Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies

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

doi:10.2307/j.ctvjz82fv

Cited by 156 publications

(224 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

199

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, a behavioural logic of portfolio safeguards informed decisions and due administrative practices, emphasises divergent agendas, co-ordinates actions inside sub-units rather than across them, emphasises signals, concerns and considerations of sub-units, and pays loyalty primarily towards sub-units. These behavioural logics highlight competing understandings of bureaucratic organisation, administrative behaviour, and bureaucratic change (Aberbach et al 1981;Wilson 1989). Balancing these logics confronts one classical dilemma in bureaucratic organisations between instrumental design and executive centre formation on the one hand and bureaucratic differentiation and sub-unit autonomy on the other (Verhoest et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bureaucratic Structure and Administrative Behaviour: Lessons from International Bureaucracies

Trondal¹

2011

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to a growing literature on international bureaucracy by exploring the relationship between bureaucratic structure and administrative behaviour. The ambition of this study is twofold: first, it explores the extent to which international bureaucracies combine two inherent behavioural logics: a logic of hierarchy and a logic of portfolio. Second, two key empirical lessons are used to modify four conventional claims in existing research. Drawing on a rich body of data from three international bureaucracies (the European Commission, the OECD Secretariat, and the WTO Secretariat), this study suggests that administrative behaviour among international civil servants is profoundly shaped by the bureaucratic structures of international bureaucracies. Variation in the abovementioned behavioural logics is conditioned by two aspects of bureaucratic structure: First, the accumulation of relevant organisational capacities at the executive centre of international bureaucracies, and second, the vertical and horizontal specialisation of international bureaucracies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bureaucratic Structure and Administrative Behaviour: Lessons from International Bureaucracies

Trondal¹

2011

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Leadership is decentralized, the interface between the political and professional spheres of responsibility is often ambiguous, and elected officials in the USA may have substantial line responsibilities in policy implementation. The blurring of roles between elected officials and those in charge of disaster response agencies may contribute to leadership confusion during a disaster, 28 as became apparent when the Secretary of Health and Human Services took the lead in communicating with the public during the anthrax crisis when many felt that this role should have been handled primarily by the director of the CDC or another public health official at the national level. 29 There have been some efforts to fill the gaps at agency interfaces.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Preparing for Disaster: Response Matrices in the USA and UK

Kahn

Barondess

2008

J Urban Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disasters, whether man-made or naturally occurring, require complex responses across multiple government agencies and private sector elements, including the media. These factors mandate that, for effective disaster management and because of the unpredictability of such events, response structures must be in place in advance, ready to be activated on short notice, with lines of responsibility clearly delineated and mechanisms for coordination of efforts already established. Disaster response experiences in the USA and the UK were reviewed at a conference convened by the New York Academy of Medicine and the Royal Society of Medicine in June 2007. Lessons to be drawn from these comparisons were sought. The importance of careful advance planning, clear delineation of spheres of responsibility and response roles, effective mechanisms for communication at all levels, and provision for adequate communication with the public were all identified as key elements of effective response mechanisms.

show abstract

“…This three-way typology can be elaborated further by incorporating one of the most crucial topics in policy studies, the administrative-political relationship that has been emphasized by Aberbach et al (1981), Peters (1987), Svara (1998), Hansen and Ejersbo (2002), and Carboni (2010). The case study of Korea's art support policy demonstrated that each aspect of legitimacy could be achieved in different stages of the policy process and that both substantive and procedural legitimacy achieved in earlier stages did not necessarily secure successful policy outcomes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Since the time of Woodrow Wilson, there have been different ways of defining and understanding the relationship between politics and administration. For instance, Aberbach et al (1981) identify four sets (or ''images'') that represent the complex policy-making relations between bureaucrats and politicians. Peters (1987) also provides a spectrum of five ideal types, elaborating the potential configuration of political-administrative relations.…”

Section: Typologies Of Policy Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea

Park

Lee

Chung³

2015

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to provide a new three-way typology of policy legitimacy (i.e., substantive legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, and feasibility-centered legitimacy), while taking into account the relationship between politics (elected officials) and administration (unelected officials) as one of the most significant but under-discussed issues in the studies of policy legitimacy. This analytical framework is used to investigate the empirical case of South Korea's cultural policy. The sequential causal relations between the three types of legitimacy and policy outcomes are then discussed. The case analysis demonstrates that the substantive and procedural legitimacy achieved in the earlier stages of the policy process were not enough to guarantee a successful policy outcome, and hence, feasibility-centered legitimacy was needed as a necessary condition for policy success. If there is a lack of consistency among the three types of legitimacy and coordination issues between elected and unelected officials in the legitimization process, seemingly legitimate policies could have unsuccessful outcomes. This study will contribute to the theoretical advancement of policy legitimacy and to the empirical examination of the legitimization process in recently democratized countries like Korea.

show abstract

Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies

Cited by 156 publications

References 0 publications

Bureaucratic Structure and Administrative Behaviour: Lessons from International Bureaucracies

Bureaucratic Structure and Administrative Behaviour: Lessons from International Bureaucracies

Preparing for Disaster: Response Matrices in the USA and UK

Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About