Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
VALUES AND MOTIVATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: PUBLIC
SERVICE MOTIVATION IN AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE
PERSPECTIVE (DRAFT)
By Wouter Vandenabeele
Prof. Dr. Annie Hondeghem
Dr. Jeroen Maesschalck
Em. Prof. Dr. Roger Depré
Public Management Institute
Catholic University Leuven
Introduction
Disinterested behavior is an important characteristic of civil services. In academic public
administration, public service motivation and similar concepts are becoming increasingly important in
explaining this kind of behavior. In this study, we try to determine the nature of public service
motivation by examining the original concept as developed by Perry (1996) and compare it to the
French and the Dutch ideas. We also try to fit public service motivation into a larger framework
(integrating it into Public Administration) and we offer suggestions for further research on the topic.
Public service motivation in Public Administration
Public service and rational choice
Due to the ‘New Public Management’ upsurge, rational choice theories are occupying an important
position within public administration nowadays. Being one of the central themes on which New Public
Management is grounded, rational and public choice theories are frequently applied within
comtemporary public administration (Dunleavy and Hood 1994;Greuning 2001;Mae Kelly 1998).
Rational choice theories (as well as public choice theories) are mainly focused on explaining
behavioral outcomes such as ‘shirking’, ‘subverting’ or other examples of moral hasard (Di Iulio
1994). This type of behavior is equally characteristic of public bureaucracies as it is of private
bureaucracies. Hence, rational choice based theories are just as applicable to private sector experiences
as they are of importance within public administration. Testimony to this is also the long tradition
these theories have in private sector management.
However, the explanatory power of these theories when analyzing specific ‘public’ or government-
related behavior remains limited. Although it is widely described by public administrationists
(Frederickson 1997;Perry and Wise 1990;Di Iulio 1994), behavior like self-sacrifice, realizing the
public interest and altruism is very hard to explain in terms of rational choice. In trying to explain this
kind of actions, the concept of public service motivation was developped as a counterweight to the
self-interested motivation of rational choice theories. This concept should provide more openings to
explain the disinterested (not self-interested) behavior often displayed by public servants. Perry
offered if not the first, certainly the most complete operationalization of this concept (1990),
subsequently developping a measurement scale of public service motivation (Perry 1996) and a
framework for a theory on public service motivation (Perry 1997;Perry 2000). Subsequently, several
other authors started doing research on this topic, resulting in a stream of research on public service
motivation (Houston 2000;Brewer, Selden and Facer II 2000;Lewis and Alonso 2001;Gabris and Simo
1995;Lewis and Frank 2002;Lewis and Alonso 2001;Naff and Crum 1999).
2
Two problems concerning Public Service motivation
When discussing public service motivation, two remarks have to be made. First, it is important to note
that in spite of the fact that public service motivated behavior is generally acknowledged in the field of
Public Administration, the definition of public service motivation itself is not as widely accepted.
Perry defines public service motivation as ‘an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives
grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions (1996)’. Although various authors adopt this
definition in their studies, several others have developped their own definition of public service
motivation. Brewer and Selden (1998) describe public service motivation as the motivational force
that induces individuals to perform meaningful public service. Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) define it
as ‘a general altruistic motivation to serve the interests of a community of people, a state, a nation or
humankind’, contrasted to task-motivation and mission motivation. Moreover, some, often non-
american, authors do not apply the term ‘ Public Service Motivation’ at all when studying public
service motivated behavior. Chanlat (2003) writes about ‘l’éthique du bien commun’ when trying to
explain disinterested behavior in a Canadian environment, whereas British public administrationists
talk about public service ethics or public service ethos (Brereton and Temple 1999;Pratchett and
Wingfield 1996).
Second, and more important, is the observation that the content of concepts, similar to public service
motivation, differs according to nation or region. In a study comparing five international regions,
Norris (2003) finds a different motivational impact of public service values according to region (some
had no impact at all). Our own research demonstrated that Perry’s measurement model of public
service motivation could not be replicated satisfactorily in a Belgian environment. Some of the
dimensions that were found by Perry, could not be reconstructed (Vandenabeele and Hondeghem
2003). When trying to retrace the origins of public service motivation, Perry (1997) already pointed
out various types of socialization out as being responsible for the presence of public service
motivation. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that different institutional settings deliver
different conceptions of public service motivation.
These differences in both terminology and content complicate the research on public service
motivation enormously. The existence of similar but not identical concepts to explain disinterested
public behavior, varying from one institutional environment to another, makes it very difficult to
conduct macro-level comparative studies. It would be as if we were comparing apples with oranges.
An overarching definition of public service motivation
In order to be able to compare apples with apples, an umbrella definition of public service motivation
could clear out the first problem, the semantic puzzle. With a multitude of applied terms in mind, the
definition should not only cover public service motivation in the narrow sense, but also other types of
3
value-laden behaviorial determinants such as ethics. As they are often based on trans-temporal, trans-
cultural values (especially virtue-ethics, see Hart 1994), ethics can play an important role in our
concept of public service motivation. This approach also brings ‘regime-values’ into our equation,
which Frederickson and Hart (1985) hold responsible for the existence of the ‘patriottisme of
benevolence’, a specific type of disinterested behavior. After all, even Perry (1990) referred to
motives, rather than to motivation in defining public service motivation.
