expansion and diversification of public administration

7/28/2019 Expansion and Diversification of Public Administration

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/expansion-and-diversification-of-public-administration 1/8

Expansion and Diversification of Public Administration in the Postwar Welfare State: The

Case of the NetherlandsAuthor(s): Walter J. M. KickertReviewed work(s):Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1996), pp. 88-94Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110059 .

Accessed: 14/01/2012 10:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110059?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110059?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black



E x p a n s i o n a n d

Diversification o f P u b l i c

Adminis traon in h e

P o s t w a r W e l f a r e S t a t e : T h e

C a s e o f T h e N e t h e r l a n d s

Walter.M.Kickert,ErasmusUniversity,otterdam

Until the1960s,theDutch statewaschar-acterizedand limited by "pillarization,"

corporatism"nd "consensus-democracy."Itspublicadministrationreflectedhe

juridicalperspectivehatdominatedonti-nentalEuropeandministrationuring he

19thand 20thcenturies.TheriseofDutchadministrativeciencen the1960sis relat-edto thepostwar xpansionf itswelfarestate. Thegrowingwelfaretateneededci-

entific upportforolicymakingandplan-ning. Legal xpertiselonewasnolongersufficient.Theone-sided rientationnU.S. literaturen the1970s madewayfora

growing elf-identityndself-confidence.Dutchadministrativeesearchtodayhas

reached relativelyigh evelofmaturitywhichmightpossiblyontributeothe

developmentfa new kindof Europeanthinking boutpublicadministration.

lthough public administration s

now taught n The Netherlandst

10 of theexisting13 Dutchuniver-

sities,Dutchpublicadministrationeems o

be relativelynknown broad. In the 1984revisionof the well-knownGerman ext-

book on Verwaltungslehrey Theime,the

internationalsurvey ndicates that Dutchpublicadministrations offeredonlyat the

Groningenaculty f Lawand theFreeUni-

versity of Amsterdam. In the recent

griindlichendcomprehensiveextbookon

OffentlicheVerwaltungy Becker(1989),Dutchpublicadministrations also said tobetaught nlyatthese woplaces.

Public policy and administration is,however,n reality, separate,ull-scale,eg-ulardegreeprogramtTwente,Leiden, ndRotterdamUniversities. In these three

places, some 700 students enroll yearly

making totalof over2,000 students.The

TwenteDepartment f PublicAdministra-

tion has some 60 staffmembers,and the

combinedLeiden-Rotterdamdepartment,well over 100. Apartfrom that, publicadministrations a specializationt another

sevenuniversities.The Netherlandsuffers

from the tinybutcrucialdisadvantagehat

almostnobodyn theworld eadsDutch.This article overs he historyandstate

of affairs f the Dutchpolicyand adminis-

tration ciencesl-fromtheeducationalper-

spective nd from hepointof viewof top-ics and trends n research-in relation o

the developmentf the state and adminis-

trationn TheNetherlands.

PostwarWelfare tateand

Administrativecience

The creationof Dutch administrative

science n themid-1960s nd tssubsequent

rapidgrowtharerelatedo thepostwar ise

andexpansion f the Dutch welfare tate.

The enormousncreasen public asksand

the role of the state in providingwelfare

arrangementsn the variouspolicysectors

called or governmentlanningandpolicy

making. The traditionallyweak central

state,with mostpublic asksperformed ythe"pillarizedrivatenitiative,"owhadto

becomeactivelynvolvedn sectoralpolicymaking nddevelop ewpolicy nstruments

besideshe usuallegislationndregulation,such as budgetingand planningsystems.

Legalexpertisealonewas no longersuffi-

cient forthistypeof government lanning.The daysof the legalistic tate where aw

dominatedhestudyof administrationere

over.Thewelfaretatewas n needof other

scientificsupport orthe rationalizationf

itssectoralpolicydesign. Thisexplainshe

growingpopularityf the social ciences n

generaland the rise and growth of the

Dutchpolicy ciencesnparticular.

Dutch Stateand

Administration

Pillarization, Corporatism,

and Consensus

The three maincharacteristicsf TheNetherlands n the 20th centuryare the

sociological haracteristicf "pillarization,"the socioeconomicharacteristicf "corpo-ratism," nd the politicalcharacteristicf

"consensus-democracy"Hemerijck,992).

AlthoughCatholicswerealmost40 per-centof the populationn The Netherlands

in the 19thcentury,he traditional rotes-

tantconceptionhatCatholicswere econd-

ratecitizens tilldominated.Thistradition

originated n the successful 16th century

struggleof the Protestant-Calvinistutch

forseparationrom heCatholicHabsburg-

Burgundy mpire.Theconsequentecessi-

ty forCatholicso establish countervailingsocialandpoliticalpoweraccounts or the

"pillarization"f Dutch society(Kossman,

1986),whichdividedsocietyalong deolog-icalratherhan class ines. Early20th cen-

turyDutch societybecamedividedalongfour"pillars"-Protestant,atholic,Social-

ist, andLiberal-Neutral. he whole social

organizationof the Dutch state, rangingfrompolitical arties,radeunions, mploy-er organizations,chools and universities,healthandwelfarenstitutions,mediaorga-nizations,and evensportsclubs, followed

these ourdivisions.

Both the Protestants nd the Catholics

had clearideologicaldeasabout imitations

on the powerof the centralstate. In the

Dutch state and society,therefore,many

public asks, uch aseducation, ealth,and

welfare,wereperformedy socialorganiza-

tionshaving helegalstatusof privateoun-dationsor associationsbelongingo one of

the fourpillars. The executionof publictaskswas eft to the so-calledprivatenitia-

tive.

Dutch societywas not split along the

classdivisionbetweencapitaland labor.

The threat f laborrevoltandrising ocial-

ismwas counteredate in the 19thcentury

by the creation of corporatism. The

Netherlandsormsan almostperfectand

extremeexampleof the modernnonstatist

conceptof neocorporatismWilliamson,1990). ThisEuropeanmodelof democracy

emphasizeshe interestsrepresented y a

small,fixed numberof internally oherentandwell-organizednterestgroups hatare

recognizedy the stateandhaveprivilegedor evenmonopolizedccess o the state. In

The Netherlands,n mostpolicyfields, he

major nterestorganizationsrelegallyrec-

ognizedandhave ormalaccess o policyas

reflectedn statutory ightsof consultation,formalseats on advisoryand regulatory

PublicAdministrationeview* January/February996,Vol.56,No.18



bodies, and in a number of bi-, tri-, or

multi-partiteemi-stateagencies.Neo-cor-

poratismis well establishedand highlyinstitutionalized.

