0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
132 vizualizări20 pagini
Political-administrative relations became an issue once politicians and administrators came to be considered as distinct actors in the public realm. But it took almost two centuries before it became an object of systematic empirical study in a comparative perspective. KWANG-HOON LEE and JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS discuss the intellectual attention for this topic since the early nineteenth century.
Descriere originală:
Titlu original
LEE&RAADSCHELDERS_ Political-Administrative Relations_Impact of and Puzzles in Aberbach, Putnam, and Rockman, 1981.pdf
Political-administrative relations became an issue once politicians and administrators came to be considered as distinct actors in the public realm. But it took almost two centuries before it became an object of systematic empirical study in a comparative perspective. KWANG-HOON LEE and JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS discuss the intellectual attention for this topic since the early nineteenth century.
Political-administrative relations became an issue once politicians and administrators came to be considered as distinct actors in the public realm. But it took almost two centuries before it became an object of systematic empirical study in a comparative perspective. KWANG-HOON LEE and JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS discuss the intellectual attention for this topic since the early nineteenth century.
KWANG-HOON LEE* and JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS* Political-administrative relations became an issue once politicians and administrators came to be considered as distinct actors in the public realm. This happened in the late eighteenth century, and several authors since then explored the nature of this relationship in normative and/or juridical terms. But it took almost two centuries before it became an object of systematic empirical study in a comparative perspective: Aberbach, Putnam, and Rockman (APR 1981). The APR study was the rst to use survey methods and to advance empirically based theory. In this article we discuss the intellectual attention for this topic since the early nineteenth century, APRs ndings and impact andgiven APRs inuence upon methods some intriguing problems with the framework that they developed. Finally we list some potential new avenues of research. Introduction The interest inpolitical-administrative relations andconcernabout bureau- cratization dates back to the nineteenth century, but until the 1940s studies were either normative by nature, advocating some degree of separation between politics and administration (in the United States, e.g., Goodnow 1900; Wilson [1887] 2005) or discussed the growing inuence of civil servants on policymaking (Appleby 1949; Leys 1943; Weber 1985). After the 1940s scholars increasingly argued that the politics-administration dichotomy did not reect the emerging reality of increasing civil service discretion and inuence (e.g., Mosher [1968] 1982; Svara 1985, 1998, 2001) and that empirical research was needed to illuminate the dynamics of the relation between politicians and bureaucrats. Surprisingly, systematic data collection and analysis of the development and status of political-administrative relations was not done until the 1970s. The research presented by Aberbach, Putnam and Rockman (here- after APR, 1981) is the rst comparative book-length manuscript. 1 Since the publication of Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies, the study of political-administrative relations has blossomed and expanded. This article demonstrates how the APR study ts in the intellectual devel- opment of attention for this topic. *University of Oklahoma Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 21, No. 3, July 2008 (pp. 419438). 2008 The Authors Journal compilation 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK. ISSN 0952-1895 We will rst briey trace the study of political-administrative relations to the intellectual tradition of Hegels political theory and to Webers comparative-historical observations (rst section). Next we discuss the content and main theses of APRs book and subsequent studies (second section). Then we address APRs impact on the substantive study of political-administrative relations (third section) and examine some intriguing problems in their theory and methodology (fourth section). The latter is important because their approach has been quite inuential and often replicated. We will conclude with some observations about emerging lines of research (fth section). The Intellectual Attention for Political-Administrative Relations In light of history, the distinction between politicians and administrators is very recent. For most of history, government ofces were held by individu- als belonging to the social-economic elite, while the populationat large had little to no inuence. The distinction made between political and nonpo- litical, that is, administrative, ofceholders rests basically upon the need for a less corrupt and more expert civil service that was separate from the direct and personal inuence of politics so that knowledgeable and meri- torious candidates rather than friends or relatives would be appointed. Such a nonpoliticized bureaucracy emerged in Europe between 17801830 (Church 1981, 129; Hattenhauer 1978, 182; Parris 1969, 33). Since the 1780s the number of nonpolitical, civil service career positions started to become signicantly larger than that of political (elected or politically appointed) positions in public organizations (Chester 1981, 286). For instance, the percentage of civil servants (i.e., white collar, desk workers) in four Dutch municipalities amounted from 5.4% in 1800 to 31.1% in 1980, while that of political ofceholders declined froma little more than 11%in 1800 to about 2.5% in 1980 (Raadschelders 1994, 417). Hegel is the rst scholar to consider the role and position of civil servants in relation to the executive as part of a more encompassing philosophy of right (Gale and Hummel 2003; Shaw 1992). He holds that executive power depends upon civil servants (Hegel [1821] 1942, 189190) given their impartiality and their knowledge and proof of ability (190 192). To Hegel a civil servant is more than a mere mechanical executor of political will and brings moral consciousness to an otherwise technical administrative activity. Civil servants are supposed to be recruited from among a politically conscious and educated middle class that is the pillar of the state (193, 291). He argues that contemporary civil servants are the new Platonic guardians of the universal (i.e., state) will. 2 In this sense, Hegels perspective is normative and juridical. It was Weber who developed a sociological perspective on political- administrative relations without disregarding the normative and juridical angles. He believed that civil servants should remain outside the realmof the [political] struggle of power (Weber 1968, 1404). 