All democracies wrestle with the problem of representation. Most people intuitively understand this through electoral politics, but this connection is less clear when we consider bureaucracy. And when it comes to civil-military relations, many think about this problem in terms of “civilian control.” We present a different approach and contribute to this literature in three ways. First, we critique assumptions often used in thinking about civilian control. Second, we offer a classification system with three schools of thought on the problem of bureaucratic accountability. These are the (a) political control school (representation through the politics-administration dichotomy and compliance model), (b) responsiveness through institutional design school (representation through formal institutions), and (c) responsibility through values school (representation through informal institutions). We provide examples from scholarship and cinema for each school to aid in understanding and to facilitate teaching and learning. Third, using bureaucratic accountability as an organizing concept, we propose bureaucratic discretion as a different organizing problem or puzzle for civil-military relations scholars to consider. Furthermore, by providing an organizing concept for civil-military relations using insights from the field of public administration, we additionally lay the groundwork to encourage public administration scholars to conduct research on civil-military relations.
BeehnerL.BrooksR.MaurerD. (2020). Reconsidering American civil-military relations: The military, society, politics, and modern war. Oxford University Press.
8.
BertelliA. M.LynnL. E. (2003). Managerial responsibility. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 259–268.
9.
BertelliA. M.LynnL. E. (2006). Madison’s managers: Public administration and the constitution. Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
BlandD. L. (1999). A unified theory of civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 26(1), 7–25.
11.
BlankshainJ. D. (2020, July). A primer on US civil-military relations for national security practitioners. Wild Blue Yonder, 1–30.
12.
BornH.CapariniM.HaltinerK.KuhlmannJ. (Eds.). (2006). Civil-military relations in Europe: Learning from crisis and institutional change. Routledge.
13.
BovensM. (2005). Public accountability. In FerlieE.LynnL. E.PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 182–208). Oxford University Press.
14.
BovensM.GoodinR. E.SchillemansT. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford University Press.
15.
BovensM.SchillemansT.GoodinR. E. (2014). Public accountability. In BovensM.GoodinR. E.SchillemansT. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 1–20). Oxford University Press.
16.
BozemanB. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.
17.
BrehmJ.GatesS. (2015). Bureaucratic politics arising from, not defined by, a principal-agent dyad. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 27–42.
18.
BrickJ. (2018). The military profession: Law, ethics, and the profession of arms. In FinneyN. K.MayfieldT. O. (Eds.), Redefining the modern military: The intersection of profession and ethics (pp. 22–35). Naval Institute Press.
19.
BrooksR. A. (2009). Militaries and political activity in democracies. In NielsonS.SniderD. (Eds.), American civil-military relations: The soldier and the state in a new era (pp. 213–238). Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
BrooksR. A. (2019). Integrating the civil–military relations subfield. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 379–398.
21.
BrooksR. A. (2020). Paradoxes of professionalism: Rethinking civil-military relations in the United States. International Security, 44(4), 7–44.
22.
BrooksR. A.RobinsonM. A.UrbenH. (2023). Speaking out: Why retired flag officers participate in political discourse. Texas National Security Review, 7(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/50675
23.
BruneauT. C.CroissantA. (Eds.). (2019). Civil-military relations: Control and effectiveness across regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
24.
BruneauT. C.MateiF. C. (2008). Towards a new conceptualization of democratization and civil-military relations. Democratization, 15(5), 909–929.
CarpenterD. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton University Press.
27.
ClausewitzC. (1984). On war (2nd ed.) (HowardM.ParetP., Eds. & Trans.). Princeton University Press.
CotteyA.EdmundsT.ForsterA. (2002). The second generation problematic: Rethinking democracy and civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 29(1), 31–56.
33.
CroissantA.KuehnD. (2017a). Introduction. In CroissantA.KuehnD. (Eds.), Reforming civil-military relations in new democracies: Democratic control and military effectiveness in comparative perspectives (pp. 1–21). Springer.
34.
