Sowa and Lu - Policy Management Considering PM Relationship Policy Studies - 2016

Machine Translated by Google
bs_bs_banner
The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2017
Policy and Management: Considering Public

Management and Its Relationship to Policy Studies
Jessica E. Sowa and Jiahuan Lu
As part of this special issue, this article explores the relationship of public management research
to the study of public policy and the policy process. Beginning with a review of the study of public
management, this article then examines some current big questions in public management, with
a focus on where these questions intersect with policy studies. This article concludes with several
recommendations for fostering cross-field research.
KEY WORDS: public management, policy studies, nexus
Introduction
Understanding and drawing the boundaries around a body of knowledge can

be a challenging endeavor (Frederickson, 1999; Fuller, 1991). Within public
administration, scholars have devoted significant attention to the question of bound
aries, examining what public administration is, the question of whether public
administration1 is a discipline or a field of study, an art or a science, debating the
lack of and/or the need for a paradigm within public administration, and whether
this overall definitional or boundary question is even worth answering (Goodnow,
1900; Lynn, 1996; Ostrom, 1989; Raadschelders, 1999; Riccucci, 2010; Waldo,
1955).2 Public administration is a field informed by many areas of study (including
but not limited to political science, organizational studies, sociology, and economics),
drawing on many different theories to understand how the will of the state is
transformed from expression to execution (Goodnow, 1900 , pp. 9–13), and
explored through many diverse research methods (Perry & Kraemer, 1986;
Raadschelders & Lee, 2011; Riccucci, 2010). These challenges have led many to
conclude (or at least reconcile with) the fact that an overarching theory or single
approach to public administration may never be achieved and perhaps would even
be limiting to this robust area of study and practice (see Riccucci, 2010, for a very useful summa
Further complicating this discussion of boundaries is the growth of prominent
subfields within public administration. Public management is one such area of
interest for scholars concerned with how government (and governance in more recent
74
0190-292X VC 2016 Policy Studies Organization
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ.
Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 75
parlance) works, leading to questions of where this body of knowledge nests within
the larger study of public administration. The differing perspectives on what is public
law management are explored later, but one definition is “the process of ensuring
that the allocation and use of resources available to the government are directed
towards the achievement of lawful public policy goals” (Hill & Lynn, 2009 , p.10).
Some scholars treat public administration and public management as synonymous
where others view public management as a distinct area of study within public
administration (Lynn, 2006). Whatever the point of view one holds, public
administration and public management are both concerned with how government
seeks to create public value through problem solving, regulation, and improving the
well-being of its cities. The differentiation between the two (to the degree that there
is actually any), which is addressed later, remains a contested area of debate.
While the public administration/public management boundary line is far from
settled (and probably will not be resolved definitively any time soon), as public man
agement continues to grow in interest and wealth, as with any area of study, it is
useful for scholars to take a step back and evaluate the path of development and
the future trajectory of an area of study. In addition, considering the intersection of
a field of study with others that inform it within a larger discipline can help ensure
that critical connections are captured and the richest set of theories and perspectives
are brought to bear in answering the field's questions. Drawing on seminal reviews
of public management (including but not limited to Behn, 1995; Hill & Lynn, 2009;
Lynn, 1996, 2006), this article examines public management in the new millennium,
with a focus on some of the central questions examined today and where public
management intersects with one of the most prominent areas of research concerned
with how the state accomplishes its goals and how other interested actors,
institutions, and stakeholders influence governance—public policy process research
and overall policy studies.3 Scholars of public management will be well served to
consider how their research aligns with that of scholars in policy studies, as we
are all considering the question of how to accomplish public policy goals and what
constitutes and leads to effective governance when we consider the policy process;
we just may be coming at it from different directions. In addition, as public
management is one of the primary ways by which policy ideas are turned into
action, failing to incorporate public man agement research into policy studies would
leave a significant gap in the research base. As part of this larger special issue, we
hope that by discussing what public management is and its connections with policy
studies, this could create a rich dia logue for these two sets of scholars to begin
exploring the connections or nexus between these areas of study.
This article has three sections. We first begin with a discussion of public man
agement, drawing on seminal past examinations and focusing on definitional
questions of what is public management. We also briefly examine how various
traditions of research in public management align with policy studies, opening the
door for improved connections. Recognizing that no one summary can
comprehensively capture a large area of study, we then turn to the question of what
are some of the major areas of focus or interest in public management research
76 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1
today, discussing a selection of the questions being explored as public manage

ment transitions into the new millennium. As we explore these questions, we con
sider the nexus of these questions with the field of policy studies, reflecting on how
public management intersects with this field and provides a different lens on how
to accomplish the goals of public policy. Finally, we conclude with proposing some
themes and actions for future research that could bring together policy studies and
public management scholars to generate conversation and cross pollination to
further the lofty goals of empirical research designed to help further the goals and
purposes of government and governance.
What Is Public Management?
To explore public management, it is first important to focus on definition and

core concepts, including where there is consensus and where there is disagreement.
There is no single, overarching definition of what is public management upon which
scholars have agreed; in fact, Kettl and Milward (1996, p. vii) argue “public
management has long been a field in search of structure. Its scholars and
practitioners know what it is not.” While public management draws on ideas from a
number of disciplines and fields of study, incorporating theories of institutions,
management, individual and group decision making, and democracy, the challenge
of narrowing in on the exact boundaries of public management has resulted in a
variety of perspectives.
The important question is first to differentiate (to the degree possible) between
public administration and public management. There are a number of scholars who
maintain that the difference between public management and public administration
does not really exist, that we can consider the study of how we accomplish the
work of government as a combination of public administration and management
(see Lynn, 2005, 2006, for a discussion of these perspectives). From this
perspective, public lic management is more a subset of questions or a subfield of
research within public administration. For example, Rosenbloom (1983) described
managerial, political, and legal dimensions of public administration. In this way,
public management represents increased attention to the managerial side of public
administration. However, others have maintained public management differs from
public administration in its focus on leadership and results as opposed to
administration as a more stable and maintenance focused approach to how
government workers go about accomplishing their work (see Hood, 2005, for a
discussion of this ). Finally, others differentiate public management from public
administration on the basis of the nature of inquiry in public management, with the
focus being on empirical work designed to provide evidence on how we do the work
of government as opposed to more normative discussions of what is the role of
public administration in the operation and maintenance of the state (see Riccucci,
2010, for a discussion of this).4,5 This debate is by no means resolved, but for the purposes of th
management a subset of research within public administration, similar to how policy studies is
considered by many as a subset of research within political science (Sabatier, 1991).
Core Concepts
There are many definitions of public management, each of which surface a number of
core concepts that have structured or focused the research in this area of study (see Hill &
Lynn, 2009; Hood, 2005; Lynn, 2006, for systematic reviews of many definitions). For the
purposes of this discussion, there are three definitions that guide this review and one larger
set of questions that inform where and how we consider major trends in public management
research. First, Frederickson, Smith, Larimer, and Licari (2012, p. 100) define public
management as having an emphasis on how public managers operate, stating:
Public management is taken to mean the formal and informal processes of guiding
human interaction towards public organizational objectives. The units of analysis are
processes of interaction between managers and workers and the effects of
management behavior on workers and work outcomes.
With this definition, there is an emphasis on the public manager and those engaged in the
activities of public administration. Those doing the work—the individuals on the front line and
those managing them, and the subsequent interactions and relationships between these actors
are central to determining public management outcomes. This focus raises questions of what
shapes how public managers do their work; how do we get those on the ground to work
towards the achievement of the goals of public agencies; and what aspect of management,
leadership, and overall motivational forces lead to the most effective outcomes for public
organizations (Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2009; Tummers, Bekkers, Vink, & Musheno,
2015; Van Wart, 2013; Wright , 2001). In this sense, public management is about what hap
pens after the policy process has played out for a cycle, although public management can
inform and feedback into the policy process to make policy changes.
This definition also captures the important distinctions between public management and
policy research focused on implementation. While much policy research does examine the
activities of those involved in turning policy ideas into programs on the ground, a fundamental
question associated with policy process and implementation is did the policy work—did it
accomplish its specified goals (Cline, 2000; deLeon & deLeon, 2002; Mischen & Sinclair,
2009). Public management focuses more on how the workers experience their work, what
shapes their behavior, and how this behavior operates over time (see Sandfort, 2000; Riccucci,
2005, for examples). While the outcomes of the work (and the resulting impacts on the
assessment of policy success) are a component of this, it is a different focus from policy
studies, as it is about understanding how the outcomes come about versus whether the policy
worked. In
This way, this definition of public management adds a personnel dimension to the
policy process to examine how to turn policy ideas into desired outcomes, helping
open the black box in the policy process and trying to understand what happens
when policy ideas are handed over to those who do the implementation. Therefore,
this definition of public management aligns mostly with policy implementation studies.
In particular, this definition approximates top-down and bottom-up approaches of
implementation studies, both emphasizing the roles of high-ranking public officials,
front-line workers, and their interactions in shaping policy goals and influencing
governance outcomes.
A second useful definition is one put forward by Bozeman (1993, p. xiii), who
argues “public management research involves a focus on strategy (rather than on
man agerial processes), on interorganizational relations (rather than
intraorganizational relations), and on the intersection of public policy and
management.” This definition builds on and also challenges the previous definition;
it is useful in that it highlights some of the newer directions of public management
research. Public management, while about accomplishing the objectives of
government, has recognized that these objectives are not solely accomplished
through public organizations or even single organizational actors (Milward & Provan,
2000; O'Toole, 1997; Thomson & Perry, 2006). Therefore, public management,
while examining what happens within organizational boundaries, has broadened as
a field of study and also must include a strategic focus on the relations across
organizations and include other players and stakeholders in the administration of government pol
This definition is also important for the purposes of this article, as it specifically
emphasizes the intersection or nexus between public policy and management.
Public management is strongly shaped by public policy, with all its conflict, ambiguity,
competing values, and politics. Failing to account for how public policy influences
public management misses part of the picture. Where the previous definition aligned
with policy implementation studies, this definition of public management could
connect public management research with policy process research focused on how
actors of various forms work together to foster policy learning and change, such as
the research under the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).
Where public managers fit into this policy process, how they strategically
communicate what has been learned on the ground, has an important role in policy
process research. It can shape numerous parts of the policy process, including but
not limited to how policies are designed, how coalitions are formed, and as a
possible venue for policy entrepreneurs (Petridou, 2014). This definition suggests
that in order to achieve desired policy goals, public managers and policymakers
need to take a more strategic perspective to approach policy problems that government needs to
This could include such aspects as bringing together relevant actors not only within
traditional government boundaries but also across sectors, managing
interorganizational and intersectoral relationships at boundaries throughout the
policy process, and using public management activities to foster policy learning and
inform decision making in a new cycle of the policy process or to influence policy change.
Earlier, we included a definition of public management put forward by Hill and
Lynn (2009, p. 10); they expand on this definition beyond how resources are
converted into the achievement of public goals, stating “this definition sees the
public lic manager as both creatures—of politics, law, structures, and roles—and
creator—of strategies, capacity, and results.” Therefore, in fully understanding public
management, we need to explore the actions of public managers; the environments
and structures in which these managers operate; and how people, structures, politics,
laws, and strategies interrelate to hopefully produce public value. Compared with the
previous two definitions, this one defines public management in a more system atic
way. According to this definition, public management includes a personnel and a
strategic dimension, but puts these together in a larger system of resources,
strategies, and other components necessary to achieve legitimate policy goals. In
sum, the value of this definition is that it builds on the previous two and provides a
more comprehensive understanding of public management. Another reason why this
definition is useful in the discussion here is that this definition intersects heavily with
policy research. From a policy perspective, in order to achieve specific goals, policy
entrepreneurs need to mobilize necessary resources and move them towards policy
ends (Kingdon, 1984). In this way, public management and policy studies can be
mutually enhancing and we rely on this definition in later discussion on the nexus
between public management and policy studies.
The three definitions of public management are not mutually exclusive, but
complementary. The first definition emphasizes a vertical dimension of public
manage ment; That is, public management needs to pay attention to personnel
issues and align public managers and front-line workers in program administration
and policy implementation. The second definition suggests a horizontal dimension;
That is, pub lic management needs to take a strategic perspective to align
stakeholders within and beyond government boundaries in the policy cycle. The third
definition pro poses a holistic approach; that is, public management needs a system
to aggregate resources necessary to the achievement of desired policy goals. In
sum, all three definitions advance our understanding of public management and
inform its nexus with policy studies.
Hill and Lynn (2009) provide a useful framework through which to examine public
management, detailing three dimensions for understanding the multiplicity of research
encompassed under public management: (i) structure, (ii) culture, and (iii) craft.6 We
draw upon these dimensions when discussing much of the past research in public
management and therefore are strongly influenced by Hill and Lynn's (2009) work in
classifying and organizing the rich body of knowledge in public management.
structure
The role of structure in public management has been a central question. How
the activities and actions of public management are organized and structured and
what this organization means in terms of influencing the overall outcomes of
government mental action has led the field since its inception (Andrews, Boyne, &
Walker, 2011; Bozeman, 2004; Moulton , 2009; Nutt, 1999; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Pesch, 2008). Hi
and Lynn (2009, p. 48) define structure as “lawfully authorized delegation to

administrative officials of the authority and responsibility to take action on the behalf
of policy and program objectives.” Questions of structure in public management
include the public versus private debate, the study of organizational design and the
capacity of public service organizations to accomplish public policy objectives, and
a growing focus on inter-organizational structures and arrangements and of the use
of alternative policy tools and structures to accomplish public policy objectives.
The question of how public management and public organizations differ from
other organizations has been a continuing avenue of inquiry in public management.
There are numerous studies comparing public versus private organizations along
many dimensions to understand the differences in operations and outcomes (see
Boyne, 2002; Rainey, Backoff, & Levine, 1976; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000, for just a
few examples of this large body of research). In addition, as nonprofit organizations
are increasingly involved in the business of government and the administrative state,
these studies have expanded to include nonprofits as an additional comparison
group (eg, Goulet & Frank, 2002; Houston, 2006).
Others have examined this as not a public versus private question, but more on
how the state acts on organizations—that the appropriate way to consider this
structural question is the degree to which an organization is public, with “publicness”
conceptualized more as a continuum versus a dichotomous variable (Bozeman,
2004; Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1994; Bozeman & Moulton, 2011). Growing from
an initial set of research put forward by Bozeman (2004), scholars continue to
examine this question and what publicness means for public management in terms
of shaping the design of government and governance, the actions of public
managers, and the out comes of public policy (eg, Antonsen & Jorgensen, 1997; Moulton & Ecker
In addition to the question of organizational differences in structures, scholars have
also examined how structure influences the operation and actions of public
managers, how public managers in turn influence structure, and the results of
organization actions in the public service (Fernandez & Rainey , 2006; Sandfort,
1999, 2003; Wright & Pandey, 2009). This is one area in which structure, culture,
and craft intersect, as structure is not purely constituted and acting on public
managers—this relationship is complex and iterative in practice.
When considering structure in public management, scholars have also focused
on the question of organizational design from the perspective of the resources and
capacity provided to public managers, with an eye on what this means for public
value and public outcomes (Hill & Lynn, 2009). . How do we know the best ways to
design organizations to enable public managers to be able to do their jobs well and
serve the public and the public interest? Are there reforms or changes that could be
made to the design of organizations involved in the public service to improve how
they operate? What are the ways in which organizational structures create particular
practices that influence how resources are used, such as budgeting practices and
per sonnel practices (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005; Selden, 2009)? How do we
define the capacity of public managers and public management and relate that
capacity to pub lic outcomes (see Ingraham, Joyce, & Donahue, 2003)?7
Finally, the question of structure has considerably broadened as government

moved away from public organizations as the sole method of achieving public out
comes to encompassing a multiplicity of policy tools, other organizational actors,
and inter-organizational arrangements to accomplish the overall objectives of gov
ernment (Salamon, 2002; Schneider & Ingram, 1990). Often referred to as the “new
governance” and well captured by Salamon (2002), public management in its current
status includes the use of nonprofit organizations to deliver public services; the use
of tools that encourage individual choice on the part of the public, such as vouchers
and tax incentives or expenditures; and the larger question of exposing public man
agement to market mechanisms through the use of competitive contracting and
privatization. Many of the government tools discussed in public management are
essentially the policy tools or instruments discussed in policy studies. The form and
method of this privatization includes many different sets of research, but the overall
importance of this for public management is the recognition that the structural
dimension of public management has moved far beyond the classic bureaucratic
organizational form to include many different structural arrangements and many
different questions associated with how we should structure public management
activities and processes to accomplish public policy outcomes.8 Indeed, all these
tools are also under policy scholars' study. In this way, both public management and
policy studies scholars could collaborate to help us understand what these tools are,
the assumptions underlying how they work, and the context under which a tool is used.
In considering the structural dimension of public management research and how
it intersects with policy studies, we find at least two things emerge. First, how can
public managers appropriately design organizational components that could facilitate
effective policymaking and implementation? Can structures be designed that both
improve implementation but also allow for feedback and learning from public
management to flow back into the policy process? Second, how can policy makers
appropriately structure the entire policy process in a way that could bring in multiple
actors within and outside government boundaries and encourage their with
continuous engagement, as a response to the rise of “new governance” in public
man agement? Questions of structure are not just questions of administration and
management—structure facilitates or impedes implementation; structure is influenced
by policymakers and public managers; and structures can be inclusive or exclusive,
bringing in new actors to improve policy making and implementation or keeping
them out of the process.
Culture
While structure is important, public management does not operate in a vacuum.

Scholars have long since moved from the view of management as operating a
closed system and recognize that management is strongly influenced by
environments, institutional rules, and values. Hill and Lynn (2009, p. 192) describe
the cultural component or dimension of public management as “the values, beliefs,
ethics, and motives of individual participants in addition to the shared norms and
understandings that broadly characterize the organization or its subunits.” The

question of how culture influences public management has focused on such
aspects as how to ensure that public managers act in the public interest, what
values should be reflected in public management, what drives public managers,
and how culture influences the overall outcomes of public management (Hill & Lynn, 2009).
The cultural dimension can include the many studies of accountability in public
management. As Kettl (1996) argues, Americans have an inherent culture of
examining not only whether government actions work, but also whether government
behaves in an accountable way. Following this tradition, public management
research has paid substantial attention to accountability issues, from the classic
debates about the best ways to ensure administrative accountability to studies
evalu ating different accountability mechanisms and how those shaped public
manage ment activities and results (Adams & Balfour, 2014 Finer, 1941; Friedrich,
1940; Johnston & Romzek, 1999; Romzek and Dubnick, 1987).9 When examining
how pub lic managers behave and how culture shapes the ability of institutions to
hold these managers accountable, studies include such questions as what is ethical
behavior on the part of public managers, how does ethics connect to accountability,
and what are the larger values that public managers do (and perhaps should) hold
as they under take their duties (Brewer & Selden, 1998; O'Leary, 2006).
The cultural dimension is perhaps one of the areas of public management in
which there is the least amount of consensus, with fundamental scholarly divides
over what are the “appropriate” public values to pursue. Across the public manage
ment research base, even narrowing the scope of public values has proven
challenging, as Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) found a long list of different public
values in the knowledge base, ranging from the role of the public sector in relation
to society, how public managers and politicians interact, how public employees
should act overall, and how public managers should interact with the citizenry.
Connecting back to the Hill and Lynn (2009) definition of culture as including
motives, a rich body of research has grown around understanding the motives of
those who work in the public service, with the most researched aspect of this being
public service motivation ( Perry & Wise, 1990). Are public managers driven by
fundamentally different motives than those working in other industries? If so, so
what does that mean for staffing and managing in the public service? While
significant consensus has developed around the idea of public service motivation,
there are still debates about the conceptualization, operation alization, and
relationship of public service motivation to key public manage ment concepts (see
Perry & Hondeghem, 2008; Wright & Grant, 2010, for recent reviews of this
research).
Finally, drawing on theories from the general organization theory knowledge
base, public management scholars have begun to examine how culture influences
the ability of public managers to achieve results. Do public organizations or larger
institutional arrangements charged with achieving public management objectives
have cultures that support performance improvement and organizational learning
over time (Kroll, 2015a; Moynihan, 2008)? Can public management adjust and
innovate to solve the challenging policy problems that persist over time (Damanpour &
Schneider, 2009; Walker, 2008)? In addition, drawing on theories of learning,

culture, and performance, scholars have considered what can be done to create
structures and practices in public management that promote high performance and
new ideas and solutions to public problems over time. While this area of research
is still growing and is still far from having reached a point of coalescing, research
has shown that we need to think about how culture, structure, and craft interact to
support or inhibit the achievement of public management objectives.
Policy studies can provide some insight on the role of culture in public manage
ment. For example, policy scholars also explore the ways in which moral and
political values come into play in the policy process, such as tensions between
competing values and moral dilemmas underlying policy debates (Stone, 2002;
Wildavsky, 2007). Again, policy studies have long examined the impact of cultural
and ideological components in shaping policymaking and implementation (Lowi,
1969). In sum, all these studies contribute to the normative frameworks for
understanding public management and public policy, or more broadly, governance processes.
craft
In addition to structure and culture, public management focuses on the way in

which public managers fundamentally do their work, with craft defined as the
“responses by individual public managers to the challenges and opportunities
inherent in their positions” (Hill & Lynn, 2009 , p.229). This is the area of public
management ment well informed by general or business management. Many
management skills and techniques such as strategic planning, program evaluation,
and total quality management originated from business management and were later
introduced into public management as means to improve public management
efficiency and effectiveness (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1982 ).
Indeed, when considering the craft of public management, research can extend
back to early studies of the science of management and the classic operating
principles (POSDCORB) put forward by Gulick and Urwick (1937) that influenced
much of public management research, education, and practice.
There have been numerous examples of accounts on what it means to manage
in the public service and what are the characteristics of public managers who are
per ceived to be or found to be effective (eg, Chase & Reveal, 1983; Riccucci,
1995). Peo ple are one of the most critical inputs into organizations and institutions
—how these people behave and how their human capital, social capital, and
motivations are translated into action toward the public interest is the final main
focus of public management research. Public management research has sought to
distill the key principles associated with public leadership and how leadership
impacts various critical public management outcomes (see Getha-Taylor, Holmes,
Jacobson, Morse, & Sowa, 2011, for a review). Scholars are also interested in
introducing different mea surement techniques to better capture employee and
government performance and promote data-driven decision making (Ammons &
Rivenbark, 2008; Behn, 2003; Poister, Aristigueta, & Hall, 2015). More recently, how to use social
information technologies to optimize public management has drawn growing school

arly attention (Ganapati, 2011; Mergel & Bretschneider, 2013).
The craft of public management is an area in which the intersections with the
other dimensions are most pronounced, as studying the practice of public management
ment separate from the structure in which this practice is executed would fail to
produce meaningful research. In addition, the practice of public management, the
craft, both shapes organizational cultures and is shaped by them; therefore, it is
critical to examine this relationship. Public managers, when directing the behavior of
those they work with or supervise, can create particular cultural practices that have
significant ramifications on outcomes. In addition, while a public manager may
influence culture, that culture can also constrain public managers, facilitating their
behavior or inhibiting their ability to enact desired change (de Lancer Julnes & Holzer,
2001; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Mahler, 1997; Nyhan, 2000).
The craft dimension of public management is perhaps where the connections to
policy studies are more indirect, as craft involves what has traditionally been the
domain of public administration. As with structure, the craft connects to policy
implementation questions. Questions of the challenges experienced while executing
the mandate of policymakers connect to policy studies in terms of questions of
implementation, feedback, and policy learning, but scholars have often drawn a divide
between policy and management in this component of public management.
We consider later in this article where research on the craft of public management,
such as studies of performance, could connect better to policy studies.
Connecting Current Research in Public Management with Policy Studies
Any discussion of current patterns or areas of focus in a field of study will never
fully capture the richness of inquiry and fundamentally are influenced by the
perceptions of those doing the evaluation. In a discussion of how to advance the field
of public management, Behn (1995) advanced what he termed a selection of “big
questions” to assist scholars in thinking about what public management is in a more
systemic fashion. To identify and study big questions is important, as jurisdictional
fights and methodological disagreements can often shift scholars away from Remem
Bering what is important in growing a field of study—what are you looking to answer?
To Behn (1995), the study of public management should coalesce around three main
areas: micromanagement, motivation, and measurement.
The questions associated with micromanagement were fundamentally about how
do we create structures that enable public managers to make a difference, while still
holding them accountable (Behn, 1995). The significant body of knowledge on
government reform and new approaches to structuring public management all speak
to this larger question (see Light, 2006; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011, for a small selection
of this research). The questions of motivation are inherently those tied to the cultural
dimension discussed above—how to direct the actions of public managers (con
ceived as including numerous different actors) to accomplish the goals of government
ment. Finally, the question of measurement is fundamentally the craft question—how
do we know if public management makes a difference (Behn, 1995)? what are
the ways in which we can assess the performance of public management and use that
assessment to foster learning and growth over time (Moynihan, 2008)? Indeed, these
three big questions are still strongly relevant to public management research today,
with scholars pursuing many research trends that continue to align with Behn (1995).
In considering what people are studying today in public management, we followed

Behn's notion of big questions. Each author compiled a list of topics that were prevalent
in the public management knowledge base over the past 15 years. Examining those
topics, we then used Behn's approach to think about what are these various topics
seeking to address: what questions are they looking to answer? We maintain that these
topics are coalescing around several main questions that are explored from a variety of
directions, with some harkening back to and expanding on Behn's (1995) seminal
piece.10 As we discuss these questions, we highlight where public management
research could connect better to the research in policy studies to emphasize questions
that cross the divide between the fields and create a nexus of scholars working on
questions of public concern.
How Do We Deliver Public Services?
The question of how public management operates—what are the various ways in
which actors work to accomplish public policy goals—has changed over time. In the
past 20 years, it could be argued that this research has coalesced around several main
areas of rich inquiry, including but not limited to the growth in the use of contracting,
privatization, and multi-stakeholder service delivery arrangements (eg, the new
governance ), and the role of discretion and the motivations of public managers at
various levels of governance and what this means for public management outcomes.
In addition, growing out of frustration with the managerialism movement and the
challenge of solving “wicked policy problems,” scholars are increasingly questioning
who should be involved in delivering public services, with a renewed focus on
coproduction and how the field of players in public management must be expanded to
achieve these goals (Alford, 2009; Rittel & Webber, 1973). This big question on public
service delivery is our main focus of this section, not only because it has attracted
substantial scholarly interest in recent decades but also because it is the area in which
there are natural connections to policy studies and an area where we can raise research
questions that engage scholars operating in the nexus between these two fields of
study.
For example, questions of contracting and privatization are fundamentally
questions of policy process—the choice of contracting a public service changes the
values, assumptions, and practices underpinning policymaking and implementation.
The increasing involvement of the private sector in public program development and
service vice delivery in many policy areas redefines conventional policy theories such
as iron triangles and issue networks and gives rise to new theories like policy networks
(Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000; Rhodes, 2006). . Contracting can raise questions about
principal-agent relationships and how these are managed, how to design policies
and programs that allow for a contracting relationship to be objectively evaluated,

and how to evaluate the performance of these contractors to determine whether
the policy goals are being achieved and the efficiency and overall effectiveness of
implementation (eg, Alford & O'Flynn, 2012 ; Brown & Potoski, 2006; Gazley, 2008;
Lu, 2016).
Studies have demonstrated that the theoretical assumptions underlying moving
a government service from production to provision, with the production function
being taken over by private actors, is far messier in practice than in theory (Sclar,
2001), raising the question of how much has the body of knowledge in public man
agement developed around contracting and privatization been brought into policy
process and implementation research? There are scholars working at the
intersection of this field (see Sandfort & Moulton, 2015), but a coherent research
agenda with questions for policy and public management scholars could be a
productive avenue of attention for both fields. This research agenda could include
questions such as:
1. When policymakers decide to contract out all or a portion of service delivery, but
the existing market in some jurisdictions is too thin to meet full competition
requirements, what are the next steps? For theory and practice? Should public
managers cultivate the market first or just use the market as it is? How to
compare the cost and benefits of these two options? How do we include market
analysis and contracting effectiveness to inform contracting decision making
(Bel, Fageda, & Warner, 2010; Brown & Potoski, 2004; Johnston & Girth, 2012;
Malatesta & Smith, 2011)?
2. What evidence have we accumulated about how to effectively manage principal-

agent problems when public management happens through contract ing or
privatization? What is an effective contracting or privatization structure?
From a bottom-up approach, with policy implementation dependent on
contractors, how do contractors as advocates participate in the policy process
to shape policymaking in an either desirable or undesirable way? To what
degree has the evidence accumulated in public management been connected
back to policy theory to shape how policies are designed (Kelleher & Yackee,
2009; Witko, 2011)?
3. When should alternative service delivery arrangements (including contracting or

inter-organizational relationships) be used to implement policy and when would
it better to do public management solely in-house through the author ity of
government? Furthermore, if we consider public service delivery arrangement
as a dynamic process moving between contracting out and contracting back in
under different contingencies, how much has public management and policy
studies come together to think about how research has informed the provision/
production question and how we can move from normative arguments about
tools of government to evidence-based arguments (Hefetz & Warner, 2004;
Johnston & Girth, 2012)?
Coproduction was an area of research that gained prominence in the late 1980s,
but was overwhelmed in public management research by the growth of managerialism
and the New Public Management reforms of many Western countries (Alford, 2009).
Coproduction fundamentally is about the involvement of multiple actors, including
members of the community and the clients of services, in the production function of a
public service (Bovaird, 2007; Brandsen & Pestoff, 2006; Brudney, 1983; Brudney &
England, 1983). . In many areas of public policy, the participation of those being
served is critical for the success of that policy, including but not limited to areas such
as education, public health, environmental stewardship, and crime prevention (Alford,
2009; Schachter & Liu, 2005; Thomas, 2012). Coproduction, the processes associated
with it, the design components and implications for the production of public services,
and the overall impact for policy goals, is an area of resurgent interest and discussion
in public management. In addition, this is an area of research with clear intersections
with policy studies, both historically and today. Therefore, research bridging these
fields could ask questions such as:
1. How well does the policy design in particular policy fields support the ability to
engage clients and other actors in coproduction? What do we know about which
policy tools are appropriate in particular situations? How to involve multiple
stakeholders in coproduction along the entire policy process (Bingham, Nabatchi,
& O'Leary, 2005; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004)?
2. What insights can be drawn from policy studies to inform co-production on the
ground? How can public management draw lessons from the formation stage of
the policy process to inform delivery? How can policy theories like the Advocacy
Coalition Framework and policy feedback shape how public management
understands coproduction (Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier, 1994; Mettler & Soss, 2004;
Moynihan & Soss, 2014; Pierson, 1993; Weible, Sabatier, & McQueen , 2009)?
3. What are the roles for nonprofits in coproduction? Partner, supplier of labor, broker
between government and the people? What are the implications of these different
roles for effective policy? Conceptually, nonprofits play two major roles in
coproduction, service provider and policy advocate. However, these two functions
are not always in line with each other. How would policymakers balance these
two things and encourage nonprofit participation (Brandsen & Pestoff, 2006;
Mosley & Grogan, 2013)?
Lipsky (1980, 1984) introduced the concept of street-level bureaucrats to capture

the inherent challenge with directing the performance of public managers on the
ground. This work, while considered a founding theory in policy implementation, has
been fully incorporated into public management research, with scholars examining
front-line workers in terms of how they behave, what this means for the services
clients receive, and the implications of front -line work for those delivering high
intensity and high-pressure public services (see Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003;
Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008). However, compared with other research areas in
public management and policy process, street-level bureaucrats have received less
scholarly attention. As a good example of the nexus between public management and
policy process, street-level bureaucrats deserve more attention from different disciplines.
In addition, with more and more public services delivered by contractors, it is important
to consider what it means to be a front-line worker in a contractor delivering a public
service, even further removed from direct government control and oversight. Therefore,
the front-line worker provides a useful unit of analysis for developing a coordinated
research agenda across policy studies and public management.
1. Although the role of street-level bureaucrats has been widely acknowledged, more
research is still needed to advance our knowledge in this regard. How do local
contingencies shape the behaviors of street-level bureaucrats? How does policy
design encourage or constrain street-level discretion? How to connect street-level
bureaucrats to policy process? Where are street-level bureaucrats in the policy
feedback process? What are their roles in advocacy coalitions (Keiser & Miller,
2010; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Riccucci, 2005)?
2. With more and more services delivered by contractors, contractors become new
street-level bureaucrats. What shapes contractors' discretion? Do nonprofit with
tractors enjoy more discretion? How do contractors as new street-level bureau crats
share authority and discretion with traditional street-level bureaucrats?
How do the interactions between new and traditional street-level bureaucrats
influence the policy process (Brodkin, 2011; Brodkin & Marston, 2013)?
In recent decades, there has been a reconfiguration of public management and

policy. Policymaking and implementation is no longer a top-down process, but proceeds
with negotiation and collaboration among various stakeholders throughout the policy
process. Service delivery is no longer delivered by a public workforce within government
domain, but is contracted out to non-government actors or co-produced by citizens and
communities beyond the traditional government boundaries.
In this sense, public policy and public management confront similar challenges, ie,
neither could function without the participation of citizens and non-governmental actors.
How to effectively connect citizens and nongovernmental actors to the govern ance
process constitutes a common question for public policy and public manage ment
scholars. As such, policy studies and public management research largely intersect with
each other and should be able to inform each other in order to advance
good governance.
How Effective Is Public Management?
A large body of public management literature in recent decades has explored

management effectiveness and organizational performance. Based on the accumulated
body of knowledge, one would be hard pressed to conclude that management does not
matter in terms of how we accomplish the goals of government. Beyond the question of
whether management matters, an equally important question is how
management matters. Scholars have focused on trying to better understand the

