Theoretical models of public administration and patterns of state reform in Greece

Abstract

Departing from the post-war Weberian-oriented bureaucratic model, the Greek administrative system has been subjected to several reform programmes with a view to its modernization. This article aims to explore the main shifts in the course of administrative change and relate this process with the broader theoretical developments in the field of public administration. It is argued that the Greek administration has been unable to follow and take advantage of a vigorously expanded constellation of ideal-types and hybrid models of state (re)organization. Transformations have diachronically produced weak results and failed to build a consistent conceptual and operational administrative paradigm. Even under the current economic contraction and the external conditionality pressure, there is no strong evidence of a paradigm shift in the administrative pattern but rather fragmented changes of limited ambit.

Points for practitioners

Despite the fact that the Greek public administration has undergone a series of transformations, interestingly almost none of these reform efforts seem to have incorporated a particular administrative pattern. This article summarizes old and more recent theoretical developments on models of administrative reorganization, with a view to broadening practitioners’ choices in the process of state reform.

Keywords

public administration governance Greece state reform

Introduction

The theory and practice of public administration include a wide range of schools of thought, administrative traditions and implementation tools. Taking as a starting point the traditional model of Weberian bureaucracies, the evolution of administrative systems, methods and styles followed different paths and was subjected to various influences deriving from related disciplines, such as political science, economics and sociology. In brief, the shift in the public bureaucracy towards private sector techniques became a popular trend in the 1980s, moving the study and practice of administration closer to economic and managerial ideas (Hood, 1991; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Pollitt, 1990). The economic-managerial era was succeeded by the theories of governance in the late 1990s, proposing new modes of collaboration between the state and the social-economic spheres (Peters and Pierre, 1998; Pierre and Peters, 2000). In recent decades a new branch of thought has gained ground, composed of hybrid models and revisited approaches to classical administrative patterns, also suggesting a reconsideration of the dividing line between the public and the private sectors.

The aim of this article is to map a concise set of conceptual approaches to public administration and to assess their impact on the dynamics of the Greek administrative system. The analysis attempts to identify when and under what circumstances administrative change occurred and what were the driving forces behind the respective transformations. The central question running throughout the article is whether the features of the Greek administrative model can be linked with the existing theory and the macro-trends of state reform. In addition, we explore the critical turning points in the process of administrative reform, the stability and linearity of the subsequent shifts and the long-term viability of the policy outcomes. The findings of the analysis contribute to a better understanding of the reform effect on a country-specific administrative system that typically appears to have strong resistance to change, and provide evidence of the possible correlation (or not) between administrative theory and practice. The Greek case represents an interesting case study also regarding the thus far weak results of the reforms undertaken in the wake of the debt crisis, providing hints of potential reform failure even in forced adjustment policy environments.

Methodologically, the analysis draws on a general categorization of the theoretical approaches to public administration covering: (i) the traditional administrative models, (ii) the economic and managerial patterns, (iii) the theories of governance, and (iv) the ‘hybrid’ models. These theoretical strands are then linked with the process of administrative change in Greece, discerning three phases of evolution: (i) the post-war decades, (ii) the mid-1990s and the 2000s, and (iii) the recent years of the debt/fiscal crisis. With a view to test the hypothesis of a ‘paradigm shift’ in the national administrative model, we investigate whether the misfits between domestic administrative capacity and supranational modernization trends can induce change. By the term ‘paradigm shift’ we mean a thorough revision of the dominant administrative pattern, in both its normative and practical dimensions, that would suggest a move towards new organizational and functional standards. This definition embraces not only shifts between existing ideal governance types or within clusters of countries with similar administrative traditions as suggested in the literature on public sector reform, but also specific/unique cases and/or variations of the ideal models.

The article is primarily theoretically oriented, drawing on governance literature and previous research from an historical institutionalism perspective. Empirical evidence includes legislation, policy documents, reports, reform programmes and a small number of targeted interviews.¹

Theoretical models of public administration: literature review and a general classification

The study of public administration covers a variety of organizational models and ideal-types. In this section, we try to outline some of the main trends regarding the theoretical developments that have affected the evolution of the administrative systems in Western European and Anglo-Saxon countries. The classification is not exhaustive, as administrative traditions include an extensive range of typologies and conceptual approaches (Kuhlmann and Wollmann, 2014; Ongaro, 2009; Painter and Peters, 2010b; Peters, 2000; Rugge, 2003).

