Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2010-6
Bridging bureaucracy and democracy in Europe: A comparative study of perceived managerial excellence,satisfaction with public services,and trust in governance
The cross-country study of public administration based on citizens’ surveys in Europe is a relatively novel approach to analyzing the social and political dynamics of the continent. The goal of this study is to examine some aspects of bureaucracy and democracy as perceived by knowledgeable citizens in six countries (Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia, and Spain). A rationale is developed to support hypotheses about the relationship between democracy and bureaucracy. The study also proposes hypotheses about differences between the countries in terms of satisfaction with public services, trust in governance and public administration agencies, and a set of managerial-oriented variables of the public sector (i.e. perceived innovation, responsiveness, professionalism, organizational politics, leadership and vision, ethics and morality). The study’s findings indicate that various aspects of bureaucracy and democracy differ across countries and that democratic longevity may be a good explanation for these differences.
Adams SJ ( 1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L (ed.) Advances in Experimental Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 267-299.
2.
Barber B. ( 1984) Strong Democracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
Borins S. ( 2000) What border? Public management innovation in the United States and Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management19(1): 46-74.
4.
Borins S. ( 2002) Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership and Organization Development Journal23(8): 467-746.
5.
Box R., Marshall GS, Reed BJ, et al (2001) New public management and substantive democracy . Public Administration Review61(5): 608-619.
6.
Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW ( 1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
7.
Buss TF, Redburn FS, and Guo K (eds) (2006) Modernizing Democracy: Innovations in Citizen Participation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
8.
Campbell JL, Pedersen OK (eds) (2001) The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Chi KS ( 1999) Improving responsiveness. Public Administration Review59(3): 278-280.
10.
Citrin J., Muste C. ( 1999) Trust in government. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, and Wrightsman LS (eds) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 465-532.
11.
DeLeon L. ( 1996) Ethics and entrepreneurship. Policy Studies Journal24(3): 495-510.
12.
Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, and Harquail CV ( 1994) Organizational image and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly39: 239-263.
13.
Epstein D., O’Halloran S. ( 1994) Administrative procedures, information, and agency discretion . American Journal of Political Science38(3): 697-722.
14.
Epstein D., O’Halloran S. ( 1999) Delegating Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Frederickson HG ( 1999) The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science and Politics32(4): 701-711.
16.
Gawthrop LC ( 1998) Public Service and Democracy: Ethical Imperatives for the 21st Century. New York: Chatham House.
17.
Giddens A. ( 2000) The Third Way and Its Critics. Cambridge : Polity Press.
18.
Goldstein H. ( 1987) Multi Level Models in Educational and Social Research . London: Grin.
19.
Golembiewski RT, Vigoda E. ( 2000) Organizational Innovation and the Science/Craft of Management . In: Rahim MA, Golembiewski RT, and Mackenzie KD (eds) Current Topics in Management, Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 263-280.
20.
Goodsell CT ( 2006) A new vision for public administration. Public Administration Review66: 623-635.
21.
Hart DK, Grant NK ( 1989) A partnership in virtue among all citizens: The public service and civic humanism; response to David Kirk Hart. Public Administration Review49(2): 101-107.
22.
Hofstede G. ( 1991) Cultures and Organizations. London : McGraw Hill.
23.
Holzer M. ( 1989) Public service: Present problems, future prospects. International Journal of Public Administration12(4): 585-593.
24.
Holzer M., Kloby K. ( 2005) Bureaucracy and democracy: A happy marriage? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16: 141-143.
25.
Hood C. ( 1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration69(1): 3-19.
26.
Huber JD, Shipan CR ( 2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Inglehart R. ( 1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
Kelly RM ( 1998) An inclusive democratic policy, representative bureaucracies, and the new public management. Public Administration Review58: 201-208.
29.
Lui TT, Cooper TL ( 1997) Values in flux: Administrative ethics and the Hong Kong public servant. Administration and Society29(3): 301-324.
30.
Lynn LE ( 1998) The new public management: How to transform a theme into a legacy. Public Administration Review58: 231-237.
31.
Miller AH, Listhaug O. ( 1990) Policy preferences and political distrust: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. Scandinavian Political Studies21(2): 161-187.
32.
Nye JS, Zelikow PD, and King DC (eds) (1997) Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
33.
Olsen JP ( 2005) Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(1): 1-24.
34.
Oswald J. ( 1996) Human resources, scientist, and internal reputation: The role of climate and job satisfaction. Human Relations49(3): 269-294.
35.
Peters BG, Pierre J. ( 1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8(2): 223-243.
36.
Powell MA (ed.) (1999) New Labor, New Welfare State: the ‘Third Way’ in British Social Policy . Bristol: Policy Press.
37.
Rohrschneider R. ( 2005) Institutional quality and perceptions of representation in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies38(7): 850-874.
38.
Sanchez-Cuenca I. ( 2000) The political basis of support forEuropean integration. European Union Politics1(2): 147-711.
39.
Shipan CR ( 2004) Regulatory regimes, agency actions and the conditional nature of political influence. American Political Science Review98(3): 467-480.
40.
Stipak B. ( 1980) Local governments’ use of citizen surveys. Public Administration Review40: 521-525.
41.
Terry LD ( 2005) The thinning of administrative institutions in the Hollow State. Administration and Society37(4): 426-444.
42.
Thomas P., Palfrey C. ( 1996) Evaluation: Stakeholder-focused criteria. Social Policy and Administration30(2): 125-142.
43.
Thompson D. ( 1983) Bureaucracy and democracy. In: Duncan G (ed.) Democratic Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 235-250.
44.
Thompson JR, Ingraham PW ( 1996) The reinvention game. Public Administration Review56: 291-298.
45.
Ulbig SG ( 2002) Policies, procedures, and people: Sources of support for government. Social Science Quarterly83(3): 789-809.
46.
Van de Walle S., Bouckaert G. ( 2003) Public service performance and trust in governance: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration26: 891-914.
47.
Van Ryzin GG ( 2004) The measurement of overall citizen satisfaction. Public Performance and Management Review27(3): 9-8.
48.
Van Ryzin GG ( 2005) Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizens satisfaction with local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16: 599-611.
49.
Verba S., Schlozman KL, and Brady HE ( 1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics . London: Harvard University Press .
50.
Vigoda-Gadot E. ( 2003) Managing Collaboration in Public Administration: Governance, Businesses, and Citizens in the Service of Modern Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
51.
Vigoda-Gadot E. ( 2009) Building Strong Nations: Improving Governability and Public Management. Farnham, UK: Ashgate .
52.
Vigoda-Gadot E., Mizrahi S. ( 2008) Public sector management and the democratic ethos: A longitudinal study of key relationships in Israel. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18: 79-107.
53.
Vroom VH ( 1964) Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
54.
Waldo D. ( 1977) Democracy, Bureaucracy, and Hypocrisy. A Royer Lecture . Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.
55.
Woller GM ( 1998) Toward a reconciliation of the bureaucratic and democratic ethos. Administration and Society30(1): 85-109.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
