Populism has been perhaps the most popular explanation for the difficulties that have been besetting contemporary governments. But despite the intense interest in populism as a political phenomenon, very little has been written assessing the implications for governance and even less on the implications for public administration. Focusing on the United States, but adding some comparative analysis, this article examines the implications of populist politics for public administration and the role of the bureaucracy in governance.
AberbachJ. D.RockmanB. A. (1976). Clashing beliefs within the executive branch: The Nixon administration bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 70, 456-478.
2.
AbramowitzA. (2012). Grand old tea party: Party polarization and the rise of the tea party movement. Berkeley: University of California Press.
AlbertazziD.McDonnellD. (2008). Twenty-first century populism: The spectre of Western European democracy (pp. 66-87). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BarkerA.WilsonG. K. (1997). Whitehall’s disobedient servants? Potential resistance to ministers in British government departments. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 223-246.
6.
BradingR. (2012). Populism in Venezuela. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BrehmJ. O.GatesS. (1999). Working, shirking and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
CanovanM. (2002). Taking politics to the people: Populism as an ideology of democracy. In MényY.SurelY. (Eds.), Democracies and the populist challenge (pp. 66-87). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
ConnaughtonB. (2015). Navigating the borderlines of politics and administration: Reflections on the role of ministerial advisers. International Journal of Public Administration, 38, 37-45.
10.
CookB. J. (2014). Bureaucracy and self-government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.
DiamantA. (1968). Tradition and innovation in French administration. Comparative Political Studies, 1, 251-274.
EbdonC.FranklinA. (2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24, 32-49.
14.
GamuzaE.FrancesF. (2012). The deliberative turn in participation: The problem of inclusion and deliberative opportunities in participatory budgeting. European Political Science Review, 4, 283-302.
15.
GrindleM. (2012). Jobs for the boys: Patronage and the state in comparative perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
HackneyS. (1969). Populism to progressivism in Alabama. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
HaskellJ. (2000). Direct democracy or representative government? Dispelling the populist myth. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
HeB.WarrenM. E. (2011). Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese politics. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 269-289.
19.
KaltwasserC. R.TaggartP. (2016). Dealing with populists in government: A framework for analysis. Democratization, 23, 201-222.
20.
KaltwasserC. R.TaggartP.EspejoP. O.OstiguyP. (2017a). Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
KaltwasserC. R.TaggartP.EspejoP. O.OstiguyP. (2017b). Populism: State of the art. In KaltwasserC. R.TaggartP.EspejoP. O.OstiguyP. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of populism (pp. 1-24). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
LeeM. J. (2006). The populist chameleon: The people’s party, Huey Long, George Wallace and the populist argumentative frame. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92, 355-378.
25.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2018). How democracies die. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.
26.
MainwaringS.BizzarroF.PetrovaA. (2018). Party system institutionalization, decay and collapse. In MainwaringS. (Ed.), Party systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, decay and collapse (pp. 17-33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MeadW. R. (2011). The tea party and American foreign policy: What populism means for globalism. Foreign Affairs, 90, 28-44.
30.
MendelsonN. A. (2003). Agency burrowing: Entrenching policies and personnel before a new president arrives. New York University Law Review, 78, 557-666.
31.
MényY.SurelY. (2002). Democracies and the populist challenge. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
MetzgerG. E. (2017). 1930s redux: The administrative state under siege. Harvard Law Review, 131, 1-95.
33.
MichaelsJ. R. (2017, September/October). Trump and the “deep state”: The government strikes back. Foreign Affairs, 96, 52.
34.
MichelsR. (1915). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York, NY: Hearst Library.
O’LearyR. (2006). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerilla government. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
42.
OlssonJ. (2016). Subversion in institutional change and stability: A neglected mechanism. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
PanizzaF. (2005). Populism and the mirror of democracy. London, England: Verso.
44.
PanizzaF.PetersB. G.RamosC. (2019). Roles, trust and skills: A typology of patronage appointments. Public Administration, 97, 147-161.
45.
PapadopolousY. (2002). Democracies and the populist challenge. In MényY.SurelY. (Eds.), Democracies and the populist challenge (pp. 189-214). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
46.
PetersB. G. (2013). Politicization of the civil service: What is it and Why do we care? In NeuholdC.VanhoonackerS.VerheyL. (Eds.), Civil servants and politics: The delicate balance (pp. 77-92). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
47.
PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.). (2004). The politicization of the civil service: The quest for control. London, England: Routledge.
48.
PierreJ.PetersB. G. (2017). The shirking bureaucrat: A theory in search of evidence?Policy and Politics, 45, 157-172.
49.
PostelC. (2007). The populist vision. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
SavoieD. J. (1994). Thatcher, Reagan, and Mulroney: In search of a new bureaucracy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
52.
SchumacherG.Van KersbergenK. (2016). Do mainstream parties adapt to the welfare chauvinism of populist parties?Party Politics, 22, 300-312.
53.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SwanstromT. (1985). The crisis of growth politics: Cleveland, Kucinich, and the challenge of urban populism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
55.
TaggartP. (2000). Populism. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
56.
ThompsonG. F. (2017). Populisms and liberal democracy—Business as usual?Economy and Society, 46, 43-59.
57.
TruexR. (2017). Consultative Authoritarianism and its Limits. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 329-361.
58.
VandenabeeleW.BrewerG. A.RitzA. (2014). Past, present, and future of public service motivation research. Public Administration, 92, 779-789.
59.
VoldenC.CarrubbaC. J. (2004). The formation of oversized coalitions in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 521-537.
60.
WhiteL. D. (1954). The Jacksonians: A study in administrative history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
61.
WhiteR. D. (2006). Kingfish: The reign of Huey P. Long. New York, NY: Random House.
62.
YesilkagitK. (2018). Bureaucracy under authoritarian rule: Autonomy and resilience of administrative institutions under conditions of democratic backsliding. Unpublished paper, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
