An Assessment of Recent Authors and Authorship Patterns in Taiwan's Public Administration Research

The public administration (PA) field in Taiwan has undergone a period of rapid transformation over the past two decades. The purpose of this study is to provide a more recent assessment of Taiwanese PA research. To that end, this study examines the characteristics of contemporary PA authors who published articles in five core PA journals in Taiwan between 1996 and 2007, assesses the journals' co-authorship/collaboration trends over the period, and identifies the publication and funding patterns of the 20 most-frequently published scholars. Implications of the study and suggestions for future research are discussed in the paper.     

Public sector reform and the public interest in Australia

Contemporary public sector reforms in Australia have been dominated by efficiency, productivity and contestability considerations captured in the National Competition Policy (NCP). Both in the reform process in general and in the NCP processes in particular, the lack of priority attributed to non‐economic concerns such as co‐ordination, equity, representation, political accountability, consultation and distributive outcomes has been a serious omission. The idea of public interest, once central to democratic public administration, has re‐emerged to challenge the perceived excesses of economic rationalism as the unifying idea of reform. In this article it is argued that substantive situational manifestations of public interest can be used to complement rather than undermine the efficiency, productivity and contestability objectives of public sector reform.     

PUBLIC VALUE CREATION BY CROSS‐SECTOR COLLABORATIONS: A FRAMEWORK AND CHALLENGES OF ASSESSMENT

This article proposes ways to assess the public value that cross‐sector collaborations produce. It introduces a framework featuring three dimensions of public value – democratic accountability, procedural legitimacy, and substantive outcomes – that reflect distinct priorities and concerns for public administration. Utilizing examples from research on a multi‐year cross‐sector collaboration in the transportation field, we illustrate the framework's application and identify techniques and challenges for assessing the collaborative creation of public value. The article concludes with questions and propositions to guide future research.     

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.     

QUEER(Y)ING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Queer theory, understood here as a set of political/politicized practices and positions which resist normative knowledge and identities, has emerged as a theoretical perspective having important emancipatory and explanatory power in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Queer theory resists definition ipso facto, residing as it does within a postructuralist paradigm. It has not hitherto featured within the discipline of public administration and we argue the case for its utilisation in this field by first explicating the theory. Here we develop a way of using queer theory to analyse data, notably through the identification of the ‘moments’ of a queer theory analysis: identification of the norms that govern identity, analysis of what is allowable within those norms, and exploration of what is unspeakable. We demonstrate its use via an empirically‐based case study. The lessons from this exercise are then applied to some of our earlier work which we re‐read through a queer theory lens. This shows the great explanatory power offered by the theory, in that it can develop insights that previously have been inaccessible. We conclude with recommendations for its broader application and wider use within public administration.     

SOCIAL TRUST,IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN EU CRISIS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS

In this article, we investigate whether differences in social trust and impartial public administration have an impact on public confidence in EU crisis management institutions. Our assessment is based on a cross‐country comparison using aggregate country‐level data of the member states in the European Union. Earlier studies on the EU as a crisis manager have not carefully studied to what extent differences in social trust and administrative culture may or may not matter. Our analysis shows that in countries where citizens are treated impartially by their own national public administration institutions, people are less likely to support EU‐coordinated civil protection efforts. In contrast, in places where citizens perceive their government's treatment of them as partial and unfair, citizens will tend to support EU‐coordinated civil protection.     

HOW TRADITIONAL ARE THE AMERICAN,FRENCH AND GERMAN TRADITIONS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? A RESEARCH AGENDA

Consistent with the notion of tradition, public administration scholars usually interpret and compare administrative developments in the US, France, and Germany as inheritance, assuming continuity. However, administrative traditions have thus far not been an object of systematic research. The present research agenda aims to address this research gap by introducing the transfer‐of‐ideas approach as a means to examine the empirical substance of national traditions. We claim that for current research, the benefits of this approach are twofold. First, the transfer‐of‐ideas approach contributes to comparative public administration since it reveals in how far intellectual traditions are hybrid instead of distinctively American, French or German developments. Second, the approach may help to address the polysemous meanings of and terminological difficulties within administrative concepts that prevail in Public Administration on both sides of the Atlantic.     

