Suchergebnisse

A discussion of the nature of the Indian state & bureaucracy. During the 1980s, it was widely believed that Indian bureaucracy constituted a dominant class & that this dominance is the root cause of economic stagnation. However, analysis of government survey data reveals a much more complex reality. A revised theoretical framework of the role of the state & public bureaucracy in India is outlined. 3 Tables, 1 Figure, 61 References. Adapted from the source document.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH HAS CONCENTRATED ON DIFFERENCES IN GUBERNATORIAL POWER ACROSS STATES. RELATIVELY LITTLE RESEARCH ATTENTION HAS BEEN DEVOTED TO THE SOURCES OF GUBERNATORIAL INFLUENCE OVER STATE AGENCIES. BASED ON DATA COLLECTED FROM STATE ADMINISTRATORS IN 1978, THIS STUDY EXAMINES THE EFFECTS OF FOUR SETS OF FACTORS ON THE PERCEIVED INFLUENCE OF THE GOVERNOR OVER THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE APPARATUS. THESE SETS ARE: FORMAL POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AGENCIES, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POSITIONS HELD BY ADMINISTRATORS, AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE OFFICIALS. RESULTS SHOW THAT THESE FACTORS ACCOUNT FOR NEARLY ONE-FOURTH OF THE VARIANCE IN THE INFLUENCE OF THE GOVERNOR OVER STATE AGENCIES, AS REPORTED BY AGENCY HEADS.

Previous research has concentrated on differences in gubernatorial power across states. Relatively little research attention has been devoted to the sources of gubernatorial influence over state agencies. Based on data collected from state administrators in 1978, this study examines the effects of four sets of factors on the perceived influence of the governor over the state administrative apparatus. These sets are: formal powers of the governor, characteristics of the agencies, characteristics of the positions held by administrators, and personal characteristics of these officials. Results show that these factors account for nearly one-fourth of the variance in the influence of the governor over state agencies, as reported by agency heads.

The transformation of societies to capitalism has introduced complexity into activities of man. Oncecapitalism transformed the traditional way of life, factors such as effectiveness of competition, freedomof movement and the absence of any system of social security compelled the state to assumeresponsibility for the protection and welfare of the individual (Jacoby, 1973:147). To help the stateachieve this, it has become imperative to have a seeming standing power evolving from, but placingitself above, the society. Such power that alienates itself more and more from the society is beingexercised on behalf of the state by certain institutions, structures and agencies, the bureaucracy beingthe most important (Arowolo, 2004:2).

The article investigates informal ties among the Yugoslav party-state bureaucracy in 1945–1965 in order to identify their influence on the disintegration processes in Yugoslavia. Interaction through unofficial channels was based on solid social-cultural preconditions and played a significant role in the life of the country. Informal ties could be formed due to military service or employment, family or friendship connections, but ties of compatriot character are most fully represented in the sources. They were lined up on a vertical basis in accordance with the existing administrative-territorial division and were predominately used to achieve some kind of material benefits. Until the early 1950s, compatriot ties could be used both in the interests of the center and subordinate regions, but afterwards only the latter option remained, so they quickly turned into a mechanism of lobbying regional interests in central bodies. Compatriot ties were closely intertwined with parochialism and particularism and fueled by the mood of the masses. For example, there were difficulties in nominating candidates of non-local origin during elections. There were politicians who did not follow the requests of their compatriots, but presumably they were in minority. Since the 1950s, there had been a tendency to institutionally include compatriot ties in the governing bodies, in particular, the principle of proportional regional representation had been established in state and party bodies. Already in the early 1960s this course undermined the efficiency of the central government. To which extent this result was determined by the role of compatriot ties system or other factors has yet to be researched, but it can be stated that the system of informal ties became one of the factors in the disintegration of Yugoslavia.