The most basic element in our definition is that it does not need to fit within rational or public choice
theories, which are based on self-interest. First, a definition should go beyond self-interest or
organizational interest. Although it is self-evident, references to types of both interest are very
important elements of our definition. It assures that the reference framework is not the individual, and
even not the individual’s organization, but a larger framework (this also demonstrates that something
that is in the interest of a public organization, for instance the department of Defense, is not the same
as something that is in the public interest). It does not necessarily mean that individual or
organizational interests cannot be along similar lines as the public interest. However, when in
competition, the public interest should prevail, otherwise it would not be a matter of public service
motivation. Second, following Rainey and Steinbauer (1999), public service motivation can refer to
communities, states, nations or humankind. The size of the entity does not matter, only the fact that it
should be political of nature. This implies that the main relationship between people who belong to
that entity is political, and therefore situated within a political system. It rules out romantic, religious
or friendly relationships as a basis for public service motivation (however, because of the interaction
between different systems, it is possible that political entities are religiously inspired).
For the last part of our umbrella, we must turn ourselves to motivational theory. According to
Heckhausen (1991), motivation is the general term that covers all processes of which the realization of
targetted behavior is the core element. Motivation only exists in interaction of individual values and an
actual situation that enables a person to realize these values (targetted behavior). It is in fact an
4
intermediary variable between the interaction of individual values and an opportunity for behavior on
the one hand and behavior on the other hand. In the case of public service motivation, this interaction
obviously should be public of nature (situated within public institutions). The behavior resulting from
public service motivation is therefore both public and intended.
When we incorporate these elements in a definition, one can define public service motivation as ‘the
belief, the values and the attitudes1 that go beyond self-interest or organizational interest, that concern
the interest of a larger political entity, and that induce, through public interaction, motivation for
targetted action’. In this definition, we hope to cover as many aspects as possible of the public service
motivation debate.
Comparative analysis: France and the Netherlands
Such an overarching definition is a major tool when studying public services motivation. It enables us
to evaluate in a systematic way which aspects relate to public service motivation and which do not.
Therefore it is an important aid in selecting relevant information. This allows us to turn ourselves
towards our initial research question:’ What are the differences with respect to content when observing
public service motivation in different settings ?’.
Developping a framework of analysis
Within the scope of this article, we explore the differences in public service motivation between the
original American concept and a Dutch and a French variant. We study the American concept because
it is dominant in international public administration literature. Due to its original approach, is has a lot
of impact on the practice and theory building of public administration. Therefore, it cannot be left out
of any comparative analysis on public service motivation. However, in our analysis it is not used as a
third case. Rather it is used as a framework of analysis that enables us to structure the French and the
Dutch case. The Dutch variant is brought into the analysis because an important feature of Dutch
public administration is that it tries to ‘normalize’ itself as much as possible. ‘Normalization’ in this
context is the alignment of the public and private sector, creating as little differences as possible. The
French, then again, have a distinctive view on public administration and on the role of the state and the
public servant in particular. In France there is a huge difference between government and the private
sector.
Perry’s model is well-documented and methodologically sound. The nature and impact of public
service motivation in the United Stateshave been studied to quite a large extent, which should make it 1 By applying the terms ‘beliefs, values and attitudes’ we try to cover as much value-laden behavioral determinants as possible, avoiding to miss out discipline-bound concepts as ethos, ethics, attitudes, etc… which all have a value component.
5
fairly easy to gather relevant information. However, in France and in the Netherlands, this is not the
case. This is where our umbrella definition comes in. By relying on ‘beliefs, values and attitudes’, we
have broadened our horizon to every value-laden behavioral determinant. All of these determinants
can act in a motivational fashion whenever an apt opportunity presents itself. By studying ‘public’
value-laden determinants, we can obtain a clear image of what may be the content of public service
motivation in these countries. Nevertheless, as no single hypothesis will be put to the test, it still
remains an exploratory research.
Our main resource of information will be secondary literature on governmental values, ethics or
attitudes, as long as something can be considered as a value-laden determinant. However, this
information can be normative or empirical, how it should be or how it is. As it is not possible to make
a distinction between these levels, both of them will indiscrimenately be incorporated in the analysis.
After all, this kind of normative information can be considered as a carrier of institutional values, and
thus as an empirical indicator of the presence of a certain set of values within an institution (Scott
2001).
The analysis described in this article in fact consisted of three steps. First, the content of the individual
items of the four dimensions of Perry was made. This provided us with a basis to describe every
dimension in terms of a few core elements, constructing our framework of analysis. Second, a
literature review of motivation and value-related research was conducted. The focus of this review was
to obtain as much information as possible on value-laden determinants that are present in the French
and Dutch public services. In order to obtain a describtion the administrative values of France and the
Netherlands in similar terms as we described the public service motivation in our first step, this
information was clustered on the basis of content, . Finally, both sets of core elements were layed
together in order to make a profound and systematic comparison of public service motivation.
