Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:26:32.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speaking truth to power: political advisers’ and civil servants’ responses to perceived harmful policy proposals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2019

Birgitta Niklasson ,
Peter Munk Christiansen Open the ORCID record for Peter Munk Christiansen [Opens in a new window]  and
Patrik Öhberg
Birgitta Niklasson
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Gothenburg University, Sweden
Peter Munk Christiansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark
Patrik Öhberg
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Gothenburg University, Sweden
*
*Corresponding author. Email: pmc@ps.au.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How are civil servants and politically appointed advisers likely to respond to policy proposals that they believe will harm their countries severely even if they are legal? Based on the different loyalties and roles of political advisors (PA) and civil servants (CS), we hypothesise that (1) PAs are more likely to voice internally, (2) CSs are more likely to voice externally and (3) CSs in functionally politicised systems are more likely to stay silent. These hypotheses are tested on – and partially supported by – data collected through two surveys directed to the ministerial staffs in Denmark and Sweden. PAs are more likely to voice internally, but none of the two groups is particularly keen to voice externally. The propensity to voice concerns in case of perceived harmful policy proposals depends on the kind as well as the level of politicisation.

Keywords

ministerial advicecivil servantspolitical adviserspoliticisationbureaucratic responses
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 492 - 512
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Aberbach, J Rockman, BD (1994) Civil Servants and Policymakers: Neutral or Responsive Competence? Governance 7, 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H (1994) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
Aucoin, P (2010) Canada. In Eichbaum C and Shaw R (eds.), Partisan Appointees and Public Servants. An International Analysis of the Role of the Political Adviser. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 64–93.Google Scholar
Bertelli, AM Lewis, DE (2013) Policy Influence, Agency-Specific Expertise, and Exit in the Federal Service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23, 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M (2007) Conflicting Loyalties: Ethical Pluralism in Administrative Life. International Journal of Public Administration 19(11-12): 2195–2211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M, Geveke, HG Vries, J de (1995) Open Public Administration in the Netherlands: The Politics of Leaking. International Review of Administrative Sciences 61, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, PM, Niklasson, B Öhberg, P (2016) Does Politics Crowd out Professional Competence? The Organisation of Ministerial Advice in Denmark and Sweden. West European Politics 39(6): 1230–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, JG (2006) Ministers and Mandarins under Danish Parliamentarism. International Journal of Public Administration 29(12): 997–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, JG (2011) Weber’s Modern Form. The Persistence of Merit Bureaucracy in Danish Central Government. In Schimanke D, Veit S and Bull H.P eds, Bürokratie im Irrgarten der Politik: Gedächtnisband für Hans-Ulrich Derlien. Baden-Baden: Monos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 125–149.Google Scholar
Cook, B (1988) Bureaucratic Politics and Regulatory Reform. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahlström, C (2009) Political Appointments in 18 Democracies, 1975-2007. QoG Working Paper Series 2009:18 . Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.Google Scholar
Dahlström, C Lapuente, V (2017) Organizing Leviathan. Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Making of Good Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlström, C, Lapuente, V Teorell, J (2012) The Merit of Meritocratization: Politics, Bureaucracy, and the Institutional Deterrents of Corruption. Political Research Quarterly 65, 656–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaf, G (2010) The Loyalties of Top Public Administrators. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2, 285–306.Google Scholar
Denhardt, RB Denhardt, JV (2000) The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering. Public Administration Review 60, 549–559.Google Scholar
Dickinson, MJ Rudalevige, A (2005) Presidents, Responsiveness, and Competence: Revisiting the ‘Golden Age’ at the Bureau of the Budget. Political Science Quarterly 119(4): 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DJØF (1993) Fagligt etiske principper i offentlig adminsitration: DJØF Publishing.Google Scholar
Dowding, KPJ John, P (2012) Exits, Voices and Social Investment. Citizens’ Reaction to Public Services. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, KPJ, Mergoupis, T van Vugt, M (2000) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Analytic and Empirical Developments. European Journal of Political Research 37, 469–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehn, P (1998) Maktens administratörer. Ledande svenska statstjänstemäns och politikers syn på tjänstemannarollen i ett förändringsperspektiv. Stockholm: Dept. of Political Science, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Eichbaum, C Shaw, R (2007) Ministerial Advisers and the Politics of Policy-Making: Bureaucratic Permanence and Popular Control. The Australian Journal of Public Administration 66, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichbaum, C Shaw, R (2008) Revisiting Politicization: Political Advisers and Public Servants in Westminster Systems. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 21(3): 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichbaum, C Shaw, R (2010) New Zeeland. In Eichbaum C and Shaw R eds, Partisan Appointees and Public Servants. An International Analysis of the Role of the Political Adviser. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 114–150.Google Scholar
Farrell, D (1983) Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect as Responses do Job Dissatisfaction: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. The Academy of Management Journal 26(4): 596–607.Google Scholar
Flynn, K (2006) Covert Disclosures. Journalism Studies 7(2): 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, T Nielsen, SW (2010) Projekt Løkke. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Goetz, KH (1997) Acquiring Political Craft: Training Grounds for Top Officials in the German Core Executive. Public Administration 74, 753–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, MM (1992) Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: Bureaucratic Responses to Presidential Control During the Reagan Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2(1): 29–62.Google Scholar
