Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Inertia in Routines: A Hidden Source of Organizational Variation","authors":"Sangyoon Yi, T. Knudsen, Markus C. Becker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2712193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2712193","url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, routines have been perceived as a primary source of inertia, which slows down organizational change and hinders organizational adaptation. Advancing prior research on routine dynamics, this study examines how inertia in routines influences the process of organizational adaptation, both in the absence and presence of endogenous change of routines. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our analysis suggests an overlooked mechanism by which routine-level inertia may help, rather than hinder, organization-level adaptation. We demonstrate this mechanism by using a simple theoretical model in which the organization is characterized as a configuration of interdependent routines and study the process by which this configuration adapts to cope with its task environment. We find that inertia in routines may engender potentially useful variation in the process of organizational adaptation because reduced rates of routine-level changes may lead to temporal reordering when these changes are implemented. In our nuanced perspective, inertia is not only a consequence of adaptation or selection as perceived in prior research, but also a source of variation that turns out to be useful for adaptation. This logic is helpful to better understand why apparently inertial organizations keep surviving and from time to time exhibit outstanding performance. We conclude by discussing how this advanced understanding of the role of routines in organizational adaptation helps elaborate the theory of economic evolution.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130393725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"ธรรมาภิบาลของข้าราชการและพนักงานในสำนักงานสรรพากร พื้นที่กาฬสินธ์ุ (The Good Governance of the Government Officers and Employees in the Revenue Office, Kalasin Province)","authors":"Wittawat Pedkhan, Vacharin Chansilp","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3261062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3261062","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Thai Abstract:</b> การวิจัยครัง้ นี้ มีวัตถุประสงค์ 1) เพื่อศึกษาระดับธรรมาภิบาลของข้าราชการและพนักงานในสา นักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์ 2) เพื่อเปรียบเทียบธรรมาภิบาลของข้าราชการและพนักงานในสานักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์ จาแนกตามปัจจัยส่วนบุคคล และ 3) เพื่อศึกษาความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างความรู้เกี่ยวกับธรรมาภิบาลกับธรรมาภิบาลของข้าราชการและพนักงานในสา นักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์ ตัวอย่างที่วิจัย คือ ข้าราชการและพนักงานในสา นักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์ จานวน 92 คน โดยการสุ่มตัวอย่างแบบแบ่งชัน้ ภูมิตามสัดส่วน เครื่องมือที่ใช้ในการรวบรวมข้อมูล ได้แก่แบบสอบถาม และสถิติที่ใช้ในการวิเคราะห์ข้อมูล ได้แก่ ค่าสถิติร้อยละ ค่าเฉลี่ย ส่วนเบี่ยงเบนมาตรฐาน ค่าที การวิเคราะห์ความแปรปรวนทางเดียว และการหาค่าสัมประสิทธิส์ หสัมพันธ์แบบเพียร์สัน โดยมีนัยสาคัญทางสถิติที่ระดับ0.05 ผลการวิจัยพบว่า ข้าราชการและพนักงานในสา นักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์มีความรู้เกี่ยวกับธรรมาภิบาล อยู่ในระดับมาก และข้าราชการและพนักงานในสานักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์ มีระดับธรรมาภิบาล อยู่ในระดับมากสา หรับ การทดสอบสมมติฐาน พบว่า ข้าราชการและพนักงานในสา นักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์ที่มีอายุต่างกัน จะมีธรรมาภิบาลแตกต่างกัน ส่วนข้าราชการและพนักงานในสานักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธุ์ที่มีเพศ ระดับการศึกษาสถานภาพสมรส ประเภทบุคลากร อัตราเงินเดือน และระยะเวลาการปฏิบัติงานต่างกัน จะมีธรรมาภิบาลไม่แตกต่างกันและพบว่า ความรู้เกี่ยวกับธรรมาภิบาลมีความสัมพันธ์กับธรรมาภิบาลของข้าราชการและพนักงานในสา นักงานสรรพากรพื้นที่กาฬสินธ์ุ <b>English Abstract:</b> The objectives of the research were 1) to study the level of the good governance of the government officers and employees in the Revenue office, Kalasin Province, 2) to compare the good governance of the government officers and employees in the Revenue Office, Kalasin Province according to their personal factors, and 3) to study the relationship between the knowledge of the good governance and the good governance of the government officers and employees in the Revenue Office, Kalasin Province. The sample size composed of 92 in the government officers and employees in the Revenue Office, Kalasin Province personnel by proportional stratified sampling. Data were collected by a questionnaire. Data were analyzed by a statistical software. Statistical tools used for data analysis were Percentage, Mean, Standard Deviation, ttest, One-Way ANOVA, and Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation was at the 0.05 level of significance. The results of the research found that the government Officers and employees in the Revenue Office, Kalasin Province of the official had knowledge of the good governance was at high level. The good governance of the government Officers and employees in the Revenue Office, Kalasin Province was at high level. The hypothesis testing revealed that the difference of age of the government Officers and employees in the Revenue Office, Kalasin Province caused the difference of their good governance. Whereas gender, educational level, marriage status, list of the personnel, rate of salary, and period of performance of the government Officers and employ","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129114069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): A Controversial Agreement and Dangerous for Workers","authors":"Claude Serfati","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2658630","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2658630","url":null,"abstract":"This Working Paper on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) highlights the controversial benefits of speeding up free trade and puts the negotiations between the EU and the US in the context of the fall-out of the financial crisis.