The Two Futures of Governing: Decentering and Recentering Processes in Governing

• Authors: B. Peters
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Reforms of the public sector have helped create a more efficient and effective public sector, but they have also created a number of problems. Both the New Public Management and "governance" reforms have contributed to the contemporary problems in governing. These problems have been political to a great extent, reflecting the tendency to emphasize administrative rather than democratic values. Governments have begun to react to the real and perceived problems within the public sector by developing a number of "meat-governance" instruments that can help steer public organizations but which involve less direct command and control. This paper addresses the contemporary governance tasks of restoring political direction and policy coherence while at the same time supporting the autonomy of public organizations, and the involvement of policy networks, in governing.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 7-24

Dates

published

2009-07-01

online

2009-08-03

Contributors

author

B. Peters

• Department of Political Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA

References

• 6, P., D. Leat, K. Setzler and G. Stoker. 2002. Toward Holistic Governance: The New Reform Agenda. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
• Adler, E. 1992. "The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control." International Organization 46, 105-115.
• Bakvis, H. and L. Juillet. 2004. The Horizontal Challenge: Line Departments, Central Agencies and Leadership. Ottawa: Canadian School of Governance.
• Bouckaert, G., D. Ormond and B. G. Peters. 2000. A Possible Governance Agenda for Sweden. Helsinki: Ministry of Finance.
• Buchanan, J. M. and G. Tullock. 1962. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Caplan, B. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Christensen, T. and P. Laegreid. 2007. Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. Aldershot; Ashgate.
• Christensen, T. and P. Laegreid. 2001. New Public Management: Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Dente, B., L. Bobbio and A. Spada. 2003. "Government or Governance of Urban Innovation?" DISP 162 (3), 1-22.
• DiIulio, J. J. 1994. Deregulating Government. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
• Gregory, R. 2004. "All the King's Horses and All the King's Men: Putting the New Zealand Public Sector Together Again.", International Public Management Journal vol.4, 41-58.
• Heffernan, R. 2003. "Prime Ministerial Predominance?: Core Executive Politics in the United Kingdom." British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5, 347-372.
• Helmke, G. and S. Levitsky. 2004. "Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda." Perspectives on Politics 2, 725-740.
• Hood, C. 1991. "A Public Management for All Seasons?" Public Administration 69, 3-19.[Crossref]
• Huber, J. D. and C. R. Shipan. 2002. Deliberate Discretion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jensen, L. 2004. Den store koordinator. Kobenhavn: Jurist og Økonomi.
• Klijn, E.-H. and J. Koopenhaan. 2005. Managing Uncertainties in Networks. London: Routledge.
• Marinetto, M. 2003. "Governing Beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School." Political Studies 51, 592-608.[Crossref]
• Meyers, M. K. and S. Vorsanger. 2004. "Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy." In B. G. Peters and J. Pierre (eds). The Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage, pages.
• Morth, U. 2003. Soft Law in Governance and Regulation: An Interdisciplinary Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Mulgan, G. 2000. "Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept." Public Administration 78, 555-573.[Crossref]
• Niskanen, W. 1971. Representative Government and Bureaucracy. Chicago: Aldine / Atherton.
• OECD. 2007. Performance Management in the OECD Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• O'Toole, L. J. 2007. "Governing Outputs and Outcomes of Governance Networks." In E. Sorenson and J. Torfing (eds). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pages.
• Olsen, J. P. forthcoming. "The Ups and Downs of Bureaucratic Organization." Annual Review of Political Science 11, 13-37.[WoS]
• Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1991. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Peters, B. G. 2007a. "Performance Management in the Nordic Countries". Paper Prepared for Annual RAKO Conference, Lidingö, Sweden, 11 September.
• Peters, B. G. 2007b. "Central Agencies and Executive Governance." Paper presented at Joint Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research, 5-10 May.
• Peters, B. G. 2004. "Back to the Centre?: Rebuilding the State." The Political Quarterly, Special issue on "Restating the State", 130-140.
• Peters, B. G. 2005. "Governance and Public Bureaucracy: New Forms of Democracy or New Forms of Control?" Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Administration 26, 3-16.
• Peters, B. G. 2001. The Future of Governing. 2nd edn. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
• Peters, B. G. and J. Pierre. 2004. Politicization of the Public Service: The Quest for Control. London: Routledge.
• Pierre, J. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
• Pollack, J. K. 1951. "The Primacy of Politics." American Political Science Review 45, 1-17.[Crossref]
• Pollitt, C. 2003. "Joined Up Government: A Survey." Political Studies Review 1, 34-49.
• Pollitt, C. and C. Talbot. 2004. Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trends to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisaton. London: Routledge.
• Rokkan, S. 1967. "Norway: Corporate Pluralism." In R. A. Dahl (ed.). Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 70-115.
• Rose, R. 1974. The Problem of Party Government. London: Macmillan.
• Salamon, L. M. 2001. "Introduction." In Salamon (ed.). The Handbook of Policy Instruments. New York: Oxford University Press, 3-31.
• Savoie, D. J. 2004. Governing from the Centre. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Scharpf, F. W. 1988. "The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration." Public Administration 66, 239-278.[Crossref]
• Schofield, J. 2001. "The Old Ways are the Best?: The Durability and Usefulness of Bureaucracy in Public Sector Management." Organization 8, 77-96.[Crossref]
• Sørenson, E. and J. Torfing. 2006. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. London: Palgrave.
• Verhoest, K., P. Humphreys and K. Rubecksen. forthcoming. The Autonomy of Public Agencies: A Comparative Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
• Von Mettenheim, K. 1997. Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics: Comparing Regional and National Contexts. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Walsh, H. and J. Stewart. 1992. "Change in the Management of the Public Service." Public Administration 70, 499-518.
• Wanna, J., L. Jensen and J. De Vries. 2003. Controlling Public Expenditure: The Changing Role of Central Budget Agencies-Better Guardians? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Whitford, A. B. 2002. "Decentralization and Political Control in Bureaucracy." Journal of Theoretical Politics 14, 167-193.[Crossref]
• Yesilkagit. K. 2007. "Whose Regulators?: Competing Perspectives on Bureaucratic Autonomy." Paper presented at Biannual Meeting of the European Consortium for Political Research, Pisa, Italy, 6-8 September.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10110-009-0002-0