1.1 Introduction
Recent international research suggests that state bureaucracies have, over the years, become more susceptible to political influences (see Neuhold and Vanhoonacker , 2013; Peters and Pierre , 2004; Savoie , 2004). Some of these influences are more overt than others, with examples of strong political influence including the appointment and dismissals of senior bureaucrats. Other forms of politicization are of a more subtle character and, as a result, less visible to the citizen. One such form is the rise of the official with a ‘can do’ attitude (Sausman and Locke , 2004, p. 115). This book will examine how the traditional dual role of the civil servant as both policy advisor and policy implementer may have been reprioritized, with the latter element of the dual role now receiving greater priority. It will examine the role of the ‘can do’ official in the politico-administrative relationship in Ireland to see if officials with a ‘can do’ attitude are being favoured by Ministers and whether, as has been claimed in the case of the British civil service (Royal Institute of Public Administration , 1987, p. 46), this leads to arguments which are not politically acceptable being suppressed prior to the submission of policy options to Ministers. Civil servants, in complying with their Minister’s wishes, may, as proposed by Savoie (2003) become drawn into the political arena. This draws civil servants away from making what Simon (1945) called rational choices aimed at choosing the alternative most likely to achieve the desired outcome and into the arena of recommending policy decisions which are the most acceptable politically.
The book begins by setting out, in Chaps. 1 and 2, the research question and the methods used to address it. It proceeds, in Chap. 3, to review the existing international literature on politicization of state bureaucracies in order to differentiate between the different types of politicization that might usefully be drawn upon. Of particular relevance here will be the Westminster-type politico-administrative systems of Australia , Great Britain and New Zealand . This review will briefly look at three different approaches to understanding Ministerial/civil service interaction, those being the constitutional, rational choice and materialist approaches.
Following on from this, a closer examination will be carried out of two particular theoretical frameworks of relevance to the study of politico-administrative relationships—the Public Service Bargain framework as proposed by Schaffer (1973) and developed by Hood and Lodge (2006) and the Interpretive Approach as proposed by Bevir , Rhodes and Weller (2003a)—both of which will be used later in Chap. 6 as frameworks for the examination of the research results.
The data collected during the research was also examined according to the definition of politicization used for this book, as outlined in Chap. 3, in an attempt to identify both similarities and differences between the politicization of the Irish civil service and that of its international counterparts. The core of the definition used is the typology developed by Peters (2013, pp. 16–20) who categorised politicization into six different types—direct, professional, redundant, anticipatory, dual and social politicization—a list which he concludes (Peters 2013, p. 20) is not exhaustive, with potential for further development of the six categories. To Peters’ considerations, were added two more, the first being the abolition or bypassing of divisions within the civil service which put forward reasoned arguments against courses of action which the Minister may wish to take and, the second that civil servants may perceive that their actions may be rewarded if they are of political benefit to their Ministers.
In Chap. 4, some background to the development of the state machinery in Ireland will be provided in order to give context to the work. This will include a discussion of the legislative and constitutional basis on which the Irish state’s bureaucracy is framed. It will be followed by a review of literature surrounding the interaction between Irish politicians and civil servants, in addition to a discussion of how top civil servants are appointed in Ireland.
The research undertaken explores the nature of the politico-administrative relationship in Ireland in the context of historical developments since before the foundation of the Irish state in 1922. In order to provide multiple perspectives on this phenomenon, the study draws upon interviews with retired Secretaries General of Irish government departments and with retired Ministers in various Irish governments to ascertain how they view ‘can do’ officials. The study develops a much under-examined but important aspect of Irish public governance and politico-administrative relations, that being the balance of power between Ministers and their officials. In so doing, it seeks to ascertain the nature of the relationship that exists, why it exists in that form, whether or not it is mutually beneficial to both Minister and civil servant, and what the Irish case can add to the extant literature.
