Compare the tradition of public administration within statist France to that of the UK - Essay Example

The Tradition of Public Administration in France and the UK: A Comparison Introduction The origins of contemporary West European administrations could be sought in the European royal households during the absolute era; while the crucial period of their development had been the nineteenth century, with its twin phenomena of industrial revolution and mass urbanisation (Allum, 1995). The public administration in all present-day western European states, most notably France and the United Kingdom, is mainly characterised by its complexity and magnitude – what Allum (1995) calls ‘bigness’ – whether in terms of departmental organisation, matters dealt with, money spent, or the sheer number of employees involved. Thus, both countries’ public administrations bear certain similarities to each other, which could be attached to the similar processes that have run through their societies, hence more or less overlapping challenges faced by the French and British political classes. On the other hand, there are differences in terms of institutional structures of administrative control, social area and methods of administrative elites’ recruitment, government coordination systems, etc.. The sections below examine the traditions of public administration in France and the United Kingdom in order to identify both their differences and similarities, as well as the factors that brought them about. Historical Background According Weber’s concept, bureaucracy is the actual ruler in the modern state, being considered the most developed form of “rationally created legal authority” (Weber, 1922, p.223). Its powers and tasks, according to Weber (1922), are characterised by the following specific features: a non-patrimonial and impersonal character, a hierarchical organisation, a precisely regulated specific career structure, and security of employment (Allum, 1995). This concept was questioned by American functionalists in the 1930s – including Merton, Gouldner, etc. – for being too optimistic and neglecting the ‘human factor’ and the informal relations within complex organisations (Allum, 1995). In the 1950s, the neo-rationalists – Simon, Lindblom, and most notably Crozier – criticised the notion of ‘one best way’ and replaced it with the principle of ‘bounded rationality’, which became the basis for Crozier’s theory of bureaucratic forms, with the power struggle as the centrepiece of this approach (Allum, 1995). In practice, according to the general view, it was Napoleon who established the first real public administration in Europe, not only in France but also in other European states which became part of his vast empire (Allum, 1995). The reorganisation of both central and territorial administrations, with the introduction of annual budgets, rationalisation of tax collection, reorganisation of the judicial apparatus and the armed forces, as well as the reform of the educational system, were the constituent parts of Napoleonic administrative system (Allum, 1995). Unlike France, Britain had actually to wait until 1854 – particularly the Northcote-Trevelyan report – to establish a modern administration; its pre-nineteenth century central public administration had been mainly regulatory (Kingdom, 1990; Allum, 1995). During the course of the nineteenth century, under the pressure of certain new phenomena, like the rapidly growing industrialisation, urbanisation and social change, the public administration was considerably extended, as both size and scope (Allum, 1995). Thus, by the end of the nineteenth century, the number of ministerial departments almost doubled, assuming responsibility for a whole host of new activities and functions, including social and labour problems such as working conditions, accident insurance, public health, social welfare, etc. (Allum, 1995). The period between 1914 and 1945 witnessed a further increase in public activity, while after the end of World War II this trend considerably accelerated; the growth of public intervention in society brought about proliferation of a series of new autonomous public agencies (Allum, 1995). The net result was an extremely complex administrative-institutional environment which more or less persisted throughout the twentieth century (Allum, 1995). Ministerial Departments and Special Agencies Being still the core of the central administration in both France and Britain, the number of ministerial departments varied over time – from 12 in Britain and 10 in France in 1849 to 22 and 42 respectively in 1982 (Rose, 1984; Allum, 1995). As a rule, the reasons for the changes in both countries are political – whether due to “the wish to entrust certain responsibilities to particular politicians” or signalling the government’s determination to tackle a particular issue (Allum, 1995). Generally speaking, each department is hierarchically organised as follows – being directed by a minister, who is politically responsible for his department’s activity, the structure is comprised of divisions, each and every one with a specific sector of responsibility (Allum, 1995). The divisions are headed by senior civil servants who are the highest officials in the respective sectors; the divisions are divided into subdivisions, each being run by a higher civil servant subordinate to the head of division, while the subdivisions