Traditional models of public administration

Traditional state bureaucracies were largely inspired by the Weberian model, which had a strong influence on the formation of most Western administrative systems. Its main principles include hierarchy, formal rules, uniformity, legitimacy, standardization of procedures, division of labour, impersonality, meritocracy and technical qualifications (Weber, 1946). The Weberian pattern affected administrative systems to different degrees and with a varied focus. In short, within the Anglo-Saxon tradition the US version of Old Public Administration gave particular emphasis to the managerial aspects, placing at the core of the administrative functions the effective implementation of public policy and service delivery, organizational efficiency, hierarchical control, professionalism, rationality, neutrality and democratic accountability (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000; Peters and Wright, 1996; Wilson, 1887). Northern and Central European bureaucracies followed respective patterns of welfare democratic regimes and ‘organic’ conceptions of powerful and sovereign states (Painter and Peters, 2010b). Southern European administrative systems were inspired by the Napoleonic tradition and the French public service (Ongaro, 2009), focusing on the social and political values of administration, such as equity, solidarity, universality, neutrality and legitimacy (Chevallier, 2005; Kernaghan, 2000; Stoffaës, 1995).

The normative underpinnings of the above patterns derived from the notion of public interest, which was assured through the political-democratic control and accountability of administration. The key mission of serving the public interest implied a well-defined distinction between public organizations and private firms (Perry and Rainey, 1988) and particular administrative professional ethics (Argyriades, 2006). However, reality revealed deviations between theory and practice that questioned and gradually eroded traditional bureaucracies’ credibility. Flexibility constraints, low productivity, efficiency and politicization issues summarize some of their practical flaws and limitations. Furthermore, regarding the state–society relationship, these models were criticized for their limited citizens’ involvement and weak social participation. The traditional bureaucratic model was also contested for its capacity to meet the changing societal demands and to respond effectively to the rising economic needs, leading to an overall reconsideration of the bureaucracy (Hughes, 2003: 2).

The influence of economics and management

In view of the growing critique of traditional bureaucracy, economics and management came to the forefront of the theoretical debate on reorganizing public administration, shifting the emphasis to the administrative performance in economic terms. ‘New Institutional Economics’ (NIE) gained in popularity by embracing a variety of ideas related to the allocation of public goods, institutions, transaction costs, contracts and property rights (North, 1986). In particular, the Public Choice school of thought (Niskanen, 1971; Tullock, 2002) explicitly proposed that the government was both ineffective and inefficient and due to the inherent bureaucratic inclination for budget maximization, the role of the state should be shrunk and replaced by the market where possible.

Gradually, management and productivity of public bureaucracies became priority issues, leading to the emergence of ‘managerialism’ (Pollitt, 1990). The concept dealt mainly with rationalizing public institutions aiming at improving their effectiveness and efficiency. Its main theoretical exponent was the New Public Management (NPM) (Barzelay, 2001; Hood, 1991; Lane, 2000), which gained strong momentum during the 1990s. Drawing its origin from NIE and managerialism (Hood, 1991: 3–6), in particular rational/public choice theory (Osborne, 2006: 382), NPM backed the idea that public organizations should steer rather than row and favoured the transfer of entrepreneurial/managerial techniques from the market to public institutions (Batley and Larbi, 2004: 41), viewing citizens as customers.

The implementation of NPM was accompanied by a great deal of criticism such as its short-term perspective primarily on cost minimizing and budget reduction issues to the detriment of quality standards, especially in policy fields with a long-term impact on society, such as education, health and the environment (Larbi, 1999: 33). Concerns were also raised regarding democratic accountability (Terry, 1998: 197–198), corruption, self-interested attitudes and the risk of eroding the ethics and the cohesion of the public sector (Box, 1999; Dunleavy and Hood, 1994: 11–12).

The rise of governance

Managerial drawbacks instigated the elaboration of alternative theoretical patterns that placed the state–market distinction in a more dialectic context. It was the time for the governance concept to see its academic popularity fuelled. The term came along with several meanings (Meuleman, 2008) encompassing not only broad definitions (Rhodes, 1996: 653) but also more narrow and specific perceptions (Jessop, 2003: 101), transcending the framework of government and becoming a synonym of the ‘new method by which society is governed’ (Rhodes, 1996: 652–653).

From a theoretical perspective, governance seemingly sparked two different schools of thought. On the one hand, the emphasis was placed on policy networks (Smith, 1997) and the presumably diminishing power of the state in the political arena, while the alternative perspective considered the state as the dominant actor, yet with decreased power compared to the past (Peters and Pierre, 2006: 1–2). Thus, several modes of governance have been proposed, such as ‘good governance’ (OECD, 1995), ‘digital-era governance’ (Dunleavy et al., 2005), ‘network governance’ (Klijn, 2008), ‘interactive governance’ (Torfing et al., 2012) and ‘New Public Governance’ (NPG) (Osborne, 2006). These models share the view of shifting government omnipotence in the decision-making process towards an inter-institutional cooperation that involves a variety of actors and management tools. Consequently, less hierarchical control, extensive networking including bargaining and negotiations, decentralization and/or delegation of power, public–private partnerships, societal engagement, transparency and public accountability (Haque, 2000) can be largely attributed as core elements of the governance concept. In this respect, Meuleman (2008) has suggested three ideal-types of governance as an analytical framework, thus providing an ‘all-inclusive’ categorization: hierarchical, market and network governance. In addition, the discussion on metagovernance or ‘governance of governance’ (Meuleman, 2008: 66) appears to be of the utmost importance regarding the analysis of potential combinations of governance modes.

