THE PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION
THEORY PRIMER
 The Public
Administration
Theory Primer

THIRD EDITION

H. George Frederickson
University of Kansas

Kevin B. Smith
University of Nebraska

Christopher W. Larimer
University of Northern Iowa

Michael J. Licari
Indiana State University

New York London

First published 2016 by Westview Press

Published 2018 by Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2016 Taylor & Francis

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only
for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Every effort has been made to secure required permissions for all text, images, maps, and
other art reprinted in this volume.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Frederickson, H. George.
The public administration theory primer / H. George Frederickson [and others].—Third
edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8133-4966-4 (paperback)—ISBN 978-0-8133-4991-6 (e-book) 1. Public
administration—United States. I. Frederickson, H. George. II. Title.
JF1351.F734 2012
351.73—dc23
2015005760
ISBN 13: 978-0-8133-4966-4 (pbk)
 Contents

Preface ix

Chapter 1 Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory 1

Why Do We Need Theory in Public Administration? 1
The Uses of Theory 4
Is a Useful and Reliable Public Administration
Theory Possible? 8
Some Contemporary Theories of Public
Administration 11
Notes 13

Chapter 2 Theories of Political Control of Bureaucracy 14

Introduction: What Are Theories of Control
of Bureaucracy? 14
The Difference Between Politics and Administration 17
Are Bureaucracies Out of Control? 24
Agency Theory 35
Conclusions 38
Summary 39

Chapter 3 Theories of Bureaucratic Politics 41

Introduction: What Are Theories of Bureaucratic
Politics? 41
Administrative Theory as Political Theory 43
Allison’s Paradigm of Bureaucratic Politics 47
Politics, Power, and Organization 50

v
vi Contents

Networks and Bureaucratic Politics 56

Representative Bureaucracy 59
Conclusions 64
Summary 65

Chapter 4 Public Institutional Theory 66

Institutional Theory 67
The Basic Idea 70
From Organizations to Institutions 72
Hierarchy 75
Alternatives to Hierarchy 78
Comparing Institutional Forms 79
High-Reliability Systems 81
Low-Reliability Systems and Their Improvement 82
System Fragmentation 84
Garbage Cans and Rent Seeking 85
The Diffusion of Innovation 88
Conclusions 93
Summary 94

Chapter 5 Theories of Public Management 95

Introduction: Developments in Public
Management Theory 95
Traditional Management Theory Thrust Forward 99
Leadership as Public Management 115
Managing by Contract 119
Governance 124
Conclusions 125
Summary 127

Chapter 6 Postmodern Theory 129

Organizational Humanism and Postpositivism 129
Postmodern Perspectives in Public Administration 137
Looking for Postmodern Public
Administration Theory 147
Contents vii

Conclusions 164
Summary 165
Notes 166

Chapter 7 Decision Theory 167

Introduction 167
The Evolution of Decision Theory 171
Revisiting the Logic of Consequences 176
Bounded Decision Rationality and the Logic
of Appropriateness 182
Conclusions 191
Summary 194
Notes 195

Chapter 8 Rational Choice Theory and Irrational Behavior 196

Introduction: What Is Rational Choice Theory? 196
The Rational, Self-Maximizing Bureaucrat 199
Trust and the Irrational Bureaucrat 204
The Self-Maximizing Citizen and the Tiebout
Hypothesis 206
Rational Choice as the New Orthodoxy 212
Conclusions 217
Summary 221
Notes 221

Chapter 9 Theories of Governance 222

Introduction: Public Administration’s Need for
a Theory of Governance 222
A New Model of Governance 225
Governance as the New Public Management 229
Governance as a Unifying Framework for Public
Administration? 235
Collaborative Governance Theory 242
Conclusions 245
Summary 248
viii Contents

Chapter 10 Conclusion: A Bright Future for Theory? 249

Theories of Political Control of Bureaucracy 250
Theories of Bureaucratic Politics 253
Public Institutional Theory 256
Theories of Public Management 257
Postmodern Theory 259
Decision Theory 260
Rational Choice Theory and Irrational Behavior 262
Theories of Governance 265
Theory in Public Administration 268

References 271
Index 299
 Preface

The first edition of The Public Administration Theory Primer sought to address
a problem faced sooner or later by all students, scholars, and practitioners of
public administration. In order to make sense of what we study or practice, we
need some structure or framework to understand decisions, outcomes, causes,
and the like; in other words, we need a theory. The big problem in the field of
public administration is not that we lack theory; the problem is one of sur-
feit rather than deficit. The big challenge is ordering, synthesizing, and making
sense of multiple theoretical and empirical perspectives. The first edition of the
primer was explicitly aimed at meeting that challenge.
Since its publication in 2003, The Public Administration Theory Primer has
been adopted by scores of instructors, cited in hundreds of scholarly articles, and
served as a comprehensive survey of the field for thousands of students and aca-
demics. Though it continued to serve as a standard reference and text, events in-
side and outside the academy left the first edition increasingly dated. There have
been numerous new developments and contributions in public administration
theory since its publication; changes in government and management practices
have created new demands for different types of theories; and some of the con-
cepts and models given extensive coverage in the original edition, and even in
the second edition published just three years ago, have either passed from favor
or been superceded by subsequent work. As we discuss more extensively than in
previous editions, the rapidly changing nature of how public goods are delivered
is forcing dramatic changes to public administration theory.
This third edition of The Primer retains the original’s thematic focus and gen-
eral organization but is extensively updated to include the latest directions and
developments. These include the rise of reporting as a means to hold bureau-
cracy accountable (see Chapter 2), the continuing evolution of the “hollow state”
or “shadow bureaucracy” and the rise of network theory (see Chapter 5), new
psychological/biological behavioral research with big implications for decision
theory and, especially, rational choice (see Chapters 7 and 8). New to the third
edition is more extensive discussion of emotional labor and cognitive psychology
in relation to postmodern theory and decision theory. Collaborative governance

ix
x Preface

is completely reshaping the notion of a cohesive framework of public service

delivery as public and private organizations, domestically and internationally,
are increasingly and necessarily interconnected. As we note in this edition, such
advances raise serious questions about legitimacy and accountability that schol-
ars are only beginning to dissect. The contributions of more than a dozen years’
worth of new research is woven into all the chapters, some of which has altered
our conclusions about the health and robustness of some popular conceptual
frameworks (see Chapter 10).
Many deserve thanks for making this third edition possible. We appreciate
Ada Fung, our editor at Westview, for her hard work, faith in the project, and
patience in seeing it through to fruition. We also appreciate the efforts of Tigstu
Woldeyohanns, who, as Chris Larimer’s research assistant, contributed by orga-
nizing, discussing, and analyzing new research in the field. We also have a long
list of debts to many others whose contributions through three editions should
not go unmentioned. These include Ken Meier, Leisha DeHart-Davis, and Tom
Catlaw. We thank our colleagues at the Department of Public Administration of
the University of Kansas, the Department of Political Science at the University of
Nebraska, and the Department of Political Science at the University of Northern
Iowa for encouraging and supportive environments in which to work. We thank
Dwight Waldo for his inspiration. Above all, we thank our spouses, Mary Freder-
ickson, Kelly Smith, Danielle Larimer, and Kirsten Licari, for their unflagging and
loving support.
 1
Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory

Why Do We Need Theory in Public Administration?

All the great human events in history were probably achieved by what we today
would call public administration. Organization and management practices in
collective or public settings are certainly as old as civilization, and significant
changes in those practices tend to accompany historical shifts in mass-scale so-
cial organization and operation.1 For example, the transition from feudal society
to the extended nation-state was made possible by the centralization of policy,
on the one hand, and the decentralization of policy implementation, on the other
(Tout 1937; Ellul 1955; Chrimes 1952). The colonial era would be described the
same way, but on a worldwide scale (Gladden 1972). There are splendid com-
parisons of British, French, Portuguese, Dutch, and Belgian approaches to issues
of colonial centralization and decentralization, the management of courts, and
the organization and management of navies and armies (Gladden 1972, 323–
333). Extensive archaeological research indicates that early Armenian civiliza-
tions were built on rather elaborate forms of administration (Von Hagen 1962;
Prescott 1908; Mason 1957; Morley 1956). In China, the Sung dynasty (a.d. 960–
1279) “maintained substantially the traditional Chinese system of government
and administration. The Emperor, who was supreme, was advised and assisted
by a Council of State whose members, varying from five to nine, supervised in-
dividually the several organs of Administration, which were grouped under (1)
the Secretariat-Chancellery, (2) the Finance Commission, and (3) the Bureau
of Military Affairs” (Gladden 1972, 191; Yutang 1947; Loewe 1966; Balazs 1964;
Weber 1947).
In these and countless other examples, the elemental features of public ad-
ministration permeated social development; indeed, it is argued that civilization
requires the elemental features of public administration (Waldo 1946, 1956; Wil-
davsky 1987; Douglas and Wildavsky 1982). Following Max Weber, the elemental
features of public administration include (1) some basis of formal authority with

1
2 1: Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory

claims to obedience; (2) intentionally established laws and rules, which apply to all;
(3) specific spheres of individual competence, which include task differentiation,
specialization, expertise, and/or professionalization; (4) the organization of persons
into groups or categories according to specialization; (5) coordination by hierarchy;
(6) continuity through rules and records; (7) the organization as distinct from the
persons holding positions or offices in it; and (8) the development of particular and
specific organizational technologies (Weber 1952). Virtually all considerations of
the great epochs of human history have found the building blocks of organization
and management (Gladden 1972). The practices of public administration are, then,
as old as civilization and essential to the development of civilization.
Although the practice of public administration is very old, the formal study
of public administration and the elaboration of public administration theory are
very new. As a separate self-conscious or self-aware academic and intellectual
thing—a body of knowledge, a field of professional practice, an academic sub-
ject, a form of politics, a social construction of reality—public administration is
young. When measured from the Federalist, public administration is more than
225 years old, more than 22 decades, more than 7 generations. When measured
from the publication of Woodrow Wilson’s founding essay (1887/1941), public
administration is more than 125 years old, more than 12 decades, more than 3
generations. As a separate and self-conscious collection of concepts, ideas, re-
forms, courses and degrees, and professed answers to public problems, public
administration is a young adult.
In his encyclopedic description of what we know about public administration,
James Q. Wilson claims to have little interest in theory and expresses the opinion
that theory has little to offer to an understanding of bureaucracy:

I wish that this book could be set forth in a way that proved, or at least illus-
trated, a simple, elegant, comprehensive theory of bureaucratic behavior. I have
come to have grave doubts that anything worth calling “organization theory”
will ever exist. Theories will exist, but they will usually be so abstract or gen-
eral as to explain rather little. Interesting explanations will exist, some even sup-
ported with facts, but these will be partial, place- and time-bound insights. Many
scholars disagree with me. More power to them. (1989, xi–xii)