are divided into sections, etc. (Allum, 1995). In France, each head of division is responsible to respective minister for his sector, with the exception of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Posts; thus, the coordination between departmental divisions in France is considered a political, rather than administrative problem, in contrast to Britain (Allum, 1995). In turn, the minister is more directly involved via his ministerial cabinet; the latter consists of some fifteen higher civil servants providing the minister with advice and ideas as well as assisting him in running the ministry (Allum, 1995). Quite paradoxically indeed, the centralisation of ministerial power in French administration more often than not results in dispersion of effective power, hence confusion and fragmentation. In Britain, the personal offices of British ministers are much smaller than its French counterparts – up to five persons – whose activity is limited to routine administrative tasks and PR; while the permanent under-secretary, who is a top civil servant, is directly responsible to the respective minister for his department affairs (Allum, 1995). The role of the special agencies and public enterprises is to undertake tasks deriving from the increasing public intervention in society and the development of the welfare state (Allum, 1995). In Britain, there are public corporations, like BBC, and public companies with the state as a sole owner; in the French case, four types of commercial public bodies enjoy varying degree of autonomy from the government. The ministerial attempts to increase the departmental control over public bodies are considered a source of tension between departments and public firms (Allum, 1995). Two specific groups of public bodies could be identified – public agencies with regulatory or supervisory functions and the so-called ‘task force’ created to tackle specific problems; these groups, however, by no means exhaust all kinds of public bodies and special agencies in both Britain and France (Allum, 1995). Institutions of Control and Coordination The British system of administrative control is grounded in the constitutional doctrine – even though Britain does not have a written constitution in terms of a formally designated document – of ministerial accountability to the parliament for both their actions and those of their departments (Kingdom, 1990; Allum, 1995). Thus, the control over the British administration is considered exceptionally political and increasingly subjected to political expedience (Allum, 1995). Due to certain practical inefficiency in carrying out such control, the parliament endeavoured to create new tools in order to improve it; two select committees – the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee – along with the ombudsman established by parliament in 1967, are especially important in that regard (Allum, 1995). The complete picture of the British institutions for administrative control include other select committees specialised in various subjects and the ordinary courts, supplemented by a system of administrative tribunals considering disputes between citizens and public bodies (Allum, 1995). In France, the central administrative court, Conseil d’Etat, and the local administrative courts are competent to resolve disputes between and the administration, as well as between different administrative units (Allum, 1995). They can annul a decision in the case of abuse of power or for procedural defect, as well as can investigate the motives behind administrative decisions (Allum, 1995). Additionally, there are administrative courts that are responsible for the state accounts and for supervising departmental audits. The system of administrative courts has been attacked as slow and formalistic, which led to the establishment of the Office du Mediateur – a version of the ombudsman – in 1972 (Allum, 1995). However, the most control over the administration nowadays comes from the government – whether a cabinet or council of ministers – in both France and Britain; on the other hand, as a rule, the bulk of government decisions are taken within a set of institutions outside the government, while the latter confirms those decisions in its formal meetings (Allum, 1995). These institutions include cabinet committees – over 200 in Britain – and interministerial committees in France, with their permanent and ad hoc subcommittees and working groups, all more or less performing the task of securing the agreement amongst the parties concerned in their sector (Allum, 1995). The British Cabinet and its committees are serviced by a secretariat which is a body of considerable importance as well as part of the Civil Service; in France, a similar key institution is the secretariat du gouvernement (Kingdom, 1990; Allum, 1995). The government coordination in France is conducted via co-operation between the presidency, the secretary-general of the government and the cabinet of the prime minister’s cabinet. The Civil Service and the Administrative Elite As a rule, civil services are agents of governments, being established with the sole purpose of implementing the policies of the state (Kingdom, 1990). According to Kingdom, the very term ‘civil service’ has a British ring, referring to the Indian Civil Service which exercised the British colonial rule in India (1990). As of 1990s, the British civil service