spanish citizens and public administration

7/28/2019 Spanish Citizens and Public Administration

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spanish-citizens-and-public-administration 1/21

Attitudes, Performance, and Institutions: Spanish Citizens and Public Administration

Author(s): Eloísa del PinoReviewed work(s):Source: Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Jun., 2005), pp. 512-531Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3381309 .

Accessed: 31/01/2012 12:02

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Performance &

Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3381309?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3381309?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes



SYMPOSIUM

ATTITUDES,PERFORMANCE,AND INSTITUTIONS

SpanishCitizensand PublicAdministration

ELOISADELPINOUniversidadRey Juan Carlos

ABSTRACT: his article presentsthe two perspectives hat have analyzedcitizens' attitudes towardpublic administration:a macro-perspectiveondemocratic overnance ersusstudieson micro-performance.hearticleaimsto compensateor someof the analyticproblemsexisting n each perspective

related to public administration. n approach s proposedthatassumes thecomplex ature f publicadministrationnd triesto overcomeheshortcomingsof the democratic overnance chool,whichocuses solelyon variationsn theattitudesfthesubjects ndnotso much n theirobject administrativenstitutionlsandoutputs).talso seekstoavoidsomeof themethodologicalitfalls nstudiesfocusingtoo narrowlyon theperformance f particularpublicorganizations.Using hecaseofSpain oapply heconcepts fprocessandstructureongruence,thearticle howshowcitizensattitudesowardublicadministrationlreprinmarily'influenced ypoliticalculture, pecificpublicactivities, nd institutionalesign.

KEYWORDS:itizens' atisfaction, ongruence,nstitutional esignl,evelsofgovernment, oliticalculture, ublicservices, tereotypes,rust

Publicdministrationsn Western ountries onsume he largest hareof the

publicbudget, mploya very high percentage f theworkforce, ndarelargelyresponsibleorpoliticalsystemperformance,tronglynterveningn collectivedecisions.Theyareomnipresentn the life of ordinary itizens, and,increas-

ingly,citizensrelatewiththepoliticalsystem hroughheirdailycontactswithpublicsectorpersonnel ndpolicies.

Citizenopinion owardgovernmentn generaland toward pecificservices

PutblicPerformance&Manaclgemiieniteview,Vol.28 No. 4. June 20005, p. 512-53 1.e 2005 M.E.Sharpe, nc.All rightsreserved.

512 1530-9576/2005$9.50 + O.00.



del Pino/ SPANISH CITIZENSAND PUBLICADMINISTRATION 513

has often been identifiedas an importantndicatorof the effectivenessand re-

sponsiveness f the overallpolitical ystem.The fundamental uestion,however,is whether hese opinionsmatter n an assessmentof the qualityof democratic

governance.Twomainperspectives ave dominatedhe analysisof this question.Empirical heoriesof democracyapproach he issue from a macro-levelper-

spectiveandusecomparative ggregatedata.Theyfocus on the relationbetweencitizens'attitudes nd the stabilityor consolidation f democraticegimes(e.g.,Almond & Verba, 1966). In recent years, a numberof studieshave measured

citizens'attitudes owarddemocracy ndseveralother nstitutions. omeof them

have also lookedat the public administrationnd civil servants.'The findings

indicatehatpublicadministrationsnd heirpersonnel reusuallyevaluated ery

negatively.

Theoriesof public administrationndmanagement, n the otherhand,have

mainlyrelied on disaggregated ata.Publicsectorperformance ndthe legiti-macyof government ave beenstudied roma micro-perspectivey focusingon

citizens as consumersor users of concretepublicservices andpolicies.Recent

studieshave mainlystudiedthe relationbetweenthe qualityof publicperfor-

manceandtheattitudes f citizens.2

Both schools-the democratic overnanceperspective nd themicro-perfor-manceorpublicmanagement pproach-attempto analyze henature,determi-

nants, and implicationsof citizens' attitudes towardpublic administration.

Individualocio-demographicactors, eligiousvalues,orpolitical deologyand

othersystemicvariables reconsidered s centraldeterminantsy both schools.

Forthe democratic overnance chool,certainpositiveattitudes re believedto

guarantee high qualityand egitimatedemocracy. everalauthors avepointedout that rust n thepoliticalsystemand heirmain nstitutions nda certain ense

of civic political competenceamongcitizens are the most important etermi-nantsof democraticquality(e.g., Beetham, 1994; Dahl, 1996).Forthe micro-

performancechool,a positiveperception f governmental erformanceeadsto

specifictrust n government ndsubsequentlyo the necessary egitimacyand

effectivenessof thepoliticalsystem.Problems oncerningmeasurement,ausality, ndcomparabilityxist inboth

perspectives. n the democratic overnance chool,research uffers romshort-

comingsthataretypicalof aggregate omparativetudies.Cross-sectional ata

andaggregatendicatorsarelydojusticeto thecomplexityof publicadministra-

tion ndifferent ountries ndare,assuch,crudegeneralizations.herefore,hese

I appreciate he valuablesuggestionsof two anonymousreviewers andthe detailed com-mentsby Steven Van de Walle and Jose A. Olmeda.I am also gratefulto my partnersn theresearchprojectcarriedout in the AutonomousCommunityof Madrid or kindlyallowingmeto make use of the data.



514 PPMR June 2005

studies are often bound to reflect the extended and quasi-universalstereotypes

about administrative nstitutions, actors, and processes. Anotherrelevantprob-lem is the assumptionthatthe different national systems are homogeneous and

stable, underestimating he importanceof regionalor temporalvariationswithin

each state.The relation between governmental nstitutionsand citizens is consid-

ered a constant(Fuchs & Klingemann, 1995). Thatvariationsin the congruence

between citizens' attitudesandinstitutionscan be caused as much by changes in

the citizens themselves as by changes in the design of the institutions s ignored.

