International Public Administration Research Articles

Review: Independent Diplomat

INDEPENDENT DIPLOMAT Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite Carne Ross London: Hurst, 2007. 25opp, US$25.oo (ISBN 1850658439).In this short, sharp, and highly personal volume former British diplomat Carne Ross excoriates the practice of contemporary diplomacy and savages the international system in which it operates. Now on the outside looking in, and working for several of the very clients he previously disdained, Ross recoils at the stifling clubbiness and exclusivity with which he was until recently quite comfortable. His is an unforgiving polemic, consisting mainly of anecdotes drawn from his 15 years of experience in the Foreign and Commonwealth office between 1989 and 2004, interspersed with brief and eclectic forays into history, political theory, and philosophy.Independent Diplomat is a good read, and not just for envoys present and past. The author's discussion of the dynamics of crisis management and the intrigues of bureaucratic process have broad implications for international policy development, public administration, and political science. His insider's description of great power machinations during the Iraq sanctions and WMD debates is particularly telling in this respect, as are his accounts of events concerning the former Yugoslavia and Western Sahara.Ross learned much over the course of his work in London, postings to the British embassies in Bonn and Oslo, short stints in Kabul and Kosovo, and, especially, during his years in the UK mission to the UN security council in New York in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. His vivid-if unremittingly bleak-characterization of ambitious careerism, mindless conventionality, and rigid adherence to tradition and hierarchy is likely to cause even the most ardent multilateralists to gasp. Caustic descriptions of what he sees as the set-piece vacuity of international negotiations, the vainglorious qualities of diplomatic communications, and the vapid insularity of diplomatic life in far-off places are similarly memorable.For Ross, however, it is not just about denouncing diplomacy as narrow, exclusionary, and unrepresentative, although this is done vigorously and in spades. The real issue for the author is what all ofthat means. In his view, the international system, its institutions, and those who work them are not only dishonest but dysfunctional, all in the face of grave global challenges and at the expense of those least able to defend their interests. These kinds of conclusions cause Ross's blood to boil and carry ramifications extending well beyond the ambit of those directly involved.The author demonstrates a great deal of self-awareness as he relates his progress towards the avowedly cathartic decision to resign from the FCO. His personal journey-not unlike leaving the priesthood-is never dull and at times harrowing. That said, the author's lingering anger and frustration may have obscured his apprehension of some key markers, particularly those associated with the transition from the Cold War to the globalization age. Although this is precisely the period covered in his text, at times Ross's intense preoccupation with his own personal experience seems to blind him to the larger picture.In other words, while Independent Diplomat is very strong in exposing diplomacy's foibles and in revealing the underside of statecraft, it does not really get to why the crisis has developed, or what might be-or is beingdone in response. The few loose prescriptions offered near the end-the abolition of formal diplomacy, radical reform of international institutions, democratization of decision-making, and the formation of global political parties-are unfortunately not fully explored. It would have been particularly helpful if Ross had developed and contextualized the eight-point critique he set out in the introduction, possibly within the framework of a consideration in subsequent chapters of trends in the international political economy. Perhaps in his next book. …

RESTRUCTURING WEBERIAN BUREAUCRACY: COMPARING MANAGERIAL REFORMS IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES

In much of the international public administration literature, New Public Management (NPM) already appears to be bogged down in a quagmire of critical revisions and assessments. Although some criticisms are well founded, there can be no doubt that NPM represents a trend which has considerably affected public‐sector decision‐making worldwide. This article takes the examples of the Southern European bureaucracies, where NPM‐inspired reforms were introduced later than in the English‐speaking world, but have nevertheless played a decisive role in the political agenda of both socialist and conservative governments. The paper presents the results of a comparative study of administrative reforms in five European countries as well as the USA during the 1980s and 1990s. The comparison is based on three specific dimensions (central bureaucracies’ formal structure; civil service organization; administrative processes), enabling us to systematically measure and compare the progress of the various countries subsequent to the cycle of managerial reforms.

Toward Participatory and Transparent Governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government:

The Global Forum on Reinventing Government has made government reform and new forms of comparative public administration and politics global issues. Since the forum was initiated in the United States in 1999, it has been held in locations around the world with broad representation. Yet the proceedings of these forums have not been fully reported to the international public administration community. This paper reports on the ideas on reinventing governance that emerged from the Sixth Global Forum. Many of the participants in the forum came from developing countries, so the paper also provides ideas and points of view on governance that are beyond the mainstream literature in this area.