CroissantA.KuehnD. (Eds.). (2017b). Reforming civil-military relations in new democracies: Democratic control and military effectiveness in comparative perspectives. Springer.
35.
CroissantA.KuehnD.Pion-BerlinD. (Eds.). (2024). Research handbook on civil-military relations. Edward Elgar Publishing.
36.
CrosbieT.KlitmøllerA. (2024). The power dialogue: Rethinking senior officer political influence. Defence Studies, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2024.2402731
37.
DavidsonJ. (2013). The contemporary presidency: Civil-military friction and presidential decision making: Explaining the broken dialogue. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 129–145.
38.
DeschM. C. (1999). Civilian control of the military: The changing security environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1991). Introduction. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). University of Chicago Press.
40.
DonaldsonR. (Director). (2000). Thirteen days. New Line Cinema.
DriverD. W. (2008). Professionals, bureaucrats and citizen soldiers: The countervailing patters of American military administration. In WeberJ. A.EliassonJ. (Eds.), Handbook of military administration (pp. 9–29). CRC Press.
43.
EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1994). Administrative procedures, information, and agency discretion. American Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 697–722.
44.
EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. Cambridge University Press.
45.
FeaverP. D. (1996a). The civil-military problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the question of civilian control. Armed Forces & Society, 23(2), 149–178.
46.
FeaverP. D. (1996b). Delegation, monitoring, and civilian control of the military: Agency theory and American civil-military relations [Paper presentation]. The Project on U.S. Post Cold-War Civil-Military Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States, May, 1996.
47.
FeaverP. D. (1998). Crisis as shirking: An agency theory explanation of the souring of American civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 24(3), 407–434.
48.
FeaverP. D. (1999). Civil-military relations. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 211–241.
49.
FeaverP. D. (2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil-military relations. Harvard University Press.
50.
FeaverP. D. (2009). Armed servants. Harvard University Press.
51.
FeaverP. D. (2017). Resign in protest? A cure worse than most diseases. Armed Forces & Society, 43(1), 29–40.
52.
FeaverP. D. (2025). Right or wrong? The civil-military problematique and Armed Forces & Society’s 50th. Armed Forces & Society, 51(2), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X241255642
53.
FeaverP. D.GelpiC. (2011). Choosing your battles: American civil-military relations and the use of force. Princeton University Press.
54.
FeaverP. D.KohnR. H. (Eds.). (2001). Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security. MIT Press.
55.
FeaverP. D.SeelerE. (2009). Before and after Huntington: The methodological maturing of civil-military studies. In NielsenS. C.SniderD. M. (Eds.), American civil-military relations: The soldier and the state in a new era (pp. 72–90). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
56.
FinerH. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), 335–350.
57.
FinerS. E. (1962). The man on horseback: The role of the military in politics. Frederick A. Praeger.
58.
FinneyN. K.MayfieldT. O. (Eds.). (2018). Redefining the modern military: The intersection of profession and ethics. Naval Institute Press.
59.
FreemanJ. (1997). Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law Review, 45, 1.
60.
FriedrichC. J. (1935). Responsible government service under the American constitution. In FriedrichC. J.BeyerW. C.SperoS. D.MillerJ. F.GrahamG. A. (Eds.), Problems of the American public service: Five mongraphs on specific aspects of personnel administration (pp. 26–45). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
61.
FriendA. H. (2020). Creating requirements: Emerging military capabilities, civilian preferences, and civil-military relations [Doctoral dissertation, American University].
62.
GailmardS. (2009). Multiple principals and oversight of bureaucratic policy-making. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 21(2), 161–186.
63.
GailmardS.PattyJ. W. (2007). Slackers and zealots: Civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 873–889.
64.
GailmardS.PattyJ. W. (2012). Learning while governing: Expertise and accountability in the executive branch. University of Chicago Press.
65.
GelpiC.FeaverP. D. (2002). Speak softly and carry a big stick? Veterans in the political elite and the American use of force. American Political Science Review, 96(4), 779–793.
66.
