比较公共行政的新观察

Comparative Public Administration Research: A Senior Academic Exchange Jody Fitzpatrick is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her research and teaching interests include program evaluation, research methods, and compar- ative public administration. Her recent books include Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4th ed., Pearson, 2010) and Evaluation in Action (Sage, 2009). E-mail: jody.fi tzpatrick@ucdenver.edu Malcolm Goggin is a clinical professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver and a senior fellow in the Buechner Institute for Governance. His research has been published in Public Administration Review, American Politics Quarterly, and Western Political Quarterly, as well as other professional journals. He is the author or editor of fi ve books. E-mail: malcolm.goggin@ucdenver.edu Tanya Heikkila is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her current research focuses on comparative institutional analysis, particularly with regard to the governance of water resources in transboundary and regional settings. She has coauthored two books: Common Waters, Diverging Streams (Resources for the Future, 2004) and the Effective Public Manager (4th ed., Jossey-Bass, 2008). E-mail: tanya.heikkila@ucdenver.edu Donald Klingner is a distinguished professor in the School of Public Affairs at University of Colorado Colorado Springs, a past president of ASPA, the current ASPA International Chapter president, and an elected fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. He is the coauthor of Public Personnel Management (6th ed., Longman, 2010), also published in Spanish and Chinese. He has worked as a consultant to the United Nations, World Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank on building public management capacity. E-mail: donald.klingner@gmail.com Jason Machado is a doctoral candidate in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver, where he received his MPA in 2006. Jason’s research interests include nonprofi t board govern- ance, grassroots advocacy, and the role of nonprofi ts in the policy process. He has worked as a public and legislative affairs director for multiple Colorado non- profi ts and continues to consult on advocacy projects that promote civic engagement and voter access. E-mail: Jason.machado@ucdenver.edu Christine R. Martell is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her research interests include international development, municipal debt market development, both domestically and internationally, and tax and expenditure limitations. E-mail: christine.martell@ucdenver.edu Comparative Public Administration Research: A Senior Academic Exchange 821 Jody Fitzpatrick Malcolm Goggin Tanya Heikkila Donald Klingner Jason Machado Christine Martell University of Colorado Denver Intensifi ed globalization, especially the necessity to learn more about how administrative reforms work eff ectively in diff erent cultural contexts, requires public administration research to embrace comparative perspectives. How well is the fi eld advancing in that direction? Th is article presents the results of a content analysis of 151 comparative public administration articles from 2000 to 2009. Results indicate that comparative research is building on theory and empirical research, making use of purposive samples, and using a mix of causal, descriptive, and exploratory methodologies. Subject matter varies widely, but most research focuses on European, Asian, and North American countries. Comparative research is primarily qualitative, making extensive use of existing data. Th e authors recommend enhanced application of mixed methods, increased use of culture as a key concept, and integration of a broad range of social sciences to encourage more students, practitioners, and scholars to think and work comparatively. Th ree senior comparative scholars respond, sparking a fascinating and insightful dialogue on this seminal topic in public administration. Public administration has become increas-ingly international and comparative in four respects. First, the inclusion of international and comparative perspectives has been of inestimable value in the development of public administration theory and in our understanding of how and why governance diff ers across countries. Second, com- parative public administration (CPA) research has fostered fundamental changes in how we teach public admin- istration. Th ird, international comparative public administra- tion fulfi lls a growing need for administrative tools, strategies, and processes that can better address the policy implementa- tion challenges that govern- ments face in an increasingly globalized world. A CPA perspective on theory, research, and teaching has fundamentally altered the practice o f public administration by directing it toward “good governance” (Argyriades and Pichardo Pagaza 2009). A better understanding of CPA is essential if govern- ments are to establish, maintain, or improve their administrative capacity (Jreisat 2005). A comparative approach can counteract tendencies toward parochial- ism that are already prevalent in U.S. public admin- istration theory, research, and teaching (Klingner and Washington 2000). Also, it can help scholars and practitioners recognize how diff erences in governance contexts—institutions, administrative processes, and culture—can present opportunities and challenges for eff ectively adopting uniform “best practice” solutions. In fact, research shows that “smart practices” (Bardach 2000) are better suited to adapting and sustaining exogenous innovations because they are based on the assumption that, while we can learn much from comparative study, applying what we learn must take into account variables specifi c to the context to which lessons are to be applied (Jabbra and Dwivedi 2004; Robinson 2007; Rogers 2003). Such research can be critical for public administrators and policy makers, as without adaptation to contingencies, they will make little or no progress (Barzelay 2001; Caiden and Sundaram 2004). Despite recognition of its value, there is little knowl- edge or synthesis of current CPA literature. Th is essay intends to fi ll that gap by presenting the results of a study of 151 CPA articles pub- lished from 2000 to 2009. Our research addresses the following questions: (1) How is research in comparative public admin- istration framed? (2) What are the subjects of focus in comparative research? And (3) what methodologies are used? Exploring these questions allows us to discuss trends and patterns in CPA research across time and A New Look at Comparative Public Administration: Trends in Research and an Agenda for the Future Despite recognition of its value, there is little knowledge or synthesis of current CPA literature. Th is essay intends to fi ll that gap by presenting the results of a study of 151 CPA articles published from 2000 to 2009. 