COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
Aims of the course:
- Knowing different state traditions and administrative models
- Knowing the most common types of public sector reforms
- Understanding public sector reforms in different states and administrative models
- Knowing and understanding recent research on comparative public sector reform
PART 1: INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS & REFORMS
CHAPTER 1: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
To do:
- Basic concepts to refresh
- Five major administrative profiles + EU
- Comparative dimensions: institutional features, local governance, civil service
- Administrative reform types and evaluation, NPM
- Intro to neo-institutionalist approaches to understanding administrative reform
Why compare administrative systems and reforms?
- You will gain appreciation of the diversity of PA systems and reforms in different parts of
Europe, including their strengths and weaknesses.
- You will learn from the successes and failures of PA systems and reforms, which can help you as
future public managers make more informed decisions about your own reforms.
- You will understand better the impact of crosscultural and historical factors on PA and governance reforms
in Europe.
- You will acquire useful resources to carry on with comparative PA research in the future.
Two questions of part 1:
- How do various administrative traditions and countries in Europe vary?
- What are the major factors of difference and why?
+ pay attention to:
- Cultural, institutional, and historical features of groups of countries as basis for classification of respective
administrative traditions/models.
- Basic political and institutional features of various EU administrative traditions and respective countries.
- What are the variables that allow for structured comparisons between the administrative traditions in
European countries?
1
,1.1. ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS OF PA SYSTEMS AND REFORMS COMPARISO N
1. Cultural dimension
= legal traditions and administrative cultures, e.g. rule of law (rechtsstaat) culture, public interest culture,
civil servants’ values, etc
2. Institutional dimension
= multilevel governance and civil service structure and reforms
3. Historical dimension
= temporal differences in the development of PA, evolution of PA reforms , institutional theories
-> cultural dimension: legal traditions and administrative cultures
Continental European rule-of-law culture Anglo-Saxon public interest culture
~ source: Roman law ~ source: Common law
Separation/hierarchization of state and society No hierarchization of public/private (no separation
(public/private legal sphere) of public/private law)
The state as an integrating force of society; intérêt The state is of instrumental importance;
general government; stateless society
Comprehensive codification of legal rule (Roman law No comprehensive codification of legal rules
tradition) (Common law)
Administrative action as implementation of law by Legislative acts with function of political
means of legal specification programmes
Dominant values in administrative action: Dominant values in administrative action:
principle of legality, equal treatment, neutrality of Pragramatism, flexibility, reconciliation of interests
interests
Some basic concepts:
1. Unitary vs federal govt structure
Unitary Federal (AT, BE, BiH, DE, CH)
Central government ultimately holds supreme Political power is shared between central (federal)
political power and regional governments of which none usually
dominates
The powers of the regions are derived from the Central governments cannot interfere in the
central government competencies of the regional levels
Constitution and a strong judiciary are Constitution and a strong judiciary are more
somewhat less important important
Infrequent elections Frequent elections
Standardization of laws and their Regions or provinces exercise considerable self-rule,
implementation across the country usually through their own legislatures, resulting in
fragmentation of regulatory space
Governance is more streamlined, reforms can Governance involves more conflict and contestation,
be effected quickly, but there is more space for reforms come more slowly, less space for power
power abuse abuse
! the decentralized state is not to be confused with the federal state!
2
,2. Unicameralism vs bicameralis, population size, govt structure
Small countries Large countries
Unitary Federal Unitary Federal
Unicameral Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Israel, Luxembourg,
Norway, Sweden
Bicameral Ireland Austria, France, Italy, Germany,
Switzerland Netherlands, UK Belgium, US
3. Political-institutional features of states
a) Democracy
- Majoritarian model (Westminster type)
= concentrated executive power, fusion of legislative and executive power, two-party system,
unitary govt (UK)
- Consensus model
= executive power sharing, balanced bicameralism, usually proportional electoral system, multiple
parties in coalitions, federalism and decentralization
- Direct model
= legislation directly rests on people’s will expressed through referenda.
