Spring 2003

This issue begins, however, at the supra-national level with a careful analysis by Heinrich Siedentopf and Benedikt Speer of the extent to which the concept of a "European Administrative Space" expresses accurately the effects of European integration on public administration. The authors note that SIGMA, in the context of its work on the accession of Central and Eastern European countries to the EU, define European Administrative Space as an "evolving process of increasing convergence between national administrative legal orders and administrative practices" of the EU member states. They caution, however, that this central issue in European administrative science is a complicated one that requires much more research and analysis. They conclude that, even if the Europeanization of public administration progresses, the heterogeneity of structures, practices and traditions that will remain suggests that "European Administrative Community" may be a more appropriate term than European Administrative Space.

Pierre Chabal makes a helpful theoretical and empirical contribution to political science and public administration through his cross-national study of the extent to which government ministers make a difference in respect of policy change. He notes that five of six major models of policy analysis make little provision for the place of individuals but he also notes those theorists (e.g. Headey, Blondel) who assert the importance of individuals in the policy process. On the basis of his study of the policy work of 19 ministers in 4 West European countries, Chabal concludes that social scientists studying policy change must take into consideration the influence of individuals - in this case, ministers. He concludes also that more can be learned about ministers and their policy contributions by focusing on their negotiating style and techniques rather than on their careers and decisions.

Robert Cameron revisits the central and enduring issue of the appropriate linkages between politics and administration and the related issue of the tension between merit and patronage. His analysis is set within the context of a controversy over the appointment of political partisans to senior posts in the government of Cape Town, South Africa. Cameron reviews both the changing context of local government in South Africa and the scholarly literature on the politics-administration dichotomy. He then sets out a heuristic model that depicts a politics-administration continuum running from "neutral" appointments (e.g. the UK) through to appointments based on a fusion of party and state (e.g. Zambia). In the last section of the paper, Cameron explains how the Cape Town Council used the continuum to inform a policy change on this issue of public service appointments.

In the next three papers, local government administration is again the dominant theme but this time with a significant focus on questions of administrative law. This mini-symposium on local public services in three West European countries was organized and edited by Elisenda Mallaret and Gérard Marcoux.

John McEldowney explains the dramatic changes that have taken place in local government in the United Kingdom since the 1970s and that are continuing to occur under the Labour Government's modernization program. The reforms at the local level, like those in the central government, have been heavily influenced by New Public Management thinking and practice. Various legal and economic controls imposed by the central government mean that local governments are enjoying limited autonomy. McEldowney concludes that local government is likely to experience another period of extensive change to replace some of the central controls and that this will involve complicated legal and financial measures to control, inspect and monitor the operations of local government.

The story of local government modernization in France, like that in the United Kingdom, is a complicated one. Jean Claude Douence, in his examination of recent developments in the law affecting France's local governments, explains the decentralization in this sphere that has taken place since the early 1980s. He describes the continuous evolution of regional structures and local competencies; the theory of management methods, that is, the choice between direct management and management delegated to a distinct entity; the contractual delegation of public services; and the special management institutions given to local authorities. He also examines the strengthening of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional controls. The paper concludes with an examination of the extent to which the competitive rationale has penetrated the public sphere during the modernization of local government.

The third paper in this symposium on local government administration in Western Europe deals with the management of local government services in Spain. Luis Ortega provides a careful explanation of the division of powers over local government administration. He then explains the distinction between direct and indirect forms of local service management. The direct forms include management by the local organization itself, management by a specialized organization, the creation of an autonomous organization, and the establishment of a business corporation. The indirect forms include private contracts, profit sharing, agreements, leases, and joint ventures. Still other forms of management include communities, consortia, management mandates, and foundations. He concludes by noting that the variety of forms of management permitted by the legal framework in the Spanish system facilitates innovative approaches to public service reform.

The major theme to be examined in the next edition of this web page is Self-Confident Government: Reflections and New Frontiers. These and other papers will be briefly summarized on this web page and published in full in the International Review of Administrative Sciences. Information on the Review is available at http://www.iiasiisa.be/iias/airisa/airisa.htm