最佳实践并不仅仅是“最佳”:它是一项基于法官感知的实证研究

Jiannan Wu , Yao Liu , Stuart Bretschneider
{"title":"最佳实践并不仅仅是“最佳”:它是一项基于法官感知的实证研究","authors":"Jiannan Wu ,&nbsp;Yao Liu ,&nbsp;Stuart Bretschneider","doi":"10.1016/j.ugj.2023.03.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper proposes five major criteria—importance, innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability—for determining best practices in public management. The influence of each criterion on the probability that a judge recommends a case as a best practice is examined using data from the first Best Practice Cases for Urban Governance in the Yangtze River Delta competition. The results show that perceptions of innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability, but not of importance, significantly influence judges’ recommendations. These findings demonstrate that innovativeness, sustainability and replicability are important in evaluations of best practices, in addition to effectiveness. Specifically, innovativeness is as important as effectiveness, which indicates that judges perceive innovation to be closely linked to best practices. In addition, the empirical results partly refute the criticism that sustainability and replicability are not considered in evaluations of best practices. This paper can serve to inspire public management practitioners to consider the innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability when developing best practices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101266,"journal":{"name":"Urban Governance","volume":"3 2","pages":"Pages 130-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Best practice is not just “best”: An empirical study based on judges’ perceptions\",\"authors\":\"Jiannan Wu ,&nbsp;Yao Liu ,&nbsp;Stuart Bretschneider\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ugj.2023.03.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper proposes five major criteria—importance, innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability—for determining best practices in public management. The influence of each criterion on the probability that a judge recommends a case as a best practice is examined using data from the first Best Practice Cases for Urban Governance in the Yangtze River Delta competition. The results show that perceptions of innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability, but not of importance, significantly influence judges’ recommendations. These findings demonstrate that innovativeness, sustainability and replicability are important in evaluations of best practices, in addition to effectiveness. Specifically, innovativeness is as important as effectiveness, which indicates that judges perceive innovation to be closely linked to best practices. In addition, the empirical results partly refute the criticism that sustainability and replicability are not considered in evaluations of best practices. This paper can serve to inspire public management practitioners to consider the innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability when developing best practices.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Governance\",\"volume\":\"3 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 130-137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2664328623000347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2664328623000347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出了确定公共管理最佳实践的五个主要标准——重要性、创新性、有效性、可持续性和可复制性。利用第一批长三角城市治理最佳实践案例的数据,考察了每种标准对法官推荐案例作为最佳实践的概率的影响。研究结果表明,对创新性、有效性、可持续性和可复制性的看法对法官的建议有显著影响,但并不重要。这些发现表明,除了有效性之外,创新性、可持续性和可复制性在评价最佳做法方面也很重要。具体而言,创新性与有效性同等重要,这表明法官认为创新与最佳实践密切相关。此外,实证结果部分驳斥了关于在评价最佳做法时没有考虑可持续性和可复制性的批评。本文可以启发公共管理从业者在制定最佳实践时考虑创新性、有效性、可持续性和可复制性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Best practice is not just “best”: An empirical study based on judges’ perceptions

This paper proposes five major criteria—importance, innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability—for determining best practices in public management. The influence of each criterion on the probability that a judge recommends a case as a best practice is examined using data from the first Best Practice Cases for Urban Governance in the Yangtze River Delta competition. The results show that perceptions of innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability, but not of importance, significantly influence judges’ recommendations. These findings demonstrate that innovativeness, sustainability and replicability are important in evaluations of best practices, in addition to effectiveness. Specifically, innovativeness is as important as effectiveness, which indicates that judges perceive innovation to be closely linked to best practices. In addition, the empirical results partly refute the criticism that sustainability and replicability are not considered in evaluations of best practices. This paper can serve to inspire public management practitioners to consider the innovativeness, effectiveness, sustainability and replicability when developing best practices.

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
CiteScore
3.20
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