|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910462678303321 |
|
|
Autore |
Dekker Teun <1980-, > |
|
|
Titolo |
Paying our high public officials : evaluating the moral justifications of top wages in the public sector / / Teun J. Dekker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
New York : , : Routledge, , 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-283-97269-7 |
0-203-07737-7 |
1-135-13127-9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (231 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Routledge research in public administration and public policy ; ; 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Public officers |
Electronic books. |
United States Officials and employees Salaries, etc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Front Cover; Paying Our High Public Officials; Copyright Page; Contents; List of Figures; Acknowledgments; 1. The Problem of High Public Officials' Remuneration; 2. Analytical Discourse Evaluation: A Manifesto; 3. The It's Taxpayers' Money Argument; 4. The Compensating Benefits and Broad Comparability Argument; 5. The Motivation Selection Argument; 6. The Live Like Common People Argument; 7. The Example Argument; 8. The Optimal Performance Argument; 9. The Corruption Argument; 10. Conclusion: Three Questions, Two Visions; Notes; Bibliography; Index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
In almost every liberal democratic society, an issue that is a topic of constant and passionate public discussion is how much that country's ministers, legislators, senior civil servants, and senior judges should be paid. Nor is this surprising; the issue has considerable voyeuristic appeal, particular democratic significance, and important ramifications for the functioning of the public sector as a whole. However, like most political debates, these discussions tend to be messy, fragmented, and full of unverified assertions and spurious appeals to populist sentiment. It is hardly surprising |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|