The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies
Abstract
Notwithstanding an ever-growing body of literature on administrative reforms, the studies either focus on single countries or emphasize common tendencies in all countries; hence providing little systematic insight for the evaluation and explanation of administrative change from a comparative perspective. In the light of this deficit, it is the aim of this article to develop an analytical concept for explaining cross-national variances in patterns of administrative development. For this purpose, the concept of national administrative reform capacity is developed, arguing that the potential for reforming different administrative systems is basically dependent on the general institutional context in which these systems are embedded. On this basis, two ideal type constellations of administrative reform capacity and corresponding patterns of administrative development are identified and illustrated by a systematic comparison of administrative reform capacities and administrative changes in Germany and Britain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Politicization of the Bureaucracy across and within Administrative Traditions
Cooper, C. A. (2021) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2020.1739074 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Knill, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Policy
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1999-05
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 113-139
- ISSN
- 0143-814X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7815
- OpenAlex
- W2107156414
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0143814x99000203
- The paper
- Knill, C. (1999). Explaining Cross-National Variance in Administrative Reform: Autonomous versus Instrumental Bureaucracies. Journal of Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x99000203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.