ARTICLES
"What Have We Learned in the Fields of Public Policy and Public Administration That Might Be Relevant to the Coronavirus Pandemic?", American Review of Public Administration, July 17, 2020
The pandemanic situation is a classic “wicked problem” issue. It is not clear what its limits are and what frameworks are important to consider in dealing with it. This article focuses on the challenge of labeling the issue itself and finding ways to link and differentiate it from previous policy situations. It also highlights the complexity of the implementation environment of the issue.
| What Have We Learned in the Fields of Public Policy and Public Administration That Might Be Relevant to the Coronavirus Pandemic? |
"Compared to What? The Multiple Meanings of Comparative Policy Analysis," Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2018; BERYL A. RADIN, & DAVID L. WEIMER, Accepted 04 Dec 2017, Published online: 09 Mar 2018.
What is comparative public policy? How can it contribute to better public policy? These questions seem fundamental to the mission of the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. Some scholars have addressed the first question, which usually places comparative policy analysis in an institutional context, emphasizing comparisons across countries. However, fewer scholars have addressed the second, which lies at the heart of the comparative enterprise. As a result, the boundaries of this analytic effort are unclear and attempts to evaluate work that is defined as “comparative” are sometimes controversial. In this essay, we first sketch the history of the development of policy analysis in the United States. This historical review provides a sense of how comparative analysis fits into the development of the field, how the field has ignored some opportunities to think about comparative analysis, and offers some insight into how comparative policy analysis can contribute to better public policy. It then turns to possible avenues for comparison to identify the opportunities and limitations of the comparative approach.
| Compared to What? The Multiple Meanings of Comparative Policy Analysis |
"Policy Analysis and Advising Decisionmakers: Don’t Forget the Decisionmaker/Client," Beryl A. Radin (2016), Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18:3, 290-301, DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1175191
ABSTRACT: The field of policy analysis rarely emphasizes the role and importance of the relationship between the policy analyst and those whom they are advising. It is a topic that almost never shows up in the policy journals or in panels at policy conferences. The focus of the field has been on the assumptions, tools, roles and reality of the analyst and little acknowledgement that the analyst is an advisor to the decisionmaker – not actually making the decisions. The current experience involving policy advising has moved the field from one that had been found largely in the US to include experience within other countries focusing on the advising function. As such it illustrates similarities and differences that emerge from diverse political, cultural and organizational settings. This range of policy settings indicates both positive and negative experiences with the advising function. The paper uses the comparative approach to contrast the changes over time and to begin to compare the experiences of parliamentary systems with the US shared powers system.
| policy_analysis_and_advising_decisionmakers_don_t_forget_the_decisionmaker_client.pdf |
BOOK REVIEW
"Neutral Information, Evidence, Politics, and Public Administration," Beryl A. Radin (2015), Public Administration Review, Volume 76, Issue 1, January/February 2016, pages 188-192
For more than a century the field of public administration has been searching for ways to disentangle the relationship between politics and administration. Woodrow Wilson’s original proposal to view the two worlds as inherently different has been simultaneously utilized and rejected over the years as both scholars and practitioners have searched for ways to define political neutrality.
| neutral_information_evidence_politics_and_public_admin.pdf |
"Micro and macro approaches to social innovation: mapping the approaches of significant funders and advocates," Beryl A. Radin and Wai Fung Lam, Paper prepared for the Social Innovation Research Conference, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, May 21–22, 2015. Accepted to appear in September 2015 issue, ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
Despite the global interest in social innovation, there has been limited attention to the diverse ways in which this effort has been approached. Much of the literature highlights the bottom-up approach and does not deal with the complexity of the broader institutional setting that plays a role in the process. While there has been rhetorical attention to issues related to “getting to scale”, this goal is often confronted by diverse structural and political institutions and actors. This diversity limits the ability of advocates to devise approaches that straddle sectoral and national divides.