b) Type of cabinet
- Single party, minimal-winning (1 party more than 50%)
- Minimal-winning coalition (2 or more parties more than 50%)
- Minority cabinets (govt less than 50%)
- Oversized executives (‘grand coalitions’)
- Supermajorities
=> Depends partly on electoral system:
proportional systems more consultative & consensus-oriented politics than majoritarian systems
4. Administrative culture
= may characterize the relationship between state/administration and society/citizens
- Cooperative contact culture (Nordic countries)
- Flexible bargaining culture (Anglo-Saxon countries)
- Formalized regulatory culture (Continental European countries)
3
, 5. Welfare state activity
= Based on the extent of decoupling of social security from the job market, including variation in the
pressure on citizens to have a job
- Conservative type (e.g. Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Belgium)
- Social-democratic type (e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands)
- Liberal type (US, UK, Switzerland)
- Mixed (Poland, Hungary)
1.2. FIVE ‘IDEAL-TYPICAL’ MODELS OF PA IN EUROPE
- Continental European Napoleonic country group (with a Southern European subgroup)
- Continental European federal country group
- Nordic country group
- Anglo-Saxon country group
- Central Eastern and Southeastern European country group
+ European Union as a special case.
1.2.1. CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN NAPOLEONIC MODEL
= France, Spain, Portugal + Southern European subgroup: Italy, Greece
- Roman-French legal tradition (importance of statutory law)
Principle of legality (as opposed to principle of efficiency)
Comprehensive codification legal norms
- A strong centralized government and a powerful bureaucracy
- Subnational and local levels subordinate to central
- Administrative practice: Politicization of civil service = party oversight and influence on civil servant
appointment (~ clientelism, political party patronage in civil service (‘political allies’))
- Stronger role of political parties
1.2.2. CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN FEDERAL MODEL
= Germany, Austria, Switzerland
- Roman legal tradition (cf. previous model)
→ Legality + Rule of law culture / codification
- Leaner and weaker centralized government and bureaucracy
+ Strong subnational and local levels (subsidiarity matters): main difference with the Napoleonic model
- Territorial principle (multi-competences at lower level) -> zie hieronder
- Administrative practice:
D, A: ‘servants of the state’ (important position in society)
CH: ‘servants of the people’ / direct democracy / greater local autonomy
Decentralization: public servants’ employment across levels of government > see type of model
4
Aims of the course:
- Knowing different state traditions and administrative models
- Knowing the most common types of public sector reforms
- Understanding public sector reforms in different states and administrative models
- Knowing and understanding recent research on comparative public sector reform
PART 1: INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS & REFORMS
CHAPTER 1: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
To do:
- Basic concepts to refresh
- Five major administrative profiles + EU
- Comparative dimensions: institutional features, local governance, civil service
- Administrative reform types and evaluation, NPM
- Intro to neo-institutionalist approaches to understanding administrative reform
Why compare administrative systems and reforms?
- You will gain appreciation of the diversity of PA systems and reforms in different parts of
Europe, including their strengths and weaknesses.
- You will learn from the successes and failures of PA systems and reforms, which can help you as
future public managers make more informed decisions about your own reforms.
- You will understand better the impact of crosscultural and historical factors on PA and governance reforms
in Europe.
- You will acquire useful resources to carry on with comparative PA research in the future.
Two questions of part 1:
- How do various administrative traditions and countries in Europe vary?
- What are the major factors of difference and why?
+ pay attention to:
- Cultural, institutional, and historical features of groups of countries as basis for classification of respective
administrative traditions/models.
- Basic political and institutional features of various EU administrative traditions and respective countries.
- What are the variables that allow for structured comparisons between the administrative traditions in
European countries?
