Milline on “õige” vahekord poliitilisel ja avalikul juhtimisel, seda ei saa keegi täpselt öelda, kuid mõelda nende küsimuste peale oleks kasulik, sest kaalul ei ole muud, kui elanike heaolu. Sestap see tekst siin oma koha leidiski. Siit leiab kasulikku see, kes huvitub avaliku juhtimise ja poliitika vahekorrast, organisatsioonidisainist ja valitsemiskorraldusest.
There is a growing body of literature on the association between politics and administration in the public administration field (Dahlström, 2012; Kopecký et al., 2016; Peters & Pierre, 2004). The relationship between civil servants and their political leaders, and their relative powers, are central issues in modern governance that can lead to the politicization of the public service (Rouban, 2012).
Although politicians and administrators can mutually influence each other in almost any government or country, in recent years, politicians’ control over the bureaucracy has increased, underlining increasing intentions for public service politicization (Halligan, 2021; Peters, 2013).
Mõõta on keeruline:
Yet, due to the different and varied forms of public services politicization, it is hard to empirically measure and study all aspects of politicization and its objective forms (Čehovin & Haček, 2015; Peters & Pierre, 2004; Rouban, 2004).
The ultimate purpose of this study is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the positive and negative consequences of politicization in the Iranian public service context based on Rouban’s (2012) framework of politicization.
Mille üle vaidlus käib?
The association between administrators and political authorities has experienced a considerable amount of debate among experts in the field (see e.g., Svara, 2001). This relationship remains one of the most significant issues in public administration (Denhardt & Baker, 2007; Overeem, 2005; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). At the heart of the issue is the degree of control over the bureaucracy exercised by politicians who appoint persons committed to their own partisan values and policies (Cooper, 2018; Dahlström & Niklasson, 2013; Peters & Pierre, 2004).
Teatud mõttes on need kaks eristatavad ainult analüütiliselt:
It is suggested that the politicization of the public service is an inevitable phenomenon, and bureaucrats may have their own interests and power. Therefore, making a distinction between politics and administration could be difficult in practice (Olsen, 2005).
Abilisi oleks veelgi:
Academics can support the role of professional managers and public servants in the public policy process, especially in the implementation and evaluation stages. In this regard, the politicization of the civil service, particularly in the form of involvement in the policy process and policy decisions, is inevitable (Rouban, 2004).
Rouban (2012, p. 381) presented three dimensions of politicization: “politicization as civil servant participation in political decision making; politicization as control over nominations and careers; and politicization as civil servants’ political involvement.”
In general, even though our findings indicate that each approach has some positive and some negative effects, a politicized system based on two of Rouban’s (2012) categories in a developing country, like Iran, has more destructive effects than constructive ones.
Peters, B. G., Danaeefard, H., Ahmadzahi Torshab, A., Mostafazadeh, M., & Hashemi, M. (2021) Consequences of a politicized public service system: Perspectives of politicians, public servants, and political experts. Politics & Policy