Trends in Public Administration Research: A Content Analysis of Iranian Journal Articles (2004-2017)

This study aims to examine the trends of public administration research in Iran during 2004–2017. A total of 520 articles from three databases have been reviewed and analyzed using content analysis. Results are reported based on research themes, purposes, orientations, methods, and authorship. Comparisons are made across two time spans and by journal type. Findings indicate that the focus of public administration research has been on issues of public administration, Islam and public administration, administrative performance, and organizational behavior in the public sector. Observations reveal that recent Iranian research studies have more explanatory purposes and often apply qualitative methods. The study also concludes that the Iranian public administration research has advanced considerably over the past 14 years, but more efforts are needed to fill in the gap in such important areas as new public service, civic participation, globalization, policy making, sound governance, and policy implementation.     

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.     

The unassailable principle: why luther gulick searched for a science of administration

Luther Gulick's two contributions to the Papers on the Science of Administration are often regarded as a statement of the “orthodoxy” in the field of public administration in the pre-war period. This paper challenges this view. It argues that the two basic claims in Gulick's work--the notion that public administration could be considered as a science, and that field could be studied without regard to politics--were widely contested throughout the 1920's and 1930's. Gulick adhered to these claims in part because they were useful in protecting a young and weakly-institutionalized field against powerful critics. By the late 1930's, academics in public administration may have confronted a dilemma: the position staked out by Gulick and others, while essential to the development of the field, was regarded by many within the field as being intellectually untenable.     

SITUATING ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: A COMPARISON OF MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN AND MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT

Contemporary studies of administrative thought allow only a limited range of viability for medieval and non‐Western thought on the subject of public administration. This tendency belies the wealth of thought embedded within this broad literature. This paper investigates the matter of administrative accountability and responsibility through the lens of a comparative theorist of historical administrative thought. In order to assess the explanatory potential of early and non‐Western administrative studies, two texts have been chosen, both previously unanalysed in conjunction (to the best of my knowledge) from the perspective of the administrative theorist – John of Salisbury’s Policraticus and Abu al‐Hassan Al‐Mawardi’s Al‐Akham al‐Sultaniyya w’al‐Wilayat al Diniyya (The Ordinances of Government). Through an analysis of ideas of delegation and responsibility within these texts, the paper seeks to develop a critique of the place of revealed religious authority in the solution to the questions ‘who are administrators responsible to?’ and ‘what are administrators responsible for?’     

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.     

PUBLIC LAW

Traditionally, both the academic study and the practice of UK public administration have drawn very little inspiration from the discipline of public law. In contrast to most other European countries, in which public services are subject to extensive administrative-legal codes, and in which administrative disputes fall under the jurisdiction of separate and specialized administrative courts, UK administrative law remains – recent reforms notwithstanding – significantly undeveloped. There is a marked contrast also with the United States, where the founding scholars of the discipline of public administration saw it as being firmly rooted in public law. There is no codified British constitution and no counterpart of the US Supreme Court; and there is no British counterpart of the US Administrative Procedure Act 1946. However, there are three factors which underline the urgent need in the UK for greater collaboration and convergence between the disciplines of public law and public administration: first, the accumulation in recent years of a substantial body of research-based, academic literature on public law, which provides important insights into the changing landscape of UK public administration; secondly, the continuing development of machinery for the redress of citizens’grievances against the state – in particular, the substantial growth of judicial review proceedings and the development of ombudsman systems; thirdly, the continuing transformation of the agenda of UK law and politics by developments in the European Union.     

TOWARDS GLOBAL SCHOLARSHIP IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

One can imagine two futures for public administration, public management and public service around the world. A first would be what we see as a continuation of the status quo: with public administration essentially continuing as a series of national discourses, with perhaps a bit of cross‐fertilization, but with this characterized by a classic core‐periphery model. The preferable model, outlined in this paper, would see the development of an integrated community of scholars of public affairs. At least three hurdles need to be overcome to arrive at this integrated community. A first concerns the tension in the periphery between an epistemic nationalism and epistemic colonialism. The second hurdle to be overcome concerns the central role of the American literature in intellectual discourse in public administration. A third hurdle is more specific to public administration: what Canadian Iain Gow has referred to as public administration's profile, as ‘une science empirique par excellence’.     

Navigating tensions in co‐production: A missing link in leadership for public value

New forms of public leadership are needed to design and implement co‐production of public value. We draw on narrative analysis to explore the barriers to developing the capacity for co‐production of public value in disadvantaged and vulnerable Indigenous communities and find that existing norms not only crowd out efforts at reform, but can work against them. In particular, we find that upward accountability and a focus on expert knowledge are the most problematic for co‐production of public value. We focus on how more traditional practices of public administration mediated the achievements of public leaders in their co‐production efforts when Australian governments introduced strategies for partnership with Indigenous communities for services design and delivery. The analysis suggests that creating a broader enabling environment of supportive logics would allow public leaders to engage more productively with inherent tensions between old and new ways of working.     

ENTREPRENEURIAL EXIT RESPONSE TO DISSATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SERVICES

Following Hirschman's seminal Exit, Voice and Loyalty, an exit response to dissatisfaction with public services is often portrayed as a replacement of one service provider with another, depending on the availability of alternatives. This article enriches Hirschman's typology by conceptualising an ‘entrepreneurial exit' response referring to citizens who exit proactively by creating a viable alternative themselves. The practical aspects of entrepreneurial exit are analysed based on five manifestations: planned homebirth, homeschooling, urban self‐defence groups, children with disabilities, and claim clubs in the American West. Whereas citizens' roles within the public service sphere are referred to as ‘participators’, ‘customers’, and ‘co‐producers', entrepreneurial exit indicates the entrepreneurial role citizens may play. Similar to the additional forms of exit, entrepreneurial exit becomes meaningful if the newly introduced form of service gains social acceptance, especially when it reflects policy non‐compliance within which laymen are transformed into providers of professional services.     

NAZI GERMANY AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 1933–42: THE MOST IMPORTANT LABORATORY FOR DEPRESSION AMERICA?

The inter‐war period saw a flowering of comparative research on emergency administration in response to the Great Depression. This article argues that Weimar and Nazi Germany was an important point of reference for scholars comparing different policy responses to the Great Depression. Centralization and administrative discretion were considered pivotal for effective crisis governance, irrespective of the political context. The resulting administrative ideology was ignorant of the polycratic realities of the Nazi state and frequently lauded its hierarchical features while condemning the Weimar Republic as anarchic. Faced with the challenge presented by Nazism, of squaring efficiency and accountability in the context of New Deal America, scholars of public administration developed ideas for training a new type of civil servant who was capable of acting beyond the control of legislative institutions. By exploring the ambiguous relationship between public administration and Nazism, this article highlights the complex issues confronting scholars of public administration in times of crisis.     

THE STUDY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE UNITED STATES

The study of public administration in the United States is large in terms of the number of academic programmes, the range of journal publications, and the number of scholars. Its scholarship attracts attention from all over the globe. At the same time it is a public administration that is clearly embedded in a specific national culture, just as anywhere else. Three of the main challenges include the strong increase of quantitative‐statistical methods, the decline of practitioner authors, and substantive specialization to the extent that generalists' perspectives are losing ground.     

Something old,something new,something borrowed: Explaining varieties of professionalism in citizen collaboration through identity theory

Public professionals are increasingly involved in collaborative relationships with citizens to design, implement and evaluate public services. We investigate how actors derive a specific social identity from the institutional logic of cross‐sectoral collaboration and how this social identity translates into the self‐identities of professionals. Based on an analysis of 44 semi‐structured interviews in Germany, we examine how public professionals combine the different social identities in collaborative projects and extract three varieties of professionalism: the protective professional, the tripartite professional and the collaboration professional. Our study contributes to recent discussions on hybrid identities and identity conflicts in public management. The findings raise questions on the compatibility of different social identities in collaborative settings and thus shed light on the difficulties public professionals face in citizen collaboration.     

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.