Suchergebnisse

Abstract.  This article addresses the question of how far turnover among those who make policy is relevant for understanding changing policy views. Does age or generation determine changing attitudes about policy making, or does the period in which new policy makers get dominant positions determine changes in attitudes? The research is based on a survey conducted in 1989, and repeated in 1996 and 2000, among local politicians and senior administrators in Sweden, the Netherlands, Russia, Lithuania and Belarus. The conclusion is that period‐effects account for a large portion of attitude change among local policy makers. This can be explained by their perceptions of the urgency of policy problems with which their municipalities are confronted.

This article investigates the primary response patterns of officials in the early days after a crisis occurs, in this case regarding explosions in fireworks factories, happening all over the world and often having grave consequences in terms of deaths and damage. It argues that misframing is rather the norm than the exception. The article hypothesizes that the most likely outcome of crisis is that nothing changes because the event closes more windows than it opens. This is contrary to previous crisis research in which it is claimed that crises offer a window of opportunity for change.

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.