O Estado Neoweberiano
do modelo tipo ideal à realidade?
Palavras-chave:
Estado Neoweberiano, hierarquia, burocraciaResumo
As reformas do setor público têm sido uma característica das últimas décadas. Muitas destas reformas reagiram contra a hierarquia e a burocracia para mudarem para mercados e redes. Ao lado da New Public Management (NPM) e da Nova Governança Pública (New Public Governance - NPG), o Estado neo-weberiano (neo-Weberian State - NWS) também permaneceu um tipo ideal crucial, certamente para a prática da Europa Ocidental que está incorporada na administração pública (AP) weberiana. Uma questão teórica e empírica é se o NWS é sustentável e resiliente na reinvenção e reavaliação da “burocracia” no século XXI. Esta contribuição afirma que inicialmente houve uma observação empírica, certamente na Europa continental, da administração pública neoweberiana derivada da dinâmica das reformas do setor público na segunda metade do século XX. Essa discussão foi 'atualizada' para um modelo de tipo ideal do NWS por razões teóricas. O NWS é um sistema orientado por hierarquia dentro de um espaço de hierarquia-mercado-rede. Este NWS (baseado e direcionado pela hierarquia) passou um dos modelos de reforma normativa.Também se afirma e se presume que o NWS, ao contrário da NPM (orientada para o mercado) e da NPG (orientada para a rede), assegurará as três funções centrais de uma estratégia de “whole-of-government” (governo integral) num contexto de “Whole-of-society” (toda a sociedade): prestação de serviços públicos equitativos e inclusivos, governança resiliente a crises, e inovação eficiente para o governo e a sociedade.
Downloads
Referências
Adler, Paul S. 2012. ‘Perspective—The Sociological Ambivalence of Bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx’. Organization Science 23(1): 244-66. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0615
Aldenhoff-Hübinger, Rita. 2004. ‘Max Weber’s Inaugural Address of 1895 in the Context of the Contemporary Debates in Political Economy’. Max Weber Studies: Max Weber’s Relevance as a Theorist of Politics 4(2): 143-56. https://doi.org/10.15543/MWS/2004/2/3
Andrews, Rhys, Philippe Bezes, Gerhard Hammerschmid and Steven Van de Walle. 2016. ‘Conclusion: A Kaleidoscope of Administrative Reforms in Europe’. In Public Administration Reforms in Europe, The View from the Top, eds. Hammer-schmid, Gerhard, Steven Van de Walle, Rhys Andrews and Philippe Bezes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 273-80
Ang, Yuen Yuen. 2017. ‘Beyond Weber: Conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy in developing contexts’. Regulation & Governance 11: 282-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12123
Aulich, Chris. 1999. ‘Markets, Bureaucracy and Public Management: Bureaucratic Limits to Markets: The Case of Local Government in Victoria, Australia’. Public Money and Management 19: 4: 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00187
Bouckaert, Geert, Peters, B.G. and Verhoest, Koen. 2010. The Coordination of Public Sector Organisations: Shifting Patterns of Public Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230275256
Bouckaert, Geert, Peters, B.G. and Verhoest, Koen. 2022). Chapter 21—’Policy Design for Policy Coordination’. In Research Handbook of Policy Design, ed. Peters B.G., Guillaume Fontaine. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: Ch 1, 355-74.
Bouckaert, Geert. 2004. ‘Die Dynamik von Verwaltungsreformen: Zusammenhänge und Kontexte von Reform und Wandel’. In Status-Report Verwaltungsreform: Eine Zwischenbilanz nach zehn Jahren. Modernisierung des öffentlichen Sektors Nr 24, ed. Jann,Werner et al. Berlin: Edition Sigma: 22-35.
Bouckaert, Geert. 2006. ‘Auf dem Weg zu einer neo-weberianischen Verwaltung. New Public Management im internationalen Vergleich’. In Politik und Verwaltung. PVS Politische Vierteljahresschrift. Sonderheft 37/2006. Deutsche Vereinigung für Politikwissenschaft, ed. Bögumil, Jörg, Jann, Werner, and Nullmeier, Frank. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 354-72.