If contemporary understandings of public administration are merely recita-

tions of facts derived from research—letting the facts speak for themselves—can
public administration theory be taken seriously?
One purpose of this book is to answer this question with a firm yes. Despite
Wilson’s disclaimer, theory is the bedrock of understanding public administra-
tion. Indeed, in many ways Wilson’s own work is a profoundly important theo-
retical contribution.
There is no theorist more clever than the scholar claiming to have no theory.
Simply to arrange the facts, describe the research findings, and claim no theory
Why Do We Need Theory in Public Administration? 3

may appear to be safe. But theory of some kind will have guided the selection
of which facts to present, how to order those facts, and how to interpret them.
All theories have weaknesses, and denying theory while doing theory has the big
advantage of not having to defend those weaknesses. Denying theory while doing
theory has other advantages as well. It helps to avoid the stereotypes of, say, de-
cision theorists or rational choice theorists. To claim to be atheoretical skirts the
truth-in-labeling test. Without acknowledging a theory or expressing an interest
in a theory, the scholar can attempt to avoid labels and stereotypes. These are all
compelling reasons to avoid theoretical boxes and categories; but these reasons
do not diminish the centrality of theory in all of public administration.
Can theory be important in a field as applied, practical, and interdisciplinary
as public administration? This book answers this question with another firm yes.
We believe it is self-evident that a need exists for greater conceptual clarity and
theoretical reliability in the treatment of public administration. It is always tempt-
ing in an applied field to fall back on common sense and wisdom as sufficient to
the task of implementing public policy. In fact, common sense and wisdom are
necessary for carrying out effective policy, but they are not sufficient, especially
when common sense and wisdom are poorly defined or not defined at all. Deep
thinking is also helpful, but insufficient. The certainties derived from the deep
thought of one generation are often poor guides for succeeding generations. For
example, it is presently accepted almost universally that public bureaucracies are
slow, cumbersome, self-serving, and inefficient—the common sense or wisdom
of our day. We act on that common sense by deregulating, downsizing, contract-
ing out, privatizing, encouraging bureaucratic risk taking and innovation, and
loosening controls on government purchasing and bidding. In the 1930s, when
the United States was in a deep economic depression, an opposite type of com-
mon sense prevailed. Based on that common sense, we depended on centralized
government to solve common problems. We are now rapidly moving away from
dependence on centralized government, and common sense and conventional
wisdom appear to guide these trends.
In the past fifty years, public administration has developed more systematic
patterns of inquiry about the substance of public organization behavior, public
management, and public policy implementation. This work has contributed to an
increasing reliability in understanding public administration. The work of pub-
lic organizations has been examined with improved conceptual, methodological,
and theoretical forms of analysis. These forms of analysis seek to create knowl-
edge that is retraceable, cumulative, and, at least at some level, replicable. These
forms of analysis aspire to be scientific, using the word “scientific” here to mean a
kind of formal rationality by which the insights and discoveries of one generation
form the foundation for the inquiries of the next generation. Knowledge, then,
becomes collective and cumulative. This is not to suggest that the social world, of
which public administration is a part, is as amenable to formal scientific applica-
tions as is the physical world. It is not. But it is to suggest that the art and science
4 1: Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory

of public administration should be just that—art and science. The science and art
of policy administration is definable, describable, replicable, and cumulative.
A further purpose of this book is to describe in some detail several theories
and analytic approaches that contribute to what we know about public admin-
istration. We also aim to describe areas of public administration theorizing that
are underdeveloped. If we can accept that each approach to the subject of public
administration is guided, at least in some rudimentary way, by a theory or set
of theories, the questions are these: Which theories or approaches are the most
promising, the most influential? Which are the most important now and likely to
be the most important in the future? What phenomena in public administration
and governance are not yet adequately described or explained? One particular
area that is in need of greater study is the “shadow bureaucracy”—the extensive
network of private and nonprofit enterprises that exist to carry out public pro-
grams. The purpose of this book is to set out a detailed description of the authors’
selection of key theories in contemporary public administration in the hope of
improving the reliability of our knowledge and our understanding of public
administration.
No claim is made here for only one theory of public administration. Because
the field is both interdisciplinary and applied, a single theory derived from a
contributing discipline, such as the market model from economics, may be in-
formative and useful. But much of public administration cannot be described,
explained, or accounted for by using the market model. Each of the other theories
described in this book informs our understanding of public administration and
public policy. No theory standing alone is capable of accounting for the complex-
ity of the field. Taken together, however, the theories significantly contribute to
what we know and understand public administration to be.

The Uses of Theory

Consider this policy arena: With the destructive power of hurricanes, tornados,
floods, tsunamis, and wildfires, the critical nature of public administration is
self-evident. Is public administration in the form of the disaster prevention and
management system (Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency, Forest Service, Coast Guard) doing the best it can with a “wicked
problem” (Rittel and Webber 1973)? Will better public leadership and manage-
ment help (Kettl 2007)? How valuable and efficient is planning when natural di-
sasters are so infrequent in any one location? How can better coordination with
nonprofit and charitable organizations, such as the Red Cross, help? Will stricter
regulations about where and how people may build houses and businesses help?
How much responsibility do government agencies have for rescuing people who
have ignored orders to evacuate? Where is the balance between effectiveness of
government programs and their cost?
The Uses of Theory 5

Before we can seriously consider these public policy and public adminis-
tration issues, a certain reliability of understanding will be helpful. How do we
comprehend the issues and order the facts? How does our understanding, thus
derived, guide policy and action? The themes set out in the remaining chapters
of this book promise to improve our understanding of public administration and
suggest, therefore, how it can be strengthened. When a good theory is based on
reliable and replicable knowledge, nothing is more practical. What is the best
theory or mix of theories to inform our policy decisions and policy implementa-
tion in crime and lawlessness? What could be more practical than the answer to
that question? That answer would be especially useful and practical if the theory
or theories were based on the observation of specific events and on observations
and accumulations of patterns, experiences, and occurrences that, taken together,
suggest a way to ameliorate the problem.
How can theory be useful? The validity or usefulness of any theory depends on
its capacity to describe, to explain, and to predict.
A theory, to be useful, should accurately describe or depict a real-world event
or phenomenon. Most theories do this at some level of abstraction. Most impor-
tant public administration phenomena are complex, and therefore description is
an abstract representation of phenomena. All descriptions require that the analyst
decide which elements in a complex phenomenon to emphasize. All descriptions
are distortions of reality and are relative to the circumstances prevailing at the
time of the description. Descriptions are often like a still photo or a series of still
photos—and often fuzzy photos at that. Description is less often like a videotape.
In the same way that motion photography is an advancement on still photog-
raphy, our descriptive technologies in public administration are still relatively
primitive still photos.
Because of the limitations of descriptions, a useful theory will explain the phe-
nomenon being described. Explanation can account for the known distortions of
reality embedded in description. Explanation can also account for why the analyst
sees some factors in an event or phenomenon as more important than others. A
description asks what happened or what is happening, but even the best descrip-
tion of what is happening may fail to answer these equally important questions:
Why did this happen, or why is this happening? Explanation may not sharpen the
fuzzy photo of a description but, as Ansel Adams demonstrated with his black-
and-white still photography, there is an important difference between seeing a
picture and understanding a picture. In public administration, the descriptive fea-
tures of theory help us see; the explanatory features of theory help us understand.
If theory helps us to see and understand public administration phenomena,
should theory, therefore, help us to predict? Yes. Consider Herbert Kaufman’s
(1969) theory of cyclical change from a professionally based and neutrally com-
petent public administration to a politically responsive and partisan public ad-
ministration. Kaufman’s theory contains strong predictive properties. Although
6 1: Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory

less specific to public administration, Albert Hirschman’s theory (1982) of change

in the social and political world is similar and equally as useful.
The tendency is to expect too much of prediction in theory. Because public
administration is practical and applied, some seek a theory that, if followed, will
achieve a predictable result. Prediction should be interpreted largely to account for
patterns, probabilities, and likely outcomes, not specific results flowing inexorably
from the application of a particular theory. When prediction is loosely defined to
account for a range of situations over time, its capacity can be impressive.
An expectation of description, explanation, and prediction from theory in
public administration places this book rather firmly in the positivist tradition;
however, it is recognized and understood that not all events follow foreseeable
patterns. There are randomness and chaos, particularly at the microlevel or in one
event or a small group of events. But in a multitude of ways, we daily see, recog-
nize, understand, and bet on predictable patterns of collective human behavior.
Broad, macrolevel patterns of individual and collective behavior in public ad-
ministration can be seen, described with considerable reliability, and understood
at a level that allows for reliable prediction. Aaron Wildavsky’s work (1984) on
budgeting is illustrative. Michael Cohen and James G. March’s (1986) description
of universities as organizations is another example. Herbert Simon’s bounded
rationality is powerfully predictive (1947/1997).
In public administration theory, issues of precision versus generality are im-
portant. Greater precision and specificity in the description and explanation
of a public administration phenomenon are always purchased at the price of
generalization. The more a theory is precise or, as is presently popular to say,
contingent, the more the power to account for a broad pattern of events, and
therefore to predict a range of like phenomena, is reduced. The problem is that
big theory, grand overarching theory, is usually made so general by simplifica-
tions and assumptions as to render it unable to explain anything but the most
obvious occurrences. Systems theory comes to mind; so do simplified applica-
tions of market economics to public administration. The richness, texture, and
substance of events and phenomena can be lost in big theory. Precise theory,
on the other hand, can be so rich and contextual as to be bereft of generaliz-
ing potential. Because the contemporary use of case studies, examples of best
practices, and single analyses of particular policies illustrates the weaknesses of
precise theory in supporting generalizations, this book will dwell on eight the-
ories that have qualities of both precision and empirical richness and qualities
of generalization.
It is appropriate to turn now to what is meant here by theory as that word ap-
plies to public administration. At a loose and almost casual level, theory is simply
an orientation, framework, technique, or approach. For example, without refer-
ring to a particular theory, one might write that there is a theory (or there are
theories) of life cycles in organizations. Or one might refer to a personal opinion
as a theory. Theory is not used here in this relaxed form. Theory, in the more
The Uses of Theory 7

formal meanings of the term, has the following three meanings. First, in the natu-
ral and physical sciences, theory means a rigorous testing of predictive theorems
or hypotheses using observable and comparable data. These hypotheses, once
tested and verified, form the basis of theories, assertions, or representations of
reality. Theory in the natural or physical sciences can claim considerable accuracy
in representing reality because the classification of order in the physical world is
advanced, as are capacities to recognize and measure natural phenomena. The-
ory, thus derived, often serves as a highly reliable guide for action. In the social
world, of which public administration is a part, the problems of recognizing pat-
terns, designing categories, and measuring and comparing phenomena are much
greater. Therefore, the aims of theory in public administration are different (and,
some would say, lower).
Second, theory in the social sciences and in public administration means the
ordering of factual material (history, events, cases, stories, measures of opinion,
observation) so as to present evidence through definitions, concepts, and meta-
phors that promote understanding. To be sure, this understanding is, at least in
part, subjective, because it was constructed by the theorist. This theory is based on
the rigorous and intuitive observation of social behavior, organizational behavior,
institutional dynamics, political systems and behavior, patterns of communica-
tion, and culture. We will argue here that theory derived from such observation is
basic to all action in public administration. Most of this action is not formally and
explicitly acknowledged as driven by a particular theory. Public administration
decisions and action are, nevertheless, based on fundamental assumptions about
social behavior, patterns of human cooperation, incentives for action, and the
like. Because of this, one of the primary tasks of theory in public administration
is to make explicit and describe the assumptions that guide action and to develop
the categories, concepts, definitions, and metaphors that foster an understanding
of those assumptions.
Third, in public administration the meaning of theory is normative—theories
of what ought to be. These theories form the bridges among public administra-
tion, political science, and philosophy. Dwight Waldo (1946) taught us that all
theories of public administration are also theories of politics. Public adminis-
tration practice is a busy and untidy world in which costs and benefits, all nor-
matively based in nature and effort, are allocated among citizens through the
authority of the state. Theories of public administration guide the authoritative
allocation of public goods. Once again, the task of the theorist is often to discover
theory that accounts for or describes observable regularities in behavior and to
evaluate the normative implications of such behavior. It is often true that public
administration theorists use a mix of the second and third definitions of theory.
The meaning of theory in public administration is more than just a question
of how rigorous the measurement and how precise the observation are. Theory is
classified by the form, degree, or nature of its elaboration. For example, some the-
ory simply presents methodological questions, such as the debate over so-called
8 1: Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory

best practices research (Overman and Boyd 1994). Other theory uses deduction
and the synthesis of research findings in developing hypotheses to guide future
research. The Tiebout Thesis and much of rational choice theory are good ex-
amples of this kind of theory. According to surveys of articles in leading public
administration journals, this is the most common form of theory presentation
in the field (Cleary 1992; Adams and White 1994; Forrester and Watson 1994;
White and Adams 1994). Other theory is derived from the specific field-testing of
a particular hypothesis or cluster of hypotheses. The empirical test of the Tiebout
Thesis is a good example of this form of elaboration (Lowery, Lyons, and De-
Hoog 1992; Lyons and Lowery 1989). Theory also may vary by scope, some the-
ory being broad and presuming to account for, say, all public organizations, and
other theory being narrow to account for, say, law enforcement organizations.
Furthermore, theory in public administration can differ depending on whether
the subject is generally organizational, operational, managerial, or generally
policy-specific.
Finally, in public administration there is a special test of theory—how useful is
it? Because of this test, the degree of measuring rigor and precision and the level
of elaboration in a theory may be less important than the question of usefulness.
Good or useful theory presumes to organize and classify data in such a way as
to screen facts and then focus on only the most important. The test of a theory’s
usefulness is often its criteria in selecting and classifying facts, and if these are
accurate, the theory will enhance understanding, guide research, and powerfully
describe, explain, and predict.

