Answering the Public Choice Challenge: A Neoprogressive Research Agenda

A neoprogressive research agenda is developed to challenge public choice theory's position as the new orthodoxy in both understanding and guiding policy choices about urban service delivery. Such a challenge requires more than accumulating negative empirical tests. Rather, we must accept the new burden of proof laid on proponents of progressive reform institutions by the theories of nonmarket failure and quasimarkets, ideas that undermined the intellectual pillars supporting progressive reform institutions and can only be challenged by new ideas. Public choice theory itself, broadly considered, is proposed as a valid source of such new ideas. Three research programs, in part already underway, are outlined as essential building blocks in the research agenda, focusing, respectively, on blunting the rough edges of the theory of nonmarket failure, coordinating the empirical critiques of quasimarkets in a new theory of quasimarket failure, and developing the new institutionalism so that it can provide the basis for comparing the production outcomes of alternative urban institutions.     

Five Questions: An Integrated Research Agenda for Public Choice

All societies, political or academic, must choose among alternatives; these choices can be good, or bad. The worst choice may be looking for“answers” before there is consensus, or at least a debate, on what the real questions should be. Five “real” questions are offered here, in an integrated research agenda for Public Choice. My premis is that there is a single, fundamental human problem: Construct or preserve institutions that make self-interested individual action not inconsistent with group welfare. All social science research is either a distraction, or a step toward understanding at least one of five questions: (1) What are Preferences? (2) What are feasible Alternatives? (3) How much does the form of Implementation affect the way alternatives are valued? (4) How do alternatives chosen Today affect the Menu of alternatives available in the Future? (5) What is Good? How would we know if some outcomes are better than others?

     

西部大开发中公共工程投融资问题研究

公共工程划分为收益性公共工程、共益性公共工程和公益性公共工程,不同类别的公共工程投融资方式不同.西部大开发中,公共工程建设应在加大政府财政投资力度的同时,启动社会资本投资西部公共工程建设.     

微博设置大众议程及对公共领域建构的研究

主要立足于新的媒介生态环境,从微博在设置大众之议程方面所表现出的强大影响力这一事实出发,探讨微博对公共领域建构的可能性。由于传统媒体受制于单向传播的局限性,其议程设置功能相对于新媒体在逐渐减弱,而微博在设置大众议程上的功效则日益突出。议程设置作为舆论导向的第一个阶段,最终造就了公众舆论,而公共领域就是独立于政治权利之外的公共交往和公共舆论。所以说,微博所表现出的社会公器职能和权力制衡作用使得其具有重新建构哈贝马斯所言之公共领域的可能性。     

Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Public Sector: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

This article presents a systematic literature review of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the public sector. The findings show that although OCB is gaining more attention in the public sector, research often does not take specific public sector characteristics or concepts into account. Based on the available evidence, the authors develop a framework of antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators of OCB. Three areas for future research are recommended: (1) regarding theory: link OCB to public sector concepts such as bureaucratic red tape, public leadership, and public service motivation; (2) regarding research designs: use stronger survey designs, experiments, and case studies and devote more attention to cross-sectoral and cross-country differences; and (3) regarding the consequences of OCB: address the gap in our knowledge of how OCB has an impact on public organizations, including negative impacts.     

公共价值认同何以影响绩效:理论框架与研究议程

"善治"是绩效治理的主要目标,在以公共价值为基础的政府绩效治理理论框架下,表现为以"政体"为中心、基于公共价值的政府绩效。"善政"是"善治"实现的前提,作为"善政"的重要方面,政府公共管理者的公共价值偏好及其与政府价值目标间的关系将会影响个体和组织绩效。本文以探讨"公共价值认同"与绩效的关系为研究问题,首先,在综述以往研究的基础上,提出并界定了"公共价值认同"的概念,认为"公共价值认同"包含"公共管理者个体价值偏好与集体价值偏好"以及"公共管理者集体价值偏好与政府价值目标"两个层次的一致性;其次,介绍了测量公共价值认同的方法;最后,提出四个未来研究假设。     

Public Pension Funds and Operating Budgets: A Tale of Three States

This article provides a normative framework for understanding the important link between public pension fund management and government operating budgets. Three aspects of pension fund management are discussed that have a significant impact on the operating budget: pension contribution, investment strategy, and the funding of pension liabilities. Three cases concerning West Virginia, New Jersey, and New York City are discussed to illustrate these three important aspects. The normative framework and the case studies demonstrate two important principles in prudently managing public pension funds: ensuring intergenerational equity and protecting the long-term health of government budgets.     