3 They were respon- 420 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS sible for sincerely executing orders of their political leaders. At the same time, though, Weber found that no action or problem is so technical that it is without political content, foreshadowing Waldos point of view some decades later. In addition, Weber emphasized a legal, rational, and expert bureaucracy as necessary, arguing that a less competent administrative staff might prove a more pliable instrument . . . in a political system based on strongly-held beliefs (Diamant 1962, 85). He also acknowledged the emerging power of bureaucracy when observing that [i]n a modern state the actual ruler is necessarily and unavoidably the bureaucracy. . . . It is [civil servants] who decide on all our everyday needs and problems (Weber 1968, 1393). The distinction between Hegel and Weber is also visible in the works of Goodnow and Wilson. Goodnow is closer to Hegel than to Weber for advocating a (nonspecied) degree of administrative independence, that is, that administration should mostly be separate from politics in order to avoid corruption (Goodnow 1900, 45, 82). Wilson appears to separate the politics and administration on a basis more comparable to Weber, regard- ing administration as the application of technical principles. In practice as in theory, the distinction between civil servants and politicians solidied in Europe fromthe early nineteenth century. In the United States and at the end of that century, advocates of scientic management focused on ef- ciency while social reformers clamored for anticorruption measures. Both groups asserted that efciency and reform would be best served if admin- istration were largely separated from politics. The role of administrators continued to increase and even overshadowed that of political ofcehold- ers (Leys 1943). In response to growing bureaucratic inuence throughout the twentieth century, increased political control over bureaucratic power was advocated (Weber 1968, 1408, 1417). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century new political ofces were created (Lee and Raadschelders 2005; Light 1995) and (new) top civil service positions were politicized (see Raadschelders and Van der Meer 1998, 2833). Throughout the twentieth century politicians have created agencies outside direct bureaucratic (i.e., departmental) control, and in the latter part of the twen- tieth century performance measures and benchmarking represent efforts to make bureaucratic activity even more transparent. Findings in APR and Changes since Then The APR study was initiated by the University of Michigans Comparative Elites Project, which aimed to collect data about attitudes and beliefs of top political and administrative ofceholders. 4 The data for the study were gathered mainly between 1970 and 1974 on the basis of open-ended, yet largely structured interviews with top ofcials (APR 1981, 33). 5 Bureau- crats and Politicians in Western Democracies (1981) included material on Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States, and was the capstone to a project that had led to 17 articles and POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 421 several books up to 1981. 6 The behavioral and attitudinal data was system- atically presented throughout the book and interpreted in terms of a framework of four images of political-administrative relations. Both the data as well as the fourth of their images have attracted much attention. 7 The four images of interaction between political and bureaucratic ofceholders (Table 1) have been subject to much discussion and misun- derstanding and even confusion. The authors assumed Image I and II as more descriptive of bureaucrats at lower levels, while considering Image III and IV as more illustrative of the higher levels (APR 1981, 20). Inter- preting their ndings in light of the four images, APR concluded that the civil servants role had evolved from Image I to II and even III. They carefully voiced the potential for advancing toward Image IV (238239). APR presented the social, economic, educational, and political charac- teristics of civil servants. Generally, civil servants came from more privi- leged social origins than political ofceholders and were not very representative of the population, especially so in France and Italy (APR 1981, 51, 56, 6164). They enjoyed a higher educational background with an emphasis on law in France and Germany, on the humanities in Britain, and on the hard sciences in the United States (5051). In regard to political ideology, politicians were more inclined to sympathize both with pluralist politics and egalitarian or participatory populism(176190), while bureau- crats appeared to be low on populism (206207). In regard to national characteristics, the British were highest on pluralism, while the Italians were lowest; egalitarianism was strongest in Sweden; and populism surprisingly strong among German civil servants (180181, 188). Next, APR turned to the role of civil servants in policymaking and expressed surprise when nding that bureaucrats were heavily involved in mediating and reconciling interests (8991). At the same time, political ofceholders were clearly more partisan and served more particularistic purposes, while civil servants fullled more the roles of bureau technician and broker, serving a collective purpose (109111). In terms of the inter- TABLE 1 Four Images of Interaction between Political Ofceholders and Civil Servants (APR 1981, 416) Separation Pure Hybrid Image I Image II Image III Image IV Politicians Policy Interests (political sensitivity) Energy (passion, idealism) Civil servants Administration Facts (neutral expertise) Equilibrium (pragmatism, caution) Authors Wilson, Goodnow Simon Rose 422 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS actions between politicians and bureaucrats, they distinguished three types: cabinet bureaucrats insulated from politics (the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden), relatively frequent contacts (Germany and Italy), and interdependency (the United States) (233235). 8 More interest- ingly, the authors noticed clear differences between the United States and Europe on the degree of intertwinement between political and adminis- trative elites. U.S. civil servants played more political roles as advocates, policy entrepreneurs, and even partisans than their European colleagues, while American political ofceholders were more active technicians than their European counterparts (APR 1981, 9498). APR argued that American elites overlapped more than in Europe because of U.S. institu- tional history (243). European civil servants were more situated at the ideological center and slightly more conservative than Members of Parlia- ment, while American bureaucrats were as scattered across the political spectrum as members of Congress but lightly skewed to the left (119125). Has anything changed in political-administrative relations since the publication of APRs book? Generally, little change has been reported in social-cultural background. For instance, despite intense struggles about the role of the public sector through the three decades (1970s1990s), the American higher civil servants still remain a well-educated, experienced, and highly motivated group, as they were in 1970 (Aberbach 2003b). In the United Kingdom, the civil service is still ideologically located in the center and appears to have moved away somewhat from Image III into the direction of Image I (Wilson and Barker 2003). German civil servants are still left of center (Derlien 2003). For Belgium, the civil service is ideologi- cally moderate and right of center (Dierickx 2003). 9 Bigger change has been reported with regard to educational background. By and large, law has become less and the social sciences more important as a preparation for the civil service career. 