In today’s multisector configurations, there is little clarity about whether and how public and private subsidies influence social enterprises’ pursuit of financial stability. We address the strategic role of donors in the social-business life cycle whereby social enterprise start-ups rely on subsidies, while mature social enterprises strive for independence from donors. To address the “missing middle,” we develop a typology of subsidy instruments and an intermediary signaling model to clarify how subsidies shape the evolution of outcomes for social enterprises. We argue that source variation matters for certain instruments like corporate intangibles and governmentally subsidized credit guarantees, which trigger crowding-in effects and attract commercial partners, while preventing perverse crowding-out effects, such as soft budget constraints. To illustrate this commercialization story, we draw upon a microfinance case study, demonstrating how public and private donors can induce crowding-in and crowding-out effects. In short, our subsidy typology helps unpack the signals that public and private subsidies send to commercial funders of social enterprises and how they shape the path to future financial independence.
{"title":"Crowding-in or Crowding-out? How Subsidies Signal the Path to Financial Independence of Social Enterprises","authors":"P. Reichert, M. Hudon, A. Szafarz, R. Christensen","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvab014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In today’s multisector configurations, there is little clarity about whether and how public and private subsidies influence social enterprises’ pursuit of financial stability. We address the strategic role of donors in the social-business life cycle whereby social enterprise start-ups rely on subsidies, while mature social enterprises strive for independence from donors. To address the “missing middle,” we develop a typology of subsidy instruments and an intermediary signaling model to clarify how subsidies shape the evolution of outcomes for social enterprises. We argue that source variation matters for certain instruments like corporate intangibles and governmentally subsidized credit guarantees, which trigger crowding-in effects and attract commercial partners, while preventing perverse crowding-out effects, such as soft budget constraints. To illustrate this commercialization story, we draw upon a microfinance case study, demonstrating how public and private donors can induce crowding-in and crowding-out effects. In short, our subsidy typology helps unpack the signals that public and private subsidies send to commercial funders of social enterprises and how they shape the path to future financial independence.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82401007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Theory about the participants in online citizen participation is scarce, limiting government’s ability to design online participation in such a way that many and diverse citizens are facilitated to participate. To fill this gap, this article theorizes about the factors that influence the intention of citizens from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds to participate in online platforms. The theory of planned behavior is used as theoretical lens, which posits that behavioral intentions depend on three main factors (attitude, perceived norm, and perceived behavioral control), which are in turn informed by behavioral, normative, and control beliefs. To identify relevant beliefs that impact online participation, an open-ended questionnaire was administered among 442 respondents. Fourteen behavioral and control beliefs are defined using thematic analysis. Building on these insights, the article formulates propositions about beliefs that are particularly influential for specific sociodemographic groups, in an effort to advance theory about online participation of citizens.
{"title":"Participation in Online Platforms: Examining Variations in Intention to Participate across Citizens from Diverse Sociodemographic Groups","authors":"Annelieke C. van den Berg","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Theory about the participants in online citizen participation is scarce, limiting government’s ability to design online participation in such a way that many and diverse citizens are facilitated to participate. To fill this gap, this article theorizes about the factors that influence the intention of citizens from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds to participate in online platforms. The theory of planned behavior is used as theoretical lens, which posits that behavioral intentions depend on three main factors (attitude, perceived norm, and perceived behavioral control), which are in turn informed by behavioral, normative, and control beliefs. To identify relevant beliefs that impact online participation, an open-ended questionnaire was administered among 442 respondents. Fourteen behavioral and control beliefs are defined using thematic analysis. Building on these insights, the article formulates propositions about beliefs that are particularly influential for specific sociodemographic groups, in an effort to advance theory about online participation of citizens.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90209105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is the third of four Last Lectures delivered by George Frederickson before his death in 2020. In “Thick Social Equity,” Frederickson returns to an abiding theme of his scholarship: the advancement of social equity in public administration research and practice. He traces the progress in the literature over the decades from “thin” to “thick” social equity, praising advancements in theory and empirical research in the twenty-first century, while decrying the current state of social inequity, particularly in the United States.
{"title":"Thick Social Equity","authors":"H. Frederickson","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This is the third of four Last Lectures delivered by George Frederickson before his death in 2020. In “Thick Social Equity,” Frederickson returns to an abiding theme of his scholarship: the advancement of social equity in public administration research and practice. He traces the progress in the literature over the decades from “thin” to “thick” social equity, praising advancements in theory and empirical research in the twenty-first century, while decrying the current state of social inequity, particularly in the United States.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"33 3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78235319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is the second of four Last Lectures delivered by George Frederickson before his death in 2020. In “Giving the Public in Public Administration Its Due,” Frederickson explores the changing, if not dissolving boundaries between the public and private sectors. He admonishes us to be more careful in our understanding and articulation of the meaning of “public” and the extent to which this matters for future theory building as well as practice.
