Contested administrations: on the use of the concept of
“conflicts” within public administration theory
Tomas Bergström, Lund University & Birgitte Poulsen, Roskilde University
Paper for the NORKOM meeting in Oslo November 22-24, 2012
First draft!
Abstract
As part of a research project concerned with rethinking and developing understandings of ways to
handle conflicts in urban areas at different stages of democratic development, this paper is an
overview of the use of the concept of “conflicts” within public administration literature. The
project’s main concern is the possibility of public administrators to handle conflicts in a
constructive way as conflict resolvers.
On the one hand conflicts may derive from ethnic, social, economic, religious and other tensions
that materialize in everyday activities in schools, hospitals, prisons and other public institutions. On
the other hand public administration itself is facing challenges deriving from (1) different and
sometimes competing traditions of governance, i.e. hierarchical top-down initiatives, New Public
Management, network governance and bottom-up participatory processes; (2) different professional
norms among civil servants, and; (3) a lack of policy coordination in an ever more complex public
sector with many aims and governing tools.
The paper aims then to identify and structure different ways that “conflicts” have been treated in
public administration literature and especially focus on civil servants role in conflict
resolution/conflict transformation at the local level.
Introduction
Conflicts and Public Administration
In this article we seek to investigate how conflict as a central theme in modern governance have
been described and dealt with within the public administration literature. We show that conflicts are
by no means a new phenomenon in the literature on public administration although the exact word
‘conflict’ is not always used. However, we claim that public administration, as an academic
discipline as well as a practical, need to give more focus to the understanding and handling of
conflicts. The public administration and the public official need to cooperate with many different
actors in public governing. Within Public Administration differences and conflicts are increasingly
seen as a condition that characterises the task of the public administration as a whole and the public
administrators need to handle conflicts at various levels in their every-day life (cf. Goldie
2012:526). “How the public administrator manages conflict determines the effectiveness of the
public organization” (Chappel 2007:33). If the activities of civil servants are biased in favour of
certain communities, resources will be distributed in an unfair manner:
Health clinics may be located disproportionately in favoured neighbourhoods; scholarships may be
awarded disproportionately to members of favoured communities and denied o others; similarly,
housing, credit for businesses, import licenses, construction contracts. Tax authorities may enforce the
laws rigorously against some, compassionately against others. Police may similarly concentrate their
powers of harassment and coercion on members of a disfavoured community (Esman 1999:354).
1
Most public administrators thus have to deal with conflicts in their roles as facilitators, observers or
parties to conflict. Conflicts are not confined to party political processes, they continue in
administrations at all levels.
However, the subject of conflicts and conflict resolution is underdeveloped within the field of
public administration (cf. Lan 1997). In much of what is written conflicts are curiously absent.1
Maybe it is because conflicts mostly have been seen as dysfunctional. Within political science
conflicts are seen as the lifeblood of politics and democracy as being essentially about conflict
solving. Administration is then more about problem solving, conflicts are not often a central object
of study. When conflicts are studied after all it could be between democracy and efficiency or, as in
federal political systems and the European Union, conflicts between different organizational levels
(see for instance Eberlein & Radaelli 2010). Writings that touch upon administration could however
be found within the literature on divided cities (Bollen 2012; Dunn 1994; van Kempen & Murie
2009) or cities as spaces of contestation (Routledge 2010). Of course, within a more continental
tradition Law is part of Public Administration and then legal mechanisms for conflict resolution is
part of the literature. Also there is an extensive literature on negotiations and bargaining (cf. Buntz
& Carper 1987). If we limit ourselves to the public sector, to the local level and to public officials
though, the study of conflicts is by no means a burgeoning field. 2
Public administration as a scholarly field to a great extent represents a system perspective on
governance. The main task is to make sure that the political system runs smoothly and that political
tasks are implemented successfully and not least efficiently. However, we see an increasing
awareness of the subject of conflicts and the possible handling of conflicts within public
administration. Our aim in this article is to bring the issue of conflicts and conflict resolution into
focus in the field of public administration.
We are therefore interested in investigating the different ways in which conflicts have been
described and dealt with within Public administration literature. Our aim in this respect is to
twofold. First, we want to investigate the way in which conflicts have been characterised and
addressed so far in order to get an overview of the field of public administration seen through the
lens of conflict and conflict resolution. On the basis of this investigation, we secondly want to point
to areas where public administration literature could benefit from other scholarly fields such as
peace and conflicts studies (and public management), since these fields of study may feed important
insights into the field of public administration.
Public administration and peace and conflicts studies focus on different aspects of conflict
resolution and the contexts of the studies are different. Public administration literature is primarily
developed within the context of liberal, western democracies and is thus occupied with addressing
conflicts within an overall democratic system. Peace and conflict studies address conflicts in new
1
For instance, conflict is not in the subject index of The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in
Europe and only “conflict of interest” has an entry point in The Oxford Handbook of Public Management.
