公共管理者是否更厌恶风险?跨部门的框架效应和现状偏见

Sean Nicholson-Crotty, Jill Nicholson‐Crotty, Sean Webeck
{"title":"公共管理者是否更厌恶风险?跨部门的框架效应和现状偏见","authors":"Sean Nicholson-Crotty, Jill Nicholson‐Crotty, Sean Webeck","doi":"10.30636/JBPA.21.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern reforms meant to incentivize public managers to be more innovative and accepting of risk are often implicitly based in the longstanding assumption that public employees are more risk averse than their private sector counterparts. We argue, however, that there is more to learn about the degree to which public and private managers differ in terms of risk aversion.  In order to address this gap, we field a series of previously validated experiments designed to assess framing effects and status quo bias in a sample of public and private sector managers. Our results indicate that public managers are not more risk averse or anchored to the status quo than their private sector counterparts; in fact, the findings suggest the opposite may be true under some conditions.   In addition, our results fail to confirm previous findings in the literature suggesting that public service motivation is associated with risk aversion. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these results for the study of risky choice in the public sector and for modern public management reforms.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are public managers more risk averse? Framing effects and status quo bias across the sectors\",\"authors\":\"Sean Nicholson-Crotty, Jill Nicholson‐Crotty, Sean Webeck\",\"doi\":\"10.30636/JBPA.21.35\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern reforms meant to incentivize public managers to be more innovative and accepting of risk are often implicitly based in the longstanding assumption that public employees are more risk averse than their private sector counterparts. We argue, however, that there is more to learn about the degree to which public and private managers differ in terms of risk aversion.  In order to address this gap, we field a series of previously validated experiments designed to assess framing effects and status quo bias in a sample of public and private sector managers. Our results indicate that public managers are not more risk averse or anchored to the status quo than their private sector counterparts; in fact, the findings suggest the opposite may be true under some conditions.   In addition, our results fail to confirm previous findings in the literature suggesting that public service motivation is associated with risk aversion. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these results for the study of risky choice in the public sector and for modern public management reforms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":407938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.21.35\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.21.35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

旨在激励公共管理人员更具创新性和接受风险的现代改革,往往隐含地基于一个长期存在的假设,即公共雇员比私营部门的同行更厌恶风险。然而,我们认为,关于上市和私募基金经理在风险厌恶方面的差异程度,还有更多需要了解的地方。为了解决这一差距,我们进行了一系列先前经过验证的实验,旨在评估公共和私营部门管理人员样本中的框架效应和现状偏见。我们的研究结果表明,公共管理者并不比他们的私营部门同行更厌恶风险或固守现状;事实上,研究结果表明,在某些情况下,情况可能正好相反。此外,我们的研究结果未能证实先前文献中关于公共服务动机与风险厌恶相关的研究结果。最后,我们讨论了这些结果对公共部门风险选择研究和现代公共管理改革的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are public managers more risk averse? Framing effects and status quo bias across the sectors
Modern reforms meant to incentivize public managers to be more innovative and accepting of risk are often implicitly based in the longstanding assumption that public employees are more risk averse than their private sector counterparts. We argue, however, that there is more to learn about the degree to which public and private managers differ in terms of risk aversion.  In order to address this gap, we field a series of previously validated experiments designed to assess framing effects and status quo bias in a sample of public and private sector managers. Our results indicate that public managers are not more risk averse or anchored to the status quo than their private sector counterparts; in fact, the findings suggest the opposite may be true under some conditions.   In addition, our results fail to confirm previous findings in the literature suggesting that public service motivation is associated with risk aversion. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these results for the study of risky choice in the public sector and for modern public management reforms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信