A difference that is not a difference

This symposium illustrates a serious problem. There has been a great deal of fragmentation in the field of public administration in the last two decades. For three decades, from the 40's through some of the 70's, public administration was able to encompass many diverse approaches within its boundaries. However, dissatisfaction with traditional public administration content, methodology, incrementalism, and administrative management led to divisions in the field of public policy and public management that have separated themselves from public administration. The desire for separateness is seen in changed names of academic programs and degrees, different course content and separate professional associations. The symposium was designed to try to stimulate debate and discussion of the ties rather than differences in the field.

This article discusses the differences from the standpoint of the students, the practitioners of public administration, the faculty and the public. The conclusion is that there is much more which should join these programs than separate them and that the need to produce leaders for the public service requires strong places in the academic world for these programs. The field would be stronger if those who argue for public policy, public management and public affairs separate and unequal from public administration would engage in dialogue to take the best of all these approaches and merge into a stronger whole. The common concern with the public nature of the profession and the need to educate public leaders overrides most of the perceived differences. The weakness in the perception of the field generally and in the academic world caused by these splits will continue until more common efforts are undertaken.

Public policy has contributed a great deal to improving methodological rigor in the field. Public management has been important in making the leap from policy to implementation. These differences have changed public administration considerably. But the parts of the field are not sufficiently aware of each other. Analysis of all the programs finds more in common than is acknowledged and finds that these differences do not make a real difference.

It is time to begin discussion of how to make all parts of this field stronger, to improve the academic training, to increase the link between theory and practice, and to work together to improve the public image of public service. To do this, these divisions must be acknowledged and brought together into a stronger professional program for the public service.     

Process Tracing in Public Administration: The Implications of Practitioner Insights for Methods of Inquiry

The field of public administration is often seen as a late adopter of cutting-edge research methods. Related disciplines like political science use more advanced research methods for single or small-n case studies including techniques like process tracing. Many elements of process tracing are analogous to investigations. To inform process tracing practices, political scientists looked at Sherlock Holmes novels. We draw on the experiences of a police inspector and a former soldier who worked with intelligence to offer insights on the implementation of process tracing, bridge the academic–practitioner gap, and increase the methodological rigor in public administration research.     

Business development stratesies: an important comparative divension

Government efforts to work more closely with businesses are increasingly seen as important, as we have moved from discussions about industrial policy to concerns about international competitiveness. However our ideas about these subjects suffer from a lack of a comparative perspective or an understanding of how different nations go about this process. The comparative study of national strategies to stimulate business or to upgrade a country's industrial portfolio can produce useful results. Writers with experience in the comparative administration field can make a contribution here, especially through their exploration of the relationship between bureaucracy and society, which sigficantly defines and constrains these strategic possibilties. To do this, comparative administration researchers will need to focus more specifically on business enterprises as well as public agencies involved in business development.     

Developing a short scale to assess public leadership

Tummers and Knies (2016) have recently introduced a 21-item scale for the measurement of public leadership to the burgeoning field of leadership research in public administration. However, due to restrictions in survey length and response time, scholars often face practical difficulties when adopting measurement scales of such length. In many subfields of public administration, this results in a proliferation of ad hoc measures of unknown validity, which impedes scholarly progress. The goal of the present study is to develop a short form of the public leadership scale. We build on data from a two-wave study in the German public sector and follow a step-by-step scale reduction procedure. The result is a reliable and valid 11-item scale of public leadership for utilization in public administration research. Since a short scale allows researchers to include additional measures of other constructs, it facilitates the exploration of the nomological network of public leadership.     

The Working Out of Modernization in the Public Sector: The Case of an E-government Initiative in Greece

It has become common place for governments to initiate electronic-government projects in order to reform public administration. This paper seeks to explore the ways in which an e-government project, as a potential mode of reformation, is established and made to work, and then, further, to account for some of its consequences for conventional public administration. To do so we draw upon a detailed empirical study of a Greek e-government initiative, the establishment of Citizen Service Centres (CSCs). CSCs represent a significant part of Greece's e-government strategy, which has sought to modernize public administration and make the provision of public services more efficient, accessible and responsive to citizens. Drawing upon Foucault's work on power/knowledge we show that the e-government initiative is established through various technologies of power that intend to discipline public sector staff towards a particular mode of working. We also illustrate that the establishment of these modernization practices is the outcome of considerable negotiation, improvisation and enactment as different occupational groups seek to collaborate (or not) across professional and institutional boundaries. Finally, we show and argue that rather than reforming the provision of public services, such e-government based modernization projects are more likely to reproduce, in more complex ways, the long established public sector practices it sought to change.     