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124445513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Developing Federal Student Loan Debacle and the Real Cost to Taxpayers","authors":"William J. Dodwell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2653119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2653119","url":null,"abstract":"Government financed student loan debt of $1.3 trillion has grown 15% a year for over a decade as tuition and other college costs have risen at a multiple of the inflation rate. Problematic are defaults and income-based repayment arrangements with their partial loan forgiveness. Applied to this burgeoning balance they pose a serious burden on taxpayers and the economy that bear the costs and effects of borrowing and taxation to fund the program. Also alarming is the prospect of total loan forgiveness and ongoing free college education gaining political currency amid the wails of so many overextended borrowers, some of whom seemingly face lifelong debt. This paper examines the true cost of the student loan program which is enormously distorted by the U.S. Department of Education and the Congressional Budget Office. The reason is the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) requires government to adopt a misleading methodology for computing the program’s profit and loss that greatly understates defaults. As a result, the program is mistakenly believed to be profitable. Specifically, the government computes operating results based on a net present discounted value of future cash flows. This process effectively amortizes defaults over the remaining life of respective loans, which can be up to 20 years or more, rather than recognize them fully in the period they occur like a bank. The analysis herein contrasts this methodology (subject to the limitations of opaque federal accounting), with a pro forma presentation of operations based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) observed by banks. The upshot: a $135 billion government projected profit for the ten-year period 2015-2024, versus a $1.9 trillion loss that a bank would report. As such, the real cost of the student loan program in the coming years compares with the losses of the 2008 financial crisis as explained in the study.And that is just the current student loan program. If blanket loan forgiveness were declared in the next decade, taxpayers would bear an immediate budget hit of $1 trillion to $4 trillion depending on the loans outstanding at the time of implementation. In addition, taxpayers would have to support subsequent free college for all thereafter. Not only is this time bomb concealed by the current accounting methodology, but also by the political class that is loathe to inviting opposition to a program that could be a new government entitlement.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129102567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’S Arbitration Study","authors":"J. Johnston, Todd J. Zywicki","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3191304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3191304","url":null,"abstract":"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015 does not support the case for ex ante regulation of mandatory consumer arbitration clauses. It contains no data on the typical arbitration outcome - a settlement - and it is these arbitral settlements, and not arbitral awards, that should be compared to class action settlements. It does not address the public policy question of whether, by resolving disputes more accurately on the merits, arbitration may prevent class action settlements induced solely by defendants’ incentive to avoid massive discovery costs. It shows that in arbitration consumers often get settlements or awards, are typically represented by counsel, and achieve good results even when they are unrepresented. In class action settlements, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reports surprisingly high payout rates to class members and low attorneys’ fees relative to total class payout. These aggregated average numbers reflect the results in a very small number of massive class action settlements. Many class action settlements have much lower payout rates and higher attorneys’ fees.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"212 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134006649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measuring Uncertainty of a Combined Forecast and Some Tests for Forecaster Heterogeneity","authors":"K. Lahiri, Huaming Peng, X. Sheng","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3765308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3765308","url":null,"abstract":"We have argued that from the standpoint of a policy maker, the uncertainty of using the average forecast is not the variance of the average, but rather the average of the variances of the individual forecasts that incorporate idiosyncratic risks. With a slight reformulation of the loss function and a standard factor decomposition of a panel of forecasts, we show that the uncertainty of the average forecast can be expressed as the disagreement among the forecasters plus the volatility of the common shock. Using new statistics to test for the homogeneity of idiosyncratic errors under the joint limits with both T and n approaching infinity simultaneously, we show that some previously used measures significantly underestimate the conceptually correct benchmark forecast uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"58 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114107985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Randomised Controlled Trials","authors":"P. John","doi":"10.1332/policypress/9781447329367.