A thirdessential haracteristics consen-

sus-democracyLijphart,1984). In The

Netherlands,llparties reminority artiesand thus have to accommodate o share

parliamentary ower in broad coalition

cabinets. Accommodation,deliberation,

compromise,and consensusare the keywordsn the Dutchpolitical ulture.Inhis

classicstudyof thepoliticsof accommoda-

tion, Lijphart1968)analyzedheparadoxof a society that is deeplydividedalong

strongly ntagonisticdeologicalines-the

pillars-and at the same time could be

such a politicallytable tate. Hisexplana-tionwasthat hepoliticaleaders f thepil-lars were pragmatically rientedtoward

compromise nd consensus,and the rank

and file of thepillarswereobedientollow-ers of their eaders.In thissense,compro-mise and consensusorm theverybasisof

thestableDutchsociety.

Depillarization and Individualization

Sincethe late 1950s and early1960s,the pillarizationof societyhas decreased

(Lijphart, 1982). Secularization and

democratizatonwere accompaniedby a

growing ndividualizationf society. The

behaviorof individualcitizenswasbeingdeterminedess and lessby the traditional

cohesive aluepatternsndtheaccompany-

ing ordering ocialinstitutions f the pil-lars. The leadershipoleof churchmem-

bershiphas decreased.,The sociological

conceptof pillarization o longercharac-

terizesDutchsociety. Confessionalismn

the senseof church-goingndactivebeliev-

inghas also decreased.The manyremain-

ingProtestant, atholic, ndotherdenom-

inational nstitutions n The Netherlands

have apparently lost their ideological

groundings.Asto the two othercharacter-

istics-corporatism nd consensus-Dutch

multi-party oliticsof todayare still char-

acterizedby compromiseand consensus,and Dutch sectoralpolicymaking till rests

heavily norganizednterestgroups.

Postwar Centralized Welfare State

Well nto the 19thcentury,Dutchstate

powerwas in the handsof the provincesand the merchantand aristocratic lites.

The traditionalbsence f astrong, entral,stateauthority asdefinitely hangedwith

the postwar reation ndexpansion f the

welfarestate,which impliesa growthof

public asks. Until the 1960s,those tasks

continued o be carried ut by predomi-

nantlyprivate nitiativeas had been the

custom ince heearly20thcentury.With

depillarizationnd individualization,he

role of the state has increased,and stateinfluence on publicservicedeliveryhas

grown.Thefactthatmoreand more tate

fundshavebeen madeavailable as con-

tributed o thatdevelopment.The influ-

enceof thestateon theimplementationf

social services has steadilyincreasedbymeans f legislation, lanning, ndbudget-

ingsystems.The ideology-basedillarizedsocial nstitutions avebecome tate-based,

client-oriented,nonprofit, professional

organizations.The constitutional alance

between entralandlocalgovernmentasshifted n favorof the centralevel,result-

ing at the end of the 1970s in a stronglycentralized utchstate.

Scientific Study of Public Adminis-

tration

Apart rom classicalpoliticalthinkers

like the lawyer Hugo de Groot (1583-

1645)and thephilosopherpinoza1632-

1677), explicitattentionon the function-

ing of public administration in TheNetherlands ates rom heendof the 18th

century Rutgers, 993). The firstDutch

administrativepublicationwas Van den

Spiegel's ketchofAdministrationn 1786.

The more elaborateFrenchand German

thinkingaboutpublicadministrationonly

penetratedThe Netherlandsearly n the

19th century,particularlyn the work of

thefoundingather f the Dutch constitu-

tionof 1848,theliberalmember f parlia-mentThorbecke, lawprofessort Leiden

University.Like he restof

Europen the

19thcentury,hejuridical spects f publicadministrationwereemphasizedn The

Netherlands Raadschelders,994), and

the field becamedominatedby lawyers.Thinkers boutpublicadministrationpaid

only minimal attentionto nonjuridicial

aspects, with few exceptions like the

reformer of German administration,LorenzVonStein.

The first Dutch scientistto approachthe studyof administrationrom a mainly

non-juridicalperspectivewas G.A. van

Poelje, municipal fficialwhobecame he

firstprofessorf public municipal)dmin-

istration n Rotterdamn 1928 and pub-lished the first Dutch book on publicadministration,General ntroduction o

PublicAdministration,n 1942 (Rutgers,1993;Twisten Schaap,1992). VanPoeljeknew of the Germanexperiences ndthe

writings f VonStein,andhe was interest-

ed in Americanpublicadministration.nhis book, he stressed the distinction

betweenpoliticsandadministration.Van

Poeljewas the co-founderin 1922 of a

foundation oreducation n administrative

sciences,which succeeded n gettingthe

studyof the fieldintroduced s a separateacademicspecialization n the state and

economicscurriculumin Rotterdam n

1928. He wasalso theco-foundern 1937

of theInstitute orAdministrativeciences

andin 1947 of thejournal,Administrative

Sciences,he joint journalof the Institute,theAssociationf Administrativeaw,and

the Associationof Dutch Municipalities.His activities and initiatives formedthe

basis or the startof a separatedministra-

tivescience nTheNetherlands.

Administrative Law and Administra-

tive Science

For a long time in many Europeanstates,administrativeaw was considered

the main, if not the only, administrativescience. In the 19th century,EuropeanRechtsstatencapitalistconomieswere deo-

logically ccompaniedy liberalism, hich

called ora statethat refrainedromactive

interferencen societyand the economy.Becausehestatehad to care or individual

freedom and propertyrights, legislationandregulationwere its main tasks. Such

states were mainly in need of lawyers.With the transformationnto welfaretates,lawgraduallyecameconsideredonly one

of theadministrativeciences.Administra-

tive law creates a basis of authorityfor

administrativeiscretion nd sets the con-

ditions but leaves administrationdiscre-

tionaryreedom.Administrationcience s

morebroadly asedonjuridical,conomic,

social,andpoliticalciences, nd t analyzesthe factualfunctioningf administrationn

variousrespects.The growingDutchwel-

fare tateneededmore hanjuridicalcien-

tific supportfor the rationalizationand

improvementof its planningand policy

making. At the end of the 1950s, it

Symposium:hanginguropeantates;hangingublic dministration 89



became clear that administrative cience

deserved properplaceat universities.A

committee for administrativetudies was

installedbytheMinistry f Education,Arts

andSciences o examine ow thisshouldbe

realized.The 1963 reportof thisWiarda-

Committeeopened the way for separate

specializationrogramsndchairs.

Public Administration Programs

The marked acceleration of publicadministrationn The Netherlandsn the

1970sputan end to the predominantela-

tionshipwithlawandproduced n increase

in otherdisciplinaryelationships. fter he

creationof a growing number of placeswherepublicadministrationouldbe stud-

ied as a specialization,hedevelopmentf a

separate cienceof public administration

reachedhe nextphasewith the establish-

ment of thefirst, ull-scalepublicadminis-

trationregular egreeprogram t the Tech-

nologicalUniversityof Twente in 1976.

This programwas basedon fourseparate

disciplines.The Twenteprogram entered

aroundwo themes:The contentsof policy

makingandthe structuresndprocessesn

whichpolicy s made.

A secondfull-degreerogramwas estab-

lishedin 1984 as a joint venturebetween

the universities f Rotterdam nd Leiden,

which are ocatedcloseto the politicaland

administrativecapital,The Hague,where

parliamentndgovernmentepartmentsre

located. The program imsat integratingthe approaches f the basicdisciplinesof

law,economics,ociology, ndpolitical ci-

ence. Because he two universitiespossessfacultiesn all fourdisciplines,he staffof

both public administrationdepartmentscould concentrate and specializeon the

integrativeubject tself,differentrom the

Twente ituationwherethe distinct denti-

tiesof thefourdisciplinesrevail.Besides hesetwo full-degree rograms,

publicadministrations taughtat another

sevenuniversitiesTable1). Thenumber f

students in public administrationgrew

steadilyn the mid-1980sby about30 per-centyearly, ut hasgraduallyeclined ince

the endof the 1980s. During hatperiod,social science as a whole underwent a

remarkabledip in studentpopularity.The

popularityf publicadministrations often

comparedto the popularityof business

administrationn the 1980s,a phenomenon

notunknownnthe UnitedStates.

The disciplinary backgroundof the

studyof publicadministrationasshowna

clear hift. Until theendof the 1950s,the

studyof publicadministration asdomi-

natedby thejuridical iscipline.Sincethe

1960s, more and more chairs in publicadministrationcienceshavebeencreated

withvariousdisciplinaryackgrounds.At

someplaces, heprogramwasinstitutional-ized in law faculties;at some places,like

Nijmegen,the sociological approachhas

become dominant, but in many other

places, political science has become the

mainsupportingisciplineTable ).

Close Relations with

Administrative Practice

A remarkableeature f Dutchadminis-

trative cience,particularlyn comparisonwith othercountries,s its close

relationshipwith the practice f publicadministration.

The earlyprofessorsf publicadministra-

tion typicallycame from administrative

practice,and manyprofessorsodayhave

closerelationswiththepublic ervice,ome

leaving or or coming romtoppositionsn

governmentndadministration.Manypro-fessors ndstaffmembersplayanactive ole

in localor nationalpolitics. Someprofes-sorshavebeen directorgeneral r secretary

general t ministries.A number f profes-sorsaremembers f majornationalgovern-

mentcouncils, uchas the SocialEconomicCouncil(SER),the ScientificCouncilfor

GovernmentPolicy WRR), he Council or

Home Administration (RBB), and the

Councilfor WelfarePolicy(HRWB),and

manyare membersof varioustemporary

advisoryommittees.Facultymemberslso

do consultancyorkandserve s advisersf

differentgovernment rganizations.How-

ever,a substantial umber f contemporary

professorshavespent theirentire careers

insidea university, hich indicates he sci-

entificprofessionalizationf the field. The

bridgebetweenadministrativetheoryand

practices a strongone in The Netherlands.

This is not only reflected n the structure

andcontents f courseprogramsutalso n

researchctivities.A relativelyargenumber

of researchprojects recommissioned nd

financedby publicorganizations uch as

ministries,municipalities,nd otherpublicbodies.

Institutional Progress

The historical ketch above has shown

the postwarnstitutionalprogress f publicadministrationn The Netherlands. The

fieldhasseparatedromthe supporting is-

ciplinesand has created ts own identity,whichhas becomeboth substantially nd

institutionallydistinct from other disci-

plines. It hasdevelopedntoan integrative

subjectwith a recognized cientificraison

d'etre f its own. The subject s taughtat

many places, and student interest has

boomedn thelastdecade.The institution-

al identity of public administration is

reflectedby the appearanceof academic

journals.Beside hejournalof Administra-

tiveSciencesoundedn 1947,therearePoli-

cyandSocietyreatedn 1974, Administra-

tion(latercalledPublicAdministration)n

1982, PolicySciencen 1984, and in 1992the journalof the Dutch PAAssociation,

PublicAdministration.henumber f text-

booksis alsosteadilygrowing. Its institu-

tionalidentitys reflectedn the existence f

its ownprofessionalrganization,he Dutch

Association of Public Administration

(VerenigingoorBestuurskunde),hichfre-

quently rganizesonferences,esearchem-

inars, ndso forth.

Table1

EstablishmentfChairsn PublicAdministration,928to 1976

Year University Disciplinaryffiliation

1928 Economic cademyRotterdam) Economics

1953 InstituteorSocial tudies Socialdevelopmental)ciences

1961 FreeUniversityAmsterdam) Politicalcience

1966 Erasmusniversityotterdam Sociology1969 Universityf Utrecht Law1970 Universityf Amsterdam Politicalcience1971 Technical niversityelft Law1972 UniversityfLeiden Law ndpoliticalcience1973 Catholic niversityijmegen Politicalcience1976 Interuniversitynstitute elft Businessdministration1976 UniversityfGroningen Law

PublicAdministrationeview* January/February996,Vol.56,No.10



Table2

PublicAdministrationn TheNetherlands,994

University Positionwithin he InstitutionErasmusniversityotterdamndUniversityf Leiden FacultyfSocial ciencesFacultyf Law DepartmentfPublicAdministrationTechnical niversitywente FacultyfPublicAdministrationCatholicUniversityijmegen FacultyfPolicy ciencesDepartmentfAdministrativendOrganizationcienceCatholicUniversityrabant(Tillburg) FacultyfSocial ciencesDepartmentfAdministrativendPolicy ciences

