Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:29:42.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The State and Public Bureaucracies: A Comparative and Historical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Metin Heper
Metin Heper
Affiliation:
Bogaziçi University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In its conventional Weberian version, “the state” is used to refer to human associations that successfully claim the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. In this conception, the state is presumed to have final authority, i.e., sovereignty as first formulated by Jean Bodin. As elaborated by David Easton, such a state is a neutral “transformatory structure” that would be “captured” by elected regimes, and used as an instrument for their own specific political purposes.

Type
Bureaucrats and State Building
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 86 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Scase, Richard, “Introduction,” in The State in Western Europe, Scase, Richard, ed. (London: Croom Helm, 1980), 11.Google Scholar The idea of the state as a transformatory entity has been developed by Easton, David, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965).Google Scholar

2 Nettl, J. P., “The State as a Conceptual Variable,” World Politics, 21 (1968), 565.Google Scholar

3 For an illuminating discussion of the emergence of the state as conceptualized here, see Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), esp.Google Scholar 10ff. Here I take “constitutive system” as defined in Riggs, Fred W., “Bureaucratic Politics in Comparative Perspective,” Journal of Comparative Administration, 1 (1969), 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, i.e., as “a primary component of government which includes as subcomponents an elected assembly, an electoral system, and a party system.” Below, at places, I bring qualifications to this definition. I should further note that I am not using “civil society” exclusively as “a sphere of universal egoism,” as does Hegel (Avineri, Shlome, Hegel's Theory of the Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 142); rather, I am adopting a more neutral conception.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Dyson, Kenneth H. F., Party, State, and Bureaucracy in Western Germany (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1977), 6.Google Scholar For a penetrating analysis of the failure of contemporary sociology in this regard, see Badie, Bertrand and Bimbaum, Pierre, The Sociology of the State, Goldhammer, Arthur, trans. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1983), ch. 2.Google Scholar

5 Schieder, Theodor, The State and Society in Our Times: Studies in the History of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Toronto: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1962), 39.Google Scholar

6 Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1969), 4.Google Scholar

7 Tilly, Charles, “Reflections on the History of European State-Making,” in The Formation of National States in Western Europe, Tilly, Charles, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 13.Google Scholar

8 I take this particular formulation of consensus from Partridge, P. H., Consent and Consensus (New York: Praeger, 1971), 104Google Scholar, though in this work he is not particularly interested in this problem.

9 Eckstein, Harry, “On the ‘Science’ of the State,” in The State, Graubart, Stephen, ed. (New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Inc., 1979), 16.Google Scholar To be more exact, the sovereignty of the state refers to its independence in formulating goals for society; its autonomy has to do with its independence in working out its internal organization. See Nettl, , “The State as a Conceptual Variable,” 581ff.Google Scholar

10 Ritter, Gerhard, “Origins of the Modem State,” in The Development of the Modern State, Lubasz, Heinz, ed. (New York: Macmillan Company, 1965), 23.Google Scholar

11 Manicas, Peter T., The Death of the State (New York: G. P. Putnam Sons, 1974), 12.Google Scholar

12 Quoted in Thomas, Keith, “The United Kingdom,” in Crises of Political Development in Europe and the United States, Grew, Raymond, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 63.Google Scholar

13 Bien, David D. and Grew, Raymond, “France,” in Crises of Political Development, Grew, , ed., 252.Google Scholar The differences in question are succinctly analyzed in Badie, and Birnbaum, , The Sociology of the State, pt. 3.Google Scholar

14 Birnbaum, Pierre, “State, Centre, and Bureaucracy,” Government and Opposition, 16 (1981), 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Aberbach, Joel D., et al., Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981), 171.Google Scholar

16 Johnson, Nevil, In Search of the Constitution: Reflections on State and Society in Britain (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977), 85–86.Google Scholar

17 Hoffman, Stanley, Decline or Renewal? France since the 1930s (New York: Viking Press, 1974), 444ff.Google Scholar

18 Smith, Gordon, Democracy in Western Germany: Parties and Politics in the Federal Republic (London: Heinemann, 1979), 10.Google Scholar

19 Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Black, C. E., The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 158.Google Scholar

