Globalization and Public Administration

Author(s): Ali Farazmand

Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1999), pp. 509-522
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110299 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Introduction
As thenewmillennium approaches, a new
civilizationis dawning. Thequalitative changes
of thiscivilization havebeenthesubjectof
and
Globalizaion manystudies. For example,Huntington
(1996) speaksofthe"clashof civilizations,"
Public
Adminisaon Fukuyama (1992)predicts "theendofhistory
and man,"and Korbin(1996) indicatesa
"return backto medievalism." The hallmark of
thischangeis theprocessof globalization,
AliFarazmand, FloridaAtlantic
University through whichworldwide integration andtran-
scendence takeplace,evoking at leasttwodif-
Thisarticle discusses
globalizationanditsimplications forpublic ferent intellectual responses.On one hand
administration. Usingapoliticaleconomy approach,an analysis there arethosewhoarguethatthegrowth of
is madeofthedifferent meaningsandperspectives ofglobaliza-
transnational corporations, inparticular because
tion,ofthecauses andconsequences andofthe
ofglobalization, of their "state-indifferent" nature, and the
underpinnings orconstitutive
elements a phe-
ofglobalization, spreadof globalcapitalism havemadestate
nomenon thatisall-embracingwithtransworld andfar-reaching
irrelevantorevenobsolescent (Ball,1967;Nais-
implications governance,
forsociety, andpublicadministration. bitt, 1994;Ohame,1995). Somethink ofitas
Causesofglobalization arediscussed,suchas theeconomicfactors eventheend ofwork(Rifkin, 1975) and of
ofsurplus accumulation,corporate reorganization,
shiftofcorpo- public administration (Stever, 1988). Others
ratepowerstructure,globalmoney andfinancialization, global believethatglobalcapitalism hasledtothegen-
stateandadministration, domestic decline, humanexpecta- eration
rising ofsuprastate governing agencies thatare
tions,innovations,andglobalsupranational organizations suchas supplementing, ifnotsupplanting, theterritori-
theUnited Nations.Consequences ofglobalizationarediscussed, al nation-states (Picciotto, 1989; Cox, 1993;
including impact
thepositive suchas continuity andpersistence of Korten, 1995). Still
others have suggested that
thestateandpublicadministration, butalsoitsnegativeconse- thisalso has erodedthesenseofcommunity
quences suchas threattodemocracy andcommunity, increasing andurbanpowerstructure (Mele,1996;Knox,
corruption,andeliteempowerment. Thena discussionis madeof 1997;Korten, 1995),causing thelossofurban
theconverging, hegemonicglobalorder witha question ofpossible jobs(Wilson, 1996). Theyalsowarnthatthe
counter-hegemonic modelthatmight alterthedominant world merging of the supranational governance agen-
order.Finally,thearticle
presentsa number impli-
ofssignificant cieshasdeepened thedependency oflessdevel-
cations-positive publicadministration
andnegative-for as a theo- opedcountries, exacerbated theirfiscalcrises,
ryandpractice, frombothAmerican andcomparative/interna- andcreated a serious problem ofgovernability
tionalperspectives. inthosenations (Kregel, 1998).
On theotherhand,somepublicadministra-
torsandpublic-policy analysts havepredicted
thatglobalcorporations willcreatea world
orderbeyond nation-states (Reich,1991),that
is,a "global village"(Garcia-Zamor andKhator,
1994),a "world government" with"global man-
agement" (Wilson, 1994).

1999,Vol.59,No. 6
Review* November/December
PublicAdministration 509

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Sometheorists haveevenattempted to developa uni-
versal,globaltheoryof publicadministration
1994). Othershavevocallyrefuted
(Caiden,
theideaoftheendof
Globalzation isthe resultofseveralfactors,
the stateand have arguedforthe persistenceof the including
surplus accumulation the
capital, state,
nation-states withall theconcomitant implications for
public administration (Caiden, 1994; Heady, 1996; domestic
constraints,
information technology,
Scholte1997).
Hirstand Thompson(1996), Zysman(1996), and international andideology.
institutions,
Boyerand Drache(1996) havearguedthatglobalization
hasbeenexaggerated and thatstatesremainstrong in the publicadministration. Whilethecoreof thestateand
crucialfunctionsof governance.Some realistsin the publicadministration persistsin the broadersenseof
international relationstraditionhave arguedthat"de continuity, major changeshave occurredas a conse-
facto[state]sovereignty has been strengthened rather quenceof globalization thathavealteredthenatureand
thanweakened"(Krasner1993,318). Similarly, sociolo- characterofthestateand publicadministration fromthe
gistsand politicalscientists likeMichaelMann (1993) traditional welfare administrative stateto a corporate wel-
and ThedaSkcopol(1985),who "brought thestateback farestate.Capitalism needsthestate,and thestateis not
in"to theirdisciplines duringthe1980s,havemaintained independent fromcapital;theelitesofbothworktogeth-
theirskepticism aboutthedisappearance ofthestatefrom erin theglobalization processbecauseitservesboth.
history. The discussion thatfollowsis presented in fourparts:
However, thelattergroupof thinkers recognizes that Partone presents analyticalperspectiveson theconcepts
globalismhas changedthenatureof theadministrativeofglobalism andthenewworldorder.Parttwoexamines
stateworldwide.The globalizedeconomicstructure,thecausesofglobalization.Partthreediscusses thecon-
with its many superstructuralchanges, including sequencesofglobalcapitalism forthestateandforpublic
supraterritorial powerstructures, has led to profound administration, focusing on thechangingcharacter and
implicationsforpublic administration (Mander and roleofthestatein generaland theadministrative statein
Goldsmith, 1996; Farazmand, 1994). Severalsocialsci- particular.In partfour,a numberof implications are
entistshavedescribed the"retreating shifts" in thequality outlinedforpublicadministration, withsuggestions for
andquantity ofstatepowerandauthority (Strange, 1996; publicadministrators worldwide.
Graycar, 1983; Lipsky,1984). Theyalso haveexplained
thetransitional natureofthestate"from thewelfare state Perspectives onGlobalization
to the competitions state,"as governments attemptto
"respond to,and shapeandcontrol, growing internation-
andtheNewWorld Order
al politicaleconomicinterpenetration" (Cerny,1989),to Althoughthe conceptof worldorderis not new,it
"thehallowstate"(Milward,1994) or "thecorporate becamefashionable afterWorldWarII. Withtheemer-
state"(Farazmand, 1997a,b). genceof theSovietreformist leaderMikhailGorbachev,
This articletreatstheconceptsofglobalism and glob- whocalledforglobalrestructuring, openness, a newway
alizationas phenomenaproducedby historical changes ofglobalthinking, peaceforall,superpower cooperation,
withinthebroaderframework of continuity. Thesephe- and an endto theCold War,theconceptofa newworld
nomenaareexpectedhistorical, dialectical developmentsorderreemerged (Sedghi,1992). Following theHelsinki
of late capitalismand are theproductsof thedynamic Summitin September 1990,U.S. President GeorgeBush
natureof rapidaccumulationof surplusat the global increasingly usedtheterm. Today,theconceptsof the
level.The dynamic natureofthecapitalist politicalecon- newworldorderand globalism havebecomethesubject
omy in its latestdevelopmenthas shiftedin favorof ofseriousstudy.Butwhatdo theyactually mean?
financialcapitalas opposed to the earlierproduction
natureof capital.It has shifted fromnationalto global
MeaningoftheNewWorldOrderandGlobalization
capitalism. Changeand continuity aredialectical charac-
teristicsof the development of socioeconomic systems. The newworldorderdenotesa "system of collective
The qualitative and quantitative changesof thelastfew worldsecurity wherestatesand peoplescan livein peace
decades,whichbeganafter WorldWarII and haveaccel- witheachother,ideologies aside"(Farazmand, 1994,65)
eratedsincethe1970s,havealteredthenatureofcapital- and "observe eachother's borders andmaintain collective
isteconomiesand theirrespective structures and organi- security interests"(Sedghi,1992,62). The PersianGulf
zationsofgovernance andadministration. Warwasarguably fought in theserviceofthenewworld
I arguethatglobalization is theresult ofseveral factors, order,and President Bushannouncedthatthewarwas
includingsurplusaccumulationcapital,the state,domes- waged to "standup forwhat is rightand condemnwhat
tic constraints,informationtechnology,international is wrong"(Trudeau,1992, 21). However,withthefallof
institutions,
and ideology. In turn,globalizationhas had the USSR, theconceptof thenew worldordergarnereda
significantconsequences for the capitaliststate and for diversemeaningand consequentlybecamevague.