Bouckaert, Geert. 2007. ‘Public Management Reforms: the cultural context’. In Theoretische Aspekte einer Managerialistischen Verwaltungskultur. Deutsche Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung, ed. König, Klaus, Reichard, Christoph. Speyer: Speyer: 39-63.
Bouckaert Geert. 2022 (in print). ‘A “Government Positioning System” (GPS) for Reform. In Colombo E., ed. Le istituzioni e le idee. Studi indisciplinati offerti a Fabio Rugge per il suo settantesimo compleanno. Milan: Giuffrè Francis Lefebvre.
Boyne, George. 1999a. ‘Public Services Under New Labour: Back to Bureaucracy?’. Public Money and Management 19(4): 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00126
Boyne, George. 1999b. ‘Viewpoint: Editorial: Markets, Bureaucracy and Public Management’. Public Money and Management 19(4): 1-2. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1467-9302.00181
Bradach, Jeffrey, Robert, L. and Eccles, G. 1991. ‘Price, Authority and trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms’. In Markets, Hierarchies, and Networks: The Co-ordination of Social Life, ed. Thompson, G.L., Levacic, F.R., Mitchell, J. Sage: London: 277-92.
Brewer Brian, Joan Y.H. Leung, andIan Scott. 2014. ‘Valuesin Perspective: Administrative Ethics and the Hong Kong Public Servant Revisited’. Administration & Society 46(8): 908-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713494742
Bull, Hans Peter. 2012. ‘Die Krise der Verwaltungstheorie, Vom New Public Manage-ment zum Governance Ansatz, und wie weiter?’ Verwaltungs-Archiv 103(1): 1-30.
Butcher, John R. and Gilchrist, David J. eds. 2016. The Three Sector Solution, Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Byrkjeflot, Haldor, du Gay, Paul and Greve, Carsten. 2018. ‘What is the “Neo-Weberian State” as a Regime of Public Administration?’ In The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe, ed. Ongaro, Eduardo, and Van Thiel, Sandra. London: Palgrave MacMillan: 991-1009. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_50
Campomori Francesca and Mattia Casula. 2021. ‘Institutionalizing innovation in welfare local services through co-production: toward a Neo-Weberian State?’ Italian Political Science Review/ Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica. Open Access: https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2021.43
Cavatorto, Sabrina and La Spina, Antonia. 2020. The Politics of Public Administration Reform in Italy. Springer/ Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32288-5
Cho, Wonhyuk et al. 2013. ‘A Cross-Country Study of the Relationship between Weberian Bureaucracy and Government Performance’. International Review of Public Administration 18(3): 115-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10 805266
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. 2007. ‘The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform’. Public Administration Review 67(6): 1059-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. eds. 2011. The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Constas, Helen. 1958. ‘Max Weber’s Two Conceptions of Bureaucracy’. American Journal of Sociology 63(4): 400-409. https://doi.org/10.1086/222263
Diefenbach, Thomas and Sillince, John A.A. 2011. ‘Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization’. Organization Studies 32(11): 1515-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611421254
DiMaggio Paul J. and Powell, Walter W. 1983. ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-60. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Drechsler, Wolfgang and Kattel, Rainer. 2008/2009. ‘Towards the Neo-Weberian State? Perhaps, but certainly Adieu NPM’. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy I (2): 95-99.
Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2005. ‘The Re-Emergence of “Weberian” Public Administration after the Fall of New Public Management: The Central and Eastern European Perspective’. Halduskultuur 6: 94-118.
Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2009. ‘Towards a Neo-Weberian European Union? Lisbon Agenda and Public. Administration’. Halduskultuur 10(1): 6-21.
Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2020. Max Weber (1864-2020) and Public Administration Today’. Haduskultuur 20(1): 86-91. https://doi.org/10.32994/hk.v21i1.260
du Gay, Paul. 2000. In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber, Organization, Ethics. London: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217580
du Gay, Paul. 2020. ‘The Bureaucratic Vocation: State/Office/Ethics’. New Formations, vol. 100(6): 77-96. https://doi.org/10.3898/neWF:100-101.06.2020
du Gay, Paul. ed. 2005. The Values of Bureaucracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, N. William and Miller, David Y. 2007. ‘A Critique of the New Public Management and the Neo-Weberian State: Advancing a Critical Theory of Administrative Reform’. Public Organizational Review 7: 345-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-007-0042-3
Durant Robert F. 2011. Global Crises, American Public Administration, and the ‘New Interventionism’ Revisited. Administration & Society 43(3): 267-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711407613
Dusza, Karl. 1989. ‘Max Weber’s Conception of the State’. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 3(1): 71-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01430691
Ejersbo, Niels and Greve, Carsten. 2016. ‘Denmark: towards the Neo-Weberian State in the digital era’. In Hammerschmidt G. et al., Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing: 119-28.
