The professional profile, competence, and responsiveness of senior bureaucrats: a paired survey experiment with citizens and elite respondents

IF 5.2 1区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1093/jopart/muae024
Jostein Askim, Tobias Bach, Kristoffer Kolltveit
{"title":"The professional profile, competence, and responsiveness of senior bureaucrats: a paired survey experiment with citizens and elite respondents","authors":"Jostein Askim, Tobias Bach, Kristoffer Kolltveit","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do the professional backgrounds of senior bureaucrats affect their competence and political responsiveness? This article fills a gap by examining these questions in a meritocratic context that accommodates nuanced but potentially consequential variations in the recruitment of senior bureaucrats. Using a paired survey experiment with citizens, representatives, and administrators in Norway, the article demonstrates that agency heads are perceived as less competent and – to a lesser extent – more politically responsive if their profile deviates from the meritocratic ideal of the career civil servant with mission-specific expertise. The article also compares perceptions between groups of stakeholders, filling another gap in the literature. Treatment effects go in the same direction across groups, but the results reveal a mismatch between popular and insider perceptions of bureaucracy: whereas citizens are practically indifferent, administrators are deeply concerned about the competence of an agency head who is a former politician rather than a career bureaucrat. Perceptions of substantive expertise are more aligned: all stakeholder groups view agency heads with mission-specific expertise as more competent and less politically responsive than generalists. Overall, the results demonstrate that variations in who is recruited to senior bureaucrat positions may either strengthen or undermine stakeholders’ views on good governance.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do the professional backgrounds of senior bureaucrats affect their competence and political responsiveness? This article fills a gap by examining these questions in a meritocratic context that accommodates nuanced but potentially consequential variations in the recruitment of senior bureaucrats. Using a paired survey experiment with citizens, representatives, and administrators in Norway, the article demonstrates that agency heads are perceived as less competent and – to a lesser extent – more politically responsive if their profile deviates from the meritocratic ideal of the career civil servant with mission-specific expertise. The article also compares perceptions between groups of stakeholders, filling another gap in the literature. Treatment effects go in the same direction across groups, but the results reveal a mismatch between popular and insider perceptions of bureaucracy: whereas citizens are practically indifferent, administrators are deeply concerned about the competence of an agency head who is a former politician rather than a career bureaucrat. Perceptions of substantive expertise are more aligned: all stakeholder groups view agency heads with mission-specific expertise as more competent and less politically responsive than generalists. Overall, the results demonstrate that variations in who is recruited to senior bureaucrat positions may either strengthen or undermine stakeholders’ views on good governance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高级官僚的职业形象、能力和反应能力:公民和精英受访者的配对调查实验
高级官员的专业背景如何影响他们的能力和政治反应能力?本文填补了这一空白,在任人唯贤的背景下对这些问题进行了研究,其中考虑到了高级官员招聘过程中细微但可能产生影响的变化。通过对挪威的公民、代表和行政人员进行配对调查实验,文章证明,如果机构负责人的形象偏离了具有特定任务专长的职业公务员这一任人唯贤的理想,那么他们的能力就会被认为较弱,而在较小程度上,他们的政治反应能力会被认为较强。文章还比较了不同利益相关者群体的看法,填补了文献中的另一个空白。不同群体之间的处理效果方向相同,但结果显示,民众和内部人士对官僚机构的看法不一致:公民实际上无动于衷,而行政人员却对曾是政治家而非职业官僚的机构负责人的能力深感担忧。对实务专长的看法则更为一致:所有利益相关群体都认为,与通才相比,具有特定任务专长的机构负责人更称职,政治反应能力更弱。总之,研究结果表明,高级官僚职位招聘人选的不同可能会加强或削弱利益相关者对善治的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory serves as a bridge between public administration or public management scholarship and public policy studies. The Journal aims to provide in-depth analysis of developments in the organizational, administrative, and policy sciences as they apply to government and governance. Each issue brings you critical perspectives and cogent analyses, serving as an outlet for the best theoretical and research work in the field. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory is the official journal of the Public Management Research Association.
期刊最新文献
The professional profile, competence, and responsiveness of senior bureaucrats: a paired survey experiment with citizens and elite respondents A reputational perspective on structural reforms: How media reputations are related to the structural reform likelihood of public agencies Making Administrative Work Matter in Public Service Delivery: A Lens for Linking Practice with the Purpose of Office Gendered Administrative Burden: Regulating Gendered Bodies, Labor, and Identity Procedural Politicking for What? Bureaucratic Reputation and Democratic Governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1