21 Berki, R. N., “State and Society: An Antithesis of Modern Political Thought,” in State and Society in Contemporary Europe, Hayward, Jack and Berki, R. N., eds. (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1979), 2. As discussed and expanded later in the text, transcendentalism refers to the belief that man primarily belongs to a moral community, whereas instrumentalism places man within an interest community.Google Scholar

22 Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction (London: Hutchinson, 1978), 143.Google Scholar

23 Johnson, , In Search of the Constitution, 94–97, 105.Google Scholar

24 Dyson, , Party, State, and Bureaucracy in Western Germany, 28, 64.Google Scholar

25 Jacob, Herbert, German Administration since Bismarck: Central Authority versus Local Autonomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), 202.Google Scholar

26 Suleiman, Ezra N., Elites in French Society: The Politics of Survival (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 20.Google Scholar

27 Suleiman, Ezra N., Politics, Power, and Bureaucracy in France: The Administrative Elite (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), 177, 222–23, 235–307.Google Scholar Suleiman sees a relationship between this particular orientation on the part of the French bureaucratic elite and the maladaptation of that bureaucracy to social and economic transformations that began under the Fourth Republic. Idem, “The French Bureaucracy and Its Students: Toward the Desanctification of the State,” World Politics, 1 (1970).Google Scholar

28 Heady, Ferrel, Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1979), esp. chs. 5–9.Google Scholar

29 Inter alia, Esman, M. J., “The Politics of Development Administration,” in Approaches to Development: Politics, Administration, and Change, Montgomery, J. D. and Siffin, W. J., eds. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 59–112;Google ScholarFainsod, M., “Bureaucracy and Modernization: The Russian and the Soviet Case,” in Bureaucracy and Political Development, LaPalombara, Joseph, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 233–67;Google ScholarRiggs, Fred W., “Bureaucrats and Political Development: A Paradoxical View,”Google Scholar in ibid., 120–67.

30 Beetham, David, Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1974), 50, 53, 74.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., 63.

32 Diamant, Alfred, “Bureaucracy in Developmental Movement Regimes,” in Frontiers of Development Administration, Riggs, Fred W., ed. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1970), 509–10.Google Scholar

33 Presthus, Robert V. and Monopoli, William, “Bureaucracy in the United States and Canada: Social, Attitudinal and Behavioral Variables,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 18(1977), 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Heper, Metin et al. , “The Role of Bureaucracy and Regime Types: A Comparative Study of Turkish and South Korean Higher Civil Servants,” Administration and Society, 12(1980), 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 See Heper, Metin, “Center and Periphery in the Ottoman Empire: With Special Reference to the Nineteenth Century,” international Political Science Review, 1 (1980), 81–105;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and idem, “Political Modernization as Reflected in Bureaucratic Change: The Turkish Bureaucracy and a ‘Historical Bureaucratic Empire’ Tradition,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 7(1976), 507–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Nettl, , “The State as a Conceptual Variable,” 565.Google Scholar

37 Noonan, Lowell G., France: The Politics of Continuity and Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970), 98.Google Scholar

38 Smith, , Democracy in Western Germany, 48, 54, 55.Google Scholar

39 See Heper, Metin, “Atatürk and Public Bureaucracy,” in Atatürk and the Modernization of Turkey, Landau, Jacob, ed. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984).Google Scholar

40 See Heper, Metin, “Transformation of Charisma into a Political Paradigm: Atatürkism in Turkey,” Journal of American Institute for the Study of Middle Eastern Civilization, 1 (1980-1981), 65–82.Google Scholar

41 In coining this phrase I benefitted from Poggi's concept of the bourgeoisie-as-public, by which he refers to members of the civil society who are able to transcend their private concerns and who would elaborate a public opinion on matters of general interest (The Development of the Modern State, 82). Civil-society-as-public should be taken as the polar opposite of Hegelian civil society.Google Scholar

42 See Heper, Metin, “Bureaucrats, Politicians, and Officers in Turkey: Dilemmas of a New Political Paradigm,” in Modern Turkey: Continuity and Change, Evin, Ahmet, ed. (Hamburg: Deutsche Orient Institut, 1984);Google Scholar and Tachau, Frank and Heper, Metin, “The State, Politics, and Military in Turkey,” Comparative Politics, 16(1983), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I take up these developments more fully in my The State Tradition in Turkey (Beverley, England: The Eothen Press, in press).Google Scholar