Public managementapproaches,on the other hand, sufferfrom a different set

of methodological problems.Analyses of sectoral micro-performanceusuallyne-

glect the culturaland institutionalcontext of attitudesand pay only limited atten-tion to determinantsof amoresystemic nature,such as the type of welfareregime

or the form of the state.The existence of a relationbetween citizens' perception

of the quality of public services and their general attitudestoward the political

system or the executive is here often taken for granted. Most of these studies,

however, have been questioned because they were unable to establish a clear

causal relation between performanceand general attitudes.Additionally, their

actual measurementof citizens' attitudes towardpublic administration s prob-

lematic (see Van de Walle, Kampen, & Bouckaert, this issue).Adequate measurement of the relevant variables is indispensable when we

want to analyze the causes or the implications of citizens' attitudes oward demo-

craticgovernanceor towardsystems' legitimacy. If we are to understand he na-

ture and consequences of citizens' attitudes, an approach is needed that draws

both on some of the insights from the traditionalstudy of political culture and

fromthe studyof public sectormicro-performance.This approachshould be able

to link the different components of public administration,structures,and pro-

cesses to the individual sources of attitudes by providing contextualized case

studies. Contextualvariables, such as cultural or social-psychological, policy-

specific, or institution-relatedvariables,mediatebetween individual attributesof

citizens and their attitudes.One should thus focus systematicallyon countriesor

regions and select a sufficient amountof relevant policies that arerepresentative

of citizens' generalvalues vis-a-vis public activity. Additionally,we should look

at the effect of diverse expectations or preconceived ideas of citizens aboutthe

different territorial evels of governmenton their attitudesabout the performance

of these territorial evels.

This article explores citizens' orientationstowardspecific objects of the po-litical system (the executive branch, public administration,and public policies)

at the threeterritorial evels in Spain and seeks to describe and explain the atti-

tudes and contextual factors that influence these orientations in their specific

nationalsetting.The results shed new light on the conditions andpossibilities for

attitudinalchange and the implicationsfor the quality and vitality of democratic



del Pino / SPANISH CITIZENSAND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 515

governancen thiscountry.A simple conceptual rame s proposed,which is an

adaptationf theold conceptof congruenceusedbyAlmondandVerba,Eastonand others.To overcome heproblemsof existingmainstream oliticalscience

approaches,heobjectof citizens'attitudes publicadministration)s disaggre-gated ntoitsbasiccomponents,nawaythat t is bothamenable omeasurement

and relevant o citizens'perception f performance. o avoid some of theprob-lems in studiesof publicmanagement, itizens'attitudes recontextualizedwithrespect o variouscultural,policy, and nstitutional ariables.

The resultsof this analysisshow-in sharp ontrasto thetraditional iew of

Spanishcitizensas havinga consistentlynegativeattitude nd as beingunsatis-

fied, cynical, and evenhostiletoward heirgovernmentalnstitutions-high de-

grees of satisfactionwith andpositiveattitudes owardpublicinstitutions ndtheirperformance. ttitudes oward ublic nstitutionsndperformancere oundto varyaccording o policy sectors,to the extent of citizens'directexperiencewiththe public service in questionand to the territorialevel that actuallypro-vides the serviceor that he citizenbelievesis responsible or doing so.

The articledrawson a survey n the Regionof Madrid.The surveycontained

questionson 23 policysectorsand68 publicservicesandwasconducted n 2000

usinga representativeampleof 1,252citizens.The dataaresupplemented ithavailablequalitative nddemoscopicquantitativenformationaken romdiffer-ent nationaldatabases, ncluding everalsurveysand focusgroups.3

AssessingCongruence:Attitudes,Culture, Policy Performance,and Levelsof Government

Despite politicalscience's interest n institutions ndinstitutionalegitimacy nthe studyof democratic tabilityanddevelopment, ttitudesof citizens toward

government ndpublicadministrationsavenot beenanalyzed n a systematicandsatisfactoryway. Perhaps he most classical workthatcombinedanatten-tion for theconsolidationof democracyand ts institutions nthe one handand

citizen attitudeson the other was The Civic Cultureby Almond andVerba(1966).4Nevertheless,when Almond and Verbademarcated he politicalob-

jects for theirempiricalanalysis (p. 29), theyexplicitlyexcludedcitizens'po-liticaldemands ndcitizens'orientationsoward dministrativebjectsorsystem

outputs. nfact,they recognizedhow thisneglectlimitedtheirconclusionsand

advocated or further esearch o linkcitizens'attitudes owardpublicpolicieswithtypesof social structuresrcultural alues.Subsequentmportanttudies nthistradition, owever,havepaid ess systematicattention o publicadministra-tion,in sharp ontrasto their nterestnotherpolitical nstitutionse.g., politicalparties).

FollowingAlmondandVerba's lassicapproach1966),FuchsandKlingemann



516 PPMR June 2005

(1995), also drawingon Easton (1965), utilized the concept of congruence as a

conceptualreference for analyzing the relationbetween citizens and government.They distinguishedbetween process congruence and structurecongruence. Pro-

cess congruence exists when the specialized actors can give citizens what they

want andthus satisfy the democratic criterion of responsiveness. Structurecon-

gruenceexists when citizens perceive the structuresas commensuratewith gen-

erally accepted values and norms (Fuchs & Klingemann, 1995, p. 3). Almond

and Verba distinguished among differenttypes of political cultures:allegiance,

apathy, and alienation. These types are a function of the degree of congruence/

incongruencebetween structureand culture.In allegiant and apathetic cultures,

political stabilityanddemocraticdevelopmentis easier to achieve, whereas in an

alienated situation, political stability and democratic development will be ob-

structedor impeded. Similarly,Nachmias and Rosenbloom (1978) establisheda

typology linking types of citizens' orientationsandthe operationsandlegitimacy

of bureaucracy.They distinguishedbetween differenttypes of citizens according

to their attitudes owardbureaucracy:bureauphile,bureautolerant, ndbureautic.5

These criteriaand types of congruencecan be applicableboth to the analysis

of the political system and to its components, such as governmentinstitutions.

Public administrations formedby interrelated nstitutionsand processes and isresponsible for the system's performance.Citizens evaluate public administra-

tion accordingto the results of its activity (process) and the values andgoals of

the institutionswithinwhichthispublicadministration perates(structure;Banoin

& Carrillo, 1997; del Pino, 2004b; Hibbing& Theiss-Morse,2001). For this rea-

son, when selecting the empiricalobservablecomponentsof the dependentvari-

able, we shouldkeep in mind thatpublic administrations complex and may be

prone to prejudicesandnegative stereotypesas a result of mental simplification.6

Also, the image of public administration s contaminatedby a certain"cultureof

distrust" owardpublic institutionsin general.

