Taking the Advantage of the Coercive Effects of Legal Arrangements in Shaping Public Servants’ Political Behaviors: The Case of the Hatch Act

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of legal arrangements in terms of providing neutrality for public servants, and in this essence hindering them from behaving politically. The main rationale motivating this study is basic propositions about the possibile political behaviors of public servants and the necessities of avoiding such behaviors. In fact, it can be assumed that the politics-administration dichotomy has an incredibly deterministic effect in the public administration field. In this scope, some roles have mostly been given to public administrators in terms of just implementing policies and some measures have been taken for providing administrators’ political neutrality. One of the best-known of these measures is the Hatch Act in the USA. The Hatch Act has been built as an institutional order in providing political neutrality of federal, state and local employees. In can also be expressed that several coercive measures were established for building and maintaining this order. For analysis, specific archive documents and other relevant texts were collected by using open sources (i.e. legal documents and internet resources). After collecting data, the content analysis technic was used to find apposite answers for the research questions. This study’s potential contributions are manyfold. Firstly, it defines political or partizan behaviors or activities of public servants in general and more specifically in the scope of the Hatch Act to some extent. Besides this, many issues such as the coercive effects of legal arrangements in hindering political behavior of public servants, established actors and mechanisms for this aim and produced outcomes in implementation have been put forth in detail. Along with these it also clarifies the maintenance of such institutional orders.

Keywords

• Politics-administration dichotomy
• political neutrality
• institutional arrangements
• coercive effect
• the Hatch Act

Kamu Görevlilerinin Politik Davranışlarını Biçimlendirmede Yasal Düzenlemelerin Zorlayıcı Etkilerinden Yararlanmak: Hatch Kanunu Örneği

Abstract

Çalışma, kamu görevlilerinin yansızlıklarını tesis etme ve bu anlamda politik davranmalarına mani olma bakımından yasal düzenlemelerin etkilerini araştırmak üzere tasarlanmıştır. Bu çalışmayı motive eden temel gerekçe; özellikle kamu görevlilerinin partizanca hareket etmelerinin veya daha yumuşak bir ifade ile kamu görevlilerinin politik davranma eğilimlerinin ortaya çıkabilmesi ve bunlara karşı mutlaka bir tedbirin alınması gerektiğine ilişkin temel varsayımlardır. Çünkü kamu görevlilerinin, özellikle politikaları uygulama yönüyle güçlü bir yanlarının olduğu ve bu anlamda seçmenleri etkileyebilecek avantajlara sahip oldukları ileri sürülmektedir. Gerçekten de siyaset-idare ayrımının kamu yönetimi alanında oldukça belirleyici etkisi olduğu ileri sürülebilir. Bu kapsamda idarecilere çoklukla sadece politikaların uygulanması bakımından bazı rollerin verildiği ve politik açıdan yansız olmalarını sağlayacak bazı tedbirlerin alındığı bilinmektedir. Bu tedbirlerin en bilindik olanlarından biri Amerikan Hatch Kanunu’dur. Hatch Kanunu; federal, eyalet ve yerel idarelerde çalışanların, politik yansızlıklarını tesis etmede bir kurumsal düzen oluşturmuştur. Bu düzenin oluşturulması ve sürdürülmesinde birtakım zorlayıcı önlemlerin de kanunla tesis edildiği ifade edilebilir. Analiz için, belirli arşiv belgeleri ve diğer ilgili metinler açık kaynaklar (yasal belgeler ve internet kaynakları) vasıtasıyla veri olarak toplanmıştır. Veri toplandıktan sonra araştırma sorularına uygun cevapların bulunması için içerik analizi tekniği kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın potansiyel katkıları çok yönlüdür. Öncelikle, kamu görevlilerinin siyasi veya partizan davranışları veya faaliyetleri hem genel olarak ve hem de spesifik olarak Hatch Kanunu kapsamında tanımlanmıştır. Ayrıca kamu görevlilerinin politik davranışlarının engellenmesinde yasal düzenlemelerin zorlayıcı etkileri, bunun için oluşturulan aktör ve mekanizmalar ile uygulamada üretilen çıktılar gibi meseleler etraflı olarak ortaya konmuştur. Bunların yanı sıra, bu tür kurumsal düzenlerin sürdürülmesine de açıklık getirilmiştir.