is organised on a departmental principle, with some sixteen major and a variety of small departments; this structure is not fixed constitutionally and could be freely amended by the Prime Minister in office (Kingdom, 1990). Given the fact that some major departments, like the Treasury and the Home Office, have a long history dating back to 18th century or so, it’s obvious that there is a degree of stability (Kingdom, 1990). The British civil service comprises four classes of civil servants – administrative, executive, clerical and messengerial class – which correspond to the French A, B, C and D classes (Allum, 1995). In both cases, the structure not only reflects the pattern of educational requirements for civil servants, but also corresponds to the tasks carried out by modern public administration – the highest class, which accounts for 5 per cent of civil servants, is concerned with policy-making; the second class – 30 per cent of civil servants – perform the so-called routine tasks, namely the management of ordinary administration and supervision of subordinate personnel; while the third class, accounting for 50 per cent of the civil servants, performs “mechanical tasks”, like typewriting, accounting, etc. (Allum, 1995). The rest 15 per cent constitute the fourth class which includes chauffeurs, porters, messengers, etc. (Allum, 1995). The Fulton report in the 1960s caused a reorganisation of the class structure in Britain, which was replaced by the so-called open structure in 1972, at least in theory, because the old three classes with three point of entry remained in practice (Allum, 1995). The behaviour of civil servants in Britain is regulated by an informal, non-legal in character code of conduct, due to their formal capacity as ‘servants of the crown’, which means that they have no contractual rights, enforceable in courts; the French civil servants’ conditions of service are regulated by public law (Allum, 1995). In France, civil servants can stand for parliamentary candidates, and, if elected, go on unpaid leave until the end of their term in office; their British counterparts have to resign from the service and are not allowed to be reintegrated (Allum, 1995). This would help explain why many French civil servants embark on a career in politics, in contrast to the political neutrality of the vast majority of British civil servants (Allum, 1995). As a rule, each country’s administrative elite – a restricted group of higher civil servants – is characterised by four criteria: social origin and status; modalities of recruitment, socialisation, and career patterns; opened or closed character; and generalists-specialists relation (Panebianco, 1986, as cited in Allum, 1995). Thus, the social base of high civil servants’ recruitment is considered extremely limited – in France, there is a 50-per cent rate of family recruitment – while the pattern of recruitment is centralised, via the grands ecoles system, which monopolised the formation of the French top administrative personnel (Allum, 1995). In Britain, the recruitment system is centralised too – the Civil Service Commission – but there is no systematic education system for senior civil servants, such as that existing in France (Kingdom, 1990; Allum, 1995). Instead, a strong emphasis on “Oxbridge arts graduates” and “the accent on the candidate’s ‘character’ and on-the-job training”, have formed a social elite of professional administrators with a keen group sense; which, was reflected in the Fulton Inquiry of the late 1960s (Allum, 1995). Conclusion In a nutshell, the major differences between the British and French tradition of public administration could be classified into four groups, namely structural, differences in legal status, political bias and participation, and social area of recruitment. There is also more or less a sharp contrast between the British system of collegiate government and the French non-collegiate one, despite certain exceptions to the rule (Allum, 1995). All these variations could be considered a result of the different political setting in either of the two countries, which includes the long history of political turbulence in France and related need for stability, hence the concept of ‘the State’ as the centrepiece of French political thought, as well as the differing concepts of individual liberty and sovereignty (Kingdom, 1990). The similarities between French and British traditions of public administration mainly stem from the similar processes that have run through their societies; thus, for example, between the 1960s and 1970s, both Britain and France embarked on devising the “most administratively efficient” organisations for various “policy areas”, which, in turn, gave rise to a number of experiments creating the so-called ‘superministries’ (Allum, 1995). All in all, as Kingdom (1990) points out, the French and English tradition of public administration could be considered derivatives of the nature of the respective polity, reflecting the values and norms of the societies in question. References Allum, Percy, 1995. State and Society in Western Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers. Kingdom, E.J., ed., 1990, The Civil Service in Liberal Democracies. London: Routledge. Rose, R., 1984. Understanding Big Government. London: Sage Publications. Weber, Max, (1922) 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Read More