| Micro and macro approaches to social innovation |
This article focuses on one expression of the relationship between science and policy analysis: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
in the Office of Management and Budget. It has used a classic policy analysis technique—cost–benefit analysis—as the way that the White House will
review regulations. This discussion highlights the utilization of the cost–benefit method in the OIRA decision-making process, the roles of various
actors in the system, and the response to that use by various policy actors. It illustrates the difficulty of utilizing rational analytical methods in an environment of political conflict. MORE>>
in the Office of Management and Budget. It has used a classic policy analysis technique—cost–benefit analysis—as the way that the White House will
review regulations. This discussion highlights the utilization of the cost–benefit method in the OIRA decision-making process, the roles of various
actors in the system, and the response to that use by various policy actors. It illustrates the difficulty of utilizing rational analytical methods in an environment of political conflict. MORE>>
Deil Wright provided three models of intergovernmental relations in Understanding Intergovernmental Relations. The third model—the overlapping authority model—was essentially a new way of depicting those relationships. It provided the conceptual basis for moving beyond static views of the field. This article reviews the influence of the overlapping model on policy development, program relationships, and administrative practice. It reaches beyond the three institutional levels to include the proliferation of public and private players. It discusses the ways that decision-making processes and theories have absorbed that model. It concludes with a discussion of the current and future state of intergovernmental management. MORE >>
“Policy Analysis Reaches Mid Life,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY,Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2013, pp. 8-27
The field of policy analysis that exists in the 21st century is quite different from that found earlier phases. The world of the 1960s that gave rise to this field in the US often seems unrelated to the world we experience today. These shifts have occurred as a result of a range of developments – technological changes, changes in the structure and processes of government both internally and globally, new expectations about accountability and transparency, economic and fiscal problems, and increased political and ideological conflict.It is clear globalization has had a significant impact on the field. Shifts in the type of decisionmaking also have created challenges for policy analysts since analysts are now clearly in every nook and cranny in the decisionmaking world. Thus it is relevant to look at the work that they do, the skills that they require, and the background experience that is relevant to them. MORE >>
"Reclaiming Our Past: Linking Theory and Practice,” The 2012 John Gaus Lecture, PS, JANUARY 2013, PP. 1-7
As others have done before me, I am honored to receive the APSA John Gaus Award. As I prepared this lecture, I realized that the Gaus award has been given by APSA 26 times; mine is the 27th. The first was awarded to Herbert Kaufman whose work set a very high standard for this honor. Reviewing the list of the other Gaus award recipients provides a picture of the development of our field. It includes a variety of individuals who represent different approaches to the intersection of public administration and political science. Among the recipients are seven individuals who had a major and personal influence on my work: Aaron Wildavsky, Frank Rourke, George Frederickson, Martha Derthick, Lou Gawthrop, Larry Lynn, and David Rosenbloom. Others are people who have been important to my own intellectual development. MORE >>
“Federalist 71: Can the Federal Government be Held Accountable for Performance?”, in special issue of PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, December 2011, Supplement to Volume 71
Federalist No. 71 and Federalist No. 76 focus on the level of authority in the executive. This essay reviews the recent history of efforts to measure government performance as a way to control executive performance and then proceeds to a discussion of the weakness inherent in past approaches. The author uses the Government Performance and Results Act and the George W. Bush administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool as examples in making the case. MORE >>
“Just a Reminder: Don’t Ignore Congress,” THE PUBLIC MANAGER, June 2011
In March 2011 the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) held a discussion of federal government reorganization before a large audience. But when I asked the audience who in the meeting room was from Congress (and not the Government Accountability Office), only one person was currently working on Capitol Hill. MORE >>
"When is a Health Department Not a Health Department: The Case of the US Department of Health and Human Services," SOCIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 44, No. 2, April 2010, pp. 142-154
Given the current policy debate over health reform in the United States, it is not possible to describe the organizational structure that might emerge from this process. This article explores five of the attributes that underpin the context for a discussion of the structure and operation of a health bureaucracy in the USA. First, ambivalence in the US society about a public commitment to health and a general scepticism about a significant public sector in this area. Second, separation within the system between types of activities (e.g. health research activities, provision of services, and financing of health efforts). Third, the health system operates in the context of a government with shared powers as well as federalism and an assumption that some issues belong to states, and sometimes localities, and not to the federal government. Fourth, difficulty in the US system when it attempts to focus on prevention activities. And fifth, the structure of HHS creates tensions between management initiatives and professional expertise and standards. The article concludes with a discussion of possible organizational alternatives. MORE >>
