Administrative Discretion in the Transparent Bureaucracy

Abstract

The argument between Friedrich and Finer in the early nineteen-forties is a historic debate concerning the locus of control over administrative discretion. While Friedrich insisted the inner check over discretionary power was more effective, Finer argued extensive external control over public bureaucracy was necessary. This article analyzes the debate and suggests a negotiation between them. Two factors help bridge the debate: Information Technology (IT) and strong leadership. The case of “Transparent Government” in Seoul, Korea is used as an illustration of both factors.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argote

. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Barth

T. J

. (1992). The Public Interest and Administrative Discretion. American Review of Public Administration, 22 (4) 289–300.

Bryner

G. C

. (1987). Bureaucratic Discretion: Law and Policy in Federal Regulatory Agencies. NY: Pergamon Press.

deLeon

Peter

(1997). Democracy and the Policy Sciences, NY: SUNY Press.

Finer

. (1941). Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Society. Public Administration Review, 1: 344–350.

Fischer

. (1995). Evaluating Public Policy, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publisher.

Fischer

. (1993). Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases, Policy Science 26, 165–187.

Friedrich

. (1940). Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility. In Public Policy, C. Friedrich & E. Mason (eds.) (pp.3–24) MA: Harvard University Press.

Friedrich

. (1968). Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility. In The Politics of the Federal Bureaucracy, A. Altshuler & N. Thomas. (pp.333–343) NY: Harper & Row.

10.

Grantham

& Nichols

. (1993). The Digital Workplace: Designing Groupware Platforms. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

11.

Habermas

. (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication. Maeve

Cooke

(Ed.) MA: MIT Press.

12.

Hart-Landsberg

Martin

(1993). The Rush to Development. NY: Monthly Review Press.

13.

Heady

. (1996). Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective. 5th ed. NY: Marcel Dekker. Inc.

14.

Holzer

& Callahan

. (1998). Government at Work: Best Practices and Model Programs. CA: Sage Publication.

15.

Kaufman

. (1981). Fear of Bureaucracy: A Ringing Pandemic. Public Administration Review, 41 (1).

16.

Klitgaard

. (1998). International Cooperation against Corruption, Finance & Development, 35 (1) 3–6.

17.

Mitchell

. (1998). Source of Transparency: Information System in International Regimes. International Studies Quarterly, 42: 109–130.

18.

Mosher

. (1982). Democracy and the Public Service. 2nd ed. NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

Pope

& Vogel

. (2000). Making Anticorruption Agencies more Effective. Finance & Development. June. 6–9.

20.

Ranson

& Stewart

. (1995). Management for the Public Domain: Enabling the Learning Society. NY: St. Martin Press, Inc.

21.

Reeder

. (1999). Thinking for the Outside In. Government Executive, 31 (4) 74–75.

22.

Seoul Metropolitan Government (2001). Reinventing Seoul City Government, Process Report.

23.

Snellen

. (2001). ICTs, Bureaucracies, and the Future of Democracy. Communication and the ACM, 44 (1) 45–48.

24.

Sprecher

. (2000). Racing to E-government: Using the Internet for Citizen Delivery. Government Finance Review, 16 (5) 21–22.

25.

Thompson

V. A

. (1975). Without Sympathy or Enthusiasm: The Problem of Administrative Compassion. AL: University of Alabama Press.