Search

Towards the end of our journey we try to synthesize the general ideas and rationales, models and findings, we used to present case for better governance in modern democracies. We focused on the need to maintain some balance between the quest for professional, quality-based management of the public sector and the aspiration to safeguard the essential fabric of democratic nations, including democratic values, trust in government, and the authentic participation of citizens in society. Specifically, we emphasize the important role of citizens in maintaining public accountability and responsibility as well as in improving institutional quality. This task is rarely carried out in modern democracies due to the complex interaction of culture, the basic human motivation of self-interest, and mistrust in public institutions. Nevertheless, we suggest that increasing citizens' involvement in public life is a crucial step towards strengthening the democratic order and stress that public administrators can serve as a necessary bridge between citizens and the political system. Administrative innovation and entrepreneurship can and should be the basis for developing trust in government as well as easing the conflict between democracy and bureaucracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the previous chapter we discussed the models of democracy and the prospects of bureaucracy as well as the nexus, some say the paradox, between them. In this chapter we try to draw the lines connecting between those segments of bureaucracy and democracy using a theoretical model and based on an empirical analysis of some of the relationships. First, we present the rationale for our conceptual model and demonstrate the links among its constructs. Then, we offer four layers of empirical analysis based on four separate independent samples. The first sample includes data collected in Israel during 2001–2012. The second consists of data collected at the national level in the US during 2010. The third contains data collected in New Jersey during 2010. The fourth includes data about the attitudes of Israeli citizens towards a nationwide organization–the Israeli National Insurance Institute (INI)–as well as the attitudes of employees in that organization towards their own organization. Finally, we summarize the insights that emerge from these empirical analyses and discuss the implications of the conceptual model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter reviews current epistemological knowledge about bureaucracy and democracy and develops the argument for a paradox that characterizes their interaction. We will present conceptual approaches to the understanding of bureaucracy and democracy, explain the paradox, and lead the reader through the theoretical thinking that allows the transformation of our ideas into an empirical model that can be tested. An interdisciplinary approach will be used to describe and explain the paradox that has evolved between democracy and bureaucracy in the face of the rapid changes in, risks to, and turbulent events in democracies in the twenty-first century. We defend an eclectic and integrative view that applies knowledge not only from political science or public administration, but also from the fields of sociology, economics, law, communication, management, business, and other disciplines. We believe that this is an effective approach and the vision necessary for building effective governability and modern public management in the democracies of our time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter focuses on the threats to the democratic order. We submit that such threats come not only from external enemies that share anti-democratic ideologies such as fundamentalist Islam, right-wing fascist parties and extremist right social groups, or neo-anarchist groups. An even more insidious threat may come from the lack of systematic managerial thinking in the public sector as well as the failure to adjustment to transformations in the neighborhoods of democracies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the old challenges in the management of states and society relates to the relationship between politics and administration or between those who represent collective goals and those who have expertise and knowledge about good management. Plato describes this dilemma, concluding that philosophers who represent the truth and knowledge should also rule (Grube 1974). This dilemma is also present in the writings of many other political thinkers throughout history. In modern states this dilemma relates to the constitutional setting and poses significant political and managerial challenges. This chapter analyzes the complex relationships between politics and administration in two main regards. First, using political economy models, we analyze the inherent, some might say classical, conflict between politicians and bureaucrats as well as the methods of political control over the bureaucracy. We show that indirect control methods that attempt to weaken the bureaucrats' control over resources such as information tend to benefit society more than direct methods that work through benefit-cost calculations. We conclude by highlighting the important role of bureaucratic entrepreneurs in reform processes because they can frequently counter the power of politics and politicians. Finally, we suggest that public administrators are the key intermediaries between the public and politicians and are the main source for restoring trust in the public sector and in the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can democracies, especially in times of stress and uncertainty, be managed effectively? If so, with what tools and at what price? This chapter will deal with the core dilemmas of managing modern democracies. We will review the relevant transformations of the modern democratic state that have created such difficult challenges for politicians and policy makers. We will explain why a different, integrative, approach for managing the modern state is so important and what the added value of a solid theoretical framework is in this regard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

February 2011 will be remembered in the history of modern nations as the doomsday of Arab regimes in many places across the Middle East. Revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and other Muslim countries reflected the deep crisis of citizens' mistrust in old political arrangements, authoritarian institutions, and corrupt dictatorships. Mistrust in governance and continuous frustration with the lack of social and administrative reforms sent thousands of people into the streets, willing to risk their lives for liberty and the chance of a better life in any type of more open and liberal state. While we write these lines, the outcomes of this revolutionary process are still not clear. Every day brings new surprises and dramatic turnarounds. Nevertheless, the wheel of change has started to move in what seemed only a few weeks ago to be a different planet of political order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]