Habermas' models of ecisionism, technocracy and pragmatism in times of governance: The relationship of public administration, politics and science in the alcohol prevention policies of the Swiss Member States

Public Administration

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 429-447

  Sager, Fritz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; MODELING; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; POLICY MAKING; POLITICS; PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 34249740669     PISSN: 00333298     EISSN: 14679299     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00646.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Aucoin, P. 1990. 'Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes, and Pendulums', Governance, 3, 115-37.
2. Babor, T.F., R. Caetano, S. Casswell, et al. 2003. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity -Research and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Backhaus, K., B. Erichson, W. Plinke and R. Weiber. 2000. Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
4. Benz, A. 1998. 'Postparlamentarische Demokratie? Demokratische Legitimation im kooperativen Staat', in M.T. Greven (ed.). Demokratie - eine Kultur des Westens? Opladen: Leske & Budrich, pp. 201-22.
5. Bovens, M.A. 1998. The Quest for Responsibility. Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bressers, H.T.A. and L. O'Toole, Jr. 1998. 'The Selection of Policy Instruments: A Network-based Perspective', Journal of Public Policy, 18, 3, 213-39.
7. Cattacin, S. and B. Lucas. 1999. 'Autorégulation, intervention étatique, mise en réseau: Les transformations de l'État social en Europe (les cas du VIH/sida, de l'abus d'alcool et des drogues illégales)', Revue française de science politique, 49, 379-98.
8. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
9. Duran, P. 1999. Penser l'action publique. Paris: Librairie générale du droit et de la jurisprudence.
10. Duran, P., and J.-C. Thoenig. 1996. 'L'Etat et la gestion publique territoriale', Revue française de science politique, 46, 580-623.
11. Edwards G. (ed.). 1997. Alkoholkonsum und Gemeinwohl: Strategien zur Reduzierung des schädlichen Gebrauchs in der Bevölkerung. Stuttgart: Enke.
12. Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Freiburghaus D. and W. Zimmermann. 1985. Wie wird Forschung politisch relevant? Bern: Haupt.
14. Gaudin, J.-P. 1999. Gouverner par contrat. Paris: Presses de science po.
15. Gehring U. and C. Weins. 1998. Grundkurs Statistik für Politologen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
16. Germann, R.E. 1998. Öffentliche Verwaltung in der Schweiz, Bd. 1, Der Staatsapparat und die Regierung. Bern: Haupt.
17. Haas, P.M. 1992. 'Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination', International Organization, 46, 1-35.
18. Habermas, J. 1973. Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
19. Habermas, J. 1976. 'Verwissenschaftlichte Politik und öffentliche Meinung', in J. Habermas (ed.), Technik und Wissenschaft als 'Ideologie'. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, pp. 120-45.
20. Habermas, J. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
21. Hall, R.H. 1968. 'Professionalization and Bureaucratization', American Sociological Review, 33, 92-104.
22. Holzinger, K. 2001. 'Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf Basis der Sprechakttheorie', Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 42, 414-46.
23. Howlett, M. 2005. 'What Is a Policy Instrument? Policy Tools, Policy Mixes, and Policy Implementation Styles', in P. Eliadis, M.M. Hills and M. Howlett (eds), Designing Government. From Instruments to Governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 31-50.
24. Hunold, C. 2001. 'Corporatism, Pluralism, and Democracy: Toward a Deliberative Theory of Bureaucratic Accountability', Governance, 14, 151-67.
25. Jordan, A., R.K.W. Wurzel and A. Zito. 2005. 'The Rise of "New"Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?', Political Studies, 53, 477-96.
26. Kay, A. 2005. 'A Critique of the Use of Path Dependency in Policy Studies', Public Administration, 83, 3, 553-71.
27. King, D. 1996. 'Conclusion', in D. King and G. Stoker (eds). Rethinking Local Democracy. Government Beyond the Centre. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 214-23.
28. Knill, C. 1999. 'Explaining Cross-national Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies', Journal of Public Policy, 19, 2, 113-39.
29. Knoepfel, P. and W. Bussmann. 1997. 'Die öffentliche Politik als Evaluations-objekt', in W. Bussmann, U. Klöti and P. Knoepfel (eds), Einführung in die Politikevaluation. Basel: Helbing and Lichtenhahn, pp. 58-77.