510 Review* November/December

PublicAdministration 1999,Vol. 59,No. 6

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Globalizationmeansmanythingsto manypeople. raisedit againstthedoctrine of balanceof powerin the
Economists consider globalization as a steptowarda fully earlytwentieth century, andthetransnationalists raisedit
integrated worldmarket. Somepoliticalscientists viewit against the "realist"view of nationalist and state
as a marchawayfromtheconventionally defined concept sovereignty proclamationsin internationalrelations
of thestate,withterritorial sovereignty and the emer- (Scholte,1997),notto mentiontheinternationalist mis-
genceof nongovernmental powerplayersin theworld sionandclaimsofsocialists ledbytheUSSR.
order(Falk,1997). Businessschoolacademicsand con- The conceptis also redundant becausetheliberaliza-
sultantsapply globalizationto a "borderlessworld" tion of bordersfora new worldhas been aroundfor
(Ohmae, 1990), and othersviewit as a phenomenon manydecades,especially amongthesatellitenationsof
drivenonlyby private-sector firms, notbygovernmentstheWestled bytheUnitedStates,suchas thedeveloping
(Strange, 1996;Julius,1997). All discussions of global- countriesof LatinAmerica, Asia,Africa,and theMiddle
izationdealwiththequestionofborders-"the territorialEast. Regulatory,labor,and administrative policieshave
demarcations of statejurisdictions, and associatedissues alwaysbeenconcessionary towardmultinational corpora-
of governance,economy,identity,and community" tionsoperating profitable businesses in theThirdWorld
(Scholte,1997, 430). Fiveor possiblysix meaningsof (Heeger,1974; Bill and Springborg, 1990; LaFebber,
globalization, as theyrelateto publicadministration, are 1984; Mandel,1983; Halliday,1989; Dos Santos,1996;
reviewed
briefly andassessed here. Frank,1996; Farazmand,1989,1991; and Henderson,
Globalization as internationalization. Thisnotiontreats 1994). Again, CAG and otherinternationalpublic
globalization in a narrowsenseas an increasein cross- administration consulting groupshavebeenactivein less
borderrelations amongorganizations, thatis, identities developednations,and publications on comparative and
and communities thatextendbeyondnationaljurisdic- development administration haveproducedvoluminous
tionalboundaries. This is nothingnew:internationalliterature attestingto thisphenomenon.
tradeand otheraspectsof economicand politicalrela- Globalization
as a process. Usinga politicaleconomy
tionsbeganto growamongnationscenturies ago. The view,thisnotionrefersto globalizationnot as a phe-
fieldof international relationsis an outgrowth of sucha nomenon, butas a process-a continuing processofcapi-
development. The internationalization ofpublicadmin- tal accumulationin moderncapitalismthathas been
istrationis notneweither, thoughit gainedmomentum goingon forcenturies. Onlyrecently has it intensified
as
afterWorldWarII, whenboththeUnitedStatesandthe a resultof theavailability of moderntechnology. There-
SovietUnioninternationalized theirsatellite nationsand, fore,thisviewis also not new. The beginning of this
in turn,thewaysin whichpublicadministration was globalizationprocessgoes back to the nineteenth and
thoughtabout and practiced.The riseof the United earlytwentieth centuries and was markedby thetransi-
Nationsand itsaffiliate agenciesalso promoted interna- tion from early (competitive) capitalism to late
tionalization.The birthand growth of theComparative (monopoly)capitalism, whichwas boostedby the two
Administration Group(CAG) was theoutcomeof this worldwars and produced capitalism's"golden age"
development (Waldo,1980;Riggs,1998). (1950-1970)at theheightof theCold War.Capitalism,
Globalization as borderopenness.This meanslarge- this view contends,is "in its innermostessence an
scaleopennessofborders achievedbyremoving statereg- expandingsystembothinternally and externally. Once
ulatorybarriers and protectionist measures, thusfacilitat-rooted,it bothgrowsand spreads"(Sweezy,1997, 1).
ing rapidfinancial transactions, communications, trade, Beginningwiththerecession of 1974-1975,threetrends
and cultural relationships (Brown,1992). Sucha border- havecontributed to theaccelerated rateof capitalaccu-
less worldwould be characterized by a unifiedglobal mulation at thegloballevel:a decreasing growth rate,the
economy,globalgovernment, homogenousglobalcul- "worldwide proliferationof monopolistic (or oligopolis-
ture,and, by implication,a global systemof public tic)multinational corporationss]" and the "financializa-
administration (Scholte,1997). The Internet and other tionofthecapitalaccumulation process"(Sweezy,1997,
meansof information technology have contributed to 1-2). Thisviewtellsus littleaboutthechanging roleof
thisphenomenon beyondcomprehension. Globalization thestateand publicadministration, especially underthe
of publicadministration has meant"thinking globally newglobalorder.
and actinglocally."The conceptsof the "newworld" Globalization
as ideology. The ideologicalunderpin-
(Cleveland,1993), the "globalvillage"(Garcia-Zamor ningsof Westerncapitalistdemocracyhave actedas a
and Khator,1994), and "globalmanagement" (Wilson, drivingforcebehindtheglobalization of Americanand
1994) seemto characterize thisnotionof globalization WesternEuropeanliberaldemocracy.The wealthof
anditsimplications forpublicadministration. information-including propaganda-spread throughout
This notionof globalization, however, is also limited theworldbythemedia,thepress,computers, and satel-
anddeficient in thatit is synonymous withliberalization.litecommunication systems offersan imageof an ideal
raisedit in favorof capitalistdevelop- politicalsystemforothercountriesto emulate.The key
The anticameralists
ment,and the classicalliberalsraisedit againststatismin wordsfreedom, individualism,
freeenterprise,and plural
the nineteenth century.The liberal internationalists democracy have characterizedthis ideological force of

Administration
andPublic
Globalization
SICAJubilee: 511

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
globalization (Lindblom,1977, 1990). Important and nity,the changingroleof the administrative stateand
effective as it mayhave been,thisnormative forceof publicadministration is explored as botha causeand an
globalization sayslittleaboutthepoliticaleconomy ofthe effect.
stateandpublicadministration.
Globalization as a phenomenon. As a cause-and-effect
CausesofGlobalization
phenomenonin late capitalism,thisperspective treats
globalizationas a cause of worldcapitalism'sendless To avoid oversimplification, the processand phe-
effort to reachglobalmarkets foraccelerated accumula- nomenonof globalization are not treatedheresolelyin
tion of capitalduringthe stagnantera of the 1970s. termsof advancecapitalism,thoughthathas been a
Globalization hasproducedsignificant consequences for majorcontributing factor.Indeed,severalfactorshave
the stateand otherinstitutions, whoseterritorial bor- contributed to theprocessofglobalization, including sur-
dershave"notso muchcrossedor openedas transcend-plus accumulation of corporatecapital,the roleof the
ed. Here, 'global' phenomenaare those thatextend dominantstatesand theirbureaucracies, domesticcon-
acrosswidelydispersedlocationssimultaneously. Terri- straints,risinghumanexpectations, international institu-
torialdistanceand territorial bordershold limitedsig- tions,andtechnological innovations.
nificancein thesecircumstances; the globe becomesa Economic factorsofsurplusaccumulation. The most
single'place' in its own right"(Scholte,1997, 431). important factor contributingto theglobalization ofcap-
This viewof globalizationis usefulforunderstandingitalismhas beenthedrivingforceof surplusaccumula-
globalchangesin the politicaleconomyof nations.It tionthathas crossedterritorial bordersand transcended
also considersthe worldas a globalvillageand offers nationalboundariesfordecades. It acceleratedafter
significantexplanatorypower. Yet, it giveslimited WorldWarII and reacheda highpointafterthe 1970s,
weightto the role of the modernstate and public reaching itszenithin the1990s. Surplus(orprofit) accu-
administration in causingglobalization. It alsotellslittle mulationis thelifeblood ofcapitalism, whichneedscon-
about the futurerole of the state,institutional elites, stantexpansionat any cost; hence the continuityof
and publicadministration in such a global"place."It dynamic capitalism.Globalization has beena central fea-
tells nothingabout the dialecticalcounterforces of tureof transnational corporations (also calledmultina-
changeexerted frombelow. tionals),whichhave formanydecadesreachedglobal
Globalization as botha transcendingphenomenon and a marketsand enjoyed cheap labor in less developed
process.Sharingwithand buildingupon the previous nations.Whatis newis therapidity andhighrateofsur-
this
meanings, perspective considers globalization to be a plusaccumulation, made possibleby a numberofmecha-
processofaccumulation as
byglobalcapitalism-aconstant nisms, wellas thetransworld mobility ofcorporations
processofexpansion intonewfrontiers andopportunitiesin a spacelessand timeless globalplacefacilitated bythe
forincreasing capitalaccumulation at thegloballevel.It state.Borrowing fromScholte's(1997) listof factors,
also viewsglobalization as a phenomenon causedbythe thesemechanisms arebrieflyexplained below.
processof globalcapitalaccumulation-aphenomenon Globalmarketing. In searchof new markets,cheap
thathas manifestedits negativeand positiveeffects labor,and unrestricted production sites,manymultina-
almosteverywhere. The impacthasevenbeenfeltbythe tionalsand transnational corporations havedecidedto
powerful nationsof theWestand Japan,wheremost,if "goglobal."The movement outoftheSnowBeltintothe
notall,ofthetranscending organizations ofcapitalaccu- Sun Belt of the antiunionSouth,stillin progress, has
mulation havehomebases and arebackedbytheirglobal- boostedsurplusaccumulation. But moreAmericancor-
ly dominantstates.UnliketheThirdWorldcountries, porationsfoundglobalization a muchfasterand more
whichhavebeen plaguedby the devastating effects of profitable strategy. Globalconsumerism beganto flour-
globalization bymultinational and transnational corpora- ish,withmoniedconsumers aroundtheplanetbeingable
tionsfordecades,thepeoples,institutions, and commu- "topurchase thesamegoodsat thesametime,"andcoor-
nitiesof theadvancedindustrial countries of theNorth dinatedcorporateresearchand development activities
did not experiencethe impactof globalizationuntil producednew economiesof scalebeyondthe reachof
recently. individualcorporations (Modelski,1979). These activi-
It is thisqualitative change,spurred bythenewglobal- tiesproducedhighprofitratesand a significant upturn
izationprocess, thathascausedconcerns and led to "new forglobalizingfirmsand the home statessupporting
consequences"forthe nation-states in the dominant them.By 1989,thecostofcorporate advertising reached
West.Therefore, thisperspectiveofglobalization is rather $240 billion,in additionto the $380 billionspenton
noveland complementary to theviewsnotedabove,in packaging, design,and promotion (During,1992, 171-
thatit addsan innovative dimension to theconcept.It 72). In 1992,almostallofthe40 largest advertising firms
considers thestateas an activeinstitutional playerin the in GreatBritainand theUnitedStateshad specialized
process of globalization and in dealing with its conse- departmentswith global commercials (Sklair, 1995;
quences. Other factors,such as informationtechnology, Scholte,1997, 433). By the 1990s, thecorporateconvic-
also have been effective.
Here, in the new global commu- tion that globalization"is not a luxuryany more, it's a

