شناسایی دلایل مداخلات خط‌مشی- اداره در جمهوری اسلامی ایران (مطالعه موردی: رابطه قوای مجریه و مقننه 1392-1388)

نوع مقاله: مقاله اصلی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت دولتی دانشگاه طباطبایی

2 استادیار مدیریت دولتی دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

هدف از این پژوهش بررسی دلایل مداخلات خط‌مشی- اداره در ایران و مشکلاتی است که این مداخلات به وجود آورده است، مشکلاتی همچون، سیاست زدگی بوروکراسی، از بین رفتن اصل بی‌طرفی، عدم تخصص گرایی در اداره، ناکارآمدی خط‌مشی‌های مصوب و عدم اجرای کامل آنها توسط اداره. این پژوهش کیفی که رابطه بین مدیران دولتی دولت دهم (1388-1392) با منتخبان سیاسی قوه مقننه را به‌عنوان موردمطالعه برگزیده است، با استفاده از تحلیل مضمون مصاحبه‌های نیمه ساختاریافته با 25 نفر از منتخبان سیاسی مجلس، مدیران دولتی زیرمجموعه قوه مجریه و افرادی که هر دو نقش را تجربه کرده‌اند، با استفاده از انتخاب مشارکت‌کنندگان به روش گلوله برفی انجام‌شده است. نتایج این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که عوامل نهادی و ساختاری که مرتبط به ساختار سیاسی ایران است، عوامل اجتماعی، عوامل شخصیتی و فردی، عوامل اقتضائات سیاسی در آن دوره خاص نقش تعیین‌کننده‌ای به‌عنوان دلایل شکل‌گیری مداخلات خط‌مشی- اداره داشته‌اند که برای رفع مشکلات شکل‌گرفته این عوامل و دلایل باید رفع شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


الف) فارسی

1- دانایی‌فرد، حسن ؛ صادقی، محمدرضا و مصطفی‌زاده، معصومه .(1394). واکاوی و تحلیل تبعات سیاست‌زدگی بوروکراسی در نظام‌‌های سیاسی. فصلنامه اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی: پاییز و زمستان۱۳۹۴، دوره ۹، شماره۲؛ از صفحه 57 تا صفحه 86.

2- طهماسبی، رضا. (1390). درآمدی بر نظریه‌های مدیریت دولتی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.

ب) انگلیسی

3-        Bach, T., & Veit, S. (2016, July). Pathways to the Top: the Consequences of Individual Career Patterns for Recruitment to High Public Office in Germany. In IPSA World Congress (Vol. 23, p. 28).‏

4-        Bach, T., Hammerschmid, G., & Löffler, L. (2015, August). More delegation, more political control? Politicization of senior level appointments in 18 European countries. In EGPA annual conference in Toulouse.‏

5-        Bersch, K., Praça, S., & Taylor, M. M. (2017). State capacity, bureaucratic politicization, and corruption in the Brazilian state. Governance, 30(1), 105-124.‏

6-        Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

7-        Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640-654.‏

8-        Connaughton, B. (2017). Political-administrative relations: The role of political advisers. Administration, 65(2), 165-182.‏

9-        Cooper, C. A. (2016). The politics of bureaucratic mobility: historical changes across public service bargains in Canada's provincial governments.‏ Thesis for degree of Philosophy of Doctor (PhD) political Science, University of Montréal.

10-      ‏Dahlström, C., & Niklasson, B. (2013). The politics of politicization in Sweden. Public Administration, 91(4), 891-907.‏

11-      Dahlström, C., Lapuente, V. and Teorell, J. (2010) Dimensions of Bureaucracy A Cross-National Dataset on the Structure and Behavior of Public Administration. QoG Working Paper Series, 13, pp.3–59.

12-      Demir, T., & Nank, R. (2012). Interaction quality in political-administrative relations in the United States: Testing a multi-dimensional model. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(5), 329-339.‏

13-      Demir, T., & Nyhan, R. C. (2008). The politics–administration dichotomy: An empirical search for correspondence between theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 81-96.‏

14-      Demir, T., & Reddick, C. G. (2012). Understanding Shared Roles in Policy and Administration: An Empirical Study of Council‐Manager Relations. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 526-535.

15-      Demir, T., & Reddick, C. G. (2015). Political Orientation and Policy Involvement of City Managers: An Empirical Study of the Value-Activity Relationship. Public Organization Review, 15(4), 581-598.‏

16-      Demir, T., Reddick, C. G., & Nank, R. (2015). The relationship between public service values and administrative involvement in policymaking. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 79-98.‏

17-      ‏‏‏Gherghina, S., & Kopecký, P. (2016). Politicization of administrative elites in Western Europe: an introduction.

18-      Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and Administration‏: a study in government.‏ New York.

19-      Hartlapp, M. (2016). Integrating across policy sectors: how the wider public impacts on the drafting process of EU trans-border healthcare. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 0020852316648225.‏

20-      Hood, C. and Lodge, M. (2006) The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21-      Huber, J.D. and Lupia, A. (2001). Cabinet instability and delegation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 18–32.

22-      Hulst, R., Mafuru, W., & Mpenzi, D. (2015). Fifteen Years After Decentralization by Devolution: Political‐administrative Relations in Tanzanian Local Government. Public Administration and Development, 35(5), 360-371.

23-      Jacobsen, D. I. (2006). The relationship between politics and administration: The importance of contingency factors, formal structure, demography, and time. Governance, 19(2), 303-323.‏

24-      King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London: Sage.

25-      Kopecký, P., Mair, P. and Spirova, M. (eds.). (2012) Party Patronage and party Government in European Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26-      Krause, R. M., Feiock, R. C., & Hawkins, C. V. (2014). The administrative organization of sustainability within local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 113-127.‏

27-      Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

28-      Maykut, p., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A Philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.

29-      Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2008) The changing colours of the post-communist state: The politicisation of the senior civil service in Hungary. European Journal of Political Research 47(1): 1–33.

30-      Moynihan, D. P., & Soss, J. (2014). Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 320-332.‏

31-      O'Dwyer, C. (2006). Runaway state-building: Patronage politics and democratic development. JHU Press.‏

32-      Öhberg, P., MUNK CHRISTIANSEN, P. E. T. E. R., & Niklasson, B. (2017). Administrative politicization or contestability? How political advisers affect neutral competence in policy processes. Public Administration, 95(1), 269-285.‏

33-      O'Leary, R. (2013). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government, 1st Edition Washington, DC: CQ Press.

34-      Oliveros, V., & Schuster, C. (2016). Merit, Tenure, and Bureaucratic Behavior: Evidence From a Conjoint Experiment in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies, 0010414017710268.‏

35-      Page, E., & Wright, V. (Eds.). (1999). Bureaucratic elites in Western European states. Oxford University Press.‏

36-      Peters, G.B., and Pierre, J. (2004) Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.

37-      Petridou, E. (2014). Theories of the policy process: Contemporary scholarship and future directions. Policy studies journal, 42(S1).‏

38-      Rahman, M. S. (2015). Politics-Bureaucracy Relations, Governance and Development in Bangladesh: The Case of Local Government (Doctoral dissertation).‏

39-      Roman, A. V. (2017). The determinants of public administrators’ participation in policy formulation. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 102-129.‏

40-      Sarker, M. N. I., Bingxin, Y., Sultana, A., & Prodhan, A. Z. M. S. (2017). Problems and challenges of public administration in Bangladesh: pathway to sustainable development. International Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 2(1), 008-015.‏

41-      Sowa, J. E., & Lu, J. (2017). Policy and management: Considering public management and its relationship to policy studies. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 74-100.‏

42-      Svara, J. H. (1999). Complementarity of politics and administration as a legitimate alternative to the dichotomy model. Administration & society, 30(6), 676-705.‏

43-      Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public administration review, 61(2), 176-183.‏

44-      Van Biezen, I. (2003). Political parties in new democracies: Party organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. Springer.‏

45-      Van Biezen, I., & Kopecký, P. (2007). The state and the parties: public funding, public regulation and rent-seeking in contemporary democracies. Party politics, 13(2), 235-254.‏

46-      Wilson, Woodrow. )1887(. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2): 197–222.

47-      Zhang, Y., & Feiock, R. C. (2009). City managers’ policy leadership in council-manager cities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 461-476.