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}
Jan Boon, Jan Wynen, Koen Verhoest, Walter Daelemans, Jens Lemmens
Despite recurrent observations that media reputations of agencies matter to understand their reform experiences, no studies have theorized and tested the role of sentiment. This study uses novel and advanced BERT language models to detect attributions of responsibility for positive/negative outcomes in media coverage towards 14 Flemish (Belgian) agencies between 2000-2015 through supervised machine learning, and connects these data to the Belgian State Administration Database on the structural reforms these agencies experienced. Our results reflect an inverted U-shaped relationship: more negative reputations increase the reform likelihood of agencies, yet up to a certain point at which the reform likelihood drops again. Variations in positive and neutral reputational signals do not impact the reform likelihood of agencies. Our study contributes to understanding the role of reputation as an antecedent of structural reforms. Complementing and enriching existing perspectives, the paper shows how the sentiment in reputational signals accumulates and informs political-administrative decision-makers to engage in structural reforms.
尽管经常观察到媒体对机构声誉的报道对了解其改革经验很重要，但还没有研究对情感的作用进行理论分析和测试。本研究使用新颖、先进的 BERT 语言模型，通过监督机器学习检测 2000-2015 年间媒体对 14 个佛兰德（比利时）机构报道中正面/负面结果的责任归属，并将这些数据与比利时国家行政机构数据库中有关这些机构所经历的结构性改革的数据连接起来。我们的结果反映了一种倒 U 型关系：负面声誉越多，机构改革的可能性就越大，但到了一定程度，改革的可能性又会下降。正面和中性声誉信号的变化不会影响机构改革的可能性。我们的研究有助于理解声誉作为结构改革先决条件的作用。作为对现有观点的补充和丰富，本文展示了声誉信号中的情绪是如何累积起来并影响政治-行政决策者进行结构改革的。
{"title":"A reputational perspective on structural reforms: How media reputations are related to the structural reform likelihood of public agencies","authors":"Jan Boon, Jan Wynen, Koen Verhoest, Walter Daelemans, Jens Lemmens","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae023","url":null,"abstract":"Despite recurrent observations that media reputations of agencies matter to understand their reform experiences, no studies have theorized and tested the role of sentiment. This study uses novel and advanced BERT language models to detect attributions of responsibility for positive/negative outcomes in media coverage towards 14 Flemish (Belgian) agencies between 2000-2015 through supervised machine learning, and connects these data to the Belgian State Administration Database on the structural reforms these agencies experienced. Our results reflect an inverted U-shaped relationship: more negative reputations increase the reform likelihood of agencies, yet up to a certain point at which the reform likelihood drops again. Variations in positive and neutral reputational signals do not impact the reform likelihood of agencies. Our study contributes to understanding the role of reputation as an antecedent of structural reforms. Complementing and enriching existing perspectives, the paper shows how the sentiment in reputational signals accumulates and informs political-administrative decision-makers to engage in structural reforms.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642560","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}
Among the general public as well as in the scientific literature, administrative work is widely associated with heavy bureaucratic procedures that are disconnected from serving clients. Less is said and written about the importance of administrative work in delivering public service. Drawing on a relational theoretical approach and based on an ethnographic field study in two municipal child welfare units in Denmark (including 38 days of observations and 30 interviews), this study shows how administrative work plays three key functions in various accountability relations, and that these functions aid street-level bureaucrats in mastering the complexities of their work. The study offers a theoretical framework that delineates the functions of administrative work in complex street-level practice. By demonstrating how administrative work may contribute positively to fulfilling the purposes of street-level work, this study contributes to developing our understanding of administrative work as an invaluable part of street-level work and provides a more nuanced foundation for future studies on the virtues and issues of administrative work.
{"title":"Making Administrative Work Matter in Public Service Delivery: A Lens for Linking Practice with the Purpose of Office","authors":"Kirstine Karmsteen","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae022","url":null,"abstract":"Among the general public as well as in the scientific literature, administrative work is widely associated with heavy bureaucratic procedures that are disconnected from serving clients. Less is said and written about the importance of administrative work in delivering public service. Drawing on a relational theoretical approach and based on an ethnographic field study in two municipal child welfare units in Denmark (including 38 days of observations and 30 interviews), this study shows how administrative work plays three key functions in various accountability relations, and that these functions aid street-level bureaucrats in mastering the complexities of their work. The study offers a theoretical framework that delineates the functions of administrative work in complex street-level practice. By demonstrating how administrative work may contribute positively to fulfilling the purposes of street-level work, this study contributes to developing our understanding of administrative work as an invaluable part of street-level work and provides a more nuanced foundation for future studies on the virtues and issues of administrative work.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142574372","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}
Gendered burdens are experiences of coercive and controlling state actions that directly regulate gendered bodies, labor, and identity. It’s not simply about preventing access to rights and benefits, it’s about control and coercion. Gendered burdens generate gender inequality through four mechanisms. First, administrative burdens regulate reproductive bodies, legitimating the state’s direct control over reproductive health care, including abortions, with consequent implications for peoples’ health. Second, burdens require reproductive labor, shifting unpaid and underpaid reproductive labor onto women as the policies that support such labor tend to have high administrative burden that impede access. Third, gendered burdens restrict reproductive labor, impeding the right to provide such care labor with dignity, by exerting control over how, and sometimes whether, care is performed, including in rights-granting venues, like redistributive benefits, and rights-depriving venues, like the supervision of families by child protective services. Fourth, burdens regulate gendered identities, reinforcing heteronormative and cis-normative constructions of gender, including by directly controlling gender identification. While gendered burdens are not only experienced by women, they are most strongly applied to poor and racially marginalized groups of women. These claims provide a basis for public administration scholarship to connect with feminist theory by illustrating the centrality of administrative processes and related experiences to structural patterns of inequality.
{"title":"Gendered Administrative Burden: Regulating Gendered Bodies, Labor, and Identity","authors":"Pamela Herd, Donald Moynihan","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae021","url":null,"abstract":"Gendered burdens are experiences of coercive and controlling state actions that directly regulate gendered bodies, labor, and identity. It’s not simply about preventing access to rights and benefits, it’s about control and coercion. Gendered burdens generate gender inequality through four mechanisms. First, administrative burdens regulate reproductive bodies, legitimating the state’s direct control over reproductive health care, including abortions, with consequent implications for peoples’ health. Second, burdens require reproductive labor, shifting unpaid and underpaid reproductive labor onto women as the policies that support such labor tend to have high administrative burden that impede access. Third, gendered burdens restrict reproductive labor, impeding the right to provide such care labor with dignity, by exerting control over how, and sometimes whether, care is performed, including in rights-granting venues, like redistributive benefits, and rights-depriving venues, like the supervision of families by child protective services. Fourth, burdens regulate gendered identities, reinforcing heteronormative and cis-normative constructions of gender, including by directly controlling gender identification. While gendered burdens are not only experienced by women, they are most strongly applied to poor and racially marginalized groups of women. These claims provide a basis for public administration scholarship to connect with feminist theory by illustrating the centrality of administrative processes and related experiences to structural patterns of inequality.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142488740","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：