In the age of collaboration and shared governance, paradoxically, distrust manifests frequently in government and political institutions and is seen as dysfunctional to democracy, making governing networks challenging. Yet, previous studies emphasize the significance of promoting trust more than addressing distrust in networks. Distrust differs from the absence of trust. It involves relationships characterized by doubt, suspicion, or opportunism. Relatively little is known about why distrusting relationships occur and how they develop in adversarial interorganizational governance networks. Using quantitative network surveys and qualitative interview data from organizations involved in an adversarial local hydraulic fracturing governance network in New York, our mixed-method analyses fill this gap. We found evidence of cognitive distrust from different policy beliefs and identity-based subgroups and two sources of behavioral distrust (competition and non-collaboration), as well as the interactions between cognitive and behavioral sources of distrusting relationships. We further identified underexplored sources of endogenous relational distrust: strong and negative reciprocity, non-transitivity, and Simmelian ties (meaning mutual third-party ties). These relational sources suggest that the distrust networks mutually reinforce each other but are less clustered and more indirect. Our study advances network management scholarship by showing why distrusting relationships occur and how they escalate within adversarial networks.
{"title":"Why are policy actors so distrustful of each other, and how?Cognitive, behavioral, and endogenous relational sources of perceived distrust in governance networks","authors":"Jeongyoon Lee, Jennifer Dodge","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muaf006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf006","url":null,"abstract":"In the age of collaboration and shared governance, paradoxically, distrust manifests frequently in government and political institutions and is seen as dysfunctional to democracy, making governing networks challenging. Yet, previous studies emphasize the significance of promoting trust more than addressing distrust in networks. Distrust differs from the absence of trust. It involves relationships characterized by doubt, suspicion, or opportunism. Relatively little is known about why distrusting relationships occur and how they develop in adversarial interorganizational governance networks. Using quantitative network surveys and qualitative interview data from organizations involved in an adversarial local hydraulic fracturing governance network in New York, our mixed-method analyses fill this gap. We found evidence of cognitive distrust from different policy beliefs and identity-based subgroups and two sources of behavioral distrust (competition and non-collaboration), as well as the interactions between cognitive and behavioral sources of distrusting relationships. We further identified underexplored sources of endogenous relational distrust: strong and negative reciprocity, non-transitivity, and Simmelian ties (meaning mutual third-party ties). These relational sources suggest that the distrust networks mutually reinforce each other but are less clustered and more indirect. Our study advances network management scholarship by showing why distrusting relationships occur and how they escalate within adversarial networks.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143677644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study advances a deeper understanding of the antecedents and mediators of goal ambiguity within public organizations. Expanding upon the established notion of the negative relationship between goal ambiguity and performance in public organizations, this study goes one step further by exploring how exogenous shocks may exacerbate this adverse impact. Focusing on the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent responses taken by the South Korean government, this study aims to offer a comprehensive examination of the complex interplay between organizational goals and performance during unforeseen disruptions. Drawing on data from the 2019 and 2020 Korean Public Employee Viewpoint Survey (KPEV) with 6,552 respondents, this study employs a moderated multiple regression model to examine the moderating role of exogenous shocks. The findings reveal that exogenous shocks can act as moderators, intensifying the detrimental effects of goal ambiguity on organizational performance. This study thus highlights the mutable nature of goals in public organizations, especially in times of crisis, suggesting the necessity of understanding the intricate dynamics within a prevailing premise of the negative association of goal ambiguity and organizational performance.
