Controversies in the Bureau of Land Management: A Reputational Power Analysis of the BL

This dissertation examines the organizational reputation of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) using Daniel Carpenter's reputation and power theory (2010) as a theoretical and methodological base. It specifically asks: How do the requirements of FLPMA serve to affect the organizational reputation of the Bureau of Land Management? Reputational power theory asserts four dimensions of analysis to identify an organization's reputation. These dimensions are: (1) Performative Reputation -- quality of decision-making and capacity for effectively achieving its objectives; (2) Moral Reputation -- transparency, defensible means and ends; (3) Technical Reputation -- qualified for the authority (legal and cultural) granted; and, (4) Legal --Procedural Reputation -- following established norms of deliberation, procedure, or decision-making. These dimensions serve as the criteria to analyze seven cases, chosen based on the three requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA). These requirements are: (1) participation of vested interests in the planning process, (2) a shift from disposal to retention of public lands, and (3) that the lands be utilized for multiple uses toward the benefit of the American public. FLPMA is utilized to guide and organize case selection, as it is the legal mandate behind BLM authority and represents the fullest extent of the agency's activities. This study seeks to identify how the requirements of FLPMA serve to affect the organizational reputation of the Bureau of Land Management.;The findings of this case study indicate that the BLM has a negative reputation in all but the legal-procedural dimension. Three implications are identified in addressing the main research question, based on the reputational analysis: (1) FLPMA serves only to define the procedural-legal aspect of public planning process; (2) the inability of FLPMA to define a purpose to public lands management has its root in the large scope of activity required of the BLM by FLPMA; (3) lastly, retention has placed the BLM and the federal government in a precarious position of an owner rather than custodian of the public lands. These findings and implications present a serious concern for the perceived legitimacy of BLM action and present a need for further research to both evaluate these findings and identify means of addressing these reputational shortcomings.