1
,1.1. ANALYTICAL DIMENSIONS OF PA SYSTEMS AND REFORMS COMPARISO N
1. Cultural dimension
= legal traditions and administrative cultures, e.g. rule of law (rechtsstaat) culture, public interest culture,
civil servants’ values, etc
2. Institutional dimension
= multilevel governance and civil service structure and reforms
3. Historical dimension
= temporal differences in the development of PA, evolution of PA reforms , institutional theories
-> cultural dimension: legal traditions and administrative cultures
Continental European rule-of-law culture Anglo-Saxon public interest culture
~ source: Roman law ~ source: Common law
Separation/hierarchization of state and society No hierarchization of public/private (no separation
(public/private legal sphere) of public/private law)
The state as an integrating force of society; intérêt The state is of instrumental importance;
general government; stateless society
Comprehensive codification of legal rule (Roman law No comprehensive codification of legal rules
tradition) (Common law)
Administrative action as implementation of law by Legislative acts with function of political
means of legal specification programmes
Dominant values in administrative action: Dominant values in administrative action:
principle of legality, equal treatment, neutrality of Pragramatism, flexibility, reconciliation of interests
interests
Some basic concepts:
1. Unitary vs federal govt structure
Unitary Federal (AT, BE, BiH, DE, CH)
Central government ultimately holds supreme Political power is shared between central (federal)
political power and regional governments of which none usually
dominates
The powers of the regions are derived from the Central governments cannot interfere in the
central government competencies of the regional levels
Constitution and a strong judiciary are Constitution and a strong judiciary are more
somewhat less important important
Infrequent elections Frequent elections
Standardization of laws and their Regions or provinces exercise considerable self-rule,
implementation across the country usually through their own legislatures, resulting in
fragmentation of regulatory space
Governance is more streamlined, reforms can Governance involves more conflict and contestation,
be effected quickly, but there is more space for reforms come more slowly, less space for power
power abuse abuse
! the decentralized state is not to be confused with the federal state!
2
,2. Unicameralism vs bicameralis, population size, govt structure
Small countries Large countries
Unitary Federal Unitary Federal
Unicameral Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Israel, Luxembourg,
Norway, Sweden
Bicameral Ireland Austria, France, Italy, Germany,
Switzerland Netherlands, UK Belgium, US
3. Political-institutional features of states
a) Democracy
- Majoritarian model (Westminster type)
= concentrated executive power, fusion of legislative and executive power, two-party system,
unitary govt (UK)
- Consensus model
= executive power sharing, balanced bicameralism, usually proportional electoral system, multiple
parties in coalitions, federalism and decentralization
- Direct model
= legislation directly rests on people’s will expressed through referenda.
b) Type of cabinet
- Single party, minimal-winning (1 party more than 50%)
- Minimal-winning coalition (2 or more parties more than 50%)
- Minority cabinets (govt less than 50%)
- Oversized executives (‘grand coalitions’)
- Supermajorities
=> Depends partly on electoral system:
proportional systems more consultative & consensus-oriented politics than majoritarian systems
4. Administrative culture
= may characterize the relationship between state/administration and society/citizens
- Cooperative contact culture (Nordic countries)
- Flexible bargaining culture (Anglo-Saxon countries)
- Formalized regulatory culture (Continental European countries)
3
, 5. Welfare state activity
= Based on the extent of decoupling of social security from the job market, including variation in the
pressure on citizens to have a job
- Conservative type (e.g. Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Belgium)
- Social-democratic type (e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands)
- Liberal type (US, UK, Switzerland)
- Mixed (Poland, Hungary)
1.2. FIVE ‘IDEAL-TYPICAL’ MODELS OF PA IN EUROPE
- Continental European Napoleonic country group (with a Southern European subgroup)
- Continental European federal country group
- Nordic country group
- Anglo-Saxon country group
- Central Eastern and Southeastern European country group
+ European Union as a special case.
1.2.1. CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN NAPOLEONIC MODEL
= France, Spain, Portugal + Southern European subgroup: Italy, Greece
- Roman-French legal tradition (importance of statutory law)
Principle of legality (as opposed to principle of efficiency)
Comprehensive codification legal norms
- A strong centralized government and a powerful bureaucracy
- Subnational and local levels subordinate to central
- Administrative practice: Politicization of civil service = party oversight and influence on civil servant
appointment (~ clientelism, political party patronage in civil service (‘political allies’))
- Stronger role of political parties
1.2.2. CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN FEDERAL MODEL
= Germany, Austria, Switzerland
- Roman legal tradition (cf. previous model)
→ Legality + Rule of law culture / codification
- Leaner and weaker centralized government and bureaucracy
+ Strong subnational and local levels (subsidiarity matters): main difference with the Napoleonic model
- Territorial principle (multi-competences at lower level) -> zie hieronder
- Administrative practice:
D, A: ‘servants of the state’ (important position in society)
CH: ‘servants of the people’ / direct democracy / greater local autonomy
Decentralization: public servants’ employment across levels of government > see type of model
4
