Comparative Public Administration

Abstract

Public administration research has been struggling with true comparison for a very long time. In 1992, Hans-Ulrich Derlien described its state as "rather comparable than comparative". Fourteen years later things have started to change. "We are still muddling", one could say with reference to Charles Lindblom "and not yet through", but important progress has been made. This article aims at sketching the theoretical as well as empirical state of the art of Comparative Administration. First theories are reviewed that are considered useful as a guide to comparison. Then, classical concepts of bureaucracy and new developments based on historical and rational choice institutionalism are brought together in order to demonstrate, how a very heterogeneous field of facts can be analyzed empirically from a common theoretical perspective. In describing the state of the art in empirical research the article first focuses on matters at the core of comparative public administration: structures, personal and bureaucratic power. It then provides an overview of research topics which are more oriented towards problems of current administrative practice. In this context New Public Management is discussed as well as accrual accounting, performance oriented budgeting and reporting, fiscal rules and fiscal policy making, the role of independent agencies, anti corruption measures and civil service ethics, and e-government. The article concludes with a list of challenges comparative public administration faces.