Is a Useful and Reliable Public

Administration Theory Possible?
In the 1960s, at the time of the so-called behavioral revolution in political science,
there were essentially two positions regarding the prospects for a rigorous empir-
ically based theory or set of theories to explain political behavior. Although polit-
ical behavior is not exactly the same thing as public administration, the parallels,
particularly with regard to theory development, are strong. In public administra-
tion, there were, and some would say still are, essentially the same two positions
regarding empirically based theory.
These two positions were the classical, or traditional, and the scientific, or
behavioral. The essence of the traditional position is that public administration
involves purposes and authority in a way physical science does not. In the social
world, facts can be measured, but they are transitory. Furthermore, in issues of
collective human purposes, wisdom, intuition, and judgment are of surpassing
importance, but they are difficult to measure and classify. Therefore, many ele-
ments of public administration are essentially subjective.
The traditional position also argues that proponents of the behavioral posi-
tion, to the extent they confine themselves to analysis of those things that can
Is a Useful and Reliable Public Administration Theory Possible? 9

be verified by known measurement techniques, deny themselves some of the

most important tools presently available for coming to grips with the substance
of public administration. By denying the importance of intuitive guesses, judg-
ment, and wisdom, theorists working exclusively from the scientific and be-
havioral perspectives can make themselves remote from all that is important
in public administration. This argument is especially strong when it comes to
issues of ethics and morality in policy and public management. Traditionalists
argue that by being more scientific, public administration shies away from the
big questions of right and wrong. The tidy models of the behavioral theorist, they
argue, can lend a specious air of authority to such work.
By contrast, the behaviorists’ argument takes the positivist position that col-
lective human behavior exhibits enough order to justify a rigorous search, mea-
surement, classification, and depiction of that order. This can be done either by
separating facts from values—logical positivism—and theorizing about the facts
or by explicitly dealing with the value implications of factually derived theory.
The behaviorists’ position claims that simplifying models based on explicit as-
sumptions furthers the development of experimentation and reliable findings.
Besides, if there is disagreement regarding the theorists’ assumptions, theory in
the long run will be the better for it. As for issues of ethics, morality, wisdom,
and other fuzzy concepts, the behaviorist position is that such variables are not
beyond the reach of empirically derived theory.
Weber (1952) was a social scientist in the positivist tradition who argued
that human behavior, particularly bureaucratic behavior, exhibits observable
and describable patterns that can be scientifically verified. But he also argued
that social reality is composed of the ideas and beliefs of social actors. The task
of social science must therefore be the interpretation of action in terms of sub-
jective meaning. Today, a fully developed theory of interpretive social science
(Weber 1952; Winch 1995) argues that in the social context humans act inten-
tionally according to shared ideas and beliefs and shared meanings associated
with those ideas and beliefs. This argument has evolved to the widely supported
view that reality is socially constructed; indeed, it is further suggested that it is
useful to think of organizations as shared meanings or understandings (Weick
1979). Interpretative social science can include interpretations of the past (his-
tory), interpretations of events (case studies), and interpretations of decisions
and actions by participant observations.
Some argue that interpretive social science and positivist, or behavioral, social
science are competitive and irreconcilable (Winch 1995). But it is our view, and
the dominant perspective in contemporary social theory (MacIntyre 1984), that
there can be theory that describes empirically observed regularities in the social
world as well as interpretations of those regularities.
Today, the traditional and behavioral positions in public administration are
in many ways reconciled. Both positions are essentially right in that they ac-
knowledge the importance of observation and categorization and the central
10 1: Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory

place of theory as the appropriate means to express reality and guide action.
Public administration theory derived from historical analyses, institutional
study, and philosophy is now understood to be as legitimate as public adminis-
tration theory derived from statistical analysis and mathematical models. Fuzzy
phenomena, such as leadership and the “principles of public administration,”
are now the subjects of empirical analysis and theory-building (Behn 1991;
Hood and Jackson 1991).
The reconciliation of traditional and behavioral public administration reflects
this perspective: “Science is not a substitute for insight, and methodological rigor
is not a substitute for wisdom. Research that is merely rigorous may well be rou-
tine, mechanical, trivial, and of little theoretical or policy value. However, . . . in
the absence of such rigorous and controlled analysis even the most operational
data are of little value” (Singer 1966, 15).
Even with this reconciliation, theory-building in public administration is in-
fluenced by tastes and fashions. There is always the law of the instrument: When
the theorist has a methodological or conceptual hammer, everything begins to
look like a nail. In the policy schools, the case method has taken on some aspects
of a hammer; the market model and mathematical conclusions so derived have
been applied to a lot of nails lately. Nevertheless, despite examples of method-
ological and theoretical excesses, public administration theory has never been
healthier than at present.
From the traditionalist and behavioralist positions of thirty years ago, public
administration has evolved to a field enjoying a considerable theoretical richness.
A single dominant theory, an intellectual hegemony, would have impoverished
the field. Instead, there are several strong and important theories and many im-
portant theorists, a condition befitting a field as applied and interdisciplinary as
public administration.
Finally, we come to the uses or purposes to which theory in public adminis-
tration may be put. There are countless examples of public administration the-
ory applied to less than wholesome purposes; the program-planning-budgeting
systems devised to make it appear that the United States was winning the war in
Vietnam comes to mind. The willingness of the field to embrace and rationalize
cutback management without being forthright about a resulting diminution in
organizational capacity is another example. Our predictive capacities are limited,
and even when we can predict, predictions sometimes run counter to the public
administration wisdom of the day. What, for example, would we predict about
the long-range effects of the currently popular idea of reducing governmental
purchasing and bidding regulations? A sensible prediction would be that reduc-
tion in excessive regulation will increase efficiency. But too much deregulation in
this area will in the long run almost certainly result in greater corruption. It was
corruption, after all, that caused many of the regulations to be adopted in the first
place (Frederickson 1999a).
Some Contemporary Theories of Public Administration 11

Although we cannot control the uses to which public administration theory

will be put, public administrators can often influence the use of theory. It should
be the aim of good public administration scholarship to arm public administra-
tors with the most reliable available theory. Biology cannot control medicine,
and physics cannot control engineering. But modern medicine wouldn’t amount
to much without biological research and theory, and engineering is deeply de-
pendent on physics for its theory. Researchers and theory builders in public
administration must meet the ultimate and most difficult challenge to public ad-
ministration theory: They must do their best to provide reliable theory, always
with the hope that public officials will use that theory to make democratic govern-
ment as effective as possible. Albert Einstein was once asked, “Why is it that when
the mind of man has stretched as far as to discover the structure of the atom we
have been unable to devise the political means to keep the atom from destroying
us?” He replied, “That is simple, my friend, it is because politics is more diffi-
cult than physics” (Herz 1962, 214n). Even though politics is more difficult than
physics, politics in the past fifty years has managed, so far, to keep atomic energy
from destroying us; indeed, atomic energy has in many ways become a boon to
humankind. The question is whether politics can continue to bend atomic energy
to worthy purposes even though such bending is difficult.
Insofar as theories of public administration are also theories of politics, the
application of public administration theory is always difficult, particularly in the
context of democratic government. Public administration theory is increasingly
sophisticated and reliable, and thereby it holds some promise of continuing to
make important contributions to the day-to-day effectiveness of democratic
government.

Some Contemporary Theories of Public Administration

It is not the purpose of this book to describe an all-encompassing view of public
administration reality or even to present a comprehensive survey of theories
on the subject. The succeeding chapters present particular theories or families
of theories that, in the authors’ judgment, have contributed significantly to the
body of knowledge in public administration, have the potential to make such
contributions, or have important heuristic value. The selection of theories omits
some important theoretical areas (game theory, administrative law, theories of
ethics). It nonetheless includes a wide enough variety of public administration
theory to illuminate the possibilities and limitations of contemporary theoriz-
ing in the field.
The following chapters’ selection of theories and models, subtheories, con-
cepts, research findings, and individual theorists included in each theory or
family of theories may elicit disagreement, even sharp disagreement. Public ad-
ministration is not a tidy field, and no four theorists would presume to tidy it up
12 1: Introduction: The Possibilities of Theory

in the same way. The authors can only hope that their ordering of public admin-
istration knowledge and theory will stimulate debate and the subsequent refine-
ment of theoretical categories. It was often difficult to place the work of particular
theorists in particular chapters. For example, modern network theorists, such as
H. Brinton Milward and Laurence O’Toole, might disagree with the inclusion of
network theory as part of the general body of bureaucratic politics theory and
prefer to think of network theory as important enough to merit a separate and
freestanding treatment. It will also be evident that network theory can be as easily
grouped with governance theory as with theories of bureaucratic politics, and we
discuss its implications in Chapter 9. Thus, there are obviously areas of overlap
and duplication between and among the eight theoretical areas we have selected.
Although we attempt to point out the most important, overlap and duplication
are part of a much larger point. Each theory, or family of theories, connects with
the other seven. That connection is what makes public administration a field, a
separate self-conscious body of knowledge. Part of doing theory is to disaggregate
the subject and examine the parts in detail; but an equally important part of doing
theory is to put together again.
Chapter 2 considers theories of political control over bureaucracy. From the
beginning of the field, a fundamental debate has questioned the appropriate range
of discretion for bureaucrats in a democratic polity. Contemporary research on
this subject has contributed to the development of political control theory. Chap-
ter 3 treats the subject of bureaucracy as theories of bureaucratic politics, a lively
and popular body of theory that particularly reflects the contributions and influ-
ence of political science. Chapter 4 takes up the subject of the houses in which
public administration happens, the formal and informal organizational struc-
tures of organizations. Over the past forty years, this body of theory has changed
dramatically—from organization theory to institutional theory. Chapter 5
changes the analysis from the houses of public administration to the management
of work in those houses. Management theory is a body of work that is not only
rather old, as in scientific management, but is also very new, as in contemporary
theories of leadership and Total Quality Management, or is still being developed,
as in recent descriptions of shadow bureaucracy and the hollow state. The impor-
tance of developments in network theory is discussed here, with implications for
governance reviewed in Chapter 9. Chapter 6 is a discussion of postpositivist and
postmodern public administration theory. This body of theory is most heavily in-
fluenced by contemporary sociology and by trends in philosophy. Of the theories
considered herein, postmodern theory is the most normative. Chapter 7 is a con-
sideration of decision and action theory. This body of theory is a primary bridge
to other, similar fields, such as planning, business administration, and operations
research. Chapter 8 is a treatment of rational choice theory, an influential per-
spective on public administration particularly reflecting the colonization of the
social sciences and public administration by economics. Chapter 9 takes up the
newest theoretical perspective in public administration: governance, including
Notes 13

the trend toward the hollowing out of the state. The eight chapters set out the es-
sential details of each of these theories, suggesting that each is an important part
of public administration. The final chapter puts these parts together and attempts
to describe and to understand public administration theory in its entirety.