Public service motivation according to Perry
Perry has published a series of articles on public service motivation. In doing this, he adopted a rather
American operationalization in order to obtain the best possible measurement model. In an early
article, he also linked public service motivation explicitely to American government (Perry and Wise
1990). This complicates our comparative effort, because typical American concepts can be difficult to
translate.
Perry and Wise (1990 : 368) describe public service motivation as ‘an individual’s predisposition to
respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions’. The motives should be
understood as psychological deficiencies or needs. Perry (1996) sums up six such motives. A first
motive is the attraction to public policy making. A second motive is the commitment to the public
6
interest. A third motive is a sense of civic duty. Fourth is a sense of social justice. The fifth motive is
compassion, refering to the patriotism of benevolence, ‘an extensive love of all people within our
political boundaries and the imperative that they must be protected in all of the basic rights granted to
them by the enabling documents’ (Frederickson and Hart 1985 : 549). The final motive is self-
sacrifice, the willingness to substitute service to others for tangible personal rewards. When
operationalizing his measurement scale, Perry’s conception of public service motivation is reduced to
four dimensions instead of six. Only attraction to public policy making, commitment to the public
interest and civic duty, compassion and self-sacrifice remain. From that article on, public service
motivation is institutionalized in American public administration theory. Other authors adopt Perry’s
definition or scale when studying the concept. Authors sometimes develop their own survey-items
(sometimes due to lack of resources to use the entire scale), but generally they don’t stray from the
path Perry has layed out. Therefore (and because of his sound methodological approach) Perry’s
measurement scale can be considered as representing the general accepted model of public service
motivation within the United States. Although it might be possible that other motives occur in the
United States, public service motivationas conceived by Perry is the framework of our analysis. For
the sake of clarity of analysis, no other elements will be added to this model.
Description of the cases
As mentioned before, the cases are not so clear-cut in the French and the Dutch situation. In our search
for administrative values, we must rely on the specificity of the state and the role and expectations of
public servants. The value pattern in which they are embedded might act in a motivational manner and
thus provide us with information about the content of public service motivation.
The history of the French state reads as a handbook of political science. Almost every conceivable
type of government has been adopted since the revolution of 1789. In this rapid succession of
governments, often not separated by more than a decade, the civil service was the only constant factor
on the political horizon, compensating for the instability of the other political players. The relative
vacuum in which the French civil service operated, enabled it to build and consolidate a strong
position within French society and thus constitute a binding factor of the French nation (Rouban
2001). It also enabled another important feature of the French civil service fully to develop : the
administrative and technical corps. These corps gather the senior civil servants of the most important
administrative bodies to protect their position and their privileges (Kessler 1986). By restraining the
entrance through educational selection, a closed, elitist identity prevails within the senior positions of
government. By coupling selection and education, this identity is easily passed on to the next
generation (Vigouroux 1997). The lower levels of government find it very hard to infiltrate these
corps. This causes a vault line in the public service and in the replication of public service values,
7
which has to be kept in mind when analyzing the French case. However, as the corps, especially the
grandes corps occupy such an important position, the influence of the lower civil service on the public
service is minor. Also, the establishment of the European Union has caused the civil service to rock on
its foundations. The neo-liberal approach towards the civil service clashed with the dominant French
approach. However, in spite of the many indictments that have been uttered (Rouban 2004;Bodiguel
1989), in the last decade, the classic civil service values seem to survive.
Contrary to French government, Dutch government has had a rather stable monarchy for the last
century. Like most western countries, it showed a continuous increase in the size of government. Since
the 1870s it has evolved from a nightwatch man state to a welfare state. Social and religious
movements contributed to the expansion of government authorities and by consequence to the number
of public servants. In the 20th century, the succession of wars and other crises contributed to a further
growth of government (van der Meer and Dijkstra 2000). This increased complexity was not overcome
by a more integrative coordination capacity. Instead, the separate ministries started to focus more on
themselves in order to cope. Because of this compartmentalization, coordination decreased even more.
This also caused the public interest to split up between the separate ministries and thus fragmenting
the public interest. Although government occupies a prominent place in Dutch society, contemporary
civil service practices are very similar to private sector practices. On the one hand, this is because of
the stress on the labor market. The government had to compete fiercely with private sector employers
for potential employees. Dutch government tried to cope with this challenge by adopting private sector
techniques. On the other hand, the public employees and unions tried to obtain an equal treatment by
negotiating private sector personnel systems as much as possible. This trend is called ‘normalization’,
where private employment is regarded as being the standard (Vandermeulen and Hondeghem 2000).
However, early and recent empirical evidence demonstrate that public service motivation still is a
relevant concept in Dutch public administration (van Raaij, Vinker and van Dun 2002).
Dimensions of Perry’s model of public service motivation compared
Table 1: attraction to politics and policymaking
United States France The Netherlands
Policy making
Care of politicians
Policy making
Primacy of politics
Contempt of politicians
Policy making
Primacy of politics
Loyalty to policians
8
The first dimension of Perry’s public service motivation model is the attraction to policy making and
politics. He mainly refers to the impact and status of politics and policy-making. However, Selden and
Brewer (2000) find attraction to politics is not a motivational element in the United States.
