Portugal's Administrative Elite: Social Origins and Political Attitudes

West European Politics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 1983, Pages 63-74

  Opello, Walter C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84973070973     PISSN: 01402382     EISSN: 17439655     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01402388308424402     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. On the decline of parliament as initiators of policy see Alfred Grosser, ‘The Evolution of European Parliaments’, and Karl Dietrich Bracher, ‘Problems of Parliamentary Democracy in Europe’ in Stephen R. Graubard (ed.), A New Europe (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967); Gerhard Lowenberg (ed.), Modem Parliaments: Change or Decline? (Chicago and New York: Aldine/Atherton, 1971); and Otto Kirchheimer, ‘The Waning of Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes’, Social Research Vol. 24, Summer 1957, p.127-56.
2. Lawrence S. Graham, Portugal: The Decline and Collapse of an Authoritarian Order (Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications, 1975).
3. On this concept see Mark Kesselman, ‘Overinstitutionalization and Political Constraint: The Case of France’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 3, October 1970, p.21-44.
4. A history of these struggles can be found in H.V. Livermore, A New History of Portugal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), esp. Chaps. 10 and 11. See also Stanley G. Payne, ‘Spain and Portugal’, in Raymond Grew (ed.), Crises of Political Development in Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. 197–218.
5. On the collapse of the First Republic see Douglas L. Wheeler, Republican Portugal: A Political History, 1910–1926 (Madison; University of Wisconsin Press, 1978).
6. Jorge Campinos, O Presidencialismo do Estado Novo (Lisbon: Perspectives & Realidades, 1978).
7. Lawrence S. Graham, ‘Problems of Portuguese Bureaucracy and Prospects for Administrative Reform’, paper delivered at the 1979 meeting of the International Conference Group on Modern Portugal, Durham, New Hampshire, 21–24 June.
8. For an excellent summary of these events, see Thomas C. Bruneau, ‘Portugal in the 1970's: From Regime to Regime’, paper delivered at the 1980 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington Hilton Hotel, 28–31 August 1980.
9. In 1968 a Secretariat for Administrative Reform was established whose function was to ‘readjust’ the administrative machinery of the state. See Secretariat for Administrative Reform, Principles and Directives of the Administrative Reform in Portugal, Lisbon, 1968.
10. Graham, ‘Problems of Portuguese Bureaucracy⋯’. See above.
11. ‘Essay on. Bureaucracy’ in Francis E. Rourke (ed.), Bureaucratic Power in National Politics (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965), pp.8-10.
12. For analyses of the social origins of other Portuguese elites see Paul H. Lewis, ‘Salazar's Ministerial Elite, 1932-1968‘, Journal of Politics, Vol. 40, August 1978, pp.622-47; and Harry M. Makler, ‘The Portuguese Industrial Elite and Its Corporative Relations: A Study of Compartmentalization in an Authoritarian Regime’, in Lawrence S. Graham and Harry Makler (eds.), Contemporary Portugal: The Revolution and Its Antecedents (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1979), pp. 123–65.
13. This dichotomous typology of bureaucrats is from Robert D. Putnam, ‘The Political Attitudes of Senior Civil Servants in Britain, Germany, and Italy’, in Mattei Dogan (ed.), The Mandarins of Western Europe (New York, London: Halstead Press, 1975), pp.89-91.
14. See the articles in The Mandarins of Western Europe reporting the results of this research.
15. The following six questions from Putnam, op.cit., p.101, were combined to create the tolerance for politics index: (1) Fundamentally, it is not the political parties and the Assembly of the Republic but, on the contrary, public administration which guarantees satisfactory public policy in this country; (2) Often, those who enter politics think more of their own well-being or the well-being of their party than of the well-being of the citizens; (3) The interference of politicians in the affairs which are appropriately the function of public administration is a disturbing characteristic of contemporary political life; (4) In contemporary social and economic affairs it is essential that technical considerations have more weight than political factors; (5) The general well-being of the country is put in grave danger by the continual clash of groups with private interests; and (6) Although political parties play an important role in a democracy, frequently, they uselessly exacerbate political conflicts. To compute the tolerance for politics index, each DG was given one point for an ‘agree’ response to a question, three points for an ‘agree with reservations’, seven points for a ‘disagree with reservations’ and nine points for a ‘disagree’. The tolerance for politics index for each DG is the average score on the six questions multiplied by 10.
16. The following three questions from Putnam, op.cit., p.105, were combined to form the programmatic commitment index: (1) The force and efficiency of a government are more important that its specific programme; (2) Generally, in political controversies, extreme positions should be avoided because the true answer lies somewhere in the middle, and (3) Politics is ‘the art of the possible’ and, therefore, the leaders of the country ought to worry more about that which can be done in the short run than about ambitious long-range plans. As with the tolerance for politics index, the programmatic commitment index was computed by giving one for an ‘agree’ response to a question, three points for an ‘agree with reservations’, seven points for a ‘disagree with reservations’ and nine points for a ‘disagree’. The programmatic commitment index for each DG is the average score on the three questions multiplied by 10.
17. The following six questions from Putnam op.cit., p.108, were combined to construct the elitism index: (1) Some people are more qualified to lead this country because of their traditions and family background; (2) It does not make sense to speak of control of the acts of government by ordinary citizens; (3) It will always be necessary to have a small group of strong and competent individuals who know how to take charge of the situation; (4) The people should be allowed to vote even if they do not know what they want; (5) Few people know what their true interests are in the longterm; and (6) All citizens should have the same opportunity to influence government policy. The elitism index was computed by giving nine points for an ‘agree’ response, seven points for an ‘agree with reservations’, three points for a ‘disagree with reservations’ and one point for a ‘disagree’ for questions 1,2,3 and 5. Scoring was reversed for questions 4 and 6 which are phrased so that to agree is to be anti-elitist. The index is each respondent's average score on the six questions multiplied by 10.
18. The tolerance for political conflict index was composed of the following four questions from Samuel Eldersveld, et.al, ‘Elite Perceptions of the Political Process in the Netherlands, Looked at in Comparative Perspective’ in Dogan, op.cit., p.147: (1) Abstract principles of justice rarely resolve social problems; (2) When a group or individual gains a victory, it generally indicates that another group or individual loses; (3) Only by social conflict can progress be achieved in modern society; and (4) To compromise with political adversaries is dangerous because it normally leads to the betrayal of one's own group. The tolerance for conflict index was computed by giving nine points for an ‘agree’ response, seven points for an ‘agree with reservations’, three points for a ‘disagree with reservations’ and one point for a ‘disagree’ for questions 1 and 4. Scoring was reversed for questions 2 and 3 which were phrased so that to agree is to be intolerant. The index is each respondent's average score on the four questions multiplied by 10.
19. Comparative data are from Putnam, op.cit., pp.95-9.
20. Putnam, ‘The Political Attitudes of Senior Civil Servants in Western Europe: A Preliminary Report’, British Journal of Politics, 3, 1973, pp.278-81.
21. Philippe C. Schmitter ‘The “Regime d'Exception”.that Became the Rule: Forty-Eight Years of Authoritarian Domination in Portugal’, in Lawrence S. Graham and Harry M. Makler (eds.), op.cit, p.12.
22. Comparative data are from Putnam, ‘The Political Attitudes of Senior Civil Servants in Britain, Germany, and Italy’, in Dogan, op.cit.