Advertisement

Bundesverwaltung

Dienerin zweier Herren
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

  • 117 Downloads
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Herrschaft ist nach Max Weber im Alltag vor allem Verwaltung. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Feststellung befasst sich dieser Beitrag mit dem institutionellen Kontext von Verwaltungshandeln im federal government der USA, der Struktur der Verwaltung, sowie ihrem Personal und seiner Rekrutierung. In einem zweiten Schritt wird die Frage nach dem Einfluss von Verwaltungen auf legislative und administrative rule making beantwortet. Der Text schließt mit einem Blick auf die Interaktion von federal bureaucracy und dem 45. Präsidenten der USA, Donald J. Trump. Dabei werden vor allem die Gefährdungen eines regel- und rechtsgebundenen Verwaltungsbetriebes durch den amtierenden Präsidenten in den Blick genommen.

Schlüsselwörter

Federal bureaucracy Gesetzgebung Issue networks Themennetzwerke Öffentlicher Dienst civil service 

Literatur

  1. Aberbach, Joel D. 2003. The U.S. federal executive in an era of change. Governance 16:373–399.Google Scholar
  2. Anagnoson, Theodore. 2011. The United States civil service. In International handbook on civil service systems, Hrsg. Andrew Massey, 125–151. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, und Beth L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago/New York: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beer, Samuel H. 1978. In search of a new public philosophy. In The new American political system, Hrsg. Anthony King, 5–44. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Calvert, Randall L., und Barry R. Weingast. 1982. Runaway bureaucracy and congressional oversight: Why reforms fail. Review of Policy Research 1:557–564.Google Scholar
  6. Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. Senate. 2016. United States government policy and supporting positions (plum book). Washington, DC: U.S. Senate.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, Roger H. 1990. Congress as a representative institution. In The U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag. Comparisons of democratic processes, Hrsg. Roger H. Davidson und Uwe Thaysen, 45–66. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dayen, David. 2016. Trump kicks off the return of the czars. Republicans had a huge problem with Obama’s „czars.“ Will they say anything now? (Spoiler: no.). The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-Kicks-off-the-return-of-the-czars. Zugegriffen am 22.12.2016.
  9. Durant, Robert F., und William G. Resh. 2010. „Presidentializing“ the bureaucracy. In The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy, Hrsg. Robert F. Durant, 545–568. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress – Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gellner, Winand, und Martin Kleiber. 2012. Das Regierungssystem der USA. Eine Einführung, Bd. 3769, 2. Aufl. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  12. Glassman, Ronald M. 1987. The United States: The anti-statist society. In The state and public bureaucracies. A comparative perspective, Hrsg. Metin Heper, 27–39. New York: Greewood press.Google Scholar
  13. Gormley, William T. 1991. Bureaucracy and its masters. Governance 1:1.Google Scholar
  14. Heady, Ferrel. 1988. The United States. In Public administration in developed democracies. A comparative study, Hrsg. Donald C. Rowat, 395–418. New York/Basel: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  15. Heclo, Hugh. 1978. Issue networks and the executive establishment. In The New American political system, Hrsg. Anthony King, 94–105. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Heclo, Hugh. 1984. In search of a role. Americas higher civil service. In Bureaucrats and policy making. A comparative overview, Hrsg. Ezra N. Suleiman. London: Holmes and Meier.Google Scholar
  17. Heclo, Hugh. 1986. Whitehall and Washington revisited: An essay on constitutional lore. In Politics in Britain and the United States. Comparative perspectives, Hrsg. Richard Hodder-Williams und James Ceasar, 88–118. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heclo, Hugh. 1988. The in-and-outer system: A critical assessment. Political Science Quarterly 103:37–56.Google Scholar
  19. Heer, Jeet. 2019. The myth of resistance inside the Trump administration. The adults in the room are complicit in a dangerous presidency. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-Kimberley-breier-chuck-park. Zugegriffen am 10.08.2019.
  20. Hollibaugh, Gary E., Gabriel Horton, und David E. Lewis. 2014. Presidents and patronage. American Journal of Political Science 58:1024–1042.Google Scholar
  21. Jennings, Julie, und Jared C. Nagel. 2019. Federal workforce statistics sources: OPM and OMB. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  22. Levitsky, Steven, und Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How democracies die, 1. Aufl. New York: Crown Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, David E., und Richard W. Waterman. 2013. The invisible presidential appointments: An examination of appointments to the department of labor, 2001–11. Presidential Studies Quarterly 43:35–57.Google Scholar
