SUMMARY
COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION AND
MANAGEMENT
PROF. DR. BRAM
VERSCHUERE
UNIVERSITEIT GENT
, 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
COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION AND
MANAGEMENT
PROF. DR. BRAM
VERSCHUERE
UNIVERSITEIT GENT
, 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
