The “illusion” of administrative sovereignty in developing countries: A historical institutionalism perspective on administrative sovereignty in Ghana

Q1 Social Sciences
F. Ohemeng, Rosina Foli
{"title":"The “illusion” of administrative sovereignty in developing countries: A historical institutionalism perspective on administrative sovereignty in Ghana","authors":"F. Ohemeng, Rosina Foli","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2022.2138193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The emergence of transnational administrations and their influence on domestic affairs of countries have led to the questioning of the notion of administrative sovereignty. Yet, the question of whether countries have this sovereignty and how it should be understood is to be fully resolved and the debate continues unabated. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by focusing on whether countries from the developing south, are and can be administratively sovereign and to what extent can they be considered as such. Have developing countries ever been administratively sovereign? To what extent are these states administratively sovereign, if any? In short, how free are the authorities in these countries in organizing their own administrative apparatuses in policy development and service delivery? What can historical institutionalism teach us about the issue of administrative sovereignty? Following the continuum in the understanding of administrative sovereignty and using a desk review and organizing the evidence through historical institutionalism as a concept, the Ghanaian case shows limited administrative sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"22 1","pages":"298 - 320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2022.2138193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The emergence of transnational administrations and their influence on domestic affairs of countries have led to the questioning of the notion of administrative sovereignty. Yet, the question of whether countries have this sovereignty and how it should be understood is to be fully resolved and the debate continues unabated. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by focusing on whether countries from the developing south, are and can be administratively sovereign and to what extent can they be considered as such. Have developing countries ever been administratively sovereign? To what extent are these states administratively sovereign, if any? In short, how free are the authorities in these countries in organizing their own administrative apparatuses in policy development and service delivery? What can historical institutionalism teach us about the issue of administrative sovereignty? Following the continuum in the understanding of administrative sovereignty and using a desk review and organizing the evidence through historical institutionalism as a concept, the Ghanaian case shows limited administrative sovereignty.
发展中国家行政主权的“幻觉”:加纳行政主权的历史制度主义视角
跨国行政机构的出现及其对各国内政的影响引发了对行政主权概念的质疑。然而,各国是否拥有这种主权以及应如何理解这种主权的问题尚未得到充分解决,辩论继续有增无减。在本文中,我们通过关注发展中南方国家是否具有并能够具有行政主权以及在何种程度上可以被视为具有行政主权,从而为这场辩论作出贡献。发展中国家有过行政主权吗?这些国家在多大程度上拥有行政主权,如果有的话?简而言之,这些国家的当局在制定政策和提供服务方面组织自己的行政机构有多自由?关于行政主权问题,历史制度主义能给我们什么启示?继对行政主权的理解的连续性和使用案头审查和通过历史制度主义作为一个概念来组织证据之后,加纳的案例显示了有限的行政主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Administrative Theory and Praxis
Administrative Theory and Praxis Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信