French public servants hold a rather important role within French political institutions (Lhomme
1966;Gournay, Kesler and Siwek-Pouydessau 1967). At the same time, they are considered to be
operating under the authority of elected politicians (Kessler 1985;Pisier 1989;Thoenig 1988). There is
a clear primacy of politics over administration. However, this political primacy does not translate itself
into loyalty towards politicians, as there is a certain degree of contempt towards politicians. French
public servants value politicians a lot less than they value their technocratic peers (Rouban 2001).
In the Netherlands, (senior) public servants are attracted to policy-making. Meanwhile, they are also
considered to display a fair amount of reluctance towards policy making (Van Braam 1974). Here too,
in spite of the attraction to policy making, the primacy of politics plays an important role. Contrary to
France, this primacy generates a loyalty towards politicians. Due to the compartmentalization of
government, this applies particularly to the politician in charge of the ministry that employs them
(Noordegraaf 1999;Van Braam 1974).
Table 2 : Public interest
United States France The Netherlands
Community interest
Meaningful public
service
Civic duty
National interest
Patriotism
Centralization
Public welfare
National interest
Social commitment
Civic culture,
citizenship
The items Perry constructed are centered around three themes. First, the realization of the public
interest is operationalized by delivering meaningful public service. Second, this public service is
considered the civic duty of all of the citizens. Finally, the public interest refers to the level of the
community, but not to national level.
This is different in France, where public interest refers clearly to the national level (the state)
(Chevallier 2000). Thoenig (1988) even speaks of a ‘canonization’ of the state, while Kessler (1986)
mentions patriotism. Other levels are not even considered, as the centralization ensures that the state is
the most (and indeed the only) powerful level of government. Where it used to be that centralization
was a means to empower the national level, it now even has become an end of its own (Long 2002).
Next to this, Kessler (1986) operationalizes public interest by taking care of the public welfare, ‘le
sens du bien public’.
The story is the same in the Netherlands, with the national level as reference framework for the public
interest (Bovens 1996;Hoetjes 2000) and with civil servants socially committed to societal and public
9
welfare (Van Poelje 1957;Seidel 1987;Van Braam 1974). Just like in the United States, the concern for
the public interest is said to be an integral part of civic culture and the role of citizens (Bovens
1990;Bovens 1996). However, in France, the realization of the public interest seems to be more of a
duty to government.
Table 3 : Compassion
United States France The Netherlands
Compassion
(emotional)
Need for social policy
Societal solidarity
Socially progressive
values
Government
employment
Social commitment
Perry’s dimension of compassion concerns in fact two levels of compassion. First there is the
individual level of compassion, which is elaborated in a rather emotional, humanitarian way. Second,
there is a level of more aggregate compassion, which refers more to government responsibility and
social policy.
The French civil service also incorporates some humanitarian values such as societal solidarity or
other socially progressive values (Chevallier 2000;Bellier 1997;Lhomme 1966). However, compared
to the United States, there is stronger focus on the role of government. The constitution already stated
that the French state should be an example of fraternity and the social dimension of government has
long been an important dimension of the French state (Rainaud 1999). Government employment itself
is seen as an important way of conducting social policy (Gournay, Kesler and Siwek-Pouydessau
1967) and access to public service is considered as cardinal to public welfare (Thoenig 1988).
The humanitarian aspect of compassion has totally dissappeared in the Dutch case. One can only refer
to the social commitment (see also table 2) of the public service to demonstrate the importance of
social policy. An individual level of compassion is however absent.
Table 4 : Self-sacrifice
United States France The Netherlands
Public interest
Self-sacrifice
Public interest
Refusal of self-interest
Defense of non-vested
interests
Heroism
Public interest
Public service as a
calling
10
The self-sacrifice dimension of the public service motivation model Perry constructed is mainly
focused on sacrificing personal interest for a greater good. In this respect, this dimension is also
connected with the public interest dimension (table 2). This is demonstrated when studying the inter-
factor correlation between the two dimensions (0.86, see Perry 1996).
Likewise, the most important theme of self-sacrifice in the French case is the refusal of self-interested
behavior and the promotion of public interest (Gournay, Kesler and Siwek-Pouydessau 1967, see also
table 2). Defense of non-vested interest is highly regarded (Jean-Pierre 1997). Some of the corps even
describe their members who died in the line of duty as heroes (Kessler 1986).
This dimension is less strong in the Netherlands, although Bovens (1996) considers public service as a
calling, for which other interests have to be put aside. Given the correlation with public interest, it still
remains an important dimension (see also table 2).
Comparison of other elements of public service motivation
Table 5 : Religion
France The Netherlands
Catholic morality Protestant work ethic
The American concept of public service motivation developed by Perry consists of only four
dimensions. However, in looking for motivational values in public institutions in France and the
Netherlands, other value laden determinants surfaced. Obviously, they cannot be compared to the
Perry model. But a comparison between France and the Netherlands should yield extra information on
the possible content of public service motivation in both environments.