512 Review* November/December

PublicAdministration 1999,Vol.59,No. 6

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Insearch
ofnew cheap and
markets, labor,
theyplaygovernments againstgovernments
coup d'etatsor counterinsurgencies
unsympathetic tothem(Parenti,
and stage
againstgovernments
1995;Korten,1995).
unrestrictedproduction
sites,
many multinationals Global money and financialization. Globalmoneyhas
no loyalty or attachment to anyspace,nation,or com-
and transnational
corporations
havedecided to'goglobal.munityof people.Unlikein thepast,whenmoneyand
its distribution weremainlyterritorial and promoted
necessity"was expressedin the Wall StreetJournal domesticcommunities-jobs, opportunities, commercial
(September 26, R1). activities, community values-global moneyhas now
Globalproduction, withits reducedcosts,also has looseneditslinkto territorial finance, facilitatedby the
begunto replacenationalproduction.Globalization of cyberspace ofbankingcomputers. In 1995,"over$9 tril-
financehas facilitatedthisprocessand has produced lion of theworld'sbankassetsbelongedto depositors
"globalsourcing," through whicha production company non-resident in thecountry wheretheaccountwas held
candrawitscomponents andmaterials fromanywhere in and/orweredenominated in a currency issuedoutside
theworld.Withtheglobalization of financialcapital,it thatcountry" (Scholte,1997,439-440).Globalfinancial-
has becomepossible"to producea productanywhere,izationhasbeenaccelerated (Sweezy, 1997) withthehelp
usingresources fromanywhere, by a companylocated of "cyberpolitiks," changing the"natureof powerin the
anywhere, to be sold anywhere" (Friedman,1994; also information age"(Rothkopf, 1998,325).
citedin Naisbitt,1994, 19; Scholte,1997, 435). The Globalstateand administration. Ironically,capitalism
resultis a "globalfactory" in whichdifferent countries needsa strong stateand a stableenvironment to prosper.
hostdifferent production activities,
supplycheaplabor It demandsorderand socialcontrol(Weber,1947; Offe,
and materials, and absorball social and externalcosts 1985). The globallydominantgovernments, particularly
associatedwithglobalproduction. theUnitedStatesand itsEuropeanpartners, haveplayed
Globalcommodification of newitemshas transformedan activerole in promotingglobalizationof capital
socialas wellas economiclifeworldwide. Traditionaltan- throughout thiscentury.Thesegovernments haveallo-
gibletradesand industries haveshifted toward"intangi- catedlargeamountsof publicexpenditures to military
bles" (Scholte,1997, 436) whichare considerednew, and security systems to protectand promotecorporate
unique,or different, and are appealingto globalcon- capitalaccumulation in less-developed nations,as wellas
sumers,suchas folksongsand culturaland ethnicfea- in domestic marketplaces. Theyhaveintervened militari-
tures(Mele,1996). ly in manycountries, replacedlegitimate governments,
Reorganization ofcorporate structure. The rise and and installed and supported someof themostrepressive
expansion oftransworld corporationshas resultedin ver- and corruptregimesin the world.Examplesinclude
ticalas well as horizontalorganizational restructuring; Chilein the 1970s,Iranin the 1950s,and Indonesiain
thishasled to a concentration ofcorporate powerat the the 1960s (Parenti,1995; Greenberg, 1986; LaFeber,
global level and the creationof a global rulingclass 1984;Halliday,1979).
(Korten,1995; Brown,1992; Brecherand Costello, Especially sinceWorldWarII, Westerngovernments
1994). The numberof globalcorporations increased haveexported theirideologies, valuesystems, andsystems
from3,500 in 1960 to 40,000 in 1995,representing 40 of governanceand administration as ideal modelsby
percent oftheworld'stotalcommerce (UNCTAD, 1996, usingstate-of-the-art communication systems. By con-
ix). Vertically,
thenumberof strategic alliancesbetween ductingdirectand proxywarsof intervention and inva-
globalizingenterpriseshaverisen,andtheglobalwavesof sionsinAsia,LatinAmerica, Africa,andtheMiddleEast,
successivemergers and acquisitionshaveproduceda full- American corporate interests weresought(Brown,1992;
scale"fusion,"reaching 6,000in 1995,withan aggregateGill and Law,1988; Korten,1995; Bill and Springborg,
valueof$229.4 billion(FinancialTimes, Jan.20, 22). In 1990) and justifiedas protectionof Americanglobal
fact,"mergermania" and "mega-merger" trendshavepro- interests (Ball,1967;Hamilton,1989;Murphy, 1988).
duceda globallycentralized organization and a concen- The efficient functioning of the marketdependson
tratedpowerstructure in whichthelargest300 transna- strong governments (Daly and Cobb, 1989). Capitalism
tionalscontrol70 percent ofall foreigndirectinvestmentneedsa strongstateand bureaucracy to flourish,and
andalmostone thirdofthetotalassetsofall corporationspowerful businesselitesdominatethepolicyprocessand
aroundtheworld (Dunning,1993, 15; Harvey,1995, affect itsoutcomes(Jones,1983; Lindblom,1990). To
189). protect thesystem fromperiodiccollapseand to provide
This concentrated globalcorporate structurehas also safety netsforpromoting capitalist
development, market
produced a globalizing cadre of "managerial elites," as failuresdemandgovernment interventionin theeconomy
well as a new level of"organizationalelite" thattend to (Burkhead and Miner, 1971; Parenti, 1995; Korten,
influencepublic policy and administrative decisionsvir- 1995; Singerand Wildavsky,1993). Thus, the modern
tuallyanywhereon the planet. These global elites pro- statehas, throughpublic expenditures,played a pivotal
duce a global "organizationalculture"(Pascale, 1984): role in the accelerateddevelopmentof both capitalism

SICAJubilee:
Globalization
andPublic
Administration 513

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andglobalization fora newworldorder.However,
nessto thesesystems, theyalsohavespentsignificant
tions of theirbudgets to financethe welfarestate
(Gilbert,1983) to producea balanceof socialand eco-
in fair-
por- I
factor
he
United Nations
inglobalization.
has
itself been a major

nomicactions,a balancethatwas notacceptable to cor-

porateelites(Henry,1995). thesesupranational organizations haveplayedan effective
Domesticdecline.The 1970s wereplagued by the role in globalizationthrough"structural adjustment"
domesticeconomicdownturnmarkedby stagflation,requirements dictatedto the poor and less-developed
energycrisis,budgetdeficits, politicaland presidentialnationsdesperately seekinginternational aid (Chan,
crises,a confidence-gap crisisin bothcorporate and gov- 1996).
ernmental eliteperformance (Lipset,1987; Rosenbloom, A keyfeature of thestructuraladjustment program is
1995; Henry,1995), and generalorganizational decline the major reformsto the regulatory, financial,and
and cutbackmanagement (Levine,1978, 1980; Peters, administrative schemesimposedon those countries.
1991). Theseproblems wereaccompanied bycitizentax These reforms haveincludedmassiveprivatization and
revoltsand therisingexpectations ofemployee unionsin promotionof the subsidiary privatesector,removalof
corporate and publicsectors. Thesedomestic upsetswere tradeand otherbarriers, tax incentivesforcorporate
compoundedby international challengesposed to the operations, favorable laborlawsallowingforunrestrained
UnitedStatesandotherWestern powersbyrevolutions in use of cheaplabor,an emphasison export-oriented pro-
Iran and Nicaragua. The net resultwas thatthe state ductionandeconomicgrowth versusdevelopment, and a
faceda legitimacy crisisofitsown.It was unableto con- reductionof government's rolein the economy(Han-
tributeto accelerated capitalaccumulation and to per- cock,1989; Korten,1995; Gill and Law, 1991; Brown,
formtheincreasingly costlysocialwelfare function that 1992).
was contributing to its "fiscalcrisis"(O'Connor,1973;
Arrow,1963; Heidenheimer et al., 1983, 330). These
Consequences ofGlobalization
events,in turn,drovemorecorporations towardglobal-
ization. Globalization hasfacilitatedconnection and coordina-
Risinghumanexpectations. The expectations of the tionamongpeoples,governments, and nongovernmental
generalpopulacehavebeenrising,particularly thoseof organizations. Globalaccessibility is a giantpositivestep
the employeeunions;thishas becomeevidentby the towardhumanadvancements. Yet,globalization is build-
unions'demandsfor"property rights"in jobs, greater ingthefoundation ofa newcivilization characterized by
participation in management ofenterprises, theemergingmanyparadoxes.Not all stateshavebeenaffected byor
roleofwomenin theworkforce, and so on. The corpo- respondedto globalizationequally.This processhas
ratepowerstructure hascalledmanyoftheseexpectationsmovedmuchfaster in NorthAmerica, EastAsia,Western
of public-and private-sector employeesunsuitablefor Europe, and Australiathan in the restof Asia and
theirpurposeofprofitmaking. Moreover, themanylaw- Europe,Africa,and LatinAmerica.Nevertheless, the
suitsstemming fromEqual Employment Opportunity globalization ofcapital,politics,administration, and cul-
Act have encouragedmorecorporations to operatein turehas affected everynation;no country
virtually has
outsideglobalfactories withcheaplaborand littleor no beenleftuntouched. Forourpurposes, thefollowing dis-
legalconstraints. All ofthishascontributed to globaliza- cussionfocusesonlyon theconsequences ofglobalization
tion. forthestateand forpublicadministration. Theseconse-
Innovations.Innovations in information technology,quencesare discussedin thecontextof bothdeveloped
communications and transportation systems, and the and less-developed nationsand theirpublicadministra-
Internet havecontributed significantly to theglobaliza- tion.
tion phenomenon(Welch and Wong, 1998; Savith, Continuityandpersistence ofthestate.Globalization has
1998). As Bill Gates (1995) of Microsoftpromises,a notbrought abouttheendofthestateand itsbureaucra-
future "shoppers' heaven"in cyberspace seemsto provide cy;norwillitresultin a declineofthestatein thefuture.
a placewhere"allthegoodsforsalein theworldwillbe The territorial stateas a sociopolitical willcon-
identity
availablefromhomeviaInternet" (158). tinueto exist,as ithasforseveral millennia. The relation-
UnitedNationsagencies. The UnitedNationsitself has ship betweenmarketand politics,capitalismand the
beena majorfactor in globalization. Sincethe1970s,its state,the private-and public-sector management has
keyaffiliated organizations, suchas theWorldBank,the beenan intimate one.The relationship continues to exist
International MonetaryFund (IMF), and the World becausepublicadministration and civilization,including
TradeOrganization (WTO), havebeenpowerful instru- capitalistcivilization,havecoexistedand promotedone
mentsin thisprocess,whichhas been dominatedand another(Waldo,1980/1992)witha bureaucracy thathas
controlledprimarilyby theTrilaterals(the United States, also survivedmillenniaof politicaland economicchanges
some WestEuropeangovernments, and theJapanese),the (Heady, 1996; Farazmand,1998a, 1996b).
key donors of internationalaid. In the last two decades, However,globalizationhas also caused major changes