Hybrid models

In recent years a set of new models has emerged that stand for modifications or hybrid versions of the existing patterns rather than brand-new authentic proposals, although in the academic debate they are often conceived as prototypes (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011). Four of these models are briefly described in this section, namely New Public Governance (NPG), New Public Service (NPS), New Weberian State (NWS) and Public Value (PV).

NPG is directly linked with network theories. Its main principles focus on public–private collaboration, coordination, stakeholders’ participation, results-orientation, better service delivery and accountability standards (Torfing and Triantafillou, 2013). In addition, theory suggests both a plural and a pluralist state through inter-organizational relationships, and a particular focus on effectiveness (Osborne, 2006).

NPS (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000) assumes that the role of government is to serve the citizens’ shared interests rather than ‘steering’ society in a technical-managerial way. Accordingly, democratic citizenship is at the very heart of the model, implying a political relationship between government and citizens. In addition, the NPS pattern posits that standards such as collaboration, shared leadership, citizenship and public service should be valued above entrepreneurship as tools for promoting the public interest (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000: 556–557).

The NWS pattern (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011) focuses on better serving citizens’ needs and wishes, strengthening representative democracy through mechanisms for consultation and representation and places emphasis on results (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011: 118–119). The model seems to welcome some of the private sector techniques, although without much ferver but rather as subsidiary tools.

The PV model (Moore, 1995) proposes similar views to the NWS paradigm. According to its proponents, the mission of serving the needs of citizens/users lies at the core of the public service. Its main features include political legitimization, public consultation and the embedding of social views in the administrative action. The creation of public value as a broader governmental goal (O’Flynn, 2007: 358) is best served by the ‘strategic triangle’ that is composed of the outcomes, the organizational capacity and the authorization environment of stakeholders from all three sectors – public, private and third sector (Benington and Moore, 2011; 4–5). Similarly to the NWS, market techniques can be complementarily employed.

Table 1 summarizes the discussion of the aforementioned theoretical trends in public administration. Figure 1 depicts them from a three-dimensional perspective, placed on the state–society–market axes, according to the typical governance styles, i.e. market, network and hierarchy (Meuleman, 2008) and the ‘contractarian’ or ‘organic’ conception of the state (Painter and Peters, 2010a: 6). The placement of the models on the axes is indicative, aiming to sketch the degree to which each model incorporates elements of the ideal governance types and their relative importance. Traditional administrative models are closer to the ‘hierarchy’ axis, managerial patterns to the ‘market’ axis, while the new modes of governance mostly incorporate the ‘network’ dimension. Drawing on this classification, the article next turns its focus to the Greek case.

Table 1.

Public administration models: principles, values and key-features.

	Traditional models	Managerial & economic models	Governance & hybrid models
	(Weberian Bureaucracy, Old Public Administration, Continental, Napoleonic Tradition, Public Service)	New Public Management	(Governance: Good, Digital-era, Network, Interactive)	New Public Governance	New Public Service	New Weberian State	Public Value
Theoretical origins	Political science Sociology Organizational theory Administrative science	Neoclassical economic theory, public choice, rational choice	Political science Network theory	Institutional and network theory	Democratic theory	Political science, Administrative science	Organization theory
Normative standards	Public interest	Individual self-interest	Public/General interest, societal needs	Public/General interest, societal needs	Public/General interest	Public/General interest, societal needs	Public value, citizens’ preferences
Principles & tools	Hierarchy, instrumentality, unity, legitimacy, formal rules standardization of procedures equity, legitimacy, universality, solidarity	Downsizing, contracting out, fragmentation, agencification, results-oriented, competition, economic efficiency	Public–private cooperation, involvement of non- governmental actors, negotiations, consultation, Civil Society	Implementation & services management effectiveness outcomes	Collaboration of public, non-profit & private agencies, shared values	Professionalism, consultation, combination of traditional virtues with business-like techniques, efficiency	Legitimacy, strategic management, extensive consultation, exploitation of organization’s assets
Role of government	Formulating and implementing policy, production, serving	Steering (creating suitable conditions for market forces)	Facilitating coordination, provision	Plural and pluralist state	Serving	Serving	Creating public value
State–citizens relations	Administrés, users	Customers/Clients	Society, stakeholders	Society, stakeholders	Citizens	Citizens	Citizens/customers
Control Accountability Legitimization	Hierarchical Top-down	Market mechanisms	Multifaceted	Trust/relational contracts	Multifaceted (law, values, norms, standards, citizens’ interests)	Multifaceted	Multifaceted
Administrative culture	Civil service ethics	Entrepreneurial spirit	Open government/Mixed approach	Mixed approach	Contribute to society	Meeting citizens’ needs	Creating public value for society
Typical failures	Formalism, inefficiency, inflexibility, red tape	Market failures, accountability problems	Time-consuming decision-making, coordination problems	Time-consuming decision-making, coordination problems	Public–private cooperation, coordination problems	Public–private cooperation, coordination problems	Lack of practical standards, complex decision-making, valuation criteria

Source: Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000; Meuleman, 2008; Moore, 1995; Osborne 2006; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2011; Torfing et al., 2012; authors’ own elaboration.

