The formulation and implementation of reforms is an intricate process to the government. Depending on the objectives targeted by reforms, multiple challenges occur because of the people’s resistance to change. In this regard, public administrators have to juggle between forces of the external and internal environments. Repeatedly, public representatives should figure out the implications of any reform and its major impacts on the government. Based on government reforms, such as the Inspector General Act of 1978 and Freedom of Information Act of 1994, varied perceptions influenced the citizens. In the first act, the reform was visionary, but perceived to be achievable. Despite the huge budget that was different from the anticipated one, it was still wholly accepted. As a result, its implementation was successful since the change considered the needs of the participating personnel. On the contrary, the latter experienced multiple challenges due to its direct impact on the government. Therefore, the reforms never succeeded. This implies that the manner in which reforms influence the members involved in designing and implementing them determines the fate of the reforms (Stillman, 2010).
Administrative reforms are vital changes that influence the public process’ conduct. In this case, administrative reforms work towards the improvement of the government performance. Essentially, it relates to the means by which the government delivers services to its citizens. Additionally, reforms with administrative units make people flexible and dynamic to anticipate future trends with optimism. However, administrative reforms exhibit multiple disadvantages. Initially, formulation and implementation of the reforms always demands a huge budget, which the government may not always afford. Second, the benefits attributable to the reforms are not always certain. Thus, if they negatively affect the government, they are terminated, leading to huge losses. Additionally, the manner of the reforms’ implementation depends on those holding administrative positions. In this regard, they might not yield to the anticipated changes even after their implementation due to internal and external influences. The Freedom of Information Act of 1964, which failed due to the internal government forces, depicts this fact.