514 PublicAdministration
Review* November/December
1999,Vol.59,No. 6

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 all statesareneededforglobalizing capitalism, andall
The orientation and the
roleoftheglobalizing stateshave public administration
andwillnotbe dismantled.
functions
The changing
that cannot
character of
statehave changed asa result
ofglobalizing public administration as a fieldof enquiry, however, is
manifest initsrecent andcurrent debateovertheroleof
corporatecapitalism. thestateandtheexplorations intophilosophical, institu-
tional,organizational, andpractical underpinnings in
in the characterof the modernstate (Heady, 1998; search ofidentity (Peters,1997;Rockman, 1997).Corre-
Caiden,1994;Esman,1999;Scholte,1997).Atleastfive spondingly, thetwinfields ofcomparative anddevelop-
suchmajorchangesmaybe discerned. Firstis therein- mental publicadministration havebeenfilledwiththe
forcement of supraterritorial governance organizationsshifting debateoverthenature andsizeofthestateand
suchas theIMF,theWorldBank,and theWTO, whose publicadministration in developing knowledge and
decisionsand codes of conductare bindingoverthe building theoretical generalizations(Heady,1998;Riggs,
nation-states affecting theiradministrative systems.The 1998).Similar changes havebeenobserved in practical
second is the increasingdegreeof interdependence dimensions ofthestateandpublicadministration.
amongmodernstatesto handleterritorial andsupraterri- The orientation andtheroleoftheglobalizing state
torialissuesand to seekcooperation fora hostofmatters havechanged as a result ofglobalizing corporate capital-
of generalinterest, suchas thealarming concernforthe ism.Unlike thewelfare administrativestate, whichtend-
globalenvironment and theviability of ecologicalsus- ed to balance corporate/market interestswithsocialand
Here,theconcepts
tainability. oftheglobalvillage, global politicalinterests forseveraldecadesduringtheCold
environment, and global citizenshipare among the War,theroleofthenewcorporate welfare administrative
emerging concerns thatarepressedon all statesand their statefeatures several Theseincludethe
characteristics.
publicadministration practices(Khator,1994; Brown, shrinking ofthestabilizing welfare stateas we knowit;
1992). theexpansion ofthesecurity and military or warfare
The thirdchangeis thatall stateshave gainedthe state;andtheexpansion ofthecoercive bureaucracy-
information-age advantagesto processinformation for police,prisons, courtsystems, andtheirauxiliary func-
almostall functions of governance and administration,tionssuchas socialworks, psychological networks, and
bothdomesticand international, thoughless-developedcounseling. Thus,thestateandbureaucracy areactually
nationswillcontinueto trailbehindfora while.More aliveandwell(Korten, 1995;Lowi,1995;Parenti, 1995;
noteworthy is theincreasedmilitary and technologicalFarazmand, 1997a,b,c). However, equityandfairness
capability of thedominantstates,especially theUnited mayhavebeenthecasualties ofcorporate greed andglob-
States,to globallydominatetheworldfromboththe alization ofcapital (Farazmand, 1997a,b).
earthand space-hence a globalhegemony. The fourth Negative consequences ofglobalization. The negative
changeis thegrowingroleof governments as partners consequences ofglobalization aremany: theyinclude the
withand promoters of theprivatesectors,oftenat the diminished or lostsovereignty ofstates, constraints on
of
expense publicgoods and services.
Under forces of lossof
democracy, community, concentration of the glob-
globalization, "theroleof government is progressivelyal powerstructure, increased centralizationofcorporate
shifting towardproviding an appropriate enablingenvi- and government organizational elites,and increased
ronment forprivate[corporate] enterprise"(UNCTAD, dependency amongless-developed nations on globalizing
1996,IC1a22). powers.
The fifth, and perhapsthemostimportant changefor Threat tostate Sovereign
sovereignty. statehood depends
publicadministrators, is theshiftoftheadministrativestate on territoriality,fixedlocations, andsupreme authority
froma welfare stateto a corporate state(Parenti,1995; overland,space,and sea (Helleiner, 1994; Scholte,
Korten,1995)or "shadowstate"(Wolch,1990),"indiffer-1997). Butthepivotal roleofthestatein globalizing
entstate,""contracting state"(Bowlsand Wagman,1997; capitalism has,atthesametime, threatened stateidentity
Rathgerband Lipsky,1993), or "entrepreneurial state" byputting its"sovereignty atbay"(Vernon, 1971).Chal-
(Eisinger,1988). Corresponding changesin thenatureof lenges to sovereignty meana lossofunilateral ability by
and management
publicadministration to exercisecomprehensive
havebeencharac- nation-states macroeconomic
terizedbysuchtermsas "managerialism," man- policy.
"political Manystates havesurrenderedtheir
nationalpoli-
agement," "newpublicmanagement," and the"hallow- cy-making abilityto regional
or international
organiza-
state"(Milward,1994) or "thecorporateadministrativetionsforcollaboratingwithglobalization Some
efforts.
state"(Farazmand,
1997a,b). governmentshaveevenrevised their in the
constitutions
Similarly, willcontinueto per- interest
publicadministration ofregional collaboration
(forexample, Por-
Italy,
sistas both a self-conscious
enterprise and a professional tugal,and Spain in the EuropeanCommunity,and Latin
field.Researchand developmentin public administration American countries are considering similr actions
may be negativelyaffectedby globalization to some towardthe Transamerican community).Since the 1970s,
extent,but the continuityof the fieldof enquiryis intact; the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO have enforced

