Comparative Public Administration Is Back In, Prudently

Abstract

Comparative public administration, in method and in content, has not successfully integrated with the main field of public administration, to the detriment of both. With globalization and changes in information technology, the current separation impairs public administration education. This assessment is based on a literature review and an appraisal of the contributions of comparative scholarship. Suggestions for future research strategies promote viable, integrative, and relevant cross-cultural studies. They emphasize (1) the utilization of cooperative teams of researchers instead of individual efforts; (2) the use of multi-case analysis instead of the traditional single-case approach; (3) improvement of the definition and verification of cultural influences on administration; and (4) expansion of middle-range analysis to examine specific administrative practices across national boundaries as a strategy for enhancing relevance.

Globalizing Public Administration: Today's Research and Tomorrow's Agenda

“…This is not to claim the superiority of quantitative methods over quantitative approaches or of small‐ N studies over large‐ N ones. Rather, there is a danger that with such a low usage of quantitative methods, research on administration in the global South may be suffering from some amount of “barefoot empiricism” (Jreisat 2005; Peters 1994). A more even uptake of research methods, including greater use of mixed methods, would suggest greater sophistication and vibrancy within developing country administrative research.…”

“…Peters argues that American researchers tend to assume particularity for other countries and generality for the United States. Comparative analysis can guard against such unsubstantiated assumptions by increasing the likelihood of dependable results, enhancing the evaluation of hypotheses, and encouraging stronger verification of conclusions (Dahl 1947; Jreisat 2005, 239; Riggs 1991). Nevertheless, identifying what constitutes comparative research is sometimes tricky.…”

“…Many reviews of comparative public administration have pointed out that a shift from ideographic (distinct cases) to nomothetic approaches (studies that seek explicitly to formulate and test propositions) is one way to improve comparativist scholarship (Jreisat 2005, 237; Riggs 1991, 473). To determine whether a rigorous theoretical‐conceptual standard in our sample is utilized, each article was coded as having one of three “styles,” per Van Wart and Cayer (1990).…”

Gobernar: una oportunidad para renovar la investigación en Administración Pública Comparada

“…Jreisat (2005) sostiene que la APC no alcanzó a integrarse exitosamente, ni en método ni en contenido, con el campo principal de estudios sobre administración pública, en detrimento de ambos. Con la globalización y los cambios en la tecnología de la información, la separación actual afecta la educación en administración pública.…”

Legitimacy and context: implications for public sector reform in developing countries

“…Indeed, the subfield of Comparative Public Administration is concerned in knowing how and why different countries differ in their bureaucracies, public policies and governmental service provision. As Jreisat (2005) has argued, the current preoccupation with the effects of globalisation has moved Comparative Public Administration back again to the core concerns of the discipline. Despite global trends, differences between countries remain.…”