{"title":"Navigating Ambiguity in Crisis: The Impact of Organizational Goal Ambiguity on Public Sector Performance in the Wake of Exogenous Shocks","authors":"Youkyoung Jeong, Jongdae Song","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muaf005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf005","url":null,"abstract":"This study advances a deeper understanding of the antecedents and mediators of goal ambiguity within public organizations. Expanding upon the established notion of the negative relationship between goal ambiguity and performance in public organizations, this study goes one step further by exploring how exogenous shocks may exacerbate this adverse impact. Focusing on the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent responses taken by the South Korean government, this study aims to offer a comprehensive examination of the complex interplay between organizational goals and performance during unforeseen disruptions. Drawing on data from the 2019 and 2020 Korean Public Employee Viewpoint Survey (KPEV) with 6,552 respondents, this study employs a moderated multiple regression model to examine the moderating role of exogenous shocks. The findings reveal that exogenous shocks can act as moderators, intensifying the detrimental effects of goal ambiguity on organizational performance. This study thus highlights the mutable nature of goals in public organizations, especially in times of crisis, suggesting the necessity of understanding the intricate dynamics within a prevailing premise of the negative association of goal ambiguity and organizational performance.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143677638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The theoretical literature on social capital and disasters, as well as conventional wisdom, suggests the importance of pre-disaster relationship building among leaders of responding organizations and agencies for disaster readiness and response. Often implied, but rarely tested empirically, research presumes a positive and linear relationship associated with investments in social capital for effective disaster response. Any amount of relationship building is better than none, but more is better. But is it? In this article, we use a rare longitudinal, pre-post disaster dataset of dyadic ties among leaders to examine key questions related to investments in social capital before a disaster, the expected payoffs from these investments, the actual payoffs of these investments and the marginal effects of such investments. Our findings indicate that pre-disaster relationship building has a non-linear relationship to expected payoffs and actual payoffs. Marginal effects analyses suggests three interesting, though perhaps counter-intuitive, relationships between the investment and expected and actual payoffs in social capital. First, leaders reported expecting disproportionately high payoffs from relatively small relationship investments prior to the disaster. Second, infrequent pre-disaster interactions were found to be no different than no prior interaction when looking at actual payoffs from these investments. Finally, relationships that were deemed most problematic were among those with weak ties. Overall, results suggest that the efficacy of pre-disaster relationship building is more complicated than one would expect based on extant literature. More investment in social capital may be better in some cases, but the benefits from these investments appear only after a certain threshold is met and, in some cases, may have diminishing returns. Potential theoretical drivers for these seemingly counter-intuitive findings are discussed while calling for further research to investigate these dynamics in other contexts.
{"title":"The Weakness of Weak Ties: Do Social Capital Investments among Leaders Pay Off During Times of Disaster?","authors":"Brand Nowell, Toddi Steelman","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muaf002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf002","url":null,"abstract":"The theoretical literature on social capital and disasters, as well as conventional wisdom, suggests the importance of pre-disaster relationship building among leaders of responding organizations and agencies for disaster readiness and response. Often implied, but rarely tested empirically, research presumes a positive and linear relationship associated with investments in social capital for effective disaster response. Any amount of relationship building is better than none, but more is better. But is it? In this article, we use a rare longitudinal, pre-post disaster dataset of dyadic ties among leaders to examine key questions related to investments in social capital before a disaster, the expected payoffs from these investments, the actual payoffs of these investments and the marginal effects of such investments. Our findings indicate that pre-disaster relationship building has a non-linear relationship to expected payoffs and actual payoffs. Marginal effects analyses suggests three interesting, though perhaps counter-intuitive, relationships between the investment and expected and actual payoffs in social capital. First, leaders reported expecting disproportionately high payoffs from relatively small relationship investments prior to the disaster. Second, infrequent pre-disaster interactions were found to be no different than no prior interaction when looking at actual payoffs from these investments. Finally, relationships that were deemed most problematic were among those with weak ties. Overall, results suggest that the efficacy of pre-disaster relationship building is more complicated than one would expect based on extant literature. More investment in social capital may be better in some cases, but the benefits from these investments appear only after a certain threshold is met and, in some cases, may have diminishing returns. Potential theoretical drivers for these seemingly counter-intuitive findings are discussed while calling for further research to investigate these dynamics in other contexts.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"124 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143607864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fernando Deodato Domingos, Carolyn J Heinrich, Stéphane Saussier, Mehdi Shiva
This article investigates how the use of discretion in public-private contracts interplays with transactional complexity in influencing contract renegotiations. Motivations for contract renegotiations may be positive, negative (e.g., opportunistic), or neutral, and we argue that allowing discretion at the award stage may promote a more relational approach to contracting that fosters cooperation and productive adaptation. Using a dataset of 12,189 renegotiated contracts from the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) eProcurement platform—based on European Union public procurement directives—we apply regression analyses and propensity score matching to examine how contracts are awarded and renegotiated. Our findings suggest that contracts awarded with government discretion are associated with renegotiations that are viewed more positively and less likely to be perceived as opportunistic. However, this beneficial role for discretion appears to be mitigated by contract transactional complexity, making this a critical consideration in efforts to improve the governance of provider relationships and increase public value. By integrating insights from incomplete and relational contracting theories, this study contributes to the public administration and management literature by demonstrating how discretion and complexity jointly shape contract renegotiation dynamics, informing governance strategies that balance flexibility and accountability in public procurement.
