Sustainable Development and the Social Consequence of Bureaucracy

  • Emmanuel C. OguEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3714-1

Synonyms

Definition

The global Sustainable Development Framework (SDF) published by the United Nations in December 2012 advanced in January 2016 into what has now become known as the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 defining 17 universal goals and 169 targets for the pursuit and attainment of global sustainable development. However, the global sustainability journey has yet failed to advance at the pace that is otherwise expected, due to the co-action and interactions of many complex interrelated limiting factors and variables, in what some have rightly referred to as a “wicked problem.” This research interrogates how modern bureaucracy and its social consequences bother on the full implementation of the global Sustainable Development Agenda while also discussing...

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

References

  1. Amanchukwu RN, Stanley GJ, Ololube NP (2015) A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management. Management 5(1):6–14Google Scholar
  2. Bauer MW, Ege J (2016) Bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations’ secretariats. J Eur Publ Policy 23(7):1019–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1162833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gormley WT Jr (2014) Taming the bureaucracy: muscles, prayers, and other strategies, vol 984. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Grant MO (2014) The bureaucratic personality and implications for individuals and organizations. Department of Sociology, Psychology & Social Work, University of the West Indies, Mona. Retrieved 04 Nov 2018, from https://bit.ly/2RvTfoIGoogle Scholar
  5. Nielsen PA, Moynihan DP (2017a) How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. J Pub Adm Res Theory 27(2):269–283.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw060
  6. Nielsen PA, Moynihan DP (2017b) Romanticizing bureaucratic leadership? The politics of how elected officials attribute responsibility for performance. Governance 30(4):541–559.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shapiro S (2017) Structure and process: examining the interaction between bureaucratic organization and analytical requirements. Rev Policy Res 34(5):682–699.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. United Nations (2018) About the Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved 01 Dec 2018, from Official Website of the United Nations: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
  9. Wang X (2015) Coping with police social service role strain: findings of the paramilitary–bureaucratic structure and structural empowerment of the police organization. In: Wang X (ed) Empowerment on Chinese police force’s role in social service. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 111–132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45614-9_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Weber M (1947) The theory of social and economic organizations. Collier Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Weber M (1958) The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Charles Scribner’s Sons [SA], New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. World Bank (2001) World development report 2002: building institutions for markets. Oxford University Press, Oxford.  https://doi.org/10.1596/0-1952-1606-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, School of Computing and Engineering SciencesBabcock UniversityIlishan-RemoNigeria