The dutch political science association 1950–2000

Founding Years of Discipline and Association Dutch political science claims early roots. In 1613 Daniel Heinsius became Professor of Politices at Leiden University. The various sciences bearing a relation to the state were then regarded as one body of ‘scientia politica’. During the 19th century, however, the juridical-legalistic point of view began to predominate in the theory of the state, and between roughly 1840 and the end of World War II Dutch universities practically neglected the existence of political science proper. Immediately after the war, the University of Amsterdam established a new Faculty of Political and Social Sciences. Its two founding fathers were both historians but as early as the 1930s one of them, Jan Romein, had become well acquainted with American political science. The holders of the first three chairs in political science in the Netherlands, established between 1948 and 1953, had themselves studied law. It was only in 1963, with the appointment of Hans Daudt in Amsterdam, that the first professor of political science was appointed who had himself studied political science. The appointment of other political scientists, Hans Daalder in Leiden and Andries Hoogerwerf in Nijmegen, soon followed. This new generation of professors signalled the beginning of the development of political science as a separate discipline, with its own subject matter and research methods. At that time, most Dutch political scientists followed the example of their American and English colleagues by embracing behaviouralism and focusing on electoral studies. The Dutch Political Science Association itself was founded in 1950 as the ‘Nederlandse Kring voor Wetenschap der Politiek’ (literally the ‘Dutch Circle for the Science of Politics’). Only a part of its members was made up of political science teachers. Others were constitutional lawyers, economists, historians and sociologists, as well as journalists and politicians. The members met a few times a year to read and discuss papers on subjects related to political science. Papers on public administration and international relations were discussed in two other bodies, the ‘Instituut voor Bestuurswetenschappen’ (‘Institute for Administrative Sciences’), established in 1939, and the ‘Genootschap voor Internationale Zaken’ (‘Society for International Affairs’), which had begun in 1947 to publish the monthly journal Internationale Spectator. This situation was and is rather typical for Dutch political science. Where in many other countries international relations and public administration are part of political science, in the same way that comparative politics and electoral studies are, in the Netherlands they stand more or less apart. In the founding years of the discipline, this had much to do on the one hand with the left-wing origins of the Amsterdam Faculty of Political and Social Sciences (which was called the ‘red Faculty’), and on the other hand with the fact that at that time the great majority of diplomats and public administrators (who had often worked in the Dutch East Indies) had studied law in Leiden. The latter could not easily identify with the new discipline and its ambitions and kept aloof.

Looking beyond the Mirror: Toward an International Public Administration Theory

This article provides a review of the Inaugural Regional Symposium of the Public Administration Theory Network (PAT-Net), sponsored by the University of Western Sydney-Nepean and held in Sydney, Australia, July 22nd to 24th, 1999. The discussion at the Symposium should be understood in the larger context of globalization and its impact on the Asian region. Generally, the Symposium signals the need for a truly international public administration theory that goes beyond the Euro-American centrism of current administrative thought.

Globalization of Human Resource Management: A Cross-Cultural Perspective for the Public Sector

Human resource management can include two large areas: personnel management and development functions. This paper attempts to shed light on development functions, which have tended to be somewhat disregarded in traditional public personnel administration and international public administration education. The primary objective is to answer some of the most critical questions regarding human resources in a global perspective. How can executives develop a multicultural management group? What role should human resources play in the management of negotiations and international collaboration? How can cross-cultural competencies best be developed?

Comparative and International Public Administration: Building Intellectual Bridges

