Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bureaucratic Politics and Administrative Reform: Why Politics Matters

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Administrative reform is a political, not managerial, issue. This study argues that administrative reform is highly influenced by realities of bureaucratic politics. Reforms usually mean the struggle over power between involved actors. There are evidences of patterns of power struggle among and between politicians and bureaucrats. Including contestation among bureaucrats that are responsible for public management reform. These power struggles and contestations explain the decision-making processes for designing and implementing administrative reform policies and shifts of power relations. This article proposes a new framework to advance the concept of bureaucratic politics, with reference to administrative reform policy. It highlights the missing link between public policy and public management reform literature by revisiting the power of politicians and bureaucrats in making reform policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool) of the U.S. was developed in 2002. It is a tool for evaluating programs within a department or among a couple of departments. The unit of evaluation is a program—that can only be one program or 2–3 closely related programs combined. PART scores are divided into four brackets (85–100%: Effective), (70–84%: Moderately Effective), (50–69%: Adequate), and (0–49%: Ineffective).

  2. For details see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/scorecards/agency_scorecards.html). The scorecard focuses on five areas: strategic management of human capital; competitive sourcing; improved financial performance; expanded electronic government; and budget and performance integration. The scorecard uses the traffic light system of red for unsatisfactory, yellow for mixed results, and green for success. It was announced by OMB in 2001.

References

  • Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G. & Halperin, M. H. (1972). Bureaucratic politics: A paradigm and some policy implications. World Politics, Vol. 24, Supplement: Theory and Policy in International Relations (Spring, 1972), 40–79.

  • Brower, R. S., & Abolafia, M. Y. (1997). Bureaucratic politics: the view from below. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 305–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendor, J., & Moe, T. M. (1985). An adaptive model of bureaucratic politics. The American Political Science Review, 79(3), 755–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogdanor, V. (Ed.). (2005). Joined-up government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, Bidhya (1994). “Administrative Reform and Regime Shifts: Reflections on the Thai Polity.” Asian Journal of Public Administration, 16(2).

  • Bowornwathana, B. (1996a). Thailand: The politics of reform of the Secretariat of the Prime Minister. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 55(4).

  • Bowornwathana, B. (1996b). The phenomenon of new ministries and the politician-bureaucrat perspective. Asian Review of Public Administration, 8(2), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (1999). Government reform and the politician-bureaucrat perspective: Vision, processes, and support for reform. In H. K. Wong & H. S. Chan (Eds.), Handbook of comparative public administration in Asia-Pacific Basin. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2000). Governance reform in Thailand: Questionable assumptions, uncertain outcomes. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 13(3), July.

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2001a). The politics of governance reform in Thailand. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of comparative and development public administration (2nd ed., pp. 421–443). New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2001b). Administrative Reform Abroad: The United States, the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, Japan, and Sweden. Bangkok: Office of the Administrative Reform Commission, the Royal Thai Government. (In Thai).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2001c). Thailand: Bureaucracy under coalition governments. In J. P. Burns & B. Bowornwathana (Eds.), Civil service systems in Asia (pp. 281–318). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2002a). “Hidden agendas in administrative reform: Thailand” Paper presented at the International Conference in Asia: Cultural, Ethics, Institutional Reform and Policy Change,” organized by the Governance in Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong, 5–7 December 2002.

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2002b). Joined at the Top and Structural Reform of Thai Ministries: More Government, not Governance. In M. Constantine (Ed.), Knowledge, networks and joined-up government: Conference Proceedings (pp. 77–93). Melbourne: Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2004a). Thaksin’s model of administrative reform: prime ministerialisation through ‘A Country is My Company’ approach. Asian Journal of Political Science, 12(1), 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2004b). Putting New Public Management to good use: autonomous public organizations in Thailand. In C. Pollitt & C. Talbot (Eds.), Unbundled government: A critical analysis of global trend in agencies, quangos and contractualisation. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2004c). Administrative reform under Thaksin: the return of the authoritarian perspective. A country case report presented at the Regional Forum on Reinventing Government for East and Southeast Asia organized by the Division for Public Administration and Development Management, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), Penang, Malaysia, 21–23 August 2004.

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2005a). Administrative reform and tidal waves from regime shifts: tsunamis in Thailand’s political and administrative history. The Asian Pacific Journal of Public Administration., 27(1), 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2005b). State Capture, Conflict of Interest, Business Empires and the Super Patron: Comparison of Big Businessman Thaksin and Berlusconi in Power. Paper presented at the IX IRSPM (International Research Symposium on Public Management), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, 6–8 April 2005. A revised version of the paper was presented at the 20th IPSA World Congress, Fukuoka, 9–13th July, 2006 on the session on “Corporate Culture: Analysing the Impact of Business on Politics,” Thursday July 13, 1300–1500 pm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2005c). Dynamics and effectiveness of the NCC commission and the new counter corruption network in Thailand: The story of the struggling tiger. Paper presented at the National University of Singapore’s Centennial Conference on ‘Asian Horizons: Cities, States and Societies,” The National University of Singapore, Singapore, 1–3 August, 2005.