Process congruence refers to the congruence between the current model of

managementof the public services and thatpreferredby the citizens and to the

correspondenceof actualpolicy to citizens' wishes or expectations.Distinguish-

ing among different services andpolicies gives us a detailed pictureof attitudes

toward the administration hatgoes beyond the abstractnotions of public admin-

istration and public action. By public services I mean a more specific type of

governmentperformance hat involves thedelivery of public goods orbenefits to

the citizen belonging to a policy area (e.g., public universities, public schools,adulteducation).Publicpolicies are defined as generalcourses of governmental

action in a sector(e.g., educationpolicy). Citizens' evaluationsof sectoralpublic

performancein general are usually more negative than those that relate to the

services the citizens usually consume. More thanis the case for evaluations of

public services, citizens' evaluationof policy may be influenced by factors such



del Pino/ SPANISHCITIZENSAND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 517

as vote or ideology. Regardless of whether they actually are affected by a certain

policy, people can have a general impression about this policy. Disaggregatingopinions is thereforeneeded.

It is difficult to know to what extent differentpolicies really matter for citizens

when forming an opinion about government or public sector outputs. However,

in mature welfare states, unless a serious factor comes up that disrupts normal

politics (e.g., a terrorismattack or war) that can make citizens' attitudesshift, a

core of public activity-a group of policies and services-exists that we may

assume is considered basic by citizens and that may decisively determine their

attitudes toward government and public administrationactivity. These policies,

which can be seen as representativeof other citizens' orientations,are the welfare

policies and services.

Structurecongruence refers to citizens' attitudestoward public administration

structures. Abstract questions on the public administration facilitate the emer-

gence of stereotypes. The abstractpublic administration andnational public ad-

ministration are normally more negatively evaluated than are lower territorial

levels of public administration-small is a beautiful idea. The general evalua-

tions of governmentlevels, as well as the level of trust, may be affected by politi-

cal variables such as ideology and voting. Institutional design also influencescitizens' attitudes toward institutions (Anderson & Guillory, 1997). In federal or

decentralized systems, for example, it is possible that citizens have a different

perception of each of the levels of government. Different preferences for the

distribution of public responsibilities to decide on policies or to deliver public

services among the governmental levels may exist. From the citizens' point of

view, one level might be morequalified to listen to the citizens, whereasthe other

might be perceived as having a more appropriatecapability to take on certain

public policies.

SPAIN: FROM THE CULTURE OF CYNICAL STATISM TO THE END OFDISTRUST?

The concept of cynical statism (Botella, 1997) adequately summarizes the am-

bivalent Spanish attitudes toward the public administrationin the last decades.

General complaints about the public administration and its performance and an

intensive demandfor state intervention and public services coexist.

Three largely shared stereotypical beliefs or negative generalizations about

public administration exist in Spain: (a) the stereotype of inefficiency, which

considers the private sector as more effective and as offering better service qual-

ity and as having workersthat are more responsive to theirclients; (b) the stereo-

type of the black box, which views the abstractpublic administrationandnational

level administrationas morecomplex, less transparent, lower, morebureaucratic,

excessive in size andin personnel, less productive,and less responsive to citizens



518 PPMR June 2005

than regionalor municipal administrations; nd(c) the stereotypeof the faceless

bureaucrat, n which civil servants in general are evaluated more negatively than

specific public employees such as firemen, teachers, and nurses, who are deemed

in a more positive light. Moreover, a certain culture of distrustexists toward the

polity-politicians and civil servants. This old culture, transmittedgeneration

after generation,is well documented in studies of popular wisdom, the popular

literature, and cinema (del Pino, 2004a) and reinforced by the effect of the

antipolitical propagandaduring the Francodictatorship.

At the same time, Spaniards adhere to a statist view and to a universalistic

concept of welfare state, with a strong emphasis on equal opportunities.About

61 percentof the citizens believe thatthe governmentis the main body respon-sible for supporting he poor, followed, at great distance, by the family andsoci-

ety and,in the lastposition, the individual (datafromhereafter akenfromCentro

de Investigaciones Sociologicas [CIS];see www.cis.es). InMadrid,forexample,

84 percentof citizens think thatgovernmentshould be responsible for the wel-

fare of each and every citizen, with the obligation to help them in solving their

problems, whereas just 3 percent think that this responsibility rests on the indi-

viduals themselves.

In the last decades, two processes unfoldedparallel to the democratictransi-tion and consolidation in the country and had a strong impact on the relation

between citizens and public administration.The first was the development of a

modern welfare state in the 1980s.7A large and growing consensus exists about

the size of public expenditurefor welfare policies. Citizens are predominantly

against the reduction of welfare expenditure, and welfare is the sector in which

the largest inadequacyof public expenditure s perceived (del Pino, 2004b). The

second importantdevelopment when analyzing structurecongruence is the pro-

cess of territorialdevolution,which has reshapedtherole of public institutions n

the Spanish political system. It implied the creation of the Estado de las

Autonomias.The operationof 17 regions (Autonomous Communities)has led to

a new form of territorialorganizationand devolution of services to the regional

level.' Citizen supportfor the regional governments is growing.

PROCESS CONGRUENCE: CITIZENS' ATTITUDES TOWARD PUBLIC

POLICIES AND SERVICES IN SPAIN

We now move to an analysis of process congruence by focusing on how public

activity is organized.A majorityof the Spaniardsclearly preferthe currentpat-tern of publicly organized and tax-financedpublic services to other managerial

and financialarrangements (Table 1).This preferencehas seen only minor varia-

tions and has experienced a slight increase during the period of analysis. The

second choice was one forpublic managementandfinancingwith fees and taxes.

Although this option has become slightly more popular since 1995, it still lags



del Pino / SPANISH CITIZENSAND PUBLICADMINISTRATION 519

Table1. PreferencesOverDifferentModelsof Financingand Management f

Servicesand Benefits1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

They should ..Continue eingpublicandfinancedwithtaxes (%) 62 61 56 73 60 66 72Continuebeingpublicandfinancedpartlywithtaxesandpartlywithfees that he userspay(%) 14 14 17 9 18 18 11

Continue eingfinancedpublicly

andmanaged y the private ector (%) 12 7 10 8 11 7 9Be privatized,ully or partly, nddirectlypaidby citizenswhenusingthem %) 8 9 8 5 3 3 3Not applicable/nonswer %) 4 9 8 5 8 6 5

Source: nstitutode EstudiosFiscales(2001). (Originalquestion ormulations notavailable.)

far behind the previous option in terms of popularity.Preference for the other

modalities-public financing with private managementandprivatizationof man-agement and user fees-has decreased.