  24. Light, Paul C. 2010. Obama and the federal bureaucracy. In Obama: Year one, Hrsg. Thomas R. Dye, George C. Edwards III, Morris P. Fiorina, Edward S. Greenberg, Paul C. Light, David B. Magleby und Martin P. Wattenberg, 73–84. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Lofgren, Mike. 2014. Anatomy of the deep state. https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/. Zugegriffen am 05.12.2019.
  26. Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The end of liberalism: Ideology, policy and the end of public authority. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  27. Lu, Denise, und Anjali Singhvi. 2019. Government shutdown timeline: See how the effects are piling up. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/08/us/politics/government-shutdown-calendar.html. Zugegriffen am 26.11.2019.
  28. Martin, Daniel W. 1988. Fading legacy of Woodrow Wilson. Public Administration Review 48: 631–636.Google Scholar
  29. McKeever, Robert J., und Philip Davies. 2012. Politics USA, 3. Aufl. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  30. Myre, Greg, und Rachel Treisman. 2019. The man who popularized the ‚deep state‘ doesn’t like the way it’s used. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776852841/the-man-who-popularized-the-deep-state-doesnt-like-the-way-its-used?t=1575539763790. Zugegriffen am 05.12.2019.
  31. Nathan, Richard. 1975. The plot that failed: Nixon and the administrative presidency. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, Michael. 2018. Trump’s first year. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  33. Oldopp, Birgit. 2005. Das politische System der USA. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  34. Page, Edward C. 2012. Politics without Politicians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Peters, B. Guy. 2011. Governing from the centre(s): Governance challenges in the United States. In Steering from the centre. Strengthening political control in Western democracies, Hrsg. Carl Dahlström, B. G. Peters und Jon Pierre, 123–146. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  36. Peters, B. G., und Jon Pierre. 2019. Populism and public administration: Confronting the administrative state. Administration & Society 51:1521–1545.Google Scholar
  37. Pfiffner, James P. 2010. President Obama’s white house „czars“. PRG Report 32:5–7.Google Scholar
  38. Pfiffner, James P. 2017a. The office of presidential personnel. WHTP report 2017–27. Washington, DC: Moody Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Pfiffner, James P. 2017b. The unusal presidency of Donald Trump. Political Insight 8:9–11.Google Scholar
  40. Pfiffner, James P. 2018. The contemporary presidency : Organizing the Trump presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly 48:153–167.Google Scholar
  41. Pika, Joseph A., John A. Maltese, und Andrew Rudalevige. 2017. The politics of the presidency, 9. Aufl. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Postell, Joseph. 2017. Bureaucracy in America. The administrative state’s challenge to constitutional government. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ripley, Randall B., und Grace A. Franklin. 1980. Congress, the bureaucracy and public policy. Homewood: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rockman, Bert A. 2019. Bureaucracy between populism and technocracy. Administration & Society 51:1546–1575.Google Scholar
  45. Rockman, Bert A., und Thierno Thiam. 2009. The United States: The political context of administrative reform. In International handbook of public management reform, Hrsg. Shaun F. Goldfinch und Joe L. Wallis, 200–219. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Rudalevige, Andrew. 2002. Managing the president’s program: Presidential leadership and legislative policy formulation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Savoie, Donald J. 1994. Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In search of a new bureaucracy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  48. Svara, James H. 2001. The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review 61:176–183.Google Scholar
  49. Thayer, Frederick C. 1997. The U.S. civil service: 1883–1993 (R.I.P.). In Modern systems of government, Hrsg. Ali Farazmand, 95–124. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Villalobos, José, und Justin S. Vaughn. 2010. Revolt against the czars: Why Barack Obama’s staffing critics are (mostly) wrong. PRG Report 32:8–10.Google Scholar
  51. Weingast, Barry R., und Mark J. Moran. 1982. The myth of the runaway bureaucracy. The case of the FTC. Regulation 6:33–38.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, James Q. 2009. American government. brief version, 9. Aufl. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Yackee, Susan W. 2006. Sweet-talking the fourth branch: Assessing the influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26:103–124.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachbereich SozialwissenschaftenUniversität HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations