Suchergebnisse

John P. Le Donne, La noblesse russe au XVIIIe siècle : bureaucratie ou classe dirigeante ?
L'article examine les points suivants : 1. On applique le terme bureaucratie sans distinction à des catégories sociales qui ne vont pas ensemble et ne peuvent former une formation socio-politique unique ; 2. La Table des rangs reconnaissait au moins quatre catégories sociales mais refusait d'en reconnaître une cinquième : l'appareil de secrétaires et d'employés de bureau qu'on ne peut pas à proprement parler appeler une bureaucratie ; 3. Les quatre catégories constituaient l'appareil politique comprenant une élite dirigeante, deux niveaux de gestion, et une réserve d'officiers pouvant en cas de besoin remplir des postes dans l'administration civile. Ces catégories faisaient à leur tour partie d'une formation beaucoup plus vaste : l'infrastructure politique de l'Empire ; 4. Cet appareil et cette infrastructure politiques sont considérés dans cet article comme la classe dirigeante de l'Empire parce qu'elle possédait le monopole de la fonction politique ce qui la différenciait nettement du reste de la population ; 5. L'existence de cette classe dirigeante ne tentait pas de limiter le pouvoir de l'empereur parce qu'il existait une identité fondamentale entre les intérêts de la maison régnante et ceux de la classe dirigeante ; 6. L'Empire russe au XVIIIe siècle était ainsi gouverné par une autocratie collective de familles dirigeantes à la tête de réseaux de clientèle qui se partageaient les dépouilles dans le but de renforcer tant leurs privilèges que la puissance militaire de l'Empire.

This paper analyses one aspect of the problem of Thailand's ongoing insurgency, namely the bureaucratic structure in the far south and the role of the bureaucrat as an agent. The discourse on structure emphasizes the need to make the bureaucracy better "integrated" (buranakarn) in order to improve coordination among the key agencies responsible for tackling the conflict. During 200409 there were persistent changes to the bureaucratic structure in the far south which hindered the effective implementation of policies. At the same time, the discourse on bureaucrats focused on the need to send "virtuous" individuals to the region, to remove those who had misbehaved, and to offer training and special rewards for those who remained. Increasingly, fewer bureaucrats are willing to work in the troubled provinces which has led public agencies to implement new recruitment strategies. A relatively recent development has been a policy of localization whereby local Malay Muslims are appointed to the bureaucracy so as to create a more representative bureaucracy in the region. This paper provides details of the above issues and discusses the importance of understanding the two levels of analysis of structure and agent. (Contemp Southeast Asia/GIGA)

The purpose of this article is to answer the following question: When did Swedish bureaucracy arise? That is, to determine a point in time when the organizational technology that Weber called bureaucracy became dominant in the process of Swedish state formation, as well as when bureaucracy finally replaced the feudal form of government based on the authority of nobility and the hierarchical ties of individual loyalties. The importance of this question relates to the debate on the sequential logic of economic and political development. The change from an aristocratic/particularistic to a bureaucratic/universal state apparatus can be understood as a change from despotic to infrastructural state power. Most empirical material indicates that, in terms of institutional structure, the transition to a bureaucratic administration started in the 1850s. Contrary to what most Swedish historians have argued, the Swedish state remained feudal and particularistic all they way up to the mid‐19th century. If any particular decade is key to this transformation, it would be the 1870s. By then the last of the noble privileges had disappeared, a uniform salary system had been introduced, and the various state apparatuses had begun reorganizing toward a higher level of efficiency and rationality.

Anagnoson reviews 'Executive Governance: Presidential Administrations and Policy Change in the Federal Bureaucracy' by Cornell G. Hooton.

The State, Bureaucracy and the Cuban Scools: Power and Participation by Sheryl L. Lutjens is reviewed.