Skip to main content

Theorizing the Administrative State

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Governing the Contemporary Administrative State

Part of the book series: European Administrative Governance ((EAGOV))

  • 120 Accesses

Abstract

Modern governments formulate and execute policies with consequences for society (Hupe & Edwards, 2012). Yet, governance takes place within and through bureaucratic structures. These structures provide the resource basis for governments to govern, broadly speaking, and also the foundation of modern political order and civilized political life (Fukuyama, 2014; Kristof, 2016). This chapter applies an organizational approach to account for how bureaucratic structures shape governance of the administrative state. It is argued that bureaucratic structures intervene in governance processes, thereby creating a systematic bias that makes some process characteristics and outputs more likely than others. An emphasis on bureaucratic structure presupposes a theory of organizations that assumes that ways of organizing may affect how organizations and their members think and act (Hammond, 1986; March & Olsen, 1983a, 1983b). Structural factors include bureaucratic structure, demography, culture, and location. In this chapter, however, the role of organizational structure is central to the argument. There are at least two important reasons for this choice: First, some of the most promising research findings are related to this variable. Second, contemporary scholarship lacks a comprehensive analysis of how organizational structures affect governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ansell, C., & Trondal, J. (2018). Governing turbulence. An organizational-institutional agenda. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T. (2010). Policy and management autonomy of federal agencies in Germany. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, T., & Ruffing, E. (2013). Networking for autonomy? National agencies in European networks. Public Administration, 91(3), 712–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini, S. (2005). Re-structuring Europe. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2005). The politics of crisis management. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. T. (2007). International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework. In J. T. Checkel (Ed.), International institutions and socialization in Europe. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can approach to organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen, O. A., & Yesilkagit, K. (2014). The effects of European regulatory networks on the bureaucratic autonomy of national regulatory authorities. Public Organization Review, 14, 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehousse, R. (1997). Regulation by networks in the European Community: The role of European agencies. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(2), 246–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döhler, M. (2020). The architecture of organizations as missed opportunity in political research. Public Administration, 98(4), 891–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberlein, B., & Grande, E. (2005). Beyond delegation: Transnational regulatory regimes and the EU regulatory state. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(1), 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebinger, F., Sylvia, V. & Fromm, N. (2018). The partisan-professional dichotomy revisited: Politicization and decision-making of senor civil servants. Public Administration, 97(4), 861–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (Ed.). (2006). Multilevel Union administration. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (2012). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009a). Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy. Effects of agencification. Governance, 22(4), 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2009b). National agencies in the European administrative space: Government driven, commission driven, or networked? Public Administration, 87(4), 779–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2018). An organizational approach to public governance. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D. C. (2011). The organizational turn in international organization theory. Theorizing International Organizations (http://www.journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOS1012.pdf).

  • Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organizations. With special references to government in the United States. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration. Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, T. H. (1986). Agenda control, organizational structure, and bureaucratic politics’. American Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 379–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., Marks, G., Schakel, A. H., Niedzwiecki, S., Osterkatz, S. C., & Shair-Rosenfield, S. (2016). Measuring regional authority. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P., & Edwards, A. (2012). The accountability of power: Democracy and governance in modern times. European Political Science Review, 4(2), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joaquin, M. E., & Greitens, T. J. (2022). American administrative capacity. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H., Peterson, J., Bauer, M. W., Connolly, S., Dehousse, R., Hooghe, L., & Thompson, A. (2013). The European Commission of the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance. The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G. (2014). Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 47(1), 165–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, G. A., & Jin, R. Q. (2020). Organizational design and its consequences for administrative reform: Historical lessons from the U.S. Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Governance, 33(2), 365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, N. (2016). ‘Big government’ looks great from here. International New York Times, Friday, March 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy. Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, M. (2014). The rewards of cooperation: The effects of membership in European regulatory networks. European Journal of Political Research, 53(3), 480–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Scandinavian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983a). Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77(2), 281–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983b). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Behavioral decision making theory and organizational decision theory. In M. Zey (Ed.), Decision Making. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). Elaborating the ‘new institutionalism’. In R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, F. (2012). Governance and state capacity. In D. L. Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Governance. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawson, J., & Spencer, K. (1997). The origin and operation of the government offices for the English regions. In J. Bradbury & J. Mawson (Eds.), British regionalism and devolution. Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. J. (2010). Governance, structure, and democracy: Luther Gulick and the future of public administration. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 284–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naurin, D., & Wallace, H. (Eds.). (2008). Unveiling the Council of the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (2010). Governing through institution building. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (2017). Democratic accountability, political order, and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (2017). The policy state. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. C. (1992). Political authority and bureaucratic power. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, B. A. (2012). Federal management reform. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (2000). The governance narrative: Key findings and lessons from the ESRC’s Whitehall programme. Public Administration, 78, 345–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The Semisovereign People. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations. Rational, natural, and open systems. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1965). Administrative behavior. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S. A. (1997). Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treib, O. (2008). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance, 3(5) http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2008-5

  • Trein, P., Biesbroek, R., Bolognesi, T., Cejudo, G. M., Duffy, R., Hustedt, T., & Meyer, I. (2020). Policy coordination and integration. A research agenda. Public Administration Review, https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13180

  • Trist, E. (1983). Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains. Human Relations, 36(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678303600

  • Trondal, J. (2014). Agencification. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 545–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., Marcussen, M., Larsson, T., & Veggeland, F. (2010). Unpacking international organizations. Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., Murdoch, Z., & Geys, B. (2017). How pre- and post-recruitment factors shape role perceptions of European Commission officials. Governance, 31(1), 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., Suvarierol, S., & van den Berg, C. (2008). The compound machinery of government. The case of seconded officials in the European Commission. Governance, 21(2), 253–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., & Peters, B. G. (2013). The rise of European administrative space. Lessons learned. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(2), 295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., Roness, P. G., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vestlund, N. M. (2015). Changing policy focus through organizational reform? The case of the pharmaceutical unit in the European Commission. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), 92–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vibert, F. (2007). The rise of the unelected. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldo, D. (1952). Development of a theory of the administrative state. American Political Science Review, 46(1), 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1924/2007). Legitimate Authority and Bureaucracy. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.). Organization theory. Selected readings. 3rd edition. Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1983). On capitalism, bureaucracy and religion. Harper Collins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, M. K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jarle Trondal .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Trondal, J. (2023). Theorizing the Administrative State. In: Governing the Contemporary Administrative State. European Administrative Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28008-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics