Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions最新文献

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, people have witnessed a deluge of conspiracy theories and disinformation. As the coronavirus poses a significant threat to individuals' lives, these conspiracy theories are dangerous, as they erode public trust and undermine government efforts to fight the virus. This paper examines the political determinants of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Particularly, we analyze how government policy responses to the pandemic and individuals' ideological predispositions interact to shape people's tendencies to believe conspiracy theories. Using survey data from 22 advanced industrial countries, we show that political conservatives are more prone to conspiracy beliefs than liberals. More importantly, this tendency is reinforced when the government adopts stringent containment policies. Our results suggest that governments' policy efforts to contain the coronavirus can trigger an unintended backlash from political conservatives. This study has important implications for the behavioral and attitudinal effects of government containment policies that are often overlooked.

This article investigates how organizational structure, collaboration, and professional standards influence the resilience of public agencies facing adversity. It links organizational reputation and blame avoidance literature with resilience and collaboration literature. We use the case of the Swiss Child and Adult Protection Agencies (CAPA), which faced massive media attacks. We apply a qualitative research design analyzing data from interviews and participatory observations. Our findings show that professional organizational structure, collaboration and standards are three interrelated factors that increase resilience against adversity. In particular, these factors reduce “blame-avoiding policy implementation” (BAPI), which is a coping strategy where street-level bureaucrats (SLB) exploit their discretion to make policy implementation less blameworthy. In their interplay, professional organizational structure, collaboration and standards increase the knowledge of a public agency about a particular situation because they enable better-informed decisions through collective deliberation practices, and strengthens the collective ownership as well as the individual SLB's confidence that the right decision is being made.

Under freedom of information (FOI) regulations, public officials are pressured to grant citizens access to public information by responding to citizen information requests. However, despite FOI regulations, information requests are treated with varying bureaucratic attention, resulting in a high number of ignored or overdue requests by public organizations. Focusing on this bureaucratic discrimination, this study aims to explain the determinants of varying bureaucratic responsiveness to citizen information requests. Responsiveness in this case is therefore either a successful response to the request, a refusal to respond to the request, or no response at all (i.e., the request is ignored). By drawing on public accountability, and thus a citizen-driven model of bureaucratic responsiveness, we shed light on the human aspect behind responsiveness to information requests. This research argues that the request's topic as an accountability-seeking indicator and the communication tone as an indicator for underlying emotions influence responsiveness. The results from applying text mining and text analysis techniques, such as topic modeling and sentiment analysis, on over 100,000 citizen information requests filed via a German online FOI platform support these assumptions.

In the context of limited state capacity and a politicized public administration, democratic backsliding tends to exploit preexisting deficiencies in the functioning of the public sector. Whereas staffing managerial positions with regime supporters is well-documented, less attention has been paid to the structuring and staffing of street-level bureaucracies under a spoils system. In this article, we use document analysis and in-depth interviews to analyze the case of Mexico's “Servants of the Nation” —a group of more than 19,000 former party members and sympathizers hired by the government to perform street-level tasks— as an example of “parabureaucracy”: an auxiliary street-level organization designed to perform a wide variety of tasks directly related to the executive's political agenda. We argue that parabureaucracies are designed to sideline formal administrative command structures for the benefit of the government in power but may also serve as a means to bypass stifled and dysfunctional traditional bureaucracies.

This study experimentally examines the effect of gender representation of a police organization responsible for handling domestic violence, and how this impacts Korean citizens' views toward the police. Findings show that male participants gave the highest ratings of legitimacy and fairness when the organization is equally represented by men and women, while gave low ratings of legitimacy and efficacy to the organization where women are over-represented. This implies that achieving gender balance in job assignments helps ensure the effectiveness of representative bureaucracy. On the other hand, female participants rated organization with equal representation positively only when they also demonstrated a high level of active representation for female victims. Given heightened gender conflict within Korean policing, female citizens might try to maintain objectivity about female officers.

Governments increasingly use policy experimentation programs to seek solutions for complex problems. Because randomization and controllability are unrealistic for real-world policy experiments, how subnational pilots are selected is crucial for generating sound evidence for national replication. However, the received wisdom on pilot sampling is thin and paradoxical. While some studies suggest that policymakers prefer to select regions with favorable conditions, others contend that securing representativeness remains the principal concern when it comes to pilot selection. This study resolves the paradox by elucidating the logic of selecting pilots in large policy experimentation programs. We focus on China's huge public hospital reform program and through a novel research design that combines comparative qualitative analysis and illustrative case studies we seek to explain the strategy for pilot selection. Our analyses reveal five distinctive pathways of pilot sampling: piloting for challenge, piloting for advancement, piloting for innovation, piloting for action, and piloting for regional generalization. Each modality represents a specific experimental purpose. We reveal that piloting serves as a versatile governance tool that can fulfill multiple functions in complex reforms.

This article analyses the migration agreements between the European Union (EU) and Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. These international policy frameworks were negotiated in tandem with one another, and all were announced in 2016. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in the three countries, the article argues that they fuse humanitarian elements with a bloc-based security logic in an ad-hoc mix that lacks substantive legitimacy in the three states, rendering the frameworks unstable. The article introduces the idea of hybrid migration governance which we have developed inductively to conceptualise the empirical findings from our fieldwork, building on existing work on hybridity in the conflict and security studies literature and Nora Stel's conception of governance as the ability to shape the field of action of others. In our usage, hybrid migration governance refers to the efficacy of EU intervention in the institutional management of migration in the three case study countries (‘shaping the field of action’), the ‘frozen’ character of the societal relations formed through this process and their underlying lack of domestic legitimacy. In conclusion, we argue that hybrid migration governance poses problem for the EU's ‘Barcelona’ conception of human security, because rather than expanding the bloc's ‘zone of security’ to the international neighbourhood, these policies have generated downstream security-risks.

The composition of cabinets under presidential regimes has constituted one of the top topics of the litterature in political science in recent years. However, nothing has been said about the proper size of those cabinets. That is, why some cabinets are 37 ministers large when other is formed by just 13 members? We carry on a theory of cabinet size under presidential regimes, using insights from both parliamentarist and presidentialist literature. Our model is composed of five hypotheses relying on an original dataset of 161 observations across 19 presidential countries of the Americas. Our main finding is that the inclusion of independents and/or technocrats impacts significantly on lowering cabinets' size.

There is growing affinity for audits as a tool to promote political accountability and reduce corruption. Nevertheless, knowledge about the mechanisms through which audits work remains limited. While most work on audits shows that they can work via citizen sanctions of bad performers, we emphasize that audit effects can also run through prospective incentives, that is, the desire to avoid poor audit results in the first place. We distinguish audits' impact on prospective incentives and sanctions using a field experiment in Ghana; districts were randomized into audit treatment conditions targeting district procurement and oversight of development projects. We assess the effect of audits on political officials using survey experimental data and show that officials respond powerfully to prospective incentives. In districts treated with top-down audits, in-party favoritism falls from 60 percent at baseline to 20 percent at midline, and rates remain at 19 percent at endline. This suggests that the audit's main effect occurred before the audit results were made public, and that prospective mechanisms play an important role in audit efficacy.

Policy decision-making modes in governance contexts have become increasingly participatory. This raises questions about legitimacy, and how to measure this concept. The current article advances a multifaceted measurement of perceived legitimacy of policy decision-making modes in participatory governance, capturing the three components of legitimacy (input, throughput, and output) with two items each. This six-item measure was tested in a vignette survey (total N = 4583), which was administered among four types of democratic stakeholders: politicians, civil servants, civil society, and citizens. Respondents completed the scale for four different policy decision-making modes (representative, consultative, co-decisive, and decisive). Our six-item scale shows excellent internal consistency as an encompassing measure, while at the same time also allowing for fine-grained analyses on difference patterns in the input, throughput, and output components of legitimacy. As such, it provides a relevant and parsimonious tool for future research that requires a multifaceted measurement of the perceived legitimacy of participatory governance.