Errami, Youssef and Cargnello, Charles Emmanuelle. 2018. ‘The pertinence of new public management in a developing country: The healthcare system in Morocco’. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration 35: 304-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1417
European Commission. 2018. Communication to the Commission, European Commission Digital Strategy: A digitally transformed, user-focused and data-driven Commission. Brussels, 21.11.2018, C (2018) 7118 final.
European Commission. 2021. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade. Brussels, 9.3.2021, COM(2021) 118 final.
Evans, Peter and Rauch, James E. 1999. ‘Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of “Weberian” State Structures on Economic Growth’. American Sociological Review 64(5): 748-65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657374
Exworthy, Mark, Powell, Martin and Mohan, John. 1999. ‘Markets, Bureaucracy and Public Management: The NHS: Quasi-Market, Quasi-Hierarchy and Quasi-Network?’. Public Money and Management 19(4): 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00184
Farrell, Catherine M. Morris, Jonathan. 1999. ‘Professional Perception of Bureaucratic Change in the Public Sector: GPs, Headteachers and Social Workers’. Public Money & Management, October–December 1999: 31-36. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-9302.00186
Ferrera, Maurizio. 2020. ‘Mass democracy, the welfare state and European integration: A neo-Weberian analysis’. European Journal of Social Theory 23(2): 165-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431018779176
Frederickson, David G., and Frederickson, H. George. 2006. Measuring the Performance of the Hollow State. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Gale, Scott A. and Hummel, Ralph P. 2003. ‘A Debt Unpaid—Reinterpreting Max Weber on Bureaucracy’. Administrative Theory & Praxis 25(3): 409-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2003.11029411
Gaus Nurdiana, Sultan Sultan, and Muhammad Basri. 2017. ‘State Bureaucracy in Indonesia and its Reforms: An Overview’. International Journal of Public Administration 40(8): 658-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1186179
Gilchrist, David J. 2016. ‘Partnerships between Government and the Third Sector at a Subnational Level: The experience of an Australian Subnational Government’. In The Three Sector Solution, Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business. ed. Butcher, John R. and Gilchrist, David J. Canberra: Australian National University Press: 61-78. https://doi.org/10.22459/ TSS.07.2016.04
Goodsell, Charles T. 2005. ‘The Bureau as Unit of Governance’. In The Values of Bureaucracy, ed. Paul du Gay. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 17-40.
Greve, Carsten, Laegreid, Per and Rykkja, L.H. 2016. eds. Nordic Administrative Reforms: Lessons for Public Management. London: Palgrave/Macmillan. https:// doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56363-7
Hajnal György, Miklos Rosta. 2019. ‘A New Doctrine in the Making? Doctrinal Foundations of Sub-National Governance Reforms in Hungary (2010-2014)’. Administration & Society 51(3): 404-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0095399715626202
Hajnal, Gyorgy. 2020. ‘Public Administration in Hungary. Emerging dynamics in an illiberal democracy’. In European Perspectives for Public Administration, ed. Bouckaert, Geert and Jann, Werner. Leuven Leuven University Press: 367-85. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvv417th.23
Henderson, Jeffrey et al. 2007. ‘Bureaucratic Effects: “Weberian” State Agencies and Poverty Reduction’. Sociology 41(3): 515-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0038038507076620
Höpfl, Harro M. 2006. ‘Post-bureaucracy and Weber’s “modern” bureaucrat’. Journal of Organizational Change Management 19(1): 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09534810610643659
Jenei, György. 2008/2009. ‘A Post-Accession Crisis? Political Developments and Public Sector Modernization in Hungary’. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, I(2) Winter: 55-67.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1981. ‘Fear of Bureaucracy: A Raging Pandemic’. Public Adminis-tration Review (Jan-Feb.) 41(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/975718
Kettl, Donald. 2017. ‘The Clumsy War against the “Administrative State”‘. Public Administration Review (September/October 2017): 639-40. https://doi.org/10. 1111/puar.12834
King, Cheryl Simrell and Stivers, Camilla, eds. 1998. Government is Us, Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kirkpatrick, Ian. 1999. ‘Markets, Bureaucracy and Public Management: The Worst of Both Worlds? Public Services without Markets or Bureaucracy’. Public Money and Management. 19(4): 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00183
Klijn, Erik Hans and Koppenjan, Joop. 2015. Governance Networks in the Public Sector. London: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887098
Kostakis, Vasilis. 2011. ‘Commons-Based Peer Production and the Neo-Weberian State: Synergies and Interdependencies’. Haduskultuur-Administrative Culture 12(2): 146-61.
Kuhlmann, Sabine et al.2021. ‘Opportunity management of the COVID-19 pandemic: Testing the crisis from a global perspective’. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 87(3): 497-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852321992102
Kuhlmann, Sabine, Bogumil, Jörg and Grohs, Stephan. 2008/2009. ‘Evaluating Administrative Modernization in German Local Governments: Success of Failure of the “New Steering Model”?’ The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy I(2) Winter: 31-54.
Lichtblau, Klaus. 2022. ‘Review Essay: On the conclusion of the Max Weber Gesamt-ausgabe, A meta-critical review’. Max Weber Studies 22.1: 74-124. https://doi.org/10.15543/ maxweberstudies.22.1.000
Lottholz, Philipp and Lemay-Hébert, Nicolas. 2016. ‘Re-reading Weber, re-concep-tualizing state-building: from neo-Weberian to post-Weberian approaches to state, legitimacy and state-building’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29(4): 1467-1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2016.1230588
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2001. ‘The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For’. Public Administration Review, March-April, 61(2): 144-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00016
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2008-2009. ‘What is a Neo-Weberian State? Reflections on a Concept and its Implications’. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, I(2) Winter: 17-30.
March James G., and Johan P. Olson. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.
March, James and Olson, Johan. 2011. ‘The Logic of Appropriateness’. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. Goodin. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
March, James, and Olson, Johan. 2009. ‘The Logic of Appropriateness’. Arena Working Papers WP 04/09. Oslo: Arena, Centre for European Studies, Uni-versity of Oslo.
Mazzucato, Mariana. 2013. The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths. London: Anthem Press.
Mazzucato, Mariana. 2018. The Value of Everything: making and taking in the global economy. London: Allen Lane.
Mazzucato, Mariana. 2021. Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. London: Allen Lane.
McKinlay, Alan, Carter, Chris and Pezet, Eric. 2012. ‘Governmentality, power and organisation’. Management & Organisational History 7(1): 3-15. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1744935911429414
McMullin Caitlin. 2021. ‘Challenging the necessity of New Public Governance: Co-production by third sector organizations under different models of public management’. Public Administration 99(5): 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm. 12672
Meier, Kenneth J. 1997. ‘Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy’. Public Administration Review (May–June) 57(3): 193-99. https://doi.org/10.2307/976648
Mendes, Joana. 2006. La réforme du système administrative portugais: New Public Management ou Etat Néo-Wéberien? Revue française d’administration publique 2006, 119(3): 533-53. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.119.0533
Meuleman, Louis. 2018. Metagovernance for Sustainability, A Framework for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351250603
Miedzinski, Michal, Mazzucato, Marianna and Ekins, Paul. 2019.’A Framework for Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy Roadmapping for SDGs: The Case of Plastic-Free Oceans’. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper WP 2019-03. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841760.003.0004
Newman, Janet. 2005. ‘Bending Bureaucracy: Leadership and Multi-Level Governance’. In The Values of Bureaucracy, ed. du Gay, Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 191-209.
O’Toole, Laurence J. 1997. ‘The Implications for Democracy in a Networked Bureaucratic World’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory J-PART 7.3: 43-459. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024358
OECD. 2015. The Way Forward. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2018. The organization and functioning of the center of government in OECD countries. Centre Stage, OECD Centers of Government. Paris: OECD.
Olson, Johan P. 1997. ‘Institutional Design in Democratic Context’. The Journal of Political Philosophy 5(3): 203-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00032
Olson, Johan P. 2006. ‘Maybe it is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory J-PART Jan. 16(1): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui027
Ongaro, Edoardo. 2009. Public Management Reform and Modernization, Trajectories of Administrative Change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Palumbo, Antonino and Scott, Alan. 2005. ‘Bureaucracy, Open Access, and Social Pluralism: Returning the Common to the Goose’. In The Values of Bureaucracy. ed. du Gay, Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 281-307.
Peters B. Guy. 2017. ‘Management, management everywhere: whatever happened to governance?’ International Journal of Public Sector Management 30(6/7): 606-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2017-0146
Pollitt, Christopher and Bouckaert, Geert. 2004 (2nd ed.). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 345.
Pollitt, Christopher and Bouckaert, Geert. 2011 (3rd ed.). Public Management Reform, A Comparative Analysis—NPM, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 367.
Pollitt, Christopher and Bouckaert, Geert. 2017 (4th ed.). Public Management Reform, A Comparative Analysis—Into the Age of Austerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press: xix + 388.
Pollitt, Christopher. 2007. ‘Convergence or Divergence: What has been Happening in Europe?’ In New Public Management in Europe: Adaptation and Alternatives, ed. Pollitt, Christopher, Van Thiel, Sandra and Homburg, Vincent. New York: Palgrave McMillan: 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625365_2
Pollitt, Christopher. 2009. ‘Bureaucracies remember, post-bureaucratic organizations forget?’ Public Administration 87(2): 198-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01738.x
Potucek, Martin. 2008/2009. ‘The concept of the Neo-Weberian State confronted by the multi-dimensional concept of governance’. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy I(2) Winter: 83-94.
Powell, Walter. 1991. ‘Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organi-sation’. In Markets, Hierarchies, and Networks: The Co-ordination of Social Life, ed. Thompson G.L., Levacic, F.R. and Mitchell, J. London: Sage: 265-76.
Putnam, Robert D., Robert, Leonardi and Nanetti, Raffaella Y. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400820740
Raadschelders, Jos. 2003. ‘Administrative History’. In Handbook of Public Adminis-tration. ed. Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 161-68.
Ramos, Conrado and Milanesi, Alejandro. 2020. ‘The Neo-Weberian State and the neo-developmentalist strategies in Latin America: the Case of Uruguay’. International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(2): 261-77. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0020852318763525
Randma-Liiv Tiina, and Wolfgang Drechsler. 2017. ‘Three decades, four phases: Public Administration development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1989-2017’. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30(67): 595-605. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2017-0175
Randma-Liiv, Tiina. 2008/2009. ‘New Public Management versus the Neo-Weberian State in Central and Eastern Europe’. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, I (2) Winter: 69-81.
Reed, Michael. 2005. ‘Beyond the Iron Cage?’ In The Values of Bureaucracy. ed. Gay, Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 115-40.
Rhodes, Rod A. 1996. ‘The New Governance: Governing without Government’. Political Studies XLIV: 652-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
Rhodes, Rod A. 1997. ‘From Marketization to Diplomacy: It’s the Mix that Matters’. Public Policy and Administration 12(2): 31-50. https://doi.org/10. 1177/095207679701200204
Riggs, Fred W. 1997. ‘Modernity and Bureaucracy’. Public Administration Review 57(4): 347-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/977318
Ronalds, Paul. 2016. ‘Cross-Sector Working: Meeting the Challenge of Change’. In The Three Sector Solution, Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business. ed. Butcher John R. and Gilchrist, David J. Canberra: Australian National University Press: 337-52. https://doi.org/10.22459/TSS.07.2016.16
Sager, Fritz and Rosser, Christian. 2009. ‘Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy’. Public Administration Review, November–December: 1136-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02071.x
Sager, Fritz et al. 2018. A transatlantic History of Public Administration: Analyzing the USA, Germany and France. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Savage, Mike. 2005. ‘The Popularity of Bureaucracy: Involvement in Voluntary Associations’. In The Values of Bureaucracy, ed. Paul du Gray. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 309-34.