Notes
1. The “public” in public administration is to be broadly defined here. “Public” is
used in its pregovernmental meaning to include governments and nonprofit, not-for-
profit, nongovernmental, parastatal, and other organizations having a clear public
purpose other than what is generally understood to be commerce or business. See
Frederickson 1997b.
References
Aberbach, Joel , and Bert Rockman . 2000. In the Web of Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Ackelsberg, Martha A. , and Mary Lyndon Shanley . 1996. “Privacy, Publicity, and Power: A
Feminist Rethinking of the Public-Private Distinction.” In Revisioning the Political: Feminist
Reconstructions of Traditional Concepts in Western Political Theory, edited by Nancy J.
Hirschman and Cristine DiStefano . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Adams, Guy , and Jay White . 1994. “Dissertation Research in Public Administration and
Cognate Fields: An Assessment of Methods and Quality.” Public Administration Review 6:
565–576.
Adrian, Charles . 1955. Governing Urban America. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Allison, Graham . 1971. Essence of Decision. Boston: Little, Brown.
Allison, Graham , and Morton Halperin . 1972. “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some
Policy Implications.” World Politics 24: 40–79.
American Political Science Association . 1950. On Divided Government. Washington, DC:
American Political Science Association.
Ammeter, Anthony P. , Ceasar Douglas , William L. Gardner , Wayne A. Hochwarter , and
Gerald R. Ferris . 2002. “Toward a Political Theory of Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly
13: 751–796.
Ansell, Chris , and Alison Gash . 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571.
Argyris, Chris . 1962. Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Homewood,
IL: Dorsey Press.
Argyris, Chris , and Donald Schon . 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ariely, Dan . 2009. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. Rev.
and expanded ed. New York: Harper-Perennial.
Aristotle 1932. Rhetoric. Translated by L. Cooper . New York: Appleton-Century, Croft.
Axelrod, Robert . 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Balázs, Étienne . 1964. Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Bardach, Eugene . 1977. The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes a
Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barnard, Chester . 1938. The Function of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Barnard, Chester . 1948. Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Barzelay, Michael . 1992. Breaking Through Bureaucracy. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Baudrillard, Jean . 1984. “Games with Vestiges.” On the Beach 5: 24.
Baudrillard, Jean . 1990. Revenue of the Crystal: Selected Writings, on the Modern Object and
Its Destiny. Translated by Paul Foss and Julian Pefanis . London: Pluto Press.
Behn, Robert D. 1991. Leadership Counts: Lessons for Public Managers from the
Massachusetts Welfare, Training, and Employment Program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Behn, Robert D. 2000. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Bellow, Gary , and Martha Minow , eds. 1996. Law Stories. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Bendor, Jonathan , and Thomas Hammond . 1992. “Rethinking Allison’s Models.” American
Political Science Review 86: 301–322.
Bendor, Jonathan , and Terry Moe . 1985. “An Adaptive Model of Bureaucratic Politics.”
American Political Science Review 79: 755–774.
Bendor, Jonathan , Terry Moe , and Kenneth Shotts . 2001. “Recycling the Garbage Can: An
Assessment of the Research Program.” American Political Science Review 95: 169–190.
Bendor, Jonathan , Serge Taylor , and Roland van Gaalen . 1987. “Politicians, Bureaucrats,
and Asymmetric Information.” American Journal of Political Science 31: 796–828.
Bennis, Warren . 2003. On Becoming a Leader. New York: Basic Books.
Berger, Peter L. , and Thomas Luckmann . 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. New York:
Doubleday.
Berliner, Daniel , and Aseem Prakash . 2012. “From Norms to Programs: The United Nations
Global Compact and Global Governance.” Regulation & Governance 6(2): 149–166.
Berry, Francis , Richard Chackerian , and Barton Wechsler . 1995. “Reinventing Government:
Lessons from a State Capitol.” In Public Management Reform and Innovation: Research,
Theory, and Application, edited by H. George Frederickson and Jocelyn Johnston . Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.
Blais, Andre , and Stephane Dion . 1991. “Are Bureaucrats Budget Maximizers?” In The
Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrat: Appraisals and Evidence, edited by Andre Blais and Stephane
Dione . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bledsoe, Timothy . 1993. Careers in City Politics: The Case for Urban Democracy. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bogason, Peter . 2005. “Postmodern Public Administration.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public
Management, edited by Ewan Ferle , Laurence Lynn Jr. , and Christopher Pollitt . New York:
Oxford University Press.
Boisot, Max . 1986. “Markets and Hierarchies in a Cultural Perspective.” Organizational Studies
2: 135–158.
Bourrier, Mathilde . 2011. “The Legacy of the High-Reliability Organization Project.” Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management 19: 9–13.
Box, Richard C. 2005. Critical Social Theory in Public Administration. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.
Box, Richard , Gary Marshall , B. J. Reed , and Christine Reed . 2001. “New Public
Management and Substantive Democracy.” Public Administration Review 61: 608–619.
Boyne, George . 1998. Public Choice Theory and Local Government. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Bozeman, Barry . 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bozeman, Barry , and Jeffrey D. Straussman . 1991. Public Management Strategies: Guidelines
for Managerial Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brafman, Ori , and Rom Brafman . 2008. Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior. New
York: Broadway Books.
Brehm, John , and Scott Gates . 1997. Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic
Response to a Democratic Republic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Brehm, John , and Scott Gates . 2004. “Supervisors as Trust Brokers in Social-Work
Bureaucracies.” In Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, edited by
Roderick M. Kramer and Karen S. Cook . New York: Russell Sage.
Brehm, John , Scott Gates , and Brad Gomez . 1998. “Donut Shops, Speed Traps, and
Paperwork: Supervision and the Allocation of Time to Bureaucratic Tasks.” Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 23–25.
Brooks, David . 2011. “The New Humanism.” New York Times, March 8, A23.
Brown, Brack , and Richard Stillman Jr. 1986. The Search for Public Administration: The Ideas
and Career of Dwight Waldo. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Brown, David . 1995. When Strangers Cooperate. New York: The Free Press.
Bryson, John M. 1988. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to
Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, John M. , and Barbara Crosby . 1992. Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling
Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Buchanan, James . 1972. “Towards Analysis of Closed Behavioral Systems.” In Theory of
Public Choice: Political Applications of Economics, edited by James M. Buchanan and Robert
D. Tollison . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Buchanan, James , Robert Tollison , and Gordon Tullock , eds. 1980. Toward a Theory of the
Rent-Seeking Society. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Buchanan, James , and Gordon Tullock . 1962. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Buchholtz, Todd . 1999. New Ideas from Dead Economists. New York: Plume.
Burns, Tom , and Helena Flam . 1987. The Shaping of Social Organization: Social Rule System
Theory with Applications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Callan, Eamonn . 1997. Creating Citizens. New York: Oxford University Press.
Camerer, Colin F. , George Lowenstein , and Matthew Rabin , eds. 2004. Advances in
Behavioral Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Campbell, Colin , and Donald Naulls . 1991. “The Limits of the Budget-Maximizing Theory:
Some Evidence from Officials’ Views of Their Roles and Careers.” In The Budget-Maximizing
Bureaucrat: Appraisals and Evidence, edited by Andre Blais and Stephane Dione . Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Carnevale, David G. 1995. Trustworthy Government: Leadership and Management Strategies
for Building Trust and High Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carroll, James , and H. George Frederickson . 2001. “Dwight Waldo, 1913–2000.” Public
Administration Review 61: 2–8.
Chi, Keon , Kevin Devlin , and Wayne Masterman . 1989. “The Use of the Private Sector in the
Delivery of Human Services.” In The Private Sector in State Service Delivery, edited by Joan
Allen et al. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Chisholm, Donald . 1995. “Problem Solving and Institutional Design.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 6: 25–47.
Chrimes, Stanley B. 1952. An Introduction to the Administrative History of Medieval England.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cialdini, Robert B. , and Noah J. Goldstein . 2004. “Social Influence: Compliance and
Conformity.” Annual Review of Psychology 55: 591–621.
Cigler, Beverly . 1990. “County Contracting: Reconciling the Accountability and Information
Paradoxes.” Public Administration Quarterly 3: 285–301.
Clark, David L. 1985. “Emerging Paradigms in Organizational Theory and Research.” In
Organization Theory and Inquiry: The Paradigm Revolution, edited by Yvonne S. Lincoln .
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Clayworth, Jason . 2011. “Debate on Economic Development Bill Likely This Week.” Des
Moines Register, March 22, 5A.
Cleary, Robert . 1992. “Revisiting the Doctoral Dissertation in Public Administration: An
Examination of the Dissertations of 1990.” Public Administration Review 52: 55–61.
Cleary, Robert , and Nicholas Henry , eds. 1989. Managing Public Programs: Balancing
Politics, Administration, and Public Needs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cocks, Joan . 1989. The Oppositional Imagination: Feminism, Critique, and Political Theory.
London: Routledge.
Cohen, Michael , and James March . 1986. Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College
President. Boston: Howard Business School Press.
Cohen, Michael , James March , and Johan Olsen . 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of
Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1–25.
Cohen, Steven , and William Eimicke . 1995. The New Effective Public Manager: Achieving
Success in a Changing Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts . 2001. Report of the Special Advisory Task Force on
Massport. December 4. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Conley, John M. , and William M. O’Barr . 1998. Just Words: Law, Language, and Power.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conquest, Robert . 2000. Reflections on a Ravaged Century. New York: Norton.
Considine, Mark , and Martin Painter . 1997. Managerialism: The Great Debate. Melbourne,
Australia: Melbourne University Press.
Cooper, Terry L. , and N. Dale Wright , eds. 1992. Exemplary Public Administrators: Character
and Leadership in Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dahl, Robert . 1947. “The Science of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 7:
1–11.
Darley, John M. 2004. “Commitment, Trust, and Worker Effort Expenditure in Organizations.” In
Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, edited by Roderick M. Kramer
and Karen S. Cook . New York: Russell Sage.
Davis, James H. , Lex Donaldson , and F. David Schoorman . 1997. “Toward a Stewardship
Theory of Management.” Academy of Management Review 22: 20–47.
Davis, Otto A. , M. A. H. Dempster , and Aaron Wildavsky . 1966. “A Theory of the Budgetary
Process.” American Political Science Review 60: 529–547.
Davis, Stanley , and Paul Laurence . 1977. Matrix. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
de fine Licht, Jenny . 2014. “Policy Area as a Potential Moderator for Transparency Effects.”
Public Administration Review 74(3): 361–371.
DeHart-Davis, Leisha . 2009. “Can Bureaucracy Benefit Organizational Women? An
Exploratory Study.” Administration and Society 41: 340–363.
DeHart-Davis, Leisha , and Barry Bozeman . 2001. “Regulatory Compliance and Air Quality
Permitting: Why Do Firms Overcomply?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
4: 471–508.
DeHoog, Ruth Hoogland . 1984. Contracting for Human Services: Economic, Political, and
Organizational Perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
deLeon, Linda , and Robert B. Denhardt . 2000. “The Political Theory of Reinvention.” Public
Administration Review 60: 89–97.
deLeon, Peter , and Linda deLeon . 2002. “What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An
Alternative Approach.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12: 467–492.
Denhardt, Robert . 1993. Theories of Public Organization. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Dias, Janice , and Steven Maynard-Moody . 2007. “For-Profit Welfare: Contracts, Conflicts, and
the Performance Paradox.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17: 189–211.
DiIulio, John Jr. 1987. Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management.
New York: The Free Press.
DiIulio, John Jr. 1994. “Principled Agents: The Cultural Bases of Behavior in a Federal
Government Bureaucracy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4: 277–320.
DiIulio, John Jr. , Gerald Garvey , and Donald Kettl . 1993. Improving Government
Performance: An Owner’s Manual. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
DiMaggio, Paul , and Walter Powell . 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism
and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48: 149–160.
Dirks, Kurt T. , and Donald L. Ferrin . 2001. “The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings.”
Organizational Science 12: 450–467.
Dirks, Kurt T. , and Daniel P. Skarlicki . 2004. “Trust in Leaders: Existing Research and
Emerging Issues.” In Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, edited by
Roderick M. Kramer and Karen S. Cook . New York: Russell Sage.
Donahue, John . 1989. The Privatization Decision. New York: Basic Books.
Douglas, Ceasar , and Anthony P. Ammeter . 2004. “An Examination of Leader Political Skill
and Its Effect on Ratings of Leader Effectiveness.” Leadership Quarterly 15: 537–550.
Douglas, Mary , and Aaron Wildavsky . 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Downs, Anthony . 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Downs, Anthony . 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Drucker, Peter . 1952. “Development of Theory of Democratic Administration: Replies and
Comments.” American Political Science Review 46: 496–500.
Dubnick, Melvin . 2005. “Accountability and the Promise of Performance: In Search of the
Mechanisms.” Public Performance and Management Review 28: 376–417.
Easton, David . 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
Egger, Robert . 2006. “Casting Light on Shadow Government: A Typological Approach.” Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 125–137.
Eggertsson, Thrainn . 1990. Economic Behavior and Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen . 1989. “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review.” Academy of
Management Review 14: 57–74.
Eisinger, Peter K. 1989. The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Ellul, Jacques . 1955. Histoire des Institutions. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Ellwood, John . 2000. “Prospects for the Study of the Governance of Public Organizations and
Policies.” In Governance and Performance: New Perspectives, edited by Carolyn Heinrich and
Laurence Lynn Jr. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Elsbach, Kimberly D. 2004. “Managing Images of Trustworthiness in Organizations.” In Trust
and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, edited by Roderick M. Kramer and
Karen S. Cook . New York: Russell Sage.
Emerson, Kirk , Tina Nabatchi , and Stephen Balogh . 2012. “An Integrative Framework for
Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 1–29.
Epstein, David , and Sharyn O’Halloran . 1996. “Divided Government and the Design of
Administration Procedures: A Formal Model and Empirical Test.” Journal of Politics 58:
373–397.
Ewick, Patricia , and Susan S. Silbey . 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from
Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farmer, David John . 1995. The Language of Public Administration: Bureaucracy, Modernity,
and Postmodernity. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Fayol, Henri . 1949. General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
Fehr, Ernst , and Simon Gachter . 2000. “Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods
Experiments.” American Economic Review 90: 980–994.
Felbinger, Clare , and Robert Whitehead . 1991a. “Development and Redevelopment of
Infrastructure.” In Managing Local Government, edited by Richard Bingman and others.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Felbinger, Clare , and Robert Whitehead . 1991b. “Management of Solid Waste Disposal.” In
Managing Local Government, edited by Richard Bingman and others. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ferguson, Kathy E. 1984. The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Ferris, Gerald R. , Darren C. Treadway , Robert W. Kolodinsky , Wayne A. Hochwarte , Charles
J. Kacmar , Ceasar Douglas , and Dwight D. Frink . 2005. “Development and Validation of the
Political Skill Inventory.” Journal of Management 31: 126–152.
Ferris, James , and Shui-Yan Tang . 1993. “The New Institutionalism and Public Administration:
An Overview.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3: 4–10.
Fesler, James , and Donald Kettl . 1996. The Politics of the Administrative Process. Chatham,
NJ: Chatham House.
Finer, Herman . 1941. “Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government.” Public
Administration Review 1: 335–350.
Fiorina, Morris . 1996. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.
Flentje, H. Edward Jr. 1993. Selected Solely on the Basis of Administrative Ability. Wichita, KS:
Wichita State University.
Foldy, Erica Gabrielle , and Tamara Buckley . 2009. “Re-Creating Street-Level Practice: The
Role of Routines, Work Groups, and Team Learning.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory. 20: 23–52.
Follet, Mary Parker . 1918. The New State. London: Longmans, Green.
Follet, Mary Parker . 1924. Creative Experience. New York: Longmans, Green.
Forrester, John , and Sheilah Watson . 1994. “An Assessment of Public Administration
Journals: The Perspective of Editors and Editorial Board Members.” Public Administration
Review 54: 56–68.
Forsythe, Dall W. 2001. Quick Better Cheaper? Managing Performance in American
Government. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
Fox, Charles J. , and Hugh T. Miller . 1995. Postmodern Public Administration: Toward
Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frederich, Carl . 1940. “Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility.” In Public
Policy, edited by Carl Frederich and E. S. Mason . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Frederickson, David G. , and H. George Frederickson . 2006. Measuring the Performance of
the Hollow State. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Frederickson, H. George . 1980. New Public Administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press.
Frederickson, H. George . 1991. “Toward a Theory of the Public for Public Administration.”
Administration and Society 22:395.
Frederickson, H. George . 1997a. “Beyond the City: Finding Metropolitan Governance in
America.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Public
Administration, Durham, North Carolina.
Frederickson, H. George . 1997b. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Frederickson, H. George . 1999a. “Public Ethics and the New Managerialism.” Public Integrity
1: 265–278.
Frederickson, H. George . 1999b. “The Repositioning of American Public Administration.” PS:
Political Science and Politics 32: 701–711.
Frederickson, H. George . 2000. “The Wisdom of History and the Folly of Experience.”
Unpublished.
Frederickson, H. George . 2005. “Whatever Happened to Public Administration? Governance,
Governance, Everywhere.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, edited by Ewan
Ferle , Laurence Lynn Jr. , and Christopher Pollitt . New York: Oxford University Press.
Frederickson, H. George . 2007. “Bureaucrats Without Borders: Public Management and the
End of Geography.” Donald C. Stone lecture given at the Annual Meeting of the American
Society for Public Administration, Washington, DC.
Frederickson, H. George , and Gary Johnson . 2001. “The Adapted American City: A Study of
Institutional Dynamics.” Urban Affairs Review 36: 872–884.
Frederickson, H. George , Gary Johnson , and Curtis Wood . 2003. The Adapted City:
Institutional Dynamics and Structural Change. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Frederickson, H. George , Gary Johnson , and Curtis Wood . 2004. “The Changing Structure of
American Cities: A Study of the Diffusion of Innovation.” Public Administration Review 64:
320–330.
Frederickson, H. George , and Todd LaPorte . 2002. “Airport Security, High Reliability, and the
Problem of Rationality.” Public Administration Review 62: 33–43.
Furubotn, Eirik , and Rudolph Richter , eds. 1984. “The New Institutional Economics: A
Symposium.” Zeitschriftfur die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft (special issue):140.
Fukuyama, Francis . 1993. “The New Institutional Economics: Recent Progress, Expanding
Frontiers.” Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft (special issue):149.
Fukuyama, Francis . 2014. “America in Decay.” Foreign Affairs. 93 (September/October):8–26.
Garnett, James . 1992. Communicating for Results in Government: A Strategic Approach for
Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garvey, Gerald . 1992. Facing the Bureaucracy: Living and Dying in a Public Agency. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garvey, Gerald . 1997. Public Administration: The Profession and the Practice. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Gaus, John . 1931. “Note on Administration.” American Political Science Review 25: 123–134.
Gaus, John . 1950. “Trends in the Theory of Public Administration.” Public Administration
Review 3: 161–168.
Gigerenzer, Gerd , Peter M. Todd , and the ABC Research Group . 1999. Simple Heuristics
That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilmour, Robert , and Alexis Halley . 1994. Who Makes Public Policy: The Struggle for Control
Between Congress and the Executive. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
Gladden, Edgar . 1972. A History of Public Administration. Vol. 2. London: Frank Cass.
Golden, Marissa Martino . 1992. “Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: Bureaucratic Responses to
Presidential Control During the Reagan Administration.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 2: 29–62.
Golembiewski, Robert T. 1972. Renewing Organizations. Ithaca, IL: Peacock.
Goodnow, Frank . 1900. Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York: Russell
and Russell.
Goodsell, Charles . 1983. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic.
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Goodsell, Charles . 1988. The Social Meaning of Civic Space. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Gormley, William . 1989. Taming the Bureaucracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gormley, William , and Steven Balla . 2008. Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and
Performance. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Gormley, William , and David Weimer . 1999. Organizational Report Cards. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gortner, Harold , Julianne Mahler , and Jeanne Bell Nicholson . 1997. Organizational Theory: A
Public Perspective. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
Graham, Cole Blease Jr. , and Steven Hays . 1993. Managing the Public Organization.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Greenwood, Ronald , and Charles Wrege . 1986. “The Hawthorne Studies.” In Papers
Dedicated to the Development of Modern Management, edited by Daniel Wren and John
Pearce II . Washington, DC: Academy of Management.
Gross, Neal , Ward Mason , and Alexander McEachern . 1958. Explorations in Role Analysis.
New York: Wiley.
Gruber, Judith . 1987. Controlling Bureaucracies. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Guba, Egon G. 1985. “The Context of Emerging Paradigm Research.” In Organization Theory
and Inquiry: A Paradigm Revolution, edited by Yvonna S. Lincoln . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Guéhenno, Jean-Marie . 1995. The End of the Nation-State. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Gulick, Luther . 1937. “Notes on the Theory of Organization.” In Papers on the Science of
Administration, edited by Luther Gulick and Lyndon Urwick . New York: Institute of Public
Administration.
Gulick, Luther . 1984. “The Metaphors of Public Administration.” Public Administration Quarterly
44: 714–723.
Gulick, Luther , and Lyndon Urwick , eds. 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New
York: Institute of Public Administration.
Guy, Mary Ellen , and Meredith A. Newman . 2004. “Women’s Jobs, Men’s Jobs: Sex
Segregation and Emotional Labor.” Public Administration Review 64(3): 289–298.
Guy, Mary E. , Meredith A. Newman , and Sharon H. Mastracci . 2008. Emotional Labor:
Putting the Service in Public Service. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Habermas, Jürgen . 1970. Toward a Rational Society. Translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro .
Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jurgen . 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro .
Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall, Angela , Fred R. Bass , Gerald R. Ferris , and Randy Massengale . 2004. “Leader
Reputation and Accountability in Organization: Implications for Dysfunctional Leader Behavior.”
Leadership Quarterly 15: 515–536.
Hammond, Thomas H. 1986. “Agenda Control, Organizational Structure, and Bureaucratic
Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 30: 379–420.
Hammond, Thomas H. 1993. “Toward a General Theory of Hierarchy: Books, Bureaucrats,
Basketball Tournaments, and the Administrative Structure of the Nation-State.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 3: 120–144.
Hammond, Thomas H. , and Jack H. Knott . 1999. “Political Institutions, Public Management,
and Policy Choice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9: 33–85.
Hammond, Thomas H. , and Gary Miller . 1985. “A Social Choice Perspective on Authority and
Expertise in Bureaucracy.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 1–28.
Handler, Joel . 1996. Down from Bureaucracy: The Ambiguity of Privatization and
Empowerment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Haque, M. Shamsul . 1996. “The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration in the Current
Epoch of Privatization.” Administration and Society 27: 510–536.
Hardin, Garrett . 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 1243–1248.
Harmon, Michael M. 1981. Action Theory for Public Administration. New York: Longman.
Harmon, Michael M. 1989. “‘Decision’ and ‘Action’ as Contrasting Perspectives in
Organizational Theory.” Public Administration Review 49: 144–149.
Harmon, Michael M. 1995. Responsibility as Paradox: A Critique of Rational Discourse on
Government. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harmon, Michael M. , and Richard Mayer . 1986. Organization Theory for Public Administration.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Haslinger, S. 1996. “Objective Reality, Male Reality, and Social Construction.” In Women,
Knowledge, and Reality: Explorations in Feminist Philosophy, edited by Ann Garry and Marilyn
Pearsall . New York: Routledge.
Hassan, Ihab . 2001. The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Cybereditions Corporations.
Heclo, Hugh . 1977. A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Heclo, Hugh . 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In The New American
Political System, edited by Anthony King . Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Hefetz, Amir , and Mildred Warner . 2004. “Privatization and Its Reverse: Explaining the
Dynamics of the Government Contracting Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 14: 171–190.
Heifetz, Ronald . 1994. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Heinrich, Carolyn J. 2010. “Third-Party Governance Under No Child Left Behind: Accountability
and Performance Management Challenges.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 20(s1): i59–i80.
Heinrich, Carolyn , and Laurence Lynn Jr. , eds. 2000. Governance and Performance: New
Perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hendricks, J. J. 1992. “Women-Centered Reality and Rational Legalism.” Administration and
Society 23: 455–470.
Henig, Jeffrey . 1994. Rethinking School Choice: Limits of the Market Metaphor. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Herz, John . 1962. International Politics in the Atomic Age. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Herzlinger, Regina , and William Krasker . 1987. “Who Profits from Nonprofits?” Harvard
Business Review (January-February):93–106.
Hill, Carolyn J. , and Laurence E. Lynn Jr. 2005. “Is Hierarchical Governance in Decline?
Evidence from Empirical Research.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:
173–195.
Hindera, John . 1993a. “Representative Bureaucracy: Further Evidence of Active
Representation in EEOC District Offices.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 3: 415–429.
Hindera, John . 1993b. “Representative Bureaucracy: Imprimis Evidence of Active
Representation in EEOC District Offices.” Social Science Quarterly 74: 95–108.
Hirschleifer, Jack , and John Riley . 1992. The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Declines in Firms,
Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hirschman, Albert O. 1982. Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell . 1979. “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure.”
American Journal of Sociology 85(3): 551–575.
Holden, Mathew Jr. 1964. “The Governance of the Metropolis as a Problem in Diplomacy.”
Journal of Politics 26: 627–647.
Homans, George . 1950. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Hood, Christopher , and Michael Jackson . 1991. Administrative Argument. Brookfield, VT:
Dartmouth Publishing.
Howell-Moroney, Michael E. , and Jeremy L. Hall . 2011. “Waste in the Sewer: The Collapse of
Accountability and Transparency in Public Finance in Jefferson County, Alabama.” Public
Administration Review 71: 232–242.
Hummel, Ralph P. 1994. The Bureaucratic Experience. 4th ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1952. “The Marasmus of the ICC: The Commission, the Railroads, and
the Public Interest.” Yale Law Journal 62: 467–509.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1961. The Common Defense. New York: Columbia University Press.
Irwin, Neil . 2014. “With Aid, More People Work.” December 18. New York Times: B1.
Jacob, Herbert . 1988. Silent Revolution: The Transformation of Divorce Law in the United
States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jacobson, Gary . 1990. The Electoral Originals of the Divided Government: Competition in U.S.
House Elections: 1946, 1988. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Jaques, Elliott . 1990. “In Praise of Hierarchy.” Harvard Business Review (January-
February):127–133.
Johnson, J. 1976. “Recent Administrative Reform in Britain.” In The Management of Change in
Government, edited by A. F. Leemans . The Hague, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Johnston, Erik W. , Darrin Hicks , Ning Nan , and Jennifer C. Auer . 2011. “Managing the
Inclusion Process in Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 21(4): 699–721.
Jones, Bryan D. , and Frank R. Baumgartner . 2005a. “A Model of Choice for Public Policy.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15: 325–351.
Jones, Bryan D. , and Frank R. Baumgartner . 2005b. The Politics of Attention: How
Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, Bryan D. , Frank R. Baumgartner , Christian Breunig , Christopher Wlezien , Stuart
Soroka , Martial Foucault , Abel Francois , Christoffer Green-Pederson , Chris Koski , Peter
John , Peter Mortensen , Frederic Varone , and Steffan Walgrave . 2009. “A General Empirical
Law of Public Budgets: A Comparative Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 53:
855–873.
Jung, Jun S. 2002. Rethinking Administrative Theory: The Challenge of a New Century.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kagel, John H. , and Alvin E. Roth . 1995. The Handbook of Experimental Economics.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, Daniel . 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Kahneman, Daniel , Jack L. Knetsch , and Richard H. Thaler . 1991. “Anomalies: The
Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and the Status Quo Bias.” Journal of Economic Perspectives
5: 193–206.
Kapucu, Naim , Farhod Yuldashev , and Erlan Bakiev . 2009. “Collaborative Public
Management and Collaborative Governance: Conceptual Similarities and Differences.”
European Journal of Economic and Political Studies 2(1): 39–60.
Kass, Henry D. 2003. “Is Trust Enough? The Issue of Reliance and Reliability in Public
Administration.” Unpublished manuscript. Portland, OR: Hartfield School of Government,
Portland State University.
Kaufman, Herbert . 1969. “Administrative Decentralization and Political Power.” Public
Administration Review 29: 72–102.
Kaufman, Herbert . 1991. Time, Chance, and Organizations: Natural Selection in a Perilous
Environment. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Keiser, Lael R. 2010. “Understanding Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Decision Making: Determining
Eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program.” Public Administration Review 70: 247–257.
Keiser, Lael R. , Vicki Wilkins , Kenneth Meier , and Catherine Holland . 2002. “Lipstick and
Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political
Science Review 96: 553–564.
Kelleher, Christine , and Susan Webb Yackee . 2009. “A Political Consequence of Contracting:
Organized Interests and State Agency Decision Making.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 19: 579–602.
Kernaghan, Kenneth , Brian Marson , and Sanford Borins . 2000. The New Public Organization.
Toronto: Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
Kettl, Donald F. 1988. Government by Proxy: (Mis)Managing Federal Programs. Washington,
DC: CQ Press.
Kettl, Donald F. 1993a. “Public Administration: The State of the Field.” In Political Science: The
State of the Discipline, edited by Ada Finfter . Washington, DC: American Political Science
Association.
Kettl, Donald F. 1993b. Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Kettl, Donald F. 2000. The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the
Transformation of Governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kettl, Donald F. 2002. The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-first
Century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kettl, Donald F. 2007. System Under Stress: Homeland Security and American Politics. 2nd ed.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Kiel, L. Douglas . 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kingdon, John . 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins.
Kingsley, J. Donald . 1944. Representative Bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
Knott, Jack . 1993. “Comparing Public and Private Management: Cooperative Effort and
Principal-Agent Relationships.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3:
93–119.
Koliba, Christopher J. , Russell M. Mills , and Asim Zia . 2011. “Accountability in Governance
Networks: An Assessment of Public, Private, and Nonprofit Emergency Management Practices
Following Hurricane Katrina.” Public Administration Review 71: 210–220.
Koppell, Jonathan . 2008. “Global Governance Organizations: Legitimacy and Authority in
Conflict.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 177–203.
Koppell, Jonathan . 2010. World Rule: Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global
Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koppell, Jonathan . 2011. “Administration Without Borders.” Public Administration Review 70
(supplement s1): S46–S55.
Kramer, Roderick M. 1999. “Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Emerging Perspectives,
Enduring Questions.” Annual Review of Psychology 50: 569–598.
Kramer, Roderick M. , and Karen S. Cook , eds. 2004. Trust and Distrust in Organizations:
Dilemmas and Approaches. New York: Russell Sage.
Kramer, Roderick M. , and Tom R. Tyler , eds. 1996. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory
and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krause, George . 2003. “Agency Risk Propensities Involving the Demand for Bureaucratic
Discretion.” In Politics, Policy, and Organizations: Essays in the Scientific Study of
Bureaucracy, edited by George Krause and Kenneth Meier . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Krislov, Samuel . 1974. Representative Bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Landau, Martin . 1991. “On Multiorganizational Systems in Public Administration.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 1: 5–18.
LaPorte, Todd R. , and Paula M. Consolini . 1991. “Working in Practice but Not in Theory:
Theoretical Challenges to High-Reliability Organizations.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 1: 19–47.
LaPorte, Todd R. , and Ann Keller . 1996. “Assuring Institutional Constancy: Requisite for
Managing Long-Lived Hazards.” Public Administration Review 56: 535–544.
Lasswell, Harold . 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, Youngmi , In Won Lee , and Richard C. Feiock , 2012. “Interorganizational Collaboration
Networks in Economic Development Policy: An Exponential Random Graph Model Analysis.”
Policy Studies Journal 40(3): 547–573.
Leland, Suzanne , and Olga Smirnova . 2009. “Reassessing Privatization Strategies 25 Years
Later: Revisiting Perry and Babitsky’s Comparative Performance Study of Urban Bus Transit
Services.” Public Administration Review 69: 855–867.
Leonhardt, David . 2011. “For Federal Programs, a Taste of Market Discipline.” New York
Times, February 9, B1.
Levitan, David . 1946. “The Responsibility of Administrative Officials in Democratic Society.”
Political Science Quarterly 61: 562–598.
Lewis, Paul , Doris Marie Provine , Monica Varsanyi , and Scott Decker . 2012. “Why Do
(Some) City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and
Organizational Influences on Local Choices.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 23: 1–25.
Light, Paul . 1999. The True Size of Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Lijphart, Arend . 1984. Democracies: Pottering Majoritarian and Consensus Government. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Likert, Rensis . 1961. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, Rensis . 1967. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lim, Hong-Hai . 2006. “Representative Bureaucracy: Rethinking Substantive Effects and Active
Representation.” Public Administration Review 66: 193–204.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. , and Egon G. Guba . 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lindblom, Charles . 1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review
19: 79–88.
Lindblom, Charles . 1965. The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual
Adjustment. New York: The Free Press.
Lindblom, Charles . 1979. “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through.” Public Administration Review 39:
517–526.
Lindblom, Charles , and David K. Cohen . 1979. Usable Knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Lipsky, Michael . 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Services. New York: Russell Sage.
Litchfield, Edward . 1956. “Notes on a General Theory of Administration.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 1: 3–29.
Loewe, Michael . 1966. Imperial China. New York: Praeger.
Long, Norton . 1949. “Power and Administration.” Public Administration Review 9: 257–264.
Long, Norton . 1952. “Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism.” American Political Science Review
46: 808–818.
Lowery, David . 2000. “A Transactions Costs Model of Metropolitan Governance: Allocation
Versus Redistribution in Urban America.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
10: 49–78.
Lowery, David . 2002. “Improving Governance.” Review of Improving Governance: A New Logic
for Empirical Research by Laurence E. Lynn , Carolyn J. Heinrich , and Carolyn J. Hill . Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 12: 293–298.
Lowery, David , and William Lyons . 1989. “The Impact of Jurisdictional Boundaries: An
Individual-Level Test of the Tiebout Model.” Journal of Politics 51: 73–97.
Lowery, David , William Lyons , and Ruth Hoogland DeHoog . 1992. The Politics of
Dissatisfaction: Citizens, Services, and Urban Institutions. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Lowery, David , William Lyons , and Ruth Hoogland DeHoog . 1995. “The Empirical Evidence
for Citizen Information and a Market for Public Goods.” American Political Science Review 89:
705–707.
Lowi, Theodore . 1979. The End of Liberalism. New York: Norton.
Lynn, Laurence Jr. 1996. Public Management on Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House.
Lynn, Laurence Jr. 2001. “The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public
Administration Really Stood For.” Public Administration Review 61: 144–157.
Lynn, Laurence Jr. , Carolyn Heinrich , and Carolyn Hill . 1999. “The Empirical Study of
Governance: Theories, Models, Methods.” Presented at the Workshop on Models and Methods
for the Empirical Study of Governance, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, April 23–May 1.
Lynn, Laurence Jr. 2000. “Studying Governance and Public Management: Why? How?” In
Governance and Performance: New Perspectives, edited by Carolyn Heinrich and Laurence E.
Lynn Jr. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lynn, Laurence Jr. 2001. Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lyons, William , and David Lowery . 1989. “Governmental Fragmentation Versus Consolidation:
Five Public Choice Myths About How to Create Informed, Involved, and Happy Citizens.” Public
Administration Review 6: 533–543.
MacCrimmon, Kenneth , and Donald Wehrung . 1986. Taking Risks: The Management of
Uncertainty. New York: The Free Press.
MacIntyre, Alasdair . 1984. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Majone, Giandomenico . 1984. “Professionalism and Nonprofit Organizations.” Journal of
Health Politics, Policy, and Law 8: 639–659.
Majone, Giandomenico . 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mansbridge, Jane . 1980. Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books.
March, James G. 1988. Decisions and Organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
March, James G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: The
Free Press.
March, James G. , and Johan P. Olsen , eds. 1976. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations.
Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
March, James G. , and Johan P. Olsen , eds. 1984. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational
Factors in Political Life.” American Political Science Review 78: 734–749.
March, James G. , and Johan P. Olsen , eds. 1986. “Garbage Can Models of Decision Making
in Organizations.” In Ambiguity and Command, edited by James March and Roger Weissinger-
Baylon . Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
March, James G. , and Johan P. Olsen , eds. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. New York: The
Free Press.
March, James G. , and Johan P. Olsen , eds. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: The
Free Press.
March, James G. , and Herbert Simon . 1993. Organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Marini, Frank . 1971. Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective.
Scranton, PA: Chandler.
Martin, Roscoe C. 1965. Public Administration and Democracy: Essays in Honor of Paul H.
Appleby. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Marx, Fritz Morstein , ed. 1946. Elements of Public Administration. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Mason, J. Alden . 1957. The Ancient Civilizations of Peru. New York: Penguin.
Mastracci, Sharon H. , Meredith A. Newman , and Mary E. Guy . 2006. “Appraising Emotion
Work: Determining Whether Emotional Labor Is Valued in Government Jobs.” American Review
of Public Administration 36(2): 123–138.
Mastracci, Sharon H. , Meredith A. Newman , and Mary E. Guy . 2010. “Emotional Labor: Why
and How to Teach It.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 16(2): 123–141.
Maxwell, Joseph A. 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayhew, David . 1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Law Making, and Investigation,
1946–1990. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Maynard-Moody, Steven , and Suzanne Leland . 1999. “Stories from the Front-Lines of Public
Management: Street-Level Workers as Responsible Actors.” In Advancing Public Management:
New Developments in Theory, Methods, and Practice, edited by Hal Rainey and Jeff Brudney .
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Maynard-Moody, Steven , and Michael Musheno . 2000. “State Agent or Citizen Agent: Two
Narratives of Discretion.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10: 329–358.
Maynard-Moody, Steven , and Michael Musheno . 2003. Streetwise Workers: Enacting
Identities and Making Moral Judgment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Maynard-Moody, Steven , and Michael Musheno . 2009. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories
from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Maynard-Moody, Steven , Michael Musheno , and Marisa Kelly . 1995. “Justice in the Delivery
of Government Services: Decision Norms of Street-Level Bureaucrats.” Unpublished proposal