Keywords

• Siyaset-idare ayrımı
• politik yansızlık
• kurumsal düzenlemeler
• zorlayıcı etki
• Hatch Kanunu

References

1. Adams B.G. ve Balfour L.D., ‘Public Service and Administrative Evil: Prospects and Problems’ in Frederickson H.G. ve Ghere K.R. (eds), Ethics in Public Management (Routledge, London 2003) 114,139.
2. Argyriades D. ‘Neutrality and Professionalism in the Public Service’ in Asmerom K.H. ve Reis P.E. (eds), Democratization and Bureaucratic Neutrality (St. Martin’s Press, New York 1996) 45,73.
3. Asmerom K.H. ve Reis P.E. ‘Introduction’ in Haile K. Asmerom, Elisa P. Reis (eds), Democratization and Bureaucratic Neutrality (St. Martin’s Press, New York 1996) 3-17.
4. Azzaro S.D. ‘The Hatch Act Modernization Act: Putting the Government Back in Politics’ (2016) 42(3) Fordham Urban Law Journal 781,819.
5. Bergevaern F. ve Olson O. ‘Institutionalization of Municipal Accounting-A Comparative Study between Sweden and Norway’ (1995) 11(1) Scandinavian Journal of Management 25,41.
6. Black J., ‘Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes’ (2008) 2 Regulation&Governance 137,164.
7. Bowman S.J. ve West P.J. ‘To “Re-Hatch” Public Employees or Not? An Ethical Analysis of Relaxation of Restrictions on Political Activities in Civil Service’ (2009) 69(1) Public Administration Review 52,63.
8. Bozanic Z., Dirsmith W.M. ve Huddart S. ‘The social constitution of regulation: The endogenization of insider trading laws’ (2012) 37(7) Accounting, Organizations and Society 461,481.

