Environmental collaboration has become an increasingly common approach to the management of natural resources. Scholars and practitioners have tried to understand how collaborative structures impact performance using a multitude of single case studies and comparative studies. However, despite calls for the evaluation of collaborative performance, little quantitative research exists that explores the connections between collaborative structures and performance using a large sample for analysis. We address this gap by carrying out fixed effects analysis that examines the impact of several structural variations, including collaboration form, number and representational diversity of participants, and contributions of in-kind resources, on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative watershed projects in Oregon. The data for this project come from the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Our results indicate that collaboration form, participant numbers, and resource contributions affect cost-effectiveness, but representational diversity among participants does not. The findings from this paper can help sponsoring and implementing agencies execute collaborative projects more cost-effectively. They also indicate the need for additional research exploring the relationship between collaborative structures, outputs, and outcomes.
{"title":"Saving the Salmon: Examining the Cost-Effectiveness of Collaboration in Oregon","authors":"Qasim S. Mehdi, Tina Nabatchi","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Environmental collaboration has become an increasingly common approach to the management of natural resources. Scholars and practitioners have tried to understand how collaborative structures impact performance using a multitude of single case studies and comparative studies. However, despite calls for the evaluation of collaborative performance, little quantitative research exists that explores the connections between collaborative structures and performance using a large sample for analysis. We address this gap by carrying out fixed effects analysis that examines the impact of several structural variations, including collaboration form, number and representational diversity of participants, and contributions of in-kind resources, on the cost-effectiveness of collaborative watershed projects in Oregon. The data for this project come from the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Our results indicate that collaboration form, participant numbers, and resource contributions affect cost-effectiveness, but representational diversity among participants does not. The findings from this paper can help sponsoring and implementing agencies execute collaborative projects more cost-effectively. They also indicate the need for additional research exploring the relationship between collaborative structures, outputs, and outcomes.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42039726","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}
{"title":"Correction to: Why Are Counterfactual Assessment Methods Not Widespread in Outcome-Based Contracts? A Formal Model Approach","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac035","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42670613","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}
Jason A. Grissom, Jennifer Darling-Aduana, Richard Hall
A large body of research shows that clients of government services benefit from the presence of bureaucrats with whom they share race or ethnicity. These benefits arise from active or symbolic representation, which scholars argue are grounded in the shared backgrounds, language, and values that race and ethnicity proxy. We suggest that these shared connections are likely to be even more salient for clients and bureaucrats who share not just the same ethnicity but the same country of origin, and we look for evidence of representation based on country of origin in the context of public schools. Leveraging administrative and survey data from Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the fourth-largest school district in the United States, we employ regression models with school-by-year fixed effects to test for differences in test scores for students taught by a teacher with the same country of origin relative to similar students taught by other-origin teachers in the same school in the same year. We find that immigrant students with origin-matched teachers score modestly higher than their non-matched peers in both math and reading. These increases are most apparent among low-income students and those who are English learners. Patterns vary by immigrant students’ origin country.
{"title":"Country of Origin and Representative Bureaucracy","authors":"Jason A. Grissom, Jennifer Darling-Aduana, Richard Hall","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A large body of research shows that clients of government services benefit from the presence of bureaucrats with whom they share race or ethnicity. These benefits arise from active or symbolic representation, which scholars argue are grounded in the shared backgrounds, language, and values that race and ethnicity proxy. We suggest that these shared connections are likely to be even more salient for clients and bureaucrats who share not just the same ethnicity but the same country of origin, and we look for evidence of representation based on country of origin in the context of public schools. Leveraging administrative and survey data from Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the fourth-largest school district in the United States, we employ regression models with school-by-year fixed effects to test for differences in test scores for students taught by a teacher with the same country of origin relative to similar students taught by other-origin teachers in the same school in the same year. We find that immigrant students with origin-matched teachers score modestly higher than their non-matched peers in both math and reading. These increases are most apparent among low-income students and those who are English learners. Patterns vary by immigrant students’ origin country.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49423786","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}
Aasa Karimo, Paul M. Wagner, A. Delicado, James Goodman, A. Gronow, M. Lahsen, Tze-luen Lin, V. Schneider, Keiichi Satoh, L. Schmidt, Sun-Jin Yun, Tuomas Ylä‐Anttila
Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in eleven countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.
