effectiveness. Second, goal conflict in school districts is detrimental to organizational performance

/in /by

effectiveness. Second, goal conflict in school districts is detrimental to organizational performance. It is apparent that a lack of representation of Latinos, for example, in the school board and among teachers, negatively impacts Latino student achievement over time.

Furthermore, there is an implicit normative argument in this analysis. That resulting argument is simple: there is great import and benefit to having a representative

Table 3 The effects of goal con- flict on Latino student performance

*p<.05; **p<.01; one-tailed test Texas Education Agency, 1995–2002

Latino TAAS pass rates

OLS, (Huber-White Standard Errors)

Goal conflict

School board/teacher goal conflict −.017* – (.010)

Teacher/population goal conflict −.068** – (.010)

School board/population goal conflict −.017** – (.007)

Overall goal conflict – −.032** (.005)

Controls

Lagged Latino pass rate .447** .448**

(.013) (.013)

Anglo pass rate .488** .481**

(.020) (.020)

Percentage Latino students −.051** −.055* (.009) (.009)

Percentage black students −.081** −.082** (.012) (.012)

Percentage low income students .048** .048**

(.011) (.011)

Teacher experience −.146** −.161** (.062) (.062)

Non-certified teachers −.011 −.010 (.028) (.028)

Teacher salary .569** .592**

(.045) (.044)

Instructional expenditures per pupil .024** .025**

(.006) (.006)

Constant −17.281** −17.548** (1.582) (1.581)

N 7159 7159

R2 .67 .67

F 1211.97 1438.69

The Consequences of Conflict 281

bureaucracy. Using one type of bureaucratic institution, this analysis finds that the lack thereof has significant effects on a portion of the public being served. This result is generalizable to other agencies in that a lack of representation in other types of bureau- cracies might also have detrimental effects for other constituencies. In cases where a representative bureaucracy currently does not exist, bureaucrats must still make efforts to consider the needs of all groups represented in their constituencies. In other words, an entirely Anglo faculty in a district populated with Latino students should make every effort to consider the differential effects of certain education policies, for example, on Latino students despite a lack of Latino teachers on the faculty. Admittedly, an ideal situation would permit all individuals to be sensitized to the needs of all groups alike, regardless of racial or ethnic background, but this is a utopian ideal. It is not illogical or impossible; however, that the public require bureaucrats to take steps toward the realiza- tion that the interests of all groups are of critical importance for bureaucratic effectiveness.

This research has some limitations. Future research on this topic would first include more rigorous measures of bureaucratic values and preferences. The current study used racial indicators as proxies of values and preferences. This is problematic in that the race of a bureaucrat does not automatically denote his or her value system. Thus, more accurate measures would capture personal policy preferences or opinions, rather than draw conclusions based on race or ethnicity. Such indicators would allow for the capturing of variation across and within racial groups.

Second, it would be useful to apply this proposed framework to African Americans. The same research questions should be examined for this group in that their represen- tation on school boards has increased over time, yet there remains puzzling questions surrounding African American student performance and educational attainment.

Third, it would be advantageous to evaluate the potentiality of coalition effects among minority groups in times of conflict. In other words, do African Americans and Latinos ever represent each other when specific racial group representatives are unattainable? If this is true, what happens to influence in conflicting, yet coalition- bearing, conditions? The current analysis is the first step in a long line of inquiry regarding the role of goal conflict in public administration. Incorporating any of the aforementioned suggestions as well as the empirical testing of additional performance indicators would prove beneficial.

In sum, this analysis demonstrates that goal conflict is detrimental to the constit- uency being served. A lack of value or preference congruence has the potential to shift the pendulum of influence from one entity to another. Further empirical research is needed to determine exactly what this potential shift means for the reconciliation of bureaucracy with democracy in the study of public administration.

References

Aberbach, J. (1987). The congressional committee intelligence system. Congress and the presidency, 14, 51–76.

Arnold, R. D. (1979).Congress and the bureaucracy: A theory of influence. NewHaven: Yale University Press. Black, P. E. (2004). “Euclidean distance.” Dictionary of algorithms and data structure, U.S. Institute of

Standards and Technology. http://www.nist.gov/dads, Accessed 30 November 2007. Burtless, G. (1996). Does money matter? the effect of school resources on student achievement and adult

success. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

282 E.K. Melton

Calvert, R. L., McCubbins, M. D., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). A theory of political control and agency discretion. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 588–611.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). “Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence.” Report by Center for Study of Teaching and Policy. Seattle: University of Washington.

Davis, K. C. (1971). Discretionary justice. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Dodd, L. C., & Schott, R. L. (1979). Congress and the administrative state. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management

Journal 32(3), 543–576. Evans, W. N., Murray, S. E., & Schwab, R. M. (1997). Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses After

Serrano. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16(1), 10–31. Fiorina, M. (1981). Congressional control of the bureaucracy: A mismatch of incentives and capabilities. In L.

C. Dodd & B. L. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Frederickson, H. G., & Smith, K. B. (2003). The public administration theory primer. Boulder: Westview Press.

Gallas, N. (1985). Representativeness: a new merit principle. Public Personnel Management, 14, 25–31. Guinier, L. (1994). The tyranny of the majority: Fundamental fairness in representative democracy. New

York: Free Press. Guy, M. E. (1992). Summing up what we know. In M. E. Guy (Ed.), Women and men of the states: Public

administrators at the state level. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Hadwiger, D. F. (1973). Experience of black framers home administration local office chiefs. Public

Personnel Management, 2, 49–54. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. (1995). Latinos and substantive representation in the House of Representatives.

American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 640–652. Hindera, J. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: further evidence of active representation in the EEOC

district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(4), 415–430. Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup Conflict in Organizations: A contingency perspective on

the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior 25, 189–244. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). The black-white score gap. Washington: Brookings. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Snoek, J. D. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role

conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley. Kennedy, P. (1998). A guide to econometrics (4th ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Kerr, B., & Miller, W. (1997). Latino representation: it’s direct and indirect. American Journal of Political

Science, 41(3), 1066–1071. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Glenview: Antioch. Kingsley, D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy. Yellow Springs: Antioch. Kranz, H. (1976). The participatory bureaucracy: Women and minorities in a more representative public

service. Lexington: Lexington Books. Krislov, S. (1974). Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how? New York: McGraw-Hill. Locke, E. A., Smith, K. G., Erez, M., Shah, D. O., & Schaffer, A. (1994). The effects of intra-individual

goal conflict on performance. Journal of Management, 20(1), 67–91. McCubbins, M. (1985). The legislative design of regulatory structure. American Journal of Political

Science, 29, 721–748. McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: police patrols versus fire

alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165–179. McCubbins, M., Noll, R. G., &Weingast, B. R. (1989). Structure and process as solutions to the politician’s

principal-agent problem. Virginia Law Review, 74, 431–482. Meier, K. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: an empirical analysis. American Political Science Review,

69, 526–542. Meier, K. (1993). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policymaking in the fourth branch of government. Pacific

Grove: Brooks/Cole. Meier, K., & O’Toole, L. (2006). Bureaucracy in a democratic state: A governance perspective. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press. Meier, K., & Stewart, J., Jr. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: educational systems and

public policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 157–171. Mitnick, B. (1975). The theory of agency. Public Choice, 24(1), 27–42. Moe, T. (1985). Control and feedback in economic regulation: the case of the NLRB. American Political

Science Review, 79, 1094–1117.

The Consequences of Conflict 283

Mosher, F. (1982). Democracy and the public service. New York: Oxford University Press. Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica,

73(2), 417–458. Selden, S. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press. Terry, L. D. (2003). Leadership of public bureaucracies: The administrator as conservator. (2nd ed.),

Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Turner, R. B. (1956). Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference-group behavior. The American Journal of

Sociology, 61(Jan.), 316–324. Waldo, D. (1946). The administrative state. San Francisco: Chandler. Waldo, D. (1952). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science

Review, 46, 81–103. Weingast, B. (1984). The congressional-bureaucratic system: A principal-agent perspective (with applica-

tions to the SEC). Public Choice, 44, 147–91. Wenglisky, H. (1997). How educational expenditures improve student performance and how they don’t.

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Widmer, C. (1993). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overloads on boards of directors of nonprofit

human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(winter), 339–356. Wise, L. R. (1990). Social equity in civil service systems. Public Administration Review, 50, 567–575. Wood, B. D., & Waterman, R. W. (1994). Bureaucratic dynamics. Boulder: Westview Press.

Erin K. Melton is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy at the University of Connecticut. Her research considers the implications of race in the management and performance of public organizations.

284 E.K. Melton

Copyright of Public Organization Review is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

  • The Consequences of Conflict: An Evaluation of Racial Disparity and Organizational Performance
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Literature Review
      • Agency Theory
      • Political Control
      • “The Inner Check”
    • Theoretical Argument
      • Representative Bureaucracy
      • The Case for School Districts
      • Goal Conflict
    • Data, Measures, and Expectations
      • Dependent Variables
        • Overall Student Pass Rate/Latino Student Pass Rate
      • Independent Variables
        • Goal Conflict
      • Controls
        • Lagged Overall/Latino Pass Rate
      • Resources and Constraints
        • Resources
    • Findings and Discussion
      • Goal Conflict and Organizational Performance
    • Conclusion
    • References
 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

In brief, this paper revisits the Public Administration roots and facets of the Bloom- ington School of Public Choice and Institutional Theory and in doing that, it reopens the

/in /by

In brief, this paper revisits the Public Administration roots and facets of the Bloom-

ington School of Public Choice and Institutional Theory and in doing that, it reopens the

discussion of the Public Administration angle in Public Choice, now that the normative and

applied dimension seems to be an emerging frontier for its research agenda. This exercise

may offer a good starting point for a discussion of how contemporary Public Choice may

continue to advance its applied agenda using as a vehicle the roads opened by the Ostroms.

2 Public administration: the field and its setting

It looks like the precondition of making operational Steven Brams’s call for going ‘‘from

theory to practice’’ and of the strategy to ‘‘translate research findings into actions’’ is to

Public Choice (2015) 163:111–127 113

123

recognize that between the analytical insights of the Public Choice research program and

their application in public policy, lays an entire intermediate domain of decisive impor-

tance. Both analytically and institutionally, the distinction between the domain of public

policy and the domain of Public Administration is compelling. The two are intrinsically

related, yet they are different in practice. That difference and its practical implications are

not always recognized by researchers usually tempted to think about the applied side

directly in terms of public policy. That is an increasingly likely attitude especially since the

field of Public Policy Studies has been institutionalized in academia in the last decades,

obscuring even more the domain of Public Administration. Yet, a brief overview will show

not only why Public Choice scholars interested in practical applications should not make

this error but also recognize the inherent link between Public Choice and Public Admin-

istration. In doing that, the pivotal position the Ostroms’ work holds in this respect will

emerge naturally.

The notion of ‘‘Public Administration’’ evokes inevitably the idea of the institutional-

ization of public or collective action: the organization and management of men and

resources in governance. It is about the technology of human cooperation taking place

through various arrangements of social coordination, cooperation, command, monitoring

and control. There are in fact two usages of the term, related but ultimately different: the

first is of an activity, a specific form of social cooperation to materialize in the real-life

organization and management of people and resources. Usually (and in this article) that

field designated as ‘‘public administration’’. The second is of a discipline, an area of study

and inquiry, an academic and public discourse domain that explores both positively and

normatively the processes, organizations and institutional arrangements associated with the

activity of Public Administration. Usually (and in this article) that gets designated as

‘‘Public Administration’’.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

Thus we come to realize that it may be the case that the current incapacity of the Publi

/in /by

 Public Choice (2015) 163:111–127

123

Thus we come to realize that it may be the case that the current incapacity of the Public

Choice program to effectively move to the policy and applied stage may have something to

do with the way the domain of Public Administration is perceived (or misperceived) and

approached (or sidestepped). But this is also the point when we realize that the resources to

overcome this predicament (or at least to understand it better) are already there, in the

Public Choice tradition. Although today this fact seems ignored or forgotten, the truth is

that the Public Choice revolution was from the very beginning strongly rooted precisely in

the field of Public Administration. Looking back at its own history, it may be the case that

some important clues about how the next step should be made are to be found in the very

work of some of the pioneers of the Public Choice movement.

It may sound surprising to many but that was precisely the domain of Vincent and Elinor

Ostrom’s initial work. The Ostroms dealt with Public Administration not figuratively, in between

the lines and by default, as many other public choicers do, but literarily. During the initial decades

of Public Choice, the Bloomington scholars were the main promoters of the Public Choice

revolution in the field of Public Administration. Moreover, they were at the very core of that field,

outliers, but not eccentrics. In the ‘60s and ‘70s their work was in many respects defined by a

systematic attempt not only to introduce Public Choice insights into the discipline dealing with

the study of the administrative side of public affairs but, even more, to revolutionize this field, to

incite a ‘‘paradigm shift’’ towards the Public Choice foundational principles.

If that is the case, it looks like revisiting the contours of the Bloomington School’s place and

contributions in the context of the applied field of Public Administration is of great interest in

more than one way. This paper is an attempt to deal with some of the challenges emerging from

that task and it has several main objectives: first, to outline briefly the nature of Public

Administration as a field, with a view to better understand its inherent link with Public Choice

and why in order to gain policy relevance, Public Choice needs to systematically engage it.

Clarifying this point will give an enhanced sense of the meaning and context of the Ostroms’

work in this respect: an attempt to promote the Public Choice perspective in Public Admin-

istration, and the Public Administration perspective in Public Choice. Second, to take a closer

look at the nature, significance and reception of Ostroms’ work in the field of Public Admin-

istration and to substantiate the claim that the Ostroms were the main advocates of Public

Choice in Public Administration studies and that they were recognized as such by the field. The

evidence is overwhelming and the fact that this essential side of their contribution seems largely

to be neglected today requires some explanation. Third, to take note of the reception of the

Ostroms’ Public Administration perspective in the context of Public Choice—or more pre-

cisely, of its fiasco. Last but not least, to look at what could be said about the limits of the

standard Public Choice approach, when seen from the viewpoint of the Ostroms and what the

insights gained from that perspective may mean to us today

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

it doesn’t grow naturally and spontaneously from the equilibrium in which the current stage of the research pro

/in /by

it doesn’t grow naturally and spontaneously from the equilibrium in which the current

stage of the research program has stabilized. A more robust and methodical push-forward

is needed. And in this respect, a closer look at what could mean and entail concretely, more

precisely, the advance towards action and policy, may help us to understand how such a

desired leap forward may be accomplished. What does it mean, more precisely, to think in

terms of applicable ‘‘constructive alternatives’’ to the status quo? To answer that, one needs

to answer a related question: what is implied institutionally, strategically and organiza-

tionally in the process of translating research findings into action? Once the approach takes

a pragmatic, practical turn, the first thing to note is that, one is aware of it or not, one likes

it or not, policy and institutional change is executed in modern societies through the Public

Administration apparatus. That means that to avoid being just another form of ‘‘ideal-

theory’’ or a peculiar and technically sophisticated form of ‘‘critical theory’’, Public Choice

has to profoundly and programmatically engage the territory of an already established

domain, the field and practice of Public Administration.

There are two reasons that make this inevitable: the first is rather general and has

already been suggested. Before discussing specific public policies and initiatives—policy

theory, policy design, policy implementation, policy evaluation—one needs to deal with

the institutional and constitutional arrangements that set up the stage for policy action, to

factor in realistically the organizational and administrative instruments, the formal and

informal rules of the game in place. Irrespective of the nature of the disciplinary knowl-

edge of relevance (be it based in sociology, Political Science, macroeconomics or Public

Choice), using that knowledge to address policy issues means dealing with the mechanisms

and processes of the modern administrative state. Even when those very policies require

changing the structure and operation of those very mechanisms, the approach is the same.

It is a ‘‘social reflexivity’’ task: changing institutional arrangements through (sometimes

the very same) institutional arrangements.

And thus, we have come to the second reason, closer to the core of the Public Choice

project, and more specific to it. There are many situations in which implementing a public

policy requires a change of rules, incentives and processes, i.e., something that goes

beyond a simple, basic operational level implementation of a policy decision in a given

setting. In fact, a large part of the reforms and policy implications emerging from the

insights of the Public Choice research program are precisely about the institutional

structure of the administrative state and its functioning at all of its different levels: from the

lowest, the operational one, to the highest, constitutional choice. The Public Choice

approach to public policy is by its nature mostly indirect: to go, by way of institutional and

incentive structures to deal with the ecology of decision making in different settings, to

analyze the various patterns of cooperation and coordination in specific architectures of

choice. But, at a closer look, this is exactly the domain of Public Administration: the

institutional and organizational engineering of the architecture of Public Choice. Public

Administration is first and foremost about the building, maintaining and operating in real-

life structures and processes that function as preconditions the infrastructure and deter-

minants of real-life public policies and their management. From the operation of the

electoral system to the implementation of macroeconomic policies, from the monitoring

and enforcement of constitutional rules to the regulatory framework of the market, the

apparatus of Public Administration is vital. Seen in this light, it looks like Public

Administration and Public Choice are connected intrinsically, they seem to be different

facets of the same coin. In brief, Public Choice, whether one is aware of it or not, whether

one likes it or not, is, when it comes to the applications, more about Public Administration

than about anything else.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

Public Administration, Public Choice and the Ostroms: the achievements, the failure, the promise

/in /by

Public Administration, Public Choice and the Ostroms: the achievements, the failure, the promise

Paul Dragos Aligica

Received: 28 July 2014 / Accepted: 23 December 2014 / Published online: 7 January 2015 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract The paper explores the Public Administration roots and facets of the Bloom- ington School of Public Choice and Institutional Theory and in doing that, it revisits the

problem of the applied dimension of Public Choice. The paper investigates and documents

the nature, significance and reception of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom’s work, approaching it

as a pioneering attempt to promote a double agenda: on the one hand, to advance Public

Choice theory as a paradigm shift in Public Administration, and on the other, to advance

Public Administration as the preeminent applied domain of Public Choice theory.

Keywords Public Administration � Public Policy � Normative Theory � Institutional Theory � Institutional Design

1 Introduction

The Presidential Address to the Public Choice Society meeting in New Orleans in 2006

was dedicated by Steven Brams to a direction ‘‘for the most part ignored in the scholarly

literature on public choice’’: the use of the theory and insights of this research program ‘‘to

propose and to try to implement reforms that we deem desirable’’. Central to the Address

was the observation that largely missing from the Public Choice paradigm ‘‘are attempts to

translate research findings into actions that might improve how individual and collective

choices are made’’ and that it is crucial to ‘‘distinguish these efforts from those who never

tire of finding fault with a policy or program but do not propose constructive alternatives’’

(Brams 2006, p. 246).

In the years since Brams made those remarks, efforts have been made to move in the

direction indicated, yet the progress has been slow and timid. Hence, Brams’s criticism

continue to be as apt now as then. It seems that the step he advocated doesn’t come easily;

P. D. Aligica (&) F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Mercatus Center, George Mason University, 3351 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, USA e-mail: daligica@mercatus.gmu.edu

123

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. Th e Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review 67(1): 40–53.

/in /by

Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. Th e Role of Organizations in Fostering Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review 67(1): 40–53.

Nielsen, Poul Aaes. 2013. Performance Information, Aspiration Levels and Managerial Priorities: How Managers Learn from Performance Feedback. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Conference, Madison, WI.

Nyhan, Ronald C., and Lawrence L. Martin. 1999. Assessing the Performance of Municipal Police Services Using Data Envelopment Analysis: An Exploratory Study. State and Local Government Review 31(1): 18–30.

O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr. 1997. Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 57(1): 45–52.

———. 2015. Networks and Networking: Th e Public Administration Agendas. Public Administration Review DOI: 10.1111/puar.12281.

O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2011. Public Management: Organizations, Governance, and Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 6(1): 5–22.

———. 2000. Bringing Society In: Toward a Th eory of Public Service Motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 10(2): 471–88.

Houston, David J., and Sybil M. Delevan. 1990. Public Administration Research: An Assessment of Journal Publications. Public Administration Review 50(6): 674–81.

Hughes, Patricia A. Nold, and Mary E. Edwards. 2000. Leviathan vs. Lilliputian: A Data Envelopment Analysis of Government Effi ciency. Journal of Regional Science 40(4): 649–69.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. 1966. Th e Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Keiser, Lael R. 2010. Understanding Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Decision Making: Determining Eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program. Public Administration Review 70(2): 247–57.

Keiser, Lael R., Vicky M. Wilkins, Kenneth J. Meier, and Catherine A. Holland. 2002. Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 96(3): 553–64.

Kim, Hyunjung, Roderick H. MacDonald, and David F. Andersen. 2013. Simulation and Managerial Decision Making: A Double-Loop Learning Framework. Public Administration Review 73(2): 291–300.

Kim, Sangmook, et al. 2013. Investigating the Structure and Meaning of Public Service Motivation across Populations: Developing an International Instrument and Addressing Issues of Measurement Invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(1): 79–102.

Klijn, Erik-Hans, Bram Steijn, and Jurian Edelenbos. 2010. Th e Impact of Network Management Strategies on the Outcomes in Governance Networks. Public Administration 88(4): 1063–82.

Konisky, David M., and Christopher Reenock. 2013. Case Selection in Public Management Research: Problems and Solutions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(2): 361–93.

Krause, George A. 1996. Th e Institutional Dynamics of Policy Administration: Bureaucratic Infl uence over Securities Regulation. American Journal of Political Science 40(4): 1083–1121.

———. 1999. A Two Way Street: Th e Institutional Dynamics of the Modern Administrative State. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Krause, George A., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2003. Politics, Policy, and Organizations: Frontiers in the Scientifi c Study of Bureaucracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Langbein, Laura. 2010. Economics, Public Service Motivation, and Pay for Performance: Complements or Substitutes? International Public Management Journal 13(1): 9–23.

Lavertu, Stéphane, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2013. Th e Empirical Implications of Th eoretical Models: A Description of the Method and an Application to the Study of Performance Management Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(2): 333–60.

Lee, Geon, Jennifer Benoit-Bryan, and Timothy P. Johnson. 2012. Survey Research in Public Administration: Assessing Mainstream Journals with a Total Survey Error Framework. Public Administration Review 72(1): 87–97.

Lim, Hong-Hai. 2006. Representative Bureaucracy: Rethinking Substantive Eff ects and Active Representation. Public Administration Review 66(2): 193–204.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. Th e Science of “Muddling Th rough.” Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.

Long, Norton E. 1952. Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism. American Political Science Review 46(3): 808–18.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill. 2001. Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley. May, Peter J., and Søren C. Winter. 2009. Politicians, Managers, and Street-

Level Bureaucrats: Infl uences on Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 19(3): 453–76.

McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3(2): 243–77.

24 Public Administration Review • January | February 2015

Stallings, Robert A., and James M. Ferris. 1988. Public Administration Research: Work in PAR, 1940–1984. Public Administration Review 48(1): 580–87.

Th eobald, Nick A., and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2009. Race, Bureaucracy, and Symbolic Representation: Interactions Between Citizens and Police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 19(2): 409–26.

Th ielemann, Gregory S., and Joseph Stewart, Jr. 1996. A Demand Side Perspective on the Importance of Representative Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review 56(2): 168–73.

Th ompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Th eory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Waldo, Dwight. 1948. Th e Administrative State: A Study of the Political Th eory of American Public Administration. New York: Ronald Press.

———. 1978. Organization Th eory: Revisiting the Elephant. Public Administration Review 38(6): 589–97.

Walker, Richard M., and Rhys Andrews. Forthcoming. Local Government Management and Performance: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 25(1).

Walker, Richard M., and Barry Bozeman. 2011. Publicness and Organizational Perform ance. Supplement 3, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i279–81.

Warner, W. Lloyd, Paul P. Van Riper, Norman H. Martin, and Orvis F. Collins. 1963. Th e American Federal Executive: A Study of the Social and Personal Characteristics of the Civilian and Military Leaders of the United States Federal Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Waterman, Richard W., and Kenneth J. Meier. 1998. Principal–Agent Models: An Expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 8(2): 173–202.

Watkins-Hayes, Celeste. 2011. Race, Respect, and Red Tape: Inside the Black Box of Racially Representative Bureaucracies. Supplement 2, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i233–51.

Weingast, Barry R., and Mark J. Moran. 1983. Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91(5): 765–800.

White, Jay D. 1986. Dissertations and Publications in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 46(3): 227–34.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1964. Th e Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown. Wilkins, Vicky M., and Lael R. Keiser. 2006. Linking Passive and Active

Representation by Gender: Th e Case of Child Support Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16(1): 87–102.

Williamson, Oliver E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. New York: Free Press.

———. 1986. Economic Organization: Firms, Markets, and Policy Control. New York: New York University Press.

Wood, B. Dan, and Richard W. Waterman. 1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: Th e Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wright, Bradley E. 2011. Public Administration as an Interdisciplinary Field: Assessing Its Relationship with the Fields of Law, Management, and Political Science. Public Administration Review 71(1): 96–101.

Wright, Bradley E., and Adam M. Grant. 2010. Unanswered Questions about Public Service Motivation: Designing Research to Address Key Issues of Emergence and Eff ects. Public Administration Review 70(5): 691–700.

Zhu, Ling. 2013. Panel Data Analysis in Public Administration: Substantive and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(2): 395–428.

———. 2012. How Can We Improve Our Science to Generate More Usable Knowledge for Public Professionals? Public Administration Review 74(4): 479–82.

Perry, James L., and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 1986. Research Methodology in the Public Administration Review, 1975–1984. Public Administration Review 46(3): 215–26.

Perry, James L., and Hal G. Rainey. 1988. Th e Public Private Distinction in Organization Th eory. Academy of Management Review 13(2): 182–201.

Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review 61(4): 414–23.

Raadschelders, Jos C. N. 2008. Understanding Government: Four Intellectual Traditions in the Study of Public Administration. Public Administration 86(4): 925–49.

Rainey, Hal G. 2011. Sampling Designs for Analyzing Publicness: Alternatives and Th eir Strengths and Weaknesses. Supplement 3, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i321–45.

———. 2014. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rainey, Hal G., Robert W. Backoff , and Charles H. Levine. 1976. Comparing Public and Private Organizations. Public Administration Review 36(2): 233–44.

Rainey, Hal G., and Paula Steinbauer. 1999. Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Th eory of Eff ective Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 9(1): 1–32.

Rethemeyer, R. Karl, and Natalie C. Helbig. 2005. By the Numbers: Assessing the Nature of Quantitative Preparation in Public Policy, Public Administration, and Public Aff airs Doctoral Education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24(1): 179–91.

Riccucci, Norma M., Greg G. Van Ryzin, and Cecilia F. Lavena. 2014. Representative Bureaucracy in Policing: Does It Increase Perceived Legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 24(3): 537–51.

Ringquist, Evan J. 1995. Political Control and Policy Impact in EPA’s Offi ce of Water Quality. American Journal of Political Science 39(2): 336–63.

———. 2013. Meta-Analysis for Public Management and Policy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Salge, Torsten O. 2011. A Behavioral Model of Innovative Search: Evidence from Public Hospital Services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21(2): 181–210.

Schalk, Jelmer, René Torenvlied, and Jim Allen. 2010. Network Embeddedness and Public Agency Performance: Th e Strength of Strong Ties in Dutch Higher Education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 20(3): 629–53.

Selden, Sally Coleman. 1998. Th e Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a Government Agency. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Simon, Herbert A. 1946. Th e Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review 6(1): 53–67.

———. 1947. Administrative Behavior. New York: Free Press. ———. 1969. Th e Sciences of the Artifi cial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 1997. Administrative Behavior. 4th ed. New York: Free Press. Simon, Herbert A., Donald W. Smithburg, and Victor A. Th ompson. 1959. Public

Administration. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Soss, Joe, Richard Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. 2011. Th e Organization of

Discipline: From Performance Management to Perversity and Punishment. Supplement 2, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i203–32.

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

Andrews, Rhys, George A. Boyne, and Richard M. Walker. 2006. Strategy Content and Organizational Performance:

/in /by

Andrews, Rhys, George A. Boyne, and Richard M. Walker. 2006. Strategy Content and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Public Administration Review 66(1): 52–63.

———. 2011. Dimensions of Publicness and Organizational Performance: A Review of the Evidence. Supplement 3, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i301–19.

Atkins, Danielle N., and Vicky M. Wilkins. 2013. Going Beyond Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic: Th e Eff ects of Teacher Representation on Teen Pregnancy Rates. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(4): 771–90.

Augier, Mie, and James G. March. 2001. Remembering Herbert A. Simon (1916– 2001). Public Administration Review 61(4): 396–402.

Balla, Steven J. 1998. Administrative Procedure and Political Control of the Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 92(3): 663–73.

Barnard, Chester I. 1938. Th e Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Behn, Robert D. 1988. Management as Groping Along. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7(4): 643–63.

Berry, William D. 1990. Th e Confusing Case of Budgetary Incrementalism: Too Many Meanings for a Single Concept. Journal of Politics 52(1): 167–96.

Boyne, George A. 2002. Concepts and Indicators of Local Authority Performance: An Evaluation of the Statutory Frameworks in England and Wales. Public Money and Management 22(2): 17–24.

———. 2003. Sources of Public Service Improvement: A Critical Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 13(3): 367–94.

Bozeman, Barry, and Mary K. Feeney. 2011. Rules and Red Tape: A Prism for Public Administration Th eory and Research. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Bozeman, Barry, and Stephanie Moulton. 2011. Integrative Publicness: A Framework for Public Management Strategy and Performance. Supplement 3, Journal Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i363–80.

Bradbury, Mark D., and J. Edward Kellough. 2008. Representative Bureaucracy: Exploring the Potential for Active Representation in Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 18(4): 697–714.

Braybrooke, David, and Charles E. Lindblom. 1963. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: Free Press.

Brewer, Gene A., Rex L. Facer II, and Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr. 1998. Th e State of Doctoral Education in Public Administration: Developments in the Field’s Research Preparation. Journal of Public Aff airs Education 4(2): 123–35.

Carpenter, Daniel. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cleary, Robert E. 1992. Revisiting the Doctoral Dissertation in Public Administration: An Examination of the Dissertations of 1990. Public Administration Review 52(1): 55–61.

———. 2000. Th e Public Administration Doctoral Dissertation Reexamined: An Evaluation of the Dissertations of 1998. Public Administration Review 60(5): 446–55.

Clinton, Joshua D., Anthony Bertelli, Christian R. Grose, David E. Lewis, and David C. Nixon. 2012. Separated Powers in the United States: Th e Ideology of Agencies, Presidents, and Congress. American Journal of Political Science 56(2): 341–54.

Crewson, Philip E. 1997. Public Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Eff ect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 7(4): 499–518.

Cyert, Richard M., and James G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Th eory of the Firm. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dahl, Robert A. 1947. Th e Science of Public Administration: Th ree Problems. Public Administration Review 7(1): 1–11.

DeLorenzo, Lisa. 2001. Stars Aren’t Stupid, but Our Methodological Training Is: A Commentary on Jeff Gill and Ken Meier’s Article “Public Administration

Proverbs and the Evolution of Public Administration 23

McCurdy, Howard E., and Robert E. Cleary. 1984. Why Can’t We Resolve the Research Issue in Public Administration? Public Administration Review 44(1): 49–55.

McGuire, Michael. 2002. Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why Th ey Do It. Public Administration Review 62(5): 599–609.

Meier, Kenneth J., and John Bohte. 2001. Structure and Discretion: Missing Links in Representative Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 11(4): 455–70.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Tabitha S. M. Morton. Forthcoming. Representative Bureaucracy in a Cross-National Context: Politics, Identity, Structure and Discretion. In Th e Politics of Representative Bureaucracy: Power, Legitimacy, and Performance, edited by B. Guy Peters, Patrick von Maravic, and Eckhard Schroter. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Jill Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: Th e Case of Sexual Assault. Public Administration Review 66(6): 850–60.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Lloyd G. Nigro. 1976. Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences: A Study in the Attitudes of Federal Executives. Public Administration Review 36(4): 458–69.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr. 2006. Political Control versus Bureaucratic Values: Reframing the Debate. Public Administration Review 66(2): 177–92.

———. 2009. Th e Proverbs of New Public Management: Lessons from an Evidence- Based Research Agenda. American Review of Public Administration 39(1): 4–22.

———. 2011. Comparing Public and Private Management: Th eoretical Expectations. Supplement 3, Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i283–99.

———. 2013. Subjective Organizational Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(2): 429–56.

Meier, Kenneth J., Michael S. Pennington, and Warren S. Eller. 2005. Race, Sex and Clarence Th omas: Representation Change in the EEOC. Public Administration Review 65(2): 171–79.

Miller, Gary J. 1992. Managerial Dilemmas: Th e Political Economy of Hierarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moe, Terry M. 1982. Regulatory Performance and Presidential Administration. American Journal of Political Science 26(2): 197–224.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. Th e Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

Conclusion Th is assessment of the status of scholarship in public administra- tion in light of Simon’s essay on “Th e Proverbs of Administration

/in /by

Conclusion Th is assessment of the status of scholarship in public administra- tion in light of Simon’s essay on “Th e Proverbs of Administration” generates a relatively mixed picture. Some progress has been made. Research techniques have improved and dispersed greatly among scholars. Current graduates of PhD programs and even master of public administration programs possess a far higher level of skills than they did in Simon’s time. Systematic bodies of work appear on a wide

To build theory, as Simon envisioned it, as an inductive

process requires individuals who can take the various individual

studies and fi t them into a broader mosaic and show us how the elephant of public administration really looks.

22 Public Administration Review • January | February 2015

Research and Practice: A Methodological Manifesto.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 11(1): 139–45.

Dolan, Julie. 2000. Th e Senior Executive Service: Gender, Attitudes, and Representative Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 10(3): 513–30.

Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown. Fernandez, Sergio, Tima Moldogaziev, and William G. Resh. 2013. Whence, to

Where? Assessing the Impact of the Federal Human Capital Survey/Federal Employee View Point Survey on Public Management Research. Unpublished paper, School of Public and Environmental Aff airs, Indiana University.

Flink, Carla M. 2013. Multidimensional Confl ict and Organizational Performance. American Review of Public Administration. Published electronically on June 12. doi:10.1177/0275074013490825.

Frumkin, Peter, and Mark T. Kim. 2001. Strategic Positioning and the Financing of Nonprofi t Organizations: Is Effi ciency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace? Public Administration Review 61(3): 266–75.

Fung, Archon. 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: S66–75.

Gade, Daniel M., and Vicky M. Wilkins. 2013. Where Did You Serve? Veteran Identity, Representative Bureaucracy, and Vocational Rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(2): 267–88.

Gaus, John M. 1931. Notes on Administration: Th e Present Status of the Study of Public Administration in the United States. American Political Science Review 25(1): 120–34.

Gill, Jeff . 1995. Formal Models of Legislative/Administrative Interaction: A Survey of the Subfi eld. Public Administration Review 55(1): 99–106.

Gill, Jeff , and Kenneth J. Meier. 2000. Public Administration Research and Practice: A Methodological Manifesto. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 10(1): 157–99.

Gill, Jeff , and Christopher Witko. 2013. Bayesian Analytical Methods: A Methodological Prescription for Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 23(2): 457–94.

Gilmour, John B., and David E. Lewis. 2006. Assessing Performance Budgeting at OMB: Th e Infl uence of Politics, Performance, and Program Size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 16(2): 169–86.

Greve, Henrich R. 2008. A Behavioral Th eory of Firm Growth: Sequential Attention to Size and Performance Goals. Academy of Management Journal 51(3): 476–94.

Gulick, Luther H. 1937a. Notes on the Th eory of Organization. In Papers on the Science of Administration, edited by Luther Gulick and Lyndall F. Urwick, 1–45. New York: Institute of Public Administration.

———. 1937b. Science, Values and Public Administration. In Papers on the Science of Administration, edited by Luther Gulick and Lyndall F. Urwick, 191–95. New York: Institute of Public Administration.

Gulick, Luther H., and Lyndall F. Urwick, eds. 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.

Gusmano, Michael K. 2013. FDA Decisions and Public Deliberation: Challenges and Opportunities. Special issue, Public Administration Review 73: S115–26.

Hammond, Th omas. 1990. In Defence of Luther Gulick’s “Notes on the Th eory of Organization.” Public Administration 68(2): 143–73.

Hanushek, Eric A. 1989. Th e Impact of Diff erential Expenditures on School Performance. Educational Researcher 18(4): 45–62.

Heinrich, Carolyn J., and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. 2002. Improving the Organization, Management and Outcomes of Substance Abuse Treatment Programs. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 28(4): 601–22.

Hicklin, Alisa K., Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2008. Serpents in the Sand: Networking and Nonlinear Infl uences on Organizational Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 18(2): 253–73.

Hindera, John J. 1993. Representative Bureaucracy: Imprimis Evidence of Active Representation in the EEOC District Offi ces. Social Science Quarterly 74(1): 95–108.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

In various guises, I see approximately 250 reviews a year, many of these by oth- ers on articles that I review.

/in /by

. In various guises, I see approximately 250 reviews a year, many of these by oth- ers on articles that I review. I make no claims that this is anything other than a biased sample based on my own opinions as to what constitutes a good review. Because a substantial portion of my own research is focused outside of public administration in political science and, to a lesser extent, public health and economics, some of this information is comparative.

References Abbott, Malcolm, and Chris Doucouliagos. 2003. Th e Effi ciency of Australian

Universities: A Data Envelopment Analysis. Economics of Education Review 22(1): 89–97.

Adams, Guy B., and Jay D. White. 1994. Dissertation Research in Public Administration and Cognate Fields. Public Administration Review 54(6): 565–76.

Ammons, David N., and William C. Rivenbark. 2008. Factors Infl uencing the Use of Performance Data to Improve Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project. Public Administration Review 68(2): 304–18.

Andersen, Simon Calmar. 2008. Th e Impact of Public Management Reforms on Student Performance in Danish Schools. Public Administration 86(2): 541–58.

Andrews, Rhys, Rachel Ashworth, and Kenneth J. Meier. 2014. Representative Bureaucracy and Fire Service Performance. International Public Management Journal 17(1): 1–24.

Investing in Theory Th e puzzle of empirical theory in public administration is that very little theoretical work seems to appear in our journals, based on my unscientifi c assessment, yet at the same time, many of the most widely cited works are theoretical. To build theory, as Simon envisioned it, as an inductive process requires individuals who can take the various individual studies and fi t them into a broader mosaic and show us how the elephant of public administration really looks. Th eory could take a variety of forms, such as literature reviews that develop theoretical propositions (see Boyne 2003), meta-analyses (Ringquist 2013), mathematical presentations (O’Toole and Meier 2011), or a more informal genera- tion of propositions (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999). Judging by the space allocated to such articles in the profes- sional journals, the incentives for generating theory appear to be too low, especially in light of the high citation counts of such articles. Whether the solution is a new journal devoted to theory or an initiative by an editor or editors to showcase theory, the intellectual payoff s of such an eff ort seem self-evident.

Investing in Generalization We know a great deal about public administration based on a limited number of highly productive data sets (see Walker and Andrews, forthcoming). Th e challenge both for scholarship and for practice is whether what we know about English local governments or Texas school districts is relevant to the administration of national security or social welfare programs. Th e literature on representa- tive bureaucracy suggests that we should be skeptical because, although racial and gender representation matter a great deal in schools (Atkins and Wilkins 2013), police departments (Meier and Nicholson-Crotty 2006), and housing programs (Selden 1998), they do not appear to matter at all in contemporary U.S. welfare programs (Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011; Watkins-Hayes 2011). Studies that focus on similar concepts and similar relationships in diff erent national contexts or organizational contexts could add a great deal to building a research base in public administration simi- lar to that envisioned by Simon. We need to know whether public administration principles work in diff erent countries or diff erent agencies, whether concepts change meanings when contexts change (e.g., what does public service motivation mean in a nondemocratic state?), and whether even what is thought of as public administra- tion changes as the political context changes (see Dahl 1947). Some recent cross-national work in public service motivation provides an example of the type of work that could be done (see Kim et al. 2013). Although a systematic study has not been conducted, it appears as though cross-country collaborations are more frequent now than they have been in the past.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!

The Review Process Th e quality of research in the profession can be no better than the quality of the review process for journals.

/in /by

The Review Process Th e quality of research in the profession can be no better than the quality of the review process for journals. Unfortunately, the fi eld has never done a systematic assessment of the quality of the blind review process. My own experience-based perceptions are that the process has severe problems.3 Negative reviews of the quality of journal publications go back almost 30 years (Houston and Delevan 1990; Perry and Kraemer 1986; Stallings and Ferris 1988), and edi- torial calls for improvements in research (Perry 2012) suggest that serious problems of reliability and validity are not being caught in the review process. A recent assessment of the use of surveys in pub- lic administration is highly critical of the poor quality of surveys and the lack of documentation in the research (Lee, Benoit-Bryan, and Johnson 2012). A similar analysis of the use of the self-assessments of performance that are commonly used in much public manage- ment research is equally critical (Meier and O’Toole 2013). Th e pro- fession needs to fi nd a way to encourage investments in this public good both to improve the reliability of the process and to generate useful comments for authors to improve their work.

Proverbs and the Evolution of Public Administration 21

variety of topics. At the same time, the idealized end of Simon’s essay has not been attained. We are a long way from knowing precisely how various actions of public administrators aff ect the effi ciency or eff ec- tiveness of programs. Th eoretical development has also not kept pace

with the empirical work, and much of public administration looks to other fi elds and other disciplines for its basic theories.

Th e future prospects for the development of a science of administration as Simon envisioned will progress in an incremental fashion. Much of the time of public administration scholars is devoted to training individuals for prac- tice or contributing directly to government programs by off ering advice or doing applied research rather than producing type of scientifi c

scholarship that Simon envisioned. Public administration faces its own version of bounded rationality constrained by limited resources and problems that are not amenable to quick and fi nal solutions. Some progress will continue simply as a result of inertia. Professors will need to publish to get tenure, and journals will demand quality research. We are witnessing incentives off ered by universities in a wide variety of countries to faculty who publish in the top-ranked journals. Graduate students seeking faculty positions in public administration face similar incentives. Progress will continue; the modest proposals off ered here have the potential to accelerate that progress at the margins.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Amanda Rutherford and Laurence J. O’Toole for comments on an earlier draft.

Notes 1. Recent work by Greve (2008), Salge (2011), and Nielsen (2013) has taken up

the approach of the behavioral theory of the fi rm. 2. Th eory in this case is a misnomer because the theory is post hoc rather than

predictive, although there are modest eff orts to transform the literature into one that is capable to testing.

 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today!