relationship between managerial action and public outcomes, seeking to tease out
the complicated relationship between management and organizational outcomes in
general, in directing those on the ground delivering services, in coordinating the joint
action of multiple actors involved in delivering services (Brewer & Selden, 2000;
Favero, Meier, & O'Toole, 2016; Ingraham et al., 2003; O'Toole & Meier, 1999; Ric
cucci, 2005).
While examining how management matters, public management scholars have
paid special attention to the question of management matters for what. Indeed, pub
lic management scholarship has made significant progress in terms of understanding
how public services are measured in terms of their performance, the role of managers
in shaping and understanding this performance, the use of performance manage
ment, and what some of the barriers or challenges to performance measurement and
management in the public service are. However, there remain some significant
underexplored questions, such as the degree to which performance information is
successfully used in public management (see Kroll [2015a, 2015b] for a review of
this). In addition, scholars are still wrestling with the many paradoxes associated with
performance management, including measurement challenges over time and the
need for systematic updating, placing challenges on public managers to both maintain
their capacity to measure their performance and to use performance information to
truly learn and adjust (Kroll, 2015a, 2015b; Moynihan, 2008).
Furthermore, the rise of contracting and other indirect government tools in public
management discourse further complicates the performance management endeavor.
Under the new governance model, a comprehensive government performance man
agement system needs to include two components: performance management in
traditional bureaucratic system and performance management in indirect government
tools such as contracts and grants (Frederickson & Frederickson, 2006; Lu, 2016). In
this way, to improve policy and management effectiveness, we need to advance
knowledge in both categories. Currently, we have relatively rich knowledge about the
first category, but our understanding about the second category seems still in its
childhood.
To advance the nexus between public management and policy studies, public
management needs to further explore the questions of how program and personnel
management influences the policy process and how management shapes different
policy outcomes. On the other hand, policy studies could help illuminate the design
of policies and the choices about what capacity to attach to implementation. Policy
studies could also help address social construction questions like how the policy pro
cess shapes policy and the overall political environment and then also influences
public management behaviors.
1. With increasing attention on evidence-based policymaking and management in

the current policy environment, performance management research has more
potential to inform policy and management practice. For example, how could
policymakers better incorporate performance information into decision making?
How does management matter in performance information collection and use?

How would management influence performance information use effectiveness?
2. Under new governance, is performance management in direct government systems

and performance management in indirect government tools alike? If so, how can
we apply our knowledge in the first category to address the challenges in the second
category? If not, to what extent? In particular, how could public management and
policymakers design effective incentive structures to manage the performance of
third-party actors without direct government control and oversight?
For questions of performance, this critical component of the craft of public man
agement, research on policy feedback could provide guidance and be better connected
into the public management research on performance management to connect the dots
between policy and management and show how performance man agement , if done
right, might have larger implications for policy studies and public management (Pierson,
1993; Soss & Schram, 2007; Wichowsky & Moynihan, 2008).
This is an area of the nexus between public management and policy studies ripe for
future collaborations between scholars.
How Do We Understand Public Problems?
While the study of collaboration crosscuts many of the previously discussed

questions, the growing focus on collaboration in the form of collaborative governor
nance, defined as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly
engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision making process that is formal,
consensus oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy
or manage public programs or assets” (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 544) deserves separate
attention. Collaboration to make decisions and shape the direction of public action is
different than collaboration used to deliver services on the ground.
Studies focused on collaborative governance at the decision-making or governing level
ask different questions from ground-level collaboration, as this collaborative governance
is concerned with the question of what do we know about what works in addressing an
area of public concern and how can we leverage shared or pooled knowledge and joint
action to harness new ideas and approaches to addressing pub lic problems (Ansell &
Gash, 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). It actually points to a normative
question of how we perceive the environment where public management and policy
operate, isolated or connected. Collaborative governance studies have focused on a
number of different policy areas, including but not limited to environmental policy,
education, and natural resource management (see Heikkila & Gerlak, 2005; Gerlak &
Heikkila, 2011).
If collaborative governance wrestles with questions of how decisions are made to
affect public policy issues or public problems, there are fundamental connections
between collaborative governance studies in public management with public policy.
With more and more public management researchers starting to look at public
problems inter-institutionally and examining collaborative governance in different policy

areas, public management scholarship actually sheds light on policy process research in
various specific policy areas. On the other hand, policy studies has a long history of
looking at joint actions by various actors in the policy process. For example, Hjern and
Porter (1981), in a seminal early work, called for a multiorganizational policy implementation
structure approach to understanding how to bring together multiple actors in a way that
reduces the costs associated with the complexity of joint action in many policy areas.
Recent studies of how coalitions form, policy networks, and the overall process by which
actors come together to shape definitions of problem lems and drive forward policy
solutions speak directly to studies of collaborative governance in public management
(Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000; Weible & Moore , 2010).
1. To what extent have we fully explored these connections? To what extent have
researchers from public management used theories and practice from policy studies
to inform their own research, and vice versa?
2. In addition, many participants involved in collaborative governance are non-state

actors. For example, nonprofits, as nonstate actors, are clearly critical par cipants in
collaborative governance. Do we fully understand their role distinct from other actors?
More broadly, how do we reconcile actors with different characteristics in management
and the policy process in order to achieve desired policy outcomes?
3. What composition of coalitions to engage in collaborative governance produces the

best outcomes, outcomes that may lead to broader public value? How does
management matter in this regard? What defines best collaboration, effective ness
and public value? How does coalition composition evolve over time? How does such
evolution shape collaborative governance outcomes (Ansell & Gash, 2008; deLeon
€
& Varda, 2009; Sandstrom & Carlsson, 2008)?
Where do we go from here?
In considering how to chart a course forward to bring together public manage ment
and policy scholars to enrich each of their knowledge bases, we need to consider what
would be an action agenda for fostering this nexus. In thinking about the big questions
we have addressed, what could be some approaches that would help us answer these
questions across public management and policy studies research? We conclude this
article by briefly discussing several possible solutions.
One clear solution would be creating cross-field research teams to develop research
projects in specific policy areas that address public management and policy questions.
These projects would include multiple units of analysis that could both facilitate answering
questions for public management scholars and policy scholars, but also allow for study
of how the system and process works overall. For example, a research project on how
state government manages water as an important natural resource could include policy
scholars who address how the state as a political actor
gathers critical stakeholders together to design policy and what the policy is overall
and public management scholars to ask questions associated with the operation of
the actors involved in this policy field and what this means for effectiveness in
solving this public problem. If policy and management scholars can work together
to design comprehensive studies, each can answer questions important for their
fields and connections can be drawn to answer questions across the fields.
Another approach could be to build data sets across policy fields with policy
and management variables that allow for longitudinal study of the policy process,
policy change, and public management. As we know that repeated interactions
change the nature of the relationship between actors, the more that we gather
longitudinal data in particular policy areas, data that include questions of policy and
management, the more that we will be able to understand how these repeated
interactions affect the accomplishment of public purposes. Drawing on the
aforementioned cross-field teams, creating data repositories that administer
repeated surveys over a period of time, such as the American State Administrators
Project or the National Administrative Studies Project, but involves policy process
and public management scholars through coordinated efforts, would be a significant
advance that would drive both fields of study forward and allow for more coordinated
and aligned research on how we accomplish policy goals and produce public value.
Longitudinal data are more promising not only because they enable us to observe
the behaviors of public managers and policy actors over time, but also because
they allow us to delineate causal mechanisms.
Causality is a fundamental task for scientific research. Current research, some
times relying on cross-sectional data, could only find associations between
variables of interest. If we want our scholarship to truly advance our knowledge
about the field and to inform real-world practice, more causal research using
longitudinal data is needed.
Finally, across public management and policy studies, we need to encourage
the use of a multiplicity of research approaches to capture the nexus between the
policy process and public management. Any single method has its own limitation.
Social phenomena are more complex than any single method could capture.
Reliance on one research method inevitably results in biased conclusions. This is
especially the case in policy studies and public management, where subject matter,
theories, and approaches are fragmented and multidisciplinary. Connecting this
variety calls for epistemological and methodological diversity and exchange.
These fields have a rich history of employing diverse methods, but there is a
growing emphasis on positivism and behavioral research giving primacy to
quantitative methods. We need methodological improvement in normative and
empirical (quantitative and qualitative) methods, and we need to use mixed method
ods to cross-validate findings, that is, “a rapprochement between the so-called
organizational and administrative sciences and the humanities” (Frederickson ,
2000, p.51).
Conclusion
Studies of the policy process and public management fundamentally address the
question of how do we ensure public value and appropriate action on the part of
government in governance process? As both fields of study have reached a certain
level of development, the time has come to evaluate what we know, how we know it,
and what are some ways in which these fields connect to foster a more comprehensive
understanding of governance. This article provides some modest suggestions,
drawing heavily on (or standing on the shoulders of) many scholars before us, on
where this nexus could be explored. We hope that this discussion is the first of many.
Jessica E. Sowa is an associate professor in the School of Public and International