An important element is the prevailing religious morality in both countries. This has been
institutionalized within the public service. France traditionally has been a catholic country (Bodiguel
1989;Sheriff 1976), whereas the Netherlands have been a protestant country (Bovens 1996). This
translates itself into an entirely different morality, with France being focused on catholic values
(deliverance, obedience and compassion, see also table 2), and the Netherlands focusing on a more
individual, pre-destined protestant work ethic.
Table 6 : Equality
France The Netherlands
Equality
Laicism
Free of values
Democracy
11
Democracy
Neutrality
Neutrality
Objectivity
Another motive is equality. The French have a long tradition of equality, dating back to the revolution
and even earlier. Crozier (1963) describes how France has always been an egalitarian society, already
before the revolution. This was transferred to a large extent to the public service, with equality being
one of the principles of public service, ‘les lois Rolland’ (Pisier 1989;Auby and Raymundie 2003).
Another one of those principles, neutrality (Meininger 2000;Auby and Raymundie 2003;Thoenig
1988), contributes also to the development of an egalitarian society. The values of laicism (free of
ecclesiastical values) and democracy in the constitution also stand testimony to this egalitarian view.
In the Netherlands, the focus on equality is not founded on an age-old tradition. The protestant theory
of pre-destination on the contrary promoted individualism. But the insertion of democratic (Van Poelje
1957;Bovens 1990) and bureaucratic values promoted objectivity, neutrality and a public service free
of partisan values (Seidel 1987).
Table 7 : Service-delivery
France The Netherlands
Tradition in service
delivery
Tradition in service
delivery
Both France and the Netherland have a strong tradition of delivering service to citizens, even before
the new public management era. However, it should be noted the content and the origin of this
tradition differ substantially. In France, this tradition is preserved through socialization at the ‘Ecole
Nationale d’Administration’, where public servants are permeated with the importance of service
delivery (Thoenig 1988;Bellier 1997). The same is true for ‘Ecole Polytechnique’, which educates
members of the technical corps. Service delivery itself therefore is considered a motivational factor
(Bodiguel 1989).
In the Netherlands, Van Braam (1974) thought it to be one of the core elements of the role of public
servants. It provided a sense of legitimation for the special authorities they possess.
Table 8 : Technical competences
France The Netherlands
Rationality
Focus on management
Knowledge
Intellectual capacities
Focus on management
Knowledge
Focus on efficiency
12
Another common theme in France and the Netherlands is the discussion of the technical competences
that public servants should possess. This is not a mere technical discussion, as it clearly casts a value-
laden shadow on the public service.
In the French public service, rationality is an important value (Rouban 2001). Related to this is the
focus on managerial techniques and knowledge public servants have (Lhomme 1966;Vigouroux
1997). Apart from this, the intellectual capacities and the wisdom of public servants are highly
regarded (Kessler 1986). This provides the public service with a somewhat elitist aura.
Although the Dutch have an equal focus on knowledge (Van Poelje 1957;Van Braam 1974), their
interest in managerial techniques has its origin in the new public management movement, which
promoted managerialism (Hupe 1992;Hammecher and den Dunnen 1997). This caused, contrary to
France, efficiency to become a value in its own right (Noordegraaf 1999;Bovens 1990).
Tabel 9 : Bureaucracy
France The Netherlands
Continuity
Equality
Neutrality
Adaptation
Centralization
Primacy of politics
Continuity
Neutrality
Instrumentality
Primacy of politics
Bureaucratic values are fhe final common theme in France and the Netherlands. In France, the
bureaucratic values are incorporated in ‘les lois Rolland’. Continuity, equality, neutrality and
adaptation are the most important principles of public service (Pisier 1989;Auby and Raymundie
2003). When adding centralization (see table 2) and primacy of politics (see table1), it is a case–
specific application of Weber’s bureaucracy that fits France very well.
The Netherlands has a slightly different application of Weber’s bureaucracy. The principles of public
service are not institutionalized as thoroughly as in France. Instead, it is more focused on practical
arrangements and modes of operation, such as instrumentality, continuity, neutrality and primacy of
politics (being loyal to the minister)(Hoetjes 2000;Van Braam 1974). In this, it might be more similar
to Weber’s original conception of bureaucracy.
Table 10 : Unique administrative values
France Contempt of monetary
rewards
13
The Netherlands Flexibility
Rule of law
(‘Rechtsstaat’)
Next to these common themes, both France and the Netherlands have values that are (within bounds of
this comparison) unique to their public service. These constitute a major difference in the content of
their respective public service motivation concepts. In France, the most striking observation in the
civil service (and especially in the senior civil service) is the contempt of money and profit. Little
attention is devoted to monetary rewards as these only serve to live a life according to one’s rank. The
drive for money is certainly no motivation to enter the civil service (Kessler 1985;Bodiguel
1986;Lhomme 1966;Auby and Raymundie 2003;Joxe 2000). The sense of merit and honor is related
to this motive (Vigouroux 1997).
Recently the Dutch adopted the value of flexibility,when applying new public management techniques
(Hupe 1992;Hammecher and den Dunnen 1997). This was a reaction to the rather practical implication
of the bureaucratic model (whereas in France, bureaucracy remained on an ideological level). Another
feature is the huge significance of the rule of law in government (‘Rechtsstaat’). Acountability, rules,
legality, accuracy, punctuality, publicness all are important in this respect (Bovens 1996;Hoetjes
2000;Smit and Van Thiel 2002). This rule of law surpasses administrative law and has become a value
of its own.
Conclusions
Up to a certain extent, our comparison demonstrates that public service motivation is a universal
concept. All four of Perry’s dimensions can be found when describing the French and Dutch variants.
However, on taking a closer look, several differences are revealed. For example, the esteem of
politicians and, consequently, the loyalty to these, differ across all three models. Also, the reference
level of public interest varies. Whereas the original - American - model focuses on the community,
France and the Netherlands focus more on the national level. The role of the individual versus the
government concerning the relieve of the needs of the underprivileged – a humanitarian compassion
versus social policy – is different in all three cases. Perry (and therefore our American case) focuses
on the individual level, turning to government only to alleviate vital needs. In the Netherlands, this
individual level is absent in the civil service. It is up to the government to pursue a social policy to and
answer social needs. The fact that it is not up to Dutch civil servants to relieve individual needs, might
be connected with high regard for neutrality in the Netherlands. France takes some sort of middle
position in this debate, answering to both the individual and the social level with its social policy.
Finally, the extent to which self-sacrifice is institutionalized is also a matter of difference. In France,
there is a stronger heroic connotation to public service than it is in the Netherlands.
14
A further comparison of the Dutch and the France case shows that public service motivation not only
consists of the dimensions introduced by Perry. The comparison reveals several additional elements of
public service motivation. First, religion has a major impact on a country’s administrative values. In
the United States, Gawthrop (1998) demonstrated the link of the United States’ administrative values
and the bible, and Perry (1997) confirmed it indirectly by declaring religious socialization one of the
antecedents of public service motivation. However, as we observe in our comparison of France and the
Netherlands, religion can have an entirely different impact. Second, democratic and bureaucratic
values are an important element of public service motivation. Whenever these values are
institutionalized, they determine how the business of government is run in a given environment.
However, this is linked to other elements in the environment, resulting in a regional or national type of
democracy and bureaucracy. Examplary in this respect is the way the egalitarian structure of French
society shaped the mode in which its civil service operates. After all, by implementing bureaucratic
values, French society could cope more easily with submission to authority. According to Crozier,
‘Face-to-face dependence relationships are, indeed, perceived as difficult to bear in the French cultural
setting’. Instead of suffering from a personal and humiliating dependence relationship, an impersonal
bureaucratic body offers the French a gentler way of coping with authority (Crozier 1963). Third, the
service traditions of a civil service play an important part in public service motivation. The technical
competences demanded from public servants play a similar role in France and the Netherlands. The
extremely high standards required in France explain the elitist view of the French civil service,
compared to the Netherlands. Finally, public service motivation is determined by some unique
features. In the Netherlands, the rule of law, and recently new public management’s flexibility
changed the face of the Dutch public service, and therefore its motivational value. The contempt of
profit on the other hand, gave the French civil service its distinct character.
All these elements point to the explanatory framework of new institutionalism. Institutions are defined
as formal or informal, structural, societal or political phenomena that surpass the indivual level and
that are based on more or less common values. They have a certain amount of stability and they
influence behavior (Peters 2000). Contrary to rational and public choice theories, new institutionalism
considers motivational values not as exogenous but as endogenous (Steunenberg, De Vries and Soeters
1996). This means that where motivation in rational choice theories always is self-interested, it is
shaped within the institutions according to new institutionalist theories. This fits exactly our
observation of a varying conception of public service motivation depending on country or region. The
institutions and the administrative history then explain most of the features found in a specific public
service motivation concept. This also explains the multidimensional appearance of public service
motivation, as these institutions are structured in a systemic way and relate to one another. Whenever
studying public service motivation, these institutions should be taken into account, because ignoring
them probably results in violating concept validity.
15
Comments and further research
When reviewing the analyis, some restrictions have to be borne in mind. First, the research was
conceived as a literature based exploratory exercise. No hypothesis has been tested emperically, and
therefore the results should be applied with great caution. This does not render the results useless, as
our information is based on a body of scientific litereature. It thus should render a profound overview
of the administrative values in France and the Netherlands. However, the motivational power of these
values is only demonstrated theoretically and needs further testing.
In keeping with the conclusion, it is not advisable to generalize findings to the population. As it is a
comparative case study, generalization to the population is not possible. However, generalizations can
be made to theory, offering new insights in other cases.
Because it is only an exploratory study, there are a lot of avenues for further research. First, the
features of the French and the Dutch concept of public service motivation should be empirically tested
before getting relative certainty on the nature of both concepts. Both survey research and in depth
interviews can cast more light on this. Furthermore, also the origins of public service motivation can
be retraced by means of hypotheses based on new institutional premises. By doing this, human
resource management (HRM) can withdraw itself further from private HRM theories and anchor
deeper into the field of public administration. Finally, the impact of public service motivation on
public HRM should be studied. This would enable public HRM to add an applied component to its
broadened theoretical foundation, also strenghtening the ties between HRM and public administration.
16
Reference list
Auby, Jean-François and Raymundie, Olivier. 2003. Le service public. Paris. Le moniteur.
Bellier, Irene. 1997. Les éleves entre eux : une tribu, un corps, un esprit ? In : Pouvoirs. Vol. 80 . 43-55.
Bodiguel, Jean-Luc. 1986 . La socialisation des haut fonctionnaires - les directeurs d'administration centrale. In : La haute administration et la politique. Lochak, Daniele (ed.). 81-99. Paris. Presses universitaires de France.
Bodiguel, Jean-Luc. 1989 . Les fonctionnaires en periode de décroisance : moral, motivation et image. In : Revue politiques et management public. Vol. 7 (2). 37-58.
Bovens, Mark. 1996. The integrity of the managerial state. In : Journal of contigencies and crisis management. Vol. 4 (3). 125-132.
Bovens, Mark A. P. 1990. Verantwoordlijkheid en organisatie - beschouwingen over aansprakelijkheid, institutioneel burgerschap en ambtelijke ongehoorzaamheid. Zwolle. Tjeenk Willink.
Brereton, Michael and Temple, Michael. 1999. The new public service ethos : an ethical environment for governance. In : Public administration. Vol. 77 (3)
Brewer, Gene A. and Selden, Sally Coleman. 1998. Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: new evidence of the public service ethic. In : Journal of public administration research and theory. Vol. 8 (3). 413-439.
Brewer, Gene A., Selden, Sally Coleman and Facer II, Rex L. 2000. Individual conceptions of public service motivation. In : Public administration review. Vol. 60 ( 3). 254-264.
Chanlat, Jean-François. 2003. Le managerialsime et l'éthique du bien commun : la gestion de la motivation au travail dans les services publics. In : La motivation au travail dans les services publics. Duvillier, Thibaut, Genard, Jean-Louis and Pireaux, Alexandre (eds.). 51-64. Paris. L'harmattan.
Chevallier, Jacques. 2000. La place du service public dans l'univers juridique contemporain. In : Le service public en devenir. Rouban, Luc (ed.). 21-35. Paris. L'harmattan.
Crozier, Michel. 1963. The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago. The university of Chicago Press.
Di Iulio, John D. 1994. Principled agents: the cultural bases of behavior in a federal government bureaucracy. In : Journal of public administration research and theory. Vol. 4 (3). 277-217.
17
Dunleavy, Patrick and Hood, Christopher. 1994. From old public administration to new public management. In : Public money and management. Vol. 14 (3). 9-16.
Frederickson, H. George. 1997. The spirit of public administration. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Frederickson, H. George and Hart, David k. 1985. The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. In : Public administration review. Vol. 45 (5). 547-553.
Gabris, Gerald T. and Simo, Gloria. 1995. Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. In : Public personnel management. Vol. 24 ( 1). 33-51.
Gawthrop, Louis C. 1998. Public service and democracy - ethical imperatives for the 21st century. New York. Chatham House.
Gournay, Bernard, Kesler, Jean-François and Siwek-Pouydessau, Jeanne. 1967. Administration publique. Paris. Presses universitaires de france.
Greuning, Gernod. 2001. Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. In : International public management journal. Vol. 4. 1-25.
Hammecher, D. M. and den Dunnen, R. 1997. Cultuurverandering in de rijksdienst. In : Bestuurskunde. Vol. 6 (1). 12-19.
Hart, David Kirkwood. 1994. Administration and the ethics of virtue: in all things, choose first for good character and then for technical expertise. In : Handbook of administrative ethics. Cooper, terry L. (ed.). 107-123. New York. Marcel Dekker.
Heckhausen, Heinz. 1991. Motivation and action. Berlin. Springer-Verlag.
Hoetjes, B. J. S. 2000. De kreukbare overheid - essays over integriteit in nederland. Utrecht. Lemma.
Houston, David J. 2000. Public service motivation : a multivariate test. In : Journal of public administration research & theory. Vol. 10 (4). 713-727.
Hupe, Peter. 1992. Klerk noch koopman - zakelijkheid en de ideale ambtenaar. In : Bestuurskunde. Vol. 1 (4). 180-193.
Jean-Pierre, Didier. 1997. Reaffirming ethics and professionalism in the french public service. In : International review of administrative sciences. Vol. 64 (4). 565-581.
Joxe, Pierre. 2000. La crise d'identité de l'Etat. In : Notre Etat. Fauroux, Roger and Spitz, Bernard (eds.). 33-43. Paris. Robert Laffont.
18
Kessler, Marie-Christine. 1985. La psychologie des hauts fonctionnaires - les directeurs d'administrations centrales. In : Psychologie et science administrative. Drai, Raphael (ed.). 157-175. Paris. Presses universitaires de France.
Kessler, Marie-Christine. 1986. Les grands corps de l'Etat. Paris. Presses de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques.
Lewis, Gregory B. and Alonso, Pablo. 2001. Public service motivation and job performance -- Evidence from the federal sector . In : American review of public administration. Vol. 31 (4). 363-380.
Lewis, Gregory B. and Frank, Sue A. 2002. Who wants to work for government? In : Public administration review. Vol. 62 (4). 395-404.
Lhomme, Jean. 1966. Pouvoir et société économique. Paris. Cujas.
Long, Marcel. 2002. La fonction publique républicaine. In : Pouvoirs. Vol. 100. 67-85.
Mae Kelly, Rita. 1998. An inclusive democratic polity, representative bureaucracies and the new public management. In : Public administration review. Vol. 58 (3). 201-208.
Meininger, Marie-Christine. 2000. The development and current features of the french civil service system. In : Civil service systems in western europe. Bekke, Hans A. G. M. and van der Meer, Frits M. (eds.). 188-211. Cheltenham. Elgar.
Naff, Katherine C. and Crum, John. 1999. Working for america --does public service motivation make a difference. In : Review of public personnel administration. Vol. 19 (4). 5-16.
Noordegraaf, Mirko. 1999 . Publiek ondernemen, maar zonder ondernemen ? - de verticale reflex. In : Bestuurswetenschappen. Vol. 53 (5). 371-391.
Norris, Pippa. 2003. Is there still a public service ethos? Work values, experience, and job satisfaction among government workers. In : For the people - can we fix public service. Donahue, John D. Nye Joseph S. Jr. (ed.). Washington DC. Brookings institution press.
Perry, James and Wise, Lois Recascino. 1990. The motivational bases of public service. In : Public administration review. Vol. 50. 367-373.
Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: an assessment of construct reliability and validity. In : Journal of public administration research and theory. Vol. 6 (1). 5-23.
Perry, James L. 1997. Antecendents of public service motivation. In : Journal of public administration research & theory. Vol. 7 (2). 181-197.
19
Perry, James L. 2000. Bringing society in : toward a theory of public service motivation. In : Journal of public administration research & theory. Vol. 10 (2). 471-488.
Peters, B. Guy. 2000. Institutional theory : problems and prospects. Wien. Institut für Höhere Studien.
Pisier, Evelyne. 1989. Fonctionnaires : des personnels dépersonalisés. In : Revue française d'administration publique. Vol. 49 (spec.). 35-41.
Pratchett, Lawrence and Wingfield, Melvin. 1996. Petty bureaucracy and woolly-minden liberalism ? The changing ethos of local government officers. In : Public administration. Vol. 74. 639-656.
Rainaud, Jean-Marie. 1999. La crise du service public français. Paris. Presses universitaires de France.
Rainey, Hal G. and Steinbauer, Paula. 1999. Galloping elephants: developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. In : Journal of public administration research and theory. Vol. 9 (1). 1-32.
Rouban, Luc. 2001. Les fonctionnaires. Paris. Editions le cavalier bleu.
Rouban, Luc. 2004. La fonction publique. Paris. Editions la découverte.
Scott, W. Richard. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks. Sage.
Seidel, Jelle. 1987. Hoe sterk is de 'nieuwe' ambtenaar ? - de maatschappelijk geëngageerde ambtenaar in tijden van 'afslanking'. In : Wetenschap en samenleving. 20-27.
Sheriff, Peta. 1976. Sociology of public bureaucracies 1965-1975. In : Current sociology. Vol. 24 (2). 1-175.
Smit, N. and Van Thiel, S. 2002. De zakelijke overheid - publieke en bedrijfsmatige waarden in publiek-private samenwerking. In : Bestuurskunde. Vol. 11 (6). 226-234.
Steunenberg, B., De Vries, J. and Soeters, J. L. M. L. 1996. Het neo-institutionalisme in de bestuurskunde. In : Bestuurskunde. Vol. 5 (5). 212-216.
Thoenig, Jean-Claude. 1988. Serviteur de l'état ou manager public : le débat en France. In : Revue politiques et management public. Vol. 6 (2). 81-92.
Van Braam, Aris. 1974. Opleiding van hogere bestuursambtenaren in nederland - overzicht en evaluatie. In : Bestuurswetenschappen. Vol. 28 (special issue). 191-233.
20
van der Meer, Frits M. and Dijkstra, Gerrit S. A. 2000. The development and current features of the dutch civil service system. In : Civil service systems in western europe. Bekke, Hans A. G. M. and van der Meer, Frits M. (eds.). 148-187. Cheltenham. Elgar.
Van Poelje, Gerrit A. 1957. De ambtenaar als ambtenaar - zijn verantwoordelijkheid en vorming. Alphen aan den Rijn. Samsom.
van Raaij, W. F., Vinker, H. and van Dun, L. P. M. 2002. Het imago van de overheid als werkgever. Tilburg. =OSA.
Vandenabeele, Wouter and Hondeghem, Annie. 2003. Government's calling : Public service motivation as a decisive factor for government employment in a NPM era. Paper gepresenteerd op Kongress der schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Soziologie, Zürich
Vandermeulen, Filip and Hondeghem, Annie. 2000. Perspectieven voor het human resource management in de Vlaamse overheid. Brugge. Die keure.
Vigouroux, Christian. 1997. Ce que l'on apprend, ce que l'on n'apprend pas a l'école. In : Pouvoirs. Vol. 80 . 57-65.
21
