Search results

This chapter examines one of the most contested issues in Public Administration, namely political–administrative relationships. The first part of the chapter begins with a brief overview of the features of an ideal-type bureaucracy. Next is a literature review of political–administrative relationships. This is followed by an analysis of typologies of political–administrative relationships, with particular reference to developing countries. The second part of the chapter analyses the evolution of political–administrative relationships since the dawn of South African democracy in 1994. It examines the growing politicisation of the public service, the weakening of the powers of public officials vis-a-vis Ministers and the emasculation of the PSC. Data indicate that the government is unable to fill posts at the Senior Management Service (SMS) level and that there are a high number of acting HoDs, an indicator of instability. Finally, it uses Dasandi and Esteve’s typology of political–administrative relationships in developing countries to interpret the South African case.

This chapter traces the evolution of political–administrative relationships in the South African public service. It traces how segregation and apartheid laid down the foundation of the country’s governmental system. The public service was effectively set up for Whites and poorly resourced self-governing territories were set up for Blacks. The National Party (NP) was in office from 1948 to 1994 and this long period in office led to the politicisation of the bureaucracy, with public servants gradually starting to adopt the government’s way of thinking instead of being impartial. In the 1980s, under President P.W. Botha, the government embarked on public sector reform, which included politicisation of the top levels of the public sector.

The role of the PSC/CoA is discussed – it had omnipotent human resources powers over the public service, particularly during the dying days of apartheid. The chapter then examines constitutional change in the 1990s, looking at both the Interim and Final Constitutions, which laid down the foundation of a democratic society. There is particular emphasis on political–administrative relationships and the declining influence of the PSC.

This paper looks into the mechanisms that determine (stimulate and limit) the scope for loyal contradiction in organizations through ex ante voice. The paper provides insights into how this essential civil service function and obligation can be maintained and the role that public leadership can play in addressing these issues.

This paper consists of a conceptual analysis of major determinants for constraints on and stimuli of loyal contradiction and provides an interpretational framework of the relevant factors involved.

This paper examines the mechanisms that determine (stimulate and limit) the scope for loyal contradiction in organizations through ex ante voice and provides insights into how to maintain this essential civil service function and obligation through the contribution of public leadership.

The findings of this paper offer insight into how to avoid constraints on loyal contradiction within public organizations and point to the way public leaders can, by facilitating and stimulating it, enhance organizational performance and legitimacy.

This paper points to an issue that is increasingly relevant in politics and public administration. By providing a conceptual framework, this paper provides a deeper understanding of how the necessary conditions for loyal contradiction can be created within public organizations.

This chapter examines one of the specific manifestations of political–administrative relationships, namely the delegation of powers to managers. The first part of the chapter is a literature review of political–administrative relationships in both developed and developing countries. This is followed by a discussion of the framework for delegation in South Africa that was laid down in the late 1990s. Next is an analysis of the implementation of delegation in the 2000s, along with the National Planning Commission recommendations in 2012, which has led to a resurgence in delegation initiatives. There is a well-developed government monitoring system of delegation that has led to some improvement in compliance with delegation, but the overall delegation levels are on the low side. Delegation to officials is often thwarted by Ministers who wish to retain control and/or promote patronage. Further, in some cases, managers lack capacity or are unwilling to manage and take responsibility for delegated authority.

It is a point of continuing debate whether the study of public administration can in any circumstances be graced by a disciplinary label. Rhodes (1996), for example, has argued that the study of British public administration was traditionally insular, dominated for a long period by an institutionalist tradition characterized by an interest in administrative engineering, but a distaste for theory. As Rhodes also observes, this position emphasized, albeit in a traditional sense, the political and ethical context of administration public administration existed within a wider framework of accountability relationships and political and moral responsibilities. We might add to this the way government and public administration was seen as linked within a framework of administrative law, which, while not formalized in the sense of continental Europe, was important.

The objective of the book is to examine specific public sector reforms in three core Public Administration areas, namely political–administrative relationships, the delegation of authority to senior managers and performance management.

