Week 2 - Assignment: Describe the Senior Leadership Team's Role in Managing the Agency's Mission and Week 3 - Assignment: Examine Senior Leadership's Actions Toward Improving Organizational Efficiency

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 th e boun daries ar ound a body of knowledge can

be a challenging endeavor (Frederickson, 1999; Fuller, 1991). Within public

administration, scholars h ave devot ed 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 p aradigm within public admin ist ration , 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 e conomics), 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). T hese 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 summary of this history).

Further complicating this discussion of boundaries is the grow th of pr ominent

subfields within public administration. Public management is on e such area of in ter-

est f or scholars concerned with how government (and governance in more recen t

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.

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

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

parlance) w orks, leading to quest ions of wher e this body of knowledge nests within

the larger study of public administration. The differing perspectives on what is pub-

lic managemen t are exp lored later, but one definition is “ the process of ensuring that

the allocation and use of resources available to the government are directed toward

the achievement of lawful public policy goals” (H ill & Lynn, 2009, p. 10). Some

scholars treat public administration and public management as synonymous where

others view public man agement as a distinct area of study within public administra-

tion (Lynn, 2006). Whatever t he poin t of view one h olds, public administration and

public management are both con cerned with how government seeks to create public

value through problem solving, regulation, an d improving th e well-being of its citi-

zens. The differentiat ion between the t wo (to the degree that there is actually any),

which is addressed later, r emains a contested area of debate.

While the public administration/public managemen t boundar y line is far f rom

settled (and probably will not be resolved definitively any time soon ), as public man-

agement cont inues to grow in interest an d richness, 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 ot hers that inform it within a larger discipline can help en sure

that critical connections are capt ured and the richest set of th eories and perspectives

are brought to bear in answer ing the field’s questions. Drawing on semin al review s

of public managemen t (including but not limited to Behn, 1995; Hill & L ynn, 2009;

Lynn, 1996, 2006), this article examines public management in the new millennium,

with a focus on some of the central quest ions examin ed today and w here public

management intersects with one of the more prominent areas of research concerned

with how the state accomplishes its goals and how other interested actors, institu-

tions, and stakeholders influen ce governance—public policy process research and

overall policy studies. 3

Scholars of public management will be well served to con sider how their

research aligns w ith that of scholars in policy studies, as w e are all considering th e

question of how t o accomplish public policy goals and what constitutes and leads to

effective governance w hen we consider t he 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 act ion, failing to incorporate public man-

agement r esearch int o policy studies would leave a significant gap in the research

base. As part of this larger special issue, we h ope that by discussing w hat public

management is and it s con nections with policy studies, this could create a rich dia-

logue for these two sets of scholars to begin exploring the connections or nexus

between th ese areas of st udy.

This articl e has thr ee sec tions. We first begin with a di scussio n of publi c ma n-

agem ent, draw ing on semin al past exam inat ions and foc using on de finit ional

quest ions of w hat is publ ic manag ement . We also br iefly exa mine ho w variou s

trad itions of re search in pu bl ic man agemen t align with poli cy stud ies, o pening

the door for im proved co nnecti ons. Reco gnizi ng t h at n o o n e sum mary can co m-

preh e nsive ly capt ure a large area of st udy, we then turn to t he ques tion of what

are some of the major areas of focus or inter es t i n p ublic manag ement rese ar ch

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 75

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

today , dis cussin g a selec tion of th e que stion s be ing e xplored as publi c manag e-

ment transiti ons i nto th e new mi llenn ium. As we exp lore t hese qu estion s, we co n-

sider th e nex us of these quest io ns with the field of pol icy studies , reflect ing on

how publ ic manag em ent inte rsects wi th this fie ld and provi des a differ ent lens

on how to ac comp lish the goals of public po li cy. Fi nally, we co nclud e with

propo sing some the mes and act ions for futu re researc h that cou ld bring toge ther

policy stu dies and p ublic m anageme nt sch olars to ge nerat e conve rsatio n and

cross p ollina tion to fu rther t he lofty g oals of e mp irical resea rch des igned to h elp

furth er the goals and pu rpose s of g overn ment and gove rnance .

What Is Public Management?

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

core concepts, i ncluding w here t here is consensus and w here t here is disagreement.

There is n o one single, overarching definition of what is public man agement upon

which sch olars have agreed; in fact , Kett l and Milward (1996, p. vii) argue “public

management has lon g been a field in search of structure. Its sch olars and pr acti-

tioners know what it is not .” While public management draws on ideas from a num-

ber of disciplines and fields of study, incorporating theories of institutions,

management, individual and group decision m aking, and democracy, t he challenge

of narrow ing in on the exact boundaries of public management has resulted in a

variety of perspect ives.