822 Public Administration Review • November | December 2011 Research Analyzing the State of Comparative Administration Like us, a few other researchers have examined the research litera- ture in comparative public administration to get a picture of the fi eld. Th eir results, although they use diff erent methods, provide some means for examining change. Sigelman (1976), in a study of articles published in the Journal of Comparative Administration from 1969 to 1974, found that the largest proportion of articles were essays (46 percent), with another 35 percent categorized as empiri- cal, nonquantitative studies, mostly case studies. Th e articles covered a wide array of topics, and 70 percent studied administration in only one country. He found the existing literature to be “scattered and diff use” (1976, 624) and observed that much of the micro-level research on bureaucracy was being conducted by political scientists, sociologists, and others not connected with public administration. Sigelman saw micro-level studies, across a few countries, as the future of comparative public administration research. Fifteen years later, Van Wart and Cayer (1990) conducted a larger study of 253 comparative public administration articles published between 1982 and 1986. Like Sigelman, they found that the articles addressed a wide array of subjects, noting that comparative public administration subject matter “tends to mirror rather than narrow the fi eld” (1990, 242). In regard to theory, most of the articles they reviewed were categorized as either purely “descriptive” (40 percent) or “thesis assertion” (48 percent). Th eir interest was in the propor- tion of articles that actually were testing theory, in a hypothesis testing mode, and they found only 12 percent of the articles they reviewed did so. Concerning methodology, they found that the vast majority of articles were nonquantitative (79 percent), presumably referring to the methods of data analysis that the authors used; however, they did not describe the methods of data collection or data sources used. Most recently, Pollitt (2011) added to these reviews with an essay on the state of comparative public administration over the last three decades. He considered theory, methods, journals, and other factors that have infl uenced comparative public administration. He concluded that the volume and variety of comparative public administration research has increased considerably since 1980 and, today, has considerable vitality. But Pollitt expressed concern that many comparative public administration works are bereft of theory and thoughtful methodological approaches, although he observed that many bring theories from their own disciplinary fi elds or the subject matter of study. Our study builds on this literature to describe and analyze research in comparative public administration by assessing its current status and making recommendations for the future. Methodology We defi ned comparative public administration research as including articles that compared at least two units (countries, states or prov- inces, cities) in diff erent countries and addressed public administra- tion content, defi ned as activities required to deliver public policies. Articles that dealt solely with public policy or political science issues were excluded. Th e articles covered the period from 2000 to 2009 and were identifi ed through an extensive search of the literature beginning with the 20 journals used by Van Wart and Cayer (1990) across journals and to reach fi ndings and recommendations that we consider signifi cant. A Brief History of Comparative Public Administration Comparative public administration emerged out of post–World War II eff orts to fi nd better global development strategies. Its early practitioners worked to defi ne the fi eld, develop general theory, set a research agenda, and generalize “lessons learned” (Heady 1960; Riggs 1954). Ferrel Heady (1966, 3) noted that as long as the study of public administration was not comparative, there could not be a “science of public administration” in the sense of a body of gener- alized principles independent of their particular national setting. However, this search for generalized principles proved diffi cult. In keeping with the methodological debates of that era in the social sciences generally, some emphasized the superiority of quantita- tive methods (Sigelman 1976), while others focused on how to make case studies more replicable through clearer methodology and qualitative analysis (Bock 1962, 1970). Th e fi eld grew rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, spurred by national governments and interna- tional fi nancial institutions that saw replication of Western adminis- trative techniques as the key to third-world development in the face of international communism (Kettl 1997, 2002; Klingner 2009). It stagnated during the 1980s as market models and mechanisms sup- planted government-sponsored programs (not only in international development but also in public administration generally in Western nations), and then revived in the 1990s with the emphasis on regime transitions that followed the end of the Cold War (Dwivedi and Henderson 1990; Farazmand 2001; Huque and Zafarullah 2005; Klingner and Pallavicini Campos 2002; NAPA 2008; Pollitt 2011). Concerns and Problems in Comparative Administration Over the years, many scholars have emphasized the importance of comparison for building theory and gaining knowledge (e.g., Dahl 1947; Heady 2001; Peters 1978). Yet despite its evident value, CPA’s eff ectiveness has been challenged by four persistent critiques. First, consensus is lacking over the defi nition of the fi eld (Jreisat 2002, 2005; Sigelman 1976; Van Wart and Cayer 1990). Second, many scholars consider it insuffi ciently integrated with public administra- tion in general (Heady 2001; Jreisat 2005; Pollitt 2011; Van Wart and Cayer 1990) and development practice in particular (Faraz- mand 2009). Jreisat concluded that “[a]n eff ective convergence of comparative public administration with the main fi eld has not materialized, despite dynamic practical needs and global trends necessitating such a development” (2005, 231). Th ird, scholars have consistently noted the lack of theory (Heady 1966; Riggs 1962, 1964; Van Wart and Cayer 1990) and the role culture should play in that theory (Eglene and Dawes 2006). Despite persistent eff orts to establish a credible overarching CPA theory (e.g., Riggs’s [1964] model of structural-functional sociological analysis, Heady’s [1966] identifi cation of organizational, cultural, and structural-functional variables, and Werlin’s [2003] use of political elasticity theory), many authors continue to make comparisons without any reference to theory (Pollitt 2011, 119). Fourth, methodological shortcomings abound. Some CPA scholars have criticized the research literature for the scarcity of empirical data or quantifi cation (Peters 1996; Riggs 1962; Sigelman 1976; Van Wart and Cayer 1990). Other concerns refl ect the diffi culty and complexity inherent in conduct- ing good research across countries (Eglene and Dawes 2006; Peters 2010; Pollitt 2011). Comparative Public Administration Research: A Senior Academic Exchange 823 For all articles not classifi ed as essays, we examined the author’s purpose in conducting the research. Like others, we were interested in the extent to which comparative public ad- ministration research was testing hypotheses or theory and explored that by both describ- ing the design or purpose of the article (de- scriptive, causal, exploratory) and whether the author was testing a theory (as research can be causal but not test an explicit theory). Most of the 125 research and apparent research articles were descriptive (47 percent); however, the purpose of more than one-third of the articles (35 percent) was causal. Th e purpose of the remaining 18 percent of articles was exploratory, with authors at- tempting to gain in-depth knowledge of a few variables to add to our understanding of one or more constructs.2 Finally, almost one out of four (23 percent) research articles were found to be explicitly testing a theory. We also examined the concepts used by comparative public admin- istration researchers that are commonly employed in comparative research to frame their study. Our categories draw on theories fi rst discussed in reference to comparative research by Heady (1966). Th ese concepts include institutions, administrative processes, and culture. Authors might use one or more concepts, but to be coded as using one or more of these concepts, the article needed to include it as a central part of the study. Articles were considered as focusing on institutions if they centered on the design and role of political structures in public administration, governance arrangements, ad- ministrative agencies, or legal issues found in constitutions, legisla- tion, executive orders, or regulations (North 1990; Ostrom 1990; Shirley 2008). Administrative processes were defi ned as concerning the management functions or organizational procedures used to implement public policies (Kettl and Fessler 2008). Th ese include administrative or managerial functions such as decision making, leadership, human resource management, budget and fi nancial man- agement, information systems, policy or program implementation, and oversight and accountability. Given many comparative scholars’ emphasis on the importance of including and understanding culture in comparative work (Jabbra and Dwivedi 2004; Jreisat 2005; Pol- litt 2011; Robinson 2007), it was also important to study the extent to which authors considered the culture of the countries or other units they were studying in the formulation and implementation of their research. Culture was considered a central part of the article if the researcher addressed the values, views, norms, or attitudes of the regions being studied or individuals or groups in the region. We found that 74 percent of all articles included institutions as a key part of the study. Similarly, 74 percent dealt with administrative processes as a key concept. More than half (57 percent) of all articles addressed both administrative processes and institutions. In con- trast, culture was a major concept in only 38 percent of articles. Al- though we do not believe that good research must include all three of these concepts, we do think that comparative research should be integrative and intensive in order to truly add to our understand- ing of the interactions of institutions, administrative processes, and cultural values in diff erent countries, to permit us to develop valid typologies and theories. and extending through keyword searches of public administration topics and review of ab- stracts to identify articles that fi t our compar- ative defi nition. Finally, we identifi ed articles through a review of reference lists in previ- ously identifi ed articles. As a consequence, our fi nal pool consisted of 151 articles from 28 journals. (See the appendix for a list of those journals.) Articles were coded for (1) the type of research, including (a) the type of article (es- says, apparent research, and research), (b) the purpose of the research (descriptive, causal, exploratory), and (c) the comparative frameworks used (institu- tional, administrative processes, and cultural frameworks); (2) the use of theory, including (a) whether the article cited and built on an existing theory, and (b) whether theory was tested or extended or developed theory; (3) the primary and secondary subjects of study; (4) the unit of analysis (continent, country, state or province, city) and locations of the research; (5) methodological choices, includ- ing (a) the method of data collection, (b) the sources of data, (c) the means of analysis, (d) the size of the sample, and (e) the logic of sample selection. Th e six-member research team used a three-stage process to achieve an inter-rater reliability of 82 percent. Data then were analyzed us- ing SPSS as well as qualitative methods. (More detail on methodol- ogy can be obtained from the lead author.) How Is Comparative Public Administration Research Framed? To describe the framing of current comparative public administra- tion research, we examined fi ve issues: (1) the types of articles (essay, apparent research, and research), (2) the types of research (descrip- tive, causal, and exploratory), (3) the comparative framework used, (4) the use of theory and empirical research, and (5) the subject matte