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447329367.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"The paper reviews the use of randomised controlled trials in public policy. It explains the method, indicates where they work best, gives examples, and indicates the state of play for trials in the current policy environment.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132012653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Search of 'Dialectic' Process Models: From 'Funnel of Causality' to an Integrated Theory of Policy Regimes","authors":"Matt Wilder","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2614531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2614531","url":null,"abstract":"This paper surveys how far policy theorizing has come since the ‘funnel of causality’ metaphor popularized in the 1970s by Richard Hofferbert and Richard Simeon. Scholarly attention to institutions, subsystems, networks, and regimes has brought sophistication to early accounts of the impact of structure on policy formulation and outcomes, but arriving at a holistic ‘dialectical’ theory of the policy process has not been without challenges. The literature on policy regimes, having integrated insights from both political economy and theorizing on networks and subsystems, holds promise in moving toward a dialectical theory of the policy process. Deficiencies remain, however, in our understanding of how structures that exist at multiple levels of policymaking condition behaviour. The paper proposes that a focus on ‘policy image dynamics’ across three levels of analysis (micro, meso, and macro) is a viable way to proceed in developing an integrated and dialectic theory of policy regimes.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131454557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Do People Prefer Carrots to Sticks? A Robust 'Matching Effect' in Policy Evaluation","authors":"E. Evers, Y. Inbar, I. Blanken, Linda D. Oosterwijk","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2613192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2613192","url":null,"abstract":"We find a “matching effect” in policy evaluations. For behaviors seen as positive but voluntary (such as organ donation) people prefer policies that are framed as advantaging those who act positively rather than disadvantaging those who fail to do so. Conversely, for behaviors seen as positive and obligatory, people prefer policies that are framed as disadvantaging those who fail to fulfill obligations rather than advantaging those who do so. We find that these differences in policy evaluations occur even when policy outcomes are identical, i.e., when the only difference between the policies is how they are framed. These differences emerge both for evaluations of hypothetical policies, as well as when implementation of the policy directly affects the evaluator. Furthermore, differences in evaluations are not the result of misunderstanding of — or lack of deliberation about — policy outcomes. Rather, the matching effect appears to follow from lay beliefs about when punishment is and is not appropriate.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121306623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Multiple Streams Subsystems","authors":"I. Mukherjee, Michael Howlett","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2593626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2593626","url":null,"abstract":"John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) was articulated in order to better understand how issues entered into policy agendas, using the concept of a policy actors interacting in course of sequences of events occurring in what he referred to as the \"problem\", \"policy\" and \"politics\" \"streams\". In this study Kingdon used an undifferentiated concept of a ‘policy subsystem’ to organize the activities of various policy actors involved in this process. However, it is not a priori certain who the agents are in this process and how they interact. This paper argues the policy world can also be visualized as being composed of different distinct subsets of subsystem actors who engage over specific sets of interactions over the definition of policy problems, the articulation of solutions and their matching or enactment. Using this lens, this article focuses on actor interactions involved in policy formulation activities occurring immediately following the agenda setting stage upon which Kingdon originally worked. This activity involves the definition of policy goals (both broad and specific) and the creation of the means and mechanisms to realise these goals. The article argues this stage is best analyzed form the perspective of three separate sets of actors involved in these tasks: the epistemic community which finds itself engaged in discourses about policy problems; the activities of instrument constituencies which define the policy stream in which policy alternatives and instruments are formulated; and that of advocacy coalitions which make up the politics stream as they compete to have their choice of policy alternatives selected by decision makers. The article argues these different sets of policy actors personify each of Kingdon’s three different streams of policy, problem and politics and that extending Kingdon’s work to the examination of policy formulation using this basic vocabulary yields superior insights into policy formulation than other extant models.","PeriodicalId":342163,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Bureaucracies & Public Administration eJournal","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121717540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}