better illustrated than by looking inside the organizational structure of a government’s bureaucracy. Raadschelders (2011, pp. 83–92) showed how government bureaucracy breaks down into multiple units at each level of government in the United States. At the federal level, there are 15 govern- ment departments. For one of these, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), he showed how it“broke down”into multiple subunits.
He then showed how one of the subunits of DHHS, the Administration of Children and Families, is subdivided into multiple subunits itself. One of these subunits at the federal level, the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, proved to be further fragmented into more subunits, while another of these federal subunits, the Region VI of DHHS, is also broken down into several subunits. The same pattern of organizational differentia- tion can be found at state and local levels in the United States. We expect that this pattern of organizational differentiation (i.e., of government bureaucracy consisting of thousands upon thousands of subunits) is found in most, perhaps even all, government organizations. By way of illustration, let us consider the state of Israel (see Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). As of 2012 this country had 24 government departments. We’ll take the Department of Social Affairs and Social Services as an example (see later).
Previously we mentioned that the fragmentation of government bureaucracy is one of the explanations that help us understand why it has not superseded democracy. The answer now seems simple: Government bureaucracy is organizationally fragmented, and its career civil servants advance that part of a citizenry’s interest that they are hired to protect.
There is, we think, another reason, and that is that career civil servants have become, by and large (there are always exceptions), the new guardians of democracy to an extent that even Hegel could not have dreamed of. That, however, merits further consideration in Chapter 8. Meanwhile, there is one aspect of the political (-administrative) system that requires attention in the context of this chapter, and that is the fashionable notion of multilevel and multiactor government and governance.
FIGURE 5.1. THE STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL AND THE PRIME MINISTER OFFICE
The Prime Minister
1. Ministry of Defense 2. Ministry of Justice 3. Ministry of Education 4. Ministry of Foreign Affairs
5. Ministry of Industry, Commerce & Employment 6. Ministry of Welfare & Social Services 7. Ministry of Housing
8. Ministry of Treasury 9. Ministry of Science & Technology 10. Ministry of Interior
11. Ministry of Environment Protection 12. Ministry of Agriculture 13. Ministry of Health 14. Ministry of Culture & Sports 15. Ministry of Immigration 16. Ministry of the Negev & Galilee Dev.
17. Ministry of Transportation 18. Ministry of Homeland Security 19. Ministry of Energy & Water 20. Ministry of Religious Services 21. Ministry of Tourism 22. Ministry of Senior Citizens 23. Ministry of Public Diplomacy & Diaspora Chief of Staff
General Manager (GM)
•Human Resources
•Other resources
•Events and Ceremonies
•Projects and Budgets
•Security
•Information Technology
•Quality and Excellence
•Training
•Welfare
National Security Headquarters Military
Secretary
• Communication &
Diplomacy
•Advisor of Foreign Affairs
•Various other advisors
•Government Press Unit
• Economic Division
•Policy Planning
•Coordination & Control
•Legal Unit
•Internal Auditing
•Accounting
•Planning & Development
•Government Advertising Unit
•National Service
•Women promotion
•Minorities' economic development
•State Comptroller
•State Archive
•Conversion
•Spokesman
• Nuclear Energy Committee
•Mossad
•General Security Service
• Central Bureau of Statistics
•Nativ
•Civil Service Commission
• Drug and Alcohol prevention authority
•Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Center
•Menahem Begin Heritage Center
Government Secretary
National Council of Economy Deputy GM
Source:http://www.molsa.gov.il
FIGURE 5.2. THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF WELFARE AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Rehabilitations Authority
Minister of Welfare and Social Services
Prisoner Support Authority
Social Security Institute
Deputy GM Senior Deputy GM
for Administration and HRM
Human Resource
Security
Assets and Logistics Legal
advisory Retarded
Treatment Division Detached
Youth Division Personal
and Social Division Unit for
special assignments Division for
Rehabilitation Services National
program for Children in risk
Discipline Welfare Administration of institutions Administrative system analysis Training
Chief Engineer Information systems Budgeting Accounting
Research &
Planning
Spokesman and citizens' complaints Internal auditing Public
Institutions International relations Volunteers Individual support
Extra- residential treatment Authority for Community Treatment
Community service Youth
examination Individual
and family welfare
Citizens' service Employment support Support to the Blind
Service to the elderly
Autism services
Diagnostics and support Child and
youth services
Adult examination
Extra- residential housing service
Treatment for addiction Adolescent treatment Youth rehabilitation
Health services
