William Niskanen's theory of Bureaucracy and Representative Government predicts that the interaction of rational vote-maximizing politicians and rational budget-maximizing bureaucrats will lead to an oversupply of bureaucratic goods and services. The demand, supply and motivational components of this model are all shown to be flawed; and the oversupply conclusion therefore fails to follow. A revised model constructed from the elements that can be salvaged from this critique suggests that rational mission-committed politicians and bureaucrats join in a policy-making oligopoly, run internally on the basis of trust and externally on the manipulation of information. This leads to a skewing (rather than a simple oversupply) of bureaucratic goods and services. Some evidence suggests that this model fits British as well as American policy-making.

Rational politicians and rational bureaucrats in washington and whitehall

In this paper we seek to develop a ‘relational’ perspective on accountability and on so-called ‘unaccountability.’. We focus on Mark Bovens’s use of the forum metaphor in his accountability model, arguing that his relational perspective is too narrow. We advocate instead a far broader and more fundamental engagement with the idea of relational accountability. Expanding the metaphors, we point to two other accountability spaces: ‘agora,’ a primordial accountability space and ‘bazaar,’ an emergent accountability space rooted in ground-level exchange between dierent actors. Assertions about ‘unaccountability,’ we argue, very often reect a failure to appreciate the fundamentally relational nature of accountability: those who use such assertions as bases for action aimed at making situations, processes or people ‘more accountable’ in fact seek to assert or impose a certain form of relationship ‐ one that is hierarchical and monopolistic ‐ and reect therefore a drive to power and domination.

/pdf/accountability-and-its-metaphors-from-forum-to-agora-and-v7o8wv1ixo.pdf

Accountability and its Metaphors: From Forum to Agora and Bazaar

. According to the bureaucratic politics approach to policy making, an appreciation of competition and conflict among bureaucrats is considered to be critical for an understanding of decision outcomes. In this paper, we employ the bureaucratic politics model to assess the outcomes of the initial phase of the Canadian government's new fighter aircraft (NFA) program, which began in March 1977 with cabinet approval of the procurement and ended in April 1980 when cabinet announced the selection of the McDonnell Douglas F-18A Hornet. This paper examines the interests of the three departments responsible for furnishing cabinet with recommendations - National Defence, Supply and Services, and Industry, Trade and Commerce. We examine instances of conflict among the bureaus involved, but conclude that, overall, conflict was relatively muted in this case. Three reasons are offered to explain why conflict between departments was not endemic to the NFA program, and several broader conclusions are drawn about the applicability and utility of the bureaucratic politics approach.

Sommaire. D'apres l'approche de politique bureaucratique en matiere d'elaboration de politiques, l'on considere qu'il est tres important d'evaluer les rivalites et les conflits existants entre les bureaucrates pour comprendre les consequences d'une decision. Dans le present article, les auteilrs se servent du modele de politique bureaucratique pour evaluer les consequences de la phase initiale du programme federal Nouvel avion de chasse (NAC). Cette phase a debute en mars 1977 lorsque le conseil des ministres a approuve l'acquisition d'un tel avion et s'est teminee en avril 1980 avec la selection du F-18A Hornet de McDonnell Douglas. Cet article examine les interets des trois ministeres charges de presenter leurs recommandations au cabinet, a savoir: la Defense nationale, Approvisionnements et Services, et Industrie et Commerce. Il etudie les cas de conflits entre les services concernes mais conclue que dans l'ensemble, dans le cas en question, les conflits etaient pratiquement inexistants. Les auteurs donnent trois raisons expliquant pourquoi il n'y a pas eu de conflits ende miques entre les ministeres a propos de ce programme NAC et ils tirent plusieurs conclusions plus generales au sujet de I'applicabilite et de l'utilite de l'approche de poli tique bureaucratique.

Bureaucratic politics and the new fighter aircraft decisions

In this chapter, we address the many different meanings that accountability harbors and examine the effects of such complex and multifaceted interpretations in the light of governance quality. We seek to develop a ‘relational’ perspective on accountability and on the so-called ‘unaccountability.’ We focus on Mark Bovens’s use of the forum metaphor in his accountability model, arguing that his relational perspective is too narrow. We advocate instead a far broader and more fundamental engagement with the idea of relational accountability. Expanding the metaphors, we point to two other accountability spaces: ‘agora,’ a primordial accountability space and ‘bazaar,’ an emergent accountability space rooted in ground-level exchange between different actors. Assertions about ‘unaccountability,’ we argue, very often reflect a failure to appreciate the fundamentally relational nature of accountability: those who use such assertions as bases for action aimed at making situations, processes, or people ‘more accountable’ in fact seek to assert or impose a certain form of relationship—one that is hierarchical and monopolistic—and reflect therefore a drive to power and domination. This represents a violation of accountability at the cost of the overall quality of governance.

/pdf/dissecting-the-semantics-of-accountability-and-its-misuse-2tgsq7v0v6.pdf

Dissecting the Semantics of Accountability and Its Misuse

Samenlevingen raken van tijd tot tijd ontwricht door economische crises. Arthur Wassenberg onderzocht de instabiliteiten die het gevolg zijn van coordinatietekorten die van binnenuit, vanuit de politieke economie zelf, tot ontregeling van het maatschappelijk verkeer leiden. De meest radicale ontwrichtingen ontstaan wanneer de financiele bovenbouw geen getrouwe weerspiegeling is van de werkelijke afhankelijkheidsverhoudingen in de economische onderbouw. Het is niet eenvoudig boven- en onderbouw te scheiden. Hetzelfde geldt voor het private en publieke deel van het financiele systeem en de werkelijke economie. De onderlinge vervlechtingen zijn daartoe te groot. Om oorzaak en gevolg van de golfbewegingen tussen economische orde en wanorde op het spoor te komen is het echter zaak te onderscheiden wat in de werkelijkheid niet gescheiden is. Wassenberg komt hiertoe met een politiek-economische speltheorie.

/pdf/capitalist-discipline-on-the-orchestration-of-corporate-2348x8tf8j.pdf

Capitalist Discipline: On the orchestration of Corporate Games

The logic of bureaucratic back scratching

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Robert E. Goodin

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

The logic of bureaucratic back scratching