COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION AND
MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY
,1. INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
1.1 Typologies & main variables of CPA
5 families of countries in Europe
o Continental European Napoleonic
o Continental European Federal
o Scandinavian
o Anglo-Saxon
o Eastern European
This typology is based on 2 comparison related dimensions:
o Administrative traditions and cultures
o Political-institutional features
Western Europe: 2 clusters
o Continental European rule of law culture (Rechtsstaat)
o Anglo-Saxon public interest culture
The legal tradition of a country has a significant influence on the dominant values in
administrative action and the way in which administration is implemented, as well as the
relationship between politics, citizens and administration
Continental European Rule of Law Anglo-Saxon Public Interest
Separation/hierarchization of state and No hierarchization of public / private
society (public/private legal sphere) (no separation of public-private law
The state as an integrating force of The state is of instrumental importance
society ; intérêt general ; government; stateless society
Comprehensive codification of legal No comprehensive codification of legal
rules (Roman tradition) rules (common law)
Administrative action as Legislative acts with function of political
implementation of law by means of programmes
legal specification
Dominant values in administrative Dominant values in administrative
action: principle of legality, equal action: pragmatism, flexibility,
treatment, neutrality of interests reconciliation of interests
Structure of the state: federal states vs. unitary states
o Federal (separation vs integrationist model)
o Unitary-centralized
o Unitary-decentralized
3 ideal types of welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 2009)
2
, Government
o Forms of government: president, prime minister, monarch?
o Who is the head of the state: how are people elected? (first past the post, two-round
system, election by legislature, election by electoral college,…)
o House elections: how are they elected?
Lijphart (1984, 1999): types of democracy (komt later nog aan bod)
o Majoritarian: 1 party has more than 50% and is ruling the party alone
o Intermediate
o Consensual: no one has more than 50% so you have to find a partner to work with
o explanatory power as to why the reform trajectories have been fragmented or
comprehensive, conflict-ridden or consensual and whether their effects have been
lasting of unstable
Combining two variables
Majoritarian Intermediate Consensual
Centralized New Zealand France Italy
UK The Netherlands
Intermediate Sweden Finland
Decentralized Canada Belgium Switzerland
USA Germany
Centralized majoritarian: easier to make changes, you don’t have to take care of lower levels and you
don’t have to take into account the desire of coalitions
3
, 1.2 Models of public administration in Europe
1.2.1 The Continental European Napoleonic Model
Southern Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal)
Roman-French legal tradition (statutory law)
o Civil law
o Legality
o Codification of legal norms
Strong centralized government and bureaucracy
Subnational and local level subordinate to central territorial administrative organization
and institutional subsidiarity is not well developed
Administrative practice: politicization, clientelism, political party patronage in civil service
(‘political allies’)
o Explanation: significant role of political parties because they have a strong influence
on the allocation of administrative posts and on the remuneration and promotion
modalities in public administration
o In principle rule-of-law applies and formal personnel recruitment in public
administration is guided by qualification requirements, in practice: guidelines often
ignored
1.2.2 Continental European Federal Model
Mid-Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland)
Roman-German legal tradition (cf. previous model)
o Legality
o Rule of law, codification
Leaner and weaker centralized government and bureaucracy
Strong subnational and local levels (subsidiarity) difference with Napoleonic model
Subsidiarity = if it can be done by a lower level, it shouldn’t be done by a higher level (closer
to the people)
Territorial principle (multi-competences at lower level)
Administrative practice:
o Germany, Austria: servants of the state (important position in society)
o Switzerland: servants of the people ; direct democracy ; greater local autonomy
1.2.3 Scandinavian model
North Europe (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland)
Roman-Scandinavian legal tradition (cf. previous models)
Dencentralized government and bureaucracy (subsidiarity)
they operate as even more decentralized in some cases than federal countries (while
these are unitary states)
Strong and autonomous local government
Administrative practice :
o Openness in the public service career system
o Easy access for citizens to administrative system (user democracy, freedom of info,
participation,…) difference with previous models