Affairs in the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore. Her research
focuses on public and nonprofit management, including human resource management
and organizational effectiveness.
Jiahuan Lu is an assistant professor in the School of Public Affairs and Administration
at Rutgers University-Newark. His research interest lies in public and nonprofit
management, with a focus on government contracting and government nonprofit
relationships.
notes
1. Unfortunately, there is some disagreement on what this larger body of study is called, which can create some
confusion. While some schools and PhD programs use the term public affairs, we were trained in and
conceptualize our discipline as public administration. That being said, this article specifically examines public
management research, a subset of public administration.
2. The question of what is public administration has concerned scholars for at least 50 years. Listing all of the
studies on this topic, including works on doctoral research in public administration (eg, Adams & White, 1994;
Cleary, 2000), what is the field, and its relationship to political science (eg, Whicker, Olshfski, & Strickland,
1993), and what are our dominant approaches would be a book length manuscript. Therefore, we acknowledge
that we are only including a small selection of this rich tradition of discussion.
3. In presenting a review essay like this, it is inevitable that one needs to make choices about what to include and
what not to include. In addition, citing all of the relevant research could result in a bibliography as long as the
essay. Therefore, we recognize that we will have left out material that others might consider central. We hope
that this essay will create a dialogue where others can address those omissions or present different points of
view.
4. How one defines public management in relation to other areas of study in some ways depends on socialization.
For us, public management is a subfield of the larger discipline of public administration.
5. A useful discussion that challenges some of these issues was recently published in Governance, which is a rich
debate about the degree to which public management has ignored the state and the implications of this for the
field (Milward et al., 2016) .
6. It needs to be acknowledged that these three dimensions are not completely independent. The research
encompassed in these dimensions, depending on the perspective of the scholar, could be seen as cross-cutting
and overlapping. In addition, these dimensions influence each other and interact to form the whole of public
management. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, we have made choices
about where to place certain research traditions, but we recognize the complexity of this and under stand that
others, including Hill and Lynn (2009), from whom we draw much inspiration, may have different perspectives
or may place research into different categories.
7. This is a very brief summary of a huge area of research.
8. Studies on inter-organizational relations to address public problems are almost too numerous to note here. See
Bingham and O'Leary (2008) for a good review of this.
9. We consider accountability as a normative construct in that it represents the expectations that different ent
constituents hold on government (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). It seems necessary to differentiate accountability
(ie, different expectations) from accountability mechanisms (ie, ways to meet those expectations). The first
construct is more culturally oriented, and the second one is more structurally oriented. Certainly, as we
mentioned earlier, the distinction is not always clear. While Hill and Lynn (2009) describe three dimensions,
there are some overlaps between these dimensions. Accountability is one such area where one could see
connections to structure, culture, and craft.
10. In reviews such as this, choices need to be made about where to focus. We are focusing on common questions
across the general public management field. We each generated a list of topics we found to be most common in
public management research, drawing on our training and reviewing the table of contents in journals of the field.
We then compared our lists and sought to identify larger, overarching questions that could encompass a number
of different topics. However, it is important to note that there is important research being conducted that deeply
concentrates on particular aspects of public management, such as the rich community of scholars working in
public finance and human resource management in the public service. Covering these areas is beyond the
scope of this article, but it is important to recognize that no systematic study of public management would be
complete with a deep dive into the specialties within the field.
References
Adams, Guy B., and Danny L. Balfour. 2014. Unmasking Administrative Evil. New York: Routledge.
Adams, Guy B., and Jay D. White. 1994. “Dissertation Research in Public Administration and Cognate Fields: An
Assessment of Methods and Quality.” Public Administration Review 54 (6): 565–76.
Alford, John. 2009. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-Production. New York: Pal
Serious Macmillan.
Alford, John., and Janine O'Flynn. 2012. Rethinking Public Service Delivery: Managing with External Providers.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ammons, David N., and William C. Rivenbark. 2008. “Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Data to Improve
Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolinwa Benchmarking Project.” Public Administration Review
68 (2): 304–18.
Andrews, Rhys, George A. Boyne, Jennifer Law, and Richard M. Walker. 2009. “Centralization, Organizational
Strategy, and Public Service Performance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1): 57–
80.
Andrews, Rhys, George A. Boyne, and Richard M. Walker. 2011. “Dimensions of Publicness and Organizational
Performance: A Review of the Evidence.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl 3):
i301–19.
Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Pub
lic Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 543–71.
Antonsen, Marianne, and Torben B. Jorgensen. 1997. “The 'Publicness' of Public Organizations.” Public Administration
75 (2): 337–57.
Behn, Robert D. 1995. “The Big Questions of Public Management.” Public Administration Review 55 (4):
313–24.
——— 2003. “Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures.” Public
Administration Review 63 (5): 586–606.
Bel, Germa, Xavier Fageda, and Mildred E. Warner. 2010. “Is Private Production of Public Services Cheaper than
Public Production? A Meta-Regression Analysis of Solid Waste and Water Services.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29(3): 553–77.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O'Leary. 2005. “The New Governance: Practices and
Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government.” Public Administration
Review 65 (5): 547–58.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, and Rosemary O'Leary, eds. 2008. Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management.
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Bovard, Tony. 2007. “Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of
Public Services.” Public Administration Review 67(5): 846–60.
Boyne, George A. 2002. “Public and Private Management: What's the Difference?” Journal of Management Studies
39(1): 97–122.
Bozeman, Barry, ed. 1993. Public Management: The State of the Art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bozeman, Barry. 2004. All Organizations Are Public: Comparing Public and Private Organizations. Washington,
DC: Beard Books.
Bozeman, Barry, and Stuart Bretschneider. 1994. “The 'Publicness Puzzle' in Organization Theory: A Test of
Alternative Explanations of Differences between Public and Private Organizations.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 4 (2): 197–223.
Bozeman, Barry, and Stephanie Moulton. 2011. “Integrative Publicness: A Framework for Public Management
Strategy and Performance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl 3): i363–80.
Brandsen, Taco, and Victor Pestoff. 2006. “Co-production, the Third Sector, and the Delivery of Public
Services: An Introduction.” Public Management Review 8 (4): 493–501.
Brewer, Gene A., and Sally C. Selden. 1998. “Whistleblowers in the Federal Civil Service: New Evidence of the
Public Service Ethics.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (3): 413–40.
——— 2000. “Why Elephants Gallop: Assessing and Predicting Organizational Performance in Federal
Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 685–712.
Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 2011. “Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl 2): i25377.
Brodkin, Evelyn Z., and Gregory Marston, eds. 2013. Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations.
and Workfare Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Brown, Trevor L., and Matthew Potoski. 2004. “Managing the Public Service Market.” Public Administer
tion Review 64 (6): 656–68.
——— 2006. “Contracting for Management: Assessing Management Capacity Under Alternative Service Delivery
Arrangements.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25(2): 323–46.
Brudney, Jeffrey L. 1983. “The Evaluation of Coproduction Programs.” Policy Studies Journal 12(2): 376–85.
Brudney, Jeffrey L., and Robert E. England. 1983. “Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept.”
Public Administration Review 43(1): 59–65.
Chase, Gordon, and Elizabeth C. Reveal. 1983. How to Manage in the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Cleary, Robert E. 2000. “The Public Administration Doctoral Dissertation Reexamined: An Evaluation of
the Dissertations of 1998.” Public Administration Review 60(5): 446–55.
Cline, Kurt D. 2000. “Defining the Implementation Problem: Organizational Management versus Cooperation.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(3): 551–72.
Damanpour, Fariborz, and Marguerite Schneider. 2009. “Characteristics of Innovation and Innovation Adoption in
Public Organizations: Assessing the Role of Managers.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 19(3): 495–522.
by Lancer Julnes, Patria, and Marc Holzer. 2001. “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public
Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation.” Public Administration
Review 61 (6): 693–708.
deLeon, Linda, and Peter deLeon. 2002. “The Democratic Ethos and Public Management.” Administration
& Society 34(2): 229–50.
deLeon, Peter, and Danielle M. Varda. 2009. “Toward a Theory of Collaborative Policy Networks: Identifying
Structural Tendencies.” Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 59–74.
Emerson, Kirk, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh. 2012. “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative
Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 1–29.
Favero, Nathan, Kenneth J. Meier, and Laurence J. O'Toole. 2016. “Goals, Trust, Participation, and Feedback:
Linking Internal Management with Performance Outcomes.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 26(2): 327–43.
Fernandez, Sergio, and Hal G. Rainey. 2006. “Managing Successful Organizational Change in The Public
Sector." Public Administration Review 66 (2): 168–76.
Finner, Herman. 1941. “Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government.” Public Administration Review 1
(4): 335–50.
Frederickson, David G., and H. George Frederickson. 2006. Measuring the Performance of the Hollow State.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Frederickson, H. George. 1999. “The Repositioning of the American Public Administration.” PS: Political Science &
Politics 32 (4): 701–12.
——— 2000. “Can Bureaucracy Be Beautiful?” Public Administration Review 60(1): 47–53.
Frederickson, H. George, Kevin B. Smith, Christopher W. Larimer, and Michael Licari. 2012. The Public
Administration Theory Primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Friedrich, Carl J. 1940. "Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility." In Public Policy: A Yearbook
of the Graduate School of Public Administration, ed. Carl J. Friedrich. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Fuller, Steve. 1991. “Disciplinary Boundaries and the Rhetoric of the Social Sciences.” Poetics Today 12 (2):
301–25.
Ganapati, Sukumar. 2011. “Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Applications in
E-Government.” Public Administration Review 71(3): 425–34.
Gazley, Beth. 2008. “Beyond The Contract: The Scope and Nature of Informal Government-Nonprofit
Partnerships.” Public Administration Review 68 (1): 141–54.
Gerlak, Andrea K., and Tanya Heikkila. 2011. “Building A Theory of Learning in Collaboratives: Evidence from the
Everglades Restoration Program.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(4): 619–44.
Getha-Taylor, Heather, Maja H. Holmes, Willow S. Jacobson, Ricardo S. Morse, and Jessica E. Sowa. 2011.
“Focusing the Public Leadership Lens: Research Propositions and Questions in the Minnowbrook Tradition.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (S1): i83–97.
Goodnow, Frank J. 1900. Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York: Russell & Russell.
Goulet, Laurel R., and Margaret L. Frank. 2002. “Organizational Commitment across Three Sectors: Public, Non-
Profit, and For-Profit.” Public Personnel Management 31 (2): 201–10.
Gulick, Luther, and Lyndall Urwick, eds. 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute for Public
Administration, Columbia University.
Guy, Mary E., Meredith A. Newman, and Sharon H. Mastracci. 2008. Emotional Labor: Putting the Service in the
Public Service. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Hefetz, Amir, and Mildred Warner. 2004. “Privatization and Its Reverse: Explaining the Dynamics of the Government
Contracting Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(2): 171–90.
Heikkila, Tanya, and Andrea K. Gerlak. 2005. “The Formation of Large-scale Collaborative Resource Management
Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and Institutions.” Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 583–
612.
Hill, Carolyn J., and Laurence E. Lynn. 2009. Public Management: A Three Dimensional Approach. washing
Ton, DC: CQ Press.
Hjern, Benny, and David O. Porter. 1981. “Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis.”
Organization Studies 2 (3): 211–27.
Hood, Christopher. 2005. “Public Management: The Word, the Movement, The Science.” In The Oxford Handbook
of Public Management, eds. Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn, and Christopher Pollitt. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Houston, David J. 2006. “'Walking the Walk' of Public Service Motivation: Public Employees and Charitable Gifts
of Time, Blood, and Money.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 67–86.
Ingraham, Patricia W., Phillip G. Joyce, and Amy K. Donahue. 2003. Government Performance: Why Management
Matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Irvin, Renee A., and John Stansbury. 2004. “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the
Effort?” Public Administration Review 64(1): 55–65.
Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., and Paul A. Sabatier. 1994. “Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework.”
Journal of Public Policy 14(2): 175–203.
Johnston, Jocelyn M., and Amanda M. Girth. 2012. “Government Contracts and 'Managing The Market:' Exploring
The Costs of Strategic Management Responses to Weak Vendor Competition.” Administration & Society 44
(1): 3–29.
Johnston, Jocelyn M., and Barbara S. Romzek. 1999. “Contracting and Accountability in State Medicaid Reform:
Rhetoric, Theories, and Reality.” Public Administration Review 59(5): 383–99.
Jørgensen, Torben B., and Barry Bozeman. 2007. “Public Values: An Inventory.” Administration & Society
39(3):354–81.
Keizer, Lael R., and Susan M. Miller. 2010. “The Impact of Organized Interests on Eligibility Determination: The
Case of Veterans' Disability Compensation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(2):
505–31.
Kelleher, Christine A., and Susan W. Yackee. 2009. “A Political Consequence of Contracting: Organized Interests
and State Agency Decision Making.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(3): 579–602.
Kettl, Donald F. 1996. “Governing at the Millennium.” In Handbook of Public Administration, ed. James L.
Perry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kettl, Donald F., and H. Brinton Milward, eds. 1996. The State of Public Management. Baltimore, M.D.:,
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Klijn, Erik-Hans, and Joop FM Koppenjan. 2000. “Public Management and Policy Networks: The Theoretical
Foundation of the Network Approach to Governance.” Public Management 2(2): 135–58.
Kroll, Alexander. 2015th. “Explaining the Use of Performance Information by Public Managers: A Planned-Behavior
Approach.” American Review of Public Administration 45 (2): 201–15. ——— 2015b. “Drivers of Performance
Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research.” Public Performance &
Management Review 38(3): 459–86.
Light, Paul C. 2006. “The Tides of Reform Revisited: Patterns in Making Government Work, 1945-2002.”
Public Administration Review 66 (1): 6–19.
Lipski, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of The Individual in Public Services. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
——— 1984. “Bureaucratic Disentitlement in Social Welfare Programs.” Social Service Review 58(1): 3–27.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Lu, Jiahuan. 2016. “The Performance of Performance-Based Contracting in Human Services: A Quasi Experiment.”
Lynn, Laurence E. 1996. Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
——— 2005. “Public Management: A Concise History of the Field.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management,
eds. Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., and Christopher Pollitt. New York: Oxford University Press.
——— 2006. Public Management: Old and New. New York: Routledge.
Mahler, Julianne. 1997. “Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning in Public Agencies.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 7 (4): 519–40.
Malatesta, Deanna, and Craig R. Smith. 2011. “The Effects of Competition Based Public Policy on Con
Contractual Arrangements.” Policy Studies Journal 39(2): 261–83.
Maynard-Moody, Steven, and Michael C. Musheno. 2003. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front
Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 2005. “Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Governments:
Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects.” Public Administration Review 65 (2): 180–90.
Mergel, Ines, and Stuart I. Bretschneider. 2013. “A Three-Stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use in
Government.” Public Administration Review 73(3): 390–400.
Mettler, Suzanne, and Joe Soss. 2004. “The Consequences of Public Policy for Democratic Citizenship: Bridging
Policy Studies and Mass Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2(1): 55–73.
Milward, Brint, Laura Jensen, Alasdair Roberts, Mauricio I. Dussauge-Laguna, Veronica Junjan, Rene Torenvlied,
Arjen Boin, HK Colebatch, Donald Kettl, and Robert Durant. 2016. “Is Public Management Neglecting the
State?” Governance 29 (3): 311–34.
Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith G. Provan. 2000. “Governing the Hollow State.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 10 (2): 359–80.
Mischen, Pamela A., and Thomas AP Sinclair. 2009. “Making Implementation More Democratic Through Action
Implementation Research.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1): 145–64.
Mosley, Jennifer E., and Colleen M. Grogan. 2013. “Representation in Nonelected Participatory Processes: How
Residents Understand the Role of Nonprofit Community-Based Organizations.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 23 (4): 839–63.
Moulton, Stephanie. 2009. “Putting Together the Publicness Puzzle: A Framework for Realized Pub
licness.” Public Administration Review 69 (5): 889–900.
Moulton, Stephanie, and Adam Eckerd. 2011. “Preserving the Publicness of the Nonprofit Sector: Resources, Roles,
and Public Values.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(4): 656–85.
Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Moynihan, Donald P., and Joe Soss. 2014. “Policy Feedback and the Politics of Administration.” Public
Nutt, Paul C. 1999. “Public-Private Differences and the Assessment of Alternatives for Decision Making.”
Nyhan, Ronald C. 2000. “Changing the Paradigm: Trust and Its Role in Public Sector Organizations.”
American Review of Public Administration 30 (1): 87–109.
O'Leary, Rosemary. 2006. The Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Government. Washington, D.C.: C.Q.
Press.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How The Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Trans
forming Government. Reading, MA: Adison-Wesley.
Ostrom, Vincent. 1989. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University
of Alabama Press.
O'Toole, Laurence J. 1997. “Implementing Public Innovations in Network Settings.” Administration & Partner
ety 29(2): 115–38.
O'Toole, Laurence J., and Kenneth J. Meier. 1999. “Modeling the Impact of Public Management: Implications of
Structural Context.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9(4): 505–26.
Perry, James L., and Annie Hondeghem. 2008. “Building Theory and Empirical Evidence about Public
Service Motivation.” International Public Management Journal 11(1): 3–12.
Perry, James L., and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 1986. “Research Methodology in the 'Public Administration Review,'
1975-1984.” Public Administration Review 46 (3): 215–26.
Perry, James L., and Hal G. Rainey. 1988. “The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A Cri
ticket and Research Strategy.” Academy of Management Review 13(2): 182–201.
Perry, James L., and Lois R. Wise. 1990. “The Motivational Bases of Public Service.” Public Administration Review
50 (3): 367–73.
Pesch, Udo. 2008. “The Publicness of Public Administration.” Administration & Society 40(2): 170–93.
Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run
Companies. New York: Harper and Row.
Petridou, Evangelia. 2014. “Theories of the Policy Process: Contemporary Scholarship and Future Directions.” Policy
Studies Journal 42 (S1): S12–32.
Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics
45(4):595–628.
Poister, Theodore H., Maria P. Aristigueta, and Jeremy L. Hall. 2015. Managing and Measuring Performance in
Public and Nonprofit Organizations: An Integrated Approach. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Raadschelders, Jos CN 1999. “A Coherent Framework for the Study of Public Administration.” journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 9 (2): 281–304.
Raadschelders, Jos CN, and Kwang-Hoon Lee. 2011. “Trends in the Study of Public Administration: Empirical and
Qualitative Observations from Public Administration Review, 2000-2009.” Public Administration Review 71(1):
19–33.
Rainey, Hal G., Robert W. Backoff, and Charles H. Levine. 1976. “Comparing Public and Private Organ
izations.” Public Administration Review 36(2): 233–44.
Rainey, Hal G., and Barry Bozeman. 2000. “Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and
the Power of the A Priori.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 447–70.
Rhodes, RAW 2006. “Policy Network Analysis.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, eds. Michael Moran, Martin
Rein, and Robert E. Goodin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Riccucci, Norma M. 1995. Unsung Heroes: Federal Execucrats Making a Difference. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
——— 2005. How Management Matters: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
——— 2010. Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Rittel, Horst WJ, and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in A General Theory of Planning.” Policy Science
Times 4(2): 155–69.
Romzek, Barbara S., and Melvin J. Dubnick. 1987. “Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger
Tragedy.” Public Administration Review 47(3): 227–38.
Rosenbloom, David H. 1983. “Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of Powers.” Public
Sabatier, Paul A. 1991. “Political Science and Public Policy.” PS: Political Science & Politics 24 (2):
144–47.
Sabatier, Paul A., and Christopher M. Weible. 2007. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and
Clarifications.” In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Salamon, Lester M., ed. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to The New Governance. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sandfort, Jodi. 1999. “The Structural Impediments to Front-line Human Service Collaboration: Examining
Welfare Reform at the Front-lines.” Social Service Review 73(3): 314–39.
——— 2000. “Moving Beyond Discretion and Outcomes: Examining Public Management from the Front-lines of the
Welfare System.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 729–56.
——— 2003. “Exploring the Structuring of Technology within Human Service Organizations.” admin
istration & Society 34 (6): 605–31.
Sandfort, Jodi, and Stephanie Moulton. 2015. Effective Implementation in Practice: Integrating Public Policy and
Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

