Public Administration Perspective

Politics and Bureaucracy in Iran's Public Affairs Administration

Document Type : Research Article (with qualitative approaches)

Authors

1 Ph.D. in public administration, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD. candidate in Business Administration, Kish international campus, Tehran University, Kish, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: One of the challenging topics among public administration theorists is the relationship between the two concepts of politics and administration. Various theories have been proposed regarding these two concepts; however, no consensus has been reached, and political science and public administration theorists still struggle to define the boundaries between administration and politics. Today, the concept of the state encompasses both bureaucracy and politics. However, understanding the nature of politics and bureaucracy and their interrelationship is difficult, as each can influence the other. This paper aims to separate the concept of politics from bureaucracy to better understand the extent of their influence. This influence can have positive or negative consequences, depending on the conditions and contexts of different societies. In practice, however, distinguishing between administration and politics is very difficult, and some theorists believe that separating these two concepts is not feasible in practice. Furthermore, this relationship may differ in developed and developing countries, taking on a distinct form. The aim of this paper is to examine and study the relationship between politics and bureaucracy in the public administration of Iran.
Design/ methodology/ approach: The current research adopts a qualitative approach. To achieve the defined objectives, research data were collected through purposive sampling and semi-structured interviews with 11 executive experts from the Ministry of Energy. An inductive thematic analysis method was used to analyze the data and address the research question.
Research Findings: After collecting and analyzing the data, 95 initial codes were identified. These were categorized and re-examined to extract 24 basic themes, ultimately leading to the identification of 7 organizing themes and a network of themes. The organizing themes include the dependency of decisions on personal opinions, consideration of political power in decisions, nepotism in selecting bureaucrats, the short-term nature of bureaucrats' service, the presence of formalism in selecting bureaucrats, the weakness in utilizing scientific findings and experts, and the weak connection between experts and decision-makers. The findings indicate that the public administration and bureaucracy in Iran have deviated from Weber’s ideal bureaucracy. Previous research has shown that most developed countries have closer alignment with Weber's ideal bureaucracy in their public administration, implementing structural features such as administrative hierarchy, specialization, and meritocracy. Studies have shown that better results in public administration can be achieved if politicians' decisions and policies can be separated from the execution and administration of public affairs.
Limitations & Consequences: The final model presented by the researcher may not be generalizable to all public sector organizations.
Practical Consequences: The findings of the current research are based solely on one ministry due to the broad scope of the topic, which may pose limitations in terms of generalizability.
Innovation or value of the Article: Most studies and research conducted to date on the relationship between politics and administration have been focused on developed countries, and the existing literature is predominantly related to developed countries and modern states. Therefore, the results of studies conducted in developing countries can offer both theoretical and practical innovation. The current research examines the relationship between politics and administration in the public administration of Iran, which, as a developing country, allows for deeper and more precise studies. Ultimately, the results can be used to reform the administrative and political systems. Additionally, this research can help address existing challenges in the country's public administration from a comparative studies perspective.
Paper Type: Original Paper
 