Administration
andPublic
Globalization
SICAJubilee: 515

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
moreauthoritative measures on themonetary and fiscal
policiesof less-developed
turaladjustment programs
membercountries.
mentioned
The struc-
abovehaveforced
Globalizing managerial elites
are
making
thesecountries intoreforms and changesthathavedeep- colonizingdecisions
thatafectgovernments,
ened theirdependency on globalizing corporations and
theirdominant governments. communities, andpeoples aroundthe and
globe,
By 1994, the World Bank had soughtto "provide
$200 billionto theThirdWorldin thenextdecadeto
promotethe privatesector"(Milmanand Lundstedt,
human beingsare reducedtoconsumers markets.
ofglobal
1994, 1667). Suchinternational loanscarrybothcross- 22). Communitydisplacementis a bitterpill that mil-
conditionsand crossoverconditionsthatdeepen the lions of farmersin many less-developed nations have
financial, military,political,and economicdependency been tastingforseveraldecades. Self-sufficient farmers
on Western powersand globalizing powerelites,whocan who contributedto theircommunityand to the national
easilydictatepolicychoicesto poor and less-developedeconomyhave been forcedout and dispossessedby glob-
nations.Suchmoneyusuallyenriches thehostcountry'salizingagribusinessand agroindustry, whichhave had the
powerelitesat theexpenseof millionsof people. It is fullsupportof subservientgovernments and administra-
alsotruethatmostforeign aid andinternational loansare tive elites. These farmers'migrationto cities to seek
returned to donorcountries(Hudson,1971). As Korten undignifiedwage-earning jobs has onlyexacerbatedexist-
(1995) states,the "Bank-approved consultantsoften ing urbanproblems(Chan, 1996; Helmut, 1975; Hoog-
rewrite a country's tradepolicy,fiscalpolicy,civilservice land, 1970; McCoy, 1971; LaFeber, 1984; Farazmand,
requirements, laborlaws,healthcarearrangements, envi- 1989, 1991b). However,such problemsof displacement
ronmentalregulations,energypolicy,resettlement arejustifiedby modernizationtheoristssuch as Hunting-
requirements, procurement rules,and budgetary policy" ton (1968). Similarchargesof globalizationfocusatten-
(165). Hancock(1989) callstheBankleadersthe"lords tion on the "globalpillage"(Brecher,1993; Mander and
of poverty"leadingglobal policydirectionsthrough Goldsmith,1996) and "modernslavery"in "sweatshops
"organizational elites"(Farazmand, 1997a,b)whoexecute behind the labels" (Udesky, 1994, 666-68), creatinga
thepolicypreferences of the "inner circle,"globalcorpo- "raceto the bottomin whichwagesand social conditions
rateelites(Useem,1984;Domhaff, 1970). tend to fallto the levelof the most desperate"(Brescher,
Threatto democracy and community. The rise and 1993,685-688).
expansionof globalizing capitalpose a seriousthreatto Globalizing managerialelites are making colonizing
democratic ideas aroundthe globe.The veryfactthat decisionsthataffectgovernments, communities,and peo-
globalorganizations suchas theIMF, theWorldBank, ples around the globe, and human beingsare reducedto
and theWTO, as wellas a fewtransnational elites,pre- consumersof global markets.Contraryto some rational-
scribeand dictatefiscal,monetary, and otherstructural-choice theorists(Buchanan and Tolluck, 1962; Mueller,
adjustment policiesto poorand less-developed countries 1989), marketand democracyare not synonymous;in
is, in a way,a negationof local democracy.Peoplein fact,theyare in seriousconflictwith each other (Lind-
thesenationsdo not and cannotexercisetheirhuman blom, 1977; Macpherson,1987). "Exportingdemocracy"
andcivilrights to determine theirownpolicypreferences;has been a favoritesloganunderthe new worldorderand
theirnationaland humaninterests are sacrificed to the globalization(Lowenthal,1991; Huntington,1991). But
interestsofthedominant powers(Hancok,1989). Glob- the recordshows thatthe greatcapitalistdemocraciesof
alizationhasresulted in deepening poverty, socialdisinte- the West, including the United States, have supported
gration, and environmental destruction. Globalization of "some of the most repressiveand exploitativedictator-
corporations in thesenationshasresulted in thedestruc- ships" around the globe (Kitschell,1992), forcingmil-
tion of domesticproductioneconomiesin favorof lions of people in less-developednationsto stagebloody
export-oriented, cash-crop activitiesand globalinterests.revolutions(Magdoff,1969; Schultz and Slater, 1990;
Peoplein mostofthesenationshavebeenstruggling with Farazmand,1989).
repressive regimes and politico-administrative eliteswho Equating democracywith marketis both misleading
are supportedby globalcorporations and theWestern and dangerous.It is misleadingbecause theirvaluesclash
democracies, including theUnitedStates(Cottam,1979; in many ways. As Heilbroner (1990) notes, "it is of
LaFeber,1984;ManderandGoldsmith, 1996). course foolishto suggestthat capitalismis the sine qua
Conversely, thethreat to domestic Western democracy non of democracy,or to claim that democracy,with its
is also real when global corporationsclose factories commitmentto political equality,does not conflictin
overnight and taketheirbusinessoverseas withoutcon- many ways with the inequalities built into capitalism"
sultinglocal communities(Wilson, 1997), or when for- (105). Marketsare inherentlybiased in favorof wealthy
eign investments in domesticenterprises
are made with- people, who may not necessarilyrealize the needs of a
out inputfromlocal communities.Local people have lost healthysociety.With economicand politicalpowercon-
controlof theircommunities(Mele, 1997; Korten,1995, centratedin a few global corporationsand government

516 Review* November/December

PublicAdministration 1999,Vol.59,No. 6

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
elites,policychoicesare "impaired"(Lindblom,1990), administrators acrosstheworld.
and it is increasingly difficult to exercisefreedomof 1. Therehasbeena majorchangein theconfiguration
choiceand to enjoyprotected individual rights(Dugger, of public-private spheresin favorof theglobalizing cor-
1989). Globalcorporations areextremely difficult,ifnot poratesector.The leadingeconomicroleof thegovern-
impossible, to holdaccountable. As Korten(1995) notes, mentand thepublicsectorin theallocation ofresources,
"it is impossibleto havehealthy, equitable,and demo- theequitabledistribution ofwealth,thestabilization of
craticsocietieswhenpoliticaland economicpoweris economy, and economicgrowthhas been overruled by
concentrated in a fewgigantic corporations" (181). theglobalizing corporate elites.WiththefalloftheSovi-
Equatingdemocracy withmarket is dangerous fortwo etUnionandincreasing globalization, as wellas thefiscal
reasons.First,the equation is applied inconsistentlycrisisofthestate,thetraditional administrative statehas
aroundtheworld-friendly dictators arepraisedforpro- comeunderattackfromallfronts, butespecially fromthe
motingglobalizing corporate enterprises and areconsid- corporate eliteswhono longersee a needforthewelfare
ereddemocratic, whereas legitimate socialistand indige- state. Therefore, the dismantling of the administrative
nouslyorientedcapitalist governments that are not so welfare state has had negative consequences forpublic
friendly to globalcorporations are considered undemo- administration and citizens. The "public sphere" and the
cratic(Gibbs,1991; Hamilton,1989). Second,it raises spaceforcitizeninvolvement have been shrinking as a
falseexpectations of democratic rightsamongpeoplein resultof globalizationand government restructuring
less-developed nationswho liveunderrepressive regimes (Rockman,1997; Habermas,1974; Offe,1985). Public
supported byWestern democracies. administrators shouldresist shrinking thisrealmofpublic
Corruption and eliteempowerment. Globalization service byengaging citizens in theadministration ofpub-
pushesprivatization as a partof structural-adjustment lic affairsand by playinga proactiverolein managing
programs, empowers thegrowing subsidiary elites(sub- societalresourcesawayfromthe dominantcontrolof
servient comprador bourgeoisie) as agentsof transworldglobalizing corporate elites.Theirfuture legitimacy will
corporations, and promotes corruption in less-as wellas be basedon thisaction.
more-developed nations.Suchcorruption at thehighest 2. A biggerchallenge liesin thechangein thecharac-
levelshasalready reachedthepointofnationalcrisis.For terandactivities ofthestateandofpublicadministration
example,Chilehas beentoutedas a modelofprivatizedfrom"civiladministration to non-civiladministration"
economy, whenin factone-third of thepopulation lives (Farazmand, 1997a,b).Forseveraldecades,thetradition-
in miserablepoverty, whilethe military-bureaucratic- al administrative statebalancedcorporate eliteinterests
businesselitesenjoyworld-class lifestyles(Rehren,1999; withbroadpublicinterests, thusproviding thesocialand
Gould, 1991). Similarproblemsare reportedin the politicalstability necessary forcapitalaccumulation and
UnitedStates(see Henry,1995; Thayer,1984). Other systemlegitimacy. And it playeda keyrole in system
studiesreferto globalization- and privatization-induced maintenance and regimeenhancement. Now, the bal-
corruption amongelitesat highlevelsaroundtheworld ancedadministrative statehas beenreplacedbythecor-
(Jreisat,1997;Eisner,1995;Farazmand, 1996a). porate-coercive state,whichis characterized bya massive-
Eliteempowerment leads to a new globalorganiza- ly growing coercive bureaucracy in charge of
tionalstructure withthecharacteristics of a global"cor- incarcerating millionsof citizensconsideredpotential
that
porateempire" requires flexibilityin itsgiant trans- threats to socialorder.Thesecitizenthreats arecreatedby
formationof the world powerstructure. It calls for market chaos under economic and social pressurescaused
concentration withoutcentralization, similarto colonial- by globalizationand marketization (Schneider,1993;
ism,withfourelements: (1) downsizing to organizationalFarazmand, 1997a,b,c).The criminalization ofsocietyis
corecompetencies; (2) computerization and automation; finding manyvictimsamongthemostrespected, hard-
(3) mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances;and (4) working citizens,who aretrappedin unbearable socioe-
headquarters teamwork and moraleamongcoreperson- conomicconditions(Davey,1995; Lowi, 1996). As a
nel (Harrison,1993). This transformation drawsa clear result,publicadministration is beingtransformed from
demarcation between theelitesandthenonelites, thelat- traditional civiladministration to noncivil administration
terseen as expendablecommodities(Dugger,1989). ofthe"public"-nottheiraffairs-for socialcontroland
Globalization empowers elitedominanceunderthenew facilitationof capital accumulation.This is a major
worldorderin whichhegemonictheoryprevailsalong changein thecharacter ofthestateandshouldbe resisted
withtheglobalization of capital(Korten,1995). 'What, byallpublicadministrators witha socialconscience.
then,aretheimplications of globalization and thenew 3. The globalizing statehas forcedpublicadministra-
worldorderforpublicadministration? tionto do morewithless. Indeed,publicadministrators
mustperform theimpossible taskof highoutputunder
severepsychological conditionsof fearand downsized
Implications forPublicAdministration personnel,settingthem up for failureonly to provethe
highlight
paragraphs
The following fac- corporate claims of governmentinefficiency. Public
thechallenges
can and should documenttheirrecordsof
and offersuggestionsforpublic administrators
ing publicadministration