Preferences are even more pronouncedfor the welfare state "hard-core"ser-

vices: pensions, health, education, and social services, andeven transport:A con-

sistent majority of more than three-fourths prefers tax-financed and publicly

managed services (87, 80, 74, 76, and 79 percent, respectively). The number of

citizens who accept privatization in these areas is very low at 6, 2, 2, 1, and 4

percent, respectively. Consistent with their firm supportfor a solid welfare re-

gime, citizens favor a public model of ownership and management of the ser-vices they receive. Privatizationwas common in the discourse of politicians and

citizens after the first electoral victory of the PopularPartyin 1996 (a conserva-

tive party).Whenpeople were asked about thegovernment'srecord, privatization

was a frequentissue.9 Focus groups illustratewhat values citizens associate with

the option of privatization.Public responsibility for welfare benefits andservices

is associated with values such as equality or universality. Profitabilityis not seen

as a useful or relevant criterion for making decisions about welfare. The coexist-

ence of public and private service arrangementshas to guaranteethe quality of

services and avoid the deteriorationor stigmatizationof public services. The pri-

vate sector,however, is believed to carefor quality in the sense of good treatment

and otheraesthetic values. The preferencefor public ownershipandmanagement

of services and benefits by the majorityof citizens indicates a clear predilection

for the values associated with public institutions.

Citizens' satisfaction with policies and public services offers a plausible ex-



520 PPMR June2005

Table 2. Citizen Evaluation of Public Policies

(VeryWell+ Well) (Poorly or Ver Poorly)

Sport 51.4 Civilsecurity -1 .6Highways 39.0 Agriculturalolicy -8.8Trade 38.4 Environmentalolicy -14.2Internationalelations 34.2 Employmentolicy -17.7Public ransport 30.6 Pensions -19.1Health 22.3 Fiscalpolicy -24.5Culture 21.4 Unemploymentenefits -25.8Industry 18.8 Traffic egulation -26.1Socialservices 17.7 Justice -27.9Economy 17.6 Housing -31.4Defense 13.2Education 6.0Urban lanning 1.1

Notes:Elaborationasedon Madrid urvey,2000. Question: willnlamesomeperformanceieldsthat are related withpublic administrations. How well do you believ,ethey work: iverywell, well,

fair poorly or verqpoorly?

planation for this general support for public intervention. The inefficiency ste-

reotype would suggest that negative evaluations of specific policies and serviceswill prevail, but satisfaction data do not support the hypothesis of widespread

dissatisfaction with the public administrationand government performance.The

Communityof Madridsurvey contains data on a large number of policies and

public services. Evaluationsof public policies are shown in Table 2. Of the 23

policies, 10 are evaluatednegatively, 13 satisfactorily.

Moreover, although certainpolicies are evaluated negatively, specific services

related to these policies often are evaluatedpositively. The datathusconfirmthe

previous hypotheses. In the case of the Communityof Madrid,87 percentof theservices are evaluated morepositively thannegatively.The same is true when the

services are grouped by policy areas. Even in the policy sectors that are evalu-

ated very negatively, such as housing and social benefits, services are in general

well assessed (see Table3).

Alternatively, public satisfactionwith services can be measuredthroughciti-

zens' levels of trustin street-level bureaucrats.Consistentlywith the stereotype

of the faceless bureaucrat,a significant percentageof the citizens admits to be

distrustfulof civil servantsin general,whereas more than half of the citizens say

they trustfiremen(80 percent),doctors(70 percent),orteachersand social work-ers (datafrom the Madridsurvey).

My analysis of process congruence in Spain leads to two main conclusions.

First, majority support s found for the currentmodel, in which public adminis-

tration s a high-profile protagonist n themanagementof collective matters.This

preeminence is related to citizens' perceptionthat public institutionsrepresent



del Pino / SPANISHCITIZENSAND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 521

Table3. CitizenEvaluation f SomePublicServices

(VerySatisfied+ Satisfied) (LittleSatisfied+ Unsatisfied)

HousingConcessionof the property r free use of housing 100.0Publichousingpromotion 54.8Buildingor housingreform ubsidies 30.8Subsidies o acquire rrenta house 27.7Tax ncentives oracquisition rrentingahouse 1.3Housingpromotion -18.6

Social BenefitsandPensions

Scholarships 39.3Othermonthlyassistancebenefits 29.2Publicpensions 7.5Benefits orthe unemployed 5.2Benefits orpoorpeople 0.1

Note: Elaboration based on Madrid survey, 2000. Question: Satisfaction with the received

service: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, or very unsatisfied?

values that they consider crucial. Second, the available data show that satisfac-

tion with policy is more widespreadthan is dissatisfaction.

StructureCongruence:TerritorialLevels of Governmentand Citizen Attitudes

In this section, structurecongruence is explored from two perspectives. We first

look at general attitudes toward the different levels of government by directly

measuring trustand subsequently try to examine this topic in an indirectway, by

analyzing citizens' satisfaction with policies and services that citizens perceive

as being in thejurisdiction of these different levels.In the territoryof the region of Madrid,three different administrationspartici-

pate in the productionand provision of public services and benefits. People ap-

pearto trust the regional government most, followed by the national government,

the city councils and the Europeaninstitutions (Table 4). These findings differ

from those of other surveys organized for the entire national territoryduring the

last 12 years (1991 through 2003). These surveys generally showed a greater

amountof trustin city councils, followed by regional andnationalgovernments.

