Comparative Analysis of Financial Bureaucracies of Europe: The Influence of Policy Sector vs Administrative Tradition on the Attitudes of Finance Officials

References

• Aberbach, J. D., Putnam, R. D., and Rockman, B. A., 1981, Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western Democracies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Bach, T., 2010, Policy and management autonomy of federal agencies in Germany, in: P. Lægreid and K. Verhoest (Eds) Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy, and Performance (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 89–110.
   Google Scholar
• Baekgaard, M., Blom‐Hansen, J., and Serritzlew, S., 2015, When politics matters: The impact of politicians’ and bureaucrats’ preferences on salient and nonsalient policy areas.”. Governance, 28(4), pp. 459–474. doi:10.1111/gove.12104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D., 1991, Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), pp. 1044–1074. doi:10.2307/2131866
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., 1991, Bureaucratic roles: Political loyalty and professional autonomy. Scandinavian Political Studies, 14(4), pp. 303–320. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1991.tb00121.x
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (eds.), 2001, New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice (Aldershot: Ashgate).
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P., 2012, A special breed?–A longitudinal and cross‐sectional study of Norwegian budgeting and financial civil servants. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(1), pp. 101–120. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2011.00538.x
   Google Scholar
• Demir, T., 2009, The complementarity view: Exploring a continuum in political—Administrative relations. Public Administration Review, 69(5), pp. 876–888. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02037.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir, T. and Reddick, C. G., 2012, Understanding shared roles in policy and administration: An empirical study of council‐manager relations. Public Administration Review, 72(4), pp. 526–535. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02551.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir, T., Reddick, C. G., and Nank, R., 2015, The relationship between public service values and administrative involvement in policymaking. Public Organization Review, 15(1), pp. 79–98. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0251-x
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrov, V., Goetz, K., and Wollmann, H., 2006, Governing after Communism (Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield).
   Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M., 1999, The impact of bureaucratic structure on policymaking. Public Administration, 77(1), pp. 155–170. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esmark, A., 2017, Maybe it is time to rediscover technocracy? An old framework for a new analysis of administrative reforms in the governance era. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), pp. 501–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, A. L. and Raadschelders, J. C., 2003, Ethics in local government budgeting: Is there a gap between theory and practice? Public Administration Quarterly, 27(3/4), pp. 456–490.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, G. P., 1985, National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), pp. 467–496. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00003287
   Google Scholar
• Gauld, R. D. C., 2002, Technocrats at the helm? The attitudes of New Zeeland’s senior health officials’. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(7), pp. 831–857. doi:10.1081/PAD-120004107
   Google Scholar
• Greener, I., 2001, Social learning and macroeconomic policy in Britain. Journal of Public Policy, 21(2), pp. 133–152. doi:10.1017/S0143814X01001076
   Google Scholar
• Hammerschmid, G., Oprisor A., and Stimac, V., 2013. COCOPS executive survey on public sector reform in Europe: Research report. Available at: http://www.cocops.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/COCOPS-WP3-Research-Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, K. M. and Ejersbo, N., 2002, The relationship between politicians and administrators - a logic of disharmony. Public Administration, 80(4), pp. 733–750. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, M. and Varone, F., 2014, The Public Policy Process (New York: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, J. and Feeney, S., 2012, Crisis and policy change: The role of the political entrepreneur. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 3(2), pp. 1–24. doi:10.1515/1944-4079.1108
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., 2011, Public managers as the missing variable in policy studies: An empirical investigation using Canadian data. Review of Policy Research, 28(3), pp. 247–263. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00494.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, D. I., 1996, The role of the public manager: Loyalty, autonomy or advocacy? Scandinavian Political Studies, 19(1), pp. 45–66. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1996.tb00380.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, D. I., 2006, The relationship between politics and administration: The importance of contingency factors, formal structure, demography, and time. Governance, 19(2), pp. 303–323. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00316.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, P. and Cole, A., 2000, When do institutions, policy sectors, and cities matter? Comparing networks of local policy makers in Britain and France. Comparative Political Studies, 33(2), pp. 248–268. doi:10.1177/0010414000033002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann, S. and Wollmann, H., 2014, Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reforms in Europe (Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing).