Administration
andPublic
Globalization
SICAJubilee: 517

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
highperformance as wellas thefailures
ofthecorporate
marketplace.
4. Byextension, theprofessionalizationof public
ILearning
more administration
aboutpublic from
administrationisa responsetothechallengeofglobaliza- acomparative perspective
broadens
ourworldoutlook.
tion.Professionalizationbrings bothinstitutional
and
moralandethical standardstopublicserviceattheglobal centrationof corporatepowerand has centralizedits
level,exposing thefallaciesofglobalizing
transnational whileat thesametimegovern-
structure
organizational
eliteswhilelearningfromtheir andtechni-mentaldecentralization
organizational has been promotedacrossthe
calskills.
Theexcesses ofglobalization
andmarket failureworld.
willinvite
moregovernment A professional- 7. Globalizationthreatenscommunities(Korten,
intervention.
lysoundpublicadministration shouldbereadyforfuture1995) and "publicspiritedness"-toborrowFrederick-
action. son's1997 term-byremoving
localcontroland making
5. Globalization pushesforincreased privatization, irrelevant
theparticipatory roleofcitizens andlocalpub-
whichpromotes greater opportunities forcorruptionlic administrators to makesignificant decisions thataffect
(Gould,1991).Corruption hasturned societal resourcespeople'slives.Local governments' abilityto forecastrev-
intoillegal,immoral, andunproductive It also enuebaseswillbe undermined
activities. as globalfirms closeoper-
challenges theveryfoundations ofsocietalhealthand ationsovernight formoreprofitable locations(Eisner,
destroys citizens'
trust inleadership andsystem legitima-1995; Manderand Goldsmith,1996). Publicadminis-
cy.Privatization is basedon themarket-based, rational-tratorsshouldtryto minimizesuch uncertainties by
choicetheory ofself-interested individualism insearch of attachinglong-term strings to dealings withglobalcorpo-
maximizing self-interestsatalmost anycosttocommuni-rations.Theyshouldalso builda senseof community,
tyandsociety. Thisbehavioral andnormative philosophyencourage citizeninvolvement in administration,andfos-
putsindividual interests abovetheinterests ofthecom- tervaluesof citizenship and community/public interest
munity andsociety (Bellahetal.,1991;Triandis, 1995); in balanceagainstruggedself-interest. And theyshould
thisis exactlywhattheglobalizing transnational compa- treatcitizens withrespect andefficiency.
niesaretrying topromote inorder tobuilda globalcul- 8. Thereis a growing knowledge explosionin public
tureofconsumerism thatconverges national culturesinto administration and relatedfields,includingin its sub-
a globalculture (Schein,1985).Thisglobalcorporatefieldsof comparative and international administration
culture in
is, part,managed through humanresources(Savitch,1998). agree I with FerrelHeady's(1998) state-
management practices, manyofwhicharein sharpcon- mentthatthesetwosubfields havebeenseparately and
trastwithnationalandcommunity cultures (Laurent,disjointedly promotedin thepastdecades. Thereis a
1986). Publicadministrators mustresistthemarket-newsubfield ofglobalization in townnow,and thereis a
basedconceptsoftreating citizensas consumers and need to integrate the studiesof publicadministration
degrading themtomarket commodities. fromthecomparative, international, and globalperspec-
6. Globalization tendstopromote elitism andenrichestives.ASPA membersare challengedto undertakethis
elites-business, political, military, and managerial- newendeavorto producematerials thatwillhelpto gen-
mostofwhomoperate as "subsidiaries"(Schenider, 1993) erategeneralizations acrossglobalspaces.Practitioners
oragents oftransnational corporations. Thepersonal and willbe enlightened bytheexposure to theseneededstud-
career interestsofthese"globalsoldiers" generally over- ies and willlikelybe betteradministrators in thefuture
ridenationaland community interests; theyactually globalvillage.
become "corporate mercenaries" (Edstrom andGalbraith, 9. Learningmoreaboutpublicadministration froma
1977)andpromote "cultural imperialism" (Said,1993). comparativeperspective broadensour worldoutlook.
Peoplein less-developed nations arefamiliar withthese Americanstudentsand scholarscan broadentheirper-
subservient whoseemto risetopowerandwealth sonal and professional
elites, worldviews by appreciating the
overnight attheexpense ofmillions. Because theglobaliz-cultural, institutional,and religious underpinnings ofthe
inggovernments areactively involved incorporate global- administrativecultures ofless-developed nations,someof
izationthrough theimplementation ofpublic-private whichhaverichcultural and governance heritages.Glob-
partnership programs withglobalizing firms, public alizationchallenges theAmericanparochialand ethno-
administrators andadministrative consultants arechal- centric traditionofpublicadministration andshatters the
lenged bytheimplications ofthisaspect ofglobalization. politics-administration dichotomywhile providing
Manyelitesin less-developed nationsrunrepressiveimmenseopportunities forconsultancy and corporate-
regimes which violate thehuman rightsoftheir ownpeo- relatedpublicmanagement practicesin less-developed
ple.American advisors andconsultants often enhance the countries.Learningabout otherpeoples,cultures,and
domination ofthesebureaucratic elites-bothmilitarypublicadministration contributes to further "knowledge
and civilian-over their own society in less-developed explosion." Already,rich administrative
traditionsexist
countries(Riggs, 1994, 36; Said, 1993; Parenti,1995). around the world to which Americans have not been
Paradoxically,
globalizationhas produceda massivecon- exposed.Examples include Scandinavianand Soviet sys-

518 Review* November/December

PublicAdministration 1999,Vol. 59,No. 6

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
temsofpublicadministration (Caiden,1994),as wellas nationshavea globalresponsibility to act ethicallyand
thesystems ofcooperatives inwhichdemocratic adminis- morally in a coordinated manner. Theymustexposeand
trationcan be fostered. Similarly,Americans and other fightcorruption at anyleveland at anytime. Political
global citizenscan learnabout public administrationappointees and politicians aretemporal manyof
officials,
underotherindigenoussystems. Comparative studyof whomhave intimatefinancialand personalties with
governance andpublicadministration is notnewandhas globalcorporate elites;theyareproneto corruption and
a long traditiondatingback to ancienttimes(Heady, abuseofauthority, and theirdefinition ofpublicinterest
1996; Farazmand, 1996b);itsfocusforglobalstudiesof is narrow andaimedatthepowerful constituencies.
administration shouldbe theagendasof theSectionon 12. Globalizationdoes not end thestateand public
Internationaland Comparative Administration(SICA) of administration. There is a new global challengethat
theAmericanSocietyforPublicAdministration in the broadenspublicadministration's scopeof research, prac-
twenty-first
century. tice,and teaching. Publicadministration hasjustentered
10. Globalizationchallenges thehumanconscience of a newstageof humancivilization, witha futurethatis
thepublicadministration community. Professional citi- bothbrightened and darkenedby globalization and the
zensoftheglobalcommunity havetheopportunity-and hegemonic worldorder.We hope thatprosperity forall
theresponsibility-to observeand examinewhatis hap- willbe theoutcome.
peningaroundthe cornersof theirglobalcommunity.
Thereare manyissuesthatchallengetheirconscience, Ali Farazmandis a professor in theSchoolof Public
includingthe conditionsand deprivations of thepoor, Administration, FloridaAtlanticUniversity, wherehe
wageslavery and sweatshops in globalfactories,environ- teachesorganization/administrative theory,behavior, con-
mentaldestruction, globalwarming, and inequityand ceptualfoundations of publicadministration, and per-
injustice.
Raisingconsciousness aboutglobalissues,both sonneladministration. His current research interestsare
positiveandnegative, is bothimportant and necessary, as organizational elitetheory, administrative
state,globaliza-
publicadministrators can makea difference whenmak- tion, governanceand administration, privatization,
ing decisionsthataffect theirfellowcitizens.Theycan administrative reform,bureaucratic politics,and strategic
questionthesincerity of theelites,opposeexploitation,publicpersonnel administration. He is theauthorand
and resistbeing used forundemocratic,unjust,and editorofmorethan14 booksand handbooks, including:
inequitablepurposesaroundthe globe. In the 1980s, Handbook ofComparative andDevelopment PublicAdmin-
publicadministrators playedan effective rolein theglob- istration (1991/1993,2nd ed. 1999); HandbookofCrisis
allysuccessfulcampaignagainstSouthAfrica's regimeof and Emergency Management (1999); ModernOrganiza-
apartheid.Raisingsucha globalconsciousness can chal- tions(1994); PublicEnterprise Management (1996); Sound
lengedestructive forcesof globalization and globalelites Governance (1999/2000);Building HumanCapitalfor the
on variousgrounds.The Internet andothercommunica-21st Century(1999/2000); Strategic Public Personnel
tionsystems can helpadministrators communicate glob- Administration (2000);Privatization andPublicEnterprise
allywith fellow in
professionalsoutlying areas. Reform (1999); The NewAmerican Administrative State:A
11. As guardiansof "globalcommunity interests," NewInstitutional Analysis (2000);and Globalization and
public administrators in more-and less-developed theNewCorporate Administrative State.

References
Arrow, Kenneth (1963).SocialChoiceandIndividualValues.
New Burkhead, Jesse,
andJerry Miner(1971).PublicExpenditures.
Haven:YaleUniversity Press. NewYork:Macmillan.
Ball,George(1967)."Cosmocorporations: TheImportance of Caiden,Gerald(1994)."Globalizing theTheory andPracticeof
BeingStateless." ColumbiaJournal ofWorldBusiness
2 (6). PublicAdministration."
InJean-Claude Garcia-Zamorand
Bellah,Robert, Richard Madson,WilliamSullivan, AnnSwiddler, RenuKhator, eds.PublicAdministrationintheGlobalVillage.
andSteven Tipton(1985). Habitsofthe Heart:Individualism Westport, CT: Praeger,45-59.
andCommitment inAmerican Life.Berkeley,
CA: University
of Cerny, PhilipG. (1995)."Globalization andtheChanging Logic
CaliforniaPress. ofCollectiveAction."InternationalOrganization
49 (Autumn):
Bill,James,andRobert Springborg(1990).Politics
intheMiddle 595-625.
East,3rded.NewYork:HarperCollins. Chan,Johnathan (1996)."Challenging theNewImperial Author-
Boyer, Robert, andDanielDrache,eds.(1996).StatesAgainst ity:TheWorldBankandtheDemocratization ofDevelop-
Markets: TheLimits ofGlobalization.
London:Routledge. ment." Harvard HumanRights Journal 6.
Brecher, Jeremy andTimCostello(1994).GlobalVillage orGlob- Chilcote,R.AndD. Johnson, eds.(1983). Theories
of
al Pillage:
Economic Reconstruction
FromtheBottom Up. Development. BeverleyHills,CA: Sage.
Boston, MA:SouthEndPress. Cleveland,Harlan(1993).Birth ofaNewWorld. An Open
Brown, Seyom(1992).International Relations
ina Changing Glob- Momentfor International
Leadership.SanFrancisco,CA:
al System:Toward a Theory
ofWorld Boulder,
Polity. CO: Jossey-BassPublishers.
Westview Press. Cottam,Richard (1979)."Goodbye toAmerica's Shah."Foreign