10 The same phenomenon has been observed in other European countries (Page and Wright 1999, 2007) and in the European Union (Page 1997). With regard to politicization APR (1981) hypothesized that it would not encroach much upon professionalism of bureaucracy, and this was indeed conrmed. At the same time they assumed that partisan appointment would inuence administrative activities (260261), but this was found to be the case only to a limited extent. For instance, despite their partisanship for career development, German civil servants are often critical of the consequences of politicization (Mayntz and Derlien 1989, 399400). The degree of politicization depends more upon institutional factors as coun- tries in the Westminster tradition show. For example, the ideological close- ness between parties and the low number of political transitions keep Canadian deputy ministers from being politicized (Bourgault and Dion 1989, 139140). The Belgian bureaucracy is an interesting case. Belgian senior civil servants are marginalized, since ministerial staffers assist min- isters and act like a hub of contacts among parliamentarians, ministers, and civil servants (Dierickx 2003, 328329). POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 423 Neutrality and politicization of bureaucrats are also inuenced by the historical development of the political system. For instance, in Europe, bureaucracy historically preceded democracy, whereas democracy in the United States was followed by bureaucratization (Derlien 1996, 150; Nelson 1982, 774775). Consequently, U.S. political parties used the emerging bureaucracy for their interests and spoils, while their European counterparts, as more programmatic and disciplined, endeavored to control the growing bureaucracy through, for example, enhanced controls over top career appointments (Nelson 1982, 774775). APR noted that dissimilar attitudes between European and the U.S. elites were attributed to differences in constitutional development, electoral and party systems, and political institutions (2123). In terms of recruitment for top bureau- cratic positions, national differences have been found. The United States appears to emphasize loyalty and political responsiveness to the govern- ment in power; the British model stresses expertise of top-ranking civil servants, while the German model combines loyalty and expertise (Derlien 1996, 156157). In terms of party afliation, while the United States and Britain ban civil servant membership of political parties, Germany and the Netherlands allow it (Derlien 1996, 153). Perhaps the most noticeable difference between APRs initial con- clusions and research results since then regards the degree to which Image IV became less rather than more the direction to which political- administrative relations evolved. Initially, several examples of movement toward Image IV were noticed. For instance, Image IV was considered more possible in the United States than in any other country (Aberbach and Rockman 1988, 23), and a higher civil service as political careerists was in fact rising in the United States (Heclo 1984, 1820, also cited in Campbell and Peters 1988, 93; Light 1995). The blending of expert knowl- edge and political commitment through intertwinement of the Special Advisers to the Prime Minister and the politically partisan think tanks in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s also suggested a movement toward Image IV(Bulmer 1988, 3040). Another example was that Swedish under- secretaries mostly viewed themselves as hybrids between civil servants and politicians in 1990, while they mainly saw themselves as civil servants in 1971 (Ehn et al. 2003, 440). Notwithstanding this perceived increasing intertwinement, political control was observed to have intensied since the early 1980s (Aberbach 2003a; Aberbach and Rockman 1997; Bulmer 1988; Campbell and Wilson 1995; Derlien 2003; Ehn et al. 2003; Mayntz and Derlien 1989). The intensication of political control over bureaucracy may well be due to the inuence of New Public Management (NPM). While the impact of NPM in general varied from country to country, its inuence upon political-administrative relations seems to be quite uni- form. 11 These ndings suggest that the development toward Image IV is not fully formed in some political systems or vary over countries. Theo- retical discussion of Image IV (next section) helps to explain the national variances in the development. 424 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS Impact of APR on the Study of Political-Administrative Relations Until the late 1970s political-administrative relations were often studied as part of a more general analysis of political-administrative systems (Suleiman 1974, 1978, on France; Mayntz 1978, on Germany). The APR study certainly helped in dening this as a research topic in its own right and has had a large impact in terms of substantive focus and methodology. First, the APR study initiated the investigation of the characteristics of top-elected and administrative ofceholders and the relations between them on the basis of interviews rather than the hitherto customary inves- tigation of departments and agencies in the United States. In addition, it started to move comparative study of this phenomenon beyond the United Kingdom and the United States. Second, the study is considered as an example of the empirical inquiry fueled by the behavioral revolution during which theory development was less important than a solid, data- based account of various aspects of bureaucracy (Pierre 1995, 56). Much of this empirical work involves national country studies (Derlien 1992, 295). Finally, and most importantly, judged by the number of replications and further inquiry into national circumstances, APRs work must be regarded as a landmark, having enlarged and enriched the topic. In the words of Campbell (1988) it represented the most direct challenge to the policy/administration dichotomy (246), Derlien (1992) called it an out- standing comparative study (295), and Peters and Pierre (2001, 1) wrote that the standard corpus of literature on the role perceptions and actions of civil servants and politicians comes out of the work of [APR]. It is not until the late 1980s that attention for this topic picks up steam. Consideringthe year of publicationandthe years scholars neededtocollect and report data, this time lag is not surprising. Aberbach and Rockman continued in this area of research, fueling interest through the symposium dedicated to this topic in the inaugural issue of Governance (1988) that contained, next to an introductory article by Aberbach and Rockman (1988), country-specic pieces on the United Kingdom (Bulmer 1988) and Germany (Derlien 1988) and a piece on the politics-administration dichotomy (Campbell and Peters 1988). Aberbach and Rockman (1997, 2000) continued to publish and in 2003 another symposium appeared in Governance (with Aberbach, Derlien, Dierickx, Ehn et al., and Wilson and Barker). Authors inthese two special issues, though, didnot all focus onthe same categories of ofcials and focused on career civil servants relations with political appointees at the top of departments rather than on relations with members of parliament. 12 Next to these two special issues, several articles have beenpublishedsince 1988 that explicitlyrevisit elements of the APR study (Aberbach et al. 1990, comparing United States and Germany; Bourgault and Dion 1989, 1993, on Canada; Campbell 1988, on Image IVin various countries; Genieys 2005, on France; Gregory 1991, onAustralia and New Zealand; Hacek 2006, on Slovenia; Hart and Wille 2006, on the Netherlands; Mayntz and Derlien 1989, on Germany). 13 POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 425 Scholars also expanded and/or rened the four images, specically Image IV. Campbell (1988), and Campbell and Peters (1988) elaborated Image IV by distinguishing three subtypes: Image IV.1 represents the reactive career bureaucrats; Image IV.2a the pro-active, permanent civil servants who operate as policy professional and who exercise cross-cutting gamesmanship; and, Image IV.2b the pro-active, party-political bureaucrat with corner-ghting gamesmanship. Campbell (1988) presented examples of eachinvarious Westerncountries (includingJapan) (250). Gregory(1991) studied the degree to which civil servants were programmatically commit- ted and tolerant of politics, while reminding us of APRs typology of bureaucrats andpoliticians interms of populismandpluralism. He merged Campbells three Image IV subtypes with APRs four images (Table 2). These theoretical elaborations reect that the political-administrative rela- tions in Image IV are not always the same across countries and across governmental departments or agencies. The literature referenced so far concerns political-administrative rela- tions at the level of federal or national government, but APR has also reinvigorated research into the relations between elected ofcials and administrators at the local level both in America and Europe. 