The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Responsibility versus accountability in the Friedrich‐Finer debate
Abstract
Purpose To consider anew the classic debate between Herman Finer and Carl Friedrich in the history of public administration that has shaped both the theory and practice of government since the 1940s in much of the Western world, and in other parts of the world influenced by the Western example. Design/methodology/approach A study of the original contribution of both Finer and Friedrich in their own times, which is then put into the current context of reducing the size of government. Findings The central argument is a distinction between accountability which means obeying orders and responsibility which means acting on a judgment of the greater good. Originality/value The paper reminds readers that accountability to a minister and responsibility to the public good may not always coincide.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The point is that the orthodox image of bureaucracy as a pure instrument of government is far too narrow (see Jackson, 2009) and so is the conception of the bureaucratic ethos, deriving exclusively from values like efficiency, neutrality, loyalty, expertise, and hierarchy (Cooper, 1990).”
From Public Administration Under Populist Rule: Standing Up Against Democratic Backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Jackson, 2009
Citations
Cites
Weber, M. (2005) · Social Theory · doi:10.1515/9781474469654-020 · Cited by 1,240
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Dunn, D. and Legg, J. (2001), “US local government managers and the complexity of responsibility and accountability in democratic governance”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 73‐88. · DOI
- Finer, H. (1936), “Better government personnel”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 569‐99. · DOI
- Finer, H. (1940), “Administrative responsibility in democratic government”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 335‐50. · DOI
- Friedrich, C.J. (1935), Problems of the American Public Service, McGraw‐Hill, New York, NY.
- Friedrich, C.J. (1940), “Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility”, in Friedrich, C.J. and Mason, E. (Eds), Public Policy: A Yearbook of the Graduate School of Public Administration, Vol. 1, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA, pp. 3‐24.
- Fry, B.R. and Nigro, L.G. (1996), “Max Weber and US public administration: the administrator as neutral servant”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 37‐46. · DOI
- Gaus, J. (1936), “The responsibility of public administration”, in Gaus, J., White, L.D. and Dimock, M.E. (Eds), The Frontiers of Public Administration, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
- Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, Blackwell, Oxford.
- Jackson, M. (2004), “Hegel's theory of bureaucracy”, in Bill Jenkins and Edward C. Page (Eds), The Foundation of Bureaucracy in Economic and Social Thought, Edward Elgar, London, Vol. I, pp. 3‐21.
- Jackson, M. (2005), “Philosopher‐kings and bankers”, Theoria, Vol. 107, pp. 9‐35. · DOI
- Justice, J. and Miller, G. (2006), “Decision making, institutions, elite control, and responsiveness in administrative history”, in Rabin, J., Hildreth, W.B. and Miller, G.J. (Eds), Handbook of Public Administration, 3rd ed., Jossey‐Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 250‐313.
- McSwite, O.C. (2002), “Moving on (legitimacy is over) millennial consciousness and its potential”, in Jun, J.S. (Ed.), Rethinking Administrative Theory: The Challenges of the New Century, Greenwood, Westport, CT, pp. 3‐23.
- Meier, K. and Krause, G. (2003), “The scientific study of bureaucracy: an overview”, in Meier, K. and Krause, G. (Eds), Politics, Policy, and Organization, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1‐18.
- Mulgan, R. (2003), Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies, Palgrave, London. · DOI
- O'Leary, R. (2005), The Ethics of Dissent, Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC.
- Rhodes, R.A. and Wanna, J. (2007), “The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from Platonic guardians”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 406‐21. · DOI
- Ridley, F.F. (1985), “Political neutrality in the British civil service”, Politics, Ethics and Public Service, Royal Institute of Public Administration, London, pp. 31‐42.
- van Riper, P.P. (1984), “The politics‐administration dichotomy: concept or reality?”, in Rabin, J. and Bowman, J.S. (Eds), Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public Administration, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 17‐30.
- Weber, M. (1974 [1914] ), Economy and Society, Vol. 2, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
- Woodrow, W. (1887), “The study of administration”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 197‐222. · DOI
- Haque, A. (2005), “Ethics and administrative discretion in unified theory”, Administration and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 701‐16. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Public Administration Under Populist Rule: Standing Up Against Democratic Backsliding
Bauer, M. W. (2024) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2023.2243400 · Cited by 104
“In the famous words of Dwight Waldo, who force-fully advocated this point of view, it is not credible to claim that “autocracy during working hours is the price to be paid for democracy after hours” (Waldo, 1952, p. 87; see also Mosher, 1982; Jackson, 2009; Spicer, 2018).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Jackson, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Jackson, Michael
- ORCID
- Jackson, Michael
- Venue
- Journal of Management History
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-01-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 66-77
- ISSN
- 1751-1348 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1973110065
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 4.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management History (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Keywords
- Carl Friedrich, public administration theory, accountability, responsibility, public goods, ministerial accountability, history of public administration
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
