Bureaucratic discretion, legitimacy, and substantive justice

Kate Vredenburgh
{"title":"Bureaucratic discretion, legitimacy, and substantive justice","authors":"Kate Vredenburgh","doi":"10.1080/13698230.2022.2133829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Chiara Cordelli’s book The Privatized State makes an important contribution to debates over the morality of public administration and widespread privatization. Cordelli argues that widespread privatization is a problem of legitimacy, as private actors impose their will unilaterally on others. Bureaucratic decision-making, by contrast, can be legitimate, within the correct institutional context and in accordance with a bureaucratic ethos. In this review, I argue that bureaucratic policymaking faces similar changes from the value of legitimacy that Cordelli raises against widespread privatization. First, I argue that for a polity subject to bureaucratic policymaking to be self-ruling, bureaucracies must incorporate more democracy; but, so doing goes against the rationale of their institutional form. Second, I argue that bureaucrats and private actors acting on behalf of the state do not have starkly different levels of free purposiveness, and that it is morally desirable for bureaucrats to have more free purposiveness than Cordelli allows, and private actors less.","PeriodicalId":46451,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2022.2133829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Chiara Cordelli’s book The Privatized State makes an important contribution to debates over the morality of public administration and widespread privatization. Cordelli argues that widespread privatization is a problem of legitimacy, as private actors impose their will unilaterally on others. Bureaucratic decision-making, by contrast, can be legitimate, within the correct institutional context and in accordance with a bureaucratic ethos. In this review, I argue that bureaucratic policymaking faces similar changes from the value of legitimacy that Cordelli raises against widespread privatization. First, I argue that for a polity subject to bureaucratic policymaking to be self-ruling, bureaucracies must incorporate more democracy; but, so doing goes against the rationale of their institutional form. Second, I argue that bureaucrats and private actors acting on behalf of the state do not have starkly different levels of free purposiveness, and that it is morally desirable for bureaucrats to have more free purposiveness than Cordelli allows, and private actors less.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
官僚裁量权、合法性和实质正义
基娅拉·科德利的著作《私有化的国家》对公共行政道德和广泛私有化的争论做出了重要贡献。科德利认为,广泛的私有化是一个合法性问题,因为私人行为者单方面将自己的意志强加于他人。相比之下,官僚决策在正确的体制范围内和符合官僚精神是合法的。在这篇评论中,我认为官僚政策制定面临着类似的变化,来自科德利提出的反对广泛私有化的合法性价值。首先,我认为,一个服从官僚决策的政体要实现自治,官僚机构必须融入更多的民主;但是,这样做违背了其制度形式的基本原理。其次,我认为官僚和代表国家行事的私人行为者的自由合意性水平并没有明显的不同,道德上,官僚的自由合意性比科德利所允许的要多,而私人行为者的自由合意性要少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Myths of Plato, myths of modernity The great reconciliation of reason and myth A reply to my critics On the political and normative implications of myth as philosophical discourse If you polluted, you’re included: the all-affected principle and carbon tax referenda
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1