Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- 8 Work Motivation
- 9 Experimenting with Leadership in Public Organisations
- 10 Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape***
- 11 Managerial Use of Performance Data by Bureaucrats and Politicians
- 12 Citizens and Public Performance Measures: Making Sense of Performance Information
- 13 Public Sector Transparency
- 14 Representative Bureaucracy: An Experimental Approach
- 15 Coproduction of Public Services
- 16 Expectations of and Satisfaction with Public Services
- 17 Citizen and Users’ Responses to Public Service Failure: Experimentation about Blame, Exit, and Voice
- 18 Assessing Public Support for Government Policy: Comparing Experimental and Attitudinal Approaches
- 19 Legislative Oversight of the Bureaucracy: Insights from Formal Modelling and Experimental Testing
- 20 Experimental Research for Nonprofit Management: Charitable Giving and Fundraising
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
10 - Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape***
from Part III - Substantive Contributions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2017
Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- 8 Work Motivation
- 9 Experimenting with Leadership in Public Organisations
- 10 Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape***
- 11 Managerial Use of Performance Data by Bureaucrats and Politicians
- 12 Citizens and Public Performance Measures: Making Sense of Performance Information
- 13 Public Sector Transparency
- 14 Representative Bureaucracy: An Experimental Approach
- 15 Coproduction of Public Services
- 16 Expectations of and Satisfaction with Public Services
- 17 Citizen and Users’ Responses to Public Service Failure: Experimentation about Blame, Exit, and Voice
- 18 Assessing Public Support for Government Policy: Comparing Experimental and Attitudinal Approaches
- 19 Legislative Oversight of the Bureaucracy: Insights from Formal Modelling and Experimental Testing
- 20 Experimental Research for Nonprofit Management: Charitable Giving and Fundraising
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Experiments in Public Management ResearchChallenges and Contributions, pp. 219 - 243Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Baldwin, J. N. 1990. ‘Perceptions of public versus private sector personnel and informal red tape: their impact on motivation’, The American Review of Public Administration, 20(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borry, E. 2016. ‘A new measure of red tape: introducing the three-item red tape (TIRT) scale’, International Public Management Journal. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2016.1143421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozeman, B. 1993. ‘A theory of government “red tape”’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273–304.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. 2012. ‘Multidimensional red tape: a theory coda’, International Public Management Journal, 15(3), 245–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Feeney, M. K. 2011. Rules and Red Tape: A Prism for Public Administration Theory and Research. ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Scott, P. 1996. ‘Bureaucratic red tape and formalization: untangling conceptual knots’, The American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretschneider, S. 1990. ‘Management information systems in public and private organizations: an empirical test’, Public Administration Review, 50(5), 536–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, G. A. and Walker, R. M. 2010. ‘Red tape: the bane of public organizations?’ In Walker, R. M., Boyne, G. A., and Brewer, G. A. (eds.), Public Management and Performance: Research Directions. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 110–26.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B. 1975. ‘Red-tape and the service ethic: some unexpected differences between public and private managers’, Administration & Society, 6(4), 423–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coursey, D. H. and Pandey, S. K. 2007. ‘Content domain, measurement, and validity of the red tape concept: a second-order confirmatory factor analysis’, The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 342–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, G. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. 2015. ‘Regulatory red tape and private firm performance’, Public Administration, 93(1), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHart-Davis, L. 2017. Creating effective Rules in Public Sector Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
DeHart-Davis, L., Chen, J., and Little, T. D. 2013. ‘Written versus unwritten rules: the role of rule formalization in green tape’, International Public Management Journal, 16(3), 331–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHart-Davis, L. and Pandey, S. K. 2005. ‘Red tape and public employees: does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, E. S. 2011. ‘Economics vs. psychology experiments: stylization, incentives, and deception’. In Druckmen, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckmen, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A. 2011. ‘Experimentation in political science’. In Druckmen, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, M. K. 2012. ‘Organizational red tape: a measurement experiment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 427–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, M. K. and Rainey, H. G., 2010. ‘Personnel flexibility and red tape in public and nonprofit organizations: distinctions due to institutional and political accountability’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 801–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giauque, D., Ritz, A., Varone, F., and Anderfuhren-Biget, S. 2012. ‘Resigned but satisfied: the negative impact of public service motivation and red tape on work satisfaction’, Public Administration, 90(1), 175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Pandey, S. K., and Deat, F. 2015. ‘Defending inflexible rules: an experiment on the effect of counter attitudinal behavior on work-related perceptions of public managers’, Paper presented at the 2015 Public Management Research Association Conference, Minneapolis, MN, June 11–13, 2015.Google Scholar
Hall, R. H. 1996. Organizations: structures, processes, and outcomes, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Heintze, T. and Bretschneider, S. 2000. ‘Information technology and restructuring in public organizations: does adoption of information technology affect organizational structures, communications, and decision making?’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 801–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. 1991. ‘A public management for all seasons’, Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, H. 1977. Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, W. and Feeney, M. K. 2012. ‘Objective formalization, perceived formalization and perceived red tape: sorting out concepts’, Public Management Review, 14(8), 1195–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, W. and Feeney, M. K. 2014. ‘Beyond the rules: the effect of outcome favourability on red tape perceptions’, Public Administration, 92(1), 178–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, W. and Tummers, L. 2014. ‘More than words: experimental evidence on the negative effects of red tape on quality and procedural justice’, Paper presented at the IRSPM Conference, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Kelman, Steven. 2008. ‘The “Kennedy school” of research on innovation in government’, In Borins, S. (ed.), Innovations in Government: Research, Recognition, and Replication. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 28–52.Google Scholar