FacultyfLaw DepartmentfAdministrativendConstitutionalaw ndPublicAdministrationUniversityfAmsterdam FacultyfPolitical ndSocial-CulturalciencesDepartmentfPoliticalcience

FreeUniversityAmsterdam) FacultyfSocial-CulturalciencesDepartmentfPoliticalcienceUniversityfGroningen FacultyfLaw DepartmentfAdministrativeaw ndPublicAdministrationUniversityf Utrecht FacultyfSocial ciences ndFacultyf Law CenterorPolicy ndManagementTechnical niversity elft FacultyfSystems ngineering,olicyAnalysisndManagementOpenUniversityHeerlen) FacultyfBusinessndAdministrativeciences

Trends ndSchoolsn

Administrativeesearch

Policy Science

Twentehas from thebeginning

of the

firstfull-degreeprogram n 1976 been a

researchenterwith a strongpolicy-processorientation.Not long afterthe establish-

ment n America f a distinctpolicyanaly-sis movement with an identity separatefrom the traditional American publicadministration chools, similardevelop-mentstookplace n The Netherlands.In

1972,a journal,PolicyAnalysis ascreated,linked o theinterdepartmentalommittee

for the Developmentof PolicyAnalysis(COBA), which advocateda PPBS-like

approachn the Dutch ministries, ndin

1974, the journal Policy and Society

appeared. AndriesHoogerwerf(1978)became he mostprominenttimulator f

the Dutch policy sciences. His specialinterestwas the rationalization f policy

design and the improvementof policy

making by the use of scientificanalysis.

Hoogerwerfassuccessfullyndsystemati-

callyworked ut a researchprogramn the

differentaspects nddimensions f policy.A numberof his followers aveelaborated

andextendedhispolicyapproach, articu-

larly n thedirection f policy mplementa-tion and effectiveness (Bressers,1983;

Maarse, 1983), thus supplementing

Hoogerwerf'srientation n policydesignandpreparation ith the development f

an elaboratepolicy-evaluationapproach

(Herweijer,985).Of course,Twente was not the only

placewhereresearchnto policy processeswas carried ut (Snellen,1975;Ringeling,1983;Hoppe,1985). Alsoworthmention-

ingis thedevelopmentBressersndKlok,

1987;Klok,1991), of second-generation-

type modernpolicy instruments(Bruynandten Heuvelhof, 991)which eave he

unrealisticassumptionf mono-rationalityandmono-centrismn governmentalolicy

making ndadopt hecomplexityf multi-

actor and multirational etworks. Note

that hetheoreticaldevelopmentf modern

governmental olicy instruments n The

Netherlandseems o haveprogressedif-

ferently rom,for example, heAmerican

development f new tools of government(Salamon, 989). The areaof policysci-

ences is rather well covered in Dutch

research. Initially the developmentof

Dutch policyscienceswas heavily nflu-

encedbyAmericanpolicystudies. There

is, however,neremarkableifference ith

the Americanpolicy ciences.In the Unit-

ed States, he policyanalysischoolorigi-nated n the 1960sas a hard ciencesepa-rate rom hesoft sciencedescriptiveublicadministrationchool. InAmericanpublic

policyscience,much attention s paidto

facts andfigures, o harddata,to mathe-

matical ndstatisticalmethods, ndto eco-

nomicanalysis.This harddataandhard

science orientation has not conqueredmuchgroundn theDutch scientific om-

munity.

Limits of Planning and Governance

With thecreation ndexpansionf the

welfare tate,the planning ole of govern-ment becameincreasinglymportant. In

manysocialfields,welfarearrangementshad to be built,extended, ndmaintained,

preferablyn a coherentway,by meansof

integrated lanning. The Socialist-Chris-

tian cabinetattemptsat integratedplan-

ning reacheda peak during the period

1973-1977. The possibilitiesof public

governanceeemedunlimited,butthe first

oil crisis n 1973heraldedheendof belief

in planning.Theeconomy ouldhardly e

controlled,and despiteall the beautiful

plans,unemployment eptrising. Confi-

dencein the beneficialeffectsofgovern-mentplanningaded,andthehard imesof

public budget retrenchmentsbegan. In

1977, the Social-Democratserereplaced

bythe(conservative)iberalsn the cabinet.

A short ntermezzo f a center-leftabinet,whichwasdoomedto fail, led to the last

unsuccessful ocialistattemptto counter

the economic tide by governmentplan-

ning. The 1980s were the periodof the

no-nonsense,center-right abinets. The

planning euphoria of the 1970s was

replacedby a planning aversion in the

1980s. The developments ithinthe aca-

demiccommunityransomewhatparallel.At the endof the 1970s,the developmentof a planningtheoryattractedmore and

morescientific attention. The rational

planningmodel was increasingly onsid-

eredinadequate,ndmodern,more-refined

planningmodelsand theorieswere nvent-

ed. Mucheffortwasputinto thesearch or

"new" planning (Gunsteren, 1976;

Kreukels,980;Veld,1980;Vught,1982).In some European ountries, he eco-

nomic crisis and budgetdeficits led to afundamentalsocial and political debate

about he future,restrictedsteering ole of

government,about the limits of gover-nance. In Germany, fundamentalebate

on "Steuerung"ook place in the 1980s

(Mayntz,1987-1988;Kaufmann,Majone,andOstrom,1986). In France, ebateon

the limitations of the traditionally op-downandcentrallyteering tatecalled or

a moremodest state (Crozier,1987). In

TheNetherlands, debateon the limitsof




government teeringarosein scientific as

well as administrativendpoliticalcircles.

The ChristianDemocraticParty aunched

ideason the retreat f governmentnd the

revitalizationf social nstitutionsn a pleafor moreself-responsibilityf citizens n a

responsibleociety.In the SocialDemocrat-

ic Partyoo,doubtsaroseabout hesteering

capabilitiesf governmentndthepossibili-

tyanddesirabilityo "make ndshape"oci-

ety. In a publicationf the Dutch Scientific

Council orGovernmentPolicy(WRR), t

wasargued hatgovernments not able to

steersociety as a deusex machinaand is

unjustlyascribed steeringpositionabove

and apart romsociety (Hoed, Salet,and

vanderSluys,1983). Governments partof society, nd is onlyone of the co-direct-

ingactorsn thesocietal rafficamongvari-

ous other social actors. These changingviews on government steering led to an

emphasison the limits and restrictions fthe steering capacity of governmentin

administrativeesearch n the firsthalf of

the 1980s. The Department of Public

Administrationt theNijmegen nstitute f

Political cience n the early1980swas the

mostoutspoken epresentantf thisschool

(Veld, 1978, 1980; Kickert,Aquiva,and

Korsten, 985;Snellen,1985). TheLeiden

Center or SocietalSteeringalsoplayedan

important olein drawingattention o the

study of the limits of governance n the

"Rechtsstaat"ndsociety Bovens ndWit-teveen,1985).