GibsonC. P. (2009). Enhancing national security and civilian control of the military: A Madisonian approach. In NielsenS. C.SniderD. M. (Eds.), American civil-military relations: The soldier and the state in a new era (pp. 239–264). Johns Hopkins University Press.
67.
GolbyJ. (2015). Beyond the resignation debate: A new framework for civil-military dialogue. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 9(3), 18–46.
68.
GoodnowF. J. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. Macmillan.
69.
GreenbergJ. (2005). Managing behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
70.
GrenierR. (1993). Perils of passive sex. The Washington Times, April, 1993, Page F3.
71.
HackettJ. W. (1963). The profession of arms. Times Publishing Company.
72.
HerspringD. R. (2005). The pentagon and the presidency: Civil-military relations from FDR to George W. Bush. University of Kansas Press.
73.
HinderaJ. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in the EEOC district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(4), 415–429.
74.
HitchC. J.McKeanR. N. (1960). The economics of defense in the nuclear age. Harvard University Press.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
77.
HuberJ. D.ShipanC. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion? The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge University Press.
78.
HuntingtonS. P. (1956a). Civilian control and the constitution. American Political Science Review, 50(3), 676–699.
79.
HuntingtonS. P. (1956b). Civilian control of the military: A theoretical statement. In EulauH.EldersveldS. J.JanowitzM. (Eds.), Political behavior: A reader in theory and research (pp. 380–385). The Free Press.
80.
HuntingtonS. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil–military relations. Harvard University Press.
81.
JanowitzM. (1960). The professional soldier: A social and political portrait. The Free Press.
82.
JohnsonR. (2018). Ethical requirements of the profession: Obligations of the profession, the professional, and the client. In FinneyN. K.MayfieldT. O. (Eds.), Redefining the modern military: The intersection of profession and ethics (pp. 86–100). Naval Institute Press.
83.
KaurinP. S. (2020). On obedience: Contrasting philosophies for the military, citizenry, and community. Naval Institute Press.
84.
KettlD. F. (2009). Public bureaucracies. In BinderS. A.RhodesR. A. W.RockmanB. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 366–384). Oxford Academic.
85.
KeyV. O. (1940). The lack of a budgetary theory. American Political Science Review, 34(6), 1137–1144.
86.
KohnR. H. (1994). Out of control: The crisis in civil-military relations. The National Interest, 35, 3–17.
87.
KoppellJ. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder.”Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.
88.
KrinerD. L.ShenF. X. (2010). The casualty gap: The causes and consequences of American wartime inequalities. Oxford University Press.
LasswellH. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
91.
LewisD. E. (2008). The politics of presidential appointments. Princeton University Press.
92.
LinzJ. J. (1990). The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1(1), 51–69.
93.
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
94.
MansoorP. R.MurrayW. (2019). The culture of military organizations. Cambridge University Press.
95.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1983). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.
96.
MateiF. C.HalladayC.BruneauT. C. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of civil-military relations. Routledge.
97.
McCubbinsM. D.NollR. G.WeingastB. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 3(2), 243–277.
98.
McMasterH. R. (1998). Dereliction of duty: Johnson, McNamara, the joint chiefs of staff, and the lies that led to Vietnam. Harper Collins.
99.
MeierK. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. Research in Public Administration, 2(1), 1–35.
100.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2007). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government. Wadsworth Inc.
101.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. Johns Hopkins University Press.
102.
MeierK. J.WrinkleR. D.PolinardJ. L. (1995). Politics, bureaucracy, and agricultural policy: An alternative view of political control. American Politics Quarterly, 23(4), 427–460.
103.
MoeT. M. (1987). An assessment of the positive theory of “congressional dominance.”Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12, 475–520.
104.
MoeT. M. (1989). The politics of bureaucratic structure. In ChubbJ. E.PetersonP. E. (Eds.), Can the government govern? (pp. 267–330). The Brookings Institution.
105.
MoeT. M. (1990a). Political institutions: The neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 6, 213–253.
106.