14 As far as the local level in the United States is concerned, the study on the council- manager model indeed looked at the political-administrative relations in American cities before APR but focused on suitable functions and divi- sions between elected ofcials and administrators, that is, a juridical per- spective. Many studies since the 1950s found that the roles and powers of city managers had increased (Adrian 1958; Morgan and Kirkpatrick 1972; Reynolds 1965; Saltzstein 1974; Stillman 1974). In the middle of 1980s, Svara (1985) mapped four models of the council- manager system (i.e., political-administrative relations) at the local level on the basis of extensive literature review: a policy-administration dichotomy, mixture in policy, mixture in administration, and co-equals in policy. He observed, though, that none of these captured reality entirely. TABLE 2 Roles of Administrators in Terms of Political Tolerance and Programmatic Commitment (Gregory 1991, 326) Programmatic Commitment Tolerance of Politics High Low High (Pro-active) Political bureaucrats (IV2a, IV.2b) Technocrats (II, IV2a) Low (Reactive) Traditional bureaucrats (IV.1, III) Classical bureaucrats (I, II, III) Note: Close comparison of the original table in Gregory (1991, 326) and the accompanying text (326327) shows that the text is more nuanced than the table. We have adapted the table in the spirit of the text. 426 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS Later Svara (1998) observed that a strict separation of the two spheres was unproductive and that elected ofcials and administrators complemented each other. Politicians should show respect for the administrators com- petence and trust their commitment to accountability and responsiveness (Svara 2001, 179). APR was not referenced in these articles. But, in an extensive empirical and comparative study of political-administrative relations at the top in local government, APR is referenced several times but then to point to similarities and differences in characteristics of and interactions between federal or national and local government elected ofceholders and civil servants (Mouritzen and Svara 2002). Mouritzen and Svara (2002) distinguish four types of administrator roles (Table 3). They insist that the case of separate roles is closest to APRs Image II and that the case of overlapping roles is closest to Image III. They acknowledge the possibility of closer interdependency at the local level but refer to APR and others to argue that complementarity in relation- ships is a general phenomenon at the apex of all governments (287). Since then several articles concerning local government elites have been pub- lished (Dunn and Legge 2002; French and Folz 2004, on the United States; Hansen and Ejersbo 2002, on Denmark; Jacobsen 2005, 2006a, 2006b, on Norway). More study of local civil service systems at large is necessary (cf. Kuhlmann and Bogumil 2007). Even though it is found that the gap between politicians and bureau- crats has been widening since the early 1980s, in particular in the United States (Aberbach and Rockman 1997, 347348), Image IV is nonetheless a powerful image since it forces people to consider the desired nature of interaction between the two groups of public sector actors. We will discuss the features of Image IV in more detail next. Intriguing Problems of the APR Study While APR has greatly advanced and inspired empirical research into political-administrative relations, the theoretical meaning of their work TABLE 3 Models of Political-Administrative Relations Concerning Hierarchical Relations and Relative Distinctness of Ofceholders (Mouritzen and Svara 2002, 2642) Separation of Roles Supremacy of Political Norms High Low High Separation from political involvement but not administrative involvement in policy Autonomous administrator Low Responsive administrators Overlapping roles POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 427 has much less been scrutinized. In this section we will focus on three intriguing problems of the APR study. 15 The rst problem concerns the moment that the theoretical model of four images was constructed. The content of the images is the second problem. The third is by far the most intriguing: the coherence and consistency of the four images framework. The rst problem concerns the question when, exactly, the authors developed their four images and their content. APR observed that the Weberian distinction between the world of political ofceholders and top bureaucrats was supported by their data and tting well with their Image II (APR 1981, 84, 89). But they also observed the likelihood that both groups of actors were involved in policymaking and thus in political activity (85). They wrote: Bureaucrats are more likely to focus on broker- ing than legislators . . . because they are more deeply involved with the concrete details of policy decisions than are the legislative politicians (90). And then they expressed that such a nding was one of [their] most striking and unexpected ndings (91, emphasis added; but see Aberbach and Rockman 1977). If unexpected, the question is legitimate to ask whether the framework of four images was developed prior to the inter- views or an outcome of them. The language throughout APR suggests the latter. If that is the case, one could argue that it should not have been presented as a theory framing the interpretation of the studys ndings but as an important theoretical contribution coming out of empirical work. Subsequent authors seem to treat the images as a result (rather than a start) that can be tested in other times and contexts (especially Images II, III, and IV). As far as the content of the four images is concerned, they include both a normative and juridical and an empirical and sociological perspective. In fact, APRs images conate a juridical interpretation of the politics- administration interaction with a more sociological understanding (Raadschelders and Van der Meer 1998, 32). The normative-juridical per- spective is represented in Image I, while Images II, III, and IV concern descriptive-empirical dimensions. The same mixture of perspectives is noticeable in Peters (1985) ve types of interaction between ofceholders at the summit. Peters formal-legal model compares well to APRs Image I, while the middle three models (i.e., village life, functional village life, and adversarial) are based on a more sociological perspective (cf. Images II, III, and IV). Peters last type, the administrative state, assumes almost complete dominance of administrators (and implies absence of political ofceholders) and thus falls entirely outside APRs four images. In their 1988 article in Governance, Aberbach and Rockman observed that the pure hybrid of Image IV is a marriage between technical skill and proximity to political power (10). Hence, Image IV is about overlapping roles of poli- ticians and (we assume) political appointees on the one hand and top bureaucrats on the other. If that is so, then there must be an Image Vwhere politicians are negligible or even absent, something that Peters type of the administrative state considers at least theoretically possible. 428 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS The second problem is what the content of Image IV represents. The image can be dened as either a complete intertwinement of elected ofceholders and civil servants at one moment in time or, as various pas- sages seem to suggest, a reference to top ofcials who move in their career from administrative or private sector positions to political positions (and sometimes back again). 