Suchergebnisse

How could the small country called the Netherlands - almost totally destroyed during WW II, being very poor and judged to be primitive at that time - become one of the wealthiest, democratic and modern countries in the World? This book argues that respective Dutch governments, consciously or unconsciously, opted for an efficient and effective solution of focus and flexibility. Instead of trying to accomplish everything at once, they chose to achieve one goal at a time. These goals altered when the previous ones had been achieved and the focus turned to other problems that had been neglected previously. This book offers a theory which argues that it is not only possible to explain when policy change is likely to occur, but also to explain the direction. It argues that what is neglected at present is likely to become dominant in the policies of the near future. The core of a fundamental policy change is always concerned with a shift of attention toward those aspects of problems that were the most chronically neglected in the previous policy. Furthermore it argues that with the birth of a new policy generation, a convergence towards meeting the dominant value of that generation will be noticeable in all policy areas.

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)

Purpose: The paper proposes an alternative measure of the importance of prosocial values in the work motivation of public and private sector employees. Hitherto research measures the importance of values by taking them as autonomous entities or using a factorial design, asking employees whether they adhere to a certain value or not. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a psychological theory on values and motivation, the paper argues that it might be preferred to measure the centrality of prosocial values amidst other job motivators in the value system as a whole to assess the degree of prosocial values' dominance. Findings: The application of such a measure in a longitudinal and international comparative analysis shows that differences in the centrality of prosocial values make the difference between employees in the public and private sectors much more pronounced than usually found in the relevant literature. This finding does not disappear when the research model includes the nature of the job, individual characteristics, and societal features, such as the GDP per capita and the dominance of individualism over collectivism in society. Significance: This research also shows that differences between employees adhering to intrinsic, extrinsic, and prosocial motivations are relative, as almost all employees - irrespective of where they work - assess values of job security and having an interesting job to be the most important work motivators.