MoeT. M. (1990b). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In WilliamsonO. E. (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116–153). Oxford University Press.
107.
MoeT. M. (2006). Political control and the power of the agent. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22(1), 1–29.
108.
MoeT. M.WilsonS. A. (1994). Presidents and the politics of structure. Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(2), 1–44.
109.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
110.
MosherF. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University Press.
111.
MoskosC. C. (1977). From institution to occupation: Trends in military organization. Armed Forces & Society, 4(1), 41–50.
112.
MoskosC. C. (1986). Institutional/occupational trends in armed forces: An update. Armed Forces & Society, 12(3), 377–382.
113.
Nicholson-CrottyS. (2009). Politics and management: Revisiting the politics/administration dichotomy to build a more complete understanding of public management. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 610–617.
114.
Nicholson-CrottyS.WebeckS. (2018). What we know about the interaction between politics and administration in the policy-making process. In Handbook of American Public Administration (pp. 442–461). Edward Elgar Publishing.
115.
NielsenS. C.SniderD. M. (2009). Introduction. In NielsenS. C.SniderD. M. (Eds.), American civil-military relations: The soldier and the state in a new era (pp. 1–10). Johns Hopkins University Press.
116.
OvereemP. (2008). Beyond heterodoxy: Dwight Waldo and the politics–administration dichotomy. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 36–45.
117.
OwensM. T. (2012). What military officers need to know about civil-military relations. Naval War College Review, 65(2), 67–87.
118.
PaparoneC. R.AndersonR. A.McDanielR. R.Jr. (2008). Where military professionalism meets complexity science. Armed Forces & Society, 34(3), 433–449.
119.
PerryJ. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.
120.
PerryJ. L.KraemerK. L. (1983). Public management: Public and private perspectives. Mayfield Publishing Company.
121.
PerryJ. L.RaineyH. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.
122.
PerryJ. L.WiseL. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373.
123.
PetersB. G. (2005). Institutional theory in political science: The “new institutionalism” (2nd ed.). Continuum.
124.
PierreJ.PetersB. G. (2017). The shirking bureaucrat: A theory in search of evidence?Policy & Politics, 45(2), 157–172.
125.
Pion-BerlinD.CroissantA.KuehnD. (2024). Introduction to the Research Handbook on Civil-Military Relations. In CroissantA.KuehnD.Pion-BerlinD. (Eds.), Research handbook on civil-military relations (pp. 1–18). Edward Elgar Publishing.
126.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
127.
PosenB. (1984). The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the world wars. Cornell University Press.
128.
ReinerR. (Director). (1992). A few good men. Columbia Pictures.
129.
RobinsonM. A. (2022). Dangerous instrument: Political polarization and US civil-military relations. Oxford University Press.
130.
RobinsonM. A.CohnL. P.MarguliesM. Z. (2021). Dissents and sensibility: Conflicting loyalties, democracy, and civil-military relations. In BeehnerL.BrooksR.MaurerD. (Eds.), Reconsidering American civil-military relations (pp. 63–81). Oxford University Press.
131.
RomzekB. S.DubnickM. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227–238.
132.
SarkesianS. C. (1972). Political soldiers: Perspectives on professionalism in the US military. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16, 239–258.
133.
SarkesianS. C. (1976). Introduction: Professionalism: Problems and challenges. American Behavioral Scientist, 19(5), 495–510.
134.
SarkesianS. C. (1981). Beyond the battlefield: The new military professionalism. Pergamon Press.
135.
SartreJ.-P. (1949). Three plays by Jean-Paul Sartre: Dirty hands, the respectful prostitute, the victors (AbelL., Trans.). Knopf.
136.
SchiffR. L. (2001). The military and domestic politics: A concordance theory of civil-military relations. Routledge.
137.
SchmidtT. A. (2023). Silent coup of the Guardians: The influence of U.S. military elites on national security. University of Kansas Press.
138.
ScottT. (Director). (1995). Crimson tide. Hollywood Pictures.
139.
ScottW. R.DavisG. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
140.
