公共管理者在公共政策中的作用(編輯修改稿)
2024-10-19 14:58 本頁面
【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 measure using a model that incorporates salary, education, experience, and a number of other related indicators. Their subsequent work has found this measure of quality to have a substantial and systematic impact on anizational performance. Other studies have included different aspects of managerial expertise, such as whether the manager had served in that particular agency before assuming the leadership role (Hamidullah, Wilkins, amp。 Meier, 2020。 Hill, 2020) and if the manager had held similar leadership roles in other anizations. Overall, this work has established that managerial quality is an important predictor of policy outes, and that managerial quality is a concept that we can get some real leverage on measuring and incorporating into our studies of the policy process. Networking in Public Management In addition to incorporating varying levels of quality, scholarship in public management has focused on the ways in which public managers operate in anizations that are quite different than the traditional, hierarchical agency. Often, a cursory treatment of policy implementation assumes that laws are passed down to agency heads who implement these changes through their particular anization, all the way down to the streetlevel bureaucrats. We know this is not always the case. In fact, it is likely the more unusual case. Most public anizations exist in a dynamic environment in which their activities and performance are dependent (to different degrees) on other anizations. Examples of government failure have been attributed to a lack of coordination between public managers and other anizations, and legislatures have responded by crafting policies that are intended to affect public managers. We have a number of recent examples. The poor response to Hurricane Katrina is regularly attributed to the inability of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) managers to coordinate with state and local government officials. The mistakes made in the lead up to 9/11 pointed to a lack of collaboration among intelligence agencies. Environmental policy solutions regularly call for a work of public anizations and private industry, whether managed through cooperation or regulation, as way to bat a number of problems. Some healthcare policy relies on contracts between public agencies, private industry, and nonprofit anizations. Many of our policy instruments require public managers to collaborate with other anizations. Additionally, other public managers may choose to collaborate, not because they are pelled to do so, but because they believe that this collaboration will lead to positive results for the anization. Scholars consistently find that increased collaboration leads to better policy outes for the anization (Agranoff amp。 McGuire, 2020。 Boyne, Meier, O’Toole, amp。 Walker, 2020。 Milward amp。 Provan, 2020。 Meier amp。 O’Toole, 2020). However, few scholars have explicitly considered how policy change affects collaborative behavior or how managerial collaboration affects the relationship between legislative policy adoption and outes. We know that increased working and collaboration leads to higher levels of performance. We also know that there is substantial variation in the extent to which public managers are included in the policy design process. Performance Evaluation We also join the work of James and Jenson (2020) and believe that an exploration of bureaucratic performance evaluation systems could prove fruitful in advancing policy theory. Our colleagues in this series, Workman, Jones, and Watson (2020), focus on the use of information in the policy process, and their work has convinced us that study of information may indeed be the way to break new theoretical ground. We believ
公司管理相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1