{"title":"Giving the Public in Public Administration Its Due","authors":"H. Frederickson","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This is the second of four Last Lectures delivered by George Frederickson before his death in 2020. In “Giving the Public in Public Administration Its Due,” Frederickson explores the changing, if not dissolving boundaries between the public and private sectors. He admonishes us to be more careful in our understanding and articulation of the meaning of “public” and the extent to which this matters for future theory building as well as practice.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"52 1","pages":"83-89"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75374675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A mismatch exists between the fundamental principles underlying modern administrative jurisprudence and the practical realities of administrative governance as illuminated by social science. This mismatch is most evident in the judicial conceptions of congressional intent, delegation, administrative procedures, and political accountability. As a result, federal agencies have the opportunity to shape the parameters under which courts analyze administrative authority and to capitalize on overlapping delegations of power. Agencies respond by shifting resources toward unorthodox policymaking and legalized personnel, raising questions about what it means legally for federal agencies to be accountable to the judicial and political branches of government. In sum, the mismatch between doctrine and practice presents many avenues for future research and has important consequences for the operation of our separation of powers system.
{"title":"The Headless Fourth Branch: Rethinking the Assumptions of Administrative Jurisprudence","authors":"Jennifer L. Selin","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAA023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAA023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A mismatch exists between the fundamental principles underlying modern administrative jurisprudence and the practical realities of administrative governance as illuminated by social science. This mismatch is most evident in the judicial conceptions of congressional intent, delegation, administrative procedures, and political accountability. As a result, federal agencies have the opportunity to shape the parameters under which courts analyze administrative authority and to capitalize on overlapping delegations of power. Agencies respond by shifting resources toward unorthodox policymaking and legalized personnel, raising questions about what it means legally for federal agencies to be accountable to the judicial and political branches of government. In sum, the mismatch between doctrine and practice presents many avenues for future research and has important consequences for the operation of our separation of powers system.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"66 1","pages":"170-185"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86280694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In “Path Dependence and the Roots of Interorganizational Relationship Challenges,” recently published by PPMG, we suggested the utility of path dependency theory in unpacking the developmental dynamics that may feed into contemporary problems of management and governance. Professor Jörg Sydow was moved to submit commentary on our article; we respond to his thoughtful comments in this essay.
{"title":"Habitual Path Dependence of Interorganizational Relationships—A Response to Sydow","authors":"Laura S. Jensen, Donna Sedgwick","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In “Path Dependence and the Roots of Interorganizational Relationship Challenges,” recently published by PPMG, we suggested the utility of path dependency theory in unpacking the developmental dynamics that may feed into contemporary problems of management and governance. Professor Jörg Sydow was moved to submit commentary on our article; we respond to his thoughtful comments in this essay.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87361204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Conflicting values that are sometimes impossible to resolve are one of the costs of public governance for public values and public outcomes. To unravel one of the mechanisms enhancing or obstructing public values or public outcomes in public governance, this article presents the individual coping with value conflicts model. The model focuses on individually experienced value conflicts regarding public values realization (i.e., the principles of governance) and public value creation (i.e., public outcomes) necessitating coping strategies. The article discusses various aspects of the theoretical model. The various coping strategies and their likely results are connected to public values realization and public value creation. However, first, the article identifies the origins of the need to rely on coping strategies, such as value pluralism and plural expectations of individuals. Next, the paper hypothesizes that individual coping strategies are driven by the psychological traits of individuals and influenced by interactions. The article further explains that the individual’s role in adopting coping strategies manifests in specific situations or contexts. The paper concludes with implications for public value(s) theories, makes suggestions for applications of the model, and sets out avenues for empirical research to test and advance the model.
{"title":"A Conceptual Model for Individual Coping with Value Conflicts","authors":"S. Jaspers","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Conflicting values that are sometimes impossible to resolve are one of the costs of public governance for public values and public outcomes. To unravel one of the mechanisms enhancing or obstructing public values or public outcomes in public governance, this article presents the individual coping with value conflicts model. The model focuses on individually experienced value conflicts regarding public values realization (i.e., the principles of governance) and public value creation (i.e., public outcomes) necessitating coping strategies. The article discusses various aspects of the theoretical model. The various coping strategies and their likely results are connected to public values realization and public value creation. However, first, the article identifies the origins of the need to rely on coping strategies, such as value pluralism and plural expectations of individuals. Next, the paper hypothesizes that individual coping strategies are driven by the psychological traits of individuals and influenced by interactions. The article further explains that the individual’s role in adopting coping strategies manifests in specific situations or contexts. The paper concludes with implications for public value(s) theories, makes suggestions for applications of the model, and sets out avenues for empirical research to test and advance the model.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86079251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a commentary to a former paper by Sedwick and Jensen published in this very journal. On the one hand, the commentary praises the paper’s urgently needed focus on interorganizational relationships and empirical richness. On the other, the commentary questions habitual path dependence as a theoretically useful concept.
{"title":"Habitual Path Dependence of Interorganizational Relationships?—A Commentary on Sedgwick and Jensen","authors":"J. Sydow","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This is a commentary to a former paper by Sedwick and Jensen published in this very journal. On the one hand, the commentary praises the paper’s urgently needed focus on interorganizational relationships and empirical richness. On the other, the commentary questions habitual path dependence as a theoretically useful concept.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77804491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This response to George Frederickson’s retirement speech on the meaning of “public” in public administration highlights Frederickson’s intellectual influence, both on this author and, especially, the entire field of public administration theory. The current paper argues that both the empirical and normative meanings of public are vital and that the interaction of the two helps frame not only public administration theory but also the practice of public administration. By treating “public” as little more than a sector label, a stereotype, it is easy to march in lockstep with those who misguidedly marginalize public administration as little more than a means of addressing market failure.
{"title":"Response to: H. George Frederickson’s Giving the Public in Public Administration its Due","authors":"B. Bozeman","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This response to George Frederickson’s retirement speech on the meaning of “public” in public administration highlights Frederickson’s intellectual influence, both on this author and, especially, the entire field of public administration theory. The current paper argues that both the empirical and normative meanings of public are vital and that the interaction of the two helps frame not only public administration theory but also the practice of public administration. By treating “public” as little more than a sector label, a stereotype, it is easy to march in lockstep with those who misguidedly marginalize public administration as little more than a means of addressing market failure.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78322026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Matthew M. Young, Johannes Himmelreich, Justin B. Bullock, Kyoung-Cheol Kim
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers challenges and benefits to the public sector. We present an ethical framework to analyze the effects of AI in public organizations, guide empirical and theoretical research in public administration, and inform practitioner deliberation and decision making on AI adoption. We put forward six propositions on how the use of AI by public organizations may facilitate or prevent unnecessary harm. The framework builds on the theory of administrative evil and contributes to it in two ways. First, we interpret the theory of administrative evil through the lens of agency theory. We examine how the mechanisms stipulated by the former relate to the underlying mechanisms of the latter. Specifically, we highlight how mechanisms of administrative evil can be analyzed as information problems in the form of adverse selection and moral hazard. Second, we describe possible causal pathways of the theory of administrative evil and associate each with a level of analysis: individual (micro), organizational (meso), and cultural (macro). We then develop both descriptive and normative propositions on AI’s potential to increase or decrease the risk of administrative evil. The article hence contributes an institutional and public administration lens to the growing literature on AI safety and value alignment.
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and Administrative Evil","authors":"Matthew M. Young, Johannes Himmelreich, Justin B. Bullock, Kyoung-Cheol Kim","doi":"10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVAB006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Artificial intelligence (AI) offers challenges and benefits to the public sector. We present an ethical framework to analyze the effects of AI in public organizations, guide empirical and theoretical research in public administration, and inform practitioner deliberation and decision making on AI adoption. We put forward six propositions on how the use of AI by public organizations may facilitate or prevent unnecessary harm. The framework builds on the theory of administrative evil and contributes to it in two ways. First, we interpret the theory of administrative evil through the lens of agency theory. We examine how the mechanisms stipulated by the former relate to the underlying mechanisms of the latter. Specifically, we highlight how mechanisms of administrative evil can be analyzed as information problems in the form of adverse selection and moral hazard. Second, we describe possible causal pathways of the theory of administrative evil and associate each with a level of analysis: individual (micro), organizational (meso), and cultural (macro). We then develop both descriptive and normative propositions on AI’s potential to increase or decrease the risk of administrative evil. The article hence contributes an institutional and public administration lens to the growing literature on AI safety and value alignment.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79431144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：