The result from the Madrid survey contrast with the generally accepted ideathat citizens value greater proximity and that, therefore, municipal institutions

are trustedmost. In a similar way, the greaterdistance that citizens feel toward

the nationaladministrationshould lead to lower levels of trust in national institu-

tions. The Region of Madridis, of course, mainly urban,and the greatersize of

the municipalities in this region is a variableto be kept in mind.Additionally, the

main institutionsof the national government are located in Madrid, which could



522 PPMR June 2005

Table4. Trust n Government

Regional City councilsEuropean National government of

institutions government of Madrid municipalities

(%o) (%) (%) (%)

+ 29 32 35 27+1- 36 34 37 34

22 32 25 36

Not applicable/no answer 14 3 3 3

Notes:ElaborationasedonMadridurvey, 000.Question:NextI would ikeyouto tell me thedegreeof trust hatyouhave na seriesof institutions.

possibly diminish the perceived distance to the national administration or the

citizens of Madrid n comparisonto inhabitants rom otherregions in Spain.

What are the determinantsof this trust?This is a very old question that does

not have a univocal answer (Nye, Zelikow, & King, 1997). The Madridsurvey

shows a clear statistical association between thedegreeof trust an individual hasin the governmentand his or her ideological preferencesas expressed in voting

behavior.A similar associationexists with the indicatorof ideological self-place-

ment. Other data may help to explain this favorable trustposition of the regional

governmentin Spain.The creation of theAutonomousCommunitiesis generally

assessed in a positive way (nearly 70 percent positive attitudes n the whole terri-

tory of Spain), and a favorablecitizen stancevis-a-vis the decentralizedgovern-

ment exists (62 percent in the Communityof Madrid-slightly lower than the

rest of Spain, which is at 70 percent).Another way of exploring the degree of trust is to look at citizens' mental

image of each level of government.Table5 shows some statementsaboutreasons

that would account for citizens' territorialallocation of trust.For example, the

national administrations perceivedto combine boththe maindrawbacksandthe

main virtues of the bureaucraticmodel. On the one hand, this administration

always appearsin surveys as slower, more bureaucratic,and more alien. This

occurs in spite of the visible efforts, recognized by practitionersand academic

experts alike, of public organizationssuch as the TaxAgency, the PostalAgency,

or the Social Security Department o initiate modernizationprogramsandqualitymanagement.On the otherhand,the national administrations seen as thepublic

administration hat respects citizens' rights to a greater extent, is the most re-

sponsive and accountable,seeks to reduce the disparitiesbetween the poor and

the rich, andis the one working for the general interest and for equality.In gen-

eral, its role has evolved, perhapssomewhatidealized (Baiion & Tamayo, 1997),



del Pino / SPANISH CITIZENSAND PUBLICADMINISTRATION 523

Table5. GovernmentalLevelMoreIdentifiedwiththe Featuresof

Bureaucratic,Democratic,Welfare,and ManagingAdministrationAdministrationthat typically

corresponds best to eachFeature statement

Bureaucraticdministration:

Respects itizens'rightsand reedoms National

Complieswith andenforces he law National

Pursueshegeneral nterest f all citizens National

Treatsall citizensequally Citycouncils/national

Democratic dministration:Promotes itizenparticipation City councils

Actsin aresponsiveway Regional/national

Is sensitiveandresponsiveo whatcitizenswantandneed Citycouncils

Is accountableo the citizen National

Welfare dministration:

Is inchargeof the welfareof all, facilitatingaccesss to socialservicesandbenefits Regional

Is moreconcerned bout hepoor RegionalTries o reducedifferences etweenpeoplewithhigherand ower ncomes National

Management:

Provides ervicesof quality Regional

Is effectivesolvingproblems ndproducingservices Regional

Is efficientusingpublicmonies National

Notes: Elaborationbased on Madrid survey, 2000. Question: Please think of public

administrationshatyouknowand tell me whichof thembestrepresentshe ollowing aspects.

to that of a supervisor and a guardianof equity among people and among the

different territoriesof the state.

Regional administration, n turn,is perceived to be modern and efficient and,

for this reason, as the best option for service provision. This perception of mo-

dernityand effectiveness is consistent with one of the most valued dimensions of

the SpanishEstado de las Autonomi[as: he proximity of the administration o its

citizens and to the real problems of each specific territory (del Pino, 2004a).Regional administration s also viewed as the one most concerned with welfare,

which is compatible with the acquisition of more and more competences, and

with the growing role it plays in the provision of social services (Moreno &

Arriba, 1999). Finally, municipal governments are seen as the ones most respon-

sive to citizen needs and as those encouraging citizen participationthe most.

We can also look atthe structurecongruence in an indirectway, by monitoring



524 PPMR June 2005

citizens' evaluationof the performanceor activity of each different level of gov-

ernment andpublic administration. nTable 6, the attributionsmadeby citizensfor the main policies arepresented.The list of policies clearly shows the greater

visibility of nationaladministration n the Communityof Madrid.All publicpoli-

cies areprimarilyattributed o the national administration xcept 3 out of the list

of 23: public transportation,rafficregulation,andpublicworks and urbanplan-

ning. Survey responses indicate that citizens understand hat responsibility for

policies is complex, and thatpower is distributedbetween the differentlevels of

governmentandpublic administration.

The regional administrationappears as primarily responsible for just one of

the policies, public transportation.This administration s for 18 policies the sec-

ond institution for which citizens recognizejurisdiction,although ts presence is

significant in only 10 cases. The municipaladministrations seen as primarilyre-

sponsiblefor urbanplanningand trafficregulationandas secondarilyresponsible

in two otherpolicies. TheEuropean nstitutionsare neverattributed rimerespon-

sibilityfor the policies but appearwith a very significantrole in foreign policy.

More variation is found when respondentsattributeresponsibility for certain

services to the different levels of government. It is the regional administration

that takes the most prominentplace. In the Region of Madrid,characterizedbylarge municipalities, the municipal administrationappearsin the last place, al-

thoughthe difference with the national administration s very small. In any event,

theregionaladministration aroutstrips heother levels in terms of visibility:The

regional administrationappearsas primarily responsible for 28 and as second-

arily responsiblefor 29 of 68 services analyzed. City councils appear n the first

position for 23 services and the national administration or 17. In sum, the re-

sponsibility for services is perceived to lie predominantlywith the subnational

governments,and, overall, the regionaladministration njoys the most prominent

place. From a sectoralpointof view, one should mentionthe clear preeminenceof

regional administrationn welfare services, because this administration s consis-

tentlyattributed he responsibility or the functioningof this sector.The responsi-

bilityforeducations sharedwith thenationaladministration. ealth s stillattributed

to the nationaladministration,which at the time of the survey correspondedwith

the actualpowers of the Region of Madrid.Responsibility for services related to

urbanplanningandenvironment s seen to lie withthe municipal evel.

