Daniel Banko-Ferran, Leila Bengali, Syon P. Bhanot
Behavioral economics is an increasingly influential field across the social sciences, including public administration. But while some behavioral economics ideas have spread rapidly in public administration research, we argue that a broader range of behavioral economics concepts can and should be applied. We begin by outlining some central models and concepts from behavioral economics to fix ideas, including the rational model and the “behavioral” response. We then discuss how a variety of heretofore underutilized behavioral economics concepts can be applied to a specific area of work in public administration – bureaucratic decision making. Our aim in doing so is two-fold. First, we hope to provide fresh food for thought for researchers and practitioners working in the broader behavioral public administration space. Second, we hope to demonstrate that there is substantial scope for expanding behavioral economics’ influence on public administration research.
{"title":"Bringing “Behavioral” Fully into Behavioral Public Administration","authors":"Daniel Banko-Ferran, Leila Bengali, Syon P. Bhanot","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.61.293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.61.293","url":null,"abstract":"Behavioral economics is an increasingly influential field across the social sciences, including public administration. But while some behavioral economics ideas have spread rapidly in public administration research, we argue that a broader range of behavioral economics concepts can and should be applied. We begin by outlining some central models and concepts from behavioral economics to fix ideas, including the rational model and the “behavioral” response. We then discuss how a variety of heretofore underutilized behavioral economics concepts can be applied to a specific area of work in public administration – bureaucratic decision making. Our aim in doing so is two-fold. First, we hope to provide fresh food for thought for researchers and practitioners working in the broader behavioral public administration space. Second, we hope to demonstrate that there is substantial scope for expanding behavioral economics’ influence on public administration research.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"27 11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125684447","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}
Michael Overton Overton, Stephen W. Kleinschmit, M. Feeney, Federica Fusi, N. Hart, Spiro Maroulis, K. Schwoerer, Eric Stokan, Herchel Thomas, Samuel Workman
The purpose of this roundtable is to present, argue, and evaluate the role of administrative informatics in behavioral public administration. This essay is broken up into three sections. The first section introduces the substantive focus of administrative informatics and how it can be studied. The second section introduces the central concepts required to establish a new approach to scientific knowledge production. The final section provides a short overview of the contributions of the roundtable and nests them within the arguments established in this essay.
{"title":"Administrative Informatics","authors":"Michael Overton Overton, Stephen W. Kleinschmit, M. Feeney, Federica Fusi, N. Hart, Spiro Maroulis, K. Schwoerer, Eric Stokan, Herchel Thomas, Samuel Workman","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.61.330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.61.330","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this roundtable is to present, argue, and evaluate the role of administrative informatics in behavioral public administration. This essay is broken up into three sections. The first section introduces the substantive focus of administrative informatics and how it can be studied. The second section introduces the central concepts required to establish a new approach to scientific knowledge production. The final section provides a short overview of the contributions of the roundtable and nests them within the arguments established in this essay.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"145 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131733771","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}
Before and during the vaccine roll out, governments reported surging COVID-19 cases due to unsafe socializing among younger individuals. Officials continue to search for effective ways to encourage safe socializing behaviour within this demographic. However, a key challenge is that public health advice is necessarily nuanced and complex, which can create ambiguity. Appropriate behaviour depends on specific circumstances and public messaging cannot detail every situation. When people confront ambiguity in expert guidance, they may engage in motivated reasoning—that is, people’s underlying motivations may influence how they process information and make decisions. In a pre-registered experiment, we look at the effect of ambiguous public health messaging on people’s inferences regarding the behaviours the government expects them to avoid and intentions to engage in unsafe socializing. We find no evidence of an effect on inferences—that is, people who receive an ambiguous message about COVID-19 make inferences about correct behaviour that are similar to the inferences of those who receive no message. However, we find ambiguous messaging increases unsafe socializing intentions, especially among people aged 18-39 who socialized before the pandemic. Our findings underscore the need for unambiguous communications during public health crises.
{"title":"Ambiguous COVID-19 Messaging Increases Unsafe Socializing Intentions","authors":"Vincent Hopkins, Mark Pickup, Scott Matthews","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.61.299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.61.299","url":null,"abstract":"Before and during the vaccine roll out, governments reported surging COVID-19 cases due to unsafe socializing among younger individuals. Officials continue to search for effective ways to encourage safe socializing behaviour within this demographic. However, a key challenge is that public health advice is necessarily nuanced and complex, which can create ambiguity. Appropriate behaviour depends on specific circumstances and public messaging cannot detail every situation. When people confront ambiguity in expert guidance, they may engage in motivated reasoning—that is, people’s underlying motivations may influence how they process information and make decisions. In a pre-registered experiment, we look at the effect of ambiguous public health messaging on people’s inferences regarding the behaviours the government expects them to avoid and intentions to engage in unsafe socializing. We find no evidence of an effect on inferences—that is, people who receive an ambiguous message about COVID-19 make inferences about correct behaviour that are similar to the inferences of those who receive no message. However, we find ambiguous messaging increases unsafe socializing intentions, especially among people aged 18-39 who socialized before the pandemic. Our findings underscore the need for unambiguous communications during public health crises.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125664149","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}
Behavioral public administration was coined as a term to describe a field focused on the psychologically based study of individual level behavior and attitudes with relevance for the public sector. Although it holds important insights on human behavior, the literature on behavioral genetics has so far largely been missing in this field. In this paper, I propose that behavioral genetics is concurrent with the scope of behavioral public administration and that it complements the popular theory of bounded rationality. Next, I outline the logics of the twin studies that underlie much of behavioral genetics, and synthesize relevant existing results both inside and outside public administration that relies on behavioral genetics. Functionally, I arrange these insights as they relate to citizens, employees, and managers and present examples of how gene-environment interactions allow for integration of behavioral public administration and behavioral genetics. I argue that insights from behavioral genetics are needed to maximize explanatory power and avoid biased estimates of the effects of socialization when examining these three groups. I conclude by presenting points for practitioners.
{"title":"Revisiting Our Assumptions About the Nature of Man","authors":"Christoffer Florczak","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.61.294","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.61.294","url":null,"abstract":"Behavioral public administration was coined as a term to describe a field focused on the psychologically based study of individual level behavior and attitudes with relevance for the public sector. Although it holds important insights on human behavior, the literature on behavioral genetics has so far largely been missing in this field. In this paper, I propose that behavioral genetics is concurrent with the scope of behavioral public administration and that it complements the popular theory of bounded rationality. Next, I outline the logics of the twin studies that underlie much of behavioral genetics, and synthesize relevant existing results both inside and outside public administration that relies on behavioral genetics. Functionally, I arrange these insights as they relate to citizens, employees, and managers and present examples of how gene-environment interactions allow for integration of behavioral public administration and behavioral genetics. I argue that insights from behavioral genetics are needed to maximize explanatory power and avoid biased estimates of the effects of socialization when examining these three groups. I conclude by presenting points for practitioners.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123453918","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}
Most research in behavioral public administration (BPA) focuses on the micro or individual level outcomes. This article argues that BPA should recognize the importance of social interactions as both an outcome of interest and an outcome that can be explored within a BPA framework. We present the Affect, Behavior, Cognition and Social Interaction (ABCS) model and call on researchers to study not just social interactions from the lens of BPA, but also study the linking mechanisms of affect, behavior, and cognition. We also examine the importance of public for public administration theory, and we discuss advances in research methods that allow BPA to further examine the public through social interactions. In the conclusion, we call on further research of the ABCS model, its limitations, and the need for an expanded research agenda in BPA with a focus on the public and social interactions.
{"title":"Simon’s Behavior and Waldo’s Public","authors":"Zachary Mohr, Jourdan A. Davis","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.61.297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.61.297","url":null,"abstract":"Most research in behavioral public administration (BPA) focuses on the micro or individual level outcomes. This article argues that BPA should recognize the importance of social interactions as both an outcome of interest and an outcome that can be explored within a BPA framework. We present the Affect, Behavior, Cognition and Social Interaction (ABCS) model and call on researchers to study not just social interactions from the lens of BPA, but also study the linking mechanisms of affect, behavior, and cognition. We also examine the importance of public for public administration theory, and we discuss advances in research methods that allow BPA to further examine the public through social interactions. In the conclusion, we call on further research of the ABCS model, its limitations, and the need for an expanded research agenda in BPA with a focus on the public and social interactions.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123003877","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}
Administrative burden reduces the effectiveness of public social programs by deterring take up among adults, but we know little about the role these burdens play in public programs for young people. This paper uses empirical evidence to assess how different barriers shape adolescents’ take-up of summer jobs programs. In a Philadelphia experiment, we find that reminder emails increased application completion by 1.8 percentage points (12.3 percent), with bigger effects from emphasizing short-term monetary gains. In a non-experimental analysis of Philadelphia and Chicago programs, we show that without individualized support during enrollment, disconnected youth are less likely to participate when offered a slot than their more advantaged peers. However, offering universal personalized support during enrollment makes them as or more likely to participate. These findings suggest administrative burden does constrain the benefits of public spending on youth programs and that reducing burden can increase gains from social programs for young people.
{"title":"Does Administrative Burden Deter Young People? Evidence from Summer Jobs Programs","authors":"Syon P. Bhanot, Sara B. Heller","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.51.300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.300","url":null,"abstract":"Administrative burden reduces the effectiveness of public social programs by deterring take up among adults, but we know little about the role these burdens play in public programs for young people. This paper uses empirical evidence to assess how different barriers shape adolescents’ take-up of summer jobs programs. In a Philadelphia experiment, we find that reminder emails increased application completion by 1.8 percentage points (12.3 percent), with bigger effects from emphasizing short-term monetary gains. In a non-experimental analysis of Philadelphia and Chicago programs, we show that without individualized support during enrollment, disconnected youth are less likely to participate when offered a slot than their more advantaged peers. However, offering universal personalized support during enrollment makes them as or more likely to participate. These findings suggest administrative burden does constrain the benefits of public spending on youth programs and that reducing burden can increase gains from social programs for young people.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132201553","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}
The effectiveness of competition authorities is partly dependent on the public attitude towards cartels. In Dijkstra and Van Stekelenburg (2021), we found that the Dutch public considers cartels to be less serious offenses than comparable economic infringements. If the general public better understands why cartel behavior is bad, it might improve firm compliance and could help in receiving more tip-offs about potential cartels. Competition authorities could attain this by investing in raising the negative attitude of the public towards cartels: we therefore examine which arguments are most persuasive in the Netherlands. The most persuasive arguments are on overpricing, consumer deception, cartel secrecy and conformism. Subsequently, we run an experiment to test which term and line of argumentation are most effective communicating the seriousness of cartels. We find that the term “competition fraud” is more effective in conveying the problematic nature of cartels than the traditional term “cartel”, resulting in a more negative attitude among respondents in this condition. Again, arguments on overpricing are most convincing and result in more negative attitude towards cartels and stronger support for government action than other lines of argumentation.
{"title":"Which Arguments are most Persuasive of the Seriousness of Cartels: An Experimental Study","authors":"Peter T. Dijkstra, L. van Stekelenburg","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.51.277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.277","url":null,"abstract":"The effectiveness of competition authorities is partly dependent on the public attitude towards cartels. In Dijkstra and Van Stekelenburg (2021), we found that the Dutch public considers cartels to be less serious offenses than comparable economic infringements. If the general public better understands why cartel behavior is bad, it might improve firm compliance and could help in receiving more tip-offs about potential cartels. Competition authorities could attain this by investing in raising the negative attitude of the public towards cartels: we therefore examine which arguments are most persuasive in the Netherlands. The most persuasive arguments are on overpricing, consumer deception, cartel secrecy and conformism. Subsequently, we run an experiment to test which term and line of argumentation are most effective communicating the seriousness of cartels. We find that the term “competition fraud” is more effective in conveying the problematic nature of cartels than the traditional term “cartel”, resulting in a more negative attitude among respondents in this condition. Again, arguments on overpricing are most convincing and result in more negative attitude towards cartels and stronger support for government action than other lines of argumentation.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"23 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134634798","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}
Malte Dewies, I. Merkelbach, W. van der Scheer, Kirsten I. M. Rohde, S. Denktaş
Government officials can have a disposition to conceptualise the behaviour of policy target groups as stable, malleable, or something in-between. This paper hypothesizes these conceptualisations to influence preferences for policy instruments: Officials seeing behaviour to be more stable are hypothesised to prefer enforcement when aiming to change behaviour, whereas officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable are hypothesised to prefer information provision and behavioural instruments. Using a survey among local government officials from the Netherlands (N = 717), we tested these hypotheses in the context of compliance with rules to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Results show that officials assuming behaviour to be more stable preferred more enforcement and information provision to change behaviour than officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable. This may suggest that seeing behaviour as more stable leads officials to prefer more government intervention in general. Conceptualisations about the changeableness of behaviour were not related to preferences for behavioural instruments. Implications for government officials are discussed.
{"title":"Do you consider human behaviour to be stable or malleable? Your answer can influence your preferences for policy instruments","authors":"Malte Dewies, I. Merkelbach, W. van der Scheer, Kirsten I. M. Rohde, S. Denktaş","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.51.276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.276","url":null,"abstract":"Government officials can have a disposition to conceptualise the behaviour of policy target groups as stable, malleable, or something in-between. This paper hypothesizes these conceptualisations to influence preferences for policy instruments: Officials seeing behaviour to be more stable are hypothesised to prefer enforcement when aiming to change behaviour, whereas officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable are hypothesised to prefer information provision and behavioural instruments. Using a survey among local government officials from the Netherlands (N = 717), we tested these hypotheses in the context of compliance with rules to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Results show that officials assuming behaviour to be more stable preferred more enforcement and information provision to change behaviour than officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable. This may suggest that seeing behaviour as more stable leads officials to prefer more government intervention in general. Conceptualisations about the changeableness of behaviour were not related to preferences for behavioural instruments. Implications for government officials are discussed.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"9 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132549214","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}
The topic of administrative burden is relatively novel, but reflects people’s most common experiences of government: confusion about what is expected of them (learning costs), onerous processes (compliance costs), and associated emotions such as frustration (psychological cost). This symposium applies a behavioral perspective to the topic. We learn, for example, of the role of race and social constructions in people’s beliefs about burdens and their role in social programs. We are given evidence of how burdens restrict access to important public services. Perhaps most usefully, the authors engage with different interventions to find ways to reduce burdens. This ranges from changes in the physical space, to process redesign, to informational nudges. The resulting work provides a broad range of applied empirical insight that shines a light on a pressing area of study.
{"title":"Behavior and Burdens","authors":"P. Herd, D. Moynihan","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.51.306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.306","url":null,"abstract":"The topic of administrative burden is relatively novel, but reflects people’s most common experiences of government: confusion about what is expected of them (learning costs), onerous processes (compliance costs), and associated emotions such as frustration (psychological cost). This symposium applies a behavioral perspective to the topic. We learn, for example, of the role of race and social constructions in people’s beliefs about burdens and their role in social programs. We are given evidence of how burdens restrict access to important public services. Perhaps most usefully, the authors engage with different interventions to find ways to reduce burdens. This ranges from changes in the physical space, to process redesign, to informational nudges. The resulting work provides a broad range of applied empirical insight that shines a light on a pressing area of study.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126576198","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}
Anthony M. Bertelli, Norma M. Riccucci, Paola Canterelli, M. Cucciniello, C. Grose, P. John, Elizabeth Linos, Anjali Thomas, Martin Williams
Editor’s note. In this roundtable, the contributors discuss the role of institutions (or lack thereof) in behavioral public administration (BPA). In a multidisciplinary discourse, the contributors touch on the many tensions that exist between institutional and behavioral perspectives of public administration. This roundtable is intended to spark additional discourse on the role of institutions in how they parameterize behaviors within or how individual behaviors might, in the aggregate, influence the norms and rules that shape institutions. Here at JBPA, we encourage further dialogue on the role of institutions in behavioral studies and holding work from a macro-, meso-, and micro-lens accountable to each another (Jilke et al., 2019). The editorial team at JBPA is thankful to Herbert Simon Award (Midwest Political Science Association) winners Anthony Bertelli (2020) and Norma Riccucci (2021) for organizing this thoughtful conversation. We hope that the discussion offered in this roundtable will inspire further inquiry from our readers. We encourage thought leaders in the field of public administration and beyond to continue this conversation here at JBPA. Therefore, we are announcing a Call for Papers, in response to this roundtable. Contributing papers can take one of several forms: (1) Research Letters (of no more than 2,000 words), for instance, might provide replications of existing work in BPA where the replications newly account for institutional embeddedness. (2) Perspective and Practices submissions (generally limited to 4,000 words) should be written as thoughtful responses to the discourse below, and (3) Research Articles (up to 8,000 words) can be more thoroughly threshed out theoretical conceits about institutions in BPA. William G. Resh, Editor-in-Chief
{"title":"The (Missing?) Role of Institutions in Behavioral Public Administration","authors":"Anthony M. Bertelli, Norma M. Riccucci, Paola Canterelli, M. Cucciniello, C. Grose, P. John, Elizabeth Linos, Anjali Thomas, Martin Williams","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.51.304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.304","url":null,"abstract":"Editor’s note. In this roundtable, the contributors discuss the role of institutions (or lack thereof) in behavioral public administration (BPA). In a multidisciplinary discourse, the contributors touch on the many tensions that exist between institutional and behavioral perspectives of public administration. This roundtable is intended to spark additional discourse on the role of institutions in how they parameterize behaviors within or how individual behaviors might, in the aggregate, influence the norms and rules that shape institutions. Here at JBPA, we encourage further dialogue on the role of institutions in behavioral studies and holding work from a macro-, meso-, and micro-lens accountable to each another (Jilke et al., 2019). The editorial team at JBPA is thankful to Herbert Simon Award (Midwest Political Science Association) winners Anthony Bertelli (2020) and Norma Riccucci (2021) for organizing this thoughtful conversation. We hope that the discussion offered in this roundtable will inspire further inquiry from our readers. We encourage thought leaders in the field of public administration and beyond to continue this conversation here at JBPA. Therefore, we are announcing a Call for Papers, in response to this roundtable. Contributing papers can take one of several forms: (1) Research Letters (of no more than 2,000 words), for instance, might provide replications of existing work in BPA where the replications newly account for institutional embeddedness. (2) Perspective and Practices submissions (generally limited to 4,000 words) should be written as thoughtful responses to the discourse below, and (3) Research Articles (up to 8,000 words) can be more thoroughly threshed out theoretical conceits about institutions in BPA. \u0000 \u0000William G. Resh, Editor-in-Chief \u0000","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127010491","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：