to the Law and Science Program, National Science Foundation.
Mazmanian, Daniel , and Jeanne Neinaber . 1979. Can Organizations Change? Environmental
Protection, Citizen Participation, and the Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
McCabe, Barbara Coyle , and Janet Coble Vinzant . 1999. “Governance Lessons: The Case of
Charter Schools.” Administration and Society 31: 361–377.
McCloskey, Donald N. 1985. The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
McCoy, Edgar . 1940. “Patterns of Diffusion in the United States.” American Sociological
Review 5: 219–227.
McGregor, Douglas . 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, Eugene Jr. 1991. Strategic Management of Human Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities:
Workforce Decision Making in the Post-Industrial Era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKay, David . 1994. “Divided and Governed? Recent Research on Divided Government in the
United States.” British Journal of Political Science 24: 517–534.
McKinney, Jerome , and Lawrence Howard . 1998. Public Administration: Balancing Power and
Accountability. New York: Praeger.
McSwite, O. C. 1997. Legitimacy in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McSwite, O. C. 2002. Invitation to Public Administration. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Meier, Kenneth . 1975. “Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis.” American Political
Science Review 69: 526–542.
Meier, Kenneth . 1980. “Executive Reorganization of Government: Impact on Employment and
Expenditures.” American Journal of Political Science 24: 396–412.
Meier, Kenneth . 1993. Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of
Government. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Meier, Kenneth . 1994. The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol, and Public Policy. Armonk, NY: M.
E. Sharpe.
Meier, Kenneth . 1997. “Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and
Less Democracy.” Public Administration Review 57: 193–199.
Meier, Kenneth . 2011. “Governance, Structure, and Democracy: Luther Gulick and the Future
of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 70 (supplement s1): S284–S291.
Meier, Kenneth , and John Bohte . 2000. “Ode to Luther Gulick: Span of Control and
Organizational Performance.” Administration and Society 32: 115–137.
Meier, Kenneth , and John Bohte . 2003. “Span of Control and Public Organizations:
Implementing Luther Gulick’s Research Design.” Public Administration Review 63: 61–70.
Meier, Kenneth J. , Sharon H. Mastracci , and Kristin Wilson . 2006. “Gender and Emotional
Labor in Public Organizations: An Empirical Examination of the Link to Performance.” Public
Administration Review 66(6): 899–909.
Meier, Kenneth , and Jill Nicholson-Crotty . 2006. “Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and
Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault.” Public Administration Review 66: 850–860.
Meier, Kenneth , and Laurence O’Toole . 2009. “The Proverbs of New Public Management:
Lessons from an Evidence-Based Research Agenda.” American Review of Public
Administration 39: 4–22.
Meier, Kenneth , and Joseph Stewart Jr. 1992. “The Impact of Representative Bureaucracies:
Educational Systems and Public Policies.” American Review of Public Administration 22:
151–157.
Meier, Kenneth , Joseph Stewart Jr. , and Robert England . 1989. Race, Class, and Education.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Meier, Kenneth , Joseph Stewart Jr. , and Robert England . 1991. “The Politics of Bureaucratic
Discretion: Educational Access as an Urban Service.” American Journal of Political Science 35:
155–177.
Meier, Kenneth , Robert Wrinkle , and J. L. Polinard . 1999. “Representative Bureaucracy and
Distributional Equity: Addressing the Hard Question.” Journal of Politics 61: 1025–1039.
Mertins, Herman , and Patrick Hennigan . 1982. Applying Professional Standards and Ethics in
the ’80s: A Workbook and Study Guide for Public Administrators. Washington, DC: American
Society for Public Administration.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality.” In Social Theory and Social
Structure, edited by Robert Merton . New York: The Free Press.
Milgrom, Paul , and John Roberts . 1992. Economics, Organization, and Management.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Milward, H. Brinton . 1994. “Implications of Contracting Out: New Roles for the Hollow State.” In
New Paradigms for Government: Issues for the Changing Public Service, edited by Patricia
Ingraham and Barbara Romzek . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milward, H. Brinton , ed. 1996. “Symposium on the Hollow State: Capacity, Control, and
Performance in Interorganizational Settings.” Including Eugene Bardach and Cara Lesser ,
“Accountability in Human Service Collaboratives: For What? and to Whom?”; Laurence O’Toole
Jr. , “Hollowing the Infrastructure: Revolving Loan Programs and Network Dynamics in the
American States”; William Gormley Jr. , “Regulatory Privatization: A Case Study”; H. Brinton
Milward and Louise Ogilvie Snyder , “Electronic Government: Linking Citizens to Public
Organizations Through Technology”; Steven Rathgeb Smith and Judith Smyth , “Contracting for
Services in a Deregulated System”; and Laurence Lynn Jr. , “Assume a Network: Reforming
Mental Health Services in Illinois.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6:
193–314.
Milward, H. Brinton , and Keith Provan . 2000a. “Governing the Hollow State.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 10: 359–379.
Milward, H. Brinton , and Keith Provan . 2000b. “How Networks Are Governed.” In Governance
and Performance: New Perspectives, edited by Carolyn Heinrich and Laurence Lynn Jr.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mintzberg, Henry . 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, Henry . 1992. Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moe, Ronald , and Robert Gilmour . 1995. “Rediscovering Principles of Public Administration:
The Neglected Foundation of Public Law.” Public Administration Review 55: 135–146.
Moe, Terry . 1980. The Organization of Interests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moe, Terry . 1984. “The New Economics of Organization.” American Journal of Political Science
28: 739–777.
Moe, Terry . 1989. “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure.” In Can the Government Govern?
edited by John Chubb and Paul Peterson . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Moe, Terry . 1990. “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story.” Journal of Law,
Economics, and Organization 6: 213–266.
Moore, Mark H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morgan, Douglas F. 1990. “Administrative Phronesis: Discretion and the Problem of
Administrative Legitimacy in Our Constitutional System.” In Images and Identities in Public
Administration, edited by Henry D. Kass and Bayard L. Catron . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, Gareth . 1993. Imaginization: The Art of Creative Management. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Morley, Sylvanus . 1956. The Ancient Maya. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Morton, N. O. , and S. A. Lindquist . 1997. “Revealing the Feminist in Mary Parker Follett.”
Administration and Society 29: 348–371.
Mosher, Frederick . 1982. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Moynihan, Donald P. , and Sanjay K. Pandey . 2007. “The Role of Organizations in Fostering
Public Service Motivation.” Public Administration Review 67: 40–53.
Nalbandian, John . 1995. “Politics, Administration, and the City Manager.” In Ideal and Practice
in Council-Manager Government, edited by H. George Frederickson . Washington, DC: ICMA
Press.
Nathan, Richard . 1993. Turning Promise into Performance: The Management Challenge in
Implementing Workforce. New York: Columbia University Press.
National Commission for Employment Policy . 1988. Privatization and Public Employees: The
Impact of City and County Contracting Out on Government Workers. Washington, DC: National
Commission for Employment Policy.
Neustadt, Richard . 1960. Presidential Power. New York: Wiley.
Newland, Chester . 1994. “Managing for the Future in Council-Manager Government.” In Ideal
and Practice in Council-Manager Government, edited by H. George Frederickson . Washington,
DC: International City/County Management Association.
Newman, Meredith A. , Mary E. Guy , and Sharon H. Mastracci . 2009. “Beyond Cognition:
Affective Leadership and Emotional Labor.” Public Administration Review 69(1): 6–20.
Nicholson-Crotty, Jill , and Susan Miller . 2011. “Bureaucratic Effectiveness and Influence in the
Legislature.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22: 347–371.
Niskanen, William . 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Niskanen, William . 1994. Bureaucracy and Economics. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
North, Douglass . 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oldfield, Kenneth . 2010. “Using Critical Theory to Teach Public Administration Students About
Social Class Inequalities.” Administration Theory & Praxis 32(3): 450–472.
Olsen, Johan . 2001. “Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics.” American
Political Science Review 95: 191–198.
Osborne, David , and Ted Gaebler . 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Ostrom, Elinor . 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective
Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997.” American Political
Science Review 92: 1–22.
Ostrom, Elinor . 2003. “Toward a Behavioral Theory Linking Trust, Reciprocity, and Reputation.”
In Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research, edited by
Elinor Ostrom and James Walker . New York: Russell Sage.
Ostrom, Elinor , Roy Gardner , and James Walker . 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool
Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ostrom, Elinor , Larry Schroeder , and Susan Wayne . 1993. “Analyzing the Performance of
Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Sustaining Rural Infrastructure in Developing
Countries.” Journal of Public Communication Research and Theory 3: 11–45.
Ostrom, Vincent . 1973. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.
Ostrom, Vincent , Charles M. Tiebout , and Robert Warren . 1961. “The Organization of
Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.” American Political Science Review
55: 831–842.
O’Toole, Laurence J. 1997a. “The Implications for Democracy in a Networked Bureaucratic
World.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7: 443–459.
O’Toole, Laurence J. 1997b. “Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based
Agendas in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 57: 45–52.
O’Toole, Laurence J. 2000. “Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20: 263–288.
O’Toole, Laurence , and Kenneth Meier . 2004. “Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and
the Dark Side of Public Management in Networks.” Public Administration Review 64: 681–693.
Overman, E. Sam , and Kathy J. Boyd . 1994. “Best Practices Research and Postbureaucratic
Reform.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4: 67–84.
Palumbo, Dennis . 1987. The Politics of Program Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Perrow, Charles . 1999. Normal Accidents: Living with the High-Risk Technologies. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Perry, James L. 2000. “Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public Service Motivation.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10: 471–488.
Perry, James L. , and Timlynn Babitsky . 1986. “Comparative Performance in Urban Bus
Transit: Assessing Privatization Strategies.” Public Administration Review 46: 57–66.
Perry, James L. , Debra Mesch , and Laurie E. Paarlberg . 2006. “Motivating Employees in a
New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited.” Public Administration Review 66:
505–514.
Peters, B. Guy . 2000. “Policy Instruments and Public Management: Bridging the Gap.” Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 10: 35–47.
Peters, B. Guy , and John Pierre . 1998. “Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public
Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8: 223–244.
Peters, B. Guy , and John Pierre . 2000. “Citizens Versus the New Public Manager: The
Problem of Mutual Empowerment.” Administration and Society 32: 9–28.
Peterson, Paul , and Mark Rom . 1990. Welfare Magnets. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Pfiffner, John , and Frank P. Sherwood . 1960. Administrative Organization. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Podsakoff, Philip M. , Scott B. MacKenzie , and William H. Bommer . 1996. “Transformational
Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction,
Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of Management 22:
259–298.
Pollitt, Christopher . 1990. Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American
Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pollitt, Christopher . 2010. “Envisioning Public Administration as a Scholarly Field in 2020.”
Public Administration Review 70(supplement s1):S292–S294.
Portillo, Shannon , and Leisha DeHart-Davis . 2009. “Gender and Organizational Rule
Abidance.” Public Administration Review 69: 339–347.
Powell, Walter , and Paul DiMaggio , eds. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prescott, William . 1908. History of the Conquest of Peru. New York: Dutton.
Protasel, Greg J. 1994. “Leadership in Council-Manager Cities: The Institutional Implications.”
In Ideal and Practice in Council-Manager Government, edited by H. George Frederickson .
Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Provan, Keith , and H. Brinton Milward . 1995. “A Preliminary Theory of Network Effectiveness:
A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 40: 1–33.
Raadschelders, Jos C. N. , and Kwang-Hoon Lee . 2011. “Trends in the Study of Public
Administration: Empirical and Qualitative Observations from Public Administration Review,
2000–2009.” Public Administration Review 71: 19–33.
Radin, Beryl . 2000. “The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of
Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes?” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 11: 111–136.
Radner, Roy . 1985. “Repeated Principal-Agent Games with Discounting.” Econometrica 53:
1173–1198.
Rainey, Hal . 1997. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Rainey, Hal , and Paula Steinbauer . 1999. “Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a
Theory of Effective Government Organizations.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 9: 1–32.
Ranney, Austin . 1954. The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government: Its Origins and Present
State. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Rasmussen, Eric . 1990. Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Rebell, Michael . 1998. “Fiscal Equity Litigation and the Democratic Imperative.” Journal of
Education Finance 24: 23–50.
Rehfuss, John . 1989. Contracting Out in Government: A Guide for Working with Outside
Contractors to Supply Public Services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Renner, Tari , and Victor DeSantis . 1993. “Contemporary Patterns and Trends in Government
Structures.” In The Municipal Year Book. Washington, DC: International City/County
Management Association.
Rhodes, Edward . 1994. “Do Bureaucratic Politics Matter? Some Disconfirming Findings from
the Case of the U.S. Navy.” World Politics 47: 1–41.
Rhodes, Rod . 1994. “The Hollowing Out of the State.” Political Quarterly 65: 138–151.
