Based on an in-depth, longitudinal case study involving the public employment services in the Netherlands, we provide a novel conceptual imagery of how pluralistic fields may evolve over time. Our study shows how multiple institutional logics remain in play after a dominant logic is settled in an organizational field. We uncover several factors that explain the process of temporary stability and change and focus especially on two factors-negative choice and deliberate ambiguity-that explain ongoing change. These factors solve the struggle between competing logics, but simultaneously sow the seeds for further subsequent change. This study contributes to the institutional logics perspective beyond competing logics to the study of how fields with plural logics evolve.

Public Money & Management publishes articles which contribute new knowledge as a basis for policy or management improvements, or which reflect on evidence from public service management and finance. The journal does not accept literature reviews. Public Money & Management has a multidisciplinary readership, including officials in all types of public service organizations, academics, consultants and advisers working with the public services, politicians, journalists, and students on both academic and professional courses. Although this readership has been interested largely in British public management, there is an increasing interest in international developments. Accordingly, the editors welcome articles about developments outside the UK which offer clear lessons for British or other western practitioners.The journal publishes core articles, new developments and contributions to debate. Core articles (no more than 5,000 words) must meet high standards of intellectual argument, evidence and understanding of practice in public management. They are double-blind refereed usually by an academic and a practitioner. New developments (typically 2,500 words) focus on the evolution of contemporary public service policy, management or practice and convey the potential or actual impact of change in a detached, informed and authoritative way. These articles are not normally refereed, but are subject to editorial scrutiny. Debate articles (usually under 1,000 words) are personal statements about topical issues, expressing an argument, supported by examples or evidence. They, too, are subject to editorial scrutiny. Authors should take into account the needs of the readership in drafting their articles and, in particular, to explain technical terms and avoid exclusive jargon.

No abstract