Quality of Governance

Values and Violations

Hester Paanakker, Adam Masters, Leo Huberts, Hester Paanakker, Adam Masters, Leo Huberts

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9783030215217
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030215224
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

"Quality of governance: Values and violations arrives at a time when governance faces new and often dire challenges and as traditional democratic values strain against the rise of authoritarian forms of populism and anti-government sentiment. This comprehensive volume considers these challenges from a variety of angles- transparency, bureaucratic pathologies, public values, sector relations- but at the same time manages a higher degree of integration than one usually finds in most edited volumes. The individual selections focus on topics of widespread interest but with new theories, analytical frameworks and insights. This book should be read by anyone interested the values bases of governance and in exploring good ideas about how to improve policy and management. The book serves a professional academic audience but could also prove quite useful as a text or supplementary book for graduate and undergraduate courses in public affairs."

Barry Bozeman, Regents'Professor, Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs, USA. 

"Public governance matters. It touches almost every aspect of our lives, from the most mundane to the most important, the most commonplace to the most intimate. This book critically examines some of thorniest values and issues for governance in the 21st century -- democracy, legitimacy, accountability, transparency, integrity, professionalism, and more -- all of which are of crucial importance for practice and research on the quality of governance."

Tina Nabatchi, Syracuse University, USA, Co-Chair of the Study Group 'Quality of Governance' of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences.

"This volume provides an up-to-date overview of key themes and theories about the quality of governance. Many of the field's most thoughtful scholars have contributed chapters on both the positive and problematic dimensions of good governance, providing fascinatinginsights in this important topic. Therefore, this book is a must read for all scholars, students, and practitioners interested in improving the quality of governance in their countries and institutions."

Zeger van der Wal, National University of Singapore and Leiden University The Netherlands.

This volume unravels the meaning of public values for the quality of governance, for good and bad governance, and examines their significance in governance practices. It addresses public values in context, in different countries, policy sectors and levels of governance. In a series of in-depth studies, a critical eye is cast over eight central values: democratic legitimacy, accountability, transparency, integrity, lawfulness, effectiveness (in terms of service quality), professionalism and craftsmanship, and robustness. How does for instance integrity or lawfulness contribute to the accomplishment and preservation of quality, and what happens if we fail to address it adequately? This unique exercise yields important lessons on the differences in normative interpretation and application of often abstract values in the demanding administrative settings of today. Practitioners, scholars and students of public administration, public management and political science will find the volume a vital resource for theory and practice.

Part IInstitutionalizing Values in Governance Practices

© The Author(s) 2020

H. Paanakker et al. (eds.)Quality of Governancehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21522-4_2

Begin Abstract

2. Democratic Legitimacy in Bureaucratic Structures: A Precarious Balance

Neal D. Buckwalter¹ and Danny L. Balfour¹

(1)

Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA

Neal D. Buckwalter

Email: [email protected]

Keywords

DemocracyLegitimacyBureaucracyPublic valuesQuality of governance

End Abstract

Democratic societies are based on legitimacy, which itself is largely based on effectiveness. How can governments preserve their legitimacy if they deny themselves of the means of being effective? … One of the crucial elements that contributes to or detracts from responsive, accountable, effective, and legitimate government is the instrument through which all governments exercise their authority—the state bureaucracy. (Suleiman, 2003, pp. 2, 7)

If a nation gives the control of government to only a part of the people, it therefore establishes an incontrovertible fact that some of the people do not count. Government is democratic government only if it is government by the whole people…. Our problem from now on is … to extend and make stronger the institutions and ways that are essential to popular government. Bureaucracy must find its proper place within this pattern of essential institutions and ways. (Hyneman, 1950, p. 12)

In the sections that follow, we first briefly examine the concept of democratic legitimacy—what it entails, why it matters, and how it relates to other governance values. We then turn our focus toward those factors which may strengthen or diminish perceptions of democratic legitimacy, for as our guiding question implies, legitimacy is not a static value but rather exists in a relative state of flux. To flesh out these ideas, we examine the unique use of emergency financial managers (EFMs) in Michigan, an approach which has been much highlighted in recent years through the lens of a large-scale municipal bankruptcy as well as a devastating water crisis.

2.1 Democratic Legitimacy as a Governance Value

Democratic legitimacy, in its most formal definition, refers to when the policies and actions of government (including the appointment of public officials) are the result of, or are undergirded by, laws passed by the duly elected representatives of the citizenry or by direct vote (referendum).¹ Public policies are legitimate (have authority) because they are seen as rooted in the will of the electorate (preferably a majority) and consistent with constitutional requirements and limitations (protection of minority rights). Democratic legitimacy can be bolstered by processes that promote and facilitate citizen participation in policy formulation (inform, input, commentary, etc.; see e.g. Nabatchi, 2010 or Buckwalter, 2014).

