Public Policy and the Neo-Weberian State

Stanisław Mazur, Piotr Kopycinski, Stanisław Mazur, Piotr Kopycinski

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351741613
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The neo-Weberian state constitutes an attempt to combine the Weberian model of administration with the principles laid down during the retreat from the bureaucratic management paradigm (new public management and public governance). The concept of neo-Weberian state involves changing the model of operation of administrative structures from an inward-oriented one, focused on compliance with internal rules, into a model focused on meeting citizens' needs (not by resorting to commercialisation, as is the case with new public management, but by building appropriate quality of administration).

This book discusses the context of the neo-Weberian approach and its impact on the processes of societal transformation. Further, it identifies and systematises the theoretical and functional elements of the approach under consideration. This volume includes comparative analyses of the neo-Weberian state and public management paradigms. In the empirical part of the work, its authors review selected policies (economic, innovation, industrial, labour, territorial, urban management, and health) from the perspective of tools typical of the neo-Weberian approach. This part also includes a critical scrutiny of changes which have taken place in the framework of selected policies in recent decades. The study assesses the appropriateness of the neo-Weberian approach to the management of public affairs regarding countries which have modernised their public administrations in its spirit. One of the aims of this analysis is to answer the question whether the application of neo-Weberian ideas may result in qualitative changes in the context of public policies. The final part of the book covers implications for public management resulting from the concept of neo-Weberian state.

Public Policy and the Neo-Weberian State is suitable for researchers and students who study political economy, public policy and modern political theory.

Part I
The neo-Weberian state

Fundamental principles

1 The origins of and trends in the neo-Weberian approach

Marek Ćwiklicki and Stanisław Mazur

The rationale behind the emergence and development of the neo-Weberian approach

The neo-Weberian approach as a public management model is a relatively new phenomenon in the theory of public administration. However, the first attempts to define it in practical terms were made several decades ago in the administrations and economies of European countries, mainly in continental Europe. Specifically, the roots of the approach in question date back to enlightened absolutism, to the beginnings of the formation of a democratic law-governed state, and to the modern Weberian bureaucracy. The key aspects of this heritage have survived to the present day and can be found in a number of European countries. This testifies to the viability of the concept despite its absence from the mainstream academic discourse and public debate. It has become, among other things, the source of remedies for the adverse socio-economic effects of globalisation, such as the erosion of sovereignty of nation-states and the undermining of their position in international relations with respect to transnational actors. The second category of reasons which contribute to the increased interest in the neo-Weberian principles includes not only the adverse consequences of the ‘hollowing-out of the state,’ but also the unsatisfactory results of reforms based on the principles of NPM and public governance. The third group of factors includes attempts to capture public resources by interest groups and the dismantling of the welfare state.

The developments listed above have led to the belief that the state must regain its socially and economically important functions which determine the degree of its democratic legitimacy, and mitigate certain adverse effects brought on by previous coordination mechanisms, including the uncritical adaptation of market-based management methods by public sector organisations. Such a line of thinking is consistent with the ingrained belief of the political élites of continental European countries that the state is a political union whose natural duty is to work for the community of citizens and contribute to their welfare by actively influencing the socio-economic processes.

The birth of the neo-Weberian state – a literature review

The presentation and discussion of the development of the neo-Weberian approach in a chronological order draws extensively on the literature review. For the most part, it is based on sources cited in the most recent, third edition of the book Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (Pollitt, Bouckaert 2011). This reference was selected as the leading one, since in its 2004 edition the phrase neo-Weberian state (NWS) appeared in print for the first time. The term was first used to describe the reforms typical of European countries, but different from those undertaken in New Zealand and the United States (Pollitt, Bouckaert 2011, p. 3). It should be noted that the term NWS is often used in the literature without any explanation of its meaning. As a result, the references to the Weberian model in comparative analyses comprise not only the machinery of government, power relations in administrative systems or instrumental rationality, but also the negative perception of the NWS as a threat to liberal democracy. The negative import of the NWS is attributed to the study of organisations, where it is associated with the dominance of informal practices and the exploitation of the system for particularistic purposes.

The present analysis of the origins of the NWS shall be limited to publications in which the object of research includes the state and/or public administration.

The cited authors (Pollitt, Bouckaert 2011, pp. 19, 22) in their characteristics of the NWS make passing references to the previous (second) edition of the book, specifically, to its Chapter Four devoted to the trajectory of modernisation and reform, as well as to the publications by W. Drechsler and R. Kattel (2008/2009), and L. E. Lynn (2008). We shall start our discussion from there, noting the way in which the NWS is understood in each one.

In the first publication, Drechsler and Kattel refer to the 2004 edition of Public Management Reform and conclude that the NWS is a political orientation which results from the reforms implemented in Europe at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, empirically rooted in the structure of the Weberian bureaucracy supplemented with elements of NPM. These authors perceive the NWS model as the basis, as the necessary condition for effective implementation of reforms in line with NPM. For this reason, their proposals are addressed not only to the developing countries. Drechsler and Kattel perceive the NWS as a concept linking the Weberian principles with sustainable economic development, appropriate for managing complex, innovation-based societies. The authors note that: ‘Criticism towards the NWS that it is too close to NPM is justified to the extent that it does co-opt positive elements of NPM, but on a Weberian foundation, i.e. that both are asymmetrically aufgehoben’ (Drechsler, Kattel 2008/2009, p. 98).