{"title":"The Interplay of Discretion and Complexity in Public Contracting and Renegotiations","authors":"Fernando Deodato Domingos, Carolyn J Heinrich, Stéphane Saussier, Mehdi Shiva","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muaf004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf004","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates how the use of discretion in public-private contracts interplays with transactional complexity in influencing contract renegotiations. Motivations for contract renegotiations may be positive, negative (e.g., opportunistic), or neutral, and we argue that allowing discretion at the award stage may promote a more relational approach to contracting that fosters cooperation and productive adaptation. Using a dataset of 12,189 renegotiated contracts from the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) eProcurement platform—based on European Union public procurement directives—we apply regression analyses and propensity score matching to examine how contracts are awarded and renegotiated. Our findings suggest that contracts awarded with government discretion are associated with renegotiations that are viewed more positively and less likely to be perceived as opportunistic. However, this beneficial role for discretion appears to be mitigated by contract transactional complexity, making this a critical consideration in efforts to improve the governance of provider relationships and increase public value. By integrating insights from incomplete and relational contracting theories, this study contributes to the public administration and management literature by demonstrating how discretion and complexity jointly shape contract renegotiation dynamics, informing governance strategies that balance flexibility and accountability in public procurement.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143546133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sustaining collaboration over time is vital for its effectiveness and long-term success but presents challenges, especially for actors with capacity constraints. This study introduces “capacity tensions” as a central challenge in collaborative efforts, referring to the strain that arises when the capacity needed for effective engagement exceeds the capacity actors have available. This gap creates competing demands, as actors must balance what they can realistically contribute with what the collaboration needs to remain viable and successful. Focusing on a nonprofit collaboration that, despite ongoing capacity constraints, persisted with notable achievements, this study investigates how actors navigate and manage these tensions to sustain their efforts. By analyzing 165 interviews conducted over 11 rounds, participant observations, and archival documents from 2016 to 2020, this study identifies strategies of internal accommodation and external orientation. These strategies enabled actors to “hang in there” by assembling different contributions; tailoring work process; searching for relevant opportunities; and creating spin-off projects. Examining these strategies across three phases of collaboration over five years, this study proposes a process model that offers insights into sustaining effective collaboration despite capacity tensions. These findings provide valuable guidance for practitioners and scholars striving to build sustainable and resilient collaborations.
{"title":"Hang in there: Capacity constraints and processes of sustaining collaboration over time","authors":"Danbi Seo","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muaf003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf003","url":null,"abstract":"Sustaining collaboration over time is vital for its effectiveness and long-term success but presents challenges, especially for actors with capacity constraints. This study introduces “capacity tensions” as a central challenge in collaborative efforts, referring to the strain that arises when the capacity needed for effective engagement exceeds the capacity actors have available. This gap creates competing demands, as actors must balance what they can realistically contribute with what the collaboration needs to remain viable and successful. Focusing on a nonprofit collaboration that, despite ongoing capacity constraints, persisted with notable achievements, this study investigates how actors navigate and manage these tensions to sustain their efforts. By analyzing 165 interviews conducted over 11 rounds, participant observations, and archival documents from 2016 to 2020, this study identifies strategies of internal accommodation and external orientation. These strategies enabled actors to “hang in there” by assembling different contributions; tailoring work process; searching for relevant opportunities; and creating spin-off projects. Examining these strategies across three phases of collaboration over five years, this study proposes a process model that offers insights into sustaining effective collaboration despite capacity tensions. These findings provide valuable guidance for practitioners and scholars striving to build sustainable and resilient collaborations.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143071558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marta Micacchi, Maria Cucciniello, Benedetta Trivellato, Daniela Cristofoli, Alex Turrini, Giovanni Valotti, Greta Nasi
Robustness has recently taken center stage as an emerging paradigm to cope with turbulence and “build back better” toward new normalcy. Existing literature has shown how robust governance, with its mix of flexible adaptation and proactive innovation, is well-suited to addressing turbulence. However, there remains a gap in understanding the empirical variations within robust governance arrangements. In this article, we address three questions: how (1) structures, (2) coordination mechanisms, and (3) leadership are designed and unfold in robust governance. Through a qualitative approach grounded in case studies, interviews, and archival data, we provide evidence from six Italian regions, examining how they addressed the challenges of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Results enable the formulation of propositions about organizational arrangements in robust governance, in addition to suggesting competing pathways for flexible adaptation and proactive innovation.