Governance in Complex Networks

At the end of the 1980s,another chool

of thinking emerged that attempted to

standup to the prevailingnegativepublicandpolitical pinionabout hefunctioningof thepublic ector.Somewhatcomparableto the 1987 BlacksburgManifesto n the

United States,wherea numberof public

administrationcientists romVirginiaPoly-technic Institutetried to reverse he very

negative anti-government tide of the

bureaucrat-bashingeriodof the Reaganadministration,utchadministrativecien-

tistsbecamemoreaware f theirresponsibil-

ityfor thepublic ector,both n teachingts

future officials and in studying it

(Ringeling, 983, 1994). Instead f mainly

studyingthe limitations,boundaries,and

failuresof government,researchbecame

more and moreoriented owardexploring

thepossiblitiesf newformsof government

steering. Withinthe limits of complexity,new formsof publicgovernanceere o be

sought. Insight n complexanddynamic

publicpolicynetworkswasconsidereds a

possibilityo improve overnmentteering.This approachwasadopted n the Rotter-

dam-Leidenresearchprogramon gover-nance in complexnetworks(Hufen and

Ringeling, 990;Kickert, 991;Koppenjan,

Bruyn, ndKickert, 993).

LocalandRegionalAdministration

Dutch administrativecholars ave rom

the beginning been interested in local

administration. hefoundingather f the

field, G. A. van Poelje,was appointed n

1928 as professorn municipal dministra-

tion. The traditionallynticentral rienta-

tion of the Dutch nationalwayshas been

strong. Centraladministrationonly origi-natedearly n the 19thcentury.The 1848

DutchConstitutionf the decentralizedni-

tary tate ormed sensitive alance etween

localautonomy nd centralauthority.No

wonder hatcentral-localelationsn Dutch

homeadministrationontinues o interest

scholars (Toonen, 1987; Derksen and

Korsten, 985).In The Netherlands,n interesting ro-

cessof regionalizations takingplace.After

more han 40 yearsof fruitless ebates nd

experimentson many different formsofinter-municipalcooperation, which all

failed to bring about any substantial

changes, since the end of the 1980s, a

movementhas startedwhichfinallyseems

to be succeeding.This movement tarted

with the formation f newregional dmin-

istrations round he largeDutchcities of

Amsterdam,Rotterdam,The Hague,and

Utrecht. Interestingdevelopments t the

regionalmeso-level between central and

localadministrationretakingplacein a

numberof other European tatesas well(Sharpe, 993).

PublicManagementndOrganization

The management nd organization f

Dutchadministrationas also been a sub-

jectof major nterest,both in practice nd

in science.Theorganizationnd function-

ingof the centralgovernmentndadminis-

trationhave been the subjectof investiga-tion by a numberof advisory ommittees,

someof whichhavecommissionedsupport-

ing studiesby Dutch scholars. The 1980adviceof the VonhoffCommittee on the

structure f the civilservice,whichmoreor

less resembledthe British 1968 Fulton

Report,was basedon a numberof back-

ground tudies, ome of themperformedyadministrativecientists. The 1993 reportof the WiegelCommitteeon departmental

reordering, hichcontainedrecommenda-

tions aboutthe distinctionbetweenpolicy-

making core-departmentsand executive

agencies,was alsopartially asedon contri-

butionsbyadministrativecientists.

Inthe UnitedStates, ublicmanagementscholars have increasinglysucceeded in

makinga distinctionbetween themselves

and the genericmanagementndorganiza-tion sciencesand havedeveloped specifi-

callypublic-sector-orientedpproachBoze-

man, 1993). In The Netherlands, an

explicit school of thinking about public

organizationndmanagements lacking o

far. In the past, sporadic attemptswere

made o develop distincttheoryof manag-

ing public organizations(Kooimanand

Eliassen,1987). It is remarkablehatthe

few people interested in this topic all

emphasizehe importance f publicgover-nance orpublicmanagementndorganiza-tion (Kooiman,1993; Bekke, 1987, 1993;

Kickert, 993,1994).

Other ResearchTopics

Some Dutch administrative scholars

havespecializedn nationalgovernmentnd

administration.An examples the Leiden-

Rotterdam esearchprogram n ministerial

departments hich is producing seriesof

books on all Dutch ministries Hakvoortand De Heer, 1989). This researchpro-

gram s in somerespects follow-upof the

traditional researchon civil service and

bureaucracy(Braam, 1957; Meer and

Roborgh, 993). SomeDutch scholars remore interested n the subnational ocal,

regional, ndprovincialevel,as mentioned

before. And somescholars remore nter-

ested n thesupranationalevelof Europeanadministration.

Inviewof therelativelytrongpolicy ci-

enceorientation,t is no surprisehat some

scholars avesought heirspecializationsn

policy sectors. Because of the current

importance f environmentalpolicymak-

ing, both in the politicalsense and in the

PublicAdministrationeview* January/February996,Vol.56,No. 12



availabilityf funds,many cholarswork n

that area (Bressers, 1983; Glasbergen,1989; Hanf,1994). Educations a second

policy areathat attractsthe interest of

Dutchscholars. Educationalpolicyanaly-sis is carried ut in The Netherlands t the

Centerof Studies f HigherEducation ol-

icy (Vught,1989). Besides hesetwo sec-

toralexamples,f course, lmostanypolicy

area an count on a number f administra-tivescholarlydmirers.

Finally,hreeDutch researchprogramsareparticularlymbeddedn the interna-

tionalscientificcommunity.The Center

for Studiesof HigherEducationPolicyat

Twenteplaysan activeandleading oleon

the international scene. Second, the

Tilburg-Rotterdamooperativerogramn

informatizationn public administration

hasmanyinternationalontacts,hasper-formeda number f internationalcompar-

ativestudies(Snellenand Frissen,1992)and hasstartedan internationaljournal,

Informatizationnd thePublic Sector. A

thirdexamples theRotterdam-Leidenri-

sis Research eamwhichhasspecializedn

crisisdecisionmaking Rosenthal, harles,andHart,1989;RosenthalndPijnenburg,1991).

