Part III - Variations of PA PDF

Part III. Variations in PA Part III Variations of PA Session 9 Persistence & Change: Historical & New Institutionalism Video 1 Explaining Persiste...

Part III. Variations in PA Part III Variations of PA Session 9 Persistence & Change: Historical & New Institutionalism Video 1 Explaining Persistence and Change in PA How can we explain similarities and differences of PA within and between states? Hood summarized various approaches to state organizations and PA in four models: The hierarchist model, based on a belief in experts, formal rules and procedures. The individualist model, based on a belief in market forces and competition. The egalitarian model, based on community and participation. The fatalist approach, a critique of the other three. These are ideal-type models, ie they are theoretically pure models, analytical tools to help us to organize ideas and examples. In the GRID/GROUP matrix, they occupy the four corners. However, IRL we rarely observe the models in their purest form. Interactions of the models in practice Layering of models Hood (2000) claimed that in practice, the models are often layered and overlap. Tools, practices and features of different models are often combined within an organization. EXAMPLES The Cameralists They are often named as the prime example of the hierarchist approach: they believed in the ability of bureaucrats to govern effectively and in the role of science and education. But their approach includes egalitarian tools: collegial cooperation in the administration, decision-making in teams. Frederic Taylor = usually associated with hierarchist thinking Based on a belief in organization running as smoothly as a machine, improved through scientific research and specialization. But some individualist assumptions abt human motivations: the pay for performance tool. Ancient Athens = based on direct democracy Participation of citizens and mutual control => usually understood as a manifestation of the egalitarian model. But some chance-based elements: random selection for some public positions. It brings aspects of the fatalist model. Today, the hierarchist model is probably the most prominent model for PA around the world. But states have layered some individualist and egalitarian elements onto their hierarchist administrative systems on various degrees. But there is no PA in the world that includes no hierarchist elements at all. Page sur 11 1  Part III. Variations in PA Cyclical recurrence of models = second mode of interaction between the models according to Hood (2000) The models alternate and resurface through time. At different times, different models are dominant in PA practice. It implies that no final model has been found so far. Hood explained that individualist and egalitarian tools are often seen as reactions to an overly hierarchist public sector, ie as reaction against an ‘unsatisfactory status quo’. Moreover, the recent trend of egalitarian instruments (e.g., coproduction) can be understood as a reaction against the dominant individualist thinking in the neoliberal area. Which model is the best? When one model seems to dominate in thinking and practice, then people look for an alternative, a counter-movement. It does not mean that the alternative has no disadvantages. There is no final answer: each model has different values and goals. Instead, the cyclical recurrence can be understood as trends in PA. Trends come and go. As in fashion, most things come back at some point. Explaining patterns of variation in PA Which forces explain the observed patterns of variation between states? 2 opposing forces, ie explanations: The attraction for tradition. That force maintains diversity between organizations and states. By adhering to traditions, organizations and states stay as they are. Because these traditions differ between countries, they maintain diversity btw countries. By following trends, organizations and PA become more similar within and between states. Diversity by adhering to traditions PAs are shaped significantly by cultural backgrounds, historical models, and experiences. Administrative practices from a country’s path create a legacy that shapes very much today’s PA in that country. Culture and legacy are sluggish: they cannot be easily changed. National traditions maintain international diversity. Historical institutionalism: a specific theoretical approach from social sciences highlights how past decisions, traditions, and legacies shape today’s decisions and practices. Similarity by following trends Conversion across borders: some practices are adopted across borders. PAs and org become more similar because of international trends. Sociological institutionalism: a specific theoretical approach from sociology to explain why states, PA, and org adopt international trends. The actors adopt trends not to increase efficiency but because following trends is socially appropriate. The 2 forces interact with each other: National traditions can affect how international trends are adopted in a specific country. Jointly, the forces help us understand the patterns of variation we see in PA around the world. Page sur 21 1  Part III. Variations in PA Video 2 Persistence in PA and Historical Institutionalism Historical Institutionalism = the theoretical approach that help us understand the continuing diversity between states. It is based on the idea that history matters. It is an analytical approach that emphasizes the effects of historical development and the exact timing and sequencing of historical events. Assumption: the initial choices create a path. To some extent, there is a path dependency on institutional design and outcomes. ➡ Path dependency means that decisions made in the past define today’s situation. ➡ Initial decisions may have been made at critical junctures (e.g., specific moments that allow radical change (crises)). It highlights persistence. But some scholars argued that, even under path dependency, there is room for change. Path dependency is not deterministic, ie still leaves room for political choices (but limited). Historical Institutionalism and PA The historical ‘paths’ in PA are administrative traditions and legacies. They include previous organizational models and structures implemented by past governments, regimes or colonial powers. No clear definition of this term. Many authors classify states not into clear categories but more loose families of states that share certain administrative traditions. Painter and Peters (2010) admit that there is not one clear logic of criteria for classification. Instead, the families of state share administrative tradition as it combined historical, cultural and geographical factors. It makes sense as administrative structures and practices have been spread among neighbouring countries by empires and colonial powers. But this approach does not lead to clear-cut classification. Western administrative traditions = the most widely reserached and applied in PA 2 subtraditions: An Anglo-American tradition // the individualist model The state = one of the providers of services to citizens. The state is not superior to citizens. Ideal of a limited government Does not prescribe one clear form of state organization A continental European tradition, commonly further distinguished into: More hierarchist ➡ Napoleonic tradition // Southern European tradition The state is hierarchically superior to society. Centralized state ➡ Germanic // Central European tradition The relation btw state and society is more organicist: they grow together. // hierarchist metaphor of state and society as parents and children Cooperative federalism ➡ Scandinavian // Northern European tradition Strong role of the state in provoding welfare Strong decentralization Page sur 31 1  Part III. Variations in PA An administrative tradition combines many characteristics but it does not mean that these characteristics are still present in the country associated with a certain tradition. But many are still dominant. Non-European administrative traditions But the debate and the legacy has a strong Western bias. The most prominent voices in the debate are from Western Europe and Northern America. Non-European traditions understanding is still quite limited. They are classified into very broad families that cover entire continents. Lack of differentiation Less details Latin America, postcolonial South Asia and Africa = common history of colonialism In the countries that have experienced colonialism, it is more difficult to trace back native and colonial practices as they have often overlapped. Today, legacies in these countries often combine native elements from pre-colonial state structure and colonial elements from the former colonial power. Soviet and post-communism legacy The debate reached its peak in 2004 with the EU accession of several former communist and socialist countries. In order to prepare for the EU, they had to overcome their communist traditions. Countries tried either to go back to their national pre-communism traditions or to follow other Western traditions. Take-aways An influential theoretical approach to explain persistence in PA is historical institutionalism: history matters. Historical choices set a trajectory that is difficult to change. The choices are reproduced through path dependency. In PA, these historical paths are administrative traditions and legacies. But the concept of administrative tradition is messy: it combines historical, cultural and geographical factors to group countries together into families. These families are believed to share a common administrative tradition. In Western Europe, 4 traditions are typically distinguished: an Anglo-American, a Napoleonic, a Germanic and a Scandivanian one. Non-European traditions research is much more limited. Page sur 41 1  Part III. Variations in PA Video 3 Change in PA and Sociological Institutionalism Sociological institutionalism = a theoretical approach to explain change and the adoption of trends Independent from rational choice institutionalism and historical institutionalism, a form of new institutionalism has also developed in sociology: the sociological new institutionalism. Central theme: the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals. Meaning, goals and values are socially constructed. Sociological institutionalists say that: Individuals are goal-oriented, their behavior is motivated and can be explained. But the goals pursued are socially constructed. What is seen as ‘rational action’ is socially constructed. EXAMPLE