The communicative policy maker revisited: public administration in a twenty-first century cultural-choice framework

In recent years, public administration thinking shifts the focus from the internal public organisation behaviour towards cross-boundary operation that is, operation across governments and sectors. Public bureaucrats become agents in a multiple-interest political environment within which not only technical management issues are discussed, but also dynamic public values are shaped through a dialogical process. In a cultural choice framework, governments operate different service portfolios and the source of allocation problems occurs due to interdependencies between these functions and variation in public preferences. Beyond service production costs, there exist variable characteristics, such as citizen interest, market competition, and managerial structure and operating behaviour in the aggregate responsibilities governments take. Progressive public administrators need to respond to a threefold challenge: The global versus local challenge to define cultural variability; the leadership challenge to interact with citizens; and the cross-boundary challenge to develop a collaborative rather than a competitive future.     

Exorcising the ghost of the politics-administration dichotomy: an institutional theory of administration policy making

This article takes implementation theory one critical step further. It argues that administrative policy making is a separate, distinguishable process, not a stage in or component of the legislative policy-making process. In addition, it argues that the institutional setting for policy making has a major influence on policy ideas, choices, and actions. Administrative agencies form a distinct institutional setting for policy politics, and setting influences policy outcomes. The implications of the institutional perspective for understanding policy making, policy analysis, and the legitimacy of public organizations are examined.

The ghost of the politics-administration dichotomy haunts implementation theory. Although numerous scholars have declared the dichotomy dead,⁽¹⁾ administrative policy making is still seen as a component or step in the policy process that is dominated by elected officials. For example, Kelman recently examined the different institutional settings of policy making.⁽²⁾ Elected officials, in his view, are and should remain the primary source of policy ideas and choices while administrators remain responsible for translating these ideas and choices into practice. Other scholars underscore the lack of effective control by legislators and elected executives. But even those who acknowledge administrative initiative and autonomy see administrators as servants, however weak their masters.

This article takes implementation theory one critical step farther. It argues that administrative policy making is a separate, distinguishable process—not merely a stage in or component of legislative policy making. Policies can and do originate in administrative agencies. These innovations gather supporters and critics, are tested and refined, and can become part of the routine with little, if any, involvement by elected officials or political appointees. Legislation and executive orders commonly ratify existing administrative policies rather than initiate administrative involvement.

In addition, the institutional setting for policy making has a major influence on policy ideas, choices, and actions. Administrative agencies form a distinct institutional setting for policy politics. The institutional setting, it is argued, influences policy outcomes. Administrative policy making is not, however, an entirely discrete process. It intersects with legislative policy making at important and predictable points. The two policy processes, legislative and administrative, are loosely and variably coupled.⁽³⁾ The central distinction is that administrative policy making is dominated by the ideas, norms, routines, and choices of nonelected public employees, whereas legislative policy making is dominated by the perspectives of elected officials. Administrative policy making can occur in the bureaucracies of the President or of Congress.

The argument that these two processes—legislative and administrative—are distinct does not, however, deny their essential overlap. The overlap between these two fundamentally different policy settings has fostered the delusion that there is only one policy setting with legislative and administrative components. Clearly elected officials influence administrative policy making, and, just as clearly, administrators influence legislative policy making.⁽⁴⁾ Nevertheless, their interaction remains obscure without a clearer perception of the profound differences between the two settings. As stated, the importance of administrative policy making seems obvious and uncontroversial, but its implications are strongly resisted.⁽⁵⁾

Public administration and implementation theories have not adequately recognized the importance of administrative policy making in modem welfare states.⁽⁶⁾ Before more fully developing these ideas, four examples of administrative policy making are briefly reviewed.     

Reform: economic policy administration

Beginning in 1992, Italy has undergone a dramatic process of fiscal consolidation. Within that framework, the policy strategy has covered a broad range of objectives and addressed the main structural imbalances of the Italian economy. This paper describes how the new policy course has been reshaping the role of the State within the Italian economy, with a view of reducing the State's weight and direct involvement in the management of businesses. This has also implied a profound transformation at the decisional and administrative levels, as testified by the ongoing merge of two separate administrations, the former Ministry of the Treasury and Ministry of the Budget, into a single entity.     

The partisan–professional dichotomy revisited: Politicization and decision‐making of senior civil servants

Politicization has an ambivalent reputation among public administration scholars. While considered an effective instrument to safeguard political control over ministerial bureaucracy, partisanship of senior civil servants is likewise associated with patronage and is deemed detrimental to professionalism and meritocracy. To scrutinize this contradiction, the article examines how the party‐political background of senior civil servants influences their decision‐making behaviour. Two theoretically derived conceptions of loyalty are therefore put to the test: responsiveness and responsibility. Effects are captured by using the vignette technique in 40 in‐depth interviews with former senior civil servants from ministerial departments at federal and state level in Germany. The results are surprising in so far as they reveal that politicized senior civil servants act neither more responsively nor less responsibly than their non‐politicized peers. These findings challenge common assumptions and call for a more refined analysis of the conditions under which politicization leads to negative effects.     

The growing role of computers in american federal tax compliance and administration

Computers have had a significant impact on reducing both compliance and administrative costs under the American Federal Internal Revenue Code. Computer assisted legal research systems have vastly facilitated legal research for both taxpayer and tax collecting officials. Tax evasion and under-reporting have been brought under better control with the assistance of computers. At present successful experiments are being conducted under which returns prepared by the taxpayer with the assistance of computers are being filed in electronic format so as to allow for virtual instant processing by tax collecting officials. Taxpayers have also found computers to be of considerable assistance in preparing tax returns and developing tax saving strategies.     

Reframing the rising powers debate: state transformation and foreign policy

Abstract

The volume that we introduce breaks with the prevalent tendency in International Relations (IR) scholarship to treat rising powers (such as China, Russia, India and Brazil) as unitary actors in international politics. Although a neat demarcation of the domestic and international domains, on which the notion of unitary agency is premised, has always been a myth, these states’ uneven integration into the global political economy has eroded this perspective’s empirical purchase considerably. Instead, this collection advances the concept of ‘state transformation’ as a useful lens through which to examine rising power states’ foreign policymaking and implementation. State transformation refers to the pluralisation of cross-border state agency via contested and uneven processes of fragmentation, decentralisation and internationalisation of state apparatuses. The volume demonstrates the significance of state transformation processes for explaining some of these states’ most important foreign policy agendas, and outlines the implications for the wider field in IR.     

Purpose and practice in public administration education: The place of substantive public policy areas

Public administration's early identification with the concept of a strong executive has resulted in an emphasis on staff functions in its graduate education programs. In the practicing world, staff functions are viewed as tools employed in the actual practice of public administrators, namely the delivery of substantive public services. Although public administration is characterized as an applied field, it does not focus its theory building and educative efforts on that which practicing public administrators actually do. The field necessarily imports other disciplines, but it does not provide the unique focus that would justify this borrowing; its current research agenda and training curricula are available in other disciplines. Public administration graduate students should concentrate in individual substantive policy areas, and the field should focus on optimizing organizational arrangments for delivering societal knowledge as public services. Interorganizational theory can provide the common theoretical framework necessary to mitigate the centrifugal effects of a variety of “administrations” within the field. The approach developed by J. Kenneth Benson is outlined; it provides a unique theoretical niche for public administration, yields a framework for comparative analysis, and defines the field's relationship to political science.     