民间私募证券投资基金运营中的涉罪问题研究

对于民间私募证券投资基金运作中的危害行为,刑法既要积极干预又要慎重适度。民间私募证券投资基金募集中可能构成的罪名有:非法吸收公众存款罪,集资诈骗罪,组织、领导传销活动罪,擅自设立金融机构罪,伪造、变造、转让金融机构经营许可证、批准文件罪,非法经营罪,虚假广告罪,擅自发行股票、公司企业债券罪,欺诈发行股票、债券罪,虚报注册资本罪,虚假出资、抽逃出资罪;民间私募证券投资基金运作中可能构成的罪名有:内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪,利用未公开信息交易罪,操纵证券、期货市场罪,编造并传播证券、期货交易虚假信息罪,违规披露、不披露重要信息罪,隐匿、故意销毁会计凭证、会计账簿、财务会计报告罪;民间私募证券投资基金清算中可能构成的罪名是妨害清算罪。     

Three Traditions of Network Research: What the Public Management Research Agenda Can Learn from Other Research Communities

This article identifies and describes the development of three parallel streams of literature about network theory and research: social network analysis, policy change and political science networks, and public management networks. Noting that these traditions have sometimes been inattentive to each other's work, the authors illustrate the similarities and differences in the underlying theoretical assumptions, types of research questions addressed, and research methods typically employed by the three traditions. The authors draw especially on the social network analysis (sociological) tradition to provide theoretical and research insights for those who focus primarily on public management networks. The article concludes with recommendations for advancing current scholarship on public management networks.     

Political Attention and Public Policy: A Study of How Agenda Setting Matters

Political science research on agenda setting has been focused on how and why political agendas change over time. This article addresses the different but equally important question about how agenda setting actually matters to the policy outputs of national policy making. Do changes in the political agenda foreshadow changes in public policies? And does the effect of changes in the political agenda depend upon the policy preferences expressed by the mass public? Integrating research on policy agendas with well‐established ideas about re‐election‐oriented representation, this article offers a new approach to the study of such agenda effects. Furthermore, it demonstrates the empirical validity of this approach using a Danish dataset of public opinion, public policy and the national political agenda spanning a quarter of a century and covering several different issues.     

Socioeconomic Investment Practices of State Pension Funds: The Results of a National Survey

State pension fund managers appear to be under increasing pressure to promote social, ethical, or economic development goals with at least some of their investments. This article offers a conceptual framework for considering socioeconomic investing by these funds, and uses it in a national survey of state pension fund investment practices. True "social" investing, involving the expected sacrifice of market average rates of return for social or ethical goals, appears to be much less widespread than expected. However, the survey also suggests that policies and procedures designed to insure the prudence and accountability of fund managers with regard to socioeconomic investing may not be in place in many states.     

Past and Future Budget Classics: A Research Agenda

This article summarizes the content of four classic articles on budgeting that have appeared in Public Administration Review, outlines some of the major changes in budgeting that have occurred since those authors wrote, and, based on those changes, offers a research agenda for the next set of budget classics.     

The Investment Approach to Public Service Provision

The investment approach to public service provision is now receiving considerable attention worldwide. By promoting data‐intensive assessments of baseline conditions and how government action can improve on them, the approach holds the potential to transform policy development, service implementation, and program evaluation. Recently, variations on the investment approach have been applied in Australia to explore the effectiveness of specific programs in employment training, criminal justice, and infrastructure development. This article reviews the investment approach, presents a Public Investment Checklist to guide such work, and discusses three examples. It concludes by considering the implications of investment thinking for the work of policy designers and public managers.