30. Lodge, M., and C. Hood 2003. 'Competency and Bureaucracy: Diffusion, Application and Appropriate Response?', West European Politics, 26, 3, 131-52.
31. Lyall, C. and J. Tait. 2005. 'Shifting Policy Debates and the Implications for Governance', in C. Lyall and J. Tait (eds), New Modes of Governance. Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 3-17.
32. Meier, K.J. 1994. The Politics of Sin. Drugs, Alcohol, and Public Policy. Armonk, NJ: M.E. Sharpe.
33. Nicholson-Crotty, S. and L.J. O'Toole, Jr. 2004. 'Public Management and Organizational Performance: The Case of Law Enforcement Agencies', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 1, 1-18.
34. Niskanen, W.A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine and Atherton.
35. O'Toole, L.J., Jr., and K.J. Meier. 1999. 'Modeling the Impact of Public Management: Implications of Structural Context', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 4, 505-26.
36. Olsen, J.P. 2001. 'Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics', American Political Science Review, 95, 191-8.
37. Olsen, J.P. 2006. 'Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 1, 1-24.
38. Ostrom, V., R.L. Bish and E. Ostrom. 1988. Local Government in the United States. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
39. Patton, M.Q. 1997. Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Pierre, J. 2000. 'Conclusions: Governance Beyond State Strength', in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241-6.
41. Pierre, J., and B.G. Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics, and the State. New York: St Martin's Press.
42. Raphael, L. 2000. Recht und Ordnung. Herrschaft durch Verwaltung im 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Fischer.
43. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1996. 'The New Governance: Governing without Government', Political Studies, 44, 652-67.
44. Rose, L. 1995. Consumers, Taxpayers, Citizens: An Inquiry into Democratic Citizenship in the Context of Local Government. Oslo: University of Oslo, Department of Political Science.
45. Sabet M. and D. Klingner. 1993. 'Exploring the Impact of Professionalism on Administrative Innovation', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 2, 252-66.
46. Sager, F. 2003. 'Kompensationsmöglichkeiten föderaler Vollzugsdefizite. Das Beispiel der kantonalen Alkoholpräventionspolitiken', Swiss Political Science Review, 9, 1, 309-33.
47. Sager, F. 2005a. 'Die Wirksamkeit verkehrspolitischer Massnahmen: Eine Meta-Analyse', in T. Bieger, C. Laesser and R. Maggi (eds). Schweizerische Verkehrswirtschaft -Jahrbuch 2004/2005. St Gallen: SVWG/ IDT-HSG, pp. 213-27.
48. Sager, F. 2005b. Assessing the 'Exhaustion of Tools'-Phenomenon. Cantonal Alcohol Prevention Policy Designs in Comparison. Paper presented at the 2005 ECPR Joint Sessions, Granada, 14-19 April 2005.
49. Sager, F. and A. Vatter. 2000. Strukturen und Strategien der Kantone in der Alkoholpräventionspolitik. Eine komparative Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Verwendung des Alkoholzehntels. Bern: Studie zuhanden der Schweizerischen Stiftung für Alkoholforschung.
50. Scharpf, F. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. Scott, R. 1965. 'Reactions to Supervision in a Heterogeneous Professional Organization', Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 65-81.
52. Spörndli, M. 2004. Diskurs und Entscheidung. Eine empirische Analyse kommunikativen Handelns im deutschen Vermittlungsausschuss. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
53. Steiner, J., A. Bächtiger, M. Spörndli and M.R. Steenbergern. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action. Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Stoker, G. 1998. 'Governance as Theory: Five Propositions', International Social Science Journal, 50, 17-28.
55. Urban, D. 1993. Logit-Analyse. Statistische Verfahren zur Analyse von Modellen mit qualitativen Response-Variablen. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
56. Van der Doelen, F.C.J. 1998. 'The "Give-and-Take"Packaging of Policy Instruments: Optimizing Legitimacy and Effectiveness', in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R.C. Rist and E. Vedung (eds). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 129-48.
57. Vedung, E. 1998. 'Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories', in M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R.C. Rist and E. Vedung (eds). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 21-58.
58. Wälti, S., D. Kübler and Y. Papadopoulos. 2004. 'How Democratic Is "Governance"? Lessons from Swiss Drug Policy', Governance, 17, 1, 83-113.