9. Brown J.A. ‘Public Employee Political Participation: Hatch Acts in the Federal and State Governments’ (2000) 2(2) Public Integrity 105,120.
10. Brown C. ve Maskell J. ‘Hatch Act Restrictions on federal Employees’ Political Activities in the Digital Age’ (2016) CRS Report Erişim Tarihi 12 Temmuz 2019.
11. Caiden E.G. ‘The Concept of Neutrality’ in Asmerom K.H. ve Reis P.E. (eds), Democratization and Bureaucratic Neutrality (St. Martin’s Press, New York 1996) 20,24.
12. Demil B. ve Bansedrine J. ‘Processes of Legitimization and Pressure toward Regulation: Corporate Conformity and Strategic Behavior’ (2005) 35(2) International Studies of Management & Organization 56,77.
13. Demir T. ve Nyhan C.R., ‘The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: An Emprical Search for Correspondence between Theory and Practice’ (2008) 68(1) Public Administration Review 81,96.
14. Demir T., ‘The Complementarity View: Exploring a Continuum in Political-Administrative Relations’ (2009) 69(5) Public Administration Review, 876,888.
15. Edelman B.L., Uggen C. ve Erlanger S.H. ‘The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth’ (1999) 105(2) American Journal of Sociology 406,454.
16. Eisenhardt M.K. ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’ (1989) 14(4) The Academy of Management review 532,550.
17. Fligstein N., ‘Social skill and institutional theory’ (2001) 19(2) Sociological Theoryss 105,125.
18. Forand J.G. ve Ujhelyi G., ‘Don’t Hatch The Messenger? On the Desirability of Restircting the Political Activity of Bureaucrats’ (2018) Working Paper, accesed (12/06/2019)
19. Gabrielian V., Yang K. ve Spice S., ‘Qualitative Research Methods’ in Miller J.G. ve Yang K. (eds), Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration (CRC Press, Boca Raton 2007) 141,169.
20. Glaser B.G. ve Strauss A., The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Aldine, Chicago 1967)
21. Goodnow F. J., Politics and Administration (Macmillan, New York 1900)
22. Hamrick S.E., Birleşik Devletler Özel Müşavirlik Birimi Hatch Kanunu Bölümü Şef Yardımcısı. 19/08/2019 tarihli e-mail yazışmasındaki beyanı, 2019.
23. Hartley J., ‘Case Study’ in Cassel, C. ve Symon G. (eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (London: Sage 2004) 323,334.
24. Hays W.S. ve Carter F.L. ‘The Myth of Hatch Act Reform’ (1980) 4(3) Southern Review of Public Administration 340,355.
25. Heady F., ‘American Government and Politics: The Hatch Act Decisions’ (1947) 41(4) The American Political Science Review 687,699.
26. Owen E. Hughes, Public Management and Administration (Palgrave-macmillan, New York 2003)
27. Hughes O., ‘Political Speech in the Armed Forces: Shouting Fire in a Crowded Cyberspace’ (2019) 11(1) Washington University Jurisprudence Review 139,164.
28. Irwin J., ‘Public Employees and the Hatch Act’ (1956) 9 Vanderbilt Land Review 527,533.
29. Johnson G., Smith S. ve Codling B., ‘Microprocesses of institutional change in the context of privatization’ (2000) 25(3) Academy of Management Review 572,580.
30. Karneghan K., ‘The post-bureaucratic organization and public service values’ (2000) 66(1) International Review of Administrative Sciences 91,104.
31. Lawrence T.B. ve Suddaby R., ‘Institutions and Institutional Work’ in Clegg S.R., Hardy C., Nord W.R. ve Lawrence T.B. (eds), Handbook of organization studies (Sage, London 2006) 215,254.
32. Lee H., Cayer N.J. ve Lan G.Z., ‘Changing federal government employee attitudes since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978’ (2006) 26(1) Review of Public Personnel Administration 21,51.
33. March J.G. ve Olsen J.P. Democratic Governance (Free Press, New York 1995)
34. Martin L.P., ‘The Constitutionality of the Hatch Act: Second Class Citizenship for Public Employees’ (1974) 6 Toledo Law Review 78,109
35. Martin D.W., ‘The Fading Legacy of Woodrow Wilson’ (1988) 48(2) Public Administration Review 631,636.
36. Masters F.M. ve Bierman L., ‘The Hatch Act and the Political Activities of Federal Employee Unions: A Need for Policy Reform’ (1985) 45(4) Public Administration Review 518,526.
37. May M. (2018), ‘Federal Employees Work for Both Democrats and Republicans: Even Kellyanne Conway’
38. McSwite O.C., Legitimacy in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks 1997)
39. Merriam S.B. ve Tisdell J.E., Qualitative Research, (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 2016)
40. Meyer J.W. ve Rowan B., ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’ (1977) 83(2) American Journal of Sociology 340,363.
41. Miller C.J. ‘The Unwise and Unconstitutional Hatch Act: Why State and Local Government Employees Should Be Free to Run for Public Office’ (2010) 34 Southern Illinois Law Journal 313,357.
42. Moore M..H., Creating public value: Strategic management in government. (Harvard University Press, London 1995)