The important question is first to dif ferentiate (t o the degree possible) bet ween

public administration and public management. There ar e a number of scholars who

maintain that the difference betw een 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 per spectives). From th is perspective, pub-

lic management is more a subset of questions or a subfield of research w ithin public

administration. For example, Rosenbloom (1983) described managerial, political, and

legal dimensions of public administration. I n this way, public management repre-

sents increased attention to the managerial side of public administration. However,

others have maintained public man agement differs from public administration in its

focus on leadership an d results as opposed to administr ation as a more st able and

maintenance focused approach to how government workers go about accomplishing

their w ork (see Hood, 2005, for a discussion of th is). Finally, others differentiat e pub-

lic managemen t from public administration on the basis of t he nature of inquiry i n

public man agement, with the focus being on empirical work design ed to provide

evidence on how we do the work of gover nment as opposed to more nor mative dis-

cussions of what is the role of public administration in the operation and mainte-

nance of the state (see Riccucci, 2010, for a discu ssion of this). 4,5 This debate is by no

means resolved, but for t he purposes of this article, we are considering public

76 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

management a subset of research with in public administration, similar to how policy

studies is considered by many as a subset of research with in political science (Saba-

tier, 1 991).

Core Concepts

There are many definitions o f public management , each of which surface a num-

ber of core concepts that have structured or focused the research in this area of study

(see Hill & Lynn, 2009; H ood, 2005; Lynn, 2006, for systematic reviews of many defi-

nitions). For the purposes of this discussion, there are thr ee definitions that guide

this review and one larger set of questions that inform where and how we consider

major tren ds in public management research. First, Frederickson, Smith, Larimer,

and Licari (2012, p. 100) define public management as h aving an emphasis on how

public managers operate, stating:

Public management is taken to mean the formal and informal processes of

guiding human interaction toward public organizational objectives. The

units of analysis are processes of interaction between managers and work-

ers 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 indi-

viduals on the front line and th ose managing them, and t he subsequent interactions

and relations between t hese actors are cent ral to determining public man agement

outcomes. This focus raises quest ions of w hat shapes how public man agers do th eir

work; how do we get those on t he ground to wor k t oward the accomplishment 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, Bekker s, Vink, & Musheno, 2015;

Van Wart, 2013; Wr ight, 2001). In this sense, public management is about what hap-

pens after the policy process has played out for a cycle, alth ough public management

can inform and feedback into the policy process to make policy changes.

This definit ion also captures the import ant distinctions bet ween public manage-

ment and policy research focused on imp lementation. While much policy research

does examine the activities of those involved in turning policy ideas into programs

on the ground, a fundamental qu estion associated with policy process and imple-

mentation is did t he policy work—did it accomplish its specified goals (Cline, 2000;

deLeon & deLeon, 2002; Mischen & S inclair, 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 th e work (and the resultant impacts on t he assessment of policy suc-

cess) are a component of this, it is a different focus from policy studies, as it is about

understanding h ow the outcomes come about ver sus whether th e policy worked. In

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 77

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

this w ay, this definition of public man agement adds a personnel dimension to the

policy process to examine how to t urn policy ideas into desired out comes, helping

open th e black box in the policy process and t ry to understand what h appens when

policy ideas are handed over to those who do the implementation. Therefore, this

definition of public management aligns mostly with policy implemen tation studies.

In particular, t his definition approximates top-down and bot tom-up approaches of

implementation studies, bot h emph asizing t he 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 forw ard by Bozeman (1993, p. xiii), w ho

argues “public management research entails a focus on strategy (rather than on man-

agerial processes), on int erorganizational r elations (rather than in traorganizational

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 organization s or even sin gle

organizational actors (Milward & Provan, 2000; O’Toole, 1997; Th omson & Perry,

2006). Therefore, public management, w hile examining what happens within organi-

zational boundaries, has broadened as a field of study and also must include a strate-

gic focus on the relations across organizations and include other players and

stakeholders in th e a dministration of govern ment p olicies and goals.

This def inition is also important for the purposes of this article, as it specifically

emphasizes t he intersection or nexus between public policy and management. Public

management is st rongly 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 pictur e. Where the pr evious definition aligned

with policy implementation studies, this definition of public management could c on-

nect public management research with policy process research focused on how

actors of various forms w ork together to foster policy learning an d change, such as

the research un der t he Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

Where public managers fit into this policy process, how they strategically communi-

cate what has been learned on the ground, has an important role in policy process

research. It can shape numerous parts of th e policy process, includin g but n ot limited

to how policies are designed, how coalitions are formed, an d as a possible venue for

policy entrepreneurs (Petridou, 2014). This definition suggests that in order to

achieve desir ed policy goals, public man agers and policymakers need to take a more

strategic perspective to appr oach policy problems that government needs to address.

This could include such aspects as bringing together relevant actors not only within

traditional government boundaries but also across sectors, managing interorganiza-

tional and int ersectoral relationships at boundaries t hroughout the policy process,

and using public management activities to foster policy lear ning and in form decision

making in a new cycle of the policy process or to influence policy ch ange .