"Reflections on Comparing Federalisms: Canada and the United States," with Richard Simeon, PUBLIUS, Vol. 40, No. 3, Summer 2010, pp. 357-365
This article illustrates the challenges involved in preparing a systematic comparison of two federal countries. It examines questions as to what explains similarities and differences in federal systems. It rejects any single-variable approach to explaining federalism but gives primacy to ideas and to institutions. While there are fundamental differences in founding ideas and historical legacies, there are major similarities between these two federations. We conclude this analysis by underlining the value of comparison. Comparison helps clarify explanations for both variation and similarity, corrects misconceived perceptions of differences, and suggests areas of learning from one another. MORE >>
"Brenda Bryant: There is Nothing More Practical Than a Good Theory," PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Vol. 70, No. 2, March/April 2010, pp. 289-294
Public administration values the relationship between theory and practice. Regrettably, theory and practice are regarded more often than not as separate purviews of two different groups—academics and practitioners—resulting in a perceived gap between the two. The doctorate of public administration program at the University of Southern California's Washington Public Affairs Center sought to span both worlds. This article by Beryl A. Radin of American University profiles one of its graduates, Brenda L. Bryant. The author traces her career development, experience in the doctoral program, as well as subsequent professional activities, ultimately highlighting why “there is nothing more practical than a good theory.” MORE >>
"Overhead Agencies and Permanent Government: The Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration," THE FORUM, Vol. 7, Issue 4, 2009
Whenever a change of administration occurs in Washington, classic public administration issues are brought out of the academic closet. The dichotomy between politics and administration moves from discussion in classrooms and textbooks to the pages of the Washington press. The role of the career bureaucracy is acknowledged as a way a new administration will translate its policy and political agenda to the machinery of government. MORE >>
“The Relationship between OMB and the Agencies in the Obama Administration”, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 32, PP. 781-784, 2009
Management activities in the US federal government are often defined in terms of the relationship between the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the agencies within the federal structure. The administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush employed strategies related to information policy, regulatory reform, and performance measurement that minimized the ability of agencies to respond to congressional requirements. At this writing it is not clear how President Obama will use the management control processes and structures that were central to the operation of his predecessors but the balance between OMB and the agencies is likely to be quite different than in the past. There will be instances in which OMB will play the ascendant role but it is also probable that there will be more attention to the importance of agency level decisionmaking. It remains to be seen whether OMB is able to move away from a command and control approach and operate as a facilitator or coordinator. MORE >>
"The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in the 21st Century: Living in an Intergovernmental Environment", INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 30: 1525-1548, 2007
This article examines the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) – one of the very few administrative systems that was established as an instrument of federalism, serving as an intermediary between states and the national government. It analyzes its early development and the changes that have taken place in the Indian society that have had an impact on the IAS and its role in the Indian federal system. Further, it discusses the contemporary global developments in intergovernmental relations and how the IAS might respond to them. There are many different interpretations of the current developments within India and whether the IAS has the ability to adapt to these changes. The article reviews these interpretations and the limitations of data that would allow an assessment of the alternative formulations. MORE >>
"Qualified to Learn the Job: Donna Shalala,” PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Vol. 67, Issue 3, pp 504-510
Reprinted in Norma M. Riccucci, editor, SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST; PROFILES OF SUCCESSFUL AND INNOVATIVE PUBLIC SERVANTS, M.E. Sharpe, 2012
This profile of Donna Shalala illustrates how it is possible to craft a career that moves along quite untraditional paths. Shalala was a political appointee who adopted characteristics that are usually associated with career public servants. Shalala’s approach to career development can be useful to others who are thinking about a career development strategy. She did not ask whether she was qualified for a job but whether she was qualified to learn the job. At the same time, it is clear that she was able to apply experiences and lessons from diverse settings to new positions. Her career has been characterized not only by an in-and-out pattern but also by diversity within each of those settings. Her career pattern shows how Shalala was able to reinforce her personal strengths of being a problem solver and respond to unpredictable opportunities. MORE >>
“Performance Measurement and Global Governance: The Experience of the World Bank,” GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, 13, 2007, pp. 25-33