Government of Denmark (2013) Ministrenes Særlige Rådgivere: Serviceeftersyn. Government white paper on special advisers. White Paper 1537/2013. English summary, pp. 179-209. http://www.fm.dk/publikationer/2013/betaenkning-1537-ministrenes-saerlige-raadgivere/.Google Scholar
Government Investigation (1990) Demokrati och makt i Sverige. Maktutredningens huvudrapport. SOU 1990:44. Stockholm: Fritzes förlag.Google Scholar
Hirschman, AO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hooghiemstra, R van Manen, J (2002) Supervisory Directors and Ethical Dilemmas: Exit or Voice? European Management Journal 20(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiung, H Yang, K (2012) Employee Behavioral Options in Problematic Working Conditions: Response Pattern Analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management 23, 1888–1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustedt, T Salomonsen, H (2014) Ensuring Political Responsiveness: Politicisation Mechanisms in Ministerial Bureaucracies. International Review of Administrative Sciences 80(4): 746–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingraham, PW Colby, PW (1982) Political Reform and Government Management: The Case of the Senior Executive Service. Policy Studies Journal 11, 304–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, T (2000) Party Cohesion. In Esaiasson P. and Heidar K eds, Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 210–236.Google Scholar
John, P (2017) Finding Exits and Voices: Albert Hirschman’s Contribution to the Study of Public Services. International Public Management Journal 20(3): 512–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, H (1960) The Forest Ranger: A Study of Administrative Behavior. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Kellough, JE Osuna, W (1995) Cross-Agency Comparisons of Quit Rates in the Federal Service: Another Look at the Evidence. Review of Public Personnel Administration 15(4): 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, W (2002) A Running Repair for the Civil Service. The Political Quarterly 73(2): 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J Varon, AL (2016) Employee Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect in Response to Dissatifying Organizational Situations: It Depends on Supervisory Relationship Quality. International Journal of Business Communication October 2016, 1–22.Google Scholar
Levin, B (1983) En skog av röda nålar: om politiseringen av departement och förvaltning. In Rydén B ed, Makt och vanmakt. Stockholm: SNS Förlag, 91–100.Google Scholar
Lewin, L (2007) Democratic Accountability. Why Choice in Politics Is Both Possible and Necessary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, DE (2008) The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G Park, K (1989) Turnover Rates in Federal White-Collar Employment: Are Women More Likely to Quit than Men? The American Review of Public Administration 19(1): 13–28.Google Scholar
Liljegren, M, Nordlund, A Ekberg, K (2008) Psychometric Evaluation and Further Validation of the Hagedoorn et al. Modified EVLN Measure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, JS (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent variables . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Moynihan, DP Landuyt, N (2008) Explaining Turnover Intention in State Government: Examining the Roles of Gender, Life Cycle, and Loyalty. Review of Public Personnel Administration 28, 120–143.Google Scholar
Mulgan, R (2007) Truth in Government and the Politicisation of Public Service Advice. Public Administration 85, 569–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemann, C (2013) Villkorat förtroende. Normer och rollförväntningar i relationen mellan politiker och tjänstemän i Regeringskansliet. Dissertation defended at the Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, November 29.Google Scholar
Niklasson, B (2007) Förvaltningseliten. In Göransson A ed, Maktens kön. Kvinnor och män i den svenska makteliten på 2000-talet. Nora: Bokförlaget Nya Doxa, 365–384.Google Scholar
Niskanen, WA (1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York: Aldine-Alderton.Google Scholar
Overeem, P (2005) The Value of the Dichotomy: Politics, Administration, and the Political Neutrality of Administrators. Administrative Theory Praxis 27(2): 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, BG Pierre, J (eds.) (2004) Politicisation of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, BG (1987) Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Politics of Policy-making. In Lane J-E ed, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. London: Sage, 256–282.Google Scholar
Pfiffner, JP (1985) Political Public Administration. Public Administration Review 45(2): 352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouban, L (2012) Politicisation of the Civil Service. In Peters B. G and Pierre J eds, The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage, 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, FE. (1992) Responsiveness and Neutral Competence in American Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review 52, 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C Lowery, D (1985) When Bureaucrats Get the Blues: Responses to Dissatisfaction Among Federal Employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 15(1): 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Transparency International (2015) Corruption Perception Index 2015. Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
Ullström, A (2011) Styrning Bakom Kulisserna. Regeringskansliets Politiska Staber och Regeringens Styrningskapacitet. Dissertation defended at the Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, May 20.Google Scholar
Vantilborgh, T (2015) Volunteers’ Reactions to Psychological Contract Fulfillment in Terms of Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect Behavior. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations 54, 1483–1518.Google Scholar
Värdegrundsdelegationen (2014) Introduktion till den Gemensamma Värdegrunden för de Statsanställda. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet.Google Scholar
Weber, M (1946) Politics as a Vocation. In Gerth H. H and Wright Mills C eds, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 196–244.Google Scholar
Whitford, AB Lee, S-Y (2014) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty with Multiple Exit Options: Evidence from the US Federal Workforce. Journal of Public Administration Research 25, 373–398.Google Scholar
Williams, R (2006) Generalized Ordered Logit/Partial Proportional Odds Models for Ordinal Dependent Variables. Stata Journal 6(1): 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W (1887) The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly 2, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öhberg, P Naurin, E (2015) Party-Constrained Policy Responsiveness: A Survey Experiment on Politicians’ Response to Citizen-Initiated Contacts. British Journal of Political Science 46(4): 785–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Niklasson et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Niklasson et al. supplementary material(File)
File 24.8 KB