The Section on International and Comparative Administration (SICA) of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) is 25 years old. This is an opportune time both for retrospection and for looking ahead. My purpose, however, is not to undertake a balanced analysis of achievements and shortcomings--I hope others will do that--but to examine closely only one aspect of the history of SICA. In my opinion, SICA has not yet succeeded in its long-standing mission of bringing together comparative and international public administration. The task is a complicated one because the intellectual history of the two subfields has been so different. But there are areas of overlap and problems that would benefit from a more integrated point of view. With a slight reorientation of focus, SICA can facilitate substantive progress in both fields. SICA Origins SICA resulted from the abolition of two earlier ASPA entities and the merger of their functions in a single new one. These were the Comparative Administration Group (CAG) and the International Committee. The Comparative Administration Group had been, since its creation in 1960, the center of action for the comparative administration movement, which flourished for more than a decade under the chairmanship of Fred W. Riggs. The International Committee had been in existence considerably longer, under the leadership of several different chairs (most notably Charles Ascher), with ups and downs in the level of its programs and frequent changes of focus for its activities, but with its most consistent interest being the maintenance of U.S. ties with organizations such as the International Institute of Administrative Sciences. I was chair of this committee when SICA was created. The consolidation presumably assumed that there were advantages to be gained by combining in one place ASPA's interests in comparative and in international administration. The SICA Record SICA has accomplished much over 25 years, but it has not succeeded in bringing its two components together in a meaningful way. In my view, the focus of attention has shifted frequently as occupants of the SICA chair and members of the executive committee have changed, with some having moire of a comparative and some more of an international perspective. Most SICA projects have had either a comparative or an international focus. Few have been deliberately aimed at exploring the current relationships between these two aspects of administrative studies, of at integrating them better. This is what I propose should receive more systematic attention. I am not attempting to assess the multiple contributions of individual members of SICA, either as researchers or practitioners. These contributions have been significant, but they have not been the result of SICA initiatives, and with few exceptions they have not focused on the interconnections between comparative and international administration. Past Subfield Relationships My suggestion for SICA's agenda is the outgrowth of efforts on my part to explore the relationships between the subfields of comparative public administration and international public administration. My initial findings were published several years ago (Heady, 1989) and have been recently updated (Heady, 1998). My conclusion in 1989 was that mi the put these two fields of interest had been dealt with separately rather than mi tandem, and that a gradual convergence of effort would be of benefit to both the comparative and international components of studies in public administration. Since 1989, I have seen little evidence that this convergence is actually taking place. SICA should make bringing the two subfields closer together a major program objective. To understand what needs to be done and why, we need to examine how these two subfields have evolved. International public administration is concerned with the administrative operations of agencies created by sovereign nation-states as instrumentalities for international or regional cooperation. …

Total Quality Management: A Selective Commentary on Its Human Dimensions, with Special Reference to Its Downside

Total Quality Management (TQM) is bent on transforming the way organizations work. Many people, not just Al Gore, seem to think that this is a pretty good thing. These days one rarely picks up an academic review, professional journal, or trade publication without seeing commitment to quality lauded. Indeed, Christopher Pollitt (1993, 180) observes that the basic elements of the New Public Management, the international public administration fad of the nineties (Mintzberg, 1996), are a constant rhetorical emphasis on the need to Improve service quality and an equally relentless emphasis on customer satisfaction. To explore the implications of TQM, my school recently sponsored a series of workshop/seminars on the subject. I was asked to take part, and my assignment was to lead a discussion of the so-called human side of TQM. In particular, my charge was to discuss what a constant rhetorical emphasis on the need to improve service quality means for the people who do the work of organizations and what it does to them. Discussions of statistical process control procedures, plan/do/check/act cycles, implementation issues and the like, were left to other workshop sessions. I approached this assignment neither as a committed believer, of which there are many in the academic and administrative worlds, nor as an antagonist., Rather, I wanted to find out what this--what to call it? philosophy, school of thought, administrative approach, set of procedures?--has to offer on the people side. In any event, this assignment gave me the opportunity to think more seriously than I had before about the subject. This article is the result of that thinking. Its purpose is to offer a commentary on the people side of the quality movement, and it is composed of three parts: a look backward, in the form of a brief and selective review of the quality movement; a look inward, particularly with observations about its downside; and a look forward, which comprises a concluding admonition and reminder. Certainly I am not the first to offer a critical look at the movement. Others have noted that TQM can be hard to implement (Harari, 1992; Radin and Coffee, 1993; Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo, 1996, 15), or suggested that its orthodox form is inappropriate to public-sector organizations (Swiss, 1992), or denied that it is comparable with the cultural realities of public administration (Rago, 1994; Kim, 1995). However, it has rarely been observed that TQM might be costly to the organization and its members, let alone that there might be situations where successful implementation of TQM could do more harm than good. Looking Backward: A Brief Review of Quality The quality movement has one core idea: goods and services must achieve the highest attainable quality; nothing less will do. Hence, the past decade or so has seen the rise of a philosophy aimed at maximizing organizational quality (see, for example, Carr and Littman, 1993; Cohen and Brand, 1993; Berman and West, 1995; and Mani, 1995). Understanding the quality movement means that we must first understand the implications of maximizing organizational quality and its assumptions. What Maximizing Organizational Quality Means The quality concept has been around at least as long as Taylorism, which championed the attaining of quality through inspection (Taylor, 1911; Knouse, Carson, and Carson, 1993). Burns (1994), for example, argues that Robert Owens New Lanark mills operated between 1799 and 1825 under principles highly similar to W. Edwards Deming's (1982; 1986) 14-point prescription (Table 1). Indeed, one can find the origins of the quality movement's most recent manifestation in the last gasps of classic public administration's generic management movement (Juran, 1944; Shewhart and Deming, 1945). Table 1. W Edwards Deming's 14 Points 1. Create constancy of purpose for improvement of product and service. …