43 Rosenberg, Hans, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy, and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience, 1660–1815 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), ch. 1.Google Scholar

44 Krygier, Martin, “State and Bureaucracy in Europe: The Growth of a Concept,” in Bureaucracy: The Career of a Concept, Kamenka, Eugene and Krygier, Martin, eds. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979), 18.Google Scholar

45 Armstrong, John A., The European Administrative Elite (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 162–64.Google Scholar

46 Strayer, , On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State, 10.Google Scholar

47 For a general discussion of the relationship between external threat and the emergence of states, see Hintze, Otto, “The Emergence of the Democratic Nation-State,” in The Development of the Modern State, Lubasz, , ed., 67–68;Google Scholar and Tilly, , “Reflections on History of European State-Making,” 45.Google Scholar

48 Bendix, Reinhard, Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 193–95.Google Scholar

49 Poggi, , The Development of the Modern State, 44. My emphases.Google Scholar

50 Thomas, , “United Kingdom,” 69.Google Scholar

51 Finer, Samuel E., “State- and Nation-Building in Europe: The Role of the Military,” in Formation of National States in Western Europe, Tilly, , ed., 126.Google Scholar

52 Thompson, David, Democracy in France: The Third and Fourth Republics (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), 146.Google Scholar

53 In French feudalism the local grandees were primarily concerned with the preservation of local customs and privileges; they distrusted the central government just as the central government distrusted them. See Strayer, , On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State, 51Google Scholar, and, for the terming of such a state of affairs as “bastard feudalism,” 62. Myers, A. R.Google Scholar, who does not take Standestaat as the “polity of estates,” i.e., a polity in which the estates develop a modus vivendi with the central authority, but who emphasizes the “privileges of the group against outsiders,” considers Standestaat as unique to Latin Christendom. See his Parliaments and Estates in Europe to 1789 (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1975), 9.Google Scholar

54 Shaw, Stanford J., History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Volume I: Empire of the Gazis. The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280–1808 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), ch. 2.Google Scholar

55 lnalcik, Halil, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973)Google Scholar, ch. 3. Here I take personal rule as somewhat different from Roth, Guenther: “personal rulership,”Google Scholar as I use it, is a detraditionalized and personalized pattern of rule. Thus, it need not be a version of patrimonialism; one can hardly refer to the personal rule of de Gaulle, for instance, as a type of patrimonialism. Cf. Roth, Guenther, “Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire-Building in the New States,” World Politics, 20(1968), 195–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology (New York: Bedminster Press, 1981), 1013.Google Scholar

57 For a more detailed analysis, see Heper, “Center and Periphery in Ottoman Empire.”Google Scholar

58 Blum, Jerome, Lord and Peasant in Russia: From the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 350.Google Scholar

59 Hourani, Albert, “Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables,” in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East: The Nineteenth Century, Polk, William R. and Chambers, Richard L., eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 65.Google Scholar

60 Eisenstadt, S. N., Revolution and the Transformation of Societies: A Comparative Study of Civilizations (New York: Free Press, 1978), 75–77.Google Scholar

6 l Mardin, Şerif, “Power, Civil society, and Culture in the Ottoman Empire,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 11:3 (1969), 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Ibid., 279.

63 Ritter, , “Origins of Modern State,” 19.Google Scholar

64 D' Entréves, Alexander Passerin, The Notion of the State: An Introduction to Political Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 184–86.Google Scholar

65 Lefebre, George, “Enlightened Despotism,” in The Development of the Modern State, Lubasz, , ed., 52.Google Scholar

66 Birnbaum, , “State, Centre, and Bureaucracy,” 63.Google Scholar

67 Suleiman, , Elites in French Society, 20.Google Scholar

68 D' Entréves, , The Notion of the State, 47, 157.Google Scholar

69 Lindsay, A. D., The Modern Democratic State (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), 3.Google Scholar

70 Ibid., 122.

71 D' Entréves, , The Notion of the State, 121.Google Scholar The idea of mixed constitution goes back all the way to the Glossators; the idea was later picked up by Thomas Aquinas. See Gierke, Otto, Political Theories of the Middle Age, Maitland, Frederic William, trans. and intro. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), 43, 45.Google Scholar