Lambert, E. G., Paoline, E. A. III, and Hogan, N. L. 2006. ‘The impact of centralization and formalization on correctional staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment: an exploratory study’, Criminal Justice Studies, 19(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A., Sadoff, S., and Wagner, M. 2011. ‘So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design’, Experimental Economics, 14(4), 439–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luton, L. S. 2007. ‘Deconstructing public administration empiricism’, Administration and Society, 39(4), 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1995. ‘The Thomas theorem and the Matthew effect’, Social Forces, 74(2): 379–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. and Herd, P. 2010. ‘Red tape and democracy: how rules affect citizenship rights’, The American Review of Public Administration, 40(6), 654–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. P. and Pandey, S. K. 2006. ‘Creating desirable organizational characteristics: how organizations create a focus on results and managerial authority’, Public Management Review, 8(1), 119–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, D. P. and Pandey, S. K. 2007. ‘The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation’, Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming Government. Reading, MA: Adison Wesley.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. K. 1995. ‘Managerial perceptions of red tape’, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. 2012. ‘E-government and small business activity’. In Shareef, M. A. et al. (eds.), Transformational Government through Egov Practice: Socio-economic, Cultural, and Technological Issues. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 369–86.Google Scholar
Pande, S. and Bretschneider, S. 1997. ‘The impact of red tape’s administrative delay on public organizations’ interest in new information technology’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 113–30.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. K., Coursey, D. H., and Moynihan, D. P. 2007. ‘Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: a multimethod study’, Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 398–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, S. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., Shareef, M. A., and Kumar, V. 2014. ‘Introduction: markets and public administration’. In Dwivedi, Y. K., Shareef, M. A., Pandey, S. K., and Kumar, V. (eds.), Public Administration Reformation: Market Demand from Public Organizations. Routledge/Taylor and Francis, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. K. and Kingsley, G. A. 2000. ‘Examining red tape in public and private organizations: alternative explanations from a social psychological model’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 779–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, S. K. and Marlowe, J. 2015. ‘Assessing survey-based measurement of personnel red tape with anchoring vignettes’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(3), 215–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, S. K. and Moynihan, D. P. 2006. ‘Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: testing the moderating role of culture and political support’. In Boyne, G. A., Meier, K. J., O’Toole, L. J. Jr., and Walker, R. M. (eds.), Public Services Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. K., Pandey, S., Breslin, R., and Broadus, E. 2017. Public Service Motivation Research Program: Key Challenges and Future Prospects. In Raadschelders, J. and Stillman, R. (eds.), Foundations of Public Administration. Irvine, CA: Melvin and Leigh, Chapter 19, pp. 314–332.Google Scholar
Pandey, S. K. and Scott, P. G. 2002. ‘Red tape: a review and assessment of concepts and measures’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, S. K. and Welch, E. W. 2005. ‘Beyond stereotypes a multistage model of managerial perceptions of red tape’, Administration & Society, 37(5), 542–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quratulain, S. and Khan, A. K. 2013. ‘Red tape, resigned satisfaction, public service motivation, and negative employee attitudes and behaviors: testing a model of moderated mediation’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X13511646.Google Scholar
Rainey, H. G., 1979. ‘Perceptions of incentives in business and government: implications for civil service reform’, Public Administration Review, 39(5), pp. 440–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, H. G. and Bozeman, B. 2000. ‘Comparing public and private organizations: empirical research and the power of the a priori’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, H. G., Pandey, S., and Bozeman, B. 1995. ‘Research note: public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape’, Public Administration Review 55(6): 567–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, P. G. and Pandey, S. K. 2000. ‘The influence of red tape on bureaucratic behavior: an experimental simulation’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4), 615–33.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. S. 1999. ‘Contested memory: notes on Robert K. Merton’s “the Thomas theorem and the Matthew effect”’, The American Sociologist, 30(2), 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stazyk, E. C., Pandey, S. K., and Wright, B. E. 2011. ‘Understanding affective organizational commitment: the importance of institutional context’, The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 603–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, D. S. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. Knopf.Google Scholar
Thompson, F. J. and Riccucci, N. M. 1998. ‘Reinventing government’, Annual Review of Political Science, 1(1), 231–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torenvlied, R. and Akkerman, A. 2012. ‘Effects of managers’ work motivation and networking activity on their reported levels of external red tape’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3): 445–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tummers, L., Weske, W., Bouwman, R., and Grimmelikhuijsen, S. 2016. ‘The impact of red tape on citizen satisfaction: an experimental study’, International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 320–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bekerom, P., Torenvlied, R., and Akkerman, A. 2015. ‘Managing all quarters of the compass? How internally oriented managerial networking moderates the impact of environmental turbulence on organizational performance’, The American Review of Public Administration, 46(6), 639–59.Google Scholar
Walker, R. M. and Brewer, G. A. 2008. ‘An organizational echelon analysis of the determinants of red tape in public organizations’, Public Administration Review, 68(6), 1112–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, E. and Pandey, S. K. 2007. ‘E-government and bureaucracy: toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15
- Cited by