Thus far, there has not been any investigation into the populist held beliefs and attitudes among public servants. These attitudes, given the considerable discretionary decision power of public servants, and their influence in policy-making processes, could have a significant impact on public policies. This paper investigates the populist attitudes of public servants, based on data that are retrieved from the European Social Survey. The paper compares public servants from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. The results show that public servants hold surprisingly similar populist views as compared with non-public servants, and that there are striking differences between countries. There are significant implications for the work public servants do, and the representativeness of the administration.
AberbackJRockmanB (1976) Clashing beliefs within the executive branch. American Political Science Review70: 456–468.
2.
Acemoglu D, Egorov G and Sonin K (2011) A Political Theory of Populism. NBER Working Papers, no. 17306. Available at: www.nber.org/papers/w17306 (accessed 31 July 2019).
3.
AkkermanAMuddeCZasloveA (2014) How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies47(9): 1324–1353.
4.
AndersenLBPallesenTPedersenLH (2011) Does ownership matter? Public service motivation among physiotherapists in the private and public sectors in Denmark. Review of Public Personnel Administration31(1): 10–27.
5.
BakerAGreeneKF (2011) The Latin American left’s mandate: Free market policies, economic performance, and voting behavior in 18 countries. World Politics63(1): 43–77.
6.
BednarczukM (2015) Ideology, vote choice, and bureaucracy across time: A longitudinal test of the bureau voting model in the United States. Administration & Society50(6): 812–834.
7.
BennettJTOrzechowskiWP (1983) The voting behavior of bureaucrats: Some empirical evidence. Public Choice41: 271–283.
8.
Blais A, Blake D and Dion S. The voting behavior of bureaucrats. In: Blais A (ed) The Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrat: Appraisals and Evidence, Pittsburgh, USA: University of Pittsburg Press, pp.205–230.
9.
BossaertDDemmkeCKomdenK, et al.(2001) Civil Services in the Europe of Fifteen: Trends and New Developments, Maastricht, the Netherlands: EIPA.
10.
BradburyMKelloughJE (2011) Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. The American Review of Public Administration42(2): 157–167.
11.
de la TorreC (2000) Populist Seduction in Latin America: The Ecuadorian Experience, Athens, USA: Ohio University Press.
12.
DoyleD (2011) The legitimacy of political institutions: Explaining contemporary populism in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies44(11): 1447–1473.
FieschiCHeywoodP (2004) Trust, cynicism and populist anti-politics. Journal of Political Ideologies9(3): 289–309.
16.
GarandJCParkurstCTSeoudRJ (1991) Bureaucrats, policy attitudes, and political behavior: Extension of the bureau voting model of government growth. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory1(2): 177–212.
17.
Gidron N and Bonikowski B (2013) Varieties of Populism: Literature Review and Research Agenda. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Working Paper Series. No. 13-0004. Available at: scholar.harvard.edu/files/gidron_bonikowski_populismlitreview_2013.pdf (accessed 31 July 2019).
18.
Hawkins K, Riding S and Mudde C (2012) Measuring Populist Attitudes. Political concepts: Committee on concepts and methods working paper series. Available at: works.bepress.com/cas_mudde/72/ (accessed 31 July 2019).
19.
IvarsflatenE (2008) What unites right-wing populists in Western Europe? Re-examining grievance mobilization models in seven successful cases. Comparative Political Studies41(1): 3–23.
JensenJLSumPEFlynnDT (2009) Political orientations and behavior of public employees: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19: 709–730.
22.
KazinM (1995) The Populist Persuasion: An American History, Ithaca, USA: Cornell University Press.
23.
KennedyB (2014) Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society46(4): 395–421.
24.
KnutsenO (2005) The impact of sector employment on party choice: A comparative study of eight West European countries. European Journal of Political Research44(4): 593–621.
25.
KuperusHRodeA (2016) Top Public Managers in Europe – Management and Employment in Central Public Administrations, The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.
26.
MeierKJ (2000) Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, Fort Worth, USA: Harcourt College.
27.
MuddeC (2000) The Ideology of the Extreme Right, Manchester, USA: Manchester University Press.
28.
MuddeC (2004) The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39(4): 542–563.
29.
MuddeC (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
NiskanenW (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago, USA: Aldine-Atherton.
31.
NorrisP (2005) Radical Right – Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
OeschD (2008) Explaining workers’ support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: Evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, and Switzerland. International Political Science Review29(3): 349–373.
33.
ParkHMPerryJL (2013) The transformation of governance: Who are the new public servants and what difference does it make for democratic governance?The American Review of Public Administration43(1): 26–49.
34.
PerryJL (1997) Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory7: 181–197.
35.
PerryJLHondeghemA (2008) Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
PerryJLWiseLR (1990) The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review50: 367–373.
37.
RattsøJSørensenRJ (2016) Public-private political cleavage: What happens after retirement?Public Choice3-4: 315–333.
38.
RobertsKM (2007) Latin America’s populist revival. SAIS Review of International Affairs27(1): 3–15.
39.
RoubanL (2007) Public management and politics: Senior bureaucrats in France. Public Administration85(2): 473–501.
40.
SaltzsteinGH (1979) Representative bureaucracy and bureaucratic responsibility: Problems and prospects. Administration & Society10: 464–475.
41.
SteenT (2006) Public sector motivation: Is there something to learn from the study of volunteerism?Public Policy and Administration21(1): 49–62.
42.
Stoker G (2017) When governance meets populism: An emerging crisis? Presented at the 3rd International conference on public policy (ICPP), Singapore, 28–30 June, 2017.
43.
TaggartP (1995) New populist parties in Western Europe. West European Politics18(1): 34–51.
44.
TepeM (2012) The public/private sector cleavage revisited: The impact of government employment on political attitudes and behaviour in 11 West European Countries. Public Administration90(1): 230–261.
45.
Van der MeerF (2011) Civil Service Systems in Western Europe, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
46.
VandenabeeleW (2007) Towards a theory of public service motivation: An institutional approach. Public Management Review9(4): 545–556.
47.
VandenabeeleW (2011) Who wants to deliver public service? Do institutional antecedents of public service motivation provide an answer?Review of Public Personnel Administration31(1): 87–107.
48.
WeylandK (2001) Clarifying a contested concept: Populism in the study of Latin American politics. Comparative Politics34(1): 353–384.
49.
WiseLRSzücsS (1996) The public/private cleavage in a welfare state: Attitudes toward public management reform. Governance9(1): 43–70.
