Administrative Governance and a Comparative Analysis of the Grounds for Administrative Violations in Iran and Iraq

Abstract

Administrative governance, as a key concept in public management and policymaking, refers to the processes, structures, and managerial approaches within administrative systems. From the perspective of administrative governance, addressing administrative corruption and its manifestations—such as administrative violations—is not limited to post-facto responses or the imposition of administrative-disciplinary penalties. Implementing preventive measures against administrative misconduct is a crucial aspect of effective administrative governance. In this framework, identifying the underlying causes and circumstances that lead to administrative violations, beyond mere legal responses, positions administrative governance as an interdisciplinary concept situated between the fields of law, sociology, and public policy. In governance studies, Iran and Iraq hold strategic significance due to their geopolitical and energy-related positions. The shared characteristics of the two countries, including their similar rankings in global administrative corruption indices, underscore the importance of investigating the conditions that give rise to administrative violations. This article, considering both domestic and international studies, identifies and introduces factors such as nepotism and sectarianism, weak legislative systems, foreign sanctions, war, and military occupation as key contributors to the emergence and proliferation of administrative violations in Iran and Iraq. The European experience in administrative governance emphasizes the importance of reducing administrative violations by strengthening local democracy, promoting transparency, and enhancing oversight over the implementation of human rights in administration.