16 For instance, APR mention the phenomenon of pantouage in France and Japan as well as the advance of technocratically trained individuals into political ofce. They mention Giscard dEstaing and Raymond Barre in France, Helmut Schmidt in Germany, and Jimmy Carter in the United States as examples (APR 1981, 17, 85). Next to indi- vidual career patterns, Image IV can also be seen as a new type of elite convergence and this seems to be the most often used interpretation of Image IV. Aberbach and Rockman claried Image IV as an executive creature based on motivational construct, which combines the control over bureaucracy by the political leadership with the bureaucratic sympa- thetic attitudes toward political decision (1988, 910). Could it be that modeling of reality is very much dependent upon Zeitgeist? As we mentioned above, after the Second World War, authors noted that the dichotomy was no reection of reality and even an aberra- tion. Indeed, empirical research showed more shades of gray than could be conceived of through the juridical lens of the prewar decades. Could it be that the lens throughwhichwe lookat political-administrative relations has changedwhile realityhas not? The dominant perspective before the Second WorldWar, that of a dichotomy, is today the submergedperspective simply because there is somuchempirical researchtestifyingtodegrees of overlap. We suggest that the framework of four images is inconsistent, because it lumps two rather different (normative and juridical as well as sociologi- cal) perspectives together. First, the images represent a development over time. APR suggested that political-administrative relations evolved over time from Image I to II and even III. Most recent developments, they held, appeared to point toward an Image IV(APR 1981, 238239). Page pounced that such an observation could not be made on the basis of single-point data and that historical analysis was needed (Page 1985, 134; 1995, 136). Indeed, the dispersed historical analyses show that administrators and politicians have been pretty much intertwined at the top in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries because they belonged to the same social-economic-cultural elite (Raadschelders and Van der Meer 1998). What is more, there are clear cases where administrators have had sub- stantial, even decisive, inuence over policy (Carpenter 2001; Van der Meer and Raadschelders 2008). But how often this occurred and whether there was variation between countries in this regard is unclear for lack of documentation (see next section). There is another reason why APRs suggestion of an evolutionary model is puzzling. They indicate that Images I and II are more characteristic of the lower levels in the hierarchy, while Images III and IV are more representative of the top. If that is so, however, two questions emerge: POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 429 1. Do the images represent an evolutionary framework that only per- tains to the higher-level ofcials? 2. Do the images adequately capture different levels of responsibility in government? The third problem with the four images is that the framework contains elements of both a typology and a taxonomy: Two images are elements of a typology, while two others are elements of taxonomy. A typology denes theoretical concepts with dimensions based on a notion of ideal type. It serves as a useful heuristic for comparison (chapeau Weber). At the same time, though, boundaries between identied categories are often not very clear. A taxonomy, instead, classies and measures characteristics on the basis of empirical observations. Taxonomies are mostly associated with the natural sciences, while typologies thrive in political science and public administration (Smith 2002). We suggest that APRs Images I and IV are elements of a typology. Image I has been part of the literature since at least Bonnins 1812 study, 17 while Image IV originated with APR. We state that Images I and IV are ideal types. Images II and III are more elements of a taxonomy, since they are based on carefully documented interviews and surveys about characteristics and behaviors of top-level public ofcials. One can quibble over the shortcomings in theory and methodology of the APR study, but the authors were very clear about their intention: the images were not to be regarded as theory but as searchlights (i.e., quite like the hermeneutic function of an ideal type), and their methodology was not a quantitative-statistical and rigorous test of variables (APR 1981, 20). The lack of clarity about the survey instrument is an issue not men- tioned by APR. However, the critiques do not diminish the most impor- tant fact about the APR study: there is little doubt that it prompted a vigorous study about characteristics and behaviors of elected ofcials and top civil servants and interactions between the two groups. More speci- cally, they pulled the research done hitherto in individual countries (e.g., Van Braam 1957, on the Netherlands) into a comparative perspective. We suspect that APRs impact will continue both directly, in the replication, updating, and even collection of data (as in the case of local government), and indirectly, in studies probing day-to-day activities of top-, middle- and lower-level administrators. Emerging Avenues of Research We conclude this article with suggestions for four avenues of further research. First, much more work also needs to be done on the role and inuence of junior, mid-level civil servants at both the federal or national and subnational levels. To be sure, APR did mention that ofcials of lower rank (but, still quite senior) had extensive contact with members of Par- liament, citizens, clientele group representatives, and departmental peers 430 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS (APR 1981, 226). Indeed, one of the reviewers noticed that this observation was very intriguing but had been left unexplored (Lehman 1984, 1450). The studies by Page and Jenkins (2005) and Page (2007) may become as important a start to this line of inquiry as APR was to comparative char- acteristics of politicians and bureaucrats and political-administrative rela- tions. We expect that in-depth mapping of the role of junior, mid-level civil servants will signicantly increase the understanding of the role of specialists in policymaking. A second line of protable research is the administrator biography, a method only recently coming in vogue andas far as we can tell especiallyinthe UnitedKingdom(e.g., Denman2002; Fry2000; Roper 2001; Theakston 1997), Canada (e.g., Granatstein 1981), and the United States (e.g., Riccucci 1995; Stillman 1998). While there are plenty biographies of political ofceholders, the dearth of biographies of top civil service is perhaps less striking than it seems. After all, according to the formal-legal juridical model, they play a service role and thus de-emphasize their leadership. Civil servants may not be inclined to trumpet their own impor- tance and involvement in policymaking. Yet, as limited administrative biographies are in numbers, those that are available clearly show how important civil servants have become to the functioning of government and its services at large. Riccucci (1995, 412) believes that the biographical prole allows scholars to see how senior civil servants can exercise entre- preneurialismwithout alienating the elected ofceholders and their politi- cal environment, while Rhodes and Weller (2001, 78) observe that biography enables us to explore how an institution is created, sustained, and modied through the beliefs and actions of individuals. The third promising line of emerging research, related to biography, is an ethnographic (also interpretative and narrative) account based upon the study of writings, lectures, interview transcripts, and actions of civil servants and elected ofceholders (Rhodes 2005, 56). Both a biographic and an ethnographic approach register and generate qualitative data about the daily activities of ofceholders, exploring the beliefs and desires thatat least partiallyinuence policy and decision making (Bevir, Rhodes, and Weller 2003, 34). We do not think that these emerging avenues of research take us farther away from the intent of the APR study. Combined, quantitative, and qualitative approaches provide a much richer understanding of the interplay between social, economic, and educational characteristics of ofceholders