No abstract

No abstract

PurposeIn addressing policy problems, it is difficult to disentangle public policies from private efforts, business institutions and civic activities. Societies may acknowledge that all these domains have a role in accomplishing social aims, but there are fundamental problems in understanding why, how and with what implications this occurs. Drawing upon the insights from the papers of this special issue, the authors aim to advance the understanding of governance and accountability in different contexts of hybridity, hybrid governance and organizations.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conceptualize common theoretical origins of hybrid organizations and the ways in which they create and enact value by reflecting on the articles of the special issue. Furthermore, the authors propose agendas for future research into hybrid organizations.FindingsHybrid organizations can be conceptualized through two types of lenses: (1) the dimensions of hybridity (ownership, institutional logics, funding and control) and (2) their approaches to value creation (mixing, compromising and legitimizing).Practical implicationsThis article provides more detailed and comprehensive understanding of hybridity. This contribution has also important practical implications for actors, such as politicians, managers, street-level bureaucrats, professionals, auditors and accountants who may be enveloped in various hybrid settings, policy contexts and multi-faceted interfaces between public, private and the civil society sector.Originality/valueHybridity lenses reveal novel connections between four types of hybrid institutional contexts: state-owned enterprises (SOEs), non-profit organizations (NPOs), social enterprises (SEs) and municipally owned corporations (MOCs). This paper provides theoretical instruments for doing so.

Improving public sector performance involves both ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ problems. With the emphasis on the ‘doing’ problem, this study examines public managers as users of management instruments (MI) in attempts to improve the performance of public services. The article explores uses of three MIs in Finnish local government by using the conceptual framework of ambiguity. The article demonstrates why and how the use of MIs does not always simplify the public management exercise. It may become even more ambiguous. It is important to comprehensively understand the ways in which uses and users of MIs intervene in the process of public service delivery. It is argued that understanding MI uses in public administration necessitates a more profound theoretical approach acknowledging the ways in which ‘rational intentions' for performance improvements turn into situated, boundedly rational, managerial practice. In the context of productivity programmes, such understanding is essential to researchers and practitioners of public administration.

This article explores distinctive research patterns of public administration and accounting disciplines concerning public sector performance measurement (PSPM). Our review shows that accounting researchers from Europe investigate reasons for limited PM use and factors explaining a rational or symbolic PM use, inspired by organization theory and institutional theory and conducting case/field studies. Public administration researchers from Europe and the USA prefer to study PM design and PM impact respectively, mainly using surveys in combination with various theories, like political theory. Public administration research from the USA examines the types of performance indicators in PM systems and contingent factors for PM design. Public administration research from Europe shows an interest in evaluating public sector reforms like Best Value and explaining learning processes for improvement. We argue that PSPM research could benefit from interdisciplinary efforts and intensified mutual communication between public administration and accounting.