Governance literature in the developed world is rich with scholarship on the role conceptions of civil servants and how these guide their behavior in the attainment of political objectives set by elected representatives. There is however a dearth of research on the various roles civil servants play in developing countries, specifically those located in authoritarian states. This study uses Q methodology to examine the politician–bureaucrat interface in Kazakhstan, a highly centralized post-Soviet state. It finds evidence of three types of officials: job bureaucrats, policy entrepreneurs, and ethno-politicos. Tribalism and ethno-politics feature as an undercurrent in the political-administrative interface at the senior level. There is an overriding allegiance to the dominant political party that makes neutrality less important as an administrative tenet. Advancement as a career official has little to do with meritocracy, despite the façade, but rather connections are what matter.
AchilovI. (2018). Islamic education. In CornellS. E.StarrS. F.TuckerJ. (Eds.), Religion and the secular state in Kazakhstan (pp. 102-106). Lithuania: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.
2.
AyeeJ. (2013). Public administrators under democratic governance in Ghana. International Journal of Public Administration, 10, 229-235.
3.
BrownS. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
CairneyP. (2018). Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs. Policy & Politics, 46, 199-215.
5.
CheckelJ. T. (2003). “Going native” in Europe? Theorizing social interaction in European institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 36, 209-231.
DasandiN.EsteveM. (2017). The politics-bureaucracy interface in developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 37, 231-245.
8.
de GraafG. (2010). The loyalties of top public administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 285-306.
9.
DownsA. (1967). Inside bureaucracy: A RAND Corporation research study. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
10.
DresangD. L. (1974). Ethnic politics, representative bureaucracy and development administration: The Zambian case. American Political Science Review, 68, 1605-1617.
11.
DunleavyP. (1991). Democracy, bureaucracy and Public choice. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
12.
EcksteinH. (2000). Case study and theory in political science. In GommR.HammersleyM.FosterP. (Eds). Case study method (pp. 119-164). London, England: SAGE.
13.
EgebergM. (1999). Transcending intergovernmentalism? Identity and role perceptions of national officials in EU decision-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 6, 456-474.
14.
GeorgiouI. (2014). Seeing the forest for the trees: An atlas of the politics-administration dichotomy. Public Administration Review, 74, 156-175.
15.
Government of Kazakhstan. (2007). President’s annual address. Retrieved from http://www.akorda.kz/en
16.
GulrajaniN.MoloneyK. (2012). Globalizing public administration: Today’s research and tomorrow’s agenda. Public Administration Review, 72, 78-86.
17.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2005). Calculation, community, and cues: Public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 6, 419-443.
18.
HoustonD. J. (2014). Public service motivation in the post-communist state. Public Administration, 92, 843-860.
19.
JanenovaS.KnoxC. (2019). Civil service reform in Kazakhstan: Trajectory to the 30 most developed countries?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85, 419-439. doi:10.1177/0020852317722397
20.
KaufmanH. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50, 1057-1073.
KitzingerC. (1987). The social construction of lesbianism (Vol. 1). London, England: SAGE.
23.
KnoxC. (2019). Public sector reform in central Asia and the Caucasus. International Journal of Public Administration, 42, 168-178.
24.
KnoxC.JanenovaS. (2018). Public management reforms: One stop shops to digital government (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
KnoxC.JanenovaS. (2019). The e-government paradox in post-Soviet countries. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32, 600-615.
26.
LiebertSCondreyS. E.GoncharovD. (2013). ASPA Public Administration and Public Policy Book Series: Public administration in post-communist countries: Former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe, and Mongolia. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
27.
MajoneG. (1996). Regulating Europe. London, England: Routledge.
28.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.” The Journal of Politics, 61, 628-657.
29.
MasanovN. (1998). The role of clans in Kazakhstan today. Prism, 4(3), 1-5.
30.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr.O’TooleL. J. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
31.
NeumannO. (2019). “Giving something back to society”: A study exploring the role of reciprocity norms in public service motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39, 159-184.
32.
O’ConnorK. (2014). Public administration in contested societies. New York, NY: Springer.
33.
O’ConnorK. (2017). What are the ideas and motivations of bureaucrats within a religiously contested society?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83, 63-84.
34.
O’ConnorK.JanenovaS.KnoxC. (2019). Open government in authoritarian regimes. International Review of Public Policy, 1, 65-82.
35.
O’ConnorK.VaesenJ. (2018). Between Scylla and Charybdis? Twenty-five years administrating the contested region of Brussels. Administration & Society, 50, 835-855.
36.
RadaelliC. M.O’ConnorK. (2009). How bureaucratic elites imagine Europe: Towards convergence of governance beliefs?Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 971-989.
37.
ReissmanL. (1949). A study of role conceptions in bureaucracy. Social Forces, 27, 305-310.
38.
RicksJ. (2018). Agents, principals, or something in between? Bureaucrats and policy control in Thailand. Journal of East Asian Studies, 18, 321-344.
39.
SeldenS. C. (2015). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. London, England: Routledge.
40.
SeldenS. C.BrewerG. A.BrudneyJ. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration & Society, 31, 171-204.
41.
SowaJ. E.SeldenS. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review63, 700-710
42.
StarrS. F.EngvallJ.CornellS. E. (2016). Kazakhstan 2014: The next twenty-five years. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University.
43.
SvaraJ. (2006). Introduction: Politicians and administrators in the political process—A review of themes and issues in the literature. International Journal of Public Administration, 29, 953-976.
44.
TendlerJ. (1997). Good government in the tropics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
45.
TrondalJ.JeppesenL. (2008). Images of agency governance in the European Union. West European Politics, 31, 417-441.
46.
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. (2018). Annual report. Washington, DC: Author.
47.
Van der SteenM.van TwistM. J. W.BressersD. (2018). The sedimentation of public values: How a variety of governance perspectives guide the practical actions of civil servants. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38, 387-414.
WeskeU.SchottC. (2018). What motivates different groups of public employees working for Dutch municipalities? Combining autonomous and controlled types of motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38, 415-430.
50.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2, 197-222.
ZangX. (2017). How cohesive is the Chinese bureaucracy? A case study of street-level bureaucrats in China. Public Administration and Development, 37, 217-226.
