Public Choice + Public Decision Making + Public Policy Making + Public Problem Solving + Public Organization = Public Administration

1971 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 689
Author(s):  
Ton van der Eyden
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Public Choice ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Public Organization ◽  
Public Policy Making ◽  
Public Decision ◽  
Public Decision Making

Doing less with less: The decline of american governments

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-458
Author(s):  
Raymond W. Cox ◽  
Tricia M. Ostertag
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Professional Competence ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Public Policy Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Effective Governance ◽  
Public Managers

Public administration has become the victim of its own success. Public policy making and problem solving during the first three decades after WWII began from an assumption that public managers had the competence to overcome policy barriers. The ʼdo more with less” slogan was a statement of professional competence. It was adopted because many believed it was an affirmation of that competence. Now it represents a fiscal demand as a scold to those who will otherwise waste the money. What the public hears is a perverse joke. The goal must be more effective governance, by approaching fiscal stability as a strategic enterprise. The potential tools for more effective services exist and are applied by governments across the globe. Yet the public clings to failed practices (NPM) that are best when dealing with short-term issues

scholarly journals Uncertainty in policy: implications for practice

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Germana Nicklin
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Complexity Theory ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Public Servants ◽  
Public Policy Making ◽  
Daily Work ◽  
The Social

Academics have been writing about uncertainty in public administration since the 1950s (Brown, 1978; Lindblom, 1959), and more recently complexity theory has provided tools for learning one’s way through uncertainty (Eppel, Turner and Wolf, 2011; Kurtz and Snowden, 2003). Uncertainty is different from change. Uncertainty arises from change, but it is also an effect of the social interactions engaged in by public servants going about their business, and of the environment they work in. Research on the way policy is practised provides a way to ‘understand how to conceive of public policy making in an uncertain world’ (Hajer and Laws, in Moran, Rein and Goodin, 2006, p.421). Within this field, the pervasiveness of the effects of uncertainty on the daily work of policy practitioners appears to have been given less attention than it deserves. 

scholarly journals A Survey of the Nexus between the Group Theory in Public Policy-Making; and Diplomacy and Diplomatic Practices; and Its Impact on International Public Administration

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 139-165
Author(s):  
Peter SAKWE MASUMBE
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Group Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Research Purpose ◽  
Public Policy Making ◽  
Realist Theory ◽  
Domain I

This article seeks to discern the nexus between the group theory in public policy-making in domestic politics; and diplomacy and diplomatic practices in international relations. Apparently, diplomacy and diplomatic practices, though strands of international relations, pivot on group theory’s doctrines. Herein, I argue that, there exist a nexus between the group theory, diplomacy and diplomatic practices, which fashions the character of international public administration. Given the literature dearth in this domain, I offer a framework based on Charles Lindblom’s Incrementalism and the Realist Theory to show how the nexus between the group theory of domestic politics; and diplomacy and diplomatic practices impacts international public administration. The research purpose is to boost deeper theoretical and empirical understanding of public administration, since the group theory aims at causing group equilibrium amongst competing groups in domestic politics;  while diplomacy promotes group’s (state)  interest (power) over another group’s (state) interest (power) in international politics.  

The Napoleonic Tradition in Public Administration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edoardo Ongaro
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
The State ◽  
Colonial Period ◽  
Public Accountability ◽  
Public Policy Making ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Administrative Tradition

The notion of administrative tradition represents one way of discussing the issue of whether and to what extent a number of countries (polities/jurisdictions) have a significant array of traits in common concerning their public administration. The notion of administrative tradition may enable the pursuit of a range of purposes, like the framing of comparison for purposes of advancing knowledge and the assessment of capacities for reforming and change. The notion of Napoleonic administrative tradition can be substantiated by identifying a distinct configuration along four dimens(ions: an organic conception of the state, with limited role for societal, non-co-opted actors in public policy-making; a career civil service, distinct from other occupations, furnishing a general-purpose elite for the state; a predominance of law over management in defining the fundamental tasks of administration, and uniformity of treatment of citizens as a basic value guiding administrative action; and the preeminence of law and a system of courts in enforcing public accountability. Jurisdictions that may be ascribed to the Napoleonic administrative tradition encompass five countries in Europe (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) as well as, more problematically, a number of countries which inherited the French model during the colonial period.

Pathways From Research Into Public Decision Making: Intermediaries as the Third Community

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58
Author(s):  
Kimberley R Isett ◽  
Diana Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Evidence Translation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Public Decision ◽  
Public Decision Making

Abstract Scholars and practitioners in public administration have often been referred to as the two communities, reflecting their differing incentives, constraints, and foci. In this paper, we examine the knowledge surrounding the use of empirical evidence in public decision making from both the academic and practice of policymaking literatures. After identifying points of convergence, we compare the important factors identified in each literature to four known cases of impact of empirical findings. We discuss how well each set of literature explains our cases and identify an important third community underidentified in the current conceptualizations of evidence translation—knowledge intermediaries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document