The search for efficiency is socially constructed. => There is an implicit social agreement that efficiency is worth pursuing. When everyone agrees on that, then the pursuit of efficiency is perceived as appropriate. The assumption behind sociological institutionalism is not that individuals always and only try to maximize their material well-being, but they are social animals always thriving to behave according to the society standards. Based on these assumptions, sociologists have developed an explanation for organizational change. Key concept: isomorphism (= from greek isos, equal, and morphism, shape) Isomorphism refers to the forces through which org in an organizational field become increasingly similar. It is abt similarities of the structures, procedures. It occurs in organizational fields, ie that includes org that are connected to each other, communicate and exchange information, and are structurally equivalent (ex: schools, NGOs…) Isomorphism as search for legitimacy Sociologists argue that organizations become similar and adopt a new institutional practice not because it advances the mean-ends efficiency but because it is widely valued within a broader cultural environment. In other words, the driving force is the organization's search for (social) legitimacy. The main motivation is legitimacy in the eyes of outside stakeholders: citizens, government regulators… The American sociologists DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argued that isomorphism can be applied to any sector: public, private and third and to all types of organizations. Argument: early adopters of organizational innovations are driven by a desire to prove performance. The first innovators pursue a goal related to performance, like efficiency. But for all other organizations, there is a different reason why they adopt the same innovation, once it is spread. They search for legitimacy rather than improved performance. For the majority of organizations, the reason for adopting a specific structure/procedure is not to increase performance but because it is regarded as the right thing to do. Results of isomorphic change? DiMaggio and Powell argue that genuine isomorphic change does not necessarily lead to more internal efficiency but to more efficiency in interacting with the organizational environment. Page sur 51 1  Part III. Variations in PA Another effect of isomorphic change has been suggested in another influential article from the sociological institutionalist tradition. Meyer and Rowan (1977) coined the idea that changes and innovations are adopted as ‘myths and ceremonies’ while internal practices remain unchanged. They lead to the decoupling of external-formal and internal practices. It is a disconnect btw both. Meyer and Rowan argue that organizational changes based on isomorphism will remain superficial: they will be adopted only formally and externally to increase legitimacy among external stakeholders. These changes can be seen as culturally specific practices // myth and ceremony drawn out by many societies. But, internally, isomorphism is not strong enough to change internal practices and will only lead to superficial changes. Isomorphic changes and decoupling can actually decrease the overall efficiency of an organization. Three isomorphic changes = can together explain a wide range of phenomena in society How exactly does isomorphism work in practice? 1. Coercive isomorphism = adoption of certain structures/procedures in response to external pressure Formal pressure is typically law., e.g., accounting procedures for private firms. Less formal forms of coercion: e.g., specific implicit requirements for receiving funding. EXAMPLE = Pressure of IOs on states to reform their PA It can take the form of political or economic pressure. Most prominent example in the literature: EU accession criteria. Countries wishing to join the EU have to fulfill a number of criteria, including regarding PA. The PA in the new 2004 members became increasingly similar before their accession, as they followed the same EU criteria. The IMF and the WB often impose administrative reforms on countries as a condition to receive international funding. 2. Mimetic isomorphism = related to uncertainty = when an org is uncertain on which organizational model is best, the org follows the guidance of other org that are perceived as successful. The only certainty one has is which model and other org is perceived as successful, ie worth copying. By following trends, an org can gain legitimacy: it is always considered as appropriate. Observed a lot in the PA. EXAMPLE There are many examples of young states copying others The copied are considered as model of success. In the 19th century, the Japanese gov tried to modernize the Japanese state by copying Western PAs. The Pacific Island state of Palau. After its independence in 1994, the gov looked at a good way to organize the young state and followed the US model as perceived as successful. Palau adopted a federalist system. But it is very costly and inefficient for such a small state. 