Navigating the dichotomy: The top public servant's craft

How in their day‐to‐day practices do top public servants straddle the politics–administration dichotomy (PAD), which tells them to serve and yet influence their ministers at the same time? To examine this, we discuss how three informal ‘rules of the game’ govern day‐to‐day political–administrative interactions in the Dutch core executive: mutual respect, discretionary space, and reciprocal loyalty. Drawing from 31 hours of elite‐interviews with one particular (authoritative) top public servant, who served multiple prime ministers, and supplementary interviews with his (former) ministers and co‐workers, we illustrate the top public servants’ craft of responsively and yet astutely straddling the ambiguous boundaries between ‘politics’ and ‘administration’. We argue that if PAD‐driven scholarship on elite administrative work is to remain relevant, it has to come to terms with the boundary‐blurring impacts of temporal interactions, the emergence of ‘hybrid’ ministerial advisers, and the ‘thickening’ of accountability regimes that affects both politicians and public servants.     

Teaching public policy in a public administration program

An overlooked aspect of academic concern in public administration is the realm of public policy. Policy intrudes into administration at a number of crucial points; administration influences the direction and emphasis of policy in various ways. These interrelationships warrant more attention in the training of public administrators. Regrettably, they have remained largely off-limits in the training of public administrators. Why and how we should proceed to alter this state of affairs is the essence of the symposium that follows.     

Federal contract policy and management: the small business administration 8(A) program

The federal Small Business Administration's 8(a) program raises issues of minority business empowerment and effective policy implementation. Given the role of enterprise in both addressing the historical and contemporary problems of minority economic and community development and in empowering minority communities, and given the current nature, extent and distribution of minority, particularly African-American business establishments, the performance of the 8(a) program as a substantial infusion of capital and experience into the African-American community is essential. According to a recent report of the Commission on Minority Business Development, the 8(a) is seriously flawed in the management of the problem. Regulation and enforcement, coordination, evaluation and monitoring and accountability are serious challenges to the viability of the program. Entrepreneurial empowerment is enhanced not only by effective policy development but also be effective policy implementation of the 8(a) and other set-aside programs.     

Urban unemployment and optimal tax policy in a small,open dual economy

This paper analyses optimal tax policies in a two‐sector model of an LDC, similar to that of Harris and Todaro [1970]. The analysis assumes a small, open economy with a non‐competitive urban wage which depends on prices of both agricultural and manufactured goods. Optimal policies are considered for cases where an employment subsidy in manufacturing and/or taxes on international trade are the only feasible instruments, and where government revenue has an excess burden. Comparisons are made with results obtained by Harris and Todaro, Hagen, and Bhagwati and Srinivasan, for similar models.     

Public administration and public policy: old perspectives,new directions

Public administration has rather studiously avoided serious consideration of its ties to public policy throughout most of this century. The politics/administration dichotomy leaves a lasting legacy. Policy has a central place in the ongoing effort to explain what public administration is and how it functions. Policy defines the purpose of agencies, stipulates much of the detail about their organization, provides authority and legitimacy, and makes them important -- probably the most important--instruments of policy effectuation and evaluation. Public administration has traditionally displayed an interest in management; it has been studied, taught, and practiced as method, “how to.” This instrumentalist orientation has addressed successively different perspectives, all subsumed within the rubric of public administration. The first of these emphasized administrative reform, followed by an interest in scientific management. These left a legacy that largely treated administration as an end in itself, divorced from matters of policy. Further developments during the depression and post-war years gave prominence to human relations and decisionmaking. These newer orientations emphasized public administration's non-involvement with policy, although decisionmaking proved less inward-oriented and contributed some methodological insights for better understanding policy's ties to public administration. Decisionmaking's preoccupation with unifunctional organizations accountable to a single power center has proved a formidable obstacle to empirical investigations of policy/administration ties, however. This dilemma calls for new perspectives from which to study these ties; one promising perspective is the examination of administrative involvement in successive stages of the policy process.     

On Soviet‐German relations: The debate continues—A review article

Aleksandr M. Nekrich, Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German‐Soviet Relations, 1922–1941. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, xiv + 308 pp., £28.00.