   Google Scholar
• Lægreid, P. and Verhoest, K. (Eds.), 2010, Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy and Performance (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Levi-Faur, D., 2006, Varieties of regulatory capitalism: Getting the most out of the comparative method. Governance, 19(3), pp. 367–382. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00322.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggetti, M. and Verhoest, K., 2014, Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), pp. 239–256. doi:10.1177/0020852314524680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P., 1989, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: The Free Press).
   Google Scholar
• Meyer-Sahling, J. H., 2010, In search of the shadow of the past: Legacy explanations and administrative reforms in post-communist East Central Europe, in: PainterG.and Peters (Eds) Tradition and Public Administration (Basingstoke: Palgrave:MacMillan), pp. 203–216.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer-Sahling, J. H. and Yesilkagit, K., 2011, Differential legacy effects: Three propositions on the impact of administrative traditions on public administration reform in Europe East and West. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2), pp. 311–322. doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.544515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ongaro, E., 2009, Public Management Reform and Modernization: Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain (Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing).
   Google Scholar
• Page, E. and Jenkins, W. I., 2005, Policy Bureaucracy: Government with a Cast of Thousands (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Painter, M. and Peters, B. G., 2010a, The analysis of administrative traditions, in: PainterG.andPeters (Eds) Tradition and Public Administration (Basingstoke: Palgrave:MacMillan), pp. 3–18.
   Google Scholar
• Painter, M. and Peters, B. G., 2010b, Administrative traditions in comparative perspective: Families, groups and hybrids, in: PainterG.andPeters (Eds) Tradition and Public Administration (Basingstoke: Palgrave:MacMillan), pp. 19–30.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G., 2008, The Napoleonic tradition. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), pp. 118–132. doi:10.1108/09513550810855627
   Google Scholar
• Peters, G., 2002, Politics of Bureaucracy (New York: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G., 2011, Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., and Smullen, A., 2004, Agencies: How Governments Do Things through Semi-autonomous Organizations (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D., 1977, Elite transformation in advanced industrial societies. An empirical assessment of the theory of technocracy’. Comparative Political Studies, 10(3), pp. 383–412. doi:10.1177/001041407701000305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raadschelders, J. and Vigoda-Gadot, E., 2015, Global Dimensions of Public Administration and Governance: A Comparative Voyage (Oxford: John Wiley & Sons).
   Google Scholar
• Randma-Liiv, T., 2008, New public management versus neo-weberian state in central and eastern Europe. NISPACee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 1(2), pp. 49–71.
   Google Scholar
• Raudla, R., Cepilovs, A., Kuokštis, V., and Kattel, R., 2018, Fiscal policy learning from crisis: Comparative analysis of the Baltic countries. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 20(3), pp. 288–303. doi:10.1080/13876988.2016.1244947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribbhagen, C., 2011, What makes a technocrat? Explaining variation in technocratic thinking among elite bureaucrats. Public Policy and Administration, 26(1), pp. 21–44. doi:10.1177/0952076709357979
   Google Scholar
• Ridley, F. F., 1966, French technocracy and comparative government. Political Studies, 14(1), pp. 34–52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1966.tb00387.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roman, A. V., 2017, The determinants of public administrators’ participation in policy formulation. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), pp. 102–129. doi:10.1177/0275074015577799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svara, J. H., 1998, The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Administration Review, 58(1), pp. 51–58. doi:10.2307/976889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thatcher, M. and Stone, A. S., 2002, Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics, 25(1), pp. 1–22. doi:10.1080/713601583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Blijswijk, J. A., Van Breukelen, R. C., Franklin, A. L., Raadschelders, J. C., and Slump, P., 2004, Beyond ethical codes: The management of integrity in the Netherlands tax and customs administration. Public Administration Review, 64(6), pp. 718–727. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00418.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheijen, T., 1999, Civil Service Systems in Central and Eastern Europe (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
   Google Scholar
• Verheijen, T., 2010, The new member states of the European Union: Constructed and historical traditions and reform trajectories, in: PainterG.andPeters (Eds) Tradition and Public Administration (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan), pp. 217–233.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., Roness, P., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., and MacCarthaigh, M., 2010, Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies (New York: Springer).
   Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. A., 2009, Coalitions, science, and belief change: Comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), pp. 95–212. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00310.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. Q., 1989, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (Lebanon, IN: Basic Books).
   Google Scholar