These formal requirements—governance by the rule of law and by the consent and will of the governed—are necessary, but arguably not sufficient, to achieve and maintain democratic legitimacy. In addition, the policies promulgated by democratic government must be effective in serving the needs of the citizenry, or, as Waldo (1948, p. 74) pointed out nearly 70 years ago, people will lose faith in the institutions of democracy:

Traditional institutions of democracy in themselves do not guarantee democracy; indeed, they may impede it. ‘It is important to keep prominently before us,’ prefaced the President’s Committee, ‘the ends of reorganization… There is but one grand purpose, namely, to make democracy work today in our National Government; that is, to make our Government an up-to-date, efficient, and effective instrument for carrying out the will of the Nation. It is for this purpose that Government needs thoroughly modern tools of management.’ The ‘will of the nation,’ it will be recalled, was interpreted as ‘the steady sharing of the gains of the Nation,’ ‘security, steadier employment, better living and working conditions,’ and so forth. ‘Without results we know that democracy means nothing and ceases to be alive in the minds and hearts of men.’

In other words, legitimacy rests in large measure on a government’s ability not just to make policy, but to effectively carry it out toward desirable ends. To achieve results, modern democracies depend on bureaucracy to expertly manage the policy process, from helping legislators formulate policies, to implementing, evaluating, and re-formulating those policies. This, of course, is undergirded by the assumption that bureaucracy as an organizational form is unparalleled in its ability for getting things done (e.g. Weber, 1946). Again, Dwight Waldo posed the essential question: ‘But, in that case, what about the democracy in which we profess to believe? Is bureaucracy superior to democracy? American students of public administration have, paradoxically, held to a strong belief in democracy at the same time they have been firmly convinced of the superiority of “the monocratic type of bureaucratic administration”’ (Waldo, 1948, pp. 46–47). This paradox comes at least, in part, because bureaucracy serves values, such as efficiency and expertise, which may not be as well achieved by democratic processes. On the other hand, democracy may be better at securing values such as representativeness and openness. A further look at the values of democracy and bureaucracy follows below.

2.1.1 The Balancing Act Between Democracy and Bureaucracy

Through the years, much ink has been spilled in academic debates regarding the relationship of politics and administration. Over time, notions of a strict dichotomy between these spheres have been more or less resolved; in general, stark lines have been blurred and more fluid interrelationships acknowledged. Such is the state of our understanding of the role of bureaucracy in democratic governance. Still, at the risk of oversimplifying an instrumentalist viewpoint, in a democratic state, the institutions and values of democracy carry a certain primacy as intrinsic ends. Bureaucracy, or administrative structure, takes a more instrumental role in carrying forward the political will of the sovereign. In that way, bureaucracy becomes a means to an end, equally able to serve a range of political forms—from authoritarian to democratic.

An Array of Public Values. Bureaucracy, as an administrative form, is rather self-legitimating (Weber, 1946). Democracy, on the other hand, requires constant attention to maintain legitimacy. Democratic legitimacy is nestled in a broad array of dynamic values, many of which are highlighted in other chapters of this book. Figure 2.1, far from exhaustive, highlights a few select examples for the sake of illustration. The yin-yang image is meant to soften the suggested dichotomy and depict something of the fluidity in this characterization of values.² Some values such as efficiency, expertise, and control find more emphasis on the bureaucratic side. Others such as representativeness, participation, and transparency (see Schnell in this volume) provide counterweight from the democratic side. One could argue that effectiveness and accountability (see O’Kelly and Dubnick in this volume) are served from both sides. The point here is not necessarily to argue the exact placement of these values so much as to suggest that many different values are important to the attainment and maintenance of democratic legitimacy .

Fig. 2.1

An array of values to uphold democratic legitimacy

Democratic legitimacy is non-static. If anything, it is characterized by a nearly constant negotiation (and re-negotiation) between both democratic and bureaucratic values and processes. Within this dynamic framework, it is possible for the values of one sphere to overwhelm and displace the values of the other sphere. It would take little imagination to envision a scenario in which the drive for efficiency crowds out opportunity for public participation, or in which the role of experts supersedes responsiveness to the public. And the imbalance can go in the other direction as well, with endless public engagement making it impossible to make decisions, let alone move them forward in an efficient and effective way. Therefore, the question of balance remains pertinent (e.g. see Meier, 1997; Feldman & Khademian, 2000).

Figure 2.2 reflects various scenarios of balance between democracy and bureaucracy. In Panel A, democratic means and ends roughly match up in size and scope with bureaucratic means and ends. Note that the state of balance in Panel A does not optimize either democratic or bureaucratic values; rather it reflects a sort of compromise between the two. For example, while the value of participation would not overpower the drive for efficiency, or vice versa, such a balance could result in governance that is neither very participative nor very efficient. Empirically, such a perfect balance would likely never be observed; normatively, it may not necessarily be desirable.

Fig. 2.2

The balance of democracy and bureaucracy

In reality, the balance between democracy and bureaucracy may look more like the images depicted in Panels B and C, where the fulcrum point—representing the interplay of many sociopolitical factors—shifts to the left or right of the center. An un-centered fulcrum point demands a re-calibration of counterweights to achieve a balance. For example, in Panel B, the fulcrum point has shifted to the left of center, with an attendant focus on democratic values and processes (notice the sha...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• Introduction
• Part I. Institutionalizing Values in Governance Practices
• Part II. Translating Values in Practitioner Behavior
• Conclusion
• Back Matter