4
ADMINISTRATION AND
MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY
,1. INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
1.1 Typologies & main variables of CPA
5 families of countries in Europe
o Continental European Napoleonic
o Continental European Federal
o Scandinavian
o Anglo-Saxon
o Eastern European
This typology is based on 2 comparison related dimensions:
o Administrative traditions and cultures
o Political-institutional features
Western Europe: 2 clusters
o Continental European rule of law culture (Rechtsstaat)
o Anglo-Saxon public interest culture
The legal tradition of a country has a significant influence on the dominant values in
administrative action and the way in which administration is implemented, as well as the
relationship between politics, citizens and administration
Continental European Rule of Law Anglo-Saxon Public Interest
Separation/hierarchization of state and No hierarchization of public / private
society (public/private legal sphere) (no separation of public-private law
The state as an integrating force of The state is of instrumental importance
society ; intérêt general ; government; stateless society
Comprehensive codification of legal No comprehensive codification of legal
rules (Roman tradition) rules (common law)
Administrative action as Legislative acts with function of political
implementation of law by means of programmes
legal specification
Dominant values in administrative Dominant values in administrative
action: principle of legality, equal action: pragmatism, flexibility,
treatment, neutrality of interests reconciliation of interests
Structure of the state: federal states vs. unitary states
o Federal (separation vs integrationist model)
o Unitary-centralized
o Unitary-decentralized
3 ideal types of welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 2009)
2
, Government
o Forms of government: president, prime minister, monarch?
o Who is the head of the state: how are people elected? (first past the post, two-round
system, election by legislature, election by electoral college,…)
o House elections: how are they elected?
Lijphart (1984, 1999): types of democracy (komt later nog aan bod)
o Majoritarian: 1 party has more than 50% and is ruling the party alone
o Intermediate
o Consensual: no one has more than 50% so you have to find a partner to work with
o explanatory power as to why the reform trajectories have been fragmented or
comprehensive, conflict-ridden or consensual and whether their effects have been
lasting of unstable
Combining two variables
Majoritarian Intermediate Consensual
Centralized New Zealand France Italy
UK The Netherlands
Intermediate Sweden Finland
Decentralized Canada Belgium Switzerland
USA Germany
Centralized majoritarian: easier to make changes, you don’t have to take care of lower levels and you
don’t have to take into account the desire of coalitions
3
, 1.2 Models of public administration in Europe
1.2.1 The Continental European Napoleonic Model
Southern Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal)
Roman-French legal tradition (statutory law)
o Civil law
o Legality
o Codification of legal norms
Strong centralized government and bureaucracy
Subnational and local level subordinate to central territorial administrative organization
and institutional subsidiarity is not well developed
Administrative practice: politicization, clientelism, political party patronage in civil service
(‘political allies’)
o Explanation: significant role of political parties because they have a strong influence
on the allocation of administrative posts and on the remuneration and promotion
modalities in public administration
o In principle rule-of-law applies and formal personnel recruitment in public
administration is guided by qualification requirements, in practice: guidelines often
ignored
1.2.2 Continental European Federal Model
Mid-Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland)
Roman-German legal tradition (cf. previous model)
o Legality
o Rule of law, codification
Leaner and weaker centralized government and bureaucracy
Strong subnational and local levels (subsidiarity) difference with Napoleonic model
Subsidiarity = if it can be done by a lower level, it shouldn’t be done by a higher level (closer
to the people)
Territorial principle (multi-competences at lower level)
Administrative practice:
o Germany, Austria: servants of the state (important position in society)
o Switzerland: servants of the people ; direct democracy ; greater local autonomy
1.2.3 Scandinavian model
North Europe (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland)
Roman-Scandinavian legal tradition (cf. previous models)
Dencentralized government and bureaucracy (subsidiarity)
they operate as even more decentralized in some cases than federal countries (while
these are unitary states)
Strong and autonomous local government
Administrative practice :
o Openness in the public service career system
o Easy access for citizens to administrative system (user democracy, freedom of info,
participation,…) difference with previous models
4