72 See Johnson, , In Search of the Constitution, 63, 69;Google Scholar and Fiorina, Morris F., “The Decline of Collective Responsibility in American Politics,” Daedalus, 109(1980), esp. 43.Google Scholar

73 D' Entréves, , The Notion of the State, 217.Google Scholar

74 Manicas, , The Death of the Stare, 166.Google Scholar

75 Here I draw upon Huntington, Samuel P.: “In a praetorian system social forces confront each other nakedly; no political institutions, no corps of professional political leaders are recognized or accepted as the legitimate intermediaries to moderate group conflict. Equally important, no agreement exists among the groups as to the legitimate and authoritative methods for resolving conflicts.” Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 196.Google Scholar

76 Hintze, , “The Emergence of the Democratic Nation-State,” 67.Google Scholar For another historical example, see Harbison, E. Harris, The Age of Reformation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), 17.Google Scholar

77 Chabod, Federico, “Was There a Renaissance State?” in The Development of the Modern State, Lubasz, , ed., 30.Google Scholar

78 For a concise summary of these characteristics, see Diamant, Alfred, “The Bureaucratic Model: Max Weber Rejected, Rediscovered, and Reformed,” in Papers in Comparative Public Administration, Heady, Ferrel and Stokes, Sybil, eds. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1962), 89–90.Google Scholar

79 See Heper, , “Atatürk and Public Bureaucracy.”Google Scholar

80 Skocpol, , State and Social Revolutions. 107.Google Scholar

81 Birnbaum, , “State, Centre, and Bureaucracy,” 69–70.Google Scholar

82 Southern, David, “Germany,” in Government and Administration in Western Europe, Ridley, F. F., ed. (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1979), 110, 140.Google Scholar Such an attitude seems to have been shaped with the advent of the Enlightenment: “The main force of change was the determination of the ruler and his advisers to introduce more effective forms of government.… One suspects that their professional agents, men whose entire careers were given up to administration, were also motivated by a kind of bureaucratic common sense that was soon to be dignified with the name of Reason.” Rampson, Norman, The Enlightenment (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1981), 66.Google Scholar

83 Smith, , Democracy in Western Germany, 68, 186.Google Scholar

84 Ibid., 67; and Dyson, , Party, State, and Bureaucracy in Western Germany, 10.Google Scholar

85 Putnam, Robert D., “The Political Attitudes of Senior Civil Servants in Western Europe: A Preliminary Report,” British Journal of Political Science, 3(1973), 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 Dyson, , Party, State, and Bureaucracy in Western Germany, 20.Google Scholar

87 Ibid., 28–29.

88 Suleiman, , Politics, Power, and Bureaucracy in France, 181ff.Google Scholar

89 Heclo, Hugh, A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1977), 110.Google Scholar

90 Dyson, , Party, State, and Bureaucracy in Western Germany, 57–58.Google Scholar

91 Johnson, , In Search of the Constitution, 95–96.Google Scholar

92 Rose, Richard, “British Government: The Job at the Top,” in Presidents and Prime Ministers, Rose, Richard and Suleiman, Ezra N., eds. (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1981), 48.Google Scholar

93 Christoph, James B., “High Civil Servants and the Politics of Consensualism in Great Britain,” in The Mandarins of Western Europe, Dogan, Mattei, ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975), 30;Google ScholarJohnson, , In Search of the Constitution, 94;Google ScholarBalogh, Thomas, “The Apotheosis of the Dilettante: The Establishment of Mandarins,” in Crisis in the Civil Service, Balogh, Thomas et al., eds. (London: Anthony Blond, 1968), 24ff.Google Scholar

94 See Fiorina, , “Decline of Collective Responsibility,” esp. 43.Google Scholar

95 Frederickson, H. George, “The Recovery of Civicism in Public Administration,” Public Administration Review, 42(1982), 501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96 Steel, D. R., “Britain,” in Government and Administration in Western Europe, Ridley, , ed., 53.Google Scholar

97 Mosher, Frederick C., Democracy and the Public Service (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 61–63.Google Scholar

98 Heper, Metin, “Recent Instability in Turkish Politics: End of a Monocentrist Polity?” International Journal of Turkish Studies, 1(1979–1980), 105–6.Google Scholar