In a final analysis, we examine how the policies and services attributed o the

differentlevels of governmentare evaluated. In the Communityof Madrid,theregionaladministration eceives the best ratingsfor thepolicies it is attributedby

the citizens (Table 7). The regionaladministration s always rated better than the

national administration.Nearly 70 percentof policies in which regionaladminis-

trationhas a significant responsibility arepositively evaluated. The national ad-

ministration is only able to appear among the best valued in aroundhalf of its



del Pino/ SPANISH CITIZENSAND PUBLICADMINISTRATION 525

Table 6. Attributions Citizens Make Among Different Territorial

Administrations for the Main Policies

Panel A: WelfarePolicies

European National Regional Cityinstitutions administration administration councils

Education(1) Education (2)Health (1) Health (2)Social service (1) Social services (2)Pensions (1)

Unemployment

Insurance(1)Sport (1) Sport (2)Culture (1) Culture (2)Housing (1) Housing (2) Housing (3)

Panel B: CityPolicies


Public transports(3) Public transports 1) Public transports 2)Civic security (1) Civic security (2)

Traffic regulation (2) Trafficregulation (1)Environment(1) Environment(2)

Urbanplanning (2) Urbanplanning (2)

Panel C: Sovereignty Policies


Justice (1)Defense (1)

Highways (1) Highways (2)Fiscal policy (1)

Foreignpolicy (2) Foreign policy (1)

Panel D: Economic Policies


Economy (1)Agriculture (1)

Trade(1)Industry (1)Employment (1)

Notes: Elaboration asedon Madrid urvey,2000. Thisquestionwasmultiple hoice;onepolicycould be attributedo severaladministrations.Weconsidered n answer ignificantwhen 30percentof respondentsonsidered his administrationesponsibleorpolicy. Question:Whatadministrationor administrations)o youbelieve s primarily esponsibleor things o workwell?



526 PPMR June2005

Table7.AttributionsCitizensMake or theMainPoliciesandServicesAccording o TheirEvaluation

Evaluated MorePositively EvaluatedMoreNegativelyThanNegatively ThanPositively

Policies (%) Services (%) Policies (%) Services(%)

National administration 57 87 43 13Regional administration 67 86 33 14Municipaladministration 20 78 80 22

Notes: Elaboration based on Madridsurvery,2000. Horizontalpercentages. Question: Whatadministration(or administrations)do you believe are the main responsibility or things (this

policy or this service) to work verv well, well, fair, badly, or verx,badly.

policies. A similarpattern occurs with the worst evaluated policies. A different

pictureemerges for the municipal administration,whose policies are evaluated

negatively. For services, it is again the regional administration hat has the big-

gest number of attributionsn the best valued services, followed by nationaland

municipal administrations.

In sum, the attributionof responsibilities is different for policies and services.

When citizens are asked which administration(s)were primarilyresponsiblefor

each policy, national administrationwas more visible. However, in the case of

the services, moreadministrationsare seen to be involved, especially theregional

one. The regionaladministration s the one thathas a morepositive balance when

the indicators of responsibility and satisfaction with policies and services are

considered.Although citizens attributea smallernumber of policies to regional

administration han to nationaladministration,hese policies are morepositively

evaluated.Overall, services are evaluatedpositively, but scores for the servicesperceived as regional are generally the highest. If this evaluation is used as an

indicator of trust in governments, regional administrationemerges as the most

trustedadministration, ollowed by the national and the municipal administra-

tion. The image of the regionaladministration s one of effectiveness and moder-

nity, even though citizens recognize a potential for inequity if the national

administrationwould fail to monitorthe regional administration.

Conclusions: What Have We Learned About Citizens' Attitudes?

Thisarticleanalyzedcitizenorientations owardgovernmentnstitutionsandpublic

administration.A conceptual frameworkhas been proposed and some results

pertainingto the Spanish case have been presented. The analysis has revolved

aroundthe concepts of process congruenceand structurecongruence, seeking to



del Pino / SPANISHCITIZENSAND PUBLICADMINISTRATION 527

compensate for the limitations of some classical and recent works that excluded

orobscuredthe relevanceof administrativenstitutionsandoutputs n theiranalysisof citizens' attitudes toward government.

Spanishattitudestoward the public administrationaregenerally negative when

public administration s conceived as an abstractnotion. The administration s then

portrayedas dull and poorly administered,which reflects the traditional stereo-

types of the poor operationof public organizations,redtape,or the squanderingof

scarce resources. This negative view of the administration, ogetherwith the exist-

ence in Spainof a low participativepolitical culture and, to a certainextent, apathy

towardpublic issues, would lead us to conclude that the typical Spanish citizen

possesses, using thetypology of Nachmias and Rosenbloom (1978), a bureaucratic

profile. We have seen that the weight of stereotypes s largerwhen citizens think of

public administrationand civil servantsin abstract erms. When citizens' attitudes

toward the administrationare studied more in detail, a more complex andpositive

image appears. In general, more citizens are satisfied than dissatisfied with the

policies and services.They value a numberof featuresof publicorganizationsvery

highly and tend to be in favor of direct public managementrather than private

managementfor many public services. From this perspective, Spaniards seem to

be bureaucratophilesor, at least, bureaucratolerant.Additionally, a single attitude toward the public administration n Spain does

not exist. This case study shows that diverse orientationsexist according to gov-

ernment levels and the public policies and services involved. In this sense, it is

necessary to highlight that not all the policies are valued in the same way or with

the same intensity.The attributionof responsibility for public policies is not iden-

tical either. In Spain, the progressive building of a federal system has modified

the attitudestoward administrative nstitutions: Each administrationhas a profile

that is different and even complementaryto that of the others.In sum, widespread disaffection with the administrative nstitutionsor with its

outputsdoes not seem to exist in Spain. The operationof the decentralized state

in Spain largely seems to correspondto citizens' preferences. Currently,Spanish

citizens' supportof democracy as the best possible form of government reaches

86 percent (data from CIS in 2003). We do not know how much of this support

for democracy is due to the general satisfaction with the administrative institu-

tions. Neither do we know the possible consequences that a persistent perceived

administrative ineffectiveness or a growing mismatch between citizens' values

and the performanceof administrative nstitutions would have on the supportforthe system.