Keywords

  1. A. (2011). Bureaucracy and Culture in Iran. Iranian journal of management sciences, 5(19), 1-32. (in persian)
  2. Al-Otaibi, S. M. (1992). Political development, bureaucracy, and Saudi culture. The Florida State University
  3. Ang, Y. Y. (2017). Beyond Weber: Conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy in developing contexts. Regulation & Governance, 11(3), 282-298.
  4. Biabangard, E. (2012).Research Methods in Psychology and Educational Sciences.Tehran: Doran Publications. (in persian)
  5. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
  6. Boudlaie, H., Kenarroodi, M. H., & Ebadi, H. (2023). A phenomenological study of executiveleadership transition: Executive succession planning in-state commercial banks. South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research, 13(2), 10-23.
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  8. Dasandi, N., & Esteve, M. (2017). The politics–bureaucracy interface in developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 37(4), 231-245.
  9. Diyanat,M.(2016). The effect of functionalism theory on the formation of bureaucracy and culture structure in Iran. Quarterly Islamic world political research,3(2),105-125.(in persian)
  10. Ege, J., Bauer, M. (2023). Under what conditions does bureaucracy matter in the making of global public policies?. Governance, 36(4), 1313-1333.
  11. Faghihi, A., & Danaeefard, H. (2011). Bureaucracy and Development in Iran (Historical-Comparative View).
  12. Faizee, C., & Fariman, H. A. (2021). Bureaucratic Foreign Policy of Obama's Administration in Latin America. Iranian Research letter of International Politics,9(2),243-275.(in persian)
  13. Georgiou, I. (2014). Seeing the forest for the trees: An atlas of the politics–administration dichotomy. Public Administration Review, 74(2), 156-175.
  14. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. ECTJ, 30(4), 252-233.
  15. Hansen, K. M., & Ejersbo, N. (2002). The relationship between politicians and administrators–a logic of disharmony. Public Administration, 80(4), 733-750.
  16. Heady, F. (2001). Public Administration, A Comparative Perspective. CRC Press.
  17. Hinterleitner, M., Knill, C. )2023). Bureaucratic overburdening in advanced democracies. Public Administration Review.
  18. Joosse, H., & van Buuren, A. (2023). The marginalization of policy integration: Dynamics of integrated policymaking in the periphery of bureaucracy. Public Policy and Administration,18(4),543-571.
  19. Knill, C.,&Steinebach, Y. (2023). How policy growth affects policy implementation: bureaucratic overload and policy triage. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3),1-28.
  20. Mackey, R. (2022). Politics and Bureaucracy in the Modern State. Doctoral dissertation, Boston College.
  21. Martinez, N. S. (2018). Election Administration within the Sphere of Politics:
  22. How Bureaucracy Can Facilitate Democracy with Policy Decisions. Florida International University.
  23. Mixon Jr, F. G. (2019). A Terrible Efficiency: Entrepreneurial Bureaucrats and the Nazi Holocaust. Springer Nature.
  24. Miller, , Cross, L., & Lopez. M. (2010). Sampling in qualitative research. FBB research group, 19(3), 249-261.
  25. Moynihan, D. P., & Soss, J. (2014). Policy feedback and the politics of administration. Public administration review, 74(3), 320-332.
  26. Nyadera, I. N., & Islam, M. N. (2020). Link between administration, politics, and bureaucracy. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 75(2),60-69
  27.  
  28. Onder, M., & Nyadera, I. N. (2020). The role of non-economic drivers in development planning: The case of South Korea and Turkey. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(4), 283-293.
  29. Overeem, P. (2017). The politics-administration dichotomy: Toward a constitutional perspective. Routledge.
  30. Peters, B. G. (2019). The politics of bureaucracy after 40 years. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 21(3), 468-479.
  31. Rahman, M. S. (2015). Politics-bureaucracy relations, governance and development in Bangladesh: The case of local government. Doctoral dissertation.
  32. Riggs, F. W. (1964). Administration in developing countries: The theory of prismatic society. Public Administration, 44(4), 415-434.
  33. Riggs, F. W. (2006). The prismatic model: Conceptualizing transitional societies. In Comparative Public Administration (pp. 17-60). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  34. Rosenbloom, D. (2008). The politics–administration dichotomy in US historical context. Public administration review, 68(1), 57-60.
  35. Sadeghi,H.(2008). Analysis of politics-administrative discourse with the help of game theory. Doctoral thesis in public administration, Faculty of Management of Alame Tabatabai University.
  36. Shaddel,A.(2006). eflection on bureaucracy in third world countries. Economic magazine ,32(5),33-50.(in persian)
  37. Sadeghi,M.,DanaeiFard,H.,&MostafaZadeh,M.(2017). Understanding the politicization of bureaucracy: a comparative study of its quality, processes and consequences in government management. Strategic policy research,23(6),98-115.(in persian)
  38. Strauss, L. (2019). Leo Strauss on Hegel. University of Chicago Press.
  39. 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.
  40. Ting,M.(2016).politcs and administration. Department of Political Science and SIPA Columbia University.
  41. Vaezi, R. (2021). Criticism of Public and Development Administrations in Iran. Governance and Development Journal, 1(1), 31-43.(in persian)
  42. Vaezi, R. (2018). Criticism of Public and Development Administrations in Iran. Governance and Development, 1(1), 31-43. doi: 71213JIPAA_Volume 1_Issue 1_Pages 31-43 (in persian)
  43. Vares,H.(2007). Rereading the theory of administration: Hermeneutic study of bureaucracy. Public administration doctoral thesis.(in persian)
  44. Warner, B. E. (2001). John Stuart Mill's theory of bureaucracy within representative government: Balancing competence and participation. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 403-413.
  45. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Public Administration Perspective
Volume 15, Issue 2 - Serial Number 58
2024
Pages 63-86