{"title":"Shared positions on divisive beliefs explain interorganizational collaboration: Evidence from climate change policy subsystems in eleven countries","authors":"Aasa Karimo, Paul M. Wagner, A. Delicado, James Goodman, A. Gronow, M. Lahsen, Tze-luen Lin, V. Schneider, Keiichi Satoh, L. Schmidt, Sun-Jin Yun, Tuomas Ylä‐Anttila","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in eleven countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47453001","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}
Innovation in public services is propelled by collaborations between public actors, private actors and service users. A substantial literature has centered on the benefits of user involvement in public services, but how user involvement can stimulate collaborative innovation is still largely unknown. This article develops and tests a theoretical framework based on the combined effect of 1) the empowerment of users, 2) specialized knowledge of the users, and 3) the absence of hindering rules and procedures. Data from 19 public-private eHealth collaborations in five European countries, collected through 132 interviews and 124 surveys, are analyzed through fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), and the results indicate that innovation in these partnerships is influenced by the combined effect of these conditions, but that this combined effect is also contingent on the roles the users adopt in the innovation process.
{"title":"User involvement as a catalyst for collaborative public service innovation","authors":"Chesney Callens","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Innovation in public services is propelled by collaborations between public actors, private actors and service users. A substantial literature has centered on the benefits of user involvement in public services, but how user involvement can stimulate collaborative innovation is still largely unknown. This article develops and tests a theoretical framework based on the combined effect of 1) the empowerment of users, 2) specialized knowledge of the users, and 3) the absence of hindering rules and procedures. Data from 19 public-private eHealth collaborations in five European countries, collected through 132 interviews and 124 surveys, are analyzed through fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), and the results indicate that innovation in these partnerships is influenced by the combined effect of these conditions, but that this combined effect is also contingent on the roles the users adopt in the innovation process.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41704142","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 combination of the high workload associated with keeping top executive branch positions filled and political dysfunction has led to longer and more frequent periods of vacancies in the U.S. executive branch. While scholars commonly claim that such vacancies are harmful for performance, this claim has been difficult to evaluate because of theoretical disagreement, conceptual confusion, and measurement challenges. In this paper we evaluate the relationship between vacancies and performance, describing primary mechanisms by which vacancies (as opposed to turnover) influence performance. We conduct a cross-sectional study using new data on appointee vacancies during the Trump Administration and original performance data from a 2020 survey of federal executives. The Survey on the Future of Government Service includes questions designed to measure comparative self-reported agency performance and questions targeting the mechanisms hypothesized to link vacancies and performance. The paper includes efforts to define and validate the measure of performance, assess the directionality of the relationship between vacancies and performance, control for potential confounders that may explain both vacancies and performance, and evaluate the mechanisms by which vacancies negatively affect performance. The results from OLS models suggest that persistent vacancies are correlated with lower performance. In particular, agencies with persistent vacancies (e.g., 3-4 years) have performance ratings of about one standard deviation lower than those agencies with consistent confirmed leadership. The most likely mechanisms leading to these results are the effect of vacancies on leader time horizons, agency morale, and investment by key stakeholders. We conclude with implications for appointment politics and administrative politicization
{"title":"Do Vacancies Hurt Federal Agency Performance?","authors":"C. Piper, D. Lewis","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The combination of the high workload associated with keeping top executive branch positions filled and political dysfunction has led to longer and more frequent periods of vacancies in the U.S. executive branch. While scholars commonly claim that such vacancies are harmful for performance, this claim has been difficult to evaluate because of theoretical disagreement, conceptual confusion, and measurement challenges. In this paper we evaluate the relationship between vacancies and performance, describing primary mechanisms by which vacancies (as opposed to turnover) influence performance. We conduct a cross-sectional study using new data on appointee vacancies during the Trump Administration and original performance data from a 2020 survey of federal executives. The Survey on the Future of Government Service includes questions designed to measure comparative self-reported agency performance and questions targeting the mechanisms hypothesized to link vacancies and performance. The paper includes efforts to define and validate the measure of performance, assess the directionality of the relationship between vacancies and performance, control for potential confounders that may explain both vacancies and performance, and evaluate the mechanisms by which vacancies negatively affect performance. The results from OLS models suggest that persistent vacancies are correlated with lower performance. In particular, agencies with persistent vacancies (e.g., 3-4 years) have performance ratings of about one standard deviation lower than those agencies with consistent confirmed leadership. The most likely mechanisms leading to these results are the effect of vacancies on leader time horizons, agency morale, and investment by key stakeholders. We conclude with implications for appointment politics and administrative politicization","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46207598","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 article analyzes the assumptions and logic of the Programa Mulheres Mil (Thousand Women Program) in Brazil, observing the formation of the network of actors involved and the programs’ instruments. The study used qualitative research, guided by critical discourse analysis. The results help to understand that the logic of the problem – connecting poverty to a lack of education and unfair training opportunities – contributed to justifying and legitimizing the policy instrument. The program’s unexpected effects are closely related to the social construction of women. Based on the methodology, its rules are mechanisms supporting and maintaining the inequalities and asymmetrical power relations observed within the program. Therefore, although the program has a relevant role for social inclusion, it presents significant limitations regarding gender equity and the promotion of social justice, which requires a serious political debate on the initiative’s effects, challenges, and opportunities. The PMM is a compensatory policy designed to develop and disseminate an instrument with assumptions and logic that operate more as a self-legitimation strategy than an integrated solution to public services. We suggest following the beneficiaries’ life project and adopting a structure separated into modules as strategies to overcome the challenges observed in this research. A structure based on modules would meet the needs of women who desire educational inclusion, offering the possibility of education leveling so those who want can continue schooling.
