协作还是等级:治理模式与合法性认知的实验证据

IF 2.7 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Jaakko Hillo, Isak Vento, Stefan Sjöblom
{"title":"协作还是等级:治理模式与合法性认知的实验证据","authors":"Jaakko Hillo,&nbsp;Isak Vento,&nbsp;Stefan Sjöblom","doi":"10.1002/pa.2952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Amidst growing interest in collaborative governance as means to enhance the legitimacy of public governance, this article investigates public officials' perceptions of this governance mode. Despite theoretical propositions linking collaborative governance to enhanced legitimacy, empirical validation is scarce. Using a factorial survey experiment with 932 public officials in the Finnish central administration, the article investigates if collaborative governance promotes legitimacy compared with hierarchical bureaucracy. The results are clear: collaborative governance does not inherently boost perceived legitimacy, but rather undermines it. This study captures the causal relationships between governance modes, key governance traits (stakeholder opposition/support and majority opposition/support), and perceived legitimacy, thereby challenging prevailing theoretical assumptions about the merits of collaborative governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":47153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pa.2952","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collaboration or Hierarchy: Experimental Evidence on Governance Modes and Legitimacy Perceptions\",\"authors\":\"Jaakko Hillo,&nbsp;Isak Vento,&nbsp;Stefan Sjöblom\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pa.2952\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Amidst growing interest in collaborative governance as means to enhance the legitimacy of public governance, this article investigates public officials' perceptions of this governance mode. Despite theoretical propositions linking collaborative governance to enhanced legitimacy, empirical validation is scarce. Using a factorial survey experiment with 932 public officials in the Finnish central administration, the article investigates if collaborative governance promotes legitimacy compared with hierarchical bureaucracy. The results are clear: collaborative governance does not inherently boost perceived legitimacy, but rather undermines it. This study captures the causal relationships between governance modes, key governance traits (stakeholder opposition/support and majority opposition/support), and perceived legitimacy, thereby challenging prevailing theoretical assumptions about the merits of collaborative governance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Affairs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pa.2952\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.2952\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.2952","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

合作治理作为提高公共治理合法性的手段日益受到关注,本文研究了公职人员对这种治理模式的看法。尽管理论命题将协作治理与增强合法性联系在一起,但实证验证却很少。通过对芬兰中央行政机构的 932 名公职人员进行因子调查实验,本文研究了协同治理与等级官僚制相比是否能促进合法性。结果很明显:合作治理本质上并不会提升感知合法性,反而会削弱感知合法性。本研究抓住了治理模式、关键治理特征(利益相关者的反对/支持和多数人的反对/支持)和感知合法性之间的因果关系,从而挑战了关于协作治理优点的普遍理论假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Collaboration or Hierarchy: Experimental Evidence on Governance Modes and Legitimacy Perceptions

Collaboration or Hierarchy: Experimental Evidence on Governance Modes and Legitimacy Perceptions

Amidst growing interest in collaborative governance as means to enhance the legitimacy of public governance, this article investigates public officials' perceptions of this governance mode. Despite theoretical propositions linking collaborative governance to enhanced legitimacy, empirical validation is scarce. Using a factorial survey experiment with 932 public officials in the Finnish central administration, the article investigates if collaborative governance promotes legitimacy compared with hierarchical bureaucracy. The results are clear: collaborative governance does not inherently boost perceived legitimacy, but rather undermines it. This study captures the causal relationships between governance modes, key governance traits (stakeholder opposition/support and majority opposition/support), and perceived legitimacy, thereby challenging prevailing theoretical assumptions about the merits of collaborative governance.

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
Journal of Public Affairs
Journal of Public Affairs PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Affairs provides an international forum for refereed papers, case studies and reviews on the latest developments, practice and thinking in government relations, public affairs, and political marketing. The Journal is guided by the twin objectives of publishing submissions of the utmost relevance to the day-to-day practice of communication specialists, and promoting the highest standards of intellectual rigour.
×
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