{"title":"How to organize in turbulence: Arrangements and pathways for robust governance","authors":"Marta Micacchi, Maria Cucciniello, Benedetta Trivellato, Daniela Cristofoli, Alex Turrini, Giovanni Valotti, Greta Nasi","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae027","url":null,"abstract":"Robustness has recently taken center stage as an emerging paradigm to cope with turbulence and “build back better” toward new normalcy. Existing literature has shown how robust governance, with its mix of flexible adaptation and proactive innovation, is well-suited to addressing turbulence. However, there remains a gap in understanding the empirical variations within robust governance arrangements. In this article, we address three questions: how (1) structures, (2) coordination mechanisms, and (3) leadership are designed and unfold in robust governance. Through a qualitative approach grounded in case studies, interviews, and archival data, we provide evidence from six Italian regions, examining how they addressed the challenges of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Results enable the formulation of propositions about organizational arrangements in robust governance, in addition to suggesting competing pathways for flexible adaptation and proactive innovation.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142988827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following decades of incremental digital development, public agencies today are permeated by a plethora of digital systems and tools. Transcending the dominant focus on individual technologies in extant literature, this study introduces the concept of “digital layering” to capture the characteristics of this setting and develop a unique contextualized understanding of frontline work in the digital age. Drawing on extensive ethnographic fieldwork in The Danish Agricultural Agency and the Danish Tax Agency, the study shows that digital layering creates a context for frontline work characterized by the experience of complexity, fragmentation, and instability or fragility of digital technologies, which deeply affects both backstage tasks and public encounters. In response, frontline workers employ a range of compensatory practices in the organizational backstage, including workarounds, temporal flexibility and collaborative IT support, and take on new organizational roles as “digital janitors” and “digital liaisons” to fix errors and raise awareness of the consequences of higher-level decision-making on the ground. During public encounters, they avoid or take precautionary measures when using digital tools and engage in digital detective work on behalf of citizens. Conceptualized as “digital repair work”, these compensatory practices and roles are aimed at protecting professional and bureaucratic values such as efficiency, transparency, responsiveness, and trustworthiness. The study results in a novel theoretical framework to guide future inquiry into digital layering and its implications for (frontline) work and organizations, including employee well-being, the continued enactment of professional and bureaucratic values, and citizens’ trust in government.
{"title":"Inside the Digital State: Frontline Work in the Context of Digital Layering","authors":"Anne Mette Møller","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muaf001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf001","url":null,"abstract":"Following decades of incremental digital development, public agencies today are permeated by a plethora of digital systems and tools. Transcending the dominant focus on individual technologies in extant literature, this study introduces the concept of “digital layering” to capture the characteristics of this setting and develop a unique contextualized understanding of frontline work in the digital age. Drawing on extensive ethnographic fieldwork in The Danish Agricultural Agency and the Danish Tax Agency, the study shows that digital layering creates a context for frontline work characterized by the experience of complexity, fragmentation, and instability or fragility of digital technologies, which deeply affects both backstage tasks and public encounters. In response, frontline workers employ a range of compensatory practices in the organizational backstage, including workarounds, temporal flexibility and collaborative IT support, and take on new organizational roles as “digital janitors” and “digital liaisons” to fix errors and raise awareness of the consequences of higher-level decision-making on the ground. During public encounters, they avoid or take precautionary measures when using digital tools and engage in digital detective work on behalf of citizens. Conceptualized as “digital repair work”, these compensatory practices and roles are aimed at protecting professional and bureaucratic values such as efficiency, transparency, responsiveness, and trustworthiness. The study results in a novel theoretical framework to guide future inquiry into digital layering and its implications for (frontline) work and organizations, including employee well-being, the continued enactment of professional and bureaucratic values, and citizens’ trust in government.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142962807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Santiago Pulido-Gómez, Jorrit de Jong, Jan W Rivkin
The success of cross-sector collaborations (CSCs) in cities is mixed, and important questions remain about what distinguishes effective from ineffective collaborations. This comparative case study examined nine CSCs in three U.S. cities covering three public policy areas: education, economic development, and public safety. Nine group interviews, 110 individual interviews, and analysis of archival documents revealed common patterns, allowing us to build grounded theory about the roots of CSC success. We propose that how a collaboration responds to setbacks plays a crucial role. Success arises in collaborations that respond to setbacks with a process of mutual learning, in which participants come to anticipate each other’s actions, devise new ways of apportioning labor, and approach problems collectively. In contrast, failure follows when setbacks lead collaborations into a process of mutual blaming. No single mode of network governance is especially associated with success, but more successful collaborations tend to be characterized by adaptability concerning governance mode. Mutual learning appears to be facilitated by a few key actions: building on prior relationships, relying on trusted key participants, engaging with the community, using data to advantage, and investing in joint problem-solving. Our findings suggest that collaborative leaders in public, private, and nonprofit organizations should emphasize these key actions to enable collaboration and facilitate mutual learning.