Sekera, June. 2020. ‘The Public Economy: Understanding Government as a Producer’. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper WP 2020-01.
Selznick, P. 1992. The Moral Commonwealth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Serpa, Sandro and Ferreira, Carlos Miguel. 2019. ‘The Concept of Bureaucracy by Max Weber’. International Journal of Social Science Studies 7(2): 12-18. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v7i2.3979
Solli Audun, and Anthony Leysens. 2011. ‘(Re)Conceptualizing the Political Economy of the African State Form: The Strong/Weak Contradiction in Angola’. Politikon 38(2): 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2011.580129
Stivers Camilla. 2000. Bureau Men, Settlement Women, Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era. Laurence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Stivers Camilla. 2001. The listening bureaucrat: responsiveness in public administration. In Democracy, bureaucracy, and the study of administration, C. Stivers. An ASPA Classics Volume. Boulder Col: Westview Press: 222-24. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429501036-15
Stivers Camilla. 2008. Governance in dark times, Practical Philosophy for Public Service. Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Stivers, Camilla. 1998. The Bureau Movement, Seedbed of Modern Public Adminis-tration. In Handbook of Organization Theory and Management, ed. Lynch, T. and Dicker. New York: Marcel Dekker: 259-72.
Stivers, Camilla. 2008. ‘The Significance of “The Administrative State”‘. Public Administration Review (January-February) 68(1): 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00835.x
Stivers, Camilla. ed. 2001. Democracy, Bureaucracy and the Study of Administration. Boulder, Col: Westview Press.
Thompson G.L., Levacic F.R. and Mitchell J. eds. 1991. Markets, Hierarchies, and Networks: The Co-ordination of Social Life. London: Sage.
Thompson, Grahame F. 2003. Between Hierarchies and Markets, The Logic and Limits of Network Forms of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198775270.001.0001
Thompson, Victor A. 1967. Organizations in Action, Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Thompson, Victor A. 1976. Bureaucracy and the Modern World., N.J.: General Learning Press.
Torfing, Jacob et al. 2020. Public Governance Paradigms, Competing and Co-existing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788971225
Trondal Jarle. 2012. ‘On bureaucratic centre formation in government institutions: Lessons from the European Commission’. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(3): 425-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312445021
Weber, Max. 1904. ‘Die “Objektivität” socialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In Max Weber. 1968. Methodologischer Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag: 1-64.
Weber, Max. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der Sozialökonomik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Weber, Max. 1947. Theory of Social and Economic Organisations, trans. A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Max. 1948. ‘Bureaucracy’ in From Max Weber, ed. and trans. C. W. Mills and H.H. Gerth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press.
Weber, Max. 2012. ‘The “Objectivity “ of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy’ in Collected Methodological Writings, ed H.H. Bruun and S. Whimster, trans. H. H. Bruun. London and New York: Routledge.
Whimster, Sam and Lash, Scott. eds. 1987. Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity. London: Allen & Unwin: 1-31.
Whimster, Sam. 2007. Understanding Weber. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203030561
Williamson, O.E. 1985. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel, Asamoah, Kwame and Agyekum Kyeremeh, Thomas. 2016. ‘Therefore, Is Bureaucracy Dead? Making a Case for Complementarity of Paradigms. Public Administration Thinking and Discourse’. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(5): 382-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/019006 92.2015.1015558
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista do Serviço Público
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- A RSP adota a licença Creative Commons (CC) do tipo Atribuição – Uso Não-Comercial (BY-NC).
- A licença permite que outros remixem, adaptem e criem obra licenciada, sendo proibido o uso com fins comerciais.
- As novas obras devem fazer referência ao autor nos créditos e não podem ser usadas com fins comerciais, porém não precisam ser licenciadas sob os mesmos termos dessa licença.
- Ao publicar o artigo na RSP, o autor cede e transfere para a ENAP os direitos autorais patrimoniais referentes ao artigo.
- O artigo publicado na RSP não poderá ser divulgado em outro meio sem a devida referência à publicação de origem.
- O autor que tiver o artigo publicado na RSP deverá assinar o Termo de Concessão de Direitos Autorais (em momento oportuno a editoria da Revista entrará em contato com o autor para assinatura do Termo).
