A Framework for Comparing Public Administration Systems

Comparative Public Administration (CPA) refers to the investigation and analysis of administrative institutions, processes, and behavior across organizational, state, and cultural differences (Jreisat, 2011: 33). CPA is concerned with comparing systems and their subsystems in different countries to improve our knowledge about administrative systems.

The purpose of CPA is to increase knowledge by investigating some research areas that influence the organizational structure, activities, functions, and performance of institutions to increase the effectiveness and credibility of theories, concepts, and procedures.

In this study a unique framework for comparing different public administration systems is used. This comparative framework includes the following factors: administrative history, the legal structure of the country, local-central government relations, public personnel system, presence of the civil society, and recent administrative reforms.

The administrative history includes some important traditions and development of the country’s administrative practices and some of the major structural features of the country’s political and administrative culture. In addition, it covers ideology, religious practices, historical events, and social crises and developments that shaped its administrative system and the formation of actual bureaucracy in the country

Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that the concept of isomorphism refers to formal organizations that are influenced by their environments due to technical, social, and economic exchange interdependencies.

Bureaucracy is a set of administrative organizations that are characterized by a large number of rules and processes that are implemented in an impersonal manner by specialized agents.

The indicators of administrative history are;

• Having a strategic or non-strategic geopolitical situation.

• Having a colonial history in the past, or not.

• Inheriting a legacy of bureaucracy from an empire, military, or technocracy.

• Having a strong or weak centralized bureaucracy.

• Experiencing a strong or weak role of the military over politics.

• Existence of a high or low level of professionalism in the bureaucracy.

• Having a high or low level of politicization of the bureaucracy.

• Existence of a dominant ideology (e.g., secularism, religion, socialism), or not.

Types of state structures can be divided into categories based on the scope of the central authority over local governments as unitary, federal, or confederal systems (Song, 2000), and these state structure types can be grouped according to relations between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as unitary, federal and confederal structures.

Hague and Harrop (2001) define the concept of federalism as a form of government in which power is divided between the central and local governments. Since power is distributed and shared between the central and the local governments, none of them can intervene with the power of the other level (Heywood, 1999).

In parliamentary government systems, there is a clear separation between the head of the government (the Prime Minister) and the head of state (the President) (Çalışkan & Öner, 2017). In most cases, a Prime Minister leads the government and coordinates with policies and programs. He is elected by the political party(s) with the cabinet on the planning, implementation, and execution of government most seats in the parliament. The Prime Minister is appointed by the President. After that, the Prime Minister appoints his Ministers who are members of the cabinet. 

In the presidential system, the President acts as both the head of state and government (Köylü & Önder, 2017). The President is elected directly by the people for a certain period which is defined by the Constitution. Thus, the President is considered to have direct authority over the citizens.

According to Haque (2012), scholars have distinguished between various typologies of decentralization in local government which are deconcentration, delegation, devolution, and privatization.

The following criteria should be included for better and more effective relations between the central and the local governments (Al Towaitee et al., 2019)

1. A democratic environment that strengthens local governments, 2

. Increasing role of local governments in local and national development,

3. Fair distribution of revenues between local, central, and regional administrations,

4. Presence of an effective audit mechanism between local and central governments,

5. Efficient coordination and information mechanisms between local and central governments,

6. Increasing democratic processes both at local and central levels,

7. Consensus and adaptation on social and political processes by local and central governments,

8. Trust and integrity should be embedded in public administration as basic values,

9. Local and central administrations should have the capacity to adapt to new developments and innovations.

The indicators of the relations between central and local governments for comparison;

• Local governments with strong, or weak financial and political autonomy.

• A council mayor, or council-manager council type (elected, or appointed).

• Existence of local decision-making bodies.

• Existence of central monitoring and subsidiary principle.

• Decentralization type of deconcentration, delegation, devolution, or privatization.

• A fair, rational, or political logic for the division of tasks between central and local governments.

• Existence and the degree of an administrative tutelage

Some of the areas of public personnel studies include (Klingner & Nalbandian, 1998: 1): (a) the management of public employees, (b) the determination of their performance and duties, (c) the relationship between social values and political decision-makers regarding public goods and services, (d) the administration of public personnel, and (e) the practical systems, legal regulations, and procedures.

Open personnel systems (position-based) and closed personnel systems (or career-based) are the two main types of systems used in public personnel systems in different countries (Kuhlmann & Wollmann, 2014).

The indicators of the Public Personnel System for Comparison are;

• A career-based, or a position-based civil service structure.

• Prestigious or non-prestigious public employment

• Percentage of the civil service in the total workforce.

• A competitive, or non-competitive recruitment and promotion processes.

• Existence of political affiliations and ideologies in the recruitment and promotion processes.

• A strong, or weak politicization in the bureaucracy in general.

• Existence of a strong, or weak unionization of public employees.

Civil society is a concept that exists in every society. However, there is no universal consensus on the definition of civil society in the literature. The terms “civil society”, “non-profit sector”, “non-state organizations”, “independent sector”, “voluntary sector”, and “third sector” have been used in different social contexts with similar meanings (Salamon et al., 1999: 3)

the indicators of the Presence of the Civil Society for Comparison are;

• A high number of voluntary memberships to the CSOs.

• Existence of high, or low percentages of CSO revenue in terms of GDP.

• A strong, or weak institutionalization level of CSOs.

• Existence of a strong, or weak political pressure on CSOs.

• Various, or single types of financial revenues (e.g., membership fees, donations, financial support of the government, fundraising activities, revenues gathered from social projects).

• Existence of a strong, or weak level of awareness and support of the society for CSOs.

• Consideration of CSOs in society as prestigious, or not.

There are mainly five recent and significant factors that influence administrative systems and force them to change and adapt to new conditions: E-government services by ICT (Information and Communications Technology), Artificial Intelligence (AI), New Public Management Theory, Governance Theory, and the influence of International Organizations.