1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 25, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 25, 2022

Comparative Bureaucratic Politics

Abstract

This article discusses one of the most important institutions in the modern world, namely public bureaucracies, from a comparative perspective. Bureaucratic organizations can be seen as a result of handling dilemmas along two critical dimensions. The first dimension concerns whether bureaucrats should be autonomous or, on the contrary, directly accountable to their political masters. The second dimension is about whether bureaucrats should always be guided by the letter of the law, strictly following established rules, or, on the contrary, guided by the principle of management, searching for the most efficient solution. We review the extensive recent research on the effects of different ways of organizing public bureaucracies along these two dimensions. Specifically, we look at three fundamental outcomes: economic development, corruption, and the quality of public services. We conclude by discussing the pros and cons of the four types of bureaucracies—legalistic (accountability and law), populistic (accountability and management), Weberian (autonomy and law), and liberal (autonomy and management)—and how they relate to, but do not overlap with, the concept of administrative traditions.

Keyword(s): bureaucracy, comparative politics, corruption, economic development, public administration, public services
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543
2022-05-12
2025-05-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/25/1/annurev-polisci-051120-102543.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aberbach JD, Rockman BA. 2009. The appointments process and the administrative presidency. Pres. Stud. Q 39:138–59
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty London: Profile
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aghion P, Algan Y, Cahuc P, Shleifer A. 2010. Regulation and distrust. Q. J. Econ 125:31015–49
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahlers AL, Schubert G 2018. Local cadre elites and policy implementation in contemporary China. Local Elites in Post-Mao China Y Guo 17–38 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ahlin C, Bose P. 2007. Bribery, inefficiency, and bureaucratic delay. J. Dev. Econ 84:1465–86
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Alford J, Hughes O 2008. Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. Am. Rev. Public. Adm 38:2130–48
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Amsden A. 1989. Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Auer A, Demmke C, Poltet R. 1996.. Civil Services in the Europe of Fifteen: Current Situation and Prospects Maastricht, Neth.: Eur. Inst. Public Adm.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bacchus J. 2004. Turning to Tacitus. Vanderbilt J. Transnatl. Law 37:3631–46
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bach T 2012. Germany. Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries K Verhoest, S van Thiel, G Bouckaert, P Lægreid 166–79 New York: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bach T, Veit S. 2018. The determinants of promotion to high public office in Germany: partisan loyalty, political craft, or managerial competencies?. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 28:2254–69
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Becker G, Stigler G. 1974. Law enforcement, malfeasance, and compensation of enforcers. J. Leg. Stud 3:11–18
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Baker G, Gibbons R, Murphy KJ. 2002. Relational contracts and the theory of the firm. Q. J. Econ 117:139–84
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bell DA. 2015. The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bendor J, Glazer A, Hammond T. 2001. Theories of delegation. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 4:235–69
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bertelli A, Grose C. 2009. Secretaries of pork? A new theory of distributive public policy. J. Politics 71:3926–45
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bhavnani RR, Lee A. 2021. Does affirmative action worsen bureaucratic performance? Evidence from the Indian administrative service. Am. J. Political Sci 65:15–20
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Boräng F, Cornell A, Grimes M, Schuster C 2018. Cooking the books: bureaucratic politicization and policy knowledge. Governance 31:17–26
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Boruvka E, Perry JL. 2020. Understanding evolving public motivational practices: an institutional analysis. Governance 33:3565–84
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Brown TL, Potoski M, Slyke DV. 2016. Managing complex contracts: a theoretical approach. J. Public Adm. Res 26:2294–308
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Buchanan J. 1968. The Demand and Supply of Public Goods Chicago: Rand McNally
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Calvot T. 2003. New public management and corruption: IPMN dialogue and analysis. Int. Public Manag. Rev 4:184–130
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Carpenter D. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Networks, Reputations and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies,1862–1928 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Christensen T, Lægreid P. 2007. The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Adm. Rev 67:61059–66
