Theoretical Perspectives on Bureaucrats: A Quest for Democratic Agents

• Published date: 01 August 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231165998
• Author: Ana Železnik,Danica Fink-Hafner
• Date: 01 August 2023
• Subject Matter: Perspectives

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231165998

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(7) 1432 –1456

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997231165998

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Perspectives

Theoretical Perspectives

on Bureaucrats: A Quest

for Democratic Agents

Ana Železnik1 and Danica Fink-Hafner1

Abstract

While the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy has gained

attention in historical cycles, the literature on the roles of bureaucrats

in relation to democracy has become increasingly fragmented. Drawing

on comparisons among public administration theory and participatory,

deliberative, and collaborative democracy, this article provides typologies

that reflect the historical multiplication of the theoretically determined

roles and characteristics of bureaucracy that contribute to democracy. This

comparative analysis highlights a common democratic trend among the four

schools in adding stresses on bureaucrats’ autonomy, morality, publicity, and

direct connection to citizens, with a constant coexistence of rational and

managerial elements.

Keywords

bureaucrats, public administration, participative democracy, deliberative

democracy, collaborative democracy

Introduction

As democratic disaffection associated with the crisis and potential death of

liberal democracies (Corbett, 2020; Offe, 2011) has been growing since the

2000s, the need to redefine bureaucrats’ roles, characteristics, and values has

1University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

Corresponding Authors:

Ana Železnik, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia.

Emails: ana.zeleznik@fdv.uni-lj.si; anna.zeleznik@gmail.com

Danica Fink-Hafner, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia.

Email: danica.fink-hafner@fdv.uni-lj.si

1165998AAS0010.1177/00953997231165998Administration & SocietyŽeleznik and Fink-Hafner

research-article2023

Železnik and Fink-Hafner 1433

been addressed in relation to the current problems concerning governing

(Dickinson et al., 2019; Frederickson et al., 2016; Perry & Christensen, 2015;

Peters & Pierre, 2012; Rabin et al., 2007). The call for a democratic bureau-

crat, which is relevant both theoretically and practically, is now on the agenda

more than ever, given the new complexities of the existing social and politi-

cal systems of governance in the current world (Hildreth et al., 2021), which

include the aggregation of multiple global emergencies, such as economic,

environmental, migration and health crises. It has been estimated that the

representative functions of the state, in addition to social and public pro-

grams, as well as those of elected and unelected officials, are being reduced

by the power of big capital and special interest groups, and that the bureau-

cratic capacity to fulfill citizens’ expectations has been destroyed (as shown

by reforms regarding downsizing, hollowing out, privatization, and elimina-

tion) (Wilson, 2001).

Various factors have recently been adding to the social complexity in

which bureaucrats act. Authoritarian and populist political programs and

activities challenge not only bureaucratic values relating to political neutral-

ity (Box, 2021), but also bureaucrats’ accountability relationships with politi-

cians (Wood et al., 2022). Furthermore, bureaucratic agencies have become

over-burdened and hyperresponsive (Meier, 1997), forced to deal with

increasingly complex tasks and demands from the people as well as from

politicians. In such circumstances, it is no surprise that the practice of bureau-

cracy is facing low levels of institutional trust (Torcal, 2006), and is per-

ceived as non-democratic (Brugué & Gallego, 2003) and sometimes even as

a threat to democracy (Meier & O’Toole, 2006). Indeed, historical forces,

economic trends, and changing political preferences have provoked a re-

thinking of public administration theory and practice (Roberts, 2004).

Theoretical and empirical efforts to describe the roles of bureaucrats have

significantly varied over time. They have been greatly influenced by evolv-

ing theories regarding democracy while at the same time continuously deal-

ing with general tensions between (a) rationalism and efficiency and (b)

democratic/public-oriented bureaucrats’ roles.

On one hand, rational/public choice theory and management studies have

prevailed for decades in the form of new public management (NPM)

(Osborne & Gaebler, 1992), which was criticized and partly replaced by the

theory of new public governance, based on organizational sociology and

network theory (Osborne, 2006). On the other hand, the reconciling of

bureaucracy with democracy (Etzioni-Halevey, 1983; Kirlin, 1996; Meier,

1997; Peters, 2010) has been elaborated within the theory of representative

bureaucracy and bureaucratic representation (Coleman et al., 1998; Wilson,

2001), as well as that of bureaucratic responsibility (Burke & Cleary, 1989)