The ongoing development of the decentralized and welfare state in Spain of-

fers good perspectives for studying the evolution in citizens' attitudes toward

their administration.Data collection should be extended to other regions to see

how attitudes toward nationalgovernmentmay vary in those regions with a much



528 PPMR June 2005

strongerregional or ethno-national dentity (Catalonia, Basque Country).More

comparativeresearch s neededto examine attitudes owardpolicies andservicesin countries with different political cultures, models of public administrationor

models of territorialorganization.A more detailedcorroborationof the concepts

andrelationsin ourconceptualmodel will be possible by applyingit to different

types of citizens and administrations.Ultimately,these studies can teachus much

about what impact citizens' attitudes toward the administration(bureauphile,

bureautolerant,and bureautic) may have on the operationof public administra-

tion and on democracyitself.

Notes

1.See, forexample,Beliefs inGovernment, European esearchprojectdirectedby KaaseandNewton (1995)during ix years,Fuchsand Klingemann 1995),or Norris 1999). Also seeother nternationalurveyssuch as the Latinobar6metrowww.latinobarometro.org).o men-tion just a few exampleson the relationbetween political systemperformance nd the policyperformance erception, ee MillerandListhaug 1998) andPutnam,Pharr, ndDalton 2000).Onthe institutional fficacy and social capital,see Putnam,Leonardi,and Nanetti(1993). Onthe political subjectiveefficacy andthe responsibilityor honesty of politiciansand civil ser-vants, see KraftandBush (1998) and Melkersand Thomas 1998).

2. Some of theseworks can be found on the Web site for theEuropeanGroupof PublicAdministration's tudyGrouponProductivityndQualityn thePublicSector www.kuleuven.ac.be/egpa)nd nthesuccessive ontributionsn theirmeetingsn Vaasa2001),Potsdam2002),andLisbon 2003). Someof these findingshave been published n a special ssueof the Interna-tionalJournalof PublicAdministrationsee Vigoda,2003).

3. Theproject"Imagende las administraciones calidadde los serviciospublicosen laComunidadde Madrid"was led by E. Carrillo UniversidadComplutensede Madrid).Mem-bers of the research eam were I. Bazaga,E. del Pino,andM. Tamayo UniversidadRey JuanCarlos,Madrid).Theprojectwas fundedbytheregionalgovernmentf Madrid n 2000(Carrillo,Bazaga, del Pino, & Tamayo, 2001). Other sources of data are the Spanish Centro deInvestigacionesSociol6gicas and the Institutode EstudiosFiscales.

4. More recentworks n thistradition, lthoughwith a different ocus, includeLipset andSchneider1987),KaaseandNewton(1995), Nye etal. (1997), Inglehart1997),Norris 1999),andPharrand Putnam 2000).

5. Nachmiasand Rosenbloom 1978) built theirtypology on two dimensions: he expec-tationsof treatment nd heperception f complexityaboutpublicadministration.hebureauticshave moredifficulties n theirrelationshipwithpublic nstitutionsandwiththepoliticalcom-munity.These are the polaroppositeof bureauphiles.For a revision of this typology,see delPino (2004b).

6. Basedonthe seminalworkofAllport 1958),Aronson 1999, p. 307) definesstereotypeas theassignmentof (negative)characteristicso any person n agroup,regardless f the actualvariationamongmembersof thatgroup.Experiencesdisproving he stereotypeare not suffi-cient to neutralize t. Otherrelevantworksabout stereotypes n public administrationncludeGoodsell 1994), Katz,Gutek,Kahn,andBarton1975),andLaufer ndBurlaud1980).AlvarezandBrehm(1992), Serra 1995), Berman 1997), Terry 1997), Dinsdale and Marson 1999),Lee (2000), Meier and Bohte(2000), andVande Walle(2004).

7. In 1980 the publicexpenditure epresented 2.9 percentof thegrossdomesticproduct,and in 2000, the dateof the Madrid urvey, t was 41.5 percent Utrilla& Perez, 2001).

8. The distributionof spendingfor government's evels in 2000 at the point in timewhen the surveyof Madridwas carriedoutwas of 57, 30, and 13 percentof the GDP for the



del Pino / SPANISHCITIZENSAND PUBLICADMINISTRATION 529

centralgovernment, the regional governments,and the local governments,respectively.9. In 1996 a Programof Modernization f the IndustrialPublic Sector hadbeen launched

that hadprivatizationas one of the main strategies,and in 1997 severalhigh-visibility publicenterprises uchas Telef6nica,Endesa, andRepsol wereprivatized.

References

Allport, G.W. (1958). Thenature of prejudice. New York:Doubleday.Almond, G.A., & Verba, S. (1966). The civic culture:Political attitudes and democracy in

five nations. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.Anderson, Ch.J., & Guillory, Ch.A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with de-

mocracy:A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritariansystems. American

Political Science Review, 91(1), 66-81.Alvarez, R., & Brehm,J. (1992). InformationandAmerican attitudes towardbureaucracy.

Paperpreparedfor the 54th National Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Asso-ciation, Chicago.

Aronson, E. (1999). The social animal. New York:WorthPublishers.Bafi6n, R., & Carrillo,E. (1997). La legitimidadde laAdministraci6n Publica [Legitimacy

of public administration].In R. Bani6n& E. Carrillo(Eds.), La nueva Administraci6nPu'blica(pp. 51-78). Madrid:Alianza UniversidadTextos.

Bani6n, R., & Tamayo, M. (1997). The transformation of the central administration in

Spanish intergovernmentalrelations.Publius, 27(4), 85-114.

Beetham, D. (1994). Defining and measuring democracy. London:Sage.Berman,E.M. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. PublicAdministrationReview,57(2),

105-112.

Botella, J. (1997). La opini6n publica ante el "welfarestate": Oferta o demanda?[Publicopinion toward "welfare state":Supply or demand?]. In S. Giner & S. Sarasa (Eds.),Buen gobierno y politica social (pp. 191-199). Madrid:Ariel.