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2006a). Transforming bureaucracies for the twenty-first century: The new democratic governance paradigm. In E. Otenyo & N. Lind (Eds.), Comparative public administration: The essential readings. The United Kingdom: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2006b). The Thai model of rewards for high public office. In D. H. Unger & C. D. Neher (Eds.), Bureaucracy and national security in Southeast Asia: Essays in honor of M. Ladd Thomas. Naperville: Publishers’ Graphics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2006c). “Autonomisation of the Thai State: some observations. Public Administration and Development, 26(1), 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2008). Importing governance into the Thai polity: Competing hybrids and reform consequences. In B. Bowornwathana & C. Wescott (eds.), Comparative governance reform: Democracy, corruption, and government trust. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Bowornwathana, B. (2009) Big businessmen at the helm: the politics of conflict of interest in Thailand. In A. Farazmand (ed.), Handbook of Bureaucracy. 2nd edition. Taylor and Francis Group.

  • Bowornwathana, B., & Poocharoen, Ora-orn. (2005). Managing reforms: The politics of organizing reform work. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5, 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, M. J., & Newell, J. L. (2005). Italian politics: Adjustments under duress. The United Kingdom: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C., & Halligan, J. (1992). Political leadership in an age of constraint: The Australian experience. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, G. (1990). Bureaucratic politics. The Journal of American History, 77(1), 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy P. (1991). Democracy bureaucracy and public choice. Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf.

  • Esman, M. J. (1972). Administration and development in Malaysia: Institutional building and reform in a plural society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, M. (1974). Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartcher, P. (1997). The ministry: The inside story of japan’s ministry of finance. Hammersmith: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. W. & Wileman, T. A. (1997). Reform in the Australian Public Service 1983–1996, The Office of Auditor General of Canada. [http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/aus.html] Accessed Sept. 2006.

  • Ito, M. (1995). Administrative reform. In H.-K. Kim, M. Muramatsu, T. J. Pempel, & K. Yamamura (Eds.), The Japanese civil service and economic development: Catalysts of change (pp. 235–260). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, R. (2002). The UK experience of public administration reform. Commonwealth Secretariat.

  • Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. (1995). Japan: Who governs? The rise of the developmental state. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd edition) HarperCollins College Publishers.

  • Lewansky, R. (2000). The development oand current features of the Italian civil service system. In H. A. G. M. Bekke & F. M. Van der Meer (Eds.), Civil service systems in Western Europe (pp. 212–246). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, D. (2000). The secret treasury: How Britain’s economy is really run. London: The Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, A., & Pyper, R. (2005). Public management and modernisation in Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masujima, T. (2006). Administrative reform in Japan. Tokyo: The Institute of Administrative Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAnulla, S. (2006). British politics: A critical introduction. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. (1987). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government (2nd ed.). California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neary, I. (2002). The state and politics in Japan. The United Kingdom: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine, Atherton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, W. (1975). Bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Law and Economics, 18, 617–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 211–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P., & Peters, B. G. (1996). Lessons from experience: Experiential learning in administrative reforms in eight democracies. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, R. (1994). The bureaucratic politics paradox: the case of wetlands legislation in Nevada. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 443–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy. (5th edition) Routledge.

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty, K. (1995). Inside Japan’s power houses: The culture, mystique and future of Japan’s greatest corporations. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D., & Smith, M. J. (2005). Governance and public policy in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. W. A. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. W. A. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothacher, A. (1993). The Japanese power elite. New York: St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, F. E. (Ed.). (1986). Bureaucratic power in national policy making. Boston: Little and Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Martin, D. (2000). Building the new managerialist state: Consultants and the politics of public sector reform in comparative perspective. Oxford University Press.

  • Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockwin, J. A. A. (2005). Governance, democracy and the political economy of the Japanese state. In G. D. Hook (Ed.), Contested governance in Japan: Sites and issues (pp. 54–70). London: RoutledgeCurzon, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, E. F. (1979). Japan as no. 1: Lessons for America. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co.

  • Woronoff, J. (1986). Politics: The Japanese way. Tokyo: Yonan Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Bidhya Bowornwathana

  2. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Ora-orn Poocharoen

Authors
  1. Bidhya Bowornwathana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ora-orn Poocharoen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bidhya Bowornwathana.

Additional information

Paper prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Conference, Philadelphia, USA. August 30th - September 3rd, 2006.

This is a work in progress; therefore comments and criticism are encouraged. Please do not quote without the authors’ permission.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bowornwathana, B., Poocharoen, Oo. Bureaucratic Politics and Administrative Reform: Why Politics Matters. Public Organiz Rev 10, 303–321 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0129-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0129-0

Keyword

Search

Navigation