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

78 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

converted into the achievement of public goals, stating “this definition sees the pub-

lic manager as both creature—of politics, law, structures, and roles—and creator —of

strategies, capacity, and results.” Ther efore, in fully understanding public manage-

ment, we need to explore the actions of public managers; the environments and

structures in wh ich these managers operate; and how people, structur es, politics,

laws, and strategies interrelate t o h opefully 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 st rategic dimension, but put s these together in a larger system of resources, str ate-

gies, and ot her 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 un derstanding of public management . Another reason why this defi-

nition is useful in t he discussion here is that th is definition intersects heavily with

policy research. From a policy perspective, in order to achieve specific goals, policy

entrepreneurs n eed to mobilize necessary resources and move th em toward policy

ends (Kingdon, 1984). In this w ay, public management and policy studies can be

mutually enh ancing an d we rely on this definit ion in lat er discussion on the nexus

between public management and policy studies.

The three def initions of public management are not mutually exclusive, but com-

plementary. The first definition emph asizes a vertical dimension of public manage-

ment; that is, public management needs to pay attention to personn el issues and

align public managers and front-line wor kers in program administ ration and policy

implementation. The second definition suggests a horizontal dimension; th at is, pub-

lic management needs to take a strategic perspective to align stakeholders within

and beyond governmen t boundaries in th e policy c ycle. T he t hird defin ition pr o-

poses a holistic approach; th at is, public management needs a system to aggregate

resources necessary t o the achievement of desired policy goals. In sum, all three def i-

nitions advance our understanding of public management and inform its nexus with

policy studies.

Hill and Lyn n ( 2009) provide a useful framework thr ough w hich to examine

public management, det ailing 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 p ast research

in p ublic management and therefore are strongly influenced b y Hill an d Lynn’s

(2009) w ork in classifying and organ izing the rich body of knowledge in pu blic

management.

Structure

The role of str ucture in public managemen t has been a central question. How

the activities and actions of public management are organized and structured and

what this organ ization mean s in terms of influencing the over all ou tcomes of govern-

mental act ion has led the field since its incept ion (Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2011;

Bozeman, 2004; Moulton , 2009; Nutt , 1999; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Pesch, 2008). Hill

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 79

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

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

istrative officials of the authority and r esponsibility to take action on the behalf of

policy a nd program objectives.” Q uestions of struct ure in public management

include t he public versus private debate, the study of organ izational design and the

capacity of public service organizations to accomplish public policy objectives, and a

growing focus on in ter-organizational str uctures and ar rangements an d of the use of

alternative policy tools an d stru ctures to accomplish public policy objectives.

The question of how public management and public organ izations differ from

other organizations has been a continuing avenue of inquiry in public management.

There are numerous studies comparin g public versus private organizat ions along

many dimensions to understand t he dif ferences in operat ions an d out comes ( see

Boyne, 2002; Rainey, Backoff, & Levine, 1976; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000, for just a f ew

examples of this large body of research). In addition, as nonprofit organizations are

increasingly involved in t he business of govern ment and t he administrative state,

these studies h ave ex panded to include nonprofits as an a dditional comparison

group (e.g., Goulet & Frank, 2002; Houston, 2006).

Others have examined this as not a public versus private question, but more on

how the state ac ts on organizat ions—that t he appropriate way to consider this struc-

tural question is the degree to w hich an organization is public, w ith “publicness”

conceptualized more as a continuum versus a dichot omous variable (Bozeman, 2004;

Bozeman & Bret schneider, 1994; B ozeman & Moulton, 2011). Grow ing from an initial

set of research put forward by Bozeman (2004), sch olars continue to examine th is

question and what publicness means for public management in terms of shaping the

design of govern ment and g overnance, th e actions of public managers, and th e out-

comes of public policy (e.g., Antonsen & Jorgensen, 1997; Moulton & Eckerd, 2011).

In addition to the question of organizational differences in structures, scholars have

also examined how structure inf luences the operation and actions of public manag-

ers, how public managers in turn influence structure, and the results of organization-

al actions in the public service ( Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Sandfort, 1999, 2003;

Wright & Pandey, 2009). This is one area in w hich st ructure, culture, and craft inter-

sect, as struct ure is not purely constituted and acting on public managers—this rela-

tionship is complex a nd iterative in pract ice.

When considering structure in public managemen t, scholars have also focused

on the question of organization al design from th e perspective of the resources and

capacity provided to public managers, with an eye on what this means f or public

value and public outcomes (Hill & Lynn, 2009). How do w e kn ow the best ways to

design organizations to en able public managers to be able t o do th eir 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 ser vice t o improve how

they operate? What are th e ways in which o rganizational s tructures create particular

practices t hat in fluence how resources are used, such as budgeting practic es and per-

sonnel practices (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005; Selden, 2009)? How do we define the

capacity of public managers and public management an d relate that capacity t o pub-

lic outcomes (see In graham, Joyce, & D onahue, 2003)? 7

80 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

Finally, the question of structure has considerably br oadened as government

moved away from public organizations as the sole met hod of achieving public out-

comes to encompassing a multiplicity of policy tools, other organizational actor s,

and inter-organization al arrangements to accomplish the overall objectives of gov-

ernment (Salamon, 2002; Sch neider & Ingram, 1990). Often referred to as the “ new