Conclusionsnd

Discussion

Welfare State and Policy Science

It is no coincidence that a distinct

administrativecience n The Netherlands

originatedn the 1960s afterthe postwarcreation ndexpansion f the Dutchwel-

farestate. Until then, administrativeaw

wasconsideredheonlyadministrativeci-

ence n Europe.Neither s it a coincidence

thatthe postwar ise of administrativeci-

ence in the welfare tatestartedwith the

developmentof policy sciences. Forthecreationandexpansion f the Dutch wel-

farestate actually implied an enormous

growth f public asksanda steadyncrease

in the roleof thestate n providingrowingwelfare programssuch as in housing,health,education, ocialsecurity, nd wel-

fare. The Dutch statebecamemore and

more nvolvedn the growthof these and

other ectoral olicy ields. The expansioncalledfor plans,strategies,and policies;

legal expertisewas no longersufficient.

Thewelfaretatewas in needof othersci-

entificsupportof sectoralpolicymaking.Hence the originof the Dutchpolicysci-

ences,the improvementf policymakingby the use of scientificanalysis,and the

rationalizationfpolicydesign.

American and EuropeanAdministrativeScience

In theearlydays,Dutchpublicadmin-

istrationwasstrongly rientedowardU.S.

literature.However,Dutchadministrative

sciencehasrecently eached levelof self-

identity and self-confidence that has

allowedDutchpolicy cientistso recognizethat theAmericantateand ts administra-

tion differsquitefundamentallyrom the

Dutch. The Dutchstate andadministra-

tion are n manyrespects special aseand

illustrative f the differences etween he

United Statesand WesternEuropeandbetween ariousEuropeanountries.The

highly nstitutionalized,onfessionalorm

of corporatismn The Netherlandsnot

only illustrateshe differencewithAmeri-

canpluralismut alsowith themanyother

Europeanypesof corporatism,uchas the

Social-Democratwedishtype,the social

marketGermantype, and the language-basedcorporatismn Belgium ndSwitzer-

land. The decentralizedunitarystate of

The Netherlandsdiffers rom the highlycentralizedrench

tate, rom the Germanfederalstate, and from the much more

decentralizedutstillunitaryDanish tate.

Such differencesought to be somehow

reflectedn the modelsandtheories f the

administrative nd policysciences. It is

hoped that the future developmentof

Dutchadministrativeciencesmightcon-

tribute o theresurrectionf somekindof

Europeanhinking boutadministration.

WalterJ. M. Kickert s a professor f

publicmanagementndchairof thePublic

AdministrationProgramat the Erasmus

Universityf Rotterdam.Formerly oun-

cilorat theMinistry f Education ndSci-

ences,hisacademicnterestsie in thefieldof public governance,managementand

organizations,ndcomparativedministra-

tive reform. He recently uthored book,

Changesn Managementnd OrganizationofCentralGovernment.

Notes

The authorthanksLinzeSchaapand

Mark anTwist ortheir ontributionsn an

earlystageof this historicalsurveyandIgSnellen orhis thorough omments n this

article.

1. TheusualDutchequivalentord or the

scientificstudy fpublic dministrations

bestuurskunde.tcontainsheterm"steer-

ing"-besturen-andthe term"craft"-kunde.The Dutch termbesturenas a

broadermeaninghansteering ndcon-trol. ThebestAnglo-Saxonquivalents

theterm"governance."heDutch erm

kunde eferso the relation etween rt,

craft, nd cience.TheDutchwordbestu-

urskunde-literally thecraft of gover-nance"-reflects the bridgebetween

administrativetheory ndpractice.

ReferencesBecker,B., 1989. Oeffentlicheerwaltung.

VerlagR.S.Schulz:Kempfenhausen.Bekke,A.

J.G. M., 1987. "Public

Manage-ment in Transition."In Kooiman nd

Eliassen.

, 1993. "Governancen Interac-

tion. Private asks ndPublicOrganiza-tions." nKooiman.

Bovens,M.A. P.andW.J. Witteveen,ds.,1985. TheShipofState. Reflectionsn

Law,StateandSteering.Zwolle,TjeenkWillinkinDutch).

Bozeman, .,ed.,1993. PublicManagement.The State of the Art. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Braam, . van,1957. OfficialsndBureau-

cracyin TheNetherlands. Zeist (in

Dutch).

Bressers,. Th.A., 1983. Policy ffectivenessandWaterQualityPolicy.Dissertation:

TwenteUniversityinDutch).

Bruyn,J. A. de and E. F. ten Heuvelhof,

1991. Steeringnstrumentsor Govern-

ment. Leiden: Stenfert Kroese (in

Dutch).

Crozier,M., 1987. EtatModerne,tatMod-

este,d.Paris.Seuil.

Derksen,W. andA. F.A.Korsten,d.,1985.LocalGovernmentn TheNetherlands.

Alphen:SamsoninDutch).

Gunsteren, . R. van,1976. TheQuestorControl. ondon: .Wiley.

Hemerijck,., 1993. Historicalontingencies

ofDutchCorporatism.issertation,alli-olCollege:Oxford.

Herweijer,M., 1985. Evaluationsf PolicyEvaluation. issertation,wenteUniver-

sity. Deventer:KluwerinDutch).Hoed, P. den, W. Salet, and H. van der




Sluys,1983. PlanningsEnterprise.he

Hague:StaatsuitgeverijinDutch).

Hoogerwerf, ., 1978. GovernmentPolicy.

Alphen:SamsominDutch).

Hoppe,R.,1985. TrendsnPolicyndDesign

Theory.Amsterdam:VU Uitgeverijin

Dutch).

Hufen,J. and A. B. Ringeling, ds., 1990.

PolicyNetworks.The Hague: VUGA,

1990 inDutch).

Kaufmann,.X.,G.Majone, ndV. Ostrom,

eds.,1986. Guidance,ontrolndEvalua-

tion in the Public Sector. Berlin: De

Gruyter.

Kickert,W.J.M., 1991. Complexity,elf-gov-ernance nd Dynamics. InauguralAddress

ErasmusUniversity:Alphen. Samsom in

Dutch). Abridged version published in

EnglishnKooiman1993).