3. Normative isomorphism = the increasing similarity of org is based on the diffusion of norms Page sur 61 1  Part III. Variations in PA Norms are ideas about appropriateness, abt which structures/procedures are right. Norms can spread through professional org, professional networks. Based on common education, individuals can spread norms. They share a specific perspective on things. When the diffusion channels increase, they are more likely to adopt the same structures and procedures. It is widespread in the context of PA. Administrative trends are often advocated internationally and diffused internationally with the support of IOs like the UN and OECD. OECD plays a prominent role as the OECD reports and recommendations have effects on countries all around the world. Countries follow the trends as the same way of thinking forms the invisible force of normative isomorphism. It motivates states to adopt the same trends. EXAMPLE Recruitment practices for public servants Recruitment criteria may differ btw countries and over time. But they tend to share a selection of like-minded public servants at one time and one place. ➡ Dominance of graduates from the ENA in France ➡ Leading public servants tend to come from the most prestigious universities in the UK ➡ Dominance of lawyers in Germany The similar backgrounds and norms among public servants favor the spread of norms and administrative practices within a country. Take-aways Sociological institutionalism is a theoretical approach from sociology that is useful to explain why organizations adopt new administrative structures and practices. At the center is isomorphism = forces through which organizations become increasingly similar and develop similar structures and procedures. Because these are perceived as socially appropriate. Isomorphic change motivated by a desire for legitimacy can only be superficial. It may result in a decoupling of formal external and de facto internal procedures and structures. In other words, talk and action differ. 3 mechanisms of isomorphic change: coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphisms. They explain many examples of the spread of administrative procedures and structures across org and countries. Video 4 Change and Persistence: The Example of Agencies Agencification: the rise of a trend Agencification trend started in the UK under the Thatcher government. Thatcher wanted to downsize and modernize the public sector to make it more effective. Central instrument: the introduction of independent agencies. The agencies idea was first outlined in a report on the next steps in improving public management. The agencies are called ‘next step’ agencies. Agencies are established to carry out the executive functions, ie the implementation tasks of the government. The tasks of policy formulation and policy implementation should be divided btw government departements on the one hand, and executive agencies on the other hand. This happened from 1988 onwards. Page sur 71 1  Part III. Variations in PA In order to fulfill implementation tasks efficiently, agencies should enjoy managerial autonomy: Discretion over the staff. Recruitment and pay Internal organizational structure and procedures. The management of each agency should have as much independence as possible to determine how its objectives are met. The government only monitors the output of the agency // performance management. The rise of agencies in the UK In 1988, an ‘agency fever’ broke out in the UK. The spread of agencies in the UK can be understood as coercive isomorphism. It was the UK government and Thatcher herself that mandated the PA to reorganize and create agencies for specific tasks. It was based on a strong conviction that the reform would increase efficiency. Agenci cation: the diffusion of a trend From the 1990s onwards, the agencification idea spread from the UK all around the world. It became a prominent example of public sector modernization in line with NPM. The OECD played a prominent role in advocating and promoting the role of agencies. Agencies were presented as an innovative, modern way of organizing PA. OECD provided reports and recommendations for setting up agencies. OECD illustrated these reports with examples and best practices, first from the UK and later from other states that adopted the agency model. It is an example of mimetic and normative isomorphism. ➡ Mimetic: other countries copied the frontrunners and trendsetters (the UK) ➡ Normative: OECD and other OIs spread the idea (= the norm) of executive agencies and performance management. In short, agencies and performance management were perceived as the right thing to do. Adoption and adaptation of the trend The agency trend has diffused worldwide but hasn’t been applied uniformly. It has been adapted by countries to fit their domestic context, eps. their administrative traditions. SWEDEN = partial adoption A century-long tradition of independent administrative agencies. Long before the idea of agencies was developed in the UK, Sweden has organized its own administration into independent agencies. From the Swedish perspective, there was little room for agencification and more agencies. Nevertheless, Sweden adopted performance management from the reform trend from the UK. The idea of management by results and managerial autonomy haven’t been prominent in Sweden before. They have been applied to existing agencies in Sweden. GERMANY = ceremonial adoption Administration tradition: federalism. Implementation of policies and provision of public services were mostly left to subnational administrations (Länder, municipalities). When the agency trend reached Germany, there was not much central-level administration there to restructure them into executive agencies. Page sur 81 1 fi  Part III. Variations in PA The agency trend left only a symbolic mark in Germany. Central-level existing administrations were simply renamed as agencies. But the internal procedures remained rule-based with little managerial autonomy. HUNGARY = uncoordinated adoption, then reversal Following the fall of communism, the administration was modernized in the 1990s. Strong desire to move away from the communist legacy. It coincides at the time with the agencification peak. Hungary adopted the international agency trend with open arms. But, since 2006, political control is strengthened again through de-agencification: independent agencies have been desintegrated and their tasks reintegrated into central government bodies. Recentralization. Why? It reflects the internationally unfashionable current trend for agencification. Why? On the other hand, the agencification reflects broader changes in Hungarian politics and society. Since Orban, growing preferences for hierarchical and political control over the public sector and state. The forces of isomorphism were played: all three countries reflect some levels of isomorphism. All three OECD member states have adopted at least parts of the trend in search of legitimacy. But, variations: The trend has been adapted to the national context, to administrative traditions and existing structures (path dependency) and to political preferences. As seen, path dependency makes it difficult to adapt an international trend uniformly. Take-aways How forces of change and persistence interact in administrative practice? Forces of change (sociological new institutionalism). There is usually not one administrative trend at the time but competing norms and ideas, advocated by IOs and professional networks. In practice, politicians and public managers are exposed to a nb of competing norms and trends. Forces of persistence and administrative legacies (historical institutionalism). They may prescribe different practices and logics that overlap. Keywords fletched transaction costs insider information sluggish to outline Page sur 91 1  Part III. Variations in PA Session 10 Structures & administrative capacity in historical perspective Variations in PA can follow: Path dependency, adhering to traditions. Isomorphism, following trends. Reading Ziblatt, D. (2006) Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism, Chapter 1, pp. 1-17. Ziblatt outlines the puzzle of federalism through a comparative historical analysis based on individual cases and paths. He tackles the questions of power linked to federalism (political science). He also focuses on the state and administrative capacities for a federal state (public administration). Federalism According to Ziblatt (2006), federal nation-states have subnational sovereign governments that possess 3 constitutionally embedded institutional characteristics that tend to cluster together: 1. Formal and informal access in the decision-making process of national governments. 2. A subnational public finance discretion (regarding taxing and spending). 3. Administrative autonomy of regional governments within a nation-state. CASE SELECTION Germany and Italy Research question 1. What gives rise to national unification in Italy and Germany? Research question 2. What determines if the new state is federal or unitary? ➥ RQ1: Comparison within and btw Italy and Germany ➥ RQ2: Comparison of Italy and Germany and internal regional constellations, as most similar cases (Mill’s method of difference). Research design: Ziblatt selects similar comparative cases but with diverging outcomes to keep alternative explanatory factors constant. In the 1850s and 1860s, two states—Piedmont in Italy and Prussia in Germany—undertook the national unification of the Italian and German states under similar ideological, cultural, and power-structural conditions that ought to have led to similar institutional outcomes. In Italy, Ziblatt discovered a lack of preconditions for negotiations (e.g., lack of rationalization of authority, parliamentary tradition, and development of administration). Similarly, there was a lack of preconditions for federalism in Italy (e.g., no extractive capacity of the state, coercive capacity, and regulative capacity). On the contrary, in Germany, he highlighted fulfilled preconditions for federalism. Results Through a comparative historical analysis of 18 cases, Ziblatt proceeded to (i) an analysis of causal mechanisms, (ii) an emphasis on processes over time and sequencing and (iii) contextualized comparisons of historical cases. Page sur 1 1 1 0  Part III. Variations in PA Path dependency and isomorphism Path dependency Important legacies of pre-national states matter. Decisions at historical critical junctures have long-term effects. Traditions are sometimes superficial explanations. Isomorphism Similar norms: nationalism, federalism. The spread or existence of norms is not sufficient for adopting a structure or model. Capacity is also required. Page sur 1 1 1 1