{"title":"Cross-Sector Collaboration In Cities: Learning Journey Or Blame Game?","authors":"Santiago Pulido-Gómez, Jorrit de Jong, Jan W Rivkin","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae026","url":null,"abstract":"The success of cross-sector collaborations (CSCs) in cities is mixed, and important questions remain about what distinguishes effective from ineffective collaborations. This comparative case study examined nine CSCs in three U.S. cities covering three public policy areas: education, economic development, and public safety. Nine group interviews, 110 individual interviews, and analysis of archival documents revealed common patterns, allowing us to build grounded theory about the roots of CSC success. We propose that how a collaboration responds to setbacks plays a crucial role. Success arises in collaborations that respond to setbacks with a process of mutual learning, in which participants come to anticipate each other’s actions, devise new ways of apportioning labor, and approach problems collectively. In contrast, failure follows when setbacks lead collaborations into a process of mutual blaming. No single mode of network governance is especially associated with success, but more successful collaborations tend to be characterized by adaptability concerning governance mode. Mutual learning appears to be facilitated by a few key actions: building on prior relationships, relying on trusted key participants, engaging with the community, using data to advantage, and investing in joint problem-solving. Our findings suggest that collaborative leaders in public, private, and nonprofit organizations should emphasize these key actions to enable collaboration and facilitate mutual learning.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142936691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Several studies indicate that people are less compliant when they feel distrusted. This can pose a challenge for public administration, as some forms of control may signal distrust towards people and could undermine their motivation to comply. In this study, we question whether feeling distrusted is necessarily negative for compliance. In two experiments on tax compliance (N =239), we examine the case in which the individual is distrusted by the authority. Mediation analyses indicate that distrust reduces opportunism, and this is in turn associated with higher compliance. In a survey experiment on compliance with COVID-19 rules (N =590), we examine the case in which the individual’s group is distrusted by other members of society. A mediation analysis indicates that distrust increases opportunism, but only for participants who already see themselves as less compliant than average, and this is in turn associated with a lower willingness to comply in the near future. These findings challenge the notion that distrust necessarily leads to retaliation or negative reciprocity, and indicate that the cautious communication of distrust may even be positive in some cases.
{"title":"Compliance under distrust: Do people comply less when they feel distrusted?","authors":"Juan P Mendoza, Jacco L Wielhouwer","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae025","url":null,"abstract":"Several studies indicate that people are less compliant when they feel distrusted. This can pose a challenge for public administration, as some forms of control may signal distrust towards people and could undermine their motivation to comply. In this study, we question whether feeling distrusted is necessarily negative for compliance. In two experiments on tax compliance (N =239), we examine the case in which the individual is distrusted by the authority. Mediation analyses indicate that distrust reduces opportunism, and this is in turn associated with higher compliance. In a survey experiment on compliance with COVID-19 rules (N =590), we examine the case in which the individual’s group is distrusted by other members of society. A mediation analysis indicates that distrust increases opportunism, but only for participants who already see themselves as less compliant than average, and this is in turn associated with a lower willingness to comply in the near future. These findings challenge the notion that distrust necessarily leads to retaliation or negative reciprocity, and indicate that the cautious communication of distrust may even be positive in some cases.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142849105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae024","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":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142672910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","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：