2006
DOI: 10.1007/s10824-006-9005-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Government's Choice of Bureaucratic Organisation: An Application to Italian State Museums

Abstract: bureaucracy, state museums, Italy,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
8
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The first line looks at the museum as an institution that has a private and a social role: it has to satisfy the present visitors but it has to improve and preserve the present collection for future generations (Johnson, 2003). The main issues within this research line concern the organizational form (e.g., Fedeli and Santoni, 2006), the managerial aspects of supplying services and merchandise, along with the strategies for reducing production costs and fund raising (Kotler and Kotler, 1998). A large number of empirical studies are devoted to estimating visitors' willingness to pay and their price elasticity, with the final scope of evaluating the effect of the introduction of admission fees, as a new source of revenue (Santagata and Signorello, 2000;Maddison and Foster, 2003;Lampi and Orth, 2009).…”
Section: Tourism Flows and Attendance At Museums And Monumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The first line looks at the museum as an institution that has a private and a social role: it has to satisfy the present visitors but it has to improve and preserve the present collection for future generations (Johnson, 2003). The main issues within this research line concern the organizational form (e.g., Fedeli and Santoni, 2006), the managerial aspects of supplying services and merchandise, along with the strategies for reducing production costs and fund raising (Kotler and Kotler, 1998). A large number of empirical studies are devoted to estimating visitors' willingness to pay and their price elasticity, with the final scope of evaluating the effect of the introduction of admission fees, as a new source of revenue (Santagata and Signorello, 2000;Maddison and Foster, 2003;Lampi and Orth, 2009).…”
Section: Tourism Flows and Attendance At Museums And Monumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also in this case, more articulated data are available, but generally we limit ourselves to the aggregate datum (MUSMONUV). Note that only cultural sites run by the State are considered here: though questionable, this is a necessary choice, due to the fact that consistent data are not completely available for monuments or museums run by private subjects or local public administrations; however, the main cultural sites are run by the State in Italy, and these museums account for over one third of the visits to museums (as documented, e.g., by Fedeli and Santoni, 2006), so we believe that our data are sufficiently representative.…”
Section: The Italian Casementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the introduction of control agents whose aim is to safeguard public funds would reduce the diversion of public funds for discretionary purposes, unless such agents pursue interests of their own, so that the increased number of players results in an increased number of resources' claimants instead of increased benefits to the electorate [6].The starting point of this paper is different because (i) what it is observed in reality is substantially different from the 1 government-1 bureau relationships depicted by the standard literature. Seeking examples fitting to the original Niskanean-type bureaucracy, we can barely find spatial activities of NASA in the U.S. and conclude that it is almost always the case that the government deals with more than one bureau for the public supply of goods and services or that a common bureau supplies more than one good to different levels of government as in [7]. There are only few exceptions in the literature considering competing bureaucracies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The starting point of this paper is different because (i) what it is observed in reality is substantially different from the 1 government-1 bureau relationships depicted by the standard literature. Seeking examples fitting to the original Niskanean-type bureaucracy, we can barely find spatial activities of NASA in the U.S. and conclude that it is almost always the case that the government deals with more than one bureau for the public supply of goods and services or that a common bureau supplies more than one good to different levels of government as in [7]. There are only few exceptions in the literature considering competing bureaucracies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In this paper, we propose an additional determinant of a government's decision to consolidate public bureaus, which is driven by strategic incentives to reduce bureaucratic slack. We model the interaction between the government and the bureaus as a two-stage game (see also Fedeli and Santoni 2006). In the first stage, the government chooses whether to consolidate or to keep two bureaus separate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%