SegalD. R. (1986). Measuring the institutional/occupational change thesis. Armed Forces & Society, 12(3), 351–376.
141.
SeldenS. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. M.E. Sharpe.
142.
ShieldsP. M. (2003). The bureaucracy in military sociology. In CallaghanJ.KernicF. (Eds.), Armed forces and international security: Global trends and recent issues (pp. 181–184). Transaction.
143.
ShieldsP. M. (2006). Civil-military relations: Changing frontiers. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 924–928.
144.
SniderD. M. (2008). Dissent and strategic leadership of the military professions. Orbis, 52(2), 256–277.
145.
SniderD. M. (2017). Dissent, resignation, and the moral agency of senior military professionals. Armed Forces & Society, 43(1), 5–16.
146.
SowaJ. E.SeldenS. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700–710.
147.
StillmanR. J.II. (2006). Exploring films about ethical leadership: Can lessons be learned?Public Administration and Management, 11(3), 103–305.
148.
TaylorJ. K.ClerkinR. M.NgaruiyaK. M.Knox VelezA.-L. (2015). An exploratory study of public service motivation and the institutional-occupational model of the military. Armed Forces & Society, 41(1), 142–162.
149.
ThompsonF. (2007). The political economy of public administration. In RabinJ.HildrethW. B.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (3rd ed.) (pp. 1063–1100). Routledge.
150.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
151.
TrinkunasH. A. (2005). Crafting civilian control of the military in Venezuela: A comparative perspective. University of North Carolina Press.
152.
UlrichM. P. (2021). Civil-military relations norms and democracy: What every citizen should know. In BeehnerL.BrooksR.MaurerD. (Eds.), Reconsidering American civil-military relations (pp. 41–62). Oxford University Press.
153.
United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911).
154.
U.S. v. Otto Ohlendorfet al. [The Einsatzgruppen Case] (1948).
155.
UrbenH. A. (2014). Wearing politics on their sleeves? Levels of political activism of active duty army officers. Armed Forces & Society, 40(3), 568–591.
UrbinatiN.WarrenM. E. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387–412.
158.
Van SlykeD. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187.
159.
WachowskiL.WachowskiL. (Directors). (2003). The matrix reloaded. Warner Bros.
160.
WahlkeJ. C. (1958). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. Samuel P. Huntington. The Journal of Politics, 20(2), 398–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2127050
161.
WaldoD. (1948). The administrative state; A study of the political theory of American public administration. Ronald Press Company.
162.
WaldoD. (1952). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review, 46(1), 81–103.
163.
WaldoD. (1982). Bureaucracy and democracy: Thinking about conflict and complementarity. Unpublished manuscript.
164.
WaldoD.MariniF. (1999). Bureaucracy and democracy: A strained relationship. Unpublished manuscript.
165.
WalzerM. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(2), 160–180.
166.
WarrenM. E. (2014). Accountability and democracy. In BovensM.GoodinR. E.SchillemansT. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 39–54). Oxford University Press.
167.
Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (1825).
168.
WebeckS.LeeH. (2022). The behavioral foundations of representative bureaucracy. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5, 209–221.
169.
WeberM. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (HendersonA. M.ParsonsT., Trans.). Oxford University Press.
170.
WhitfordA. B. (2005). The pursuit of political control by multiple principals. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 29–49.
171.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. Basic Books.
WoodB. D.BohteJ. (2004). Political transaction costs and the politics of administrative design. Journal of Politics, 66(1), 176–202.
174.
WoodB. D.WatermanR. W. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 85(3), 801–828.
175.
WoodB. D.WatermanR. W. (1993). The dynamics of political-bureaucratic adaptation. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 497–528.
176.
WoodruffT. D. (2017). Who should the military recruit? The effects of institutional, occupational, and self-enhancement enlistment motives on soldier identification and behavior. Armed Forces & Society, 43(4), 579–607.
177.
ZackaB. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Harvard University Press.
178.
ZackaB. (2022). Political theory rediscovers public administration. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 21–42.