“The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Tradition of
Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes?”, JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND THEORY,
January 2000, 10, pp. 111-135
The argument of this article is that GPRA—like a number of earlier federal management reform efforts—does not fit easily into the institutional structures, functions, and political realities of the American system. Despite the array of management reform efforts over the years, couched in different guises and forms, few attempts to deal with management have resulted in significant change. This is not to say that there have been no achievements from the range of reform efforts. But GPRA repeats the tendency of the architects of management reform to focus on what have turned out to be fairly ineffective approaches. The time and energy that have been expended in this process have resulted in significant opportunity costs in the federal government. MORE >>
“The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tool?” PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, VOL. 58, NO. 4 (July-August 1998, pp. 307-316)
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) responded to many of the recommendations for change in public management that have emerged over the years but has evoked incredibly divergent views as it has begun to be implemented. While some aspects of the perceived problems are attributable to the background of the legislation (e. g., its purposes and requirements), the initial instructions for implementation also contributed to the confusion. One cannot understand the reaction to GPRA, however, without an understanding of the larger context. This environment includes the reality of the budget and budget decision making, the context of fragmentation, decentralization, and devolution, the pressures from living in an era of ideology and divided government, skepticism about federal collection of information, problems dealing with the concepts of customers and stakeholders, and what I call crowded management space (competing management requirements.) The early stages of implementation suggest that there are problems in the process of developing strategies, defining goals and performance measures, dealing with data, determining the level of analysis, and assigning responsibility for the implementation. While it is very early to give a definitive assessment of the GPRA process, the optimism that surrounded the legislation is not as strong as it was several years ago when the legislation was enacted. Some agencies within the federal establishment may be using the requirements to achieve internal management agendas, but the complexity of the institutions of American governance works against the accomplishment of the rational goals of the legislation. MORE >>
“Accountability Expectations in an Intergovernmental Arena: The National Rural Development Partnership”, with Barbara S. Romzek. PUBLIUS, Vol. 26, No,2, 1996, pp. 59-81
This article explores the expectations and accountability relationships present in an intergovernmental experiment known as the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP). As such, this study extends earlier analyses of accountability dynamics beyond the bounds of a single agency into the organizationally less tidy realm of intergovernmental relations. This research focuses on the unique expectations and accountability dynamics facing participants in the NRDP and identifies gaps between expectations at the corporate (agency) and individual levels and between arenas in the intergovernmental system. These gaps complicate the accountability dynamics for NRDP participants and contribute to the challenges of operating within the rural development policy arena. The NRDP is designed to emphasize the relationship between processes and substantive outcomes. It has developed a tendency to rely on professional and political accountability relationships that have little to do with formal responsibilities. MORE >>
"The Comparative Case Study Approach in Public Administration" with Robert Agranoff, RESEARCH AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Vol. 1, pp. 203-231, 1991.
This paper discusses the use of the comparative case research methodology in public administration. In this approach, caes are systematically developed through use of multiple sources of evidence, investigating phenomena within their context, and then are analyzed by comparison. The use of comparative case research can be as rigorous and systematic as virtually any other method. Moreover, there are many subject in public administration where research within a phenomena's context provides better evidence and opportunity for explanation. The nature and use of comparative case analysis in inquiry is initially explained. Then case development and comparison analysis as well as key concerns of research design is explained. Next, the utility of this method is analyzed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the problems and opportunities with use of this method when studying public administration. MORE>>
“Managing Intergovernmental Conflict: The Case of Human Services,” with C. Gregory Buntz, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, VOL. 43 Public Administration Review, No. 5, Sep. - Oct., 1983.
Tension between the federal government's responsibility to hold grant recipients accountable to national goals and priorities, and state and local government's drive to meet self-determined needs and priorities is a basic characteristic of U.S. intergovernmental relations. This tension exists even when the federal role is perceived to be diminished as in an era of expanded block grants. Such tension, a factor of the mutual dependence in the system, produces an unavoidable conflict in the process and structure of a variety of federally mandated, and state- or locally-administered activities. A key premise of this paper is that such conflict is inevitable; it neither can nor should be avoided; it, therefore, must be actively managed. MORE>>