43. Moretti, F., van Vliet L., Bensing, J., Deledda, G., Mazzi, M., Rimondini, M., Zimmermann, C. ve Fletcher, I., ‘A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries’ (2011) 82 Patient Education and Counseling 420,428.
44. Mosher E.L., ‘Government Employees under the Hatch Act’ (1947) 22 New York University Law Quarterly Review 233,264.
45. Myers IV M.R., ‘The Prevent Pernicious Political Activities: The 1938 Kentucky Democratic Primary and the Origins of the Hatch Act of 1939’ (Unpublished Graduation Thesis, University of Louisville 2018)
46. Nelson H.D., ‘Political Expression under the Hatch Act and the Problem of Statutory Ambiguity’ (1958) 2(1) Midwest Journal of Political Science 76,88 1958.
47. North C.D., ‘Institutions’ (1991) 5(1) The Journal of Economic Perspectives 97,112.
48. Overeem P., ‘The Value of The Dichotomy: Politics, Administration, and The Political Neutrality of Administrators’ (2005) 27(2) Administrative Theory&Praxis 311,329.
49. O’Toole Jr. J., ‘Doctrines and Developments: Separation of Powers, the Politics-Administration Dichotomy, and the Rise of the Administrative State’ (1987) 47(1) Public Administration Review 17,25.
50. Pache C-A. ve Santos F., ‘When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands’ (2010) 35 The Academy of Management Review 455,476.
51. Panday K.P., ‘Bureaucracy and Politicians: Dynamics and Challenges’ in Farazmand A. (ed), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (Springer. Cham 2017) 1,5.
52. Person M.W. ‘The Effect of State Hatch Acts on State Executives’ Political Activities, (1978) 2(2) Southern Review of Public Administration 221,238.
53. Rose H., ‘A Critical Look at the Hatch Act’ (1962) 75(3) Harvard Law Review 510,526.
54. Rowley,J., ‘Using Case Studies in Research’ (2002) 25(1) Management Research News 16,27.
55. Scott W.R., Institutions and Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oak 2001) 103,115
56. Starr R.J., ‘The Hatch Act and Academic Freedom’ (1941) 27(1) Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1915-1955) 61,69.
57. Suchman M.C. ve Edelman L.B., ‘Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the law and society tradition’ (1996) 21(4) 903,941.
58. Svara J.H., ‘Dichotomy and duality: Reconceptualizing the relationship between policy and administration in council-manager cities’ (1985) 45 Public Administration Review 221,232.
59. -- ‘Complementarity of Politics and Administration as a Legitimate Alternative to the Dichotomy Model’ (1999) 30(6) Administration&Society 676,705.
60. -- ‘Forum: Complexity in Political-Administrative Relations and the Limits of the Dichotomy Concept’ (2006) 28(1) Administrative Theory&Praxis 121,139.
61. -- ‘Introduction: Politicians and Administrators in the Political Process-A Review of Themes and Issues in the Literature’ (2006) 29 International Journal of Public Administration 953,976.
62. Thurber Jr. T.K., ‘Big, Little, Littler: Synthesizing Hatch Act-Based Political Activity Legislation Research’ (1993) 13(1) Review of Public Personnel Administration 38,51.
63. Thompson J.J., ‘Social Workers and Politics: Beyond the Hatch Act’ (1994) 19(4) Social Work 457,465.
64. Thornton H.P., Ocasio W. ve Lounsbury M., The Institutional Logics Perspective (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012)
65. Tool M.R., ‘The Theory of Instrumental Value: Extensions, Clarifications’ in Tool M.R (ed), Institutional Economics: Theory, Method, Policy (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston 1993) 119,159.
66. Weber M., Economy and Society (Berkeley, University of California Press 1978)
67. Wilson W., ‘The Study of Administration’ (1887) 2(2) Political Science Quarterly 197,222.
68. Wooten M. E., ‘Institutional constraints on the pursuit of racial justice’ (2016) 48 Research in the Sociology of Organizations 261,280.
69. Yin R. K., Case Study Research Design and Methods (Sage, California 2003)
70. Zilber B.T., ‘How Institutional Logics Matter: A Bottom-Up Exploration’ (2017) 48 Research in the Sociology of Organizations 137,157.
71. Powell W.W., C. Rerup, ‘Opening the Black Box: The Microfoundations of Institutions’ (2016)
72. Jepperson R.L. and Meyer J.W., The public order and the construction of formal organizations’ The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (University of Chicago Press Chicago 1991) 204-231.
73. https://www.cncsoig.gov/office-special-counsel-osc-6 (10/08/2019)
74. htts://legaldictionary.net/hatch-act/ (08/08/2019)
75. https://osc.gov/Pages/HacthAct.aspx (08/08/2019)
76. https://americanoversight.org/news-roundup-the-hatch-act-and-freedom-of-speech (19/08/2019)
77. https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/cummings-issues-statement-after-osc-recommends-that-president-trump-remove (12/08/2019)