and their role fulllment in the interaction with one another. Perhaps the biographic and ethnographic approaches provide a better understanding of the beliefs of individual acts that are partly inuenced by institutional history. Finally, on an altogether different note, it is important that any research into theories about the politics-administration dichotomy and investiga- tions of political-administrative relations is embedded in the intellectual debate about this since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Our attempt in the rst section is admittedly brief, betting a review POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 431 article. We believe that the historical perspective is necessary to compre- hend the development of political-administrative relations over time and explicitly include analysis of the changes of lenses or perspectives through which contemporaries judged their own environment. A good theory of (organizational) political-administrative relations in reality requires such historical analysis. APR was instrumental in developing an empirical approach to this topic and this continues to inspire scholars. They also strengthened a sociological perspective, but we should not forget the normative and the juridical or legalist perspectives that, in practice, are as relevant at the top as actual organizational behavior. Notes 1. Dogans (1975) study contains contributions from various authors (includ- ing a reprinted article by Putnam and a chapter by Eldersveld, Hube- Boonzaaijer, and Kooiman, both on the APR project) and is thus not consid- ered a (co-)authored book-length manuscript. 2. Hegel used the term, universal, in a broad way using terms like subject, object, abstract, individual, particular, etc. For a reference, see Knapp (1986). 3. In this article we cited from Webers (1968) essay Parliament and Govern- ment in a Reconstructed Germany: A Contribution of the Political Critique of Ofcialdom and Party Politics, originally published in 1918, reprinted in Roth and Wittich (1968, Appendix II in Volume 2). This piece addresses the same concerns as Webers more often quoted Politics as a Vocation, which was originally published in 1919. See a reprint of the latter in Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, eds., 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 77128. 4. For a reference of the sample and data collection, see chapter 2 of APRs book. 5. The interviews with French ofcials in fact took place in the fall of 1969 (APR 1981, 39). 6. For a reference, see APR (1981, viiixi, 299300). 7. Reviewers on the APR study generally appreciated the richness of the data on beliefs and attitudes of top ofceholders and were somewhat critical of the lack of attention for the link between national characteristics of ofce- holders (as dependent variable) and their institutional environment (the independent variable) and the poor information about the data collection (Edinger 1982; Hodgetts 1983; Issac 1983; Legg 1983; Lehman 1984; Rains 1983; Sloan 1983). Hodgetts 1983 and Lehman 1984 specically discussed the possible shift toward Image IV, mentioning trends in that direction in Canada and Germany as reported in APR. 8. APR did not have data on the interaction among elites in France. 9. Belgium was not surveyed in APRs (1981) research. 10. In Germany, lawas the best career preparation was not as prevalent as before, whereas social sciences like economics were emerging (Derlien 1988, 72; 2003). Similarly in Sweden, law for civil service training gradually decreased (from 61% in 1917 to 29 % in 1971 and 21% in 1990); instead, social science (15%), economics (15%), and engineering (21%) increased in 1990 (Ehn et al. 2003, 437). In Belgium, in 19891990, law is not as dominant a background (32%). Civil servants are also reported to have degrees in engineering (21%), social science (21%), and economics (14%) (Dierickx 2003, 345, fn. 9). 432 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS 11. For the details of the impact of NPM on the political-administrative rela- tions, see Aberbach (2003) on the United States, Gregory (1991) on Australia and New Zealand, Bulmer (1988) and Wilson and Barker (2003) on the United Kingdom, Ehn et al. (2003) on Sweden, Rouban (2007) on European states, and Campbell (2007) and Halligan (2007) on Anglo-American states. 12. Dierickx (2003) and Ehn et al. (2003) interviewed top bureaucrats and members of Parliament; Aberbach (2003) and Derlien (1988) compared civil servants with political appointees including (in the German case) parliamen- tary secretaries; Bulmer (1988) and Wilson and Barker (2003) focused on Whitehall; Bourgault and Dion (1989) studied Canadas deputy ministers, the countrys top bureaucrats; and Gregory (1991) compared top bureaucrats of Australia and New Zealand. 13. Haceks article presents not only a comparison between Slovenia and the countries in the APR study but also the differences in social and educational backgrounds of administrative and political elites between national and local levels. 14. As far as the supranational level is concerned, Page (1997, 138) found that the social, economic, and educational characteristics of senior-level ofcials in the European Union were comparable to what APR had collected more than two decades earlier. For instance, the average age of top EU ofcials in the early 1990s was close to APRs average age for the senior civil servant in the early 1970s, which was 53 (Page 1997, 7073). 15. Beside the three intriguing problems, Webers (1981, 5) ideal type of bureau- cracy is somewhat ambiguously used in APRs book. They write: Weber himself thought that what we have termed Image I was the ideal relationship between politicians and administrators, but he recognized that it was an improbable one (emphasis added). This is a puzzling observation since Weber was very clear about the use of ideal types as an analytical instrument for studying reality (Weber 1985, 146214). It is never an ideal to strive for. Various authors had observed this misunderstanding of the nature of an ideal type in the 1960s (Diamant 1962, 6265; Lipset 1963, 5859; Mayntz 1965; Mouzelis 1967, 4346), and what is puzzling is that APR could have known this since they referenced Diamant in their rst chapter. In fact, APR consciously chose to speak of images rather than models. The concept of model implies a hypothetical and theoretical frame, while image may include both normative and empirical conceptions. To them the images are searchlights for illuminating empirical patterns in [the] data (20). Also, they used the Gerth and Mills translation of Webers Politics as a Vocation, which is hardly sufcient considering that Weber wrote so much more about bureaucracy and politics in his monumental Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. See the full translation by Roth and Wittich (1968). How Weber is treated in the literature is representative of a shortcoming in various individual studies. Ultimately, though, the stereotypical treatment of Weber and the misunder- standing of his methodology start with the cursory treatment of his schol- arship in textbooks. 16. For a reference, see Bezes and Lodge (2007). 17. Thus is quite a bit earlier than Viviens (1844) study of which Mouritzen and Svara (2002, 3) claim that it introduced the dichotomy. Also see Rutgers (2004, 6667, 152). References Aberbach, Joel D. 2003a. Introduction: Administration in an Era of Change. Governance 16: 315319. POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 433 . 2003b. The U.S. Federal Executive in an Era of Change. Governance 16: 373399. Aberbach, Joel D., Hans-Ulrich Derlien, Renate Mayntz, and Bert A. Rockman. 1990. American and German Federal Executives-Technocratic and Political Attitudes. International Social Science Journal 42: 318. Aberbach, Joel D., Robert D. Putnam, and Bert A. Rockman. 1981. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Aberbach, Joel D., and Bert A. Rockman. 