Ringquist, Evan . 1995. “Political Control and Policy Impact in EPA’s Office of Water Quality.”
American Journal of Political Science 39: 336–364.
Rittel, Horst , and Melvin Webber . 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy
Sciences 4: 155–169.
Roberts, John . 1999. Twentieth Century: The History of the World, 1901–2000. New York:
Viking.
Robinson, Scott . 2006. “A Decade of Treating Networks Seriously.” Policy Studies Journal 34:
589–598.
Roderick, Melissa , Brian Jacob , and Anthony Bryk . 2000. “Evaluating Chicago’s Efforts to End
Social Promotion.” In Governance and Performance: New Perspectives, edited by Carolyn
Heinrich and Laurence Lynn Jr. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Roethlisberger, Fritz J. , and William J. Dickson . 1939. Management and the Worker.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rohr, John . 1986. To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State.
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Romzek, Barbara , and Melvin Dubnick . 1987. “Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons
from the Challenger Tragedy.” Public Administration Review 47: 227–238.
Romzek, Barbara , and Patricia Ingraham . 2000. “Cross Pressures of Accountability: Initiative,
Command, and Failure in the Ron Brown Plane Crash.” Public Administration Review 60:
240–253.
Rosati, Jerel . 1981. “Developing a Systematic Decision-Making Framework: Bureaucratic
Politics in Perspective.” World Politics 33: 234–252.
Rosen, Bernard . 1989. Holding Government Bureaucracies Accountable. New York: Praeger.
Ruscio, Kenneth P. 1997. “Trust in the Administrative State.” Public Administration Review 57:
454–458.
Rusk, David . 1995. Cities Without Suburbs. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Salamon, Lester . 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tasks of Government Action. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press.
Sarbin, Theodore , and Vernon Allen . 1968. “Role Theory.” In Handbook of Social Psychology,
edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sayre, Wallace . 1958. “Premises of Public Administration: Past and Emerging.” Public
Administration Review 18: 102–105.
Schilling, Warner . 1962. “The Politics of National Defense: Fiscal 1950.” In Strategy, Politics,
and Defense Budgets, edited by Warner Schilling , Paul Hammond , and Glenn Snyder . New
York: Columbia University Press.
Schram, Sanford , and Philip Neisser , eds. 1997. Tales of the State: Narrative in U.S. Politics
and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Scott, W. Richard . 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seidman, Harold . 1970. Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organization.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Seidman, Harold . 1980. Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organization.
3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Seidman, Harold . 1998. Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organizations.
5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Selden, Sally . 1997. The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and
Responsiveness in a Government Agency. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Selznick, Phillip , 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Shafritz, Jay , and E. W. Russell . 1997. Introducing Public Administration. New York: Longman.
Shaw, Marvin . 1981. Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Shepsle, Kenneth . 1989. “Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice
Approach.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 1: 131–147.
Shepsle, Kenneth , and Barry Weingast . 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee
Power.” American Political Science Review 81: 85–104.
Simon, Herbert . 1946. “The Proverbs of Administration.” Public Administration Review 4:
16–30.
Simon, Herbert . 1947/1997. Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Simon, Herbert . 1952a. “Development of Theory of Democratic Administration: Replies and
Comments.” American Political Science Review 46: 494–503.
Simon, Herbert . 1952b. “Reply to Waldo.” American Political Science Review 46: 494–496.
Simon, Herbert . 1960. The New Science of Management Decision. New York: HarperCollins.
Simon, Herbert . 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simon, Herbert . 1985. “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political
Science.” American Political Science Review 79: 293–304.
Simon, Herbert . 1991. “Preface to the Reissue of Simon, Smithburg, and Thompson’s Public
Administration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1: 79–88.
Simon, Herbert . 2000. “Public Administration in Today’s World of Organizations and Markets.”
P.S.: Political Science and Politics 33: 749–756.
Simon, Herbert , Donald Smithburg , and Victor Thompson . 1950. Public Administration. New
York: Knopf.
Singer, J. David . 1966. “The Behavioral Science Approach to International Relations: Payoff
and Prospect.” SAIS Review 10: 12–20.
Skelcher, Chris . 2005. “Public-Private Partnerships and Hybridity.” In The Oxford Handbook of
Public Management, edited by Ewan Ferle , Laurence Lynn Jr. , and Christopher Pollitt . New
York: Oxford University Press.
Skowronek, Stephan . 1982. Building a New American State. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Smith, Adam . 1776/2004. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Smith, Kevin B. 2006. “Representational Altruism: The Wary Cooperator as Authoritative
Decision Maker.” American Journal of Political Science 50: 1013–1022.
Smith, Rogers . 1988. “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of
Public Law.” American Political Science Review 82: 89–108.
Smith, Steven , and Michael Lipsky . 1993. Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of
Contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Soss, Joe . 2000. Unwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the U.S. Welfare System.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Stein, Robert . 1993. “Arranging City Services.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 3: 66–92.
Stephens, G. Ross , and Nelson Wikstrom . 2000. Metropolitan Government and Governance:
New Perspectives, Empirical Analysis, and the Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stivers, Camilla . 1990. “Toward a Feminist Theory of Public Administration.” Women and
Politics 10: 49–65.
Stivers, Camilla . 1992. “A Wild Patience: A Feminist Critique of Ameliorative Public
Administration.” In Public Management in an Interconnected World: Essays in the Minnowbrook
Tradition, edited by Mary T. Bailey and Richard T. Mayer . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Stivers, Camilla . 1996. “Mary Parker Follett and the Question of Gender.” Organization 3:
161–166.
Stivers, Camilla . 2000. Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in
the Progressive Era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Stivers, Camilla . 2002. Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the
Administrative State. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stone, Deborah . 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.
Strang, David , and Sarah Soule . 1998. “Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements:
From Hybrid Corn to Power Pills.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 265–290.
Strange, Susan . 1995. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2013. Simpler: The Future of Government. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Svara, James . 1994. “Dichotomy and Duality: Reconceptualizing the Relationships Between
Policy and Administration in Council-Manager Cities.” In Ideal and Practice in Council-Manager
Government, edited by H. George Frederickson . Washington, DC: International City/County
Management Association.
Szanton, Peter L. 1981. Not Well Advised. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas . 2010. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New
York: Random House.
Taylor, Frederick W. 1911/2010. The Principles of Scientific Management. Lawrence, KS:
DigiRead.
Terry, Larry D. 1998. “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public
Management Movement.” Public Administration Review 58: 194–200.
Teske, Paul , Mark Schneider , Michael Mintrom , and Samuel Best . 1993. “Establishing the
Micro Foundations of a Macro Theory: Information, Movers, and the Competitive Local Market
for Public Goods.” American Political Science Review 87: 702–713.
Thaler, Richard H. 2000. “From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens.” Journal of Economic
Perspectives 14(1): 133–141.
Thaler, Richard H. , and Cass R. Sunstein . 2009. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health,
Wealth, and Happiness. New York: Penguin.
Theobald, Nick , and Donald Haider-Markel . 2009. “Race Bureaucracy, and Symbolic
Representation: Interactions Between Citizens and Police.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 19: 409–426.
Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tiebout, Charles . 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy
44: 416–424.
Toonen, Theo . 2010. “Resilience in Public Administration: The Work of Elinor and Vincent
Ostrom from a Public Administration Perspective.” Public Administration Review 70: 193–202.
Tout, T. F. 1937. Chapters in Medieval Administrative History. Vol. 2. Manchester, England:
Manchester University Press.
Treadway, Darren C. , Wayne A. Hochwater , Gerald R. Ferris , Charles J. Kacmar , Ceasar
Douglas , Anthony P. Ammeter , and M. Ronald Buckley . 2004. “Leader Political Skill and
Employee Reactions.” Leadership Quarterly 15: 493–513.
Tuchman, Barbara . 1984. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Knopf.
Tullock, Gordon . 1965. The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
Tversky, Amos , and Daniel Kahneman . 1974. “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases.” Science 185: 1124–1131.
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, Tom R. 2001. “The Psychology of Public Dissatisfaction with Government.” In What Is It
About Government That Americans Dislike? edited by John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-
Morse . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, Tom R. , and Peter DeGoey . 1996. “Trust in Organizational Authorities: The Influence of
Motive Attributions on Willingness to Accept Decisions.” In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of
Theory and Research, edited by Roderick M. Kramer and Tom R. Tyler . Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Uphoff, Norman . 1994. “Revisiting Institution Building: How Organizations Become Institutions.”
In Puzzles of Predictability in Public Organizations, edited by Norman Uphoff . Oakland, CA:
Institute of Contemporary Societies.
Van Slyke, David . 2007. “Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to Understand the Government-
Nonprofit Social Service Contracting Relationship.” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 17: 157–187.
Van Wart, Montgomery . 2013. “Lessons from Leadership Theory and the Contemporary
Challenges of Leaders.” Public Administration Review 73: 553–565.
Von Hagen, Victor . 1962. The Ancient Sun Kingdoms. London: Thames and Hudson.
Wachhaus, Aaron . 2012. “Anarchy as a Model for Network Governance.” Public Administration
Review 72(1):33–42.
Wachhaus, Aaron . 2014. “Governance Beyond Government.” Administration & Society 46(5):
573–593.
Waldo, Dwight . 1946. The Administrative State. San Francisco: Chandler.
Waldo, Dwight . 1948. The Administrative State. New York: Ronald Press.
Waldo, Dwight . 1952. “Development of Theory of Democratic Administration.” American
Political Science Review 46: 81–103.
Waldo, Dwight . 1953. “Reply to Simon.” American Political Science Review 47: 500–503.
Waldo, Dwight . 1956. Perspectives on Administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press.
Wamsley, Gary , and James Wolf , eds. 1996. Refounding Democratic Public Administration:
Modern Paradoxes and Post Modern Challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weaver, Kent , and Bert Rockman , eds. 1993. Do Institutions Matter? Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Weber, Max . 1947. “The Chinese Literati.” In From Max Weber, edited by H. H. Gerth and C.
Wright Mills . New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Max . 1952. “The Essentials of Bureaucratic Organization: An Ideal-Type Construction.”
In Reader in Bureaucracy, edited by Robert K. Merton , Ailsa P. Gray , Barbara Hockey , and
Hanan C. Selvin . Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Weick, Karl . 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, Karl . 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, Karl , Kathleen Sutcliffe , and David Obstfeld . 2008. “Organizing for High Reliability:
Processes of Collective Mindfulness.” In Crisis Management, Vol. III, edited by Arjen Boin .
London: Sage.
Weimer, David , and Aidan Vining . 1989. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
West, William . 1995. Controlling the Bureaucracy: Institutional Constraints in Theory and
Practice. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
West, William . 1997. “Searching for a Theory of Bureaucratic Structure.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 7: 591–613.
West, William , and Connor Raso . 2012. “Who Shapes the Rulemaking Agenda? Implications
for Bureaucratic Responsiveness and Bureaucratic Control.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 23: 495–519.
White, Jay , and Guy Adams . 1994. Research in Public Administration: Reflections on Theory
and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
White, Leonard . 1929. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New York: Macmillan.
Whyte, William Jr. 1956. The Organization Man. New York: Doubleday.
Wildavsky, Aaron . 1984. The Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown.
Wildavsky, Aaron . 1987. “Choosing Preferences and Constructing Institutions: A Cultural
Theory of Preference Formation.” American Political Science Association 81: 3–22.
Wildavsky, Aaron . 1988. Searching for Safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Wilkins, Vicki , and Lael Keiser . 2006. “Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender:
The Case of Child Support Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
16: 87–102.
Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage.
Wilson, James Q. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It.
New York: Basic Books.
Wilson, Woodrow . 1887/1941. “The Study of Public Administration.” Political Science Quarterly
56: 197–222.
Winch, Peter . 1995. The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London:
Routledge.
Wood, Dan . 1993. “The Politics of Antitrust Regulation.” American Journal of Political Science
37: 1–39.
Wood, Dan , and Richard Waterman . 1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy
in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wright, Bradley E. 2011. “Public Administration as an Interdisciplinary Field: Assessing Its
Relationship with the Fields of Law, Management, and Political Science.” Public Administration
Review 71: 96–101.
Wright, George . 1984. Behavioral Decision Theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yanow, Dvora . 1996. How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational
Actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Yutang, Lin . 1947. The Gay Genius. New York: John Day.
Zey, Mary , ed. 1992. Decisionmaking: Alternatives to Rational Choice Models. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.