governance” and well captured by S alamon (2002), public man agement in its current

status includes the use of nonprofit organizations to deliver public services; the use

of tools t hat encourage in dividual choice on th e part of t he public, such as vouchers

and tax incentives or expenditures; and the larger quest ion of exposing public man-

agement to market mechanisms through the use of competitive contracting and pri-

vatization. Many of the gover nment tools discussed in public management ar e

essentially the policy tools or instruments discussed in policy studies. The form an d

method of th is privatization includes many different sets of research, but th e 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 f orm to include many diff erent structural ar rangements and many

different questions associated with how we should struct ure public management

activities and processes to accomplish public policy outcomes.8 Indeed, all these tools

are also under policy scholars’ study. In t his way, both public management and p oli-

cy studies scholars could collaborate t o help us understand what these tools ar e, the

assumptions underlying how they work, and the context under which a tool is used.

In considering the structural dimen sion 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 organ izational component s that could

facilitate effective policymaking and implementation? Can structures be designed

that both impr ove 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 t he entire policy process in a way that could bring in

multiple actors w ithin and outside government boun daries an d encour age th eir con-

tinuous 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 influ-

enced by policymakers and public managers; and stru ctures can be inclusive or

exclusive, bringing in new a ctors to improve policymaking and implemen tation or

keeping them out of the process.

Culture

While structure is import ant, public managemen t 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. H ill and Lynn (2009, p. 192) describe the cultural com-

ponent or dimension of public management as “the values, beliefs, et hics, and

motives of individual participants in addition to the shared norms and

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 81

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

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

tion of how culture inf luences public management h as focused on such aspects as

how to en sure th at public managers act in t he public interest, what values should be

reflected in public management , w hat drives public managers, and how culture

influences the overall outcomes of public managemen t (Hill & Lynn , 2009).

The cultur al dimension can include t he many studies of account ability in public

management. As Kettl (1996) argues, Americans have an inherent culture of examin-

ing n ot only wh ether govern ment actions work, but also whether govern ment

behaves in an accountable way. Following this tradition, public management

research has paid substantial at tention to accountability issues, from th e classic

debates about the best ways to ensure administrative accoun tability to studies evalu-

ating differen t accountability mechanisms and how those shaped public man age-

ment activities and results (A dams & Balfour, 2014; Finer, 1941; Friedrich, 1940;

Johnston & Romzek, 1999; Romzek and Dubnick, 1987). 9

When examining how pub-

lic manager s behave and how culture shapes the ability of in stitutions to hold these

managers accountable, studies include such questions as what is ethical behavior on

the part of public managers, how does ethics con nect to accountability, and what are

the lar ger values that public man agers do (and perhaps sh ould) hold as they under-

take their duties (Br ewer & 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 challeng-

ing, as Jø rgensen and Bozeman ( 2007) found a long l ist of different public values in

the know ledge base, ranging fr om the role of th e public sector in relation to society,

how public managers and politicians interact, how public employees should act

overall, and how public managers should interact wit h t he citizenry.

C o n n e c t i n g b a c k t o t h e H i l l a n d L y n n ( 2 0 0 9 ) d e f i n i t i o n o f c u l t u r e a s i n c l u d -

i n g m o t i v e s , a r i c h b o d y o f r e s e a r c h h a s g r o w n a r o u n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e

m o t i v e s o f t h o s e w h o w o r k i n t h e p u b l i c s e r v i c e , w i t h t h e m o s t r e s e a r c h e d a s p e c t

o f t h i s b e i n g p u b l i c s e r v i c e m o t i v a t i o n ( P e r r y & W i s e , 1 9 9 0 ) . A r e p u b l i c m a n a g -

e r s d r i v e n b y f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t m o t i v e s t h a n t h o s e w o r k i n g i n o t h e r

i n d u s t r i e s ? I f s o , s o w h a t d o e s t h a t m e a n f o r s t a f f i n g a n d m a n a g i n g i n t h e p u b l i c

s e r v i c e ? W h i l e s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s e n s u s h a s d e v e l o p e d a r o u n d t h e i d e a o f p u b l i c

s e r v i c e m o t i v a t i o n , t h e r e a r e s t i l l d e b a t e s a b o u t t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , o p e r a t i o n -

a l i z a t i o n , a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e m o t i v a t i o n t o k e y p u b l i c m a n a g e -

m e n t c o n c e p t s ( s e e P e r r y & H o n d e g h e m , 2 0 0 8 ; W r i g h t & G r a n t , 2 0 1 0 , f o r r e c e n t

r e v i e w s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h ) .

Finally, drawing on th eories from the gen eral or ganization t heory k nowledge

base, public management scholars have begun to ex amine how culture influences

the ability of public man agers t o achieve result s. Do public or ganizations or larger

institutional arrangements charged with achieving public managemen t object ives

have cult ures that support performance improvement and or ganizational learning

over time (Kroll, 2015a; Moynihan, 2008)? Can public man agement adjust an d inno-

vate to solve the challenging policy problems that persist over time (Damanpour &

82 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

Schneider, 2009; Walker, 2008)? In addition, drawing on theories of learnin g, cult ure,

and per formance, scholars have considered w hat can be done to create struct ures

and practices in public management that promote h igh perf ormance and new ideas

and solutions t o public problems over t ime. While this area of r esearch is still grow-

ing and is still far fr om having reached a point of coalescin g, resear ch has shown

that we need to think about how culture, structure, and craft interact to support or

inhibit the accomplish ment of public management object ives.

