An analysis of state Public Employee Retirement Systems (PERS): Governance network complexity, capacity, accountability and legitimacy

State government Public Employee Retirement Systems (PERS) are studied extensively in Economic and Financial literature regarding their history, fund solvency, management standards and governance practices; yet research in State PERS is relatively new in Political Science. State PERS' funds are generated from taxpayer, employee contributions, and investment earnings and are accruing immense liabilities for the future. All State PERS are dependent on one of the largest privatization movements at the state level---the privatization of their fund management through financial professionals. State pension funds rely on global private markets for investment returns to provide beneficiary pension payments. Given State PERS' impact on the global economy, state taxpayer liabilities, and the continuing effects of the 2008-2009 "Great Recession," Political Science must further investigate State PERS to understand the complexities of their policymaking dynamics. How are State PERS managed? This dissertation explains the pressures and concerns in their policymaking environment. Ultimately it shows how State PERS meet the standards of governance capacity, accountability and legitimacy within their governance networks.;Clearly State PERS' privatization is an example of "hollow state" bureaucracies and exhibits characteristics associated with Governance Theory and the Governance Network Framework in the Public Management School of Administrative and Implementation theory. Using Hall and O'Toole's Governance Network methodology, this dissertation compares all 50 State PERS in the United States. It examines their governance network actors, organizational and policy process relationships in four models. It answers seven hypotheses regarding governance network complexity, organizational relationships, policy process relationships and governance patterns. Many statutory variables are categorized into four quadrants of policymaking dynamics: "Executive/Legislative Dominance," "Bureaucratic Autonomy," "Both Weak," or "Both Strong." Each of the 50 State PERS is categorized into one of these quadrants. Four "ideal types" of State PERS in each quadrant are identified. The Governance Cycle is introduced as a theoretical tool connecting the standards and practical needs of government and Governance. State PERS' dependence on private for profit actors is clearly shown. Current and future trends regarding the Governance Legitimacy, Governance Capacity and Governance Accountability of State PERS---or the Governance Cycle of State PERS---are discussed and illustrated.