In Search of Culture: Lessons From the Past to Find a Role for the Study of Administrative Culture

H. Eckstein could say a few years ago that “political culture theory may plausibly be considered one of two still viable general approaches to political theory and explanation proposed since the early fifties to replace the long‐dominant formalism‐legalism of the field — the other being political rational choice theory” (1988, 789). For the last two decades, the rational choice approach has been dominant and thriving in many fields of political science, whether in international relations, political sociology, public administration or public policy; it has greatly reinforced the theoretical and empirical basis of the explanation of human freedom of action. But it has recently shown some signs of intellectual fatigue. Critics now underscore that, assuming that individuals compare expected benefits and costs of actions prior to adopting strategies for action, is valid and useful only in relatively simple choice situations where information is easily available and interpretable (Elster 1989; Dunleawy 1991). Some neo‐institutionalists have claimed that rationality comes not as means‐end calculus prior to action but rather as an ex‐post justification after choice (March, Olsen 1989; Hall 1986, 15–20). Others have come to say that the rational choice approach, which explains how people ought to act in order to achieve aims and not what these aims ought to be, totally misses the central question of why it is that people have “preferences” and pursue some aims rather than others (Wildavsky 1987; Cook, Levi 1990; Wildavsky 1994). It does not mean that the rational choice approach should be discarded: there should rather be a “contextualization” of rationality which explains both why the same man in different situations or contexts adopts different rationalities, and why in the same context two men can adopt different rationalities (Wildavsky 1994).But the rational choice approach is also showing its limits in the very field where it was born and has blossomed: economics. In a recent issue of a French national newspaper, two articles dealing with economics and development were pointing at the same problem: cultural explanations of economic behavior are needed. In the first article, the former General Secretary of the United Nations, now President of the UNESCO‐UNO World Commission on Culture and Development, J. Perez de Cuellar, advocated a cultural approach of the economic development of the Third World countries in order to find, at last, an enduring and practical solution to their endemic problems (1994). In the second article, a journalist reflecting on why the same hard economic therapies have worked in Poland but not in Russia could only refer to the “specific economic culture of Russia” described by economists (Vernholes 1994).These clear limits imposed upon the rational choice approach have brought culturalist theory back into favor among social scientists. Does this mean that a well‐built culturalist theory might be a new “explanatory panacea, a universal nostrum” (Thompson, Ellis, Wildavsky 1992, 516)? The aim of this article is to try to unravel the cultural approach and assess its potential in the specific field of public administration. To do this, we shall draw on two close but relatively separate disciplines — political science and organizational theory — which we believe (should) meet to give a richer account of administrative reality. Our purpose is to question the recent interest in and utilization of the cultural metaphor(s) by bureaucrats, politicians, “special advisers” and authors in the analysis and implementation of administrative reform. The reason for this inquiry is that, contrary to analysts of private sector organizations, specialists of public sector organizations have not yet seriously addressed a culturalist theory of public administration while acknowledging that there is or there are public administration culture(s). We therefore hope to evaluate the usefulness of a culturalist theory for public administration. In this rather complex theoretical field, we prefer to take the simple solution to try to explain first the classical culturalist theory, and second, the new culturalist theory. Third, we should see whether there is or should be anything specific about administrative culture and a culturalist theory of public administration.