1.2 The Research Question
The relationship between Ministers and their civil servants is central to the understanding of contemporary governance, with both parties having a claim to a role in the public policy development process. As a result of their democratic mandate, however, the claim of politicians is the stronger of the two (Peters , 2013, p. 12).
There is a subtle difference between civil servants being involved in the political process and being involved in party politics. Civil servants cannot remove themselves from the political process as it is an integral part of their work to implement policy platforms upon which the government of the day has been elected (Pollitt and Bouckaert , 2011, pp. 161/2). They will be provided with financial and staffing resources for this purpose and will negotiate on their minister’s behalf in order to achieve the aims of government. This is an integral part of the democratic system and forms the frontier in which civil servants operate. Party politics centres more on the borderline between ministers and officials, rather than on the frontier in which they both operate. Thus, civil servants will be involved in politics even though they may distance themselves from party politics (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011, p. 162).
While working in the political frontier, there is a danger that civil servants will on occasions stray over the aforementioned borderline. The issue of consensus, according to Barrington (1980, p.5), is crucial here as in order to reach decisions on issues of importance to the citizen, both politicians and civil servants usually strive for a subtle, sensitive and (sometimes) elusive consensus. The words subtle and sensitive are important in describing this quest for consensus in the policy-making process as, as will be detailed below, the reaching of consensus in government involves a great deal of human interaction between all actors, including the public, involved in the policy development process. This human interaction brings with it the complexity of human relationships, views and opinions, among other characteristics, which can only be partly understood and explained by this research.
While Barrington (1980, pp. 6–7) argues that the achievement of consensus is crucial to the successful development and implementation of government policies and initiatives, this book will reveal how the quest for consensus has the potential to produce flawed public policy, due primarily to the promotion of self-interest among both politicians and civil servants alike. A healthy democratic system , Barrington goes on to state, permits the consensus to exercise a sort of ongoing subtle control, thus giving systems of administration in so called healthy democracies their special characteristics (Barrington 1980, p. 8). This book challenges Barrington’s assertions in this regard, as it will demonstrate how the politico-administrative consensus prevalent in Ireland has actually limited the quality of information on the administration of government being made available to the state’s citizens and, as a consequence, potentially limited their ability to make informed electoral choices.
Also of importance to democratic legitimacy is the role of the civil servant and his/her willingness or otherwise to participate in the consensus-reaching process and, in the process, promoting their own self-interest rather than that of the public in general. In this regard, the book will explore with Ministers and civil servants alike the nature of their interaction and draw conclusions as to its impact on the policy-making process.
In this context, therefore, and using the interaction between Ministers and ‘can do’ officials as a starting point, the book seeks to discover whether evidence exists of politicization within the Irish civil service and, if so, the nature of that politicization.
References
Barrington, T. (1980). The Irish administrative system. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
Hood, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). The politics of public service bargains: Reward, competency, loyalty and blame. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Neuhold, C., & Vanhoonacker, S. (2013). Introduction. In S. Neuhold, S. Vanhoonacker, & L. Verhey (Eds.), Civil servants and politics, a delicate balance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Peters, B. G. (2004). Politicization in the United States. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective: The quest for control. London: Routledge.
Peters, B. G. (2013). Politicization: What is it and why should we care? In S. Neuhold, S. Vanhoonacker, & L. Verhey (Eds.), Civil servants and politics, a delicate balance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform, a comparative analysis: New public management, governance and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Royal Institute of Public Administration. (1987). Top jobs in Whitehall: Appointments and promotion in the senior civil service. London: RIPA. Cited in Sausman, C., & Locke, R. (2004). The British civil service: Examining the question of politicisation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective: The quest for control. London: Routledge.
Sausman, C., & Locke, R. (2004). The British civil service: Examining the question of politicisation. In P. B. Guy & J. Pierre (Eds.), Politicization of the civil service in comparative perspective: The quest for control. London: Routledge.
Savoie, D. (2003). Breaking the bargain: Public servants, ministers and parliament. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Savoie, D. J. (2004). The search of a responsive bureaucracy in Canada...