andPublic
Globalization
SICAJubilee: Administration 519

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Policy(34):3-14. enceoftheAmerican Political
Science Association, Washing-
Cox,R.W.(1993)."Structural IssuesofGlobalGovernance." In ton,DC, August28-31.
S. Gill,ed. Gramci, Historical Materialism,andInternational (1997c). "Bureaucracy isAliveand Well: The Order
Relations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,259-89. thatSupportsMarketChaos." PublicAdministration Times
Daly,HarmanandJohnCobb(1989).FortheCommon Good: 20(11): 5.
RedirectingtheEconomy Toward Commitment, theEnvironment, (1998a). "Contributions oftheAncientCivilizations to
andtheSustainable Future. Boston:BeaconPress. ModernPublicAdministration: A Symposium." International
Davey,Joseph (1995). TheNewSocialContract: America sJourney JournalofPublicAdministration 21 (1): 1-6.
fromWelfare Stateto PoliceState.Westport, CT: Praeger. (1998b). "Buildinga Community-Based Administrative
Domhoff, William(1970). TheHigher NewYork:Ran-
Circles. StateUndertheNew WorldOrder."PaperPresented at the
domHouse. 1998 AnnualConference oftheAmericanPoliticalScience
Dugger, William(1989).Corporate Hegemony. NewYork:Green- Association, September 2-6.
woodPress. Frederickson, George(1997). TheSpiritofPublicAdministration.
Dunning, J.H.(1993). TheGlobalization ofBusiness: TheChal- San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
lengeofthe1990s.London:Routledge. Friedland,Roger,andA. F. Robertson, eds.BeyondtheMarket-
During, Alan(1992). HowMuchisEnough: TheConsumer Society place.New York:Walterde Gruyter, Inc.
andtheFuture oftheEarth.NewYork:W.W.Norton. Fukuyama,Francis(1992). TheEnd ofHistory and theLastMan.
Edstrom, A.,andJ.Galbraith (1977)."Transfer ofManagers as New York:FreePress.
Coordination ofandControl StrategyinMultinational Orga- Garcia-Zamor, Jean-Claude,and RenuKhator(1994). Public
nizations."Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 248-263. Administration intheGlobalVillage. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Eisinger,Peter(1988). TheRiseoftheEntrepreneurial State:State Gates,Bill (1995). TheRoadAhead.London:Viking.
andLocalDevelopment Policy intheUnited States.Madison, Gibbs,David (1991). "PrivateInterests and ForeignIntervention:
WI: University ofWisconsin Press. Towarda BusinessConflictModel." Paperpresented at the
Eisner,Mark(1995).TheStateintheAmerican Political
Economy. 1991 AnnualConference oftheAmericanPoliticalScience
Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall. Association, Washington, DC, August.
Esman,Milton(2000)."TheState,Government Bureaucracies, Gill,Stephen,and David Law (1991). TheGlobalPoliticalEcono-
andtheir Alternatives."InAliFarazmand, ed.,Handbook of my.Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.
Comparative andDevelopment PublicAdministration, 2nded. Gilbert,Neil(1983).Capitalism andtheWelfare State.New
NewYork:MarcelDekker. Haven:Yale University Press.
Falk,Richard (1997)."States ofSiege:WillGlobalization Win Gould, David (1991). "Administrative Corruption:Incidence,
Out?"InternationalAffairs 73 (January). Causes,and RemedialStrategies." In Ali Farazmand,ed. Hand-
Farazmand, Ali(1989). TheState, Bureaucracy,andRevolution in bookofComparative andDevelopment PublicAdministration.
Modern Iran:Agrarian Reform and Regime New
Politics. York: New York: Marcel Dekker,467-484.
Praeger. Graycar,A. (1983). RetreatFrom the WelfareState. Sydney:Allen
, ed. (1991a). Handbook and
ofComparative Develop- & Unwin.
ment PublicAdministration. NewYork:MarcelDekker. Greenberg, E.S. (1986). TheAmerican PoliticalSystem,4thed.
(199lb). "Globalization ofAgrarian Reforms: TheRole Boston,MA: Little,Brown.
ofMultinational Corporations." Paperpresented attheWorld Habermas,Jurgen(1974). "The PublicSphere."New Government
Congress oftheInternational Political
Science Association, Critique 3: 49-55.
BuenosAires, Argentina, July 21-26. Halliday,Fred(1979).Iran:Dictatorship andDevelopment, 2nd
(1994)."TheNewWorldOrderandGlobalPublic ed. New York:PenguinBooks.
Administration: A CriticalEssay." InJean-Claude Garcia- Hamilton, Edward(1989).America's GlobalInterests:A NewAgen-
ZamorandRenuKhator, eds.,PublicAdministration inthe da. New York:W.W. Norton.
GlobalVillage. Westport, CT: Praeger, 62-81. Hankock,Graham(1989). LordsofPoverny. New York:Atlantic
(1996a)."Introduction: TheComparative StateofPub- MonthlyPress.
licEnterprise Management." InAliFarazmand, ed.Public Harvey, R. (1995).TheReturn ofthe Strong: TheDrifttoGlobal
EnterpriseManagement: International CaseStudies. Westport, Disorder.London:Macmillan.
CT: Greenwood Press,1-27. Heady,Ferrel (1996).PublicAdministration: A Comparative Per-
(1996b)."Development andComparative Public spective,5thed. New York:MarcelDekker.
Administration: Past,Present, andFuture." PublicAdministra- (1998). "Comparative and International PublicAdmin-
tionQuarterly 20(3): 343-364. istration:BuildingIntellectual Bridges."PublicAdministration
(1997a)."FromCiviltoNon-Civil Administration: Review58(1):32-39.
The Biggest Challenge totheStateandPublicAdministra- Heeger, Gerald(1974). ThePolitics ofUnderdevelopment. New
tion."PaperPresented atthe1997ASPAConference, Philadel- York:St. Martin's Press.
phia,July. Heidenheimer, A. J.,H. Heclo, and C.T. Adams(1983). Compar-
(1997b). "Institutionalization oftheNew Administra- ativePublicPolicy: ThePoliticsofSocialChoice inEurope and
tiveState/Role." PaperPresented at the 1997 AnnualConfer- America, 2nded.NewYork:St. Martin's Press.

520 PublicAdministration
Review* November/December
1999,Vol.59,No. 6

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Heilbroner, Robert (1991).AnInquiry IntotheHumanProspect. Lowenthal, Abraham, ed.(1991). Exporting Democracy: TheUnit-
NewYork:W.W.Norton. edStates andLatinAmerica. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
E. (1994).States
Helleiner, andtheRe-Emergence ofGlobal University Press.
Finance: FromBreton Woods tothe1990s.Ithaca, NY: Cornell Levine, Charles(1978)."Organizational DeclineandCutback
University Press. Management." PublicAdministration Review 38 (4): 316-325.
Helmut, Richard (1975)."LandReform andAgribusiness in (1980).Managing FiscalStress: TheCrisisinthePublic
Iran."MERIPReports 43 (Dec.) Sector.
Chatham, NJ:Chatham House.
Henderson, Keith(1994)."Rethinking theComparative Experi- Lindblom, Charles (1977).PoliticsandMarkets: TheWorld's Polit-
ence:Indigenization versus Internationalization."In O.P. ical-Economy Systems. NewYork:BasicBooks.
DwivediandKeithHenderson, eds.,PublicAdministration in (1990).Inquiry andChange. NewHaven:YaleUniver-
World Perspective. Ames,IA:IowaStateUniversity Press. sityPress.
Henry,Nicholas(1995).PublicAdministration andPublicAffairs,Lipset, Symour (1987)."TheConfidence Gap DuringtheReagan
6thed.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall. Years,1981-1987." Political
Science Quarterly(Spring): 1-23.
P.,andG. Thompson
Hirst, (1996).Globalization inQuestion: Lipsky, Michael(1984)."Bureaucratic Disentitlement inSocial
TheInternational Economy andthePossibilities
ofGovernance. Welfare Programs." SocialService Review 58(1):3-27.
Cambridge: Polity. Lowi,Theodore (1996).TheEndofthe Republican Era.Norman,
Hooglund, Mary(1970).Lessonsfrom India.London: Oxford OK: University ofOklahoma Press.
University Press. Macpherson, C.B. (1987).TheRiseandFallofEconomicjustice.
Huntington, Samuel(1968).Political Order in Changing Society. NewYork:Oxford University Press.
NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity Press. Magdoff,Harry(1969).TheAge ofImperialism. NewYork:
(1996).TheClashofCivilizations andtheRemaking of Monthly Review.
World Order. NewYork:Simon& Schuster. Mandel,Ernest (1983)."Nations-States andImperialism." In
Hudson,Michael(1971)."ThePolitical Economy ofForeign DavidHeldetal.,eds.,States & Societies.NewYork:NewYork
Aid."In DennisGouletandMichaelHudson,eds.TheMyth University Press, 526-539.
ofAid.NewYork:IDOC NorthAmerica. Mander,Jerry, andEdwardGoldsmith, eds.(1996). TheCase
Jones,
Charles (1983).AnIntroduction totheStudy ofPublic Policy, Against theGlobalEconomy andFora Return Toward Local.San
3rd.ed.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Francisco, CA:Sierra ClubBooks.
Jreisat,
Jamil (1997).Politics Without Process:Administering Devel- Mann,Michael(1980).States, WarandCapitalism. Oxford, UK:
opment intheArab World.Boulder, CO: LynneReinner. Blackwell.
Khator,Renu(1994)."Managing theEnvironment inan Interde- McCoy,Al (1971)."LandReform as Counterrevolution." Bulletin
pendent World."InJean-Claude Garcia-Zamor andRenu ofConcernedAsian Scholars3(1): 14-49.
Khator, eds.,PublicAdministration intheGlobalVillage. West- Mele,Christopher (1996)."Globalization, Culture, andNeigh-
port,CT: Praeger, 83-98. borhood Change:Reinventing theLowerEastSideofNew
Herbert
Kitschell, (1992).PoliticalRegime Change:Structure and York."Urban Affairs Review 32(1):3-22.
Process-Driven Explanations?American Political
Science Review Milman,C. AndS. Lundstedt (1994)."Privatizing State-Owned
86(4): 1028-1034. EnterprisesinLatinAmerica: A Research Agenda." Internation-
Knox,Paul(1997)."Globalization andUrbanEconomic alJournalofPublicAdministration 17(9): 1663-1677.
Change."TheAnnals oftheAmerican Academy ofPoliticaland Milward,Brinton (1994)."Nonprofit contracting andtheHollow
SocialScience 551 (May):17-27. State:A BookReview." PublicAdministration Review 54 (1):
Korbin,Stephen (1996)."BacktotheFuture: Neomedievalism 73-76.
andthePostmodern DigitalWorldEconomy." Journal of Modelski,George, ed. (1979).Transnational Corporations and
InternationalAfairs 51(2):367-409. World Order. San Francisco,CA: W.H. Freeman and Compa-
Korten,Alicia(1993)."Cultivating Disaster:Structural Adjust- ny.
mentandCostaRicanAgriculture." MultinationalMonitor, Mueller, Dennis(1989).PublicChoice II Cambridge, UK: Cam-
July/August: 20-23. bridgeUniversity Press.
Korten,David(1995). When Corporations RuletheWorld. West Murphy, Richard (1988).Protecting USInterests inthe[Persian]
Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. GulfWashington, DC: NationalCouncilon U.S.-Arab Rela-
Krasner,
Stephen (1993)."Economic Interdependence andInde- tions.
pendent Statehood." In R. H. Jackson andA.James, eds., John(1994). TheGlobalParadox:TheBigger
Naisbitt, theWorld
StatesinA Changing World: A Contemporary Analysis.Oxford: Economy theMorePowerful ItsSmallest Players.London:
Clarendon. Brealey.
Jan(1998)."TheStrong
Kregel, ArmoftheIMF."Report, ofthe O'Connor, James (1973).TheFiscalCrisis oftheState.NewYork:
Jerome Levy Economic Institute
ofBardCollege 8(1): 7-8. Harper& Row.
A. (1986).A CrossCultural
Laurent, PuzzleofInternational C. (1985).Disorganized
Offer, Capitalism. Cambridge, MA:MIT
HumanResource Management. HumanResource Management Press.
25(1): 91-102. Ohmae,Kenichi(1990).TheBorderltss World. London:Harper-
LeFeber,W. (1984).Inevita bitRevolutions: TheUnited Statesin Collins.
CentralAmerica. NewYork:W.W.Norton. (1995).TheEndoftheNation-State: TheRiseofRegional