Policy studies can provide some insight on the role of culture in public manage-

ment. For ex ample, policy scholars also explore the ways in which moral and politi-

cal values come in to play in the policy process, such a s tensions between competing

values and moral dilemmas underlying policy debat es (Stone, 2002; Wildavsky,

2007). Again, policy studies have long examined the impact of cultural and ideologi-

cal components in shaping policymaking an d implemen tation (Low i, 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 addit ion to st ructure and culture, public management f ocuses on t he way in

which public managers fundamen tally do their work, w ith craft defined as the

“responses by in dividual public managers to the challenges an d opportunities inher-

ent in th eir positions” (Hill & Lynn, 2009, p. 229). This is the area of public manage-

ment well informed by gener al or busin ess man agement. Man y management skills

and techniques such as strategic planning, program evaluation, and total quality

management or iginated from business management and w ere later introduced int o

public management as means to improve public management efficiency an d effec-

tiveness (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Indeed, when consid-

ering t he cr aft of p ublic management, research can extend back to early studies of

the science of management and t he classic operating principles (POSDC ORB) put

forward by Gulick and Urw ick (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 wh at are the characteristics of public man agers w ho are per-

ceived to be or foun d t o be effective (e.g., Chase & Reveal, 1983; Riccucci, 1995). Peo-

ple are one of the most critical input s into organization s an d instit utions—how t hese

people behave an d how their h uman capital, social capital, and motivations are

translated into action toward the public interest is the final main focus of public

management r esearch. Public managemen t 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, Mor se, &

Sowa, 2011, for a review) . Scholars are also interested in introducin g d ifferent mea-

surement techniques to better capture employee and government per formance and

promote data-driven decision making (Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008; Behn, 2003;

Poister, Aristigueta, & Hall, 2015). More recen tly, how to use social media and other

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 83

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

information technologies t o optimize public management has dr awn growing schol-

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 pu blic manage-

ment separate from the structure in which this practice is executed would fail to pro-

duce meaningful research. In addition, the practice of public management, th e craft,

both shapes organizational cult ures and is shaped by them; therefore, it is critical to

examine this relationship. Public managers, wh en directing the behavior of th ose

they wor k with or supervise, can creat e particular cultural pract ices that h ave signifi-

cant ramif ications on outcomes. In addition, while a public manager may influen ce

culture, that cult ure can also constrain public man agers, facilit ating th eir behavior or

inhibiting their abilit y to enact desired ch ange (de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001; Fer-

nandez & Rainey, 2006; Mahler, 1997; Nyhan, 2000).

The craft dimension of public management is perhaps w here th e connections to

policy studies are more indirect, as craft involves what has traditionally been the

domain of public administration. As wit h structure, the cr aft connects to policy

implementation question s. Questions of the challenges exper ienced while executing

the mandate of policymakers connect to policy studies in terms of question s of

implementation, feedback, and policy learning, but scholars have often drawn a

divide between policy and managemen t in this component of public management.

We con sider later in this article where r esearch on t he craft of public management,

such as studies of performance, could con nect 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 captur e the rich ness of inquiry and fun damentally ar e influenced b y the per-

ceptions of t hose doing the evaluat ion. In a discussion of how to advance t he field of

public management, Behn (1995) advan ced w hat he termed a selection of “ big ques-

tions” to assist scholars in thinking about w hat public managemen t is in a more sys-

tematic fashion. To identify and study big questions is important, as jur isdictional

fights and methodological disagreement s can often shift scholars away from remem-

bering what is imp ortant 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: microman agement, motivation, and measurement.

The questions associated wit h micromanagement wer e 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 struct uring public management all speak

to th is 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—h ow to direct the actions of public manager s (con-

ceived as including numerous dif ferent actors) to accomplish the goals of govern-

ment. Finally, the question of measurement is fundamentally the craft question—

how do we know if public man agement makes a differen ce (Behn, 1995)? What are

84 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

the ways in which we can assess the performance of public management and use

that assessment to fost er learning and growth over time (Moynihan, 2008)? Indeed,

these three big questions are still strongly relevant to public management research

today, w ith scholars pursuing many research trends that con tinue to align with Behn

(1995).

In considering what people are studying today in public management, we f ol-

lowed Behn ’s notion of big questions. Each auth or compiled a list of topics t hat were

prevalent in the public management knowledge base over the past 15 years. Examin-

ing those topics, we then used Behn’s approach to think about w hat are these various

topics seeking to address: w hat questions are they looking t o an swer? 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 th ese questions, we h ighlight w here 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 con cern.

How Do We Deliver Public Services?