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cingolani L, Fazekas M. 2020. The role of agencification in achieving value-for-money in public spending. Governance 33:3545–63
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Colonnelli E, Prem M, Teso E. 2020. Patronage and selection in public sector organizations. Am. Econ. Rev 110:103071–99
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cornell A, Knutsen CH, Teorell J. 2020. Bureaucracy and growth. Comp. Political Stud 53:142246–82
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cornell A, Sundell A 2020. Money matters: the role of public sector wages in corruption prevention. Public Adm 98:1244–60
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cooper CA. 2018. Encouraging civil servants to be frank and fearless: merit recruitment and employee voice. Public Adm 96:4721–35
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dahlström C, Fazekas M, Lewis DE 2021. Partisan procurement. Contracting with the United States federal government, 2003–2015. Am. J. Political Sci 65:3652–69
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dahlström C, Lapuente V. 2010. Explaining cross-country differences in performance-related pay in the public sector. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 20:3577–600
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dahlström C, Lapuente V. 2017. Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Making of Good Government Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Dasandi N, Esteve M. 2017. The politics-bureaucracy interface in developing countries. Public Adm. Dev 37:4231–45
     [Google Scholar]
  34. De la Croix D, Delavallade C. 2009. Growth, public investment and corruption with failing institutions. Econ. Gov 10:3187–219
     [Google Scholar]
  35. De Vries M, Nemec J. 2013. Public sector reform: an overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag 26:14–16
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Diamond L 2007. Larry Diamond. “A quarter-century of promoting democracy,” T Carothers, JB Elshtain, LJ Diamond, A Ibrahim, ZH Bangura J. Democr 18:4112–26
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Doherty KM, Lewis DE, Limbocker S 2019. Executive control and turnover in the senior executive service. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 29:2159–74
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Doig A. 1997. People or positions? Ensuring standards in the reformed public sector. The Civil Service in an Era of Change P Barberis 95–114 London: Dartmouth
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Drechsler W. 2020. Max Weber and the mandate of heaven. Max Weber Stud 20:125–56
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Dunleavy P, Margetts H, Bastow S, Tinkler J. 2006. New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 16:3467–94
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Duvanova D. 2014. Economic regulations, red tape, and bureaucratic corruption in post-communist economies. World Dev 59:298–312
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Epstein D, O'Halloran S. 1999. Delegating Powers. A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making Under Separate Powers New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Evans PB. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Evans PB, Rauch JE. 1999. Bureaucracy and growth: a cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. Am. Sociol. Rev 64:5748–65
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Finer H. 1936. Better government personnel. Q. J. Political Sci 51:4569–99
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Fiorino N, Galli E, Padovano F 2015. How long does it take for government decentralization to affect corruption?. Econ. Gov 16:3273–305
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Fjeldstad OH. 2005. Corruption in tax administration: lessons from institutional reforms in Uganda Work. Pap. 2005:10, Chr. Michelsen Inst https://open.cmi.no/cmi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2436024/Working%20paper%20WP%202005-10.pdf?sequence=2
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Friedrich CJ 1940. Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public Policy: A Yearbook of the Graduate School of Public Administration, Vol. 1 CJ Friedrich, E Mason 3–24 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Fuenzalida J, Riccucci NM. 2019. The effects of politicization on performance: the mediating role of HRM practices. Rev. Public Pers. Adm 39:4544–69
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Fukuyama F. 2013. What is governance?. Governance 26:3347–68
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Gailmard S, Patty J 2007. Slackers and zealots: civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. Am. J. Political Sci 51:4873–89
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Gailmard S, Patty J. 2012. Formal models of bureaucracy. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 15:353–77
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gallo N, Lewis DE. 2011. The consequences of presidential patronage for federal agency performance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22:2219–43
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Gans-Morse J, Borges M, Makarin A, Mannah-Blankson T, Nickow A, Zhang D 2018. Reducing bureaucratic corruption: interdisciplinary perspectives on what works. World Dev 105:171–88
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gingrich J. 2011. Making Markets in the Welfare State Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Goel RK, Nelson MA. 2010. Causes of corruption: history, geography and government. J. Policy Model 32:4433–47
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Graeff P, Mehlkop G. 2003. The impact of economic freedom on corruption: different patterns for rich and poor countries. Eur. J. Political Econ 19:3605–20
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Grindle MS. 2004. Despite the Odds: The Contentious Politics of Education Reform Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Grindle MS. 2013. Public sector reform as problem-solving? Comment on the World Bank's public sector management approach for 2011 to 2020. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 79:3398–405
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Grindle MS, Thomas JW. 1991. Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Groeneveld S, Van de Walle S. 2010. A contingency approach to representative bureaucracy: power, equal opportunities and diversity. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci 76:2239–58
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Gründler K, Potrafke N. 2019. Corruption and economic growth: new empirical evidence. Eur. J. Political Econ 60:101810
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Gupta S, Davoodi H, Alonso-Terme R. 2002. Does corruption affect income inequality and poverty?. Econ. Gov 3:123–45
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hart O, Shleifer A, Vishny RW. 1997. The proper scope of government: theory and an application to prisons. Q. J. Econ 112:41127–61
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Heady F 1996. Configurations of civil service systems. Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective HAGM Bekke, JL Perry, TA Toonen 207–26 Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Henrich J. 2020. The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Hirschmann D. 1999. Development management versus third world bureaucracies: a brief history of conflicting interests. Dev. Change 30:2287–305
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Holcombe RG, Boudreaux CJ. 2015. Regulation and corruption. Public Choice 164:175–85
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Hood C. 1991. A public management for all seasons?. Public Adm 69:13–19
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Hood C. 1995. The “new public management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Account. Organ. Soc 20:2–393–109
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Horn M. 1995. The Political Economy of Public Administration New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Huber J, Shipan C. 2002. Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Huntington SP. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Jancsics D, Jávor I. 2012. Corrupt governmental networks. Int. Public Manag. J 15:162–99
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Jankowski M, Prokop C, Tepe M. 2020. Representative bureaucracy and public hiring preferences: evidence from a conjoint experiment among German municipal civil servants and private sector employees. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 30:4596–618
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Jia R, Kudamatsu M, Seim D. 2015. Political selection in China: the complementary roles of connections and performance. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc 13:4631–68
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Jiang J. 2018. Making bureaucracy work: patronage networks, performance incentives, and economic development in China. Am. J. Political Sci 62:4982–99
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Johnson C 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Kaufmann D, Vicente PC. 2011. Legal corruption. Econ. Politics 23:2195–219
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kelman S. 2003. Steve Kelman. “New public management and corruption: IPMN dialogue and analysis,” P von Maravic, C Reichard Int. Public Manag. Rev. 4:184–130
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Khan AQ, Khwaja AI, Olken BA. 2016. Tax farming redux: experimental evidence on performance pay for tax collectors. Q. J. Econ 131:1219–71
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Kim H, Jung H, Kim SY 2021. Does politicization influence senior public officials’ work attitudes? Different forms and effects of politicization in the civil service.. Public Manag. Rev press. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1883099
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Kingsley JD. 1944. Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kiser E, Tong X. 1992. Determinants of the amount and type of corruption in state fiscal bureaucracies an analysis of late imperial China. Comp. Political Stud 25:3300–31
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Klitgaard R. 1988. Controlling Corruption Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Kopecký P, Mair P, Spirova M 2012. Party Patronage and Party Government in European Democracies Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Kwon I. 2014. Motivation, discretion, and corruption. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 24:3765–94
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Lapuente V. 2007. A political economy approach to bureaucracies PhD Diss., Univ. Oxford