It also locates the relevant public sector reforms within the context of the broader international debate on public sector reform. Each of three chapters on public service reform begins with a comparative perspective on the respective theme.

The period of the study is from the onset of democratic rule in 1994 until 2021. This period covers the Presidencies of Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa.

This book uses a mixed methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. Quantitative data in the form of descriptive statistics were obtained from The Personnel and Information System (PERSAL), the central human resources database for the South African public service. This database is not ‘off the shelf’ information – rather, the data are tailor-made to the specific needs of those who request information. Qualitative sources used include data obtained from virtual recordings of webinars on public sector reform and an examination of written documents. This includes an analysis of government legislation, White Papers and Commission reports.

This chapter provides a summary of the main findings, indicating that none of the public service reforms studied has worked particularly well. It then looks at ‘The Way Forward’ by analysing current proposals of the Ramaphosa government to reform the public sector. There are legislative proposals to give HoDs powers to appoint and dismiss staff, along with provisions devolving administrative powers to HoDs, while retaining strategic powers. There is a provision for the EA to intervene in the event of HoDs failing or refusing to fulfil a power or duty in terms of the proposed Act. This does provide a back door for Ministers to intervene in administration. Further, there is likely to be resistance against proposals to reduce politicians’ role in human resources, including members of the President’s own political party who are reluctant to lose delegation powers. Finally, it is suggested that the government should move away from centralised policies, particularly in respect of performance management, towards network governance-type approaches which promote a non-hierarchical approach to Public Administration.

The design of participation processes influences their effectiveness. In light of processes which include both mandated and non-mandated direct participation and take place in collaboration with other actors, adequate leadership roles are an indispensable but challenging process element. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how mayors exercise leadership roles in such processes and how this relates to effective participation processes.

Applying a qualitative comparative case study design (n=7), this study investigates mayors’ leadership roles relative to other actors’ roles in the process of establishing a community-owned wind farm. Data collection relied on 21 semi-structured interviews, triangulated with documentary analyses and nine field-level expert interviews.

Findings reveal mayors’ exclusive roles of guarantor, formal convener, facilitator, and sponsor based on authority. Mayors’ various shared roles relate primarily to non-mandated participation. Mayors face tensions in their role exercise due to citizens’ expectations and their personal involvement. They experience a positive impact of shared leadership on the effectiveness of the participation process.

Mayors need to exercise specific leadership roles relative to other actors to effectively manage participation processes. Adequate role exercise relates to sensitization and mobilization for the issue, weakened opposition, and project adjustment to citizen demands. A strategic approach to process design can support mayors in their leadership efforts.

This paper adds to the knowledge on mayors’ leadership roles in participation processes and concretizes tensions and effectiveness of collaborative leadership. The paper reflects on the inference of findings for administrators as compared to mayors.

The Westminster Parliament is multifaceted, lacks cohesion and collective direction, appearing at times to challenge the very notion of a structured public institution itself. Within an environment with little collective identity, understanding who leads in the UK Parliament is challenging; there are multiple, contestable sites of leadership and governance. The purpose of this article is to explore the understudied concept of legislative leadership, to better understand what goes on inside the legislature. The author presents a decentred and nuanced disaggregation of “leadership as practice” in parliament, examining three faces of legislative leadership.

Interpretive approaches to studying legislatures have presented new impetus to research in this area and the author utilises such anti-foundationalism. The article draws on ethnographic research into “everyday practices”, conducted during an academic fellowship in the UK Parliament from 2016 to 2019, which involved privileged access to the parliamentary estate. The data used include observations, shadowing and elite interviews collected during the fellowship.

By looking at the legislature from the inside, the author can better understand elite behaviour. This helps to explain motives, daily pressures and performative skills deployed in displays of autonomous, decentred leadership. The legislative leadership the author observed was atomised and could be stretched to accommodate the incumbent office holder. There were multiple relationships both formally constituted and informally constructed, but little collaborative or consensus leadership.

This article fulfils an identified need to study leadership in legislatures – and in particular key elites – from the inside.