The question of h ow public management operates—what are the various ways

in which act ors 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 o f r ich inquiry, in cluding but not limited to the g rowth in th e use of con-

tracting, privatizat ion, and multiactor service delivery arrangements (e.g., the new

governance), and the role of discretion and the motivations of public managers at

various levels of governance and what this mean s for public managemen t outcomes.

In addition, growing out of frustration with the managerialism movement and the

challenge of solving “wicked policy problems,” scholars are increasingly questioning

who s hould 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 accomplish 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 th e

area in which there are n atural connections to policy s tudies and an area wh ere w e

can raise resear ch q uestions that engage sc holars operating in th e n exus between

these two fields of study.

For example, q uestions of con tracting and pr ivatization are fundamentally ques-

tions of policy process—the choice of contracting a public service c hanges the values,

assumptions, an d practices underpinning policymaking and implementation. The

increasing involvement of t he private sector in public program development an d ser-

vice delivery in many policy areas redefines conventional policy theories such as

iron triangles and issue networks and gives rise to new t heories like policy networks

(Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000; Rhodes, 2006). Cont racting can raise quest ions about

principal-agent relationsh ips and h ow t hese are managed, how to design policies

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 85

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

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

and how to evaluate the performan ce of these contractors to determine wh ether the

policy goals are being achieved and the efficiency and overall effectiveness of imple-

mentation (e.g., 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, w ith the production function

being taken over by private actors, is f ar m essier in pr actice 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 brough t in to policy

process and implementation research? There are scholars working at the intersection

of this field (see Sandfort & Moulton, 2015), but a coheren t resear ch agen da

with questions for policy and public managemen t scholars could be a productive

avenue of atten tion for both f ields. This r esearch agenda could in clude 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 is? How to com-

pare 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 o r p riva tiza tion ? Wha t i s an eff ecti ve cont ract ing o r p riva tiza tion st ruct ure ?

From a bottom-up approach, with policy implementation dependent on contrac-

tors, how do contractors as advocators 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 be better to do public management solely in-house through the author-

ity of government? Further, 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)?

86 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

Coproduction w as an area of research that gained prominence in the late 1980s,

but was over taken in public management research by th e growth of managerialism

and the New Public Management reforms of many Western coun tries (Alford, 2009).

Coproduction fundamentally is about the involvement of multiple actors, including

members of the community and the clien ts of services, in the production function of

a public service (Bovaird, 2007; Brandsen & Pestof f, 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, environment al stewardship, and crime prevention

(Alford, 2009; S chachter & Liu, 2005; Thomas, 2012). Coproduction, th e processes

associated with it, the design compon ents and implications for the production of

public services, and th e overall impact for policy goals, is an area of resurgen t inter-

est 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 th ese 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 mul-

tiple 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 coproduction 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 Advo-

cacy 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 advocator. 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) in troduced the concept of street-level bureaucrats to captur e

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 , w ith scholars examin-

ing front-line workers in terms of how they behave, what this means for the services

clients receive, and t he 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

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 87

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

public management and policy process, street-level bureaucr ats have received less

scholarly atten tion. As a good example of th e nexus bet ween public management

and policy process, street -level bureaucrats d eserve more att ention from d ifferent

disciplines. In addition, with more and more public services delivered by cont rac-

tors, it is important to consider what it means to be a front-line worker in a contr ac-

tor deliverin g a public service, even further r emoved from direct government control

and oversight . Therefore, the front-line worker provides a useful unit of analysis for

developing a coordinated research agenda acr oss 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 con-

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, ther e has been a reconfiguration of public management and

policy. Policymakin g and implementation is no longer a top-down process, but pro-

ceeds with negotiation and collaboration among various stakeholders throughout

the policy process. S ervice delivery is no longer deliver ed by a public workforce

within government domain, but is contracted out to nongovernment actors or c opro-

duced by citizens and communit ies beyond the traditional government boundaries.

In this sense, public policy and public management confront similar ch allenges, i.e.,

neither could function without the participation of citizens and nongovernmental

actors. How to effectively connect citizens and nongovernmental actors to the gover-

nance process constitut es a common question for public policy and public man age-

ment scholars. As such, policy studies and public management r esearch 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 managemen t literature in recent decades h as explored

management effectiveness and organizational performance. Based on t he accumulat-

ed body of knowledge, one would be hard pressed to conclude that management

does not matter in terms of how we accomplish th e goals of gover nment. Beyond the

question of whether management matters, an equally important question is h ow

88 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

management mat ters. Scholars have focused on trying to bett er understand the rela-

tionship between managerial action and public outcomes, seeking to tease out the

complicated relationship between management and organizational outcomes in gen-

eral, in dir ecting those on the groun d deliverin g services, in coordinating th e 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 managemen t mat ters, public managemen t sch olars have

paid special attention to the question of management matters for what. Indeed, pub-

lic management scholarship h as made significant progress in terms of understanding

how public ser vice s are measured in terms of their performance, the role of manag-

ers in shaping and understanding this performance, the use of performance manage-

ment, and wh at some of the barriers or challenges to performance measurement and

management in the public service are. However, t here 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 wrestlin g with the many paradoxes associat ed

with performance management, including measurement challenges over time and

the need for systematic updating, placing challenges on public manager s t o both

maintain t heir capacit y to measur e their performance and to use performance infor -

mation to tru ly learn and adjust (Kroll, 2015a, 2015b; Moynihan, 2008).

