Comparative public adminstration: The United States view in international perspective

Abstract

In the study of comparative public administration in the United States, there are currently four directions of development associated with bureaucratic and policy models, case and component approaches, the comparative study of organizations, and application. The characteristics of these developments are outlined in this article, recent publications surveyed and future trends discussed. The extent to which there is a peculiarly American or Western tradition in the comparative study of administration is considered and issue is taken with the argument presented by Dwivedi and Nef (1982) for greater autonomy.

Linking decentralization and centralization: A critique of the new development administration

“…I have in mind the steps normally taken by enlightened business people: establishing acceptable goals, hiring and training qualified personnel, stimulating motivation, encouraging competition, promoting legitimacy and two-way flows of communication, etc. I believe that political elasticity theory escapes the criticism that it is unduly based upon Western experience (Henderson, 1982). But this is ultimately for the reader to decide.…”

Do institutional governance and state fragility affect institutional quality in Asian economies?

“…PA is a process that examines the government's administrative activities and their dimensions in a comparative context [ 48 ]. CPA analyses the same country's comparisons with different industries, sectors, or time of span [ 49 ] or from a global perspective [ 50 ]. The comparative approach is used for the political/country/institutional analysis of different countries where the same problem, condition, and environment exist, making it possible to explore significant results [ 51 ].…”

Characterization of the road profile and the rotational stiffness of supports in a bridge based on axle accelerations of a crossing vehicle

“…Target (1) is very relevant to traffic safety as well as bridge health given that the road profile can be responsible for significant impact forces on a bridge, especially when the road deteriorates and its roughness increases. Nonetheless, the surface of the bridge is rarely monitored or reported in the literature, except for a few publications on the presence of bumps in the approach to the bridge as a result of settlements or expansion joints (Du et al, 2015;Henderson et al, 2016;Marques Lima & de Brito, 2009). Most of the work conducted over recent years concentrates on the estimation of road profiles without a bridge (Nguyen et al, 2019), and again, some of these algorithms require dynamic responses measured at the body mass, that is, sprung mass bounce accelerations and pitch velocities , and body acceleration and angular velocity (Zhao et al, 2017(Zhao et al, , 2019).…”