Administration
andPublic
Globalization
SICAJubilee: 521

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Economies. London:Harper-Collins. PoliticalChange intheThirdWorld. Boulder,CO: LynneRein-
Parenti,Michael(1995).Democracyfor theFew.NewYork:St. ner.
Martin's Press. Sedghi,Hamideh(1992)."ThePersian GulfWar:TheNew
Pascale,R (1984)."TheParadox of'Corporate Culture':Recon- International OrderorDisorder?" NewPolitical Science21/22:
cilingOurselves toSocialization."California Management 41-60.
Review 27(2):26-41. Singer,Max,andWildavsky, Aaron(1993).TheRealWorld
Peters,Guy(1991)."Government Reform andReorganization in Order. Chatham, NJ:Chatham House.
anEraofRetrenchment andConviction InAliFaraz- Sklair,
Politics." L. (1995).Sociology oftheGlobalSystem.HemelHemp-
mand,ed.Handbook ofComparative andDevelopment. New stead:Harvester Wheatsheaf.
York:MarcelDekker, 381-403. Skocpol, Theda(1985)."Bringing theStateBackIn: Strategiesof
(1997)."Bureaucrats andPoliticalAppointees inEuro- Analysis inCurrent Research."In PeterB. Evans,Dietrich
peanDemocracies: Who'sWhoandDoes itMakeAnyDiffer- Rueschemeyer, andThedaSkocpol, eds.BringingtheState
ence?"InAliFarazmand, ed.,Modern Systems ofGovernment: Back In. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Exploring theRoleofBureaucrats andPoliticians.Thousand Stever,
James (1988). TheEndofPublicAdministration. New
Oaks,CA: Sage,232-254. York:Transnational Publications.
S. (1991)."TheInternationalization
Picciotto, oftheState."Capi- Strange, Susan(1996).TheRetreat oftheState:Diffiusion
ofPower
tal& Class43 (Spring): 43-63. intheWorld Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Rathgeb, Steven, andMichaelLipsky (1993).Non-Profitsfor Hire: Press.
TheWelfare StateintheAge ofContracting. Cambridge, MA: Sweezy,Paul(1997)."More(orless)onGlobalization." Monthly
Harvard University Press. Review 49 (4): 1-2.
Rehren, Alfredo (2000)."Management ofCorruption inChile." Thayer, Fred.(1984).RebuildingAmerica: TheCasefor Economic
InAliFarazmand, ed.,Handbook ofCrisis andEmergency Man- Regulation. NY: Praeger.
agement. NewYork:MarcelDekker. Triandis,Harry(1995).Individualism andCollectivism.Boulder,
Reich,R.B.(1991).TheWork ofNations:Preparingfor21st-Cen- CO: Westview Press.
tury Capitalism.NewYork:Simon& Schuster. Trudeau, Eric (1992)."TheWorldOrderChecklist." NewYork
Riflin,Jermey (1996). TheEndofWork. NewYork:G.P. Put- Times. 19 February, 2.
nam'sSons. UNCTAD (1996a).Globalization andLiberalization:
Development
Riggs, Frederick (1994)."GlobalForcesandtheDiscipline of intheFaceofTwoPowerful Currents.
ReportoftheSecretary-
PublicAdministration." InJean-Claude Garcia-Zamor and General ofUNCTADtotheNinthSession oftheConference.
RenuKhator, eds.,PublicAdministration intheGlobalVillage. Geneva:UnitedNationsConference onTradeandDevelop-
Westport, CT: Praeger, 17-44. ment.
(1998)."PublicAdministration inAmerica: WhyOur (1996b).Transnational CorporationsandWorld Develop-
Uniqueness isExceptional andImportant." PublicAdministra- ment. London:International ThomsonBusiness Press.
tionReview 58(1):22-31. Useem,Michael(1984).TheInnerCircle. NewYork:Oxford
Rockman, Bert(1997)."Honey:I Shrunk theState."InAliFaraz- University Press.
mand,ed.,Modern SystemsofGovernment: ExploringtheRoleof Vernon, R. (1971).Sovereignty atBay.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Bureaucrats andPoliticians.ThousandOaks,CA: Sage,275- Waldo,Dwight(1980/1990). TheEnterprise
ofPublicAdministra-
294. tion.Navota,CA: Chandler & SharpPublisher.
Rosenbloom, David(1993).PublicAdministration: Understanding Weber,Max(1947).TheTheory ofSocialandEconomic Organiza-
Management, andLawinthePublicSector,
Politics, 3rded. tion.InA.M.Henderson andTolcottParsons, eds.andtrans.
NewYork:McGraw-Hill. NewYork:Oxford University Press.
Rothkopf, David(1998)."Cyberpolitik:The Changing Natureof Welch,Eric,andWilsonWong(1998)."PublicAdministration in
PowerintheInformation Age."Journal ofInternationalAffairsa GlobalContext: Bridging theGapsofTheory andPractice
51 (2): 325-359. Between Western andNon-Western Nations."PublicAdminis-
Said,Edward(1993).Culture andImperialism. NewYork:Alfred trationReview 58 (1): 40-49.
A. Knopf. Wilson,David(1994)."Bureaucracy inInternationalOrganiza-
Savitch,H.V. (1998)."GlobalChallenge andInstitutional Capac- tions:Building Capacity andCredibilityina NewlyInterde-
ity:Or HowWe Can Refit LocalAdministration fortheNext pendent World."InAliFarazmand, ed.,Handbook ofBureau-
Century." Administration c*Society30 (3): 248-273. cracy.NewYork:MarcelDekker, 305-318.
Schein, Edgar(1985).Organizational Culture andLeadership. San (1997). "Preface" [onglobalization].
TheAnnals ofthe
Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. American Academy andSocialScience551 (May):8-
ofPolitical
Schneider, Susan(1992/1993). "Nationalvs.Corporate Culture: 16.
Implications forHumanResources Management." InValdimir Wolch,Jennifer (1990).TheShadow State:Government andthe
Pucik,NoelTichy,andCaroleBarnett, eds.,Globalizing Man- Voluntary Sector in Transition.NewYork:The Foundaition
agement. NewYork:JohnWiley& Sons,Inc.,159-173. Center.
Scholte,J.A. (1997)."GlobalCapitalism andtheState."Interna- Zysman, J."TheMythofa 'Global'Economy: Enduring National
tionalAffairs73 (3): 427-452. Foundations andEmerging RegionalRealities."
NewPolitical
Schulcz,Barry, andSlater, Robert,eds.(1990).Revolution and Economy 1 (July):157-84.

522 Review. November/December

PublicAdministration 1999,Vol.59,No. 6

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.162 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:05:26 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions