Advertisement

Public Organization Review

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 481–494 | Cite as

Accountability, Political Views, and Bureaucratic Behavior: A Theoretical Approach

Article
  • 508 Downloads

Abstract

This study has developed a theoretical framework to predict bureaucratic behaviors with career public officials’ political views (whether career public officials agree or disagree with their overhead political principals’ ideology) and bureaucratic accountability (accountability either to the overhead political principals or to the public sentiment) by adopting and extending Hirschman’s (1970) exit, voice, and loyalty model. Given the two conditions, this study has drawn four propositions of possible bureaucratic responses: loyalty; voice; exit; and silence. In addition, the stay scenario is discussed for passive bureaucrats regardless of the two dimensions. By incorporating relevant examples with the propositions, this study expects to contribute to a better understanding of bureaucratic behavior.

Keywords

Accountability Political views Bureaucratic behavior Exit Voice Loyalty Silence Stay 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments. We also appreciate Dr. Beryl Radin and Dr. Andy Whitford for their insightful comments. The earlier versions of this work were presented at International Research Society for Public Management Conference and KAPA International Conference in 2015. This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund and International University of Japan Research Fund.

References

  1. Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1976). Clashing beliefs within the executive branch: the Nixon administration bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 70(2), 456–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, S., & Golan, J. (1981). Lateness as a withdrawal behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appleby, P. H. (1949). Policy and administration. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework1. European law journal, 13(4), 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandsma, G. J., & Schillemans, T. (2012). The accountability cube: measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mus034.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, C., & Halligan, J. (1992). Politcal leadership in an age of constraints. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A., & Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson, J. (2014, November 3). Federal unions pushing mostly democratic candidates, but also some republicans. The Washington post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/federal-unions-pushing-mostly-democratic-candidates-but-also-some-republicans/2014/11/02/a9987354-613b-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html
  10. De Graaf, G. (2011). The loyalties of top public administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dowding, K., John, P., Mergoupis, T., & Vugt, M. (2000). Exit, voice and loyalty: analytic and empirical developments. European Journal of Political Research, 37(4), 469–495.Google Scholar
  13. Durant, R. F. (2008). Sharpening a knife cleverly: organizational change, policy paradox, and the “weaponizing” of administrative reforms. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 596–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrell, D., & Robb, D. (1980). Lateness to work: A study of withdrawal from work. Detroit: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  16. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: the influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5(3), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finer, H. (1936). Better government personnel. Political Science Quarterly, 51(4), 569–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foley, D. (1998). We want your input: dilemmas of citizens participation. In C. S. King & C. Stivers (Eds.), Government is us. SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Friederich, C. ([1940]1965). Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility. In F. Rourke (Ed.), Bureaucratic Power in National Politics (pp. 165–175). Bostron: Little, Brown and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  22. Fry, B. R., & Nigro, L. G. (1996). Max weber and US public administration: the administrator as neutral servant. Journal of Management History, 2(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golden, M. M. (1992). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: bureaucratic responses to presidential control during the Reagan administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
  24. Golden, M. M. (2000). What Motivates Bureaucrats?: Politics and Administration During the Reagan Years: Columbia University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and administration. New York: Russell and Russell.Google Scholar
  26. Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International public management journal, 4(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  27. Hagedoorn, M., Van Yperen, N. W., Van de Vliert, E., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Employees' reactions to problematic events: a circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammer, T. H., Landau, J. C., & Stern, R. N. (1981). Absenteeism when workers have a voice: the case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heyneman (1950). Bureaucracy in a democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  30. Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, M. (2009). Responsibility versus accountability in the Friedrich-finer debate. Journal of Management History, 15(1), 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaboolian, L. (1998). The new public management: Challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate. Public Administration Review, 189–193.Google Scholar
  33. Kelly, R. M. (1998). An inclusive democratic polity, representative bureaucracies, and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kernahan, K., & Langford, J. (1990). The responsible public servant. Halifax: Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
  35. King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (1998a). Citizens and administrators: roles and relationships. In C. S. King & C. Stivers (Eds.), Government is us. SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  36. King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (1998b). Conclusions: strategies for an anti-government era. In C. S. King & C. Stivers (Eds.), Government is us. SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Lavertu, S., & Moynihan, D. P. (2012). Agency political ideology and reform implementation: performance management in the bush administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mus026.Google Scholar
  38. Lowi, T. (1993). Legitimizing public administration: a disturbed dissent. Public Administration Review, 53(3), 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lowi, T. (1995). Lowi responds. Public Administration Review, 55(5), 490–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maranto, R. (1993). Still clashing after all these years: ideological conflict in the Reagan executive. American Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 681–698.Google Scholar
  41. Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘accountability’: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees' responses to adverse conditions in the workplace. Human Relations, 60(5), 683–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: the case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nigro, L. G., Nigro, F., & Kellough, J. E. (2007). The new public personnel administration. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  45. Peters, B. G. (1996). Models of governance for the 1990s. The state of public management, 15–44.Google Scholar
  46. Petty, M., & Bruning, N. S. (1980). A comparison of the relationships between subordinates' perceptions of supervisory behavior and measures of subordinates' job satisfaction for male and female leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 717–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Radin, B. (2002). The accountable juggler: The art of leadership in a federal agency: Washington. DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, R. (1987). Giving direction to permanent officials: signals from the electorate, the market, Laws, and expertise. In J.-E. Lane (Ed.), Bureaucracy and public choice. SAGE: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  50. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1993). Editorial: have an administrative Rx? Don't forget the politics! Public Administration Review, 53(6), 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: an integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Svara, J. H. (1985). Dichotomy and duality: Reconceptualizing the relationship between policy and administration in council-manager cities. Public Administration Review, 45(1), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (1998). Political activity: Federal Employees Residing in designated localities. Federal Register, 63(20), 4555–4560.Google Scholar
  54. Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state. New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
  55. Wamsley, G. (1990). The Agency Perspective: Public Adminsitrators as Agential Leaders. In G. Wamsley, Bacher, R., Goodsell, C., Kronenberg, P., Rohr, J., Stivers, C., White, O., Wolf, J. (Ed.), Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park: SageGoogle Scholar
  56. Whicker, M. L., Olshfski, D., & Strickland, R. A. (1993). The troublesome cleft: public administration and political science. Public Administration Review, 53(6), 531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitford, A. B., & Lee, S. Y. (2015). Exit, voice, and loyalty with multiple exit options: evidence from the US federal workforce. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 373–398.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wise, L. R. (2004). Bureaucratic posture: on the need for a composite theory of bureaucratic behavior. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zanetti, L. (1998). At the nexus of state and civil society: the transformative practice of public administration. In C. S. King & C. Stivers (Eds.), Government is us. SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationHankuk University of Foreign StudiesSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Public Management and Policy Analysis ProgramInternational University of JapanMinamiuonumaJapan

Personalised recommendations