Functional Politicization in the Dutch Senior Civil Service: Evidence from Longitudinal Surveys and Qualitative Research (2007 – 2019)
Author
Abstract
Suggested Citation
DOI: 10.2478/nispa-2020-0014
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- Caspar F. Berg, 2017. "Dynamics in the Dutch policy advisory system: externalization, politicization and the legacy of pillarization," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 63-84, March.
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.- Nathalie Schiffino & Kristian Krieger, 2019. "Advisory bodies and morality policies: does ethical expertise matter?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 191-210, June.
- Caner Bakir, 2023. "The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 419-439.
- Jean Philippe Décieux, 2021. "The Dialectic of Transnational Integration and National Disintegration as Challenge for Multilevel Governance," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
- Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
- Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.
- Sedlačko Michal & Staroňová Katarína, 2018. "Internal ministerial advisory bodies: An attempt to transform governing in the Slovak Republic," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, June.
- Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.
More about this item
Keywords
polarization; functional politicization; senior civil servants; political-administrative dichotomy; bureaucratic powers;All these keywords.
Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:njopap:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:49-73:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.