Administrative Politics: Context, Roles, and Process

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1425-1

Synonyms

Definition

Administrative politics addresses the role of public administrators in a democratic society. This role is embedded in an institutional context in which administrators, elected leaders, and the public advocate for particular goals, principles, or decision-making processes in government.

Introduction: The Societal Context

The term “administrative politics” may seem an awkward combination of words, if one assumes that public-sector administration should be shielded somewhat from things political. The realities of practice and a considerable body of research have shown, however, that the politics-administration relationship is a matter of emphasis rather than clear separation, a continuum rather than a dichotomy.

For the purposes of this chapter, politics can be defined as activities in which people advocate for particular goals, principles, or...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Biddle BJ (1986) Recent developments in role theory. Annu Rev Sociol 12:67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Box RC, Marshall GS, Reed BJ, Reed CM (2001) New public management and substantive democracy. Public Adm Rev 61(5):608–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1962) The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper TL (1991) An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. Finer H (1941) Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Adm Rev 1:335–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox CJ, Cochran CE (1990) Discretionary public administration: toward a platonic guardian class? In: Kass HD, Catron BL (eds) Images and identities in public administration. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 87–112Google Scholar
  7. Fox CJ, Miller HT (1995) Postmodern public administration: toward discourse. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedrich C (1940) Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public Policy 1:1–20Google Scholar
  9. Gruber JE (1987) Controlling bureaucracies: dilemmas in democratic governance. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Harmon MM, Mayer RT (1986) Organization theory for public administration. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Adm 69:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hood C (1995) The “new public management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Acc Organ Soc 20(2/3):93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kass HD (1990) Stewardship as a fundamental element in images of public administration. In: Kass HD, Catron BL (eds) Images and identities in public administration. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 113–131Google Scholar
  14. Koliba C, Meek JW, Zia A (2011) Governance networks in public administration and public policy. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. Meier KJ, O’Toole LJ (2006) Bureaucracy in a democratic state: a governance perspective. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  16. Moe TM (1984) The new economics of organization. Am J Polit Sci 28(4):739–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Niskanen WA (1971) Bureaucracy and representative government. Aldine-Atherton, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Osborne D, Gaebler T (1993) Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector, from schoolhouse to statehouse. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  19. Osborne SP, Radnor Z, Nasi G (2013) A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. Am Rev Public Adm 43(2):135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ostrom V, Tiebout CM, Warren R (1961) The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am Polit Sci Rev 55(4):831–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Overeem P (2015) The concept of regime values: are revitalization and regime change possible? Am Rev Public Adm 45(1):46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rayner J, Williams HM, Lawton A, Allinson CW (2011) Public service ethos: developing a generic measure. J Public Adm Res Theory 21(1):27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rohr JA (1989) Ethics for bureaucrats: an essay on law and values, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Schachter HL (1997) Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: the role of citizen owners in making a better government. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Terry LD (1998) Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement. Public Adm Rev 58(8):194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64(5):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wamsley GL, Goodsell CT, Rohr JA, Stivers CM, White OF, Wolf JF (1987) The public administration and the governance process: refocusing the American dialogue. In: Chandler RC (ed) A centennial history of the American administrative state. Macmillan, New York, pp 291–317Google Scholar
  28. Waterman RW, Meier KJ (1998) Principal-agent models: an expansion? J Public Adm Res Theory 8(2):173–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whitcombe J (2008) Contributions and challenges of “new public management”: New Zealand since 1984. Policy Q 4(3):7–13Google Scholar
  30. Willoughby KG (2014) Public budgeting in context: structure, law, reform, and results. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson W (1887) The study of administration. Polit Sci Q 2(2):197–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood BD, Waterman RW (1991) The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. Am Polit Sci Rev 85(3):801–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang K (2007) China’s 1998 administrative reform and new public management: applying a comparative framework. Int J Public Adm 30(12–14):1371–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang L, Van der Wal Z (2014) Rule of morality vs. rule of law? An exploratory study of civil servant values in China and the Netherlands. Public Integr 16(2):187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nebraska, OmahaOmahaUSA