Community work Adoption services
Connection to municipal services
Youth protection
Inheritance General Manager
(GM)
Districts:
1. North, 2. Tel Aviv &
Center 3. Jerusalem 4. South
Source:http://www.molsa.gov.il
individual actors, emerged in the early 1990s (Marks, 1993), but is actually a phenomenon that has existed ever since governments established territorial levels (see Chapter 3). This happened historically because governments recognized this pattern as “an efficient response to the cost of communi- cating with a large number of people simultaneously. By sending a message to a limited number of persons, who each send the message on to a similar limited number of persons, and so on, a single person (or government) can communicate with a vast number of individuals in a few steps.” (Hooghe and Marks, 2009, pp. 228–229) There is, however, another important and more contemporary reason that multilevel governance has become a FIGURE 5.3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NORTH DISTRICT OF WELFARE
AND SOCIAL SERVICES
District General Manager (GM) Deputy GM
Child &
Youth
Administration
Budgeting Accounting
Legal Unit
Diagnostics
Volunteers Community Institutions
for the Retarded
Service to Citizens Public
Institutions Appeals
committees
Individuals
& families Organization
&
administration Rehabilitation
Work in the
Community The Elderly Child
Services Care for the
Blind
Autism Youth
Addictions
Youth rehabilitation
Adult examination services Youth
examination services
Young girls Research
Source:http://www.molsa.gov.il/Units/Districts/MachozHayfa/
popular concept, and that is that it captures well the polycentricity of governance. While government is the only actor that has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the entire citizenry, it is not the only actor contributing to the governance of society. In other words, both the concepts of multilevel governance and multiactor government specifically acknowl- edge that policies are made and implemented in vast networks that include public-, nonprofit-, and private-sector actors (Van den Berg, 2011, p. 17; see for overview of the MLG literature, Enderlein and others, 2010). Multilevel government is a term that refers to central-local relations (in Europe) or intergovernmental relations (in the United States) and to relations between governments as sovereign actors and the multinational organizations to which they have declared membership. Indeed the concept emerged in the effort to describe the relations between the European Union and its member states.
Liesbeth Hooghe and Gary Marks distinguish between two types of multilevel governance (2009, p. 234; see also Hooghe and Marks, 2003, pp. 236–239). Type I are general-purpose jurisdictions that combine problems with similar scale in one jurisdiction, are territorially non- intersecting, have a limited number of jurisdictions, and a fairly limited number of levels. Type II are task-specific jurisdictions that deal with separate nearly decomposable problems in discrete jurisdictions, are terri- torially intersecting, and can have unlimited numbers of jurisdictions.
Examples include Chesapeake Bay Council, Dutch water boards, NATO, U.S. school districts, and the World Health Organization. Their types I and II of multilevel governance correspond to the distinction between general- purpose and specific-purpose governments, which we discussed in Chapter 3. Hooghe and Marks emphasize that in type I, citizens cannot but be members of the jurisdiction (the intrinsic community), while in type II membership is voluntary (the extrinsic community). Type I is character- istic for the unitary state, regions, metropolitan areas, empires, and inter- national platform organizations (for instance, African Union, Catalonia, China, European Union, Flemish Community, Inca Empire, London, United States), while type II is more in line with federalism (see also Eaton, 2008). Related to federalism, there is a third reason that this concept is important: A federal structure of government is better at accommodating multination countries (see Bertrand and Laliberte, 2010). Excellent exam- ples of this would include Belgium and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Finally, multi- level government is an apt concept in a world where administrative and fiscal decentralization have increased in the past 50 years or so (see Bird and Vaillancourt, 2008; Falleti, 2010).
However, howfitting the concept actually is has been contested. One criticism is that the concept is hierarchical, for it emphasizes levels of government. In that light it can be debated whether international bodies constitute a level of authority. More specifically, one author noted that the MLG concept and its two types reflect two very different entities. Type I truly represents multilevel government that is hierarchical by nature. Type II, however, emphasizes governance and is much more concerned with net- work (Faludi, 2012). A second criticism is that it is a more descriptive than an explanatory concept (Bache, 2008, p. 27). Finally, it is a concept thatfits a neopluralist theory of the state that includes multiple competing interest groups; it is lessfitting to describe the situations in authoritarian, clientelist, weak, and failed states (Stubbs, 2005, p. 73).