Public administration in Greece

The Greek administrative system followed distinct phases of evolution from the post-war period, while its organizational and functional features were partly affected by broader theoretical trends. With the goal of identifying the degree of convergence or divergence of the domestic administrative transformations with the developments in the academic discourse, we next explore the typical characteristics and the trajectories of the Greek administrative pattern over time, with a view to test the hypothesis of a paradigm shift.

The post-war model

Greece could be typically classified among the countries of the Napoleonic tradition (Featherstone, 2015; Painter and Peters, 2010b: 22). Like most of Southern European countries, the administrative structure combined elements of the Weberian bureaucracy and the French public service (CEEP, 1995: 12; Μοderne, 1995: 61–64). In the post-war era, the administrative system followed the path of heavy statism, as the public sector gradually assimilated a wide range of social, economic and productive activities, reflecting the broader expansionary and protectionist economic policy (Pagoulatos, 2003). Public organizations were large-scale bureaucracies, functioning on the basis of formal rules and procedures and subjected to the direct control of the political system. Public administration was highly centralized, based on hierarchical relations, legal formalism and a heavy complex of legislation and rules.

The military junta period (1967–74) did not substantially affect the organizational and functional features of the post-war administrative pattern; however, the authoritative and hierarchical aspects were accentuated. In the years following the restoration of democracy (1974 onwards), the emphasis was placed on the consolidation of democratic institutions, including the democratization of the public sector. During the next decade, the expansion of the state bureaucracy was accompanied by an increase in public employment, mounting public expenditure and the gradual accumulation of public debt and fiscal imbalances.

Although the normative provisions of the administrative apparatus resembled some elements of the Weberian bureaucracy and the Southern European tradition of public service, empirical examination reveals certain deviations from these standards. In particular, the rules of legitimacy and formality were undermined by the mass of complex and disjointed legislation, political and democratic accountability was distorted by the excessive politicization of the administrative system, meritocracy, ethos and professionalism were eroded by the clientelistic arrangements that dominated the recruitment and carrier system of the civil servants. In addition, the autonomy and professionalism of public officials were very weak due to the political manipulation of the bureaucracy (Spanou, 2014), blurring the Wilsonian distinction between the political and administrative spheres (Wilson, 1887). The state–society–economy relation corresponded to a corporatist-like scheme that in practice allowed selective access to the resources of public administration by rent-seeking groups (Pelagidis and Mitsopoulos, 2006). As for citizens’ participation, the inward-looking orientation of public services left little room for the involvement of societal actors in the administrative process (Ongaro, 2010).

Modernization and Europeanization

In the early 1990s the constraints posed by the process of European integration and the broader globalization and liberalization pressures directly affected the domestic administrative system. While a stated (ideal) model of reference cannot be traced, the programmes of state reform incorporated some elements of the theoretical trends found in the managerial and economic schools of thought. Attempts to change the dominant pattern began in the early 1990s; however, the key starting point of the transformation process of the Greek administration is identified in the modernization era from 1996 onwards. During the 1990s and the 2000s, the process of state reform was affected by the shift to public management ideas and economic models related to the (neo)liberal discourse. In this context, a cluster of policy measures were adopted in line with economic, managerial and market-based approaches, aiming at rationalizing and modernizing the administrative apparatus. The European Union acted as a strong external factor for institutional reforms that paved the way for the adjustment of national administrative systems to common rules and procedures. Accordingly, a series of policy and organizational changes were introduced (Table 2) with a view to align the domestic administrative capacity with supranational patterns of state reform.

Table 2.

Overview of the Greek public administration: main characteristics, reform efforts and theoretical linkages (1950–2015).

Periods	Characteristics (Features/transformations)	Policy context	Theoretical linkages	Long-standing weaknesses
1950s–1980s (Consolidation and expansion of the public sector)	Centralization Large-scale bureaucracies Hierarchy, Formality Corporatist relations	Statism Interventionist- dirigiste state Democratization	Napoleonic tradition Weberian bureaucracy Continental-Mediterranean tradition Public service	Formalism, red tape, Low performance High degree of politicization
Mid-1990s–2000s (modernization efforts)	Institutional–regulatory adjustments (EU conditionality) Incremental transformations ‘Politeia’ programme (2001) ‘Administrative Reform’ programme (2007) Reorganization of subnational institutions Local and regional self- government reform (2010) Independent authorities Regulatory agencies	Europeanization Modernization Rationalization Decentralization	Economic–Managerial influences E-government elements Governance New Public Service, New Weberian State Agencification trends	Distributive politics Patronage, clientelism, corruption Weak institutions Limited administrative capacity
2010–2015 (PA under Memoranda)	Coercive transformations Structural & functional adjustments Reorganization of central administration Reform of subnational administration Operational Programme ‘Public Sector Reform 2014–2020’ & Action Plan for e-Government (2014)	Rationalization Modernization Downsizing Efficiency Fiscal adjustment	(Neo-)liberal discourse Economic rationale New Public Management Private sector techniques	Public expenditure expansion Public debt expansion

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

The observed institutional changes can be linked with particular theoretical trends. NPM traits exist in the effort to enhance economic performance, efficiency and effectiveness and to infuse a more managerial spirit in the administrative functions. The decentralization and the transfer of competences to the regional and local levels, to (quasi-)autonomous agencies and to regulatory authorities partly changed the concentrated and hierarchical administrative structure, potentially reflecting an emerging agencification trend (Laking, 2005). Regarding state–citizens relationship, the influence of the ‘hybrid’ models, particularly NPS and NWS, is observed in initiatives aiming at the improvement of service delivery and the standardization/simplification of the administrative procedures, such as the establishment of one-stop-shops (‘KEP’ [Citizens’ Service Centres]), Citizens’ Charters and the Code of Administrative Procedure. In addition, e-governance elements are traced in the increasing utilization of information and communications technology (ICT) applications in administrative practice.

While the transformations of the 1990s and 2000s to some degree incorporated elements of the theoretical types, a clear pattern of state reform cannot be discerned. Regarding the modernization effect, neither economic nor managerial standards actually penetrated the administrative culture and practice. For instance, the implementation of the Europeanization standards was driven by funding motives and conventional compliance (Tsekos, 2013). Powerful ‘intervening variables’ (Radaelli, 2003: 47), namely patronage and clientelistic practices (Spanou, 2008), vested interests and veto players (Tsebelis, 2002: 36–37) along with limited institutional capacity and weak political will worked as powers resistant to change, explaining, in turn, the poor reform results. Consequently, the ‘outcome’ (Radaelli, 2003: 37–38) of the modernization and Europeanization effect may well be described as ranging between inertia and absorption.

Debt crisis

The escalating fiscal/debt crisis that hit the Greek economy in 2010 worked as a key accelerator for introducing forced adjustments at all levels of public administration. Under the heavy pressure of economic contraction and severe austerity, the public sector was placed at the forefront of the required reforms, imposing a drastic reduction of its size, scope and cost. The rhetoric emphasized the need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, drawing on a technical and economic-oriented argumentation. The logic of the subsequent adjustments was primarily cost-cutting in order to reduce public debt. The policy mix included downsizing measures, lay-offs, cuts in public expenses, structural reorganization, privatizations, mergers and the abolition of public entities. Particular emphasis was placed on fiscal functions, taxation and public expenditure, including upgrading the role of the competent units. Unlike previous reform efforts, the crisis measures were linked with detailed quantitative goals, a strict timetable for delivering results and were subjected to regular monitoring.

The policies implemented relate to a degree to the theoretical patterns. The reform rhetoric bears a resemblance to the economic neo-liberal rationale, particularly the assumptions of government failure and public choice. The Memoranda² signed between the Greek government and the ‘Troika’³ to a degree incorporated some of the new institutional economics and the NPM principles, such as the rationale for economic efficiency, better performance and goal-oriented administration. However, the potential theoretical linkages were translated into policies mostly in terms of minimizing expenses and cutting costs and to a lesser extent in a strategic context. In addition, the goal of better serving the citizens that was regularly invoked in the rhetoric of the reforms that were initiated reflects elements of the NPS and the NWS paradigms; however, substantial public service aspects, such as participation and democratic citizenship, were notably absent from the policy agenda.

Overall, despite the anticipated goals and strong external pressure, the measures undertaken led only to short-term fiscal improvements, while their structural effect was weak and hardly addressed the inner problems of public administration. Moreover, the process of policy formulation was rather inconsistent and did not take into consideration the actual ability of the Greek administration to absorb the required adjustments. The observed shortcomings of the Greek bureaucracy pertain to a general phenomenon that we call ‘implementation oxymoron’, according to which the mechanism responsible for applying the reforms has already been fully diagnosed with very limited capacity for implementation per se.

In the light of the above findings, Table 2 provides a summary of the diachronic traits of the Greek bureaucracy, the reforms’ policy context and their theoretical linkages, as discussed in previous sections.

In search of a paradigm (?)

Each of the above-described theoretical patterns has its own strengths and weaknesses and it is the particular political-administrative context that defines the reform procedure. Turning to the Greek case, the question that arises is whether a particular administrative pattern can be identified, to what extent a ‘paradigm shift’ occurred and if it can be linked to developments in the academic discourse.

As suggested above, the trajectories of administrative change in Greece correspond to three distinct phases and were partly affected by the broader theoretical trends (Table 2). During the first post-war decades, consolidation of the administrative apparatus was inspired by Weberian bureaucracy and the Southern European public service paradigm; in the mid-1990s economic and managerial elements along with Europeanization pressures affected the domestic pattern; in the debt crisis era (2010–) radical transformations induced shifts towards a more neo-liberal context emphasizing economic performance and efficiency.

The empirical examination reveals certain features that render the domestic administrative system a quite divergent case. Greek public administration is diachronically characterized by low performance, irrationality, extreme politicization, limited institutional capacity, legalism, formalism, corruption, patronage, clientelistic relationships, fragmented and inconsistent procedures, lack of coordination, ad hoc arrangements and frequent changes at the top administrative levels (Ladi, 2014; Makrydemetris, 1991; Sotiropoulos, 2004; Spanou, 2008). The volume and the endurance of these shortcomings explain to a certain extent not only the erosion of the normative requirements, but also the weak results of all reform attempts. The fact that the policy recommendations for reform remain largely invariable over time proves that little progress has been achieved. Coupled with the absence of a single conceptual administrative model, the aforementioned traits of the Greek bureaucracy weaken the hypothesis of a coherent institutional paradigm, let alone a paradigm shift.

The unsynchronized reaction of the domestic administrative system to the theoretical developments is further related to the absence of strong normative foundations. Besides the detachment of the Greek paradigm from an ideal-type, the conceptualization of the public sector fails to establish a distinct tradition upon which the administrative apparatus is theoretically founded and legitimized. Deviations and delays are also observed in the reform record of the Greek case compared with other countries, as the process of change is slow, rather disjointed and depends on the particular political conjuncture.

The above weaknesses have led to a particular pattern of administrative change. Institutional shifts mostly occur as ad hoc incremental interventions that correspond more to a ‘muddling through’ policy style (Lindblom, 1959) than to actual reforms in the sense of large-scale transformations with a long-term effect (Tsoukas, 2012). The literature and empirical evidence highlight some key features of the process of state reform in Greece: (i) reform programmes are usually the result of external constraints and pressures,⁴ (ii) the response of the administration is slow and rather eclectic, (iii) an important gap exists between policy formulation and the implementation stages, quite apart from the absence of evaluation tools, (iv) policies and institutions are constantly eroded by various self-interest groups, (v) society seems to be absent from the administrative reality, (vi) finally, the overall effect of the reform efforts appears fragmented and discontinuous in the long run.

The path of administrative reforms can be linked to a set of ‘country-specific’ norms and values defining the cultural elements of the broader social-political environment. Drawing on Hofstede’s (2011) model, Greece’s score⁵ provides an explanatory framework for the above sketched pattern. The legalistic attitude, formalism and procedures-oriented logic can be related to the ‘power distance’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance’ factors (high scores), which also explain the emphasis on hierarchy, rules and centralist bureaucratic structures. Patronage practices may be interpreted with reference to the ‘collectivist culture’ (low ‘individualism’ score) that penetrates Greek society and tends to preserve clientelistic arrangements in favour of particular self-interest groups.

It follows that the endurance of the ‘default style’ of governance in Greece is largely ‘path dependent’. Fom a macro-level perspective, the main structural and operational features of the administrative system focus on centralism, hierarchy, law and an inward orientation of public bureaucracies. These standards were incorporated, adjusted and often distorted by specific micro-level factors and particularities that shaped the domestic administrative pattern (Spanou 2008) as a distinct variation of the Napoleonic and Weberian bureaucracies.⁶

Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of the Greek administration in relation to the existing governance styles throughout the period 1950–2015. Schematically, the Greek paradigm is typically classified closer to the ‘hierarchy’ axis during the post-war years. Yet, over time, it seems to be subjected to influences related to the NIE and managerial models, mostly during the mid-1990s and the debt crisis period (Lampropoulou and Oikonomou, 2013), that correspond to a move towards the ‘market’ axis and to a lesser extent the ‘network’ one. However, the shifts are minor and do not follow a consistent reform path or a typical governance type. Thus, with a hint of irony, both in terms of theoretical synchronization and practical adjustment, the domestic administrative pattern could be characterized as an ‘anti-paradigm’.

Over time Greek administration appears to be a specific case that has not really moved towards an (old or new) paradigm. Its evolution is characterized by marginal displacements of the established bureaucratic pattern through incremental adjustments of the ‘default’ hierarchical-centralist model. Key reforms (Τable 2) include the democratization programme (1980s), the decentralization efforts (1994, 1997, 2010), the measures for the streamlining and simplification of administrative procedures (2000s–2010s), the restructuring and reorganization of the central government and the initiation of new methods of human resources management (HRM) (2010s).

Particular examples of administrative change partly fall into theoretical trends. In the crisis period, progress has been acknowledged in Public Financial Management (PFM), where measures relating to the NPM financial discipline led to sounder fiscal management and budgetary monitoring and compliance. On the contrary, the reform of HRM through the initiation of private sector techniques in practice achieved weak results. The same also applies to the ‘management-through-goals’ and Total Quality Management measures that were initiated in the mid-2000s. A partly successful example of reform embedding tools from the e-governance field is the progressive incorporation of ICT methods in administrative functions since the mid-1990s. However, in the long run, the reaction of the public administration to the reform efforts records only small-scale adjustments and strong resistance to reform pressures (EC, 2010–2011; EC, 2012–2014; OECD, 2011).

Conclusions

This article has considered the evolution of the Greek public administration from the 1950s onwards with the aim of correlating the process of administrative change with the broader theoretical developments and to identify the existence (or not) of a distinctive pattern. Drawing on empirical evidence, the findings show little relevance of the domestic administrative style to the relative theoretical trends. Throughout the period under study, the overall effect of academic ideas on the organizational and functional features of the administrative system was weak, marginal and rather disjointed. In particular, it is doubtful whether the Greek public administration actually incorporated either the prerequisites of a typical Weberian bureaucracy or (any of) the principles of managerial and economic patterns, new modes of governance or hybrid administrative types. In addition, the embedding of a coherent set of political, economic and managerial normative standards deriving from the study of public administration is permanently missing from the Greek administration.

The picture of administrative reforms in Greece has been composed of sporadic, uncoordinated and, to a degree, externally imposed transformations. While certain inner dynamics and indications of change were traced, it cannot be argued that a coherent reform programme – assuring consistency with a theoretical context and a long-term plan – has been ever implemented. Even under the strong external influence of Europeanization and the inelastic fiscal constraints of the recent conditionality agreements that provide impetus to reforms, the established badly performed administrative pattern has not changed much. In addition, a thorough reform or a paradigm shift cannot be claimed, let alone the questionable existence of an administrative paradigm itself. The lessons derived from the study of the Greek public administration suggest that a clear normative-theoretical reconsideration of the current pattern is needed, along with deeper shifts in the administrative practice and culture. These challenges provide implications for future reforms, as well as directions for further research on the ideas expressed in this article.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Notes

Manto Lampropoulou is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Athens University of Economics and Business and a visiting research fellow at the University of Peloponnese. She is a graduate of the National School of Public Administration and she works for the Hellenic Ministry of Interior. Her research interests focus on public policy, public administration, state reform, privatization and public service.

Giorgio Oikonomou is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Athens. He holds an MSc degree in Public Policy and Public Management from the Athens University of Economics and Business. He graduated from the National School of Public Administration. His research interests include governance, public policy, public administration reform, Europeanization and subnational institutions.

References

Argyriades

(2006) Good governance, professionalism, ethics and responsibility. International Review of Administrative Sciences 72(2): 155–170.

Barzelay

(2001) The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Batley

Larbi

(2004) The Changing Role of Government: The Reform of Public Services in Developing Countries, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Benington

Moore

(2011) Public value in complex and changing times. In: Benington

Moore

(eds) Public Value: Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–30.

Box

(1999) Running government like a business: Implications for public administration theory and practice. American Review of Public Administration 29(1): 19–43.

CEEP (1995) Europe, concurrence et service public, Paris: Masson.

Chevallier

(2005) Le service public, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Denhardt

(2000) The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review 60(6): 549–559.

Dunleavy

Hood

(1994) From old public administration to New Public Management. Public Money & Management 14(3): 9–16.

10.

Dunleavy

Margetts

Bastow

Tinkler

(2005) New Public Management is dead – long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 467–494.

11.

EC (2010–2011) The Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece: 1st–5th Reviews.

12.

EC (2012–2014) The Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece: 1st–4th Reviews.

13.

Featherstone

(2015) External conditionality and the debt crisis: The ‘Troika’ and public administration reform in Greece. Journal of European Public Policy 22(3): 295–314.

14.

Haque

(2000) Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66: 599–617.

15.

Hofstede

(2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2(1): 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 .

16.

Hood

(1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.

17.

Hughes

(2003) Public Management and Administration: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Jessop

(2003) Governance and meta-governance: On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. In: Bang

(ed.) Governance as Social and Political Communication, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 101–116.

19.

Kernaghan

(2000) The post-bureaucratic organization and public service values. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66: 91–104.

20.

Klijn

E-H

(2008) Governance and governance networks in Europe. Public Management Review 10(4): 505–525.

21.

Kuhlmann

Wollmann

(2014) Introduction to Comparative Public Administration: Administrative Systems and Reform in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

22.

Ladi

(2014) Austerity politics and administrative reform: The eurozone crisis and its impact upon Greek public administration. Comparative European Politics 12(2): 184–208.

23.

Laking

(2005) Agencies: Their benefits and risks. OECD Journal on Budgeting 4(4): 7–25.

24.

Lampropoulou M and Oikonomou G (2013) Challenges and prospects in governance: Theoretical models and public administration reform in the age of memoranda. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of Administrative Sciences, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, 28–30 November.

25.

Lane

J-E

(2000) New Public Management, London: Routledge.

26.

Larbi G (1999) The New Public Management approach and crisis states. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Discussion Paper No. 112.

27.