Moreover, th e rise of cont racting and other i ndirect gover nment tools in public

management discourse further complicates the performance management endeavor.

Under the n ew governance model, a comprehensive government performance man-

agement s ystem needs to include two comp onents: perfor mance management in tra-

ditional bureaucratic system and performance management in indirect government

tools such as c ontracts and grants (Frederickson & Frederickson, 2006; Lu, 2016). In

this way, to improve policy and management effectiveness, we need to advance

knowledge in bot h categories. Currently, we have relatively rich know ledge about

the first category, but our understanding about the second category seems still in its

infancy.

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. O n the other h and, policy studies could h elp illuminate the design

of policies and the ch oices about what capacity to at tach to implement ation. Policy studies could also help address social con struction questions like how the policy pro-

cess shapes p olicy an d the overall polit ical environment and th en 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?

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 89

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

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 sys-

tems 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, r esearch on policy feedback could provide guidance and be better con-

nected in to the public man agement research on perf ormance management to

connect the dots between policy and managemen t 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 & Moyn ihan, 2008) .

This is an area of the nexus betw een public management and policy studies ripe for

future collaborations between scholars.

How Do We Understand Public Problems?

While th e study of collaboration cr osscuts m any of th e previously discussed

questions, the growing focus on collaboration in the form of collaborative gover-

nance, defined as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies

directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision making process t hat is

formal, consensus orient ed, and deliberative and t hat aims to make or implement

public policy or manage public programs or assets” (An sell & 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 th e decision-making or governing

level ask different questions from ground-level collaboration, as this collaborative

governance is con cerned with the quest ion of what do we know about what wor ks

in addressin g an area of public concern an d how can we leverage sh ared or pooled

knowledge and joint action to harness new ideas and approaches to addressing pub-

lic problems (An sell & Gash, 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). It actually

points to a normative question of how we perceive the environment where public

management and policy operat e, isolated or c onnected. Collaborative governance

studies have focused on a number of different policy areas, including but not limited

to en vironmental policy, education, an d natural r esource management (see H e ikkila

& 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 collabor ative governance studies in public managemen t with public policy.

With more and more public management research ers starting to look at public

90 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

problems inter -institutionally and examining collabor ative governance in different

policy areas, public management scholarship actually sheds light on policy process

research in various specific policy ar eas. On the ot her hand, policy studies has a lon g

history of looking at joint act ions by various actors in the policy process. For exam-

ple, Hjern and Porter (1981), in a seminal early w ork, called for a multiorganizational

policy implementation structure approach to understanding how to bring t ogether

multiple actors in a way t hat reduces the cost s 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 t o shape definitions of prob-

lems and drive forw ard policy solutions speak direct ly to studies of collaborative

governance in public man agement (Klijn & Koppen jan, 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-

ticipants 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; Sandstr€om & Carlsson, 2008)?

Where Do We Go from Here?

In con sidering how to ch art a course for ward to bring together public manage-

ment and policy scholar s to enrich each of their knowledge bases, we need to consid-

er wh at would be an action agenda for fostering this nex us. In thinking about the big

questions we have addressed, w hat could be some approaches t hat w ould 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 resear ch 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 wor ks 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

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 91

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

gathers critical stakeholders together to design policy and what the policy is overall

and public management scholar s to ask questions associated with the operation of

the actors involved in this policy field and what this means for effectiveness in solv-

ing th is public problem. If policy and management scholars can w ork together to

design comprehensive studies, each can answer questions important for their fields

and connections can be drawn to answ er questions across t he fields.

A n o t h e r a p p r o a c h c o u l d b e t o b u i l d d a t a s e t s a c r o s s p o l i c y f i e l d s w i t h p o l i c y

a n d m a n a g e m e n t v a r i a b l e s t h a t a l l o w f o r l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y o f t h e p o l i c y p r o -

c e s s , p o l i c y c h a n g e , a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t . A s w e k n o w t h a t r e p e a t e d i n t e r a c -

t i o n s c h a n g e t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a c t o r s , t h e m o r e t h a t w e

g a t h e r l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a i n p a r t i c u l a r p o l i c y a r e a s , d a t a t h a t i n c l u d e q u e s t i o n s o f

p o l i c y a n d m a n a g e m e n t , t h e m o r e t h a t w e w i l l b e a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w t h e s e

r e p e a t e d i n t e r a c t i o n s a f f e c t t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f p u b l i c p u r p o s e s . D r a w i n g o n

t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d c r o s s - f i e l d t e a m s , c r e a t i n g d a t a r e p o s i t o r i e s t h a t a d m i n i s t e r