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Lapuente V, Van de Walle S. 2020. The effects of new public management on the quality of public services. Governance 33:3461–475
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Le Grand J 2009. The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services Through Choice and Competition Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Lewis DE. 2007. Testing Pendleton's premise: Do political appointees make worse bureaucrats?. J. Politics 69:41073–88
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Lewis DE. 2008. The Politics of Presidential Appointments Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Lindkvist I 2014. Using salaries as a deterrent to informal payments in the health sector. Corruption, Grabbing and Development: Real World Challenges T Søreide, A Williams 103–115 Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Lundgren P, Fisher P, Tilly C 1975. The recruitment and training of administrative and technical personnel. The Formation of National States in Western Europe C Tilly 509–27 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  95. MacCarthaigh M, Boyle R. 2012. Ireland. . In Government Agencies: Practices and Lessons from 30 Countries K Verhoest, S van Thiel, G Bouckaert, P Lægreid 40–51 New York: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Markovits D. 2019. The Meritocracy Trap London: Penguin
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Mathur A, Singh K 2013. Foreign direct investment, corruption and democracy. Appl. Econ 45:8991–1002
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Mazzucato M. 2011. The entrepreneurial state. Soundings 49:49131–42
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Mei C, Pearson MM 2014. Killing a chicken to scare the monkeys? Deterrence failure and local defiance in China. China J 72:75–97
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Meyer-Sahling JH, Mikkelsen KS, Schuster C. 2018. Civil service management and corruption: what we know and what we don't. Public Adm 96:2276–85
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Meyer-Sahling JH, Toth F. 2020. Governing illiberal democracies: democratic backsliding and the political appointment of top officials in Hungary. NISPAcee J. Public Admin. Policy 13:293–113
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Miller GJ. 1992. Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Miller GJ. 1997. The impact of economics on contemporary political science. J. Econ. Lit 35:31173–204
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Miller G. 2000. Above politics: credible commitment and efficiency in the design of public agencies. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 10:2289–328
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Miller GJ 2011. Credible commitment. International Encyclopedia of Political Science, Vol. 1 B Badie, D Berg-Schlosser, L Morlino 487–90 London: Sage
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Miller GJ, Whitford AB. 2016. Above Politics. Bureaucratic Discretion and Credible Commitment Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Moe TM. 1989. The politics of bureaucratic structure. In Can the Government Govern? J Chubb, P Peterson 285–323 Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Moe TM. 1990. Political institutions: the neglected side of the story. J. Law Econ. Organ 6:213–53
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Moynihan DP. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Musila JW, Sigue SP. 2010. Corruption and international trade: an empirical investigation of African countries. World Econ 33:1129–46
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Niskanen W. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Democracy Chicago:: Aldine
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Nistotskaya M, Charron N, Lapuente V. 2015. The wealth of regions: quality of government and SMEs in 172 European regions. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 33:51125–55
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Nistotskaya M, Cingolani L. 2016. Bureaucratic structure, regulatory quality, and entrepreneurship in a comparative perspective: cross-sectional and panel data evidence. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 26:3519–34
     [Google Scholar]
  114. North DC. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History New York: Norton
     [Google Scholar]
  115. OECD 1991. Serving the Economy Better Paris: Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. Publ. Serv.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. OECD 1995. Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries Paris: Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. Publ. Serv.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Olken BA, Barron P. 2009. The simple economics of extortion: evidence from trucking in Aceh. J. Political Econ 117:3417–52
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Ongaro E, Van Thiel S, Massey A, Pierre J, Wollmann H 2018. Public administration and public management research in Europe: traditions and trends. The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe E Ongaro, S Van Thiel 11–39 London: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Osborne D, Plastrik P 1997. Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Overman S, van Thiel S. 2016. Agencification and public sector performance: a systematic comparison in 20 countries. Public Manag. Rev 18:4611–35