€
Sandstrom, Annica, and Lars Carlsson. 2008. “The Performance of Policy Networks: The Relation Between
Network Structure and Network Performance.” Policy Studies Journal 36(4): 497–524.
Schachter, Hindy L., and Rongfang Liu. 2005. “Policy Development and New Immigrant Communities: A Case
Study of Citizen Input in Defining Transit Problems.” Public Administration Review 65(5): 614–23.
Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. 1990. “Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools.” Journal of Politics
52(2): 510–29.
Sclar, Elliott D. 2001. You Don't Always Get What You Pay for: The Economics of Privatization. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press.
Selden, Sally C. 2009. Human Capital: Tools and Strategies in the Public Sector. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Soss, Joe, and Sanford F. Schram. 2007. “A Public Transformed? Welfare Reform as Policy Feedback.”
American Political Science Review 101(1): 111–27.
Stone, Deborah. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton and
Company.
Thomas, John C. 2012. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Engaging the Public in Public Management. Armonk, NJ:
ME Sharpe.
Thomson, Ann M., and James L. Perry. 2006. “Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box.” Public
Administration Review 66 (S1): 20–32.
Tummers, Lars LG, Victor Bekkers, Evelien Vink, and Michael Musheno. 2015. “Coping During Public Service
Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 25(4): 1099–126.
Vanwart, Montgomery. 2013. “Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary Challenges of
Leaders.” Public Administration Review 73(4): 553–65.
Waldo, Dwight. 1955. The Study of Public Administration. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company.
Walker, Richard M. 2008. “An Empirical Evaluation of Innovation Types and Organizational and Environmental
Characteristics: Towards A Configuration Approach.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
18(4): 591–615.
Weible, Christopher M., and Richard H. Moore. 2010. “Analytics and Beliefs: Competing Explanations for Defining
Problems and Choosing Allies and Opponents in Collaborative Environmental Management.” Public
Administration Review 70(5): 756–66.
Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, and Kelly McQueen. 2009. “Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the
Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 121–40.
Whicker, Marcia L., Dorothy Olshfski, and Ruth A. Strickland. 1993. “The Troublesome Cleft: Public Administration
and Political Science.” Public Administration Review 53 (6): 531–41.
Wichowsky, Amber, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2008. “Measuring How Administration Shapes Citizen ship: A
Policy Feedback Perspective on Performance Management.” Public Administration Review 68(5): 908–20.
Wildavsky, Aaron. 2007. Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Witko, Christopher. 2011. “Campaign Contributions, Access, and Government Contracting.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (4): 761–78.
Wright, Bradley E. 2001. “Public-Sector Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature and a Revised
Conceptual Model.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(4): 559–86.
Wright, Bradley E., and Adam M. Grant. 2010. “Unanswered Questions about Public Service Motivation: Designing
Research to Address Key Issues of Emergence and Effects.” Public Administration Review 70(5): 691–700.
Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2009. “Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does Structure
Matter?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(1): 75–89.

Sowa and Lu - Policy Management Considering PM Relationship Policy Studies - 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sowa and Lu - Policy Management Considering PM Relationship Policy Studies - 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Translated by Google

The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2017

Policy and Management: Considering Public

KEY WORDS: public management, policy studies, nexus

Understanding and drawing the boundaries around a body of knowledge can

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 75

76 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

today, discussing a selection of the questions being explored as public manage

What Is Public Management?

To explore public management, it is first important to focus on definition and

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 77

78 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 79

80 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

and Lynn (2009, p. 48) define structure as “lawfully authorized delegation to

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 81

Finally, the question of structure has considerably broadened as government

While structure is important, public management does not operate in a vacuum.

82 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

understandings that broadly characterize the organization or its subunits.” The

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 83

Schneider, 2009; Walker, 2008)? In addition, drawing on theories of learning,

In addition to structure and culture, public management focuses on the way in

84 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

information technologies to optimize public management has drawn growing school

Connecting Current Research in Public Management with Policy Studies

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 85

In considering what people are studying today in public management, we followed

How Do We Deliver Public Services?

86 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

and programs that allow for a contracting relationship to be objectively evaluated,

2. What evidence have we accumulated about how to effectively manage principal-

3. When should alternative service delivery arrangements (including contracting or

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 87

Lipsky (1980, 1984) introduced the concept of street-level bureaucrats to capture

88 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

In recent decades, there has been a reconfiguration of public management and

How Effective Is Public Management?

A large body of public management literature in recent decades has explored

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 89

management matters. Scholars have focused on trying to better understand the

1. With increasing attention on evidence-based policymaking and management in

90 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

How does management matter in performance information collection and use?

2. Under new governance, is performance management in direct government systems

How Do We Understand Public Problems?

While the study of collaboration crosscuts many of the previously discussed

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 91

problems inter-institutionally and examining collaborative governance in different policy

2. In addition, many participants involved in collaborative governance are non-state

3. What composition of coalitions to engage in collaborative governance produces the

& Varda, 2009; Sandstrom & Carlsson, 2008)?

Where do we go from here?

92 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 93

Jessica E. Sowa is an associate professor in the School of Public and International

94 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 95

96 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 97

98 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 99