, INTRODUCTION
1. COMPARING…
Comparing means to examine or look for the difference between two or more things.
1.1. WHAT ‘THINGS’ DOES COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION COMPARE?
The problem is that public administration itself is a multi-disciplinary field that draws on other
disciplines:
§ Political science: for example, different electoral systems (FPTP, Mixed, Proportional). In every
country there are different electoral systems.
§ Law: different legal systems (Civil law, common law, religious law)
§ Sociology: How do people think in a country? National culture is dependent for the public
administration.
§ Economics: Esping-Andersen: Three worlds of welfare capitalism: (1) Liberal regime, (2)
Conservative regime en (3) Social-democratic regime.
§ …
1.2. DIFFICULTIES FOR COMPARING IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
§ Problem of equivalence, or the ‘travelling problem”: can concepts and terms be transferred to
difficult context (language, culture, …)? E.g. ‘corruption’ may be different in different countries.
§ Level of analysis: National systems? Public organizations? Policies? Civil servant’s behavior?
§ Units of analysis: Comparing ministries? Ombudsmen? Structures? Processes?
§ Limited availability of data with which to make real comparisons:
o OECD Government at a glance
o EU Commission reports
o COCOPS
1
,E.g. government spending as % of GDP? What is government spending?
§ Cost for the governmental apparatus?
§ Transfers in social security to individuals?
§ Transfer of tax-money to private sector organizations performing public tasks?
§ Subsidies to private sector organization?
§ Tax deduction?
2
, 1. THEORIES AND ANALYTICAL
APPROACHES
1. COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
1.1. TYPOLOGIES OF COMPARISON IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
“In order to compare administrative systems beyond national borders, different typologies and
analytical concepts have been proposed”
§ Administrative traditions are multi-dimensional, comparisons always require a selection of
comparison criteria, the combination of which allows the formation of types.
§ Selection of criteria depends on the focus of the analysis, different comparison-related
typologies can be made meaningful.
There are two analytical dimensions to compare upon:
1. ADMINISTRATIVE TRADITIONS AND CULTURES
‘Legal tradition of a country has an influence on the dominant values in administrative action and the
relation between politics, citizens and administration’
Two clusters must be distinguished:
(1) Classic continental European rule-of-law culture (rechtsstaat) à Civil law tradition
(2) Anglo-Saxon public interest culture (UK: common law à no comprehensive codification of
rules).
3
, In this analytical four families are differentiated for Western Europe:
(1) Common law
(2) Roman-French
(3) Roman-German
(4) Roman-Scandinavian
Central assumption: the handed-down legal tradition of a country has a significant influence on the
dominant values in administrative action and the way in which administration is implemented, as well
as the relationship between politics, citizens and administration.
2. POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES (CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION)
(A) Vertical dispersion of power: Here the degree of centralization or decentralization of public
administration and the relationship between central/centralized and subnational-
decentralized/local government are crucial. Three variants can roughly be distinguished:
1. Federal states (separation versus integrationist model)
2. Unitary-centralized
3. Unitary-decentralized
(B) Type of government: This depends partly on electoral systems and it is more consultative and
consensus oriented, less adversarial moving down the list
1. Single party, minimal-winning (1 party more than 50%)
2. Minimal-winning coalition (2 or more parties more than 50%)
3. Minority cabinets (government less than 50%)
4. Oversized executives (grand coalitions)
(C) Combining type of government and vertical dispersion (Lijphart):
In comparative administrative reform research, the standard classification of countries as either
majority or consensual democracies, is granted special explanatory power with regard to
public management reforms. This has proven to be an important starting condition for NPM
reforms in the different countries.
In which country or system is a public sector reform much easier to reach? In the UK, because
you have one party in the rule, so they don't have to take into account other parties. They
don't have to bother about other levels of government, because the power is centralized.
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper bpm. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.