Suchergebnisse

Many people see a continuing trend towards governance and away from government. This article tries to show that trends last only for so long. Based on long-term reasoning it is seen that within any trend a countertrend is visible, which will eventually become dominant when being suppressed for too long and when the side effects of the current trend are neglected for too long. This is congruent with the idea of policy generations I introduced in an earlier article (De Vries, 1999). The distinguishing features thereof are that policy change can be seen as a consequence of the simultaneous periodical change of dominant actors in policy processes, the policy goals as well as the usage of particular policy instruments. Such policy generations are not only known for what they prioritize but especially for what they neglect. It is neglect and awareness of the negative effects of this neglect that make the trends shift in this theory. By looking at developments in The Netherlands in the use of policy instruments and especially law-making four trends are visible since the Second World War. First, a trend is distinguished in which laws regulating behavior by prescriptions are dominant in the 1950s. Next, a trend is seen from 1963 onwards, in which new regulations are used mainly to ground financial transfers. Subsequently, in the 1980s, we see a trend in which organizational affairs, efficiency and deregulation become dominant and since 1992 a trend is visible in which governance indicated by the popularity of temporary arrangements and striving for consultation is the dominant mode. This article predicts that in the near future this trend will be reversed again, because the drawbacks of the present trend are painfully surfacing.

This article discusses the honesty of local politicians and public administrators in 17 countries. First, it goes into deontological, consequential, virtue, and dialogic ethics. Based on a large-scale survey, this article concludes that the ethos (general principle) of honesty is a universal value, which conforms to deontological principles. Regarding ethics (the application of the principle in practice), however, important differences between these local elites are seen. The explanation for these differences is sought at the individual and organizational level. It is argued that organizational factors explain most of the variance. Especially the opinions of colleagues are important. Also, the existence of conflicts and social problems within the community determine whether one is (able to be) honest. This implies that honesty can be seen empirically as a social-cultural phenomenon that varies with the internal and external pressures exerted on the local politicians and administrators.

Abstract This paper addresses the arguments in favour of both the decentralization and centralization of public policy making. It points out that the same arguments are sometimes used to advance either claim and that in different countries opposite arguments are used to support the same claim. Clearly, the inherent features of centralization and decentralization are far from obvious. A closer look at the attention given to the issue by political parties at the national level in four European countries reveals that decentralization becomes an issue in these countries at different periods and as a cause of different arguments, which rather reflect the dominant values in the political culture than refer to inherent properties of decentralization itself. An analysis of opinions of local elites points at the relation between their opinion on decentralizing responsibilities in a specific field and the support for existing institutional arrangements, their own influence in the policy field and the predisposition towards decentralization tendencies. This results in the conclusion that the support for decentralization tendencies is more closely related to existing specific institutional arrangements, and to the degree to which it is expected to influence one's own position, than to its inherent merits.

This paper addresses the arguments in favour of both the decentralization and centralization of public policy making. It points out that the same arguments are sometimes used to advance either claim and that in different countries opposite arguments are used to support the same claim. Clearly, the inherent features of centralization and decentralization are far from obvious. A closer look at the attention given to the issue by political parties at the national level in four European countries reveals that decentralization becomes an issue in these countries at different periods and as a cause of different arguments, which rather reflect the dominant values in the political culture than refer to inherent properties of decentralization itself. An analysis of opinions of local elites points at the relation between their opinion on decentralizing responsibilities in a specific field and the support for existing institutional arrangements, their own influence in the policy field and the predisposition towards decentralization tendencies. This results in the conclusion that the support for decentralization tendencies is more closely related to existing specific institutional arrangements, and to the degree to which it is expected to influence one's own position, than to its inherent merits. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)