Since the formalization of intelligence as a standalone function of the U.S. government in 1947, there have been dozens of reform efforts. These efforts have produced a variety of outcomes; although most failed to produce any changes, some made superficial changes, and a small handful had drastic impacts on how the government organizes for and generates intelligence. This research is intended to answer this question: Why do some intelligence-reform efforts result in change but others fail? The vast majority of the established literature on this topic either lacks a theoretical basis or relies upon a status quo preference to explain the variation.
Most work on intelligence reform places failure squarely on bureaucratic intransigence. Intelligence agencies prefer the status quo and can prevent change by holding an overwhelming information advantage. Yet information advantage is not fixed. Reformers can shift informational asymmetries to their favor through the apt design of the reform itself. Reformers that generate new solutions rather than simply recycle solutions, impose new definitions and terminology rather than use the intelligence agencies own jargon, or talk about systemic issues rather than specific actions of the intelligence agencies nullify the information advantage. When reformers take on two or more of these approaches, the information advantage shifts to their advantage at the expense of the intelligence agencies. When that happens, reformers can push reform through and create change. The examples of the Rockefeller Commission, the Halloween Day Massacre, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) all reflect this dynamic. Failures of reform, such as the Maxwell Commission and the Church Committee’s work on electronic surveillance, reflect reformers not taking on these approaches and leaving the information advantage to the intelligence agencies. Put simply, reformers that shift the dialogue of the reform by imposing new definitions, propose new solutions, or examine the problems in broader contexts rather than individual actions, strip the tool of information advantage away from intelligence organizations, producing actual reform.
|Advisor:||Lebovic, James H.|
|Commitee:||Balla, Steven J., Grynaviski, Eric|
|School:||The George Washington University|
|School Location:||United States -- District of Columbia|
|Source:||DAI-A 80/05(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||International Relations, Public administration|
|Keywords:||Intelligence, National security, Reform|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be