2
Lund University has 37 e-journals in its databases with “conflict” in their title. But the journals are predominantly
within Peace and Conflict Studies, Law and military matters.
2
and sometimes very fragile contexts regarding the level of democracy. However, there are some
common characteristics. Both fields of study are occupied with creating order. A central question is
how to ensure order in societies characterised by diversity, differences of interests, different
identities and differences in political culture. And the idea of creating order is to produce an
everyday life that creates goods for citizens at an every-day basis. However, Public Administration
represents a system (state) perspective and is occupied with creating order in society by the design
of public institutions, i.e. how do we make the system work smoothly and efficiently. Peace and
conflict studies represent a society perspective and is occupied with creating order in society by
understanding how societies as such works regarding conflicts and identities – how do we make
civil society work without conflicts leading to war.
Conflict in Public Administration literature
In the following we provide an overview of the way in which conflicts have been addressed in
public administration literature, firstly from a system level perspective, secondly from an actor level
perspective.
Conflicts - system level perspective
Competing traditions of governance (hierarchy, market, networks)
The public sector today is characterised by different and in some situations competing traditions of
governance. New public management and network governance have increasingly been
acknowledged as new forms of governance in most western democracies. However, old forms of
governance such as hierarchical top-down governing are still vibrant. The co-existing modes of
governance in modern public administration may be described as archaeological layers (Poulsen,
2007). The basic idea is that a state develops over time and that different expectations to the state,
its public administration and finally the civil servants are added over time creating archaeological
layers, since new layers do not substitute older layers but rather supplement the older ones. Thus,
Denmark and Sweden for example, are Rechtstaats but also deeply influenced by corporatism,
NPM, and network governance. These different archaeological layers may give rise to a number of
different conflicts in public administrations, since each layer represent different criteria for success
that potentially questions the overall purpose of the public administration and thus also which
actions are seen as legitimate and illegitimate and rightful and wrong. Should the public
administration, for example, give priority to following the rightful (and lawful) procedures or
should priority be given to public sector performances and out-put results? To what extent should
the public administration involve external stakeholders and in which part of the policy process?
It is also important to note that each of the different modes of governance draws on quite different
forms of conflict resolution strategies. In table one below the link between different modes of
governance and their conflict resolution approach is tentatively illustrated.
Table 1. Different forms of conflict resolution associated with different modes of governance
3
Decisions
Compliance with rules
(formal as well as
informal)
Conflict resolution
Hierarchy
Based on authority
Legal sanctions
Instruction,
order
Market
Based on procedures
Economic consequences,
(the fear of bankruptcy?)
command, Competition
Networks
Deliberative processes
Voluntary
Based on negotiations
(Cf Lundquist 1998:160)
Generally network analysis downplays conflicts since it is based on ideas about self-regulation and
consensus based on deliberative processes.
Conflicts deriving from lack of policy coordination
Lack of policy coordination is a classical conflict within public administration and coordination has
been labelled as one of the most important task of public administrations (Peters, 2006: 115). An
increasingly complex public sector with many, and sometimes competing, tasks may lead to
problems of coordination that leads to various conflicts. It may be useful to distinguish between
conflicts that are internal to the public administration itself (for example units within the public
administrations that compete over resources and /or prestige) and conflicts due to coordination
problems that are external to the public administration creating policies that are working against
each other in society or making it unclear what has been decided upon. Again, the different modes
of governance are important regarding how coordination issues are addressed. Policy coordination
may be achieved through hierarchy, market and network based types of coordination (Peters 1998,
198-199; 2006; Christensen and Lægreid 2008; Bouckaert et al. 2010, 34ff).
Goal conflicts
Values can come into conflict with another. In cities there could various conflict of interests over
taxes, building plans and other economic and physical issues but also moral issues. “Value conflict,
therefore, represents not simply an ethical problem in terms of what we should do, but also a
political problem in terms of how we are to coexist with others” (Spicer 2009:538). The response to
value conflicts could be to try to strike a balance between competing goals or arrange for trade offs,
however a repertoire of strategies exists (Thacher & Rein 2004; Forester 2006).
A number of public programs are crafted to embrace multiple values at the same time (O’Toole,
2003, p. 236). We could also argue that ambiguity in goals has increased. With notoriously vague
concepts like “sustainability” and “diversity” it is no wonder that conflicts between different
interpretations could come up.
4
The question of “Representative bureaucracy”
The question of who actually works within the administration and the different public institutions
could be crucial to achieve equity and equal treatment of citizens. The composition of for instance
the police force has often been the basis for intense debate, debates that in turn has made existing
conflicts escalate (cf. Smyth 2002). “Representative bureaucracy relies on a set of simple
assumptions: that values differ across groups, that bureaucrats exercise some discretion in program
implementation, that the pre-existing values are relevant to the bureaucratic discretion, and that
bureaucrats with discretion will make decisions consistent with their own values (Meier & Hawes
2009:281. If bureaucracies are not representative, their handling of conflicts in local societies could
easily become contested. (This is also important question for the peace and conflict approach to
consider in the establishment of new (democratic) institutions).
Conflicts between different organisational levels
Central – local relations is a traditional field of conflicts. Power struggles could occur both in
unitary and federal states. The conflicts could concern the allocation of responsibilities, funding,
regulation, the extent of control etc. Classical tensions could be between uniformity and diversity
and between centre and periphery.
Conflicts - actor level perspective (the role of the public official)
In the following we will look more closely at the way in which conflicts have been addressed in the
public administration literature regarding the actor level and, thus, the conflicts related to the role of
the public official. First, we take a look at the role of the civil servant working in either the state
administration or in lower levels of the public administration, i.e. in the region or the municipality.
Second, we look at public administrators working in public institutions such as schools, prisons,
hospitals and thus what has also been described as the street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky 1980).
The role of the civil servant
Traditional roles of the civil servant
The traditional role of the civil servant is very much associated with liberal, representative
democracy and a functionally differentiated bureaucracy as its form of organization. The traditional
role of the civil servant within this system and way of thinking is either the bureaucrat or the
political adviser. Conflicts may occur if the civil servant obtains both roles at the same time. Within
public administration literature it is a classical dilemma how to separate politics from
administration. Some would claim that it is impossible; others try to draw the line. Either way,
conflicts will occur (Svara 1988). In table two below the conflicts associated with the traditional
role of the civil servant is illustrated.
Table 2. The position of the civil servant
The Law
5
Submission
Superiors
Loyalty
The civil
Consideration
Citizens
servant
Consideration
Professional norms
Cf. Lundquist, 1998: 127
The civil servant finds himself in a situation of cross-pressure between many different actors and
considerations within and outside the political system. The civil servant must show loyalty towards
his superior, which may be either another civil servant or the politician(s) depending on his rank in
the hierarchy.
Conflicts between the civil servant and the law
There are a number of possible conflict issues that has been dealt with in the literature. One evident
issue is when the behaviour of the civil servant is breaking the rules. The negative side of this is
corruption, misuse of funds etc. A more positive side is ethical dilemmas where there is a conflict
between rules and the ethos of public service. The civil servant has a choice between exit, voice and
loyalty (Hirschman 1970).
Conflicts between managers and employees
An overwhelming amount of management literature treats conflicts between the manager and
“troublesome” employees. As the perspective very seldom is from below, books and articles offer
advice how to handle troublemakers. A completely different perspective is principal-agent theories
within economics (Eisenhardt 1989). Conflicts here have its base in the asymmetrical distribution of
information between the superior (the principal) and the civil servant (the agent) executing the
decided policies. The goals of the two could be in conflict and it is difficult for the principal to
decide whether actually the activities of the agent are in line with the intentions of the principal.
New roles of the civil servant and participatory processes
The “meta-governor” could be either the hands-off designer of institutions, networks, and processes
of interaction between involved actors; or the hands-on facilitator of processes of participation and
6
deliberation, network participation and every-day peace-making in situations of conflict and
contestation in local public administration. These new roles have led to new types of conflicts for
the public administrator (cf. Sørensen 2006).
We have seen a shift from the public administrator representing the one and only legitimate
knowledge, to a situated knowledge among various and different actors involved in the policy
process that each are regarded as having relevant knowledge whether it is as user, parent or local
entrepreneur. Citizens are no longer just seen as citizens or clients but are increasingly seen as
either customers (NPM) or co-producers (Network Governance) of public services. This could lead
to conflicts between the general interest and special interests.
Competing professional norms
Conflicts could appear when different professional norms clash. Examples could be differences in
occupational outlook between psychologists and psychiatrics or between policemen and social
workers. Another example is the conflict between New Public Management tools in public
institutions and the professional norms of teachers, day care workers, nurses etc (Sehested 2003;
187-226).
Conclusion
Public administration literature needs to focus more systematically on conflicts in order to create a
better basis for the analysis of conflicts and where they derive from. The knowledge of conflicts and
their sources may, thus, help public administrations and public administrators to better address and
possibly resolve conflicts on an every-day basis. The concept of conflict is not central to public
administration literature although, as we have tried to show, there are a number of potential issues
where conflict is addressed both at the structural level and at the actor level. A search including
related concepts such as competition, resistance, tension, implementation problems, dispute,
confrontation etc. might add to the list. A first impression from the search within public
administration literature is however that books/articles with a focus on conflicts are surprisingly
scarce.
Public administration theory needs then to incorporate insights from peace and conflicts studies
regarding the nature and handling of conflicts in society that are mirrored in public institutions
where citizens/users meet public officials.
7
Bibliography
Bollens, Scott A. (2012) City and soul in divided societies, New York, Routledge.
Chappell, James L. (2007) “Conflict Administration for the Public Sector” Indiana Journal of
Political Science pp. 33-40.
Bouckaert, G., B. Guy Peters and K. Verhoest (2010) The Coordination of Public Sector
Organizations. Shifting Patterns of Public Management. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buntz, Gregory C. & Carper, Donald L. (1987) “A Conflict Management Curriculum in Business
and Public Administration” Negotiation Journal April pp. 191-204.
Christensen, T. and Per Lægreid (2008) ‘The Challenge of Coordination in Central Government
Organizations: The Norwegian Case.’, Public Organization Review, vol.8, pp.97-116.
Dunn, Seamus (ed.) (1994) Managing divided cities. London: Ryburn Publishing, Keele University
Press in association with the Fulbright Commission.
Eberlein, Burkard & Radaelli, Claudio M. “Mechanisms of Conflict Management in EU Regulatory
Policy” Public Administration Vol. 88 No. 3 pp. 782-799.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989) “Agency Theory An Assessment and Review.” The Academy of
Management Review Vol. 14 No. 1 pp. 57-74.
Esman, Milton J. (1999) “Public administration and conflict management in plural societies: the
case for representative bureaucracy” Public Administration and Development pp. 353-366.
Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn, Laurence E. & Pollitt Christopher (2007) The Oxford Handbook of Public
Management Oxford University Press.
Forester, J. (2006). “Making participation work when interests conflict.” Journal of American
Planning Association, 72(4), 447-456.
Goldie, Roz (2012) “Problem, Process and Product: Implementing Key Reforms in Local
Government in Northern Ireland Since the Belfast Agreement” Local Government Studies Vol. 38
No. 5 pp. 525-537.
Hirschman, Albert O (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms. Harvard
University Press.
Loughlin, John, Hendriks, Frank & Lidström, Anders (2011) The Oxford Handbook of Local and
Regional Democracy in Europe Oxford University Press.
Lan, Zhiyong (1997) “A Conflict Resolution Approach to Public Administration” Public
Administration Review Vol. 57, No. 1.
Lipsky, Michael (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.
New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Lundquist, Lennart (1998) Demokratins väktare Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Meier, Kenneth J. & Hawes, Daniel P. (2009) “Ethnic Conflict in France. A Case for Representative
Bureaucracy? The American Review of Public Administration Vol. 39 No. 3 pp. 269-285.
O’Toole, Jr, Laurence J. (2003) “Interorganizational Relations in Implementation” in Peters, B.
Guy - Pierre, Jon Handbook of Public Administration London: Sage.
Peters, B. Guy (1998) ‘Managing horizontal government: the politics of co-ordination’, Public
administration, vol. 76, pp. 295-311.
Peters, B. Guy (2006) ‘Concepts and Theories of Horizontal Policy Management’, in Peters, B. Guy
and Jon Pierre (Eds.): Handbook of Public Policy, pp.115-138, London: Sage Publications.
8
Routledge, Paul (2010) ”Introduction: Cities, Justice and Conflict” Urban StudiesVol. 47 No. 6 pp.
1165-1177.
Sehested, Karina (2003) ”Kommunale ledere mellem profession og management” in Jæger, Birgit
& Eva Sørensen: Roller der rykker. Politikere og administratorer mellem hierarki og netværk,
København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets forlag.
Smyth, Jim (2002) “Community policing and the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary”
Policing: An International Journal of Policie Strategies & Management Vol. 25 No. 1 pp. 110-124.
Spicer, Michael W. (2009) “Value Conflict and Legal Reasoning in Public Administration”
Administrative Theory & Praxis Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 537-555.
Svara, James H. “Conflict, Cooperation, and Separation of Powers in City Government” Journal of
Urban Affairs Vol. 10 No. 4 pp. 357-372.
Sorensen, Eva (2006) ”Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of
Democratic Governance” American Review of Public Administration. Vol. 36 pp 98-114.
Thacher, David & Rein, Martin (2004) “Managing Value Conflict in Public Policy” Governance
Vol. 17 No. 4 pp. 457-486.
van Kempen, Ronald & Murie, Alan (2009) “The New Divided City: Changing Patterns in
European Cities” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie Vol. 100, No. 4, pp. 377-398.
9