The Brownlow Committee Fifty Years Later

A retrospective approach to an event of half a century ago carries the risk of unwarranted benignity. That risk is compounded if one was, as I, a participant in the event.' I can only declare my interest and proceed with my present task, disciplined by awareness that this year is also the bicentennial of the Constitution, the centennial of Woodrow Wilson's seminal essay, The Study of Administration, and year one of a reaffirmation of the checks and balances system. Let me recall some of the atmosphere in the summer of 1936 when the staff of the President's Committee on Administrative Management was at work. We and the Committee had met for two days in May, but during the summer the Committee members were little in evidence. Louis Brownlow and Charles Merriam spent most of that period in Europe, attending meetings of international public administration organizations and looking at European administrative practices. Before his appointment to the Committee, Luther Gulick had committed himself to a study for the New York State Board of Regents, and, of course, he continued to direct the Institute of Public Administration. That left active management of the staff's work to Joseph P. Harris, the Committee's Director of Research. His distinguished contribution has been too little credited in

Teaching of international and comparative public administration in MPA programmes in the united states

Teaching of international and comparative public administration in MPA programmes in the united states

I Centers

The American University offers courses in the study of Africa among different disciplines and also Africa area studies on an interdisciplinary basis. It is recognized that there is a need for people who have a specialized discipline in one aspect of Africa, such as anthropology, linguistics, history, economics, or political science. There is also a need for a “general practitioner” (interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary) approach. Students are given the opportunity to pursue either procedure, or a combination of these procedures. A student may study for an M.A. in African area studies, or for an M.A. or Ph.D. in international relations, government and public administration, business administration, or in one of the other disciplines in The American University, with an emphasis on Africa. A student may also study for an M.I.S. (Master of International Service), with an emphasis on Africa. The larger proportion of the graduate students in African studies have already had some professional experience in Africa and come here for either strengthening special needs or for more general breadth for their future work related to Africa. The American University provides an opportunity for a flexible program to meet particular needs as well as general interests of students. The African Studies Program at The American University in Washington, D.C. has the special advantages of close association with African embassies, U.S. government departments, and the United Nations, in addition to research facilities of the Library of Congress. Students here also have the opportunity for contact with scholars who are specializing in other ares of the world which are having increasing relationships with Africa - - including Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Military Leaders and Foreign Policy-Making

A survey of the literature of the last decade in the burgeoning interdisciplinary field which has come to be known—rather imprecisely—as civil-military relations, reveals a large number of descriptive and prescriptive, operational and theoretical studies, but little unity of focus or method. The interested shopper finds himself in a veritable department store filled with a wide assortment—including those in the bargain basement. Spurred on by wartime experiences and Cold War exigencies, historians and social scientists, physical scientists and journalists—above all in the United States—have covered reams of paper with discussions of the relationship between arms and men, war and peace, strategy and policy, defense and diplomacy. Displaying a great variety of analytical depth, breadth and sophistication, some of these studies have advanced our knowledge of civil-military relations—particularly in contemporary America—while others have failed to survive changes in international politics and weapons technology. Some writers, both of conservative and liberal orientation, have focused on the “appropriate” role for the military in state and society; others have sought to remain detached from such normative questions in order to concentrate on micro-descriptive phenomenal studies or more or less abstract macro-analytical theoretical models. Between the earth-bound descriptive and prescriptive studies on the one hand, and the soaring theoretical efforts on the other has loomed a wide gap, all too familiar to students of international relations, comparative politics, and public administration, waiting to be bridged—if bridged it can be—by empirical theories of civil-military relationships.

Public Relations in International Technical Assistance

THERE is much that is useful in Technical Assistance: A Challenge to Public Administration, the article by Albert Lepawsky published in the Winter, 1956, issue of Public Administration Review. The record will show, however, that Mr. Lepawsky is in error in his comments on the dubious value of public relations courses in international public administration training programs. This article is a rejoinder to this point, based primarily upon the author's experience in Brazil and in Central America. Mr. Lepawsky remarks as follows:

“INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION”: Problems of International Administration

Public AdministrationVolume 23, Issue 1 p. 2-12 “INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION”: Problems of International Administration Professor Dvaid Mitrany Ph.D., D.Sc. (Lond.), Professor Dvaid Mitrany Ph.D., D.Sc. (Lond.) [Paper discussed at a Joint Conference arranged by the Institute of Public Administration and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.]Search for more papers by this author Professor Dvaid Mitrany Ph.D., D.Sc. (Lond.), Professor Dvaid Mitrany Ph.D., D.Sc. (Lond.) [Paper discussed at a Joint Conference arranged by the Institute of Public Administration and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.]Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1945 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1945.tb01917.xCitations: 3AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume23, Issue1March 1945Pages 2-12 RelatedInformation