Transparency, when implemented effectively, can establish trustworthiness (Dodge, Ospina and Foldy 295) which can either facilitate or impede the political appointment process. The strengths of Fung, Graham and Weil's targeted transparency model is the specific targeted component of the model. Transparency in and of itself is often ineffective. The authors' model increases the possibility that the information disclosed can be utilized in the decision making process. This doesn't mean all information has to be disclosed to everyone, just the relevant information, in a timely manner, to the decision making parties. This can be utilized to help ensure a smoother confirmation process, where challenges with confirmation arise because of concerns with the lack of disclosure. In addition, transparency can help facilitate public confidence not only in the nominee itself, but also in the appointment process as a whole.

The weakness lies in the reality that often transparency can lead to challenges in the confirmation process, which is why the level of transparency is often reduced in this political process. A policy of continually increasing disclosure for the appointment process will realistically result in increased challenges in the governmental appointment process. Each piece of information gives parties involved in the confirmation process one more opportunity to not approve the appointee.

Conclusion:

With the implementation of each new administration comes the potential for numerous political appointments. While many of these appointments do not require congressional confirmation, many political appointments are at the mercy of confirmation, as a means of ensuring separation of powers remains intact. Appointments which require confirmation pose significant challenges to an incoming administration. To better understand these challenges, as well as how these problems may be resolved, two conceptual frameworks are utilized -- Freidson's professionalism and Fung, Graham and Weil's targeted transparency. Both are similar in that they can be used to analyze facets that affect part of the appointment process -- the confirmation of nominees. However, they differ significantly in the aspects they analyze. Professionalism is a quality that is a component of the nominee himself. It is a quality that either the nominee has or doesn't...

it's assumed in Freidson's framework that this quality results in several things, primarily acting as a balancing point for the tension that arises from the demands of bureaucracy and the free market, and serves to alter the focus of service towards quality and away from efficiency and competitiveness. Fung, Graham and Weil, in contrast, focus on an aspect that is not personal to the nominee, but instead a process. Where professionalism may not be present in each and every nominee, targeted transparency can be a process applied to all nominees. Lastly, transparency's primary difference when compared to professionalism is that it can actually hinder the confirmation process. Although there are significant benefits to transparency, a targeted transparency policy that allows decision makers access to all relevant information could result in fewer confirmations. In contrast, a policy of ensuring nominees have a level of professionalism would only facilitate confirmations as there is the associated deference to these individuals that would make their confirmations much more likely than those without specialized knowledge and a commitment to providing service that transcends the political machinations that can often be found in these organizations.