Bureaucracy and Internationalization

Schomaker, Rahel; Bauer, Michael W.; Ege, JörnJörn

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3748-1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the increased fragmentation of the state, views of bureaucrats on the meso- and partly micro-levels (policy processes, discourses, networks, actors’ morals) also fragmented, including a shift in relation to bureaucratic roles, which changed from being innovative managers/entrepreneurs (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992), educators and facilitators (Barth, 1996), to being a neo-Weberian bureaucrat: a policymaker, a negotiator, and a democrat (Peters, 2009). With intensive globalization, administrative internationalization has also been developing (Schomaker et al, 2019), including international organizations (see e.g., Weiss, 1982), and the “intermediate level of governance” between the national and the global levels (e.g., on the level of the European Union) (see e.g., Bauer & Trondal, 2015). Issues regarding relations between bureaucrats and civil society (Ongaro, 2019) gained new dimensions, although they did not directly deal with bureaucrats as democratic agents (Ege, 2020; Pedersen et al, 2011).…”

Section: Public Administration Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical Perspectives on Bureaucrats: A Quest for Democratic Agents

Železnik

Fink‐Hafner

2023

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy has gained attention in historical cycles, the literature on the roles of bureaucrats in relation to democracy has become increasingly fragmented. Drawing on comparisons among public administration theory, as well as participatory, deliberative, and collaborative democracy, this article provides typologies that reflect the historical multiplication of the theoretically determined roles and characteristics of bureaucracy that contribute to democracy. This comparative analysis has demonstrated a common democratic trend among the four schools in adding stresses on bureaucrats’ autonomy, morality, publicity, and direct connection to citizens, with a constant coexistence of rational and managerial elements.

show abstract