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Parrado S. 2008. Failed policies but institutional innovation through “layering” and “diffusion” in Spanish central administration. Int. J. Public Sector Manag 21:2230–52
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Pepinsky TB, Pierskalla JH, Sacks A. 2017. Bureaucracy and service delivery. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 20:249–68
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Peters BG. 2021. Administrative Traditions Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Peters BG, Pierre J 2004. The Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective: A Quest for Control, Vol. 7 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Peters BG, Pierre J. 2019. Populism and public administration: confronting the administrative state. Adm. Soc 51:101521–45
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Pierre J. 2015. Varieties of capitalism and varieties of globalization: comparing patterns of market deregulation. J. Eur. Public Policy 22:7908–26
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Pierre J, Rothstein B 2010. Reinventing Weber: the role of institutions in creating social trust. The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management P Lægreid, T Christensen 407–19 Burlington, VT: Ashgate
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Rauch J, Evans PB. 2000. Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. J. Public Econ 75:149–71
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Reichard C 2003. Christoph Reichard. “New public management and corruption: IPMN dialogue and analysis,” P von Maravic, C Reichard Int. Public Manag. Rev. 4:184–130
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Rein L. 2018. Trump loyalists at VA shuffling, purging employees before new secretary takes over. Washington Post Jul. 18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-loyalists-at-va-shuffling-purging-employees-before-new-secretary-takes-over/2018/07/18/a4462aae-892d-11e8-8aea-86e88ae760d8_story.html
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Rodrik D. 2007.. One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions and Economic Growth Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Rothstein B. 2011. The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in International Perspective Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Rubin EV, Whitford A. 2008. Effects of the institutional design of the civil service: evidence from corruption. Int. Public Manag. J 11:4404–25
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Samaratunge R, Alam Q, Teicher J 2008. The New Public Management reforms in Asia. Int. Rev. Public Adm 754:125–46
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Sandel MJ. 2020. The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? London: Penguin
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Schneider BR. 1992. Politics Within the State: Elite Bureaucrats and Industrial Policy in Authoritarian Brazil Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Schulze GG, Frank B. 2003. Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility. Econ. Gov 4:2143–60
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Shih V, Adolph C, Mingxing L 2012. Getting ahead in the Communist Party: explaining the advancement of Central Committee members in China. Am. Political Sci. Rev 106:1166–87
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Shleifer A, Vishny RW. 1993. Corruption. Q. J. Econ 108:3599–617
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Tan SH. 2011. The Dao of politics: li (rituals/rites) and laws as pragmatic tools of government. Philos. East West 61:3468–91
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Tanzi V. 1998. Corruption around the world: causes, consequences, scope, and cures. Staff Pap. Int. Monet. Fund 45:4559–94
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Toral G. 2021. The benefits of patronage: how political appointments can enhance bureaucratic accountability and effectiveness Work. Pap https://www.guillermotoral.com/Toral_JMP.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Treisman D. 2000. The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J. Public Econ 76:3399–458
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Van Ryzin GG, Riccucci NM 2017. Representative bureaucracy: an experimental approach. Experiments in Public Management Research: Challenges and Contributions O James, SR Jilke, GG Van Ryzin 313–28 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Von Maravic P, Reichard C. 2003. New public management and corruption: IPMN dialogue and analysis. Int. Public Manag. Rev 4:184–130
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Wade R. 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in Taiwan's Industrialization Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Weber M. 2013. 1921. Economy and Society, Vol 2: Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Wilson W. 1887. The study of administration. Q. J. Polit. Sci 2:2197–222
     [Google Scholar]
  149. World Bank 1991. The Reform of Public Sector Management: Lessons from Experience Washington, DC: World Bank
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Xu G. 2018. The costs of patronage: evidence from the British Empire. Am. Econ. Rev 108:113170–98
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543
Loading
Comparative Bureaucratic Politics
Annual Review of Political Science 25, 43 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-102543
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error