r e p e a t e d s u r v e y s o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e , s u c h a s t h e A m e r i c a n S t a t e A d m i n i s t r a -

t o r s P r o j e c t o r t h e N a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t u d i e s P r o j e c t , b u t i n v o l v e s p o l i c y

p r o c e s s a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t s c h o l a r s t h r o u g h c o o r d i n a t e d e f f o r t s , w o u l d b e

a s i g n i f i c a n t a d v a n c e t h a t w o u l d d r i v e b o t h f i e l d s o f s t u d y f o r w a r d a n d a l l o w

f o r m o r e c o o r d i n a t e d a n d a l i g n e d r e s e a r c h o n h o w w e a c c o m p l i s h p o l i c y g o a l s

a n d p r o d u c e p u b l i c v a l u e . L o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a a r e m o r e p r o m i s i n g n o t o n l y

b e c a u s e t h e y e n a b l e u s t o o b s e r v e t h e b e h a v i o r s o f p u b l i c m a n a g e r s a n d p o l i c y

a c t o r s o v e r t i m e , b u t a l s o b e c a u s e t h e y a l l o w u s t o d e l i n e a t e c a u s a l m e c h a n i s m s .

C a u s a l i t y i s a f u n d a m e n t a l t a s k f o r s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h . C u r r e n t r e s e a r c h , s o m e -

t i m e s r e l y i n g o n c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l d a t a , c o u l d o n l y f i n d a s s o c i a t i o n s b e t w e e n v a r i a -

b l e s o f i n t e r e s t . I f w e w a n t o u r s c h o l a r s h i p t o t r u l y a d v a n c e o u r k n o w l e d g e

a b o u t t h e f i e l d a n d t o i n f o r m r e a l - w o r l d p r a ct i c e , m o r e c a u s a l r e s e a r c h u s i n g l o n -

g i t u d i n a l d a t a i s n e e d e d .

F i n a l l y , a c r o s s p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t a n d p o l i c y s t u d i e s , w e n e e d t o e n c o u r a g e

t h e u s e o f a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f r e s e a r c h a p p r o a c h e s t o c a p t u r e t h e n e x u s b e t w e e n t h e

p o l i c y p r o c e s s a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t . A n y s i n g l e m e t h o d h a s i t s o w n l i m i t a -

t i o n . S o c i a l p h e n o m e n a a r e m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n a n y s i n g l e m e t h o d c o u l d c a p t u r e .

R e l i a n c e o n o n e r e s e a r c h m e t h o d i n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t s i n b i a s e d c o n c l u s i o n s . T h i s i s

e s p e c i a l l y t h e c a s e i n p o l i c y s t u d i e s a n d p u b l i c m a n a g e m e n t , w h e r e s u b j e c t m a t -

t e r s , t h e o r i e s , a n d a p p r o a c h e s a r e f r a g m e n t e d a n d m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y . C o n n e c t i n g

t h i s v a r i e t y c a l l s f o r e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i v e r s i t y a n d e x c h a n g e .

T h e s e f i e l d s h a v e a r i c h h i s t o r y o f e m p l o y i n g d i v e r s e m e t h o d s , b u t t h e r e i s a

g r o w i n g e m p h a s i s o n p o s i t i v i s m a n d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h g i v i n g p r i m a c y t o

q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d s . W e n e e d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i m p r o v e m e n t i n n o r m a t i v e a n d

empirical (quantitative and qualitative) methods, and we need to use mixed meth-

ods to cross-validate findings, that is, “a rapprochement between the so-called

organizational and administrative sciences and the humanities” (Frederickson,

2000, p. 51).

92 Policy Studies Journal, 45:1

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles

Conclusion

Studies of the policy process an d public man agement fundamentally address the

question of how do we ensure public value and appropriate action on th e par t of

government in governance process? A s both fields of study have reached a cer tain

level of development, the time has come to evaluate what we know, how we know

it, an d what are some ways in which t hese fields connect to fost er a more compre-

hensive un derstanding of governance. This article provides some modest sugges-

tions, drawing heavily on (or standing on th e sh oulders of) many scholars befor e 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 manage-

ment and organizational effectiveness.

JiahuanLu is an assistant professor in the School of Public Affairs and Administra-

tion at Rutgers University-Newark. His research interest lies in public and non-

profit 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 cre-

ate 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 spe-

cifically examines public management research, a subset of public administration.

2. The question of what is public administration has preoccupied scholars for at least 50 years. Listing

all of the studies on this topic, including works on doctoral research in public administration (e.g.,

Adams & White, 1994; Cleary, 2000), what is the field, and its relationship to political science (e.g.,

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 to not include. In addition, citing all of the relevant research could result in a bibli-

ography 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 , whichGovernance is a rich debate about the degree to which public management has ignored the state and the implica-

tions 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

Sowa/Lu: Policy and Management 93

15410072, 2016, 45, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary-w

iley-com .proxy1.ncu.edu B

y N orthcentral U

niversity C alifornia- on [03/11/2021]. R

e-use and distribution is strictly not perm itted, except for O

pen A ccess articles