Lindblom

(1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.

28.

Makrydemetris A (1991) Administrative Studies. Athens-Komotini: Sakkoulas [in Greek].

29.

Meuleman

(2008) Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations, Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

30.

Mοderne

(1995) Analyse comparative des notions de service public dans les états membres’. In: Stoffaës

(ed.) L’Europe à l’epreuve de l’intérêt général, Paris: ASPEeurope, pp. 55–69.

31.

Moore

(1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

32.

Niskanen

W-A

(1971) Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

33.

North

D-C

(1986) The new institutional economics. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 142: 230–237.

34.

OECD (1995) Participatory Development and Good Governance, Paris: OECD.

35.

OECD (2011) Greece: Review of the Central Administration. OECD public governance reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.

36.

O’Flynn

(2007) From New Public Management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration 66(3): 353–366.

37.

Ongaro

(2009) Public Management Reform and Modernization Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

38.

Ongaro

(2010) The Napoleonic administrative tradition and public management reform in France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. In: Painter

Peters

(eds) Tradition and Public Administration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 174–190.

39.

Osborne

Gaebler

(1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

40.

Osborne

S-P

(2006) The new public governance? Public Management Review 8(3): 377–387.

41.

Pagoulatos

(2003) Greece’s New Political Economy, London: Palgrave.

42.

Painter

Peters

(2010a) The analysis of administrative traditions. In: Painter

Peters

(eds) Tradition and Public Administration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–16.

43.

Painter

Peters

(2010b) Administrative traditions in comparative perspective: Families, groups and hybrids. In: Painter

Peters

(eds) Tradition and Public Administration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 19–30.

44.

Pelagidis

Mitsopoulos

(2006) Political Analysis of the Greek Economy: Rent Seeking and Policy Reforms, Athens: Papazisis [in Greek].

45.

Perry

J-L

Rainey

H-G

(1988) The public–private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review 13(2): 182–201.

46.

Peters BG (2000) Four Main Administrative Traditions. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/8W85CKFC80.

47.

Peters

Pierre

(1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2): 223–243.

48.

Peters

Pierre

(2006) Governance, government and the state. In: Hay

Lister

Marsh

(eds) The State: Theories and Issues, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 209–222.

49.

Peters

Wright

(1996) Public policy and administration, old and new. In: Goodin

Klingemann

H-D

(eds) A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 628–641.

50.

Pierre

Peters

(2000) Governance, Politics and the State, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

51.

Pollitt

(1990) Managerialism and the Public Service: The Anglo-American Experience, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

52.

Pollitt

Bouckaert

(2011) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Radaelli

(2003) The Europeanization of public policy. In: Featherstone

Radaelli

(eds) The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–56.

54.

Rhodes R-A (1996) The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies XLIV: 652–667.

55.

Rugge

(2003) Administrative traditions in Western Europe. In: Peters

Pierre

(eds) Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage, pp. 177–192.

56.

Smith

(1997) Policy networks. In: Hill

(ed.) The Policy Process: A Reader, 2nd edn. London: Prentice Hall, pp. 76–86.

57.

Sotiropoulos

(2004) Two faces of politicization of the civil service: The case of contemporary Greece. In: Peters

Pierre

(eds) Politicization of the Civil Service in Contemporary Perspective, London: Routledge, pp. 257–282.

58.

Spanou

(1998) European integration in administrative terms: A framework for analysis and the Greek case. Journal of European Public Policy 5(3): 467–484.

59.

Spanou

(2008) State reform in Greece: Responding to old and new challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management 21(2): 150–173.

60.

Spanou

(2014) Administrative elites and the crisis: What lies ahead for the senior civil service in Greece? International Review of Administrative Sciences 80(4): 709–725.

61.

Stoffaës

(1995) Services publics, question d’avenir, Paris: Odile Jacob.

62.

Terry

L-D

(1998) Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement. Public Administration Review 58(3): 194–200.

63.

Torfing

Peters

Pierre

Sørensen

(2012) Interactive Governance – Advancing the Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

64.

Torfing J and Triantafillou P (2013) What’s in a name? Grasping new public governance as a political-administrative system. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, 4–7 September.

65.

Tsebelis

(2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

66.

Tsekos

(2013) La convergence administrative européenne et l’administration publique Grecque. In: Bezes

et al. (eds) Penser la science administrative dans la post-modernité, mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Jacques Chevallier, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 365–376.

67.

Tsoukas

(2012) Enacting reforms: Towards an enactive theory. In: Kalyvas

Pagoulatos

Tsoukas

(eds) From Stagnation to Forced Adjustment: Reforms in Greece 1974–2010, London: Hurst and Company, pp. 67–89.

68.

Tullock

(2002) The theory of public choice. In: Tullock

Seldon

Brady

G-L

(eds) Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice, Washington, DC: Cato Institute, pp. 3–79.

69.

Weber

(1946) Essays in Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press.

70.

Wilson

(1887) The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly 2(2): 197–222.