The politics of forest bureaucracy as a subject of comparative studies.

Comparative analysis could offer a number of advantages in the science of forest policy. Comparisons make use of the compiled material from different countries, point to new origins and solutions of issues of forestry and allow to question the common presuppositions in the national forest policy in a critical way. The basic requirement of fruitful comparative research is a common scientific framework. In the light of empirical-analytical theory it is more promising to compare only one factor across regions than the whole system. The forest administration could be such a suitable object of comparison in particular because it is to be found all over the world, and it has a formal and partly public organization with a number of similarities. The product of forest administration is policy. The significance of the bureaucratic behaviour in agenda setting, policy formulation, legitimating, and implementation with regard to an issue of forest policy is to be analysed. The two significant fields of analysis, namely forest administrations and the issues of forest policy characterize the strategies of research. By making use of a collection of papers dealing with forest bureaucracy we can select countries for comparison according to the following criteria: socioeconomic context, space and time. The next step is to analyse comparatively the behaviour of the forest bureaucracy in treating a special forest issue. The explanations can be tested empirically in different countries. Perhaps the dying of the forest could be a suitable issue as an object of comparative analysis which again could enlarge our knowledge about the forest administration as a political factor.