Understanding the Role of Bureaucratic Politics in Public Policy Implementation in Iran: Case study of the Law on the Implementation of General Principles of Article 44 of the Constitution

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor Department of Public Administration, Management and accounting faculty, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration and Manaegement, Faculty of Management and accounting, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Iran

3 Student of Public Policy, Department of Public Administration and Manaegement, Faculty of Management and accounting, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran Iran

Abstract

The implementation of public policies faces many problems. Implementation problems are rooted in a number of factors, including bureaucratic politics. The purpose of the present study is to explain the role of bureaucratic politics in the implementation of privatization law in Iran. The approach of this research is qualitative, and the method of qualitative content analysis has been used. Data collection tools were semi-structured interviews and Fifteen of the privatization managers and practitioners were selected for the interview. This study showed that bureaucrats lose significant benefits by privatization. In general, they care about their personal interests. They refuse to accept responsibility and execute risky verdicts. In order to safeguard their interests, they try to influence the privatization policy by distorting and censoring the firms' information, misinterpreting the law, failing to properly perform their duties, improperly enforcing the law, and creating the wrong structure and organization. Therefore, one of the main obstacles to the implementation of the privatization policy in Iran is bureaucratic politics. Understanding the actions and behaviors of bureaucrats and using appropriate strategies to manage them can reduce the difficulties of implementing this policy and increase the likelihood of its success.

Keywords

References

1- آل عمران، رویا و آل عمران، سیدعلی (1390). خصوصی سازی و سیاست‌های کلی اصل 44 قانون اساسی. مجله اقتصادی- ماهنامه بررسی مسائل و سیاستهای اقتصادی. شماره 12: 88- 73.
2- البرز، بنفشه و حقیقی­وند، سارا (1389).  اجتناب از فساد اداری در خصوصی سازی. نامه اتاق بازرگانی. شماره 510 : 39-28.
3- طباطبایی یزدی، رویا و مافی، فرزانه (1386). روش‌های اجرایی شدن سیاست­های کلی اصل 44. مرکز تحقیقات استراتژیک. راهبرد شماره 46: 255-304.
4- کمیجانی، اکبر و همکاران(1382).  ارزیابی عملکرد سیاست خصوصی سازی در ایران. وزارت امور اقتصادودارایی، معاونت امور اقتصادی. چاپ اول.
5- میرزمانی، اعظم؛ اسحاقی، محمد؛ کدخدا، نرگس. (بی تا). راهنمای عملی تهیه پیش­نویس برنامه­های ملی با تاکید بر بهبود اجرا. در دست انتشار.
6- نیومن، ویلیام لاورنس. (1393). روشهای پزوهش اجتماعی. فقیهی، ابوالحسن. عسل، آغاز. تهران: انتشارات ترمه. چاپ دوم.
7- هاولت، مایکل و ام رامش. (1380). مطالعه خط مشی عمومی. منوریان، عباس و ابراهیم گلشن. تهران: مرکز آموزش مدیریت دولتی.
8 - Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown
9 - Allison, Graham.T. and Morton H. Halperin (1972). Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. World Politics, 24, pp 40-79
10 - Bowornwathana, Bidhya and Ora-orn, Poocharoen. 2010. Bureaucratic Politics and Administrative Reform: Why Politics Matters. Public Organization Review 10:303-321
11 - Bradley, Faith. William, D. Schreckhise. Daniel, E Chand. (2017). Explaining States’ Responses to the REAL ID Act the Role of Resources, Political Environment, and Implementor Attitudes in Complying with a Federal Mandate. journal of the Knowledge Economy 8: 877-897
12 - Dahill – Brown, Sara E. and Lesley, Lavery. 2012. Implementing Federal Policy: Confronting State Capacity and Will. Politics & Policy, 40: 557-592.
13 - Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
14 - Frederickson, H. George, Kevin B. Smith, Christopher W. Larimer and Michael J. Licari. 2012. The Public Administration Theory Primer. Boulder: Westview Press.
15 - Hoepfl, M.C. 1997. Choosing qualitative research: a primer for technology education researchers, Journal of Technology Education, 9: 47-63.
16- Hsiu-Fang, Hsieh and Shannon, Sarah. E. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 15:1277-1288.
17- Ikeanyibe, Okechukwu Marcellus. 2018. Bureaucratic Politics and the Implementation of Liberalization Reforms in Nigeria: A Study of the Unbundling and Reorganization of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. Politics and Policy 46:263-294.
18- Joaquin, M. Ernita.2009. Bureaucratic Adaptation and the Politics of Multiple Principals in Policy Implementation. The American Review of Public Administration. 39: 246-268.
20- Kraft, Michael E. and Scott, Furlong. 2004. Public policy: politics, Analysis and Alternatives. Washington, D.C. CQ Press/Sage.
21- Kvale, Steinar. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22 - Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: CA: Sage.
23 - Niskanen, William. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
25 - Roulston, Kathryn. 2010. Considering quality in qualitative interviewing.  Qualitative Research, 10:199-228.
26 - Tullock, Gordon. 1965. The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
27 - Van De Walle, Nicolas.1989. Privatization in Developing Countries: A Review of the Issues. World Development. 17: 601-615.
28 - Yusran, Yusran, Muhammad Alif K. Sahide, Supratman Supratman, Adrayanti Sabar, Max Krott, Lukas Giessen. 2017. The empirical visibility of land use conflicts: From latent to manifestconflict through law enforcement in a national park in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 62: 302–315.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 5, Issue 4
March 2020
Pages 57-73

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics