Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Emerson K. Pages: 3 - 10 Abstract: “Theory is the bedrock of understanding public administration.”(Frederickson et al. 2018:4) PubDate: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab032 Issue No:Vol. 5, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Bozeman B. Pages: 36 - 49 Abstract: AbstractFew studies focus on the full array of employees’ responses to the formal rules governing their work. This article develops a set of propositions as to why employees comply fully with rules, comply in part, or disobey rules. The primary goal of the article is to stimulate further development of theory and research about rules-based behaviors. The article sets forth a Heuristic Model of Rules Compliance Behavior, “heuristic” because it aims less at explanation than the development of concepts and propositions about organizational employees’ rules compliance behavior. The model’s dimensions include the sources of rules, the characteristics of rule arbiters, the compliance requirements of rules, characteristics of sanctions for noncompliance, and rule density. The article concludes with suggestions for future research and argues that greater knowledge of rules compliance could provide a theory-enabling “scaffolding’ for several research topics related to organizational rules. PubDate: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab028 Issue No:Vol. 5, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Lee S; Ospina S. Pages: 63 - 75 Abstract: AbstractDespite the complexities involved around the accountability mechanisms of collaborative governance, little is known about how to assess accountability at the network level and disentangle possible accountability deficits. This study first explicates the nature of collaborative governance accountability in contrast to accountability in traditional public administration and market-based governance. The analysis shows how collaborative governance accountability is distinctive: (a) accountability relationships shift from bilateral to multilateral; (b) horizontal as well as vertical accountability relationships are involved; (c) not only formal standards but also informal norms are used; and (d) accountability challenges move from control/audit issues to trust-building and paradox management issues. We then propose a framework for accountability in collaborative governance, drawing its dimensions from the process-based accountability research. Our framework builds on three dimensions of collaborative accountability—information, discussion, and consequences—and elaborates on their components and indicators. Based on the framework, questions to guide future research are provided, focusing on tensions and paradoxes that can arise in each process dimension as primary accountability challenges in collaborative contexts. PubDate: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab031 Issue No:Vol. 5, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Pearse H. Pages: 11 - 15 Abstract: AbstractWhat would it mean to (better) integrate children into democratic life' This essay attempts to dispel some potential reservations and explore the grounds for including children in deliberative and/or electoral processes. Across the world, public satisfaction with democracy is at historic lows, with young people particularly dissatisfied, both in absolute terms and relative to older cohorts at the same age. The situation is not terminal; the overall number of democracies has declined slightly over the past two decades, but the world’s most established democracies have stayed largely intact and are relatively stable. That said, to be successful in the long term, a political system must be seen to be working, and if people’s dissatisfaction with democracy is allowed to fester, their belief and trust in it will drain away. To ensure this does not happen, (representative) democracy—which, in institutional terms, has remained largely unchanged for the past 50–100 years—will need to renew itself. This could take various forms. But one option—and the focus of this essay—is to bring young people or children into the democratic arena, and deliberative democratic processes, in particular. PubDate: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab029 Issue No:Vol. 5, No. 1 (2021)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Baekgaard M; Tankink T. Pages: 16 - 21 Abstract: AbstractAdministrative burdens in citizen-state interactions are increasingly gaining attention in both research and practice. However, being a relatively young research field, there is still considerable disagreement about how to conceptualize and measure administrative burdens. In particular, burdens are sometimes equated with what the state does, and other times with what target group members experience. We argue that such disagreement is a barrier for further theoretical development and has removed focus from studying the process in which state actions are converted into individual outcomes. We provide advice on how to conceptually bridge the gap between different conceptualizations of administrative burden and lay out a research agenda covering the next important theoretical and empirical steps based on such a shared understanding. We propose that developing the conceptual and empirical foundation of administrative burden research will help asking new and important research questions and building cumulative knowledge. To illustrate these points, we present a series of new research questions for future research to engage with. PubDate: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab027 Issue No:Vol. 5, No. 1 (2021)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Moynihan D; Gerzina J, Herd P. Pages: 22 - 35 Abstract: AbstractWhat does a government do when it decides to make a public service as burdensome as possible' We consider this question in the context of immigration policy during the Trump administration. The case demonstrates the deliberate and governmentwide use of administrative burdens to make legal processes of immigration confusing, demanding, and stressful. Many of these changes occurred via what we characterize as formal administrative directives, a level of policy implementation that falls between high-level formal executive legal powers, such as executive orders or rules, and street-level discretion, pointing to the importance of processes such as memos and training as an understudied space of using burdens to make policy. The case challenges the standard portrayal of the principal–agent dilemma, given that the political principals engaged in a disruption of public services akin to sabotage, while the bureaucratic agents remained largely quiescent. The outcome was a system of racialized burdens, where changes were targeted at racially marginalized immigrants. The case also highlights the use of fear as a particular type of psychological cost. PubDate: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab025 Issue No:Vol. 5, No. 1 (2021)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Møller A. Pages: 50 - 62 Abstract: AbstractFrontline workers bring different forms of knowledge to bear on decisions and actions. Even so, knowledge has so far received limited attention in the street-level literature. This article develops a nuanced understanding of what constitutes knowledge in frontline work and shows how different forms of knowledge are mobilized on the ground. Taking a practice-based and abductive approach, the article draws on qualitative data from a multi-sited organizational ethnography in three Danish child welfare agencies as well as insights from a broad range of literature to build a conceptual framework for studying knowledge mobilization in frontline work. The framework delineates three interdependent forms of knowledge—knowledge-that, knowledge-how, and knowledge-by-acquaintance—that are all essential in frontline work. Knowledge-that is explicit and includes research evidence. Knowledge-how is rooted in experience and acquired through practice. Knowledge-by-acquaintance is rooted in encounters and denotes frontline workers’ “sense” of a case or situation. The empirical work shows how each form of knowledge is mobilized in practice. The findings yield important insights into the dynamics of knowledge mobilization at the frontlines, including the detrimental effects of rapid turnover, the conditions for realizing ideals such as evidence-based practice and data-driven decision-making, and the potential implications of digitalization and algorithmization. PubDate: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvab023 Issue No:Vol. 5, No. 1 (2021)
Subscription journal
[419 journals]
