The deformation of democracy in the United States: When does bureaucratic “neutral competence” rise to complicity?
By: Bozeman, B. et al
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Public Administration Review Description: 84(5), Sep-Oct, 2024: p.796-816.Subject(s): Political Science, Democracy, United States, Bureaucracy, Neutral Competence, Complicity, Governance, Administrative Ethics, Public Institutions, Accountability, Democratic Deformation, Civil Service
In:
Public Administration ReviewSummary: This article critically examines the tension between bureaucratic “neutral competence” and complicity in the context of democratic governance in the United States. It explores how the principle of neutrality—intended to safeguard impartiality and professionalism in public administration—can, under certain conditions, contribute to the erosion of democratic values. The study highlights instances where bureaucratic adherence to neutrality may inadvertently enable undemocratic practices, raising questions about accountability, ethics, and the role of civil servants in safeguarding democracy. By situating this debate within broader discussions on governance and institutional integrity, the paper underscores the need to reassess bureaucratic norms to prevent complicity and protect democratic resilience. Recent years have seen a step-change in the severity and nature of threats to United States democracy, including extensive efforts by elected officials to undercut democratic governance. When elected officials undermine democracy, this constitutes “deformation of democracy.” As implementors and agents of policy, public administrators can sometimes play essential roles as bulwarks against democratic deformation. However, among public administrators there is historically a strong ethos emphasizing neutral competence and subordination to political authority, in some cases reinforced by law. How should public administrators respond when confronted by deformation and, at the same time, constrained by tradition and law? We selectively review strands of public administration theory, focusing on theory especially relevant to the United States governmental system, to construct and assess a catalog of responses that public administrators can take under democratic deformation. We conclude by offering a set of recommendations focused on institutionalized collective action by public administrators.- Reproduced
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13855
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 84(5), Sep-Oct, 2024: p.796-816 | Available | AR133338 |
This article critically examines the tension between bureaucratic “neutral competence” and complicity in the context of democratic governance in the United States. It explores how the principle of neutrality—intended to safeguard impartiality and professionalism in public administration—can, under certain conditions, contribute to the erosion of democratic values. The study highlights instances where bureaucratic adherence to neutrality may inadvertently enable undemocratic practices, raising questions about accountability, ethics, and the role of civil servants in safeguarding democracy. By situating this debate within broader discussions on governance and institutional integrity, the paper underscores the need to reassess bureaucratic norms to prevent complicity and protect democratic resilience. Recent years have seen a step-change in the severity and nature of threats to United States democracy, including extensive efforts by elected officials to undercut democratic governance. When elected officials undermine democracy, this constitutes “deformation of democracy.” As implementors and agents of policy, public administrators can sometimes play essential roles as bulwarks against democratic deformation. However, among public administrators there is historically a strong ethos emphasizing neutral competence and subordination to political authority, in some cases reinforced by law. How should public administrators respond when confronted by deformation and, at the same time, constrained by tradition and law? We selectively review strands of public administration theory, focusing on theory especially relevant to the United States governmental system, to construct and assess a catalog of responses that public administrators can take under democratic deformation. We conclude by offering a set of recommendations focused on institutionalized collective action by public administrators.- Reproduced
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13855
There are no comments for this item.