently inefficient as well. That is, whatever they do achieve comes at high cost. Your letter mentions the environmental impact statements. There surely has been much effort and much expenditure going into such statements, to produce a great volume of reports--a volume of lengthy reports so great that no agency, |