Carrillo,E., Bazaga, I., del Pino, E., & Tamayo,M. (2001). Imagende las administracionesy calidad de los servicios publicos en la Comunidadde Madrid, inal report[Imagesofadministrations ndqualityof publicservices in theAutonomousCommunityof Madrid].Proyectos de investigaci6n en humanidades y ciencias sociales (Consejerfa deEducaci6n).

Dahl, R. (1996). Thinking about democratic constitutions: Conclusions from democraticexperience. In I. Shapiro& H. Russell (Eds.),Political order (pp. 175-206). New York:New YorkUniversity Press.

Dinsdale, G., and Marson, D. B. (1999). Citizens/clients surveys: Dispelling myths andredrawingmaps.Citizen Centered Service Network, CanadianCentre for ManagementDevelopment.

Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York:Wiley.Fuchs, D., & Klingemann,H.-D. (1995). Citizens and the state:A changing relationship?

In H.-D. Klingemann& D. Fuchs (Eds.), Beliefs in government:Volume . Citizensandthe state (pp. 1-23). New York: Oxford University Press.

Goodsell, Ch.T. (1994). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic.Chatham,UK: Chatham House.

Hibbing, J.R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). Process preferences and American politics:What the people want government to be. Public Administration, 95(1), 145-153.

Inglehart,R. (1997). Modernizationand postmodernization: Cultural,economic, andpo-litical change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kaase, M., & Newton, K. (Ed.). (1995). Beliefs in government: Vol. V Beliefs in govern-ment. New York: Oxford University Press.



530 PPMR June 2005

Katz, D., Gutek, B.A., Kahn, R.L., & Barton, E. (1975). Bureaucratic encounters: A

pilot study in evaluation of governmentservices. Ann Arbor,MI: Institute for Social

Research.Kraft, M.K., & Bush, R.I. (1998). Accountable welfare reform:What consumers think.

Public AdministrationReview, 58(5), 406-416.LauferR., & Burlaud,A. (1980). Managementpublic: Gestionet 1egitimite.Paris:Dalloz.Lee, M. (2000). Bureaucratbashing in the galactic senate:George Lucas and public ad-

ministration.Public Voices, 4(2), 23-30.Lipset, S.M., & Schneider,W. (1987). Theconfidence gap: Business, labor and govern-

ment in thepublic mind. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.Meier, K., andBohte, J. (2000). Not witha bangbuta whimper:Explaining organizational

failures.Paper presentedat the 58th nationalmeetingof the Midwest Political Science

Association, Chicago.Melkers, J., & Thomas,J.C. (1998). Whatdo administrators hink citizens think?Admin-

istrators'predictions as an adjunct to citizen surveys. Public AdministrationReview,58(4), 327-334.

Miller, A., & Listhaug, 0. (1998). Policy preferences and political distrust:A compari-son of Norway, Sweden and United States. ScandinavianPolitical Studies, 2(2), 161-187.

Moreno, L., & Arriba,A. (1999). Decentralization, mesogovernmentsand the new logicof welfare provision in Spain. Workingpaperno. 99-01, Institutode Estudios SocialesAvanzados(CSIC).

Nachmias, D., & Rosenbloom, D.-H. (1978). Bureaucraticculture: Citizens and adminis-tratorsin Israel. London:Croom Helm.

Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global supportfor democratic government.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Nye, J.S., Zelikow,P.D., & King,D.C. (Eds.). (1997). Whypeople don't trustgovernment.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Pharr,S.J., & Putnam,R.D. (Eds.). (2000). Disaffecteddemocracies: What's roublingthetrilateralcountries? Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Pino, E. del. (2004a). Los ciudadanosy el Estado: las actitudes de los espafioleshacia lasadministracionespablicas y las politicas publicas [Citizens and the state:Spaniards'attitudes toward public administrationsand policies]. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de

Administraci6nhiblica.Pino,E. del. (2004b). (,Porqu6 importanos ciudadanos?Tipos de actitudesy consecuencias

parael modelo de administraci6ny la vitalidaddemocratica [Whydo citizens matter?Typesof attitudesandconsequencesformodels of administration nd democraticvital-ity]. Reformay democracia, 29, 57-93.

Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making democracywork: Civic tra-ditions in modernItaly. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Putnam, R.D., Pharr,S.J., & Dalton, R.J. (2000). Introduction: What's troubling thetrilateraldemocracies? In S.J. Pharr & R.D. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democra-cies: What'stroublingthe trilateral countries? (pp. 3-27). Princeton: Princeton Uni-

versity Press.Serra,G. (1995). Citizen-initiatedcontactandsatisfactionwithbureaucracy:A multivari-ate analysis. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory,5 (2), 175-188.

Terry,L.D. (1997). Publicadministration nd the theatermetaphor:The public administra-toras villain, hero and innocent victim. Public AdministrationReview,57(1), 53-61.

Utrillade la Hoz, A., & P6rezEsparrells,C. (2001). La evoluci6n de las politicas de gastoen las administracionespablicas en los anos 90 [Theevolutionof expenditurepolicies



del Pino/ SPANISH CITIZENSAND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 531

in publicadministrationuring he 1990s].Working aperno. 164,Fundaci6n e lasCajasde AhorrosConfederadasara aInvestigaci6nEcon6mica Social.

Vande Walle,S. (2004).Context-specificmagesof thearchetypical ureaucrat: ersis-tenceanddiffusionof thebureaucracytereotype.PublicVoices,7(1), 3-12.

Vigoda,E.(2003).Performancenddemocracyn thepublic ector:Exploring omemiss-ing links in the study of administrationndsociety (PartA: Administrative erfor-mance, rust ngovernance, ndsocialequality).nternationalournalofInternationalPublicAdministration,6(8/9),883-890.

EloisadelPino is a lecturer npoliticalscience at theUniversidadRey Juan CarlosinMadrid,Spain.Recently he haspublishedLos ciudadanos el Estado:Actitudesde los espaiioleshacia las administraciones laspoliticaspuiblicasMadrid: NAP,2004). Her research nterestsand recentpublicationsare inpolitical culture,citi-zenparticipationin local government,citizens and welfarereform,and electoralbehavior in Spain.

spanish citizens and public administration

Documents