Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies

Aberbach, Joel D.; Putnam, Robert D.; Rockman, Bert A.

doi:10.4159/9780674020047

Cited by 1,009 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The politics-administration dichotomy . Going back to Aberbach et al ( 1981 )—how do the data compare with the images outlined in that study? What one see is a mixed order in which the role perceptions are much more complex when the policymaking process plays out as cooperation between the political executive, administrative leaders, and expert bodies (Olsen, 2010 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…A lot of studies have followed up on this initial study. In a recent survey of local politicians in four countries, Bækgaard et al ( 2020a ) found that role perceptions are much more complex and seem to vary much more between and within countries than suggested by the Aberbach, Putnam and Rockman ( 1981 ) study.…”

Section: Theoretical Basismentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The seminal work of Aberbach et al ( 1981 ) teased out four images of the politics/administration dichotomy. Image I represents the most pure distinction according to which politicians make policy and civil servants administer and implement it.…”

Section: Theoretical Basismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Christensen

Lægreid

2022

Public Organiz Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the role of experts in the Norwegian decision-making process in central government during the crisis management of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is based on a structural-instrumental and a cultural perspective. The main findings are that managing the pandemic led to a centralization of power in the hands of the political leadership, a blurring of the dichotomy between politics and administration, and a variety of expert advice. The crisis management also reflected the cultural appropriateness of a collaborative decision-making style, but it was not characterized by a scientization of policymaking. Rather than policymaking by experts it was policymaking informed by experts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Theoretical Basismentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Christensen

Lægreid

2022

Public Organiz Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many empirical studies on the relationship between politicians and public administrators have been conducted on the national level (e.g., Aberbach et al, 1981; Christensen & Opstrup, 2017). However, there are strong arguments that features of the local government level make it particularly apt for empirical studies of political–administrative relationships (Hysing, 2014; Svara, 2006b) although care is warranted when applying theories generated from the national level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Policy Influence Hollow Out Public Managers’ Political Neutrality?

Åström

Olsson

Hysing

2021

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consequences of public officials’ policy influence have been at the center of debates on political–administrative relations. Based on a survey of public managers in Swedish local government ( N = 1,430), this study examines whether policy politics hollows out political neutrality. The analysis shows that although managers are highly involved in policy politics, attitudinal support for the neutrality principle is strong. The enquiry into behavioral intentions shows more variation. In relation to a set of dilemmas, most managers would defend neutral competence, but significant minorities would also act for more partisan reasons. However, we find no empirical evidence that policy influence undermines political neutrality.

show abstract

“…In order to explore the relationship between the type of government and structural reorganisations over a long period of time, this study needed a systematic method to analyse and compare organisational changes in a consistent way. A method used for such purposes is a quantitative method measuring important aspects characterising each case of organisational changes, rather than conducting interviews and surveys that are more common in the literature of public administration (for example, Aberbach, Putnam & Rockman 1981;Hammerschmid et al, 2013).…”

Section: -Object and Unit Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of the Relationship between Government Type and Bureaucratic Structural Reorganisation in New Zealand, 1957–2017

Yui¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The type of government, whether the cabinet is a single-party majority, multiparty coalition, minority, or oversized, is often claimed to be one important factor affecting the shape of bureaucratic reform. This claim has been widely used in comparative public administration studies across countries in order to explain or even predict why radical and far-reaching reforms are pursued in some jurisdictions but not in others. One example of these studies is Pollitt and Bouckaert (2017), which identified that the scope and intensity of public management reforms were greater in majoritarian governments (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) than in consensual regimes (Belgium, Finland, and the Netherlands). Yet, there are virtually no studies that have examined closely the impact of differences in cabinet type upon the nature of bureaucratic reforms. Thus, this study aimed to explore empirically the relationship between the type of government and bureaucratic structural reorganisation, one aspect—but a central one—of bureaucratic reforms, through the consideration of the unique case of New Zealand, where four different cabinet types have been formed in the post-war period. In New Zealand, which was previously described as ‘the purest example of the Westminster model of government’ (Lijphart, 1987, p. 97), cabinet type has become more fluid since a proportional representation electoral system was adopted in 1996. For this reason, New Zealand was chosen as a model country to study the relationship, including identifying any dynamics in the shape and approach of government organisational and structural changes by the type of government. In the analysis of organisational restructurings in the New Zealand central government from 1957¬ to 2017, the impact of differences in cabinet type upon organisational changes was assessed quantitatively by measuring nine dimensions. In addition to the investigation of the relationship between government type and bureaucratic structural reorganisation, this research explored the evolution of the New Zealand government apparatus over the past 60 years. The database of organisational restructuring, created for the purpose of this research, provided a means for mapping all government organisations that exist and have existed as well as capturing organisational changes made to each organisation. By analysing changes in the number of government organisations and characteristics of organisational changes over time, this research identified a number of patterns and trends, including not only NPM and post-NPM reform trajectories but also other important variables, such as policy areas and party constellations in government. In so doing, this research was able to provide a comprehensive and detailed profile of the nature of the evolution of the New Zealand state sector over time. The development of rigorous and systematic data on government organisations and reorganisations was also one of the contributions that this research made. The results of investigating the relationship between the type of government and bureaucratic structural reorganisation in New Zealand over more than half a century did not demonstrate any real differences between cabinet types, except the sort of outlier cases in which significant associations were found between the single-party majority governments during 1984–1993—known as the most reformist governments in New Zealand’s history of state sector reform—and four out of the nine dimensions. They were 1) establishing larger numbers of new organisations; 2) using more consistent reorganisation approaches; 3) making more pronounced changes to organisational structure; and 4) initiating more difficult changes. By comparing different cabinet types and also distinguishing the most reforming governments from other single-party majorities, this research was able to identify methodologically what the government restructurings during the late 1980s and early 1990s were like. Other than this, the central finding that there was no evidence that differences in cabinet type affected the shape and approach of government organisational changes in New Zealand from 1957 to 2017 stood as a contradiction to the widely held view that the nature of executive government plays a major role in shaping public management reforms. For New Zealand, this finding means that having consensual cabinet types did not stop successive governments from undertaking frequent, continuous, repetitive and even significant government restructurings. As such, this research was concluded with the proposition that a consensual cabinet type is a fake mask of majoritarian ruling, meaning that New Zealand governments under MMP still remain largely as ‘majoritarian’ when it comes to government organisational restructurings.

show abstract

Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies

Cited by 1,009 publications

References 0 publications

Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Does Policy Influence Hollow Out Public Managers’ Political Neutrality?

An Exploration of the Relationship between Government Type and Bureaucratic Structural Reorganisation in New Zealand, 1957–2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About