Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:14:24.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - The international diffusion of public sector downsizing: network emulation and theory-driven learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

By
Chang Kil Lee  and
David Strang
Edited by
Beth A. Simmons ,
Frank Dobbin  and
Geoffrey Garrett
Chang Kil Lee
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Public Administration, Sejong University Seoul Republic of Korea
David Strang
Affiliation:
Professor of Sociology, Cornell University
Beth A. Simmons
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Frank Dobbin
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Geoffrey Garrett
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access

Summary

The twentieth century as a whole, and particularly the three decades after the Second World War, witnessed steady growth in government size and responsibility. States developed extensive social safety nets, actively managed aggregate demand, and regulated a widening swath of economic and social life. This trajectory of expansion was linked to powerful forces of economic development and demographic change, and anchored in a broad political consensus.

The 1980s and 1990s saw a sea change in the rate of public sector growth. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan led the way with privatization, outsourcing, and load shedding of public responsibilities. But the shift in direction was not limited to radicals on the right. Country reports to the Public Management Committee (PUMA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – itself an outspoken advocate of downsizing – point to widespread efforts to reduce the public sector. In 1995, for example, Denmark commercialized its railways and gave business autonomy to its postal service; Finland diminished the size of its Forestry Administration; France suppressed 7,400 public sector jobs; Greece froze new government appointments; Norway promoted competition between public agencies and private firms; Spain decentralized core government functions; and Sweden reduced public sector employment by 62,000.

During the same period, discourse on the appropriate size, role, and functioning of government underwent an even sharper transformation. On the left, O'Connor and Offe depicted state growth as driven by contradictory demands for accumulation and legitimation that were ultimately unsustainable.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy , pp. 141 - 172
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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

Arellano, Manuel and Bond, Stephen. 1991. Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. Review of Economic Studies 58 (2):277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babb, Sarah and Ariel Buira. 2004. Mission Creep, Mission Push and Discretion in Sociological Perspective: The Case of IMF Conditionality. Paper presented at the XVIII G24 Technical Group Meeting, March, Geneva.
Baum, Jeeyang R. 2002. Presidents Have Problems Too: The Logic of Intra-Branch Delegation in New Democracies (Korea, Taiwan, China). Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Baumol, William J., Blinder, Alan S., and Wolff, Edward N.. 2003. Downsizing in America: Reality, Causes, and Consequences. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Brown, Lawrence D. 1983. Politics and Health Care Organization. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Budros, Art. 1997. The New Capitalism and Organizational Rationality: The Adoption of Downsizing Programs, 1979–1994. Social Forces 76 (1):229–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1987. Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92 (6):1287–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, Francis. 1989. Big Government in Weak States: The Paradox of State Size in the English-Speaking Nations of Advanced Capitalism. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 27 (3):267–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, Thomas R., Notermans, Ton, and Rein, Martin. 1989. Political-Economic Aspects of Public Employment. European Journal of Political Research 17 (4):471–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Gerald F. and Greve, Henrich R.. 1997. Corporate Elite Networks and Governance Changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology 103 (1):1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuse, Kenneth P. and Vanderheiden, Paul A.. 1994. Announced Layoffs: Their Effect on Corporate Financial Performance. Human Resource Management 33 (4):509–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W.. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2):147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flora, Peter, and Heidenheimer, Arnold J., eds. 1981. The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Gilovich, Thomas. 1993. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 1993. Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ha, Yeon-Seob. 2004. Budgetary and Financial Management Reforms in Korea: Financial Crisis, New Public Management, and Fiscal Administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences 70 (3):511–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25 (3):275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halligan, John. 1996. The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform. In Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective, edited by Bekke, Hans A. G. M., Perry, James L., and Toonen, Theo A. J., 288–317. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Lars Peter. 1982. Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators. Econometrica 50 (4):1029–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunschild, Pamela R. and Miner, Anne S.. 1997. Modes of Interorganizational Imitation: The Effects of Outcome Salience and Uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (3):472–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahler, Miles. 1990. Orthodoxy and Its Alternatives: Explaining Approaches to Stabilization and Adjustment. In Economic Crisis and Policy Choice: The Politics of Adjustment in the Third World, edited by Nelson, Joan M., 33–62. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Pan Suk and Jae Moon, M.. 2002. Current Public Sector Reform in Korea: New Public Management in Practice. Journal of Comparative Asian Development 1 (1):49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjaer, Peter and Ove K. Pedersen. 2001. Translating Liberalization: Neoliberalism in the Danish Negotiated Economy. In The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, edited by Campbell, John L. and Pedersen, Ove K., 219–48. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Chang Kil. 2001. The Institutionalization of Growth and Decline in Government Employment: Economics, Politics, and Imitation. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Lord, Charles G., Ross, Lee, and Lepper, Mark R.. 1979. Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (11):2098–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, William, Mone, Mark A., and Barker, Vincent L. III. 1998. Some Ideological Foundations of Organizational Downsizing. Journal of Management Inquiry 7 (3):198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, John W., Boli, John, Thomas, George M., and Ramirez, Francisco O.. 1997. World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology 103 (1):144–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Myung-Jae and Ingraham, Patricia. 1998. Shaping Administrative Reform and Governance: An Examination of the Political Nexus Triads in Three Asian Countries. Governance 11 (1):77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosley, Paul, Harrigan, Jane, and Toye, John. 1991. Aid and Power: The World Bank and Policy-based Lending. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Niskanen, William. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
O'Connor, James. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1995. Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
OECD/PUMA, Issues and Developments in Public Management, 1993–1998. Paris: OECD.
Offe, Claus. 1984. Contradictions of the Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted. 1993. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
Pampel, Fred C. and Williamson, John B.. 1988. Welfare Spending in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950–1980. American Journal of Sociology 93 (6):1424–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State?: Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piore, Michael J. and Sabel, Charles F.. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Republic of Korea. Ministry of Government Administration. 1997. Sin Jungbu Hyuksinron (“New Government Reforms”). Seoul: DonMyungSa.
Republic of Korea. Ministry of Planning and Budget. 2003. How Korea Reformed the Public Sector. Seoul: Ministry of Planning and Budget.
Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Strang, David and Ellen M. Bradburn. 2001. Theorizing Legitimacy or Legitimating Theory? Neoliberal Discourse and HMO Policy, 1970–89. In The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, edited by Campbell, John L. and Pedersen, Ove K., 129–58. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Strang, David and Young-Mi Kim. 2005. The Diffusion and Domestication of Managerial Innovations: The Spread of Scientific Management, Quality Circles, and Total Quality Management Between the United States and Japan. In The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization, edited by Ackroyd, Stephen, Batt, Rosemary, Thompson, Paul, and Tolbert, Pamela S., 177–99. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strang, David and Macy, Michael W.. 2001. In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation. American Journal of Sociology 107 (1):147–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, David and Meyer, John W.. 1993. Institutional Conditions for Diffusion. Theory and Society 22 (4):487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, David and Soule, Sarah A.. 1998. Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills. Annual Review of Sociology 24:265–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, George M., Meyer, John W., Ramirez, Francisco O., and Boli, John. 1987. Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1969. The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American Political Science Review 63 (3):880–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, Harold L. 1975. The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Woldendorp, Jaap, Keman, Hans, and Budge, Ian. 1998. Party Government in 20 Democracies: An Update (1990–1995). European Journal of Political Research 33 (1):125–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×