L. E. Lynn (the second source cited by Pollitt and Bouckaert), when discussing the NWS, drew primarily on the second edition of Public Management Reform and based his considerations on other works as well. The term neo-Weberian approach has been used in political science, sociology and public administration works since the 1970s. As an example of such an interpretation, Lynn gives H. Brown’s treatment of bureaucracy published in 1978. Lynn also refers to a supplementary source (L. Seabrooke 2002), in which the author also refers to M. Mann and T. Skocpol as neo-Weberians. Noting the terminological confusion, Lynn treats the NWS as a state-centred concept and cites the following definition of the state formulated by M. Mann in 1986: ‘A territorially demarcated, differentiated set of institutions and personnel with a centre that exercises authoritative rulemaking backed by the coercive powers of the state’ (2008, p. 4).

Lynn goes on to explain that the neo-Weberian approach reflects the continuity of evolutionary development of the state in accordance with norms and material interests. The formulation of general theories or models contributes to an isomorphism of administrative systems and to a more uniform perception of the state. This can be easily noticed in the idea of the European Union and in the drive to achieve convergence among European economies and societies. These unifying pursuits (isomorphism, convergence) strongly contrast with the different evolutionary paths taken by individual state systems throughout Europe. An example of the latter is the following observation made by Lynn, which derives from analyses of public management in Europe and in the United States in 2008:

Germany evolves only slowly from its Rechtsstaat and corporatist traditions, France combines old and new traditions, albeit in some tension with one another; the emergence of managerialism in Napoleonic Spain is embryonic; and the United Kingdom, the most aggressive NPM reformer, may be breaking ground for a ‘new public governance’ paradigm.

(p. 9)

An analysis of the contents of the two major sources in Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011) reveals that they refer to an earlier edition of their book Public Management Reform. We have also queried the phrase ‘neo-Weberian state’ in such databases as Scopus and Web of Science – it contains publications treating the NWS as a concept or a paradigm referring to public management which were not mentioned in the third edition of Pollitt and Bouckaert’s book.

These sources include an article by W. N. Dunn and D. Y. Miller (2007), most frequently cited in Scopus (as at 2 November 2016). In their paper, the authors present the NWS as Europe’s critical response to NPM. In their analysis of the concept, they make references to three literature sources: the second edition of B. G. Peters’ monograph The Future of Governing (2001), the second edition of C. Pollitt and G. Bouckaert’s Public Management Reform (2004), and an article by W. Drechsler (2005b). Of these references, the latter two are the most important ones for the tracing of relevant inspirations and contexts. Only the last one has not yet been discussed in this study.

Drechsler’s (2005b) characteristic of the NWS is based on the definition provided by Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004),¹ which mentions the distinction between the ‘neo-Weberian’ and ‘Weberian’ features, respectively. Drechsler complements the NWS functions listed by Pollitt and Bouckaert to arrive at an analytical model endowed with a normative function. In his view, ‘an administrative system generally works better, of course depending on time and place, the closer it is to the NWS’ (Drechsler, 2005b). As a result, the NWS, owing to its strong normative and empirical foundations, constitutes a reliable basis for reform efforts.

Unlike Dunn and Miller, Drechsler notes that the NWS is not in opposition to NPM, but rather constitutes its corollary with the benefit of hindsight, and as such can be called post-post-NPM. He supports his reasoning by reiterating his own previously published arguments (Drechsler 2003). He shows that traditional administration derived from the Weberian bureaucracy predominates in South-Eastern European countries. This observation reflects the classical approach to administration present in Weber’s work published in 1946.²

In his analysis of European reforms, which he considers to be representative of NPM, Drechsler claims that the strong position of traditional public administrations across Europe can be consistently documented by research findings. In support of his assertion, Drechsler compares the Weberian bureaucracy with the European Administrative Space and European public administration standards included in the OECD study of 1999 (OECD 1999). He also emphasises the role that a stable state plays in economic development based on innovation understood in the Schumpeterian sense (Drechsler 2005a, p. 96).

The chronological analysis of citations presented above demonstrates that the main source of the NWS as an idea should be sought in Pollitt and Bouckaert’s work (2004). These authors were the first to develop a framework for the description of reforms with five basic components related to finance, personnel, organisation, performance measurement, transparency, and open government. An analysis of data from twelve countries³ on the ways and extent of implementation of reforms since the 1980s reveals certain differences among their groups. Recognising these differences, the authors used the term neo-Weberian state to refer to certain solutions typical of Western European countries.

Based on the discussion above, one may define the neo-Weberian approach as a reform model followed by certain continental European countries, which includes the preservation of positive attributes of the Weberian bureaucracy in the modernisation of the state apparatus (or traditional administration). A schematic diagram of these sources is shown in Figure 1.1.

Clearly, the NWS draws on a variety of cultural, doctrinal, management, and empirical sources. The first one reflects the criticism of progressive convergence of states, societies, economies, and administrations as a result of globalisation processes. The second one refers to the backlash against the neo-liberal global vision of international order with its attendant proposals to limit state functions and to reduce its activity. The management aspect focuses on the distrust of the primacy of market-based solutions over other models managing public ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• Part I The neo-Weberian state: fundamental principles
• Part II The neo-Weberian state and public policies
• Index