Search results

Cet article présente le décalage de plus en plus important qui existe entre le mode de gouvernance de l'État d'Israël et les défis que celui-ci doit affronter. Ces problèmes ont pour origine la culture civique et politique d'Israël mais aussi le déclin de la solidarité sociale et de la confiance des citoyens vis-à-vis des pouvoirs publics. La présentation des principaux problèmes que connaissent l'État et la société israélienne permet d'identifier les divisions politico-sociales qui traversent le pays et entrainent une évolution de la culture politique et civique des citoyens. Ces derniers développent une nouvelle approche des services publics en les prenant en charge eux-mêmes sans compter sur les pouvoirs publics. Cette nouvelle culture civique et sociale est l'illustration des difficultés que rencontre la gouvernance israélienne. En s'appuyant sur la théorie des institutions il est possible de faire plusieurs propositions pour permettre une élaboration des politiques publiques et une gouvernance plus efficaces en Israël.

This article establishes a framework for explaining the ways in which citizens, as clients of public services, attempt to deal with situations of combined market and government failures. Under certain conditions, citizens are driven to create self‐production mechanisms that often are extralegal or illegal. When faced with such social initiatives, politicians often support them, either passively or actively, by institutionalizing the new mechanisms. The article explains the evolution of the self‐provision model and its implications. The analysis includes a theoretical framework and a practical intervention scheme.

AbstractThis article develops an explanatory framework of institutional change in intergovernmental relations. Using new institutionalism, we focus on a main explanatory factor—the players' perceptions of their own accountability and that of others. Integrating the concepts of multiple accountability and felt accountability, we develop the concept of an accountability gap, meaning differences between the perceptions of players in the central government about their responsibility to provide local services and the perceptions of players at the local level about their responsibilities. Our claim is that perceptual gaps concerning accountability in a two‐tiered or multi‐tiered system may influence their interests, strategies, and behavior and hence determine the timing and pace of specific institutional changes. We illustrate the theoretical framework by examining how Spain managed the COVID‐19 pandemic.Related ArticlesAguado, N. Alexander. 2018. "Mayor‐Council Form of Government and Policy Responses in Times of Economic Travail."Politics & Policy46(5): 714–30.https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12273.French, Edward P., and Doug Goodman. 2011. "Local Government Human Resource Management Past, Present, and Future: Revisiting Hays and Kearney's Anticipated Changes a Decade Later."Politics & Policy39(5): 761–85.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00312.x.Kwon, Sung‐Wook, and Sylvia Gonzalez‐Gorman. 2019. "Influence of Local Political Institutions on Policy Punctuation in Three Policy Areas."Politics & Policy47(2): 300–25.https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12295.

AbstractThis study explores the impact of the configuration of performance information on citizens' perceptions regarding the impact of the information on their lives and the reliability they assign to it. We conducted a survey experiment among a representative sample of the Israeli population. The treatment included the object being measured, the identity of those who manage the performance management mechanism, and the trend of the results. We also compared the education and police sectors. Our findings indicate that, overall, citizens feel that performance information has only a low‐to‐medium effect on their lives, and assign a similar level of reliability to that information. The configuration of performance information helps explain this perceived impact only to a limited extent. These findings question the usefulness of performance reporting mechanisms as a major tool for strengthening accountability and raise serious doubts about the possible ways to improve these mechanisms and make them more effective.