Rule of Law or Law Overruled ? Why the Rule of Law Should Be on the Public Administration Research Agenda

• Authors: Stavros Zouridis
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

There appears to be a remarkable contradiction between what is happening in public-administration science and in public-administration practice. In the former, legal approaches have been displaced by managerial and political approaches. Th is shift sharply contrasts with the continuous legalization and juridification of publicadministration practice. Public-administration practice has gradually converged with the law. Lawyers and legal scholars applaud the convergence of the law and public administration as the ultimate realization of the ideal of the Rechtsstaat. A public-administration perspective should take a more critical stance. From a publicadministration perspective, the Rechtsstaat produces both functional and dysfunctional effects. Assessing these effects requires comparative and multi-disciplinary research. Comparative research will reveal different legal and administrative traditions both within Europe and between Europe and other parts of the world. The Rechtsstaat should therefore return onto the public-administration research agenda.

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2011
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 23-37

Dates

published

2011-12-01

online

2013-05-16

Contributors

author

Stavros Zouridis

References

• Allison, J. W. F. 2007. The English Historical Constitution. Continuity, Change andEuropean Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bakker, W. and F. Van Waarden. 1999. Ruimte rond regels: Stijlen van regulering enbeleidsuitvoering bekeken. Amsterdam: Boom.
• Bardach, E. and R. A. Kagan. 2010. Going by the Book: The Problem of RegulatoryUnreasonableness. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
• Carlens, I. and B. Verbeeck. 2007. “Protecting the Citizen, Protecting the Local Administration: The Flemish Case.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of EGPA Study Group on Public Administration.
• Cooper, P. J. 2007. Public Law & Public Administration. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
• De Groot-Van Leeuwen, L. E., A. M. van den Bossche and Y. Buruma (eds). 2006.
• De ongehoorzame rechter: Rechters versus andere rechters, de wetgever, de bevolkingen het Europees recht. Deventer: Kluwer.
• De Jong, P. O. and M. Herweijer. 2004. Alle regels tellen: De ontwikkeling van het aantalwetten, AmvB’s en ministeriële regelingen in Nederland. Den Haag: Boom.
• Finer, S. E. 1999. The History of Government from the Earliest Times. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Freeman, M. D. A. 2001. Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
• Friedman, L. 1994. Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Glendon, M. A., M. W. Gordon and C. Osakwe. 1994. Comparative Legal Traditions:Text, Materials and Cases. St. Paul: West Publishing.
• Glenn, H. P. 2010. Legal Traditions of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greenawalt, K. 1998. Law and Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Hawkins, K. 2002. Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-Making in a RegulatoryAgency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, R. H. and C. G. Rosberg. 1982. Personal Rule in Black Africa: Prince, Autocrat,Prophet, Tyrant. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Kagan, R. A. 1978. Regulatory Justice: Implementing a Wage-price Freeze. New York: Russell Sage.
• Kelsen, H. 1983. Reine Rechtslehre. Wien: Deuticke.
• Koopmans, T. 2003. Courts and Political Institutions: A Comparative View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lynn, L. E. 2009. “Restoring the Rule of Law to Public Administration: What Frank Goodnow Got Right and Leonard White Didn’t.” Public Administration Review 69, 803-812.[WoS]
• Nonet, Ph. and Ph. Selznick. 1978. Law and Society in Transition: Toward ResponsiveLaw. New York: Harper & Row.
• Nussbaum, M. 2007. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership.
• Harvard: Harvard University Press.
• Painter, M. and B. G. Peters (eds). 2010. Tradition and Public Administration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Pakes, F. 2004. Comparative Criminal Justice. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
• Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public Management Reform: A ComparativeAnalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Posner, R. A. 2008. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Pressman, J. L. and A. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Seerden, R. J. G. H. (ed.). 2007. Administrative Law of the European Union, its MemberStates and the United States: A Comparative Analysis. Antwerp: Intersentia.
• Tamanaha, B. Z. 2006. Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Waarden, F. van. 1999. “Ieder land zijn eigen trant?” In Bakker & Van Waarden 1999, 303-339.
• Wilson, J. Q. 1991. Bureaucracy. What Government Agencies Do and Why They DoIt. New York: Basic Books.
• Zouridis, S. 2009. De dynamiek van bestuur en recht: Over de rechtsstaat als bestuurswetenschappelijkfenomeen. Den Haag: Lemma.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10110-011-0003-7