Institutional and management building in sub-saharan africa: the role of training

In this essay, I intend to argue that in Mexico public administration as a discipline has not achieved the necessary theoretical cohesion, because rather than understanding and explaining the state, the government and the administrative structure, it has devoted itself to justifying the proposals made from the heights of power. The challenge facing public administration in countries such as Mexico is that of seeking a more specific space for study and creation. I believe this space should result from a deep analysis of the institutional capabilities that must be generated, and from the design and implementation of public, non-governmental policies, with the participation of different, so to make real the transit to democracy. From a brief review of some decisions derived from the political project of the Salinas Administration, I argue that public administration's concerns are absorbed by the issues that are set over them from the summit of power, thereby impeding the necessary distance that scientific proposals should take. This paper includes, therefore, a brief analysis of the issues that, since the governmental relay in December of 1988, have hold the attention of Mexican scholars in this field. The aim is to show that public administration's theoretic-methodological development cannot be solid and long-term as long as public administration studies are forced to justify or do justify the governmental proposals. Finding in public administration a true social science, with the complete theoretic structure social sciences must have, is a concern shared in many academic fields around the world. However, the problem facing the discipline in Mexico might be set forth as that of the “object” of public administration, which makes the concern for the requirement of a scientific character secondary. This does not hide public administration's limitations and conditioning factors, even as a not “heavily” scientific discipline.     

What We Talk About When We Talk About Management Effects: A Substantively Motivated Approach to Panel Data Estimation

In recent years, the field of public management has begun to make use of panel data sets in quantitative research about governance and public policy. While panel data permit researchers to undertake more advanced and nuanced analyses than cross-sectional data, these benefits are not realized if methods designed for cross-sectional data are used instead. This article outlines different approaches to panel data estimation, illustrating differences in the estimates produced by each approach using data from 1,000 Texas public school districts drawn across 11 years. Our findings suggest that researchers should be cautious in differentiating between relationships that occur “between” organizations and those that occur “within” an organization.     

Bayesian Inference in Public Administration Research: Substantive Differences from Somewhat Different Assumptions

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to point out that the standard statistical inference procedure in public administration is defective and should be replaced. The standard classicist approach to producing and reporting empirical findings is not appropriate for the type of data we use and does not report results in a useful manner for researchers and practitioners. The Bayesian inferential process is better suited for structuring scientific research into administrative questions due to overt assumptions, flexible parametric forms, systematic inclusion of prior knowledge, and rigorous sensitivity analysis. We begin with a theoretical discussion of inference procedures and Bayesian methods, then provide an empirical example from a recently published, well-known public administration work on education public policy.     

The effect of institutional support and relational capital on knowledge mobilization in public administration research

Knowledge mobilization (KMb) takes a programmatic approach to empower and motivate scholars to connect research with policy-making through disseminating research to knowledge users, acquiring information from practitioners, and responding to the acquired information. The present study aims to investigate the influence of institutional-level factors on researchers' KMb activities. One hundred fifty-five researchers in the field of public administration across China participated in an online survey study. The participants reported their KMb activities, perceived institutional support, and relational capital. The results demonstrate that both the strength of institutional support and relational capital are positively associated with researchers' KMb activities. Moreover, the effect of institutional support tends to be stronger when an institution has more relational capital. The study highlights that research institutions should take programmatic approaches to empower their researchers to be actively involved in the knowledge co-production process and make a systematic effort at the institutional level to build a well-developed collaborative network.     

Impact evaluations in South Korea and China

While evidence-based policy-making is increasingly in demand, as new policies are required to bring effective results to targeted groups in South Korea and China, few studies have investigated the progress of quantitative impact evaluation that focuses on causality. This paper studies the trends of quantitative impact evaluation of public policy in South Korea and China by surveying major public administration and public policy journals in these two countries from 2000 to 2015. Among published articles in the major journals, our study pool includes research articles directly related to quantitative impact evaluation. Our study found that there has been considerable progress in impact evaluation research in South Korea and China in both data quality and empirical methods. However, empirical impact evaluation still comprises a small fraction (only one to two percent) of all research in public administration and public policy in both countries. We also found limited discussion on the selection mechanism and related bias in South Korea even in recent years, while causality and selection bias have been more commonly discussed in China. Also, advanced empirical methods are more frequently observed in journal articles in China than those in South Korea.     