, ed., 1993. Changesn Manage-mentandOrganizationt CentralGovern-

ment.Alphen:SamsominDutch)., upcoming."PublicGovernancen

The Netherlands. An Alternativeto

Anglo-Americananagerialism."o be

publishednAdministrationndSociety.Kickert,W.J. M.,H.J.Aquina, ndA. F. A.

Korsten,1985. PlanningwithinBonds.

Zeist:KerckeboschinDutch).

Klok,P.J., 1991. An InstrumentalheoryforEnvironmentalPolicy. Dissertation:


Kooiman,., ed, 1993. ModernGovernance.

London:Sage.Kooiman,.andJ.Eliassen,ds.,1987. Man-

agingPublic Organizations.London:

Sage.

Koppenjan,.,J. A. de Bruyn, ndW.J. M.

Kickert,ds.,1993. ManagementfPolicyNetworks. The Hague: VUGA (in

Dutch).

Kossmann, . H., 1986. TheLowCountries.

Amsterdam:Elsevier two volumes n

Dutch.OriginallyublishednEnglishn

1978).

Kreukels,. M.J., 1980. PlanningndPlan-ningProcess.Dissertation:UtrechtUni-

versity, heHague:VUGA inDutch).

Lijphart,A.,1985. ThePolitics fAccommo-

dation: Pluralism ndDemocracyn The

Netherlands. msterdam:De Bussy inDutch. Originallyublishedn Englishn

1968)., 1984. Democracies: atternsof

Majoritariannd Consensusovernmentn

Sluys,1983. PlanningsEnterprise.he

Hague:StaatsuitgeverijinDutch).

Hoogerwerf, ., 1978. GovernmentPolicy.

Alphen:SamsominDutch).

Hoppe,R.,1985. TrendsnPolicyndDesign

Theory.Amsterdam:VU Uitgeverijin

Dutch).

Hufen,J. and A. B. Ringeling, ds., 1990.

PolicyNetworks.The Hague: VUGA,

1990 inDutch).

Kaufmann,.X.,G.Majone, ndV. Ostrom,

eds.,1986. Guidance,ontrolndEvalua-

tion in the Public Sector. Berlin: De

Gruyter.

Kickert,W.J.M., 1991. Complexity,elf-gov-ernance nd Dynamics. InauguralAddress

ErasmusUniversity:Alphen. Samsom in

Dutch). Abridged version published in

EnglishnKooiman1993).

, ed., 1993. Changesn Manage-mentandOrganizationt CentralGovern-

ment.Alphen:SamsominDutch)., upcoming."PublicGovernancen

The Netherlands. An Alternativeto

Anglo-Americananagerialism."o be

publishednAdministrationndSociety.Kickert,W.J. M.,H.J.Aquina, ndA. F. A.

Korsten,1985. PlanningwithinBonds.

Zeist:KerckeboschinDutch).

Klok,P.J., 1991. An InstrumentalheoryforEnvironmentalPolicy. Dissertation:


Kooiman,., ed, 1993. ModernGovernance.

London:Sage.Kooiman,.andJ.Eliassen,ds.,1987. Man-

agingPublic Organizations.London:

Sage.

Koppenjan,.,J. A. de Bruyn, ndW.J. M.

Kickert,ds.,1993. ManagementfPolicyNetworks. The Hague: VUGA (in

Dutch).

Kossmann, . H., 1986. TheLowCountries.

Amsterdam:Elsevier two volumes n

Dutch.OriginallyublishednEnglishn

1978).

Kreukels,. M.J., 1980. PlanningndPlan-ningProcess.Dissertation:UtrechtUni-

versity, heHague:VUGA inDutch).

Lijphart,A.,1985. ThePolitics fAccommo-

dation: Pluralism ndDemocracyn The

Netherlands. msterdam:De Bussy inDutch. Originallyublishedn Englishn

1968)., 1984. Democracies: atternsof

Majoritariannd Consensusovernmentn

Twenty-oneCountries.New Haven: Yale

UniversityPress.

Maarse,J. A. M., 1983. Implementationnd

Twenty-oneCountries.New Haven: Yale

UniversityPress.

Maarse,J. A. M., 1983. Implementationnd

EffectsfLaborMarketPolicy.Disserta-

tion,TwenteUniversityinDutch).

Mayntz,R., 1987,1988. "Political ontrol

and SocialProblems." n Th. Ellwein t

al.,eds.,YearbookofGovernmentndPub-

licAdministration. aden:Nomos,pp.81-98.

Meer,F.M.vanderandL.J.Roborgh,993.

Officials n TheNetherlands.Alphen:SamsominDutch).

Raadschelders,., 1994. "Administrativeis-

tory:Contents,MeaningndUsefulness."

InternationalReviewofAdministrativeci-

ences, 0 1, pp. 117-129.

Ringeling,A. B., 1983. TheInstrumentsof

Policy. Inaugural ddress t ErasmusUni-

versity.Alphen: Samsom in Dutch).

, 1994. TheImage f Government.

TheHague:VUGA in Dutch).

Rosenthal, ., M. T. Charles,ndP. 't Hart,

eds.,1989. Coping ithCrises.TheMan-

agement fDisasters, iots nd Terrorism.C.C.SpringfieldL: Thomas.

Rosenthal, . andB. Pijnenburg,ds.,1991.

CrisisManagementndDecision-making.Dordrecht: luwer cademic.

Rutgers,M.R.,1993. BetweenFragmentationandIntegration. issertationeidenUni-

versity.Delft: EburoninDutch).

Salamon, .M.,ed.,1989. Beyondrivatiza-

tion. TheToolsof Governmentction.

Washington:rban nstitute ress.

Sharpe, .J., 1993. RiseofMesoGovernment

inEurope. ondon:Sage.Snellen,.Th.M.,1975. Approacheso Strat-

egyFormulation.AlphenaandenRijn:SamsominDutch).

, ed., 1985. LimitsofGovernment.

Amsterdam: obra.

Thieme,W.,4thed.,1984. Verwaltungslehre.

Cologne:C.Heymans erlag.Toonen,The.A. J., 1987. Thinkingbout

HomeAdministration.Dissertation:ras-

musUniversity, otterdam.TheHague:VUGA inDutch).

Twist,M. van and L.Schaap, 992. "TheFounding athersfDutchAdministrative

Science."BBManagement,r.3,4, 5, 6,and7 (inDutch).

