2002
DOI: 10.1086/341010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bureaucratic Rationality and the Developmental State

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
83
0
19

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 137 publications
(105 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
83
0
19
Order By: Relevance
“…Given these considerations, an examination of CO-OCB and its antecedents is particularly relevant for public administration. Moreover, this study answers the call of Morrison and Phelps (1999) (Minns 2001;Chibber 2002) and it continues to play an important role today in terms of the policymaking and agenda shaping (Park and Joo 2010). Korea developed from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of its richest in a very short period of time and without a doubt, this remarkable development would not have been possible had the national bureaucracy not been incredibly competent, but also flexible in the face of setbacks and able to embrace process and policy innovation when the need presented itself.…”
Section: Change-oriented Behavior In Public Organizations and In The supporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Given these considerations, an examination of CO-OCB and its antecedents is particularly relevant for public administration. Moreover, this study answers the call of Morrison and Phelps (1999) (Minns 2001;Chibber 2002) and it continues to play an important role today in terms of the policymaking and agenda shaping (Park and Joo 2010). Korea developed from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of its richest in a very short period of time and without a doubt, this remarkable development would not have been possible had the national bureaucracy not been incredibly competent, but also flexible in the face of setbacks and able to embrace process and policy innovation when the need presented itself.…”
Section: Change-oriented Behavior In Public Organizations and In The supporting
confidence: 66%
“…While a highly centralized, internally cohesive, and rational bureaucracy had been crucial in the development of the country, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s (Chibber 2002), nevertheless criticisms of the inefficiencies of the Korean state amplified following the AFC. For example, the bureaucracy was criticized for its highly collectivist tendencies, as well as excessive levels of formalism, which resulted in a civil service unduly focused on bureaucratic procedures and administrative criteria rather than the substance and results of administrative activities.…”
Section: Context and Goals Of Korea's Results-based Reformsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bureaucracy is ideally insulated from politics in that it provides a precondition for sound coordination. However, in practice, the state has to manage competing logics to be able to reach an institutionalisation of process where finally agencies can focus on using their technical knowledge and minimise the risk for working at cross purposes (Bourdieu, Wacquant, and Farage 1994;Reay and Hinings 2009;Chibber 2002;Bouckaert, Peters, and Verhoest 2010). Four factors contribute to the capability of bureaucratic decision-making to achieve this orientation, namely (1) power bargaining among the bureaucrats, (2) competition of resources, (3) agency ideology, and (4) the role of the senior political leaders (Peters 2001;Stonet 1983;Giessen, Krott, and Möllmann 2014;Clifford 1990;Allison 1971;Welch 1998).…”
Section: Theoretical Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coordination is expected to address three dimensions of a state (Hunt 2005), namely cross departmental (across agencies in the same level), cross governmental (between different levels of government nationally and locally), and cross sectoral (including actors both from inside and outside the state). If there is a lack of internal coordination, state agencies would work at cross-purposes, involve themselves in politics against another, appropriate the budget and its control, and finally result in state decisions being based on patron-client ties and pressures from interest groups (Chibber 2002;P. B. Evans 1989;Bouckaert, Peters, and Verhoest 2010).…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation