Public Administration in Contested Societies Public Administration in Contested Societies Karl O’Connor School of Criminology, Politics and Social Policy, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland © Karl O’Connor 2014 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2014 978-1-137-29814-0 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, HampshireRG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries ISBN 978-1-349-45230-9 ISBN 978-1-137-29815-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9781137298157 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. To Isabella Violet Contents List of Tables and Figures viii Preface ix Outline of the Book xii Acknowledgements xv List of Acronyms xviii 1 Representative Bureaucracy in Plural Societies 1 2 Researching in Contested Cities: Belfast and Brussels 39 3 Belfast: Everyday Policy-making in a Contested Environment 64 4 Brussels: Power-sharing at the Lowest Common Denominator 87 5 The Merit Principle in a Representative Bureaucracy: Belfast 113 6 Active Representation Within the Power-sharing Society: 126 The Values Guiding Administrative Decision-making in Belfast and Brussels 7 Concluding Remarks: Bureaucrats and Conflict Management 151 Appendix 171 Notes 202 Bibliography 209 Index 221 vii List of Tables and Figures Tables Table 3.1 Summary of Chapter Findings 83 Table 5.1 Overview of the Descriptive Data, 2009 118 Table 5.2 Baseline, Stratified and Aggregate Measure Ratios, 119 2009 Table 5.3 Stratified Measure Ratios: Nationality, 2009 120 Table 6.1 Correlation Factor Scores: Belfast 129 Table 6.2 Correlation Factor Scores: Brussels 129 Table 6.3 Key Agreement Statements for Factor One 131 Table 6.4 Key Agreement Statements for Factor Two 133 Table 6.5 Key Agreement Statements for Factor Three 136 Table 6.6 Key Agreement Statements for Factor Four 139 Table 6.7 Key Agreement Statements for Factor Five 141 Figures Figure 1.1 Representation Continuum I 31 Figure 1.2 Representation Continuum II 34 Figure 1.3 Representation Network 36 Figure 1.4 Core Governance Beliefs 37 Figure 2.1 Conflict–Stability Continuum 47 Figure 2.2 The Regions of Belgium 59 Figure 2.3 The Regional Governments and Linguistic 60 Communities of Belgium Figure 2.4 The Relationship Between the Regions/ 61 Communities and Their Governments Figure 2.5 The Political Organisation of Brussels 62 Figure 5.1 Representativeness Ratios 117 viii Preface The management of conflict has long been of concern to social scien- tists, urban planners and community-minded citizens. While differing mechanisms of managing ethnonational or ethnolinguistic tensions exist, few studies advance our understanding of how conflicts are actu- ally managed – in other words, the study of ethnic peace. In this study I draw upon the experiences of two differing examples of ethnic peace: Belfast and Brussels. It is hoped that other contested cities considering power-sharing as a form of governance may learn from what have been categorised as sites of successful power-sharing. While there are few studies of ethnic peace, fewer studies again seek to understand the role of the elite level bureaucrat in sustaining this peace. This research fills this gap in the literature, investigating the politician-bureaucrat rela- tionship within the contested urban environment of two different mechanisms of consociationalism. The book ascertains the extent of discretion available to the bureaucratic elite and further, through deter- mining core beliefs of interviewees, establishes how this discretion is employed. Methodologically, the research draws on a multi-method approach, consisting of semi-structured interviews and a method well established in psychology but relatively new to political science: Q methodology. The empirical findings show that the bureaucratic elite influence the conflict management process. While bureaucrats are found to share a number of core governance beliefs, a number of cate- gories of association can also be identified. These categories are not based on a primary identity, but on a secondary learned identity. The findings therefore also propose that a professional or societal attach- ment can supersede a primary identity within the public administra- tion of a contested society. In a number of instances, bureaucrats are found to actively represent these secondary learned attachments over their primary identities. The research speaks to both practitioners and researchers in two fields: firstly to those interested in conflict management research within the contested state and secondly to those interested in public administration research. The project to which this work is attributed, Conflict in Cities and the Contested State, seeks to better understand the ways heavily contested cities may become viable for all inhab- itants. A team of researchers from three UK universities: Cambridge, ix x Preface Exeter and Queen’s Belfast, investigate the common subject of conflict management from a variety of different perspectives. The multi- disciplinary initiative includes: architecture, urban studies, politics, geography and sociology. These lenses are used to try and understand conflict management in a number of European and Middle Eastern cities: Jerusalem, Belfast, Brussels, Berlin, Mostar, Nicosia, Berlin, Beirut, Tripoli and Kirkuk. More specifically, the project seeks to under- stand how urban structures and institutions may strengthen cities to withstand state struggles, and establish the extent to which cities may be transformed into effective and equitable sites for human settlement. In other words, the project is concerned with mechanisms for the con- frontation and absorption of conflict as opposed to conflict resolution or solution.1This book contributes directly to these objectives, disre- garding the nature of the policies to be implemented but focusing instead on the policy implementation and design mechanisms and more importantly, the policy implementers and designers. Who are they and what guides them in their decision-making processes? The research contributes to an understudied aspect of conflict management research – the politician-bureaucrat relationship. The research exam- ines this relationship from the perspective of the elite level bureaucrat. Much of the normative literature in conflict management focuses on what policies would best suit particular cases. Much of this literature also points to the public administration as one of the primary obstacles to effective public policy development. This research provides an opportunity for bureaucrats themselves to contribute to the debate, outlining their role perceptions within the contested city. Further, I respond to research calls by Stanfield (1996) and Varshney (2002) that in order to manage ethnic conflict we must first understand instances of ethnic peace. Of the cities under investigation within our research project, Belfast and Brussels have adopted two different forms of conso- ciationalism and provide an opportunity to learn from ethnic peace. For more on the individual cases and case selection, see Chapter 2. The second contribution of this book is to public administration and committee governance research. While this is a secondary contribu- tion, I believe it to be of equal significance. As identified above, I compare two systems of public administration within two mechanisms of consociationalism. To compare these bureaucracies I use the theoret- ical lens of representative bureaucracy. To date, representative bureau- cracy has not been extensively applied to European committee governance research (see Anne Stevens’ [2009] examination of the European Commission as an exception). European governance research Preface xi seeks to understand the decision-making mechanisms of the European Union, and other bodies such as the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. While there are many theoretical approaches to investigating the subject from multi- level governance, to intergovernmentalism to neo-functionalism, a large majority of empirical works emanating from these frameworks rely on the belief that norms, beliefs and values guide behaviour. Smith (2003) submits that the sociology of European Commissioners (political level) matters at the EU level, investigating the causal rela- tionship between previous career, national identity and portfolio and role perceptions. At the bureaucratic level, Egeberg (1999) analyses the role conceptions of national bureaucrats operating at the EU level. Checkel (2003) seeks to determine the mindset of bureaucrats on Council Committees, investigating the changing nature of their loyalties. Hooghe (2005) probes the norms, beliefs and values of permanent officials within the European Commission. In her literature review she submits that most research on socialisation examines states or govern- ments, but that along with Checkel (2003) and Johnston (2001) her research focuses on the individual. There are also other more recent examples of such research (Gornitzka and Sverdrup, 2008; Trondal and Jeppesen, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Fouilleux et al, 2005; Radaelli and O’Connor, 2009, among others). Thus it can be surmised that within European governance research, the motivations and role perceptions of the bureaucrat are viewed by a significant proportion of the literature as being central to the subsequent actions of the bureaucrat. Within this research I assume a similar relationship. However, while much of this European governance research has adopted theoretical approaches from psychology, or used a psychological lens to view existing theories of European integration (Checkel, 2003 and Hooghe, 2005 to name but two), research has rarely adopted methods from outside the realm of political science. While the ideas and concepts have travelled from psy- chology to political science, the research methodologies, in general, have not. Within this research I draw on a methodology introduced to political science from psychology by researchers such as Selden et al (1999) known as Q methodology. While European governance research seeks to determine norms, beliefs and values of interviewees, its inter- views are largely based on degrees of attachment surveys and semi- structured interviews, techniques designed to ascertain information. In this research I suggest that Q methodology could be more helpful in ascertaining individual norms, beliefs and values.