Executive governance and its puzzles

Abstract

The phrase 'executive governance' refers to the merger of two discrete bodies of work, the study of executive government in political science and the study of governance in public administration. We focus on their intersection; on common ground and shared puzzles.We start with a brief account of the several approaches to executive studies in political science, and of the various waves in the study of governance. We cover the core executives of Westminster and Western Europe parliamentary polities. After this conspectus of the literature, we devote most of our attention to the shared puzzles where executive studies and governance intersect. We focus on four puzzles: predominant or collaborative leadership; central capability or implementation; formal or informal coordination; and political accountability or webs of accountabilities. We conclude with some suggestions about the directions for future research under the headings of: the interpretive turn, court politics, and presidential studies. APPROACHES TO EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENTThis section introduces briefly the main approaches to the analysis of executive government that are directly relevant to the study of governance. We focus on: formal 2 Executive governance institutional analysis; modernist empiricism; political biography, the core executive, and the predominant prime minister. We realize this listing is not exhaustive. It omits, for example, rational choice analysis, and the psychology of political leadership because they do not engage with the literature on governance (but see Rhodes 2006a). Formal institutional analysisEckstein (1963, pp. 10-11) points out 'If there is any subject matter at all which political scientists can claim exclusively for their own, a subject matter that does not require acquisition of the analytical tools of sister-fields and that sustains their claim to autonomous existence, it is, of course, formal-legal political structure' (see also Rhodes 2006b). Perhaps the most famous example of this approach is the work on Westminster polities. This notion is remarkably diffuse but commonly refers to a family of ideas that includes: parliamentary sovereignty; strong cabinet government; ministerial responsibility, where ministers are individually and collectively accountable to parliament; a professional, non-partisan public service; and a legitimate opposition (Rhodes, Wanna and Weller 2009, chapter 1) Most relevant for our discussion is the notion of the 'efficient secret' of 'the closer union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers' (Bagehot 1963, p. 65). In the 2000s, parliamentary government continues to be defined by this buckle. For Shugart (2006, p. 348), the executive arises out of the legislative assembly, and can be dismissed by a vote of 'no confidence' by that legislature. So, the party or parties with a majority in parliament form the executive, defined by key positions (that is, prime minister and cabinet). The cabinet is collectively responsible for its decisions, and its members (or ministers)...

Citizen engagement in South Africa: the case Prince Albert

“…We see in this new approach a changing role for public leaders due to a more extensive involvement of community in local issues. Public leaders should focus more on creating understanding within the community about problems and facilitate collaboration during engagement processes (Rhodes and Tiernan, 2015).…”

Using blockchain for global governance: past, present and future

“…Various processes that fall under the umbrella word "governance" can direct or regulate the behaviour of individuals (Fukuyama, 2016). Networks of interconnected organizations, characterized by interdependence, exchange of resources, rules of the game and significant autonomy from state institutions are referred to as governance (Rhodes, 2000). Society and organization management is referred to as the art of guiding them.…”

Craft and Capacity in the Public Service

“…Such problems have accompanied public sector reforms across different types of political systems. For the purposes of this paper, my primary concern is the cumulative impact of the political management reforms, which disrupted conventional understandings of the political‐administrative relationship, and created puzzles that ministers and senior officials encounter and seek to reconcile in their everyday work (Rhodes and Tiernan ; 't Hart ).…”