Veld,R.J. in't,1978. LimitsofAdministra-

tion. InauguralddresstNijmegenUni-

versity.TheHague:VUGA inDutch).

Veld,R.J.in't,1980. "PlanningndDemoc-

racy."In Approacheso Planning.The

Hague: ScientificCouncil or Govern-

EffectsfLaborMarketPolicy.Disserta-

tion,TwenteUniversityinDutch).

Mayntz,R., 1987,1988. "Political ontrol

and SocialProblems." n Th. Ellwein t

al.,eds.,YearbookofGovernmentndPub-

licAdministration. aden:Nomos,pp.81-98.

Meer,F.M.vanderandL.J.Roborgh,993.

Officials n TheNetherlands.Alphen:SamsominDutch).

Raadschelders,., 1994. "Administrativeis-

tory:Contents,MeaningndUsefulness."

InternationalReviewofAdministrativeci-

ences, 0 1, pp. 117-129.

Ringeling,A. B., 1983. TheInstrumentsof

Policy. Inaugural ddress t ErasmusUni-

versity.Alphen: Samsom in Dutch).

, 1994. TheImage f Government.

TheHague:VUGA in Dutch).

Rosenthal, ., M. T. Charles,ndP. 't Hart,

eds.,1989. Coping ithCrises.TheMan-

agement fDisasters, iots nd Terrorism.C.C.SpringfieldL: Thomas.

Rosenthal, . andB. Pijnenburg,ds.,1991.

CrisisManagementndDecision-making.Dordrecht: luwer cademic.

Rutgers,M.R.,1993. BetweenFragmentationandIntegration. issertationeidenUni-

versity.Delft: EburoninDutch).

Salamon, .M.,ed.,1989. Beyondrivatiza-

tion. TheToolsof Governmentction.

Washington:rban nstitute ress.

Sharpe, .J., 1993. RiseofMesoGovernment

inEurope. ondon:Sage.Snellen,.Th.M.,1975. Approacheso Strat-

egyFormulation.AlphenaandenRijn:SamsominDutch).

, ed., 1985. LimitsofGovernment.

Amsterdam: obra.

Thieme,W.,4thed.,1984. Verwaltungslehre.

Cologne:C.Heymans erlag.Toonen,The.A. J., 1987. Thinkingbout

HomeAdministration.Dissertation:ras-

musUniversity, otterdam.TheHague:VUGA inDutch).

Twist,M. van and L.Schaap, 992. "TheFounding athersfDutchAdministrative

Science."BBManagement,r.3,4, 5, 6,and7 (inDutch).

Veld,R.J. in't,1978. LimitsofAdministra-

tion. InauguralddresstNijmegenUni-

versity.TheHague:VUGA inDutch).

Veld,R.J.in't,1980. "PlanningndDemoc-

racy."In Approacheso Planning.The

Hague: ScientificCouncil or Govern-

mentPolicy(in Dutch).

Vught, F. A. van, 1982. Experimentalolicy

Planning. Dissertation:TwenteUniversi-

mentPolicy(in Dutch).

Vught, F. A. van, 1982. Experimentalolicy

Planning. Dissertation:TwenteUniversi-

ty. TheHague:VUGA in Dutch)., ed.,1989. GovernmentalStrategies

andInnovationnHigher ducation. on-

don:JessicaKingsley.Williamson, .J., 1990. Corporatismn Per-

spective.ondon:Sage.

F r o m C o n t i n e n t a l L a w

Anglo-Saxon B e h a v i o r i s m :

Scandanavian P u b l i c

Administraton

ty. TheHague:VUGA in Dutch)., ed.,1989. GovernmentalStrategies

andInnovationnHigher ducation. on-

don:JessicaKingsley.Williamson, .J., 1990. Corporatismn Per-

spective.ondon:Sage.

F r o m C o n t i n e n t a l L a w

Anglo-Saxon B e h a v i o r i s m :

Scandanavian P u b l i c

Administraton

TorbeneckJ0rgensen,niversityf

Copenhagen

TorbeneckJ0rgensen,niversityf

Copenhagen

WhileNorway,Sweden, nd Denmark

sharemanyhistoric,olitical,andcultural

features,heir tatesystemsndpublicadministrationxhibitimportant iffer-ences.Likewise,Nordicadministrativeci-

encesreflect significant egree fethnocen-

tricdiversity.Although s a whole, ince

the1960s,Scandinavian cademicpublicadministrationaswitnessedrapidgrowth,

an emphasisnlocal-regionalgovernment,and highlysophisticated cientific-empirical

research,sopposedoprofessionalrainingor narrowapplication f technical-legal

methodologies.

N Torway, Sweden, ndDenmarkl re,

in manyways,like threesiblings:

closelyinked,with a commonher-

itagebut nonetheless

verydifferentand

oftenin conflictwitheach otheralthough

nowadaysnapeacefulway.2The similaritiesremanifold.First, he

threecountriesharemanyculturally eter-

mined features. The linguisticdifferences

are minor. Since the middle of the 16th

century,hesecountries ave embracedhe

samereligion: Protestantism.Hence the

commonculturalheritages significantnd

reinforcedby the fact that none of the

countries ontainsmajor thnicor religiousminorities.

WhileNorway,Sweden, nd Denmark

sharemanyhistoric,olitical,andcultural

features,heir tatesystemsndpublicadministrationxhibitimportant iffer-ences.Likewise,Nordicadministrativeci-

encesreflect significant egree fethnocen-

tricdiversity.Although s a whole, ince

the1960s,Scandinavian cademicpublicadministrationaswitnessedrapidgrowth,

an emphasisnlocal-regionalgovernment,and highlysophisticated cientific-empirical

research,sopposedoprofessionalrainingor narrowapplication f technical-legal

methodologies.

N Torway, Sweden, ndDenmarkl re,

in manyways,like threesiblings:

closelyinked,with a commonher-

itagebut nonetheless

verydifferentand

oftenin conflictwitheach otheralthough

nowadaysnapeacefulway.2The similaritiesremanifold.First, he

threecountriesharemanyculturally eter-

mined features. The linguisticdifferences

are minor. Since the middle of the 16th

century,hesecountries ave embracedhe

samereligion: Protestantism.Hence the

commonculturalheritages significantnd

reinforcedby the fact that none of the

countries ontainsmajor thnicor religiousminorities.

Public dministrationeview ol. No.1ublic dministrationeview ol. No.144

expansion and diversification of public administration

Documents