{"title":"The Discursive Construction of the Thousand Women Program in Brazil","authors":"Elisabete Corcetti, Susane Petinelli Souza","doi":"10.5539/par.v11n2p7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5539/par.v11n2p7","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the assumptions and logic of the Programa Mulheres Mil (Thousand Women Program) in Brazil, observing the formation of the network of actors involved and the programs’ instruments. The study used qualitative research, guided by critical discourse analysis. The results help to understand that the logic of the problem – connecting poverty to a lack of education and unfair training opportunities – contributed to justifying and legitimizing the policy instrument. The program’s unexpected effects are closely related to the social construction of women. Based on the methodology, its rules are mechanisms supporting and maintaining the inequalities and asymmetrical power relations observed within the program. Therefore, although the program has a relevant role for social inclusion, it presents significant limitations regarding gender equity and the promotion of social justice, which requires a serious political debate on the initiative’s effects, challenges, and opportunities. The PMM is a compensatory policy designed to develop and disseminate an instrument with assumptions and logic that operate more as a self-legitimation strategy than an integrated solution to public services. We suggest following the beneficiaries’ life project and adopting a structure separated into modules as strategies to overcome the challenges observed in this research. A structure based on modules would meet the needs of women who desire educational inclusion, offering the possibility of education leveling so those who want can continue schooling.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80181401","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}
Studies on public organization reform have convincingly demonstrated the relevance of media salience for administrative reorganization. However, an understanding of how different media reputation dimensions influence government decisions to terminate administrative agencies is required. This study combined insights from bureaucratic reputation and agency termination theories to determine if media reputation dimensions (performative, moral, procedural, and technical) increase the probability of agency survival. These findings were based on advanced machine learning coding of 4,95,384 articles on 449 central agencies in China published in the People’s Daily from 1949 to 2019. Event history analyses and piecewise constant exponential models revealed that media salience significantly and negatively influenced agency termination probability. The procedural dimension consistently mitigated agency termination risk, and the moral and performative dimensions only periodically mitigated agency termination risk. The findings suggested that the appearance in the media and specific reputation dimensions were critical for agency survival. In addition, agencies should strategically manage their media reputation to meet the expectations of multifaceted audiences and decrease the risk of agency termination.
{"title":"Reputation Management and Administrative Reorganization: How Different Media Reputation Dimensions Matter for Agency Termination","authors":"Sicheng Chen, Tom Christensen, Liang Ma","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Studies on public organization reform have convincingly demonstrated the relevance of media salience for administrative reorganization. However, an understanding of how different media reputation dimensions influence government decisions to terminate administrative agencies is required. This study combined insights from bureaucratic reputation and agency termination theories to determine if media reputation dimensions (performative, moral, procedural, and technical) increase the probability of agency survival. These findings were based on advanced machine learning coding of 4,95,384 articles on 449 central agencies in China published in the People’s Daily from 1949 to 2019. Event history analyses and piecewise constant exponential models revealed that media salience significantly and negatively influenced agency termination probability. The procedural dimension consistently mitigated agency termination risk, and the moral and performative dimensions only periodically mitigated agency termination risk. The findings suggested that the appearance in the media and specific reputation dimensions were critical for agency survival. In addition, agencies should strategically manage their media reputation to meet the expectations of multifaceted audiences and decrease the risk of agency termination.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45548678","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}
Climate change can bring about large-scale irreversible physical impacts and systemic changes in the operating environment of public organizations. Research on preconditions for organizational adaptation to climate change has produced two parallel lines of inquiry, one focusing on macro-level norms, rules and expectations and the other on meso-level culture, design and structure within the organization. Drawing on the meta-theory of institutional logics, this study proposes a configurational approach to link institutionally aware top managers with the combination and reconciliation of macro- and meso-level logics. We identify government authority, professionalism and market as macro-level institutional logics, and risk-based logic and capacity-based logic as critical meso-level institutional logics. Our theory proposes that 1) the macro- and meso-level institutional logics co-exist in systematic ways as to produce identifiable configurations, 2) the configurations are differentially associated with climate adaptation, and 3) the effects of each logic differ across the configurations. Using a 2019 national survey on approximately 1000 top managers in the largest U.S. transit agencies, we apply confirmatory factor analysis and laten profile analysis to identify three distinct clusters: forerunner, complacent and market-oriented. Only the forerunner cluster is adaptive to climate change, while the two others are maladaptive. Findings from the multigroup structural equation modeling also demonstrate varied effects of each institutional logic on adaptation across the clusters, confirming institutional work at play to reconcile and integrate co-existing and potential contradictory logics.
{"title":"Explaining Public Organization Adaptation to Climate Change: Configurations of Macro- and Meso-Level Institutional Logics","authors":"Fengxiu Zhang, E. Welch","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Climate change can bring about large-scale irreversible physical impacts and systemic changes in the operating environment of public organizations. Research on preconditions for organizational adaptation to climate change has produced two parallel lines of inquiry, one focusing on macro-level norms, rules and expectations and the other on meso-level culture, design and structure within the organization. Drawing on the meta-theory of institutional logics, this study proposes a configurational approach to link institutionally aware top managers with the combination and reconciliation of macro- and meso-level logics. We identify government authority, professionalism and market as macro-level institutional logics, and risk-based logic and capacity-based logic as critical meso-level institutional logics. Our theory proposes that 1) the macro- and meso-level institutional logics co-exist in systematic ways as to produce identifiable configurations, 2) the configurations are differentially associated with climate adaptation, and 3) the effects of each logic differ across the configurations. Using a 2019 national survey on approximately 1000 top managers in the largest U.S. transit agencies, we apply confirmatory factor analysis and laten profile analysis to identify three distinct clusters: forerunner, complacent and market-oriented. Only the forerunner cluster is adaptive to climate change, while the two others are maladaptive. Findings from the multigroup structural equation modeling also demonstrate varied effects of each institutional logic on adaptation across the clusters, confirming institutional work at play to reconcile and integrate co-existing and potential contradictory logics.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42980493","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 impacts of money in US politics have long been debated. Building on principal-agent models, we test whether and to what degree companies’ political donations lead to their favoured treatment in federal procurement. We expect the impact of donations on favouritism to vary by the strength of control by political principals over their bureaucratic agents. We compile a comprehensive dataset of published federal contracts and registered campaign contributions for 2004-2015. We develop risk indices capturing tendering practices and outcomes likely characterised by favouritism. Using fixed effects regressions, matching, and regression discontinuity analyses, we find confirming evidence for our theory. A large increase in donations from 10,000 USD to 5 million USD increases favouritism risks by about 1/4th standard deviation. These effects are largely partisan, with firms donating to the party that holds the presidency showing higher risk. Donations influence favouritism risks most in less independent agencies: the same donation increases the risk of favouritism by an additional 1/3rd standard deviation in agencies least insulated from politics. Exploiting sign-off thresholds, we demonstrate that donating contractors are subject to less scrutiny by political appointees.
{"title":"Agency independence, campaign contributions, and favouritism in US federal government contracting","authors":"Mihály Fazekas, Romain Ferrali, Johannes Wachs","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muac026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The impacts of money in US politics have long been debated. Building on principal-agent models, we test whether and to what degree companies’ political donations lead to their favoured treatment in federal procurement. We expect the impact of donations on favouritism to vary by the strength of control by political principals over their bureaucratic agents. We compile a comprehensive dataset of published federal contracts and registered campaign contributions for 2004-2015. We develop risk indices capturing tendering practices and outcomes likely characterised by favouritism. Using fixed effects regressions, matching, and regression discontinuity analyses, we find confirming evidence for our theory. A large increase in donations from 10,000 USD to 5 million USD increases favouritism risks by about 1/4th standard deviation. These effects are largely partisan, with firms donating to the party that holds the presidency showing higher risk. Donations influence favouritism risks most in less independent agencies: the same donation increases the risk of favouritism by an additional 1/3rd standard deviation in agencies least insulated from politics. Exploiting sign-off thresholds, we demonstrate that donating contractors are subject to less scrutiny by political appointees.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45092412","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：