1977. The Overlapping Worlds of American Federal Executives and Congressmen. British Journal of Political Science 7: 2347. . 1988. Image IV Revisited: Executive and Political Roles. Governance 1: 125. . 1997. Back to the Future? Senior Federal Executives in the United States. Governance 10: 323349. . 2000. In the Web of Politics: Three Decades of the U.S. Federal Executive. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Adrian, Charles R. 1958. Leadership and Decision-Making in Manager Cities: A Study of Three Communities. Public Administration Review 18: 208213. Appleby, Paul H. 1949. Policy and Administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Bevir, Mark, Roderick A. W. Rhodes, and Patrick Weller. 2003. Traditions of Governance: Interpreting the Changing Role of the Public Sector. Public Administration 81: 117. Bezes, Philippe, and Martin Lodge. 2007. Historical Legacies and Dynamics of Institutional Change in Civil Service Systems. In The Civil Service In the 21st Century: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jos C. N. Raadschelders, Theo A. J. Toonen, and Frits M. Van der Meer. Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave. Bourgault, Jacques, and Stphane Dion. 1989. Governments Come and Go, But What of Senior Civil Servants? Canadian Deputy Ministers and Transitions in Power (18671987). Governance 2: 124151. . 1993. The Changing Prole of Federal Deputy Ministers, 1867 to 1988. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Management Development. Bulmer, Martin 1988. Social Science Expertise and Executive-Bureaucratic Politics in Britain. Governance 1: 2649. Campbell, Colin 1988. The Political Roles of Senior Government Ofcials in Advanced Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 18: 243272. . 2007. Spontaneous Adaptation in Public Management: An Overview. Governance 20: 377400. Campbell, Colin, and B. Guy Peters. 1988. The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Death of Merely Change? Governance 1: 7999. Campbell, Colin, and Graham K. Wilson. 1995. The End of Whitehall: Death of a Paradigm? Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Reputations, Net- works, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 18621928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chester, Norman 1981. The English Administrative System 17801870. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Church, Clive H. 1981. Revolution and Red Tape: The French Ministerial Bureaucracy 17701850. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Denman, Roy. 2002. The Mandarins Tale. London: Politicos. Derlien, Hans-Ulrich. 1988. Repercussions of Government Change on the Career Civil Service in West Germany: The Cases of 1969 and 1982. Governance 1: 5078. . 1992. Observations on the State of Comparative Administration in EuropeRather Comparable than Comparative. Governance 5: 279311. 434 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS . 1996. The Politicization of Bureaucracies in Historical and Comparative Perspective. In Agenda For Excellence 2: Administering the State, ed. B. Guy Peters and Bert A. Rockman. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. . 2003. Mandarins or Managers? The Bureaucratic Elite in Bonn, 1970 to 1987 and Beyond. Governance 16: 401428. Diamant, Alfred. 1962. The Bureaucratic Model: Max Weber Rejected, Rediscov- ered, Reformed. In Papers in Comparative Administration, ed. Ferrel Heady and Sybil L. Stokes. Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute of Public Administration. Dierickx, Guido. 2003. Senior Civil Servants and Bureaucratic Change in Belgium. Governance 16: 321348. Dogan, Mattei, ed. 1975. Mandarins in Western Europe: The Political Role of Top Civil Servants. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Dunn, Delmer D., and Jerome S. Legge, Jr. 2002. Politics and Administration in U.S. Local Governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12: 401422. Edinger, Lewis 1982. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Politi- cal Science Quarterly 97: 552553. Ehn, Peter, Magnus Isberg, Claes Linde, and Gunnar Wallin. 2003. Swedish Bureaucracy in an Era of Change. Governance 16: 429458. French, P. Edward, and David H. Folz. 2004. Executive Behavior and Decision Making in Small U.S. Cities. American Review of Public Administration 34: 5266. Fry, Geoffrey K. 2000. Three Giants of the Inter-War British Higher Civil Service: Sir Maurice Hankey, Sir Warren Fisher, and Sir Horace Wilson. In Bureaucrats and Leadership, ed. Kevin Theakston. London: MacMillan. Gale, Scott A., and Ralph P. Hummel. 2003. A Debt UnpaidReinterpreting Max Weber on Bureaucracy. Administrative theory & Praxis 25: 409418. Genieys, William. 2005. The Sociology of Political Elites in France: The End of an Exception. International Political Science Review 26: 413430. Goodnow, Frank J. 1900. Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York/London: MacMillan. Granatstein, Jack L. 1981. A Man of Inuence: Norman A. Robertson and Canadian Statecraft 19291968. Ottawa, ON: Deneau Publishers. Gregory, Robert J. 1991. The Attitudes of Senior Public Servants in Australia and New Zealand: Administrative Reform and Technocratic Consequence? Gover- nance 4: 295331. Hacek, Miro. 2006. The Relationship between Civil Servants and Politicians in a Post-Communist Country: A Case of Slovenia. Public Administration 84: 165 184. Halligan, John. 2007. Anglo-American Systems: Easy Diffusion. In The Civil Service in the 21st Century: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jos C. N. Raadschelders, Theo A. J. Toonen, and Frits M. Van der Meer. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hansen, Kasper M., and Niels Ejersbo. 2002. The Relationship between Politicians and AdministratorsA Logic of Disharmony. Public Administration 80: 733 750. Hart, Pault, and Anchrit Wille. 2006. Ministers and Top Ofcials in the Dutch Core Executive: Living Together, Growing Apart? Public Administration 84: 121146. Hattenhauer, Hans. 1978. Geschichte des Beamtentums. In Handbuch des ffentliche Dienstes, Vol. 1, ed. Wilhelm Wiese Kln. et al. Carl Heyman Verlag KG. Heclo, Hugh. 1984. In Search of a Role: Americas Higher Civil Service. In Bureaucrats and Policy Making: A Comparative Overview, ed. Ezra N. Suleiman. New York: Holmes & Meier, 834. Hegel, Georg W. F. [1821] 1942. Hegels Philosophy of Right. Trans. T. M. Knox. New York: Oxford University Press. POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 435 Hodgetts, John E. 1983. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science 16: 183185. Issac, Larry. 1983. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Contem- porary Sociology 12: 706707. Jacobsen, Dag I. 2005. Sand in the Machinery? Comparing Bureaucrats and Politicians Attitudes Toward Public Sector Reform. European Journal of Political Research 44: 767799. . 2006a. The Relationship between Politics and Administration: The Impor- tance of Contingency Factors, Formal Structure, Demography, and Time. Gov- ernance 19: 303323. . 2006b. Public Sector Growth: Comparing Politicians andAdministrators Spending Preferences. Public Administration 84: 185204. Knapp, Peter. 1986. Hegels Universal in Marx, Drukheimand Weber: The Role of Hegelian Ideas in the Origin of Sociology. Sociological Forum 1: 586609. Kuhlmann, Sabine, and Jrg Bogumil. 2007. Civil Service System at Subnational and Local Levels of Government: A British-German-French Comparison. In The Civil Service in the 21st Century: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jos C. N. Raadschelders, Theo A. J. Toonen, and Frits M. Van der Meer. Houndsmills: Palgrave. Lee, Kwang-Hoon, and Jos C.N. Raadschelders. 2005. Between Amateur Government and Career Civil Service: The American Administrative Elites in Cross-Time and Cross-National Perspectives. In Administrative Elites in Western Europe (19th/20th c.), ed. Erk Volkmar Heyen. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Legg, Keith. 1983. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies: Do New Leaders Make a Difference? Executive Succession and Public Policy under Capitalism and Socialism. The Journal of Politics 45: 232234. Lehman, Edward W. 1984. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. The American Journal of Sociology 89: 14471450. Leys, Wayne A. R. 1943. Ethics and Administrative Discretion. Public Adminis- tration Review 3: 1023. Light, Paul C. 1995. Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Lipset, Seymour M. 1963. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Mayntz, Renate. 1965. Max Webers Idealtypus der Brokartie und die Organisa- tionssoziologie. Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 17: 493 501. . 1978. Soziologie der ffentliche Verwaltung. Heidelberg, Germany: Muller. Mayntz, Renate, and Hans-Ulrich Derlien. 1989. Party Patronage and Politiciza- tion of the West German Administrative Elite 19701987Toward Hybridiza- tion? Governance 2: 384404. Morgan, David R., and Samuel A. Kirkpatrick. 1972. Urban Political Analysis: A Systems Approach. New York: The Free Press. Mosher, Frederick C. [1968] 1982. Democracy and the Public Service. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Mouritzen, Poul E., and James H. Svara. 2002. Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and Administrators in Western Local Governments. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Mouzelis, Nicos P. 1967. Organisation and Bureaucracy: An Analysis of Modern Theo- ries. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Nelson, Michael. 1982. Short, Ironic History of American National Bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics 44: 747778. Page, Edward C. 1985. Political Authority and Bureaucratic Power: A Comparative Analysis. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 436 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS . 1995. Comparative Public Administration in Britain. Public Administra- tion 73: 123141. . 1997. People Who Run Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 2007. Middle Level Bureaucrats. Policy, Discretion and Control. In The Civil Service in the 21st Century: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jos C. N. Raad- schelders, Theo A. J. Toonen, and Frits M. Van der Meer. Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave. Page, Edward C., and Bill Jenkins. 2005. Policy Bureaucracy: Government with a Cast of Thousands. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Page, Edward C., and Vincent Wright, eds. 1999. Bureaucratic lites in Western European States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . 2007. From the Active to the Enabling State: The Changing Role of Top Ofcials in European Nations. Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave. Parris, Henry. 1969. Constitutional Bureaucracy: The Development of British Central Administration since the Eighteenth Century. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. Peters, B. Guy. 1985. Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Politics of Policy Making. In Bureaucracy and Public Choice, ed. Jan-Erik Lane. London: Sage. Peters, B. Guy, and J. Pierre, eds. 2001. Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform. London: Routledge. Pierre, Jon, ed. 1995. Bureaucracy in the Modern State: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar. Raadschelders, Jos C. N. 1994. Understanding the Development of Local Govern- ment: Theory and Evidence from the Dutch Case. Administration & Society 25: 410442. Raadschelders, Jos C. N., and Frits M. Van der Meer. 1998. Administering the Summit: AComparative Perspective. In Administering the Summit, ed. Jos C. N. Raadschelders and Frits M. Van der Meer. Brussels, Belgium: IIAS. Rains, Michael. 1983. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. The American Political Science Review 77: 480481. Reynolds, Harry W., Jr. 1965. The Career Public Service and Statute Lawmaking in Los Angeles. The Western Political Quarterly 18: 621639. Rhodes, Roderick A. W. 2005. Everyday Life in a Ministry: Public Administration as Anthropology. American Review of Public Administration 35: 325. Rhodes, Roderick A. W., and Patrick Weller., eds. 2001. The Changing World of Top Ofcials: Mandarins or Valets? Buckingham, PA Open University Press. Riccucci, Norma M. 1995. Unsung Heroes: Federal Execucrats Making a Difference. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Roper, Michael. 2001. Masculinity and the Biographical Meanings of Manage- ment Theory: Lyndall Urwick and the Making of Scientic Management in Inter-War Britain. Gender, Work and Organization 8: 182204. Roth, Guenther, and Claus Wittich, eds. 1968. Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rouban, Luc. 2007. Political-Administrative Relations. In The Civil Service in the 21st Century: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jos C. N. Raadschelders, Theo A. J. Toonen, and Frits M. Van der Meer. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rutgers, Mark R. 2004. Grondslagen van de Bestuurskunde: Historie, Begripsvorming, en Kennisintegratie. Bussum, Netherlands: Uitgeverij Coutinho. Saltzstein, Alan L. 1974. City Managers and City Councils: Perceptions of the Division of Authority. The Western Political Quarterly 27: 275288. Shaw, Carl K. Y. 1992. Hegels Theory of Modern Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 86: 381389. Sloan, John W., 1983. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies. Publius 13: 112114. POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS 437 Smith, Kevin B. 2002. Typologies, Taxonomies, and the Benets of Policy Classi- cation. Policy Studies Journal 30: 379395. Stillman, Richard J., II. 1974. The Rise of the City Manager. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. . 1998. Creating the American State. The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made. Tuscaloosa, AL/London: The University of Alabama Press. Suleiman, Ezra N. 1974. Politics, Power and Bureaucracy in France: The Administrative Elite. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. . 1978. Elites in French Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Svara, James H. 1985. Dichotomy and Duality: Reconceptualizing the Relation- ship between Policy and Administration in Council-Manager Cities. Public Administration Review 45: 221232. . 1998. The Politics-Administration Dichotomy Model as Aberration. Public Administration Review 58: 5158. . 2001. The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration. Public Admin- istration Review 61: 176183. Theakston, Kevin. 1997. Comparative Biography and Leadership in Whitehall. Public Administration 75: 651667. Van Braam, Aris. 1957. Ambtenaren en Bureaukratie in Nederland. Zeist: W. De Haan N.V. Van der Meer, Frits M., and Jos C. N. Raadschelders. 2008. In the Service of Dutch National Identity: The Discovery, Governance, Management of Historical and Cultural Heritage. In National Approaches to the Administration of National Heri- tage: A Comparative Perspective, ed. Stefan Fisch. Amersterdam: IOS Press, 180 201. Vivien, Andr P.A., 1844. tudes Administrative. Paris: Librairie de Guilaumin. Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber: Essay Sociology. Trans. eds. Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press. . 1968. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Trans. (eds. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich). New York: Bedminster Press. . 1985. Die Objektivitt Sozialwissenschaftlicher und Sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In Gesammelte Aufstze zur Wissenschaftslehre, ed. Max Weber. Tbingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr. Wilson, Graham K., and Anthony Barker. 2003. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Britain. Governance 16: 349372. Wilson, Woodrow. [1887] 2005. The Study of Administration. In Public Adminis- tration: Concepts and Cases, ed. Richard J. Stillman, II. Boston/New York: Houghton Mifin Company. 438 KWANG-HOON LEE AND JOS C.N. RAADSCHELDERS