ELITE ETHNOGRAPHIES: POTENTIAL,PITFALLS AND PROSPECTS FOR GETTING ‘UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL’

This article celebrates Rod Rhodes' use of ethnography to study political elites ‘up close and personal’. Initially Rhodes' work is contextualized within the development of political ethnography more generally, before his ethnographies of ‘Everyday life in a Ministry’ are reviewed, illustrating the potential of ethnography to research policy‐making elites. This review highlights epistemological and ontological questions which link to criticism of Rhodes' work as taking an anti‐foundational stance. In looking at future prospects for ethnography in governance settings, this article argues that researchers building on Rhodes' scholarship can choose whether to use ethnography as a ‘method’ or an ‘interpretive methodology’. In concluding, the case is made for a ‘constructivist modern empiricism’ which utilizes the ethnographic method alongside other research methods as being most useful for public policy and administration scholarship aiming to be practically useful for understanding either the processes of public policy‐making or its impact.     

From public action to public administration: where does it lead?

Minnowbrook I and Minnowbrook II differ in one important way. Minnowbrook I involved mostly scholars who came to the field primarily through formal academic training. Several of those who participated in Minnowbrook II are products of comrnunity-based applied revisions of so-called new public administration in the 1960s. Radin served as a union employee and then a staff member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Cooper worked as a minister at several inner-city churches. Both Radin and Cooper took their doctorates later in their careers, after extensive street level experience. From this perspective they focus on the unique political setting of public administration, on the field's publicness, on the salience of theories of change, on a process perspective, and on “soft” research methodologies.

Through much of its history, the field of public administration in the United States has been punctuated by figures who moved from the arena of action to opportunities for reflection, either through writing or teaching or both. A review of the literature of the field up to the 1960s provides strong evidence of this pattern and is particularly illustrated by two important eras of public administration—the municipal reform period and the post-New Deal period.⁽¹⁾ The decade of he 1960s was one of the few periods of the twentieth century in which action was not the predominant pathway to concern about administrative issues. In contrast to this earlier pattern, the generation of public administration academics in the 1960s focused on writing and teaching as a goal unto itself, rather than as a way of searching for the meaning of action in which one was previously engaged.

Indeed, the original group of participants in the Minnowbrook conference came to the field of public administration through formal academic training; their quest for values, relevancy, and meaning developed as they looked out of the windows of the academy to the turbulent society of which they were a part.⁽²⁾

While some were on the inside looking out during the 1960s, others were attempting to define meaning and relevancy within the world of action rather than the world of the academy. This paper is an attempt to explore the influence of that action experience on the public administration field. The authors of this paper spent the 1960s engaged in a part of the social action that spawned the “new” public administration movement.

We believe that our involvements in the 1960s led to the development of perspectives on public administration which are somewhat different from those of individuals who were primarily involved in academe during those turbulent times. This paper begins with a short autobiographical account which provides the personal context for our perspectives. It then contrasts our views with those of the Minnowbrook group and focuses on those elements that make up our perspective on the field.     

Unpacking the Global Perspective: Examining NISPAcee Region-Focused Public Administration Research in American Scholarly Journals

Comparative and international public administration research in the United States (US) has enjoyed moments of both prestige and inattention over the last several decades, variation that is important in that it reflects the efforts of a scholarly field to contribute to improved individual and organizational performance. These contributions are, in and of themselves, worthy of attention and critical reflection. This article examines public administration research focused on the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe region published in US-based academic journals from 1997 to 2012, discussing trends that have characterized empirical and conceptual research during that period. The article concludes with comments on collaboration in public administration research.     

Twelve Years into the Performance Measurement Revolution: Where We Need to Go in Implementation Research

Abstract

The heightened interest in performance measurement (PM) in government holds tremendous promise for both academicians and practitioners. Indeed, under a best-case scenario, PM is a subject in which public administration researchers provide relevant information that informs practice and bolsters citizen views of government. However, as the authors contend, many fundamental questions remain regarding implementation. Moreover, the research methods generally deployed in PM research are unlikely to answer these questions, not the least of which is the cost-effectiveness of PM implementation. Thinking paradigmatically about PM research entails an appropriate linkage of important questions and appropriate research methods. Twelve years after the Governmental Accounting Standards Board first proposed Service Efforts and Accomplishment reporting, the authors believe it is time to begin as systematic approach to PM implementation. Public Administration as a discipline can make a huge contribution to public management with sound research in the PM arena. But achieving this end will not be easy in light of the discipline's historical research shortcomings.     

Search for identity: the impact of the “great books” in public administration

Do public administration scholars build upon seminal works by scholars in the field or do they still rely heavily upon other disciplines? This question is addressed by assessing the impact of the “great books” in public administration on research published in academic journals. It is found that the 1980's are characterized by an increasing importance of those classic books that are generic management in orientation, suggesting that scholars still rely heavily on other fields for theoretical direction. Implications for an interdisciplinary approach to public administration and the training of doctoral students is discussed.     

Public administration theory a futurist vision

As the world becomes increasingly interdependent, Americans interested in public administration will begin to realize that it is a universal phenomenon and field of inquiry that attracts the attention of researchers and teachers in all countries of the world. This will lead them to stop equating American governance with Public Administration. They will come to see that, in a comparative frame of reference, American bureaucracy, its administrative practices and political functions are quite unique. Comparative Public Administration as a special focus of study will disappear because all administrative studies must be comparative, and “American Public Administration” will gain recognition as one of many parochial foci for research as a country-specific emphasis.

Before this shift in perspective can gain widespread acceptance in America, however, the relevant work of non-American scholars will have to become more generally read in America, and the distinctively American conditions that led to the origin of this field and its subsequent dissemination on a global basis must be recognized.

Among the specific points that this paradigmatic shift will highlight are the following: the reasons why bureauphilia and bureauphobia persist in a context marked by pressure to make administrative studies and performance non-political and to divorce “politics” from “public administration;” the vain effort to gain recognition for Public Administration as either a profession or a discipline; the institutional implications of this false dilemma; the effects of focusing on career civil servants while paying scant attention to other bureaucrats, namely military officers, partisan appointees, retainers and consultants; and the causes and consequences of the American bureaucracy's semi-powered status.     

SHIFTING SANDS: TEACHING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN A CLIMATE OF CHANGE

This article analyses influences which in recent decades have changed the way in which public administration has been taught in British higher education. Focusing mainly on the former polytechnics, the article argues that a curriculum shift away from the social sciences and towards management, and changes in the nature of the British public sector, have profoundly influenced approaches to teaching public administration. It suggests that learning strategies are closely related to debate about the nature of the discipline and its location within the academic spectrum. The article also raises questions about the extent to which public administration teachers in British universities are equipped to present the more applied and skills-based teaching which has often been adopted in recent years, and the tensions which this might pose particularly in the‘new’universities with the increasing emphasis upon academic research.     

Teaching public policy in a public administration program

An overlooked aspect of academic concern in public administration is the realm of public policy. Policy intrudes into administration at a number of crucial points; administration influences the direction and emphasis of policy in various ways. These interrelationships warrant more attention in the training of public administrators. Regrettably, they have remained largely off-limits in the training of public administrators. Why and how we should proceed to alter this state of affairs is the essence of the symposium that follows.     

BETTER REGULATION IN EUROPE: BETWEEN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY REFORM

Can the European regulatory state be managed? The European Union (EU) and its member states have looked at better regulation as a possible answer to this difficult question. This emerging public policy presents challenges to scholars of public management and administrative reforms, but also opportunities. In this conceptual article, we start from the problems created by the value‐laden discourse used by policy‐makers in this area, and provide a definition and a framework that are suitable for empirical/explanatory research. We then show how public administration scholars could usefully bring better regulation into their research agendas. To be more specific, we situate better regulation in the context of the academic debates on the New Public Management, the political control of bureaucracies, evidence‐based policy, and the regulatory state in Europe.     

AM I A PUBLIC SERVANT OR AM I A PATHOGEN? PUBLIC MANAGERS' SECTOR COMPARISON OF WORKER ABILITIES

Political rhetoric in the United States is rife with condemnations of public sector workers. The assertion that public sector workers are less creative, talented, or autonomous than those working in businesses pervades in both academic studies and public opinions. Facing constant criticisms, do public managers also perceive that government workers are less able than their private sector peers? If so, and more importantly, does the perceived inferiority of worker abilities shake their confidence, thereby undermining their work attitudes? The present study employs social comparison theory to answer these questions. Based on state government managers' responses in the United States, the results indicate that a clear majority of public managers perceive public sector inferiority with respect to worker creativity, talent, and autonomy. The findings also show that perceived inferiority is related to lower job satisfaction, job involvement, and pride in working for the current organization. Based on the findings, we provide suggestions to both researchers and practitioners.