Advertisement

‘Governance Fatigue’ and Public Mismanagement: The Case for Classic Bureaucracy and Public Values

  • Wolfgang SeibelEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Comparative Territorial Politics book series (COMPTPOL)

Abstract

The scholarly discourse about public administration has been shaped in recent decades by an anti-Weberian approach which left many students of the public sector unsatisfied due to its one-sidedness and a resulting distance towards real-world governmental agencies and the way they function. After all, public administration, on the one hand, remains hierarchical, rule-bound and ‘bureaucratic’ in nature as characterized by Max Weber. On the other hand, classic bureaucracy is far less monolithic, hierarchized and rule-bound than its stylized textbook version may make us believe. Bureaucratic governance requires autonomy, discretion, institutional integrity and a sense of responsibility among the leadership. To neglect these classic ingredients of bureaucracy may imply to neglect its classic virtues as well. This chapter illustrates this risk with an empirical case of public mismanagement in Germany that claimed the lives of 21 people.

Keywords

Bureaucracy Public mismanagement Institutional integrity Public values 

References

  1. Alford, J., & Owen, H. (2008). Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management. American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, G. T., & Halperin, M. H. (1972). Bureaucratic Politics. A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. World Politics, 24(S1), 40–79.Google Scholar
  3. Benz, A. (1994). Kooperative Verwaltung. Funktionen, Voraussetzungen und Folgen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  4. Berlin, I. (1957). Political Judgement. In H. Hardy (Ed.) (1997), The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and Their History (pp. 40–53). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  5. Bovens, M. (1998). The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bryson, R., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.Google Scholar
  7. Crozier, M. (1963). Le phénomène bureaucratique. Essai sur les tendances bureaucratiques des systèmes d’organisation modernes et sur leurs relations en France avec le système social et culturel. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, J. J., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 22–47.Google Scholar
  9. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2011). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  10. Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  11. Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Finer, H. (1941). Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), 335–350.Google Scholar
  13. Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility. Public Policy, 1, 3–24. Google Scholar
  14. ’t Hart, P. (2014). Understanding Public Leadership. London and New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Hildebrand, D. L. (2005). Pragmatism, Neopragmatism and Public Administration. Administration & Society, 37(3), 360–374.Google Scholar
  16. Hildebrand, D. L. (2008). Public Administration as Pragmatic, Democratic and Objective. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 222–229.Google Scholar
  17. Hood, C. (2011). The Blame Game: Spin Bureaucracy and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, M. (2009). Responsibility Versus Accountability in the Friedrich Finer Debate. Journal of Management History, 15(1), 66–77.Google Scholar
  19. Kaufman, H. (1960). The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore: Hopkins.Google Scholar
  20. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, M. H. (2014). Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical Basis. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 465–477.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, H. (2004). Why Old Pragmatism Needs an Upgrade. Administration & Society, 36(2), 234–249.Google Scholar
  25. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  26. Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe It’s Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  27. Olsen, J. P. (2008). The Logic of Appropriateness. In R. E. Goodin, M. Moran, & M. Ren (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 690–704). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Plant, J. F. (2011). C. J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 471–482.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenbloom, D. H., & McCurdy, H. E. (Eds.). (2006). Revisiting Waldo’s Administrative State: Constancy and Change in Public Administration. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  32. Shields, P. (2003). The Community of Inquiry: Classical Pragmatism and Public Administration. Administration & Society, 35(5), 510–538.Google Scholar
  33. Shields, P. (2008). Rediscovering the Taproot: Is Classical Pragmatism the Route to Renew Public Administration? Public Administration Review, 68, 205–221.Google Scholar
  34. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Process in Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
  36. Terry, L. D. (1998). Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism and the Public Management Movement. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 194–200.Google Scholar
  37. Weber, M. (1919). Politik als Beruf. München and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  38. West, K., & Davis, P. (2011). What Is the Public Value of Government Action? Towards a (New) Pragmatic Approach to Values Questions in Public Endeavours. Public Administration, 89(2), 226–241.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, I., & Shearer, H. (2011). Appraising Public Value: Past, Present and Futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367–1384.Google Scholar

Cited Documents

  1. [1] Minutes, meeting of 25 September 2010, Niederschrift über ein Gespräch zum Thema Loveparade 2010 in Duisburg. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/loveparade2010/loveparade-2010-anlage-03-protokoll-25-09-09.pdf, downloaded 11 March 2015.
  2. [2] Minutes, meeting of 2 October 2009, Ergebnisniederschrift zur Besprechung Loveparade 2010. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/loveparade2010/loveparade-2010-anlage-04-protokoll-02-10-09.pdf, downloaded 11 March 2015.
  3. [3] Presentation Lopavent, 29 October 2009, Loveparade 2010 in Duisburg – Präsentation Lopavent. https://www.duisburg.de/ratsinformationssystem/bi/getfile.php?id=1458557andtype=do, downloaded 11 March 2015.
  4. [4] Minutes, meeting of 2 March 2010, Niederschrift über ein verwaltungsinternes Gespräch. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/loveparade2010/loveparade-2010-anlage-20-protokoll-02-03-10.pdf, downloaded 12 March 2015.
  5. [5] Letter Bauordnungsamt, City of Duisburg, to Lopavent, 14 June 2010, Eingangsbestätigung – Nachforderung fehlender Unterlagen von der Unteren Baubehörde. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/loveparade2010/loveparade-2010-anlage-24-nachforderung-fehlende-unterlagen-14-06-10.pdf, downloaded 12 March 2015.
  6. [6] Minutes, meeting of 18 June 2010, Protokoll eines Gesprächs bei Lopavent. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/loveparade2010/loveparade-2010-anlage-25-aktenvermerk-und-ablehnung-dressler-18-06-10.pdf, downloaded 12 March 2015.
  7. [7] Permission, dated 21 July 2010, issued 23 July 2010, Loveparade 2010 Anlage 34 Genehmigung der Bauaufsicht mit Abweichungsgenehmigungen. https://file.wikileaks.org/file/loveparade2010/loveparade-2010-anlage-34-genehmigung-bauaufsicht-21-07-10.pdf, last accessed 2 May 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations