Draft of Development Administration Debate
Draft of Development Administration Debate
I want to highlight a significant ongoing debate in Public Administration, International Political Administration, and comparative public policy/politics regarding the generation of ideas and the application of approaches.
The study of public administration has evolved significantly since its inception in the early 20th century, drawing inspiration from diverse sources globally. However, a fundamental challenge facing contemporary discourse in public administration is the conceptualization of social equity. Traditionally, US-specific understandings of social equity have been heavily influenced by Western philosophical traditions. However, there is a growing recognition of the need for a more inclusive and multidimensional understanding of social equity, incorporating diverse philosophical perspectives (Moloney, forthcoming).
This shift reflects broader debates within the field, often dominated by US scholars and shaped by Anglo-American traditions, leading to an identity crisis within the discipline. Notable attempts, such as the Minnowbrook conferences and the Blacksburg Manifesto, have aimed to redefine the field and address emerging challenges (McDonald et al., 2024).
Despite its ancient origins, the modern study of public administration began in the early 20th century. In the United Kingdom, it started with the establishment of the Royal Institute of Public Administration in 1922 and its journal, Public Administration (McDonald, 2021; Nottage & Stack, 1972). In the United States, it originated with Hull House in Chicago and the establishment of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research (Stivers, 2000). In Australia, inspiration came from the experiences of the United Kingdom and the United States, leading to the development of local chapters of the Royal Institute of Public Administration and the founding of the Australian Journal of Public Administration in 1937 (Chapman, 1987; Remington, 1961). In the Netherlands, it emerged following World War II as activity in the social sciences increased, with researchers shifting from focusing on public law toward incorporating a multidisciplinary perspective (Kickert & Toonen, 2006).
Since its origins, the field of public administration has seen numerous explorations of its identity and future direction. However, as noted by Dubnick (2018), many of these explorations have stemmed from an identity crisis within the field. These include debates between Simon and Waldo over whether the field is an art or a science (Dubnick, 2018), the Minnowbrook conferences establishing new forms of public administration (O'Leary et al., 2010), and the Blacksburg Manifesto's appreciation for bureaucracy and its role in solving social issues (Waldo, 1991). Despite the richness of these discourses, the debate has often been dominated by US scholars, and public administration has been defined in the image of Anglo-American traditions (Drechsler, 2015; O'Flynn, 2021, 2022).
The ongoing debate in Public Administration, International Political Administration, and comparative public policy/politics revolves around the generation of ideas and the application of approaches. Scholars like McDonald et al. (2024), Moloney (forthcoming), and Gulrajani & Moloney (2010) have recently discussed the importance of advancing public administration globally while considering philosophical traits and diverse perspectives on social equity. This discussion challenges the notion that a class-based approach with process tracing can universally advance public administration, raising questions about whose constructs should be accepted and what philosophical traits guide these constructs.
Developmental Administration
In order to properly define development administration, one must separate the two words and characterize each concept first before combining them into a single idea. This essay will first describe administration as understood in the public administration literature and then explain development as used by International Financial Institutions (IFIs) in terms of economics. It will then examine the inequalities identified by the global system from an ethical perspective focused on enhancing human capacities. Finally, it will suggest unifying development administration on a state-by-state basis to promote progress and advancement for modern society.
Administration, as defined in the field of public administration, advocates for the use of scientific management principles such as efficiency and effectiveness to direct and lead an organization. Woodrow Wilson's seminal work, "The Study of Administration" (1887), responded to the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act by advocating for the separation of politics from administration and promoting a more businesslike approach to government. This professionalized the field of public administration in the US, emphasizing efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
The field has evolved from its origins in municipal research to the theorizing of concepts like New Public Management. Fredrick W. Taylor (1912) advocated for scientific management principles to improve worker productivity, while political scientist Luther Gulick (1937) introduced the POSDCCORB typology for government services. Leonard White (1926) expanded on Wilson's idea of the political and administrative dichotomy, emphasizing the need for management to adjust to America's federalist state structure. Frank J. Goodnow (1900) differentiated between the administrative and political roles of government, focusing on implementation and policy formulation, respectively.
Organizational structures have been discussed by Morton Grodzins (1966) and Herbert Kaufman (1969), who highlighted the overlapping functions and chaos within the US government. Grodzins described the "Marble Cake" effect of overlapping government powers, while Kaufman called for decentralization and citizen participation in government agencies. These discussions underscore the political aspects of public administration within a liberal democracy paradigm.
Since the 1980s, public administration literature has focused on Public Management, promoting reduced public spending, balanced budgets, and delegated responsibilities. This approach, known as New Public Management, has been critiqued for its failure to incorporate politics into efficiency arguments (Kettl 2005, Light 1997).
Development, on the other hand, has a nuanced history, encompassing various economic theories aimed at increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and improving living conditions. Development economists focus on increasing GDP, dividing the world into developed, low and middle-income, and least-developed countries based on economic indicators (Sachs 2005).
The international development debate has evolved from solely economic growth to include poverty reduction and inequality elimination. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) established by the United Nations in 2001 focus on human, sustainable, and institutional development, emphasizing poverty reduction, disease prevention, and environmental sustainability (Ganapati 2004).
The World Bank and IFIs have shifted their focus to governance projects and institutional development, encouraging good governance, decentralization, and accountability. However, questions arise regarding whose norms should be disseminated and whether international interventions are imperialistic (Milner 2005).
Fred Riggs' study of administrative ecology in the US, Thailand, and the Philippines examines the influences on administration, emphasizing the historical and cultural factors shaping public life (1961).
Development administration must balance being an art and a science, recognizing the political nuances of each country's institutional context. It is a craft that, if adopted effectively, can lead to strong institutions capable of managing public issues.
Colonialism
Colonialism has played a significant role in shaping public problems in developing countries, influencing their political, economic, and social landscapes. The legacies of colonial rule often include disparities in wealth and power, institutional weaknesses, and social divisions that persist long after independence. These legacies manifest in various public problems such as poverty, inequality, corruption, and inadequate infrastructure.
To analyze public policies in developing countries within this context, it's crucial to consider the historical and structural factors shaped by colonialism. Understanding the historical background helps identify how colonial policies and practices continue to impact current challenges. For example, disparities in resource allocation, land ownership, and access to education and healthcare can be traced back to colonial-era policies that favored certain groups over others.
Moreover, analyzing public policies in developing countries requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the complex interplay of local, national, and international dynamics. While conventional policy analysis methods are valuable, they may not fully capture the unique challenges faced by developing countries or the historical factors that underpin them.
Scholars like Bentancur, Bidegain, and Martinez (2023) emphasize the importance of addressing asymmetries in knowledge production and evaluation systems favoring Northern institutions. This suggests the need for a more inclusive and contextually relevant approach to policy analysis that considers local perspectives and experiences.
Additionally, Moloney (forthcoming) highlights the growing recognition of the need for a multidimensional understanding of social equity in public administration. In the context of developing countries, this involves considering diverse philosophical perspectives and historical trajectories to inform policy analysis and decision-making.
In summary, analyzing public policies in developing countries requires a nuanced understanding of historical legacies, structural inequalities, and local dynamics shaped by colonialism. By adopting a multidimensional approach that incorporates diverse perspectives and experiences, policymakers and scholars can better address complex public problems and promote inclusive and sustainable development in these contexts.
Riggs vs. Garcia Zamora Debate
Fred Riggs, a prominent scholar in the field of public administration, made significant contributions to the understanding of public administration and development. Riggs introduced the concept of "prismatic society," which refers to societies characterized by multiple and overlapping social, cultural, and institutional layers. He argued that traditional Western models of public administration, which are often based on linear and hierarchical structures, may not be suitable for prismatic societies.
Riggs emphasized the importance of considering cultural and historical factors in shaping administrative systems and policies. He advocated for the adaptation of administrative structures to local contexts, rather than imposing standardized models from Western countries. Riggs' work highlighted the need for administrative systems to be flexible, responsive, and capable of accommodating diverse societal values and norms.
Jean Claude Garcia Zamora, a Haitian scholar, expanded on Riggs' ideas in the context of Haiti. Zamora emphasized the challenges faced by Haiti, a country with a complex history of colonization, dictatorship, and socio-economic inequality. He argued that traditional Western models of public administration had limited applicability in Haiti due to its unique social and political dynamics.
Zamora advocated for a more context-specific approach to public administration in Haiti, one that takes into account the country's cultural heritage, social structure, and historical legacy. He highlighted the importance of decentralization and community participation in governance processes, as well as the need for greater transparency and accountability in public institutions.
In summary, Fred Riggs' insights into public administration and development laid the foundation for understanding the complexities of administrative systems in diverse societies. Jean Claude Garcia Zamora further expanded on these ideas, applying them to the specific context of Haiti and advocating for tailored approaches to public administration that reflect the country's unique challenges and opportunities.
Citations for Fred Riggs' work:
Riggs, F. W. (1964). The Ecology of Public Administration. The Public Administration Review, 24(3), 177-190.
Riggs, F. W. (1966). Administrative Styles and Organizational Structure in Comparative Perspective. The Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(3), 257-276.
Riggs, F. W. (1971). Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Citations for Jean Claude Garcia Zamora's work:
Zamora, J. C. G. (1999). Haiti: State Against Nation. Monthly Review Press.
Zamora, J. C. G. (2005). Governance, State, and Society in Haiti. Lexington Books.
Zamora, J. C. G. (2010). Public Administration and Development in Haiti. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(suppl_2), i207-i221.
Neo-colonialism
Then Neo-colonialism is a term describing the indirect control or dominance exercised by developed or powerful countries over less developed or weaker nations. Unlike traditional colonialism, which involved direct territorial control, neo-colonialism operates through economic, political, cultural, or technological means. This can include mechanisms such as economic exploitation, unequal trade relations, debt bondage, foreign aid dependency, and cultural influence.
In neo-colonial relationships, dominant countries exert significant influence over the policies, resources, and decision-making processes of less powerful nations, often prioritizing their own interests at the expense of the latter's sovereignty and development. This perpetuates a cycle of dependency and underdevelopment, where less developed countries remain economically and politically subservient to the interests of the dominant powers. Neo-colonialism is frequently criticized for exacerbating inequalities, impeding self-determination, and hindering the socio-economic progress of formerly colonized or marginalized regions.
The concept of neo-colonialism intersects with discussions on the evolution of public administration from its Anglo-Saxon Western philosophical origins. Neo-colonialism perpetuates a system where dominant powers, often rooted in Western nations with Anglo-Saxon influences, control the policies and development trajectories of less powerful countries, including aspects of governance such as public administration.
In many developing countries, public administration may still reflect the influences of its colonial past shaped by Western philosophical traditions. The legacy of colonial rule often left behind administrative structures, processes, and ideologies mirroring those of the former colonizers, primarily rooted in Anglo-Saxon Western philosophical perspectives.
This legacy can hinder the evolution of public administration in developing countries, as it fosters a dependency on Western models and overlooks indigenous knowledge systems, cultural contexts, and local realities. The continued influence of Western philosophical origins in public administration may restrict the autonomy and agency of these countries in shaping their governance systems according to their own needs and aspirations.
Understanding the concept of neo-colonialism is crucial for analyzing the challenges faced by public administration in developing countries and advocating for the decolonization of governance structures and practices. It emphasizes the need to move beyond the legacy of Anglo-Saxon Western philosophical origins and embrace more inclusive and contextually relevant approaches to public administration that prioritize local perspectives and empower indigenous voices.
Social Equity
Contrary to an Economist version of equity, which emphasizes skill-based enhancements, the debate acknowledges the complexity of achieving global advancement in public administration. Bentancur, Bidegain, and Martinez (2023) echo this sentiment, highlighting widespread dissatisfaction with the dominance of analytical frameworks from the United States and the developed world in shaping public policy studies in Latin America. They emphasize the need to address asymmetries in knowledge production centers and evaluation systems favoring Northern institutions, while also balancing regional specificities with mainstream paradigms.
Moloney (forthcoming) suggests that the philosophies of John Rawls, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau heavily influence US-specific understandings of social equity and its social contract. However, her research challenges the disciplinary reliance on Western philosophers through a postmodern lens. The implications of deconstructing and epistemologically repositioning the social equity concept for public administration are discussed in the conclusion.
What presents as a concrete example of decolonialization falls short in the application to the state capacity to withhold and stand the traditions posted by Rawls, Locke and Rousseau.
While full epistemic decolonization of the social equity concept cannot be achieved in a single chapter, this text serves as a disciplinary call to engage in further exploration and deconstruction of Americanist concepts. Readers are reminded of the importance of standpoint epistemology before utilizing postmodernism to deconstruct the social equity concept.
To contribute to the advancement of development in Latin America and specifically Mexico, for example, it is essential to follow these lines of thought and develop contextually relevant theoretical frameworks. This involves fostering collaborative research, addressing institutional deficiencies in policy formulation and implementation, and acknowledging the influence of international factors on policy decisions. While this discussion could lead to another article for publication, it underscores the importance of considering diverse perspectives and philosophical traits in advancing public administration globally.
Social Equity in the US traditional view
In recent years, scholars have delved into the complex concept of social equity, particularly within the context of the United States. Guy and McCandless (2012) argue that the understanding of social equity is evolving from a philosophical notion of a social contract to a more structured evaluation within the U.S. Constitution. Gooden (2014) identifies moral, economic, political, and legal factors as key triggers for examining social equity. Norman-Major and Wooldridge (2011) further elaborate on the moral and economic dimensions, emphasizing the role of public administrators in representing the people they serve.
Meier (2022) raises concerns about the potential negative consequences of relying solely on moral authority for decision-making, while Glaser (2012) emphasizes the importance of considering context in determining moral leadership for defining social equity. Wooldridge and Smith (2017) apply the concept to cutback management after the 2008 recession, highlighting its disproportionate impact on women and minorities. Park (2022) evaluates how social equity emerges from public values and influences decision-making in U.S. public policy and administration.
Klinger (2019) argues that the United States has created various barriers to fairness over time, including constitutional, rational, nativist, economic, and geographic factors. Given recent social unrest, understanding social equity has become increasingly important for public administrators.
Applying social equity to public financial management poses challenges, as public budgeting ideally reflects the needs of the economy and the population it serves (McCandless et al., 2021; Riccucci, 2019; McCandless and Ronquillo, 2019; Blessett et al., 2017). Mikesell (2013) emphasizes the importance of responsive budgeting in representative democracies. However, scholars acknowledge the myth of bureaucratic neutrality (Meier and O’Toole, 2006), where bureaucracy may influence the goals of the public good. This holds true in the political process of public financial management.
To navigate this complex landscape, a normative approach is needed to separate the political from the technical aspects of public financial management. By applying a social equity lens, policymakers can better understand and address potential political fault lines in the future.
How do we teach public policy analysis?
General approaches and models of public policy analysis have seen a diverse evolution, reflecting varied theoretical perspectives and methodologies. Initially, the dominant theoretical approach emphasized absolute rational decision-making, viewing decision-makers as actors with total freedom to act within the logic of strict economic rationality. However, criticisms of this model led to the emergence of alternative approaches such as limited rationality, the incremental model, public choice theory, organized anarchy, and simultaneous convergence (Hill, 2013; Roth Deuble, 2009; N. Dunn, 2017).
Another significant theoretical current, expressed in Institutionalism and Neoinstitutionalism, shifted the focus to studying public policies from governmental and institutional capacities, institutional structures, and legal systems (Córdoba Pumalpa, 2017; Sierra Arias, 2018). This perspective views public policy as a complex and non-linear cycle, involving individuals, interest groups, institutions, and organizations engaged in processes of cooperation, competition, and conflict (Irarrazaval et al., 2020; N. Dunn, 2017). Known as the policy cycle model or sequential model, this approach assumes that each phase contains specific characteristics and functions, through which logically necessary and interdependent decisions and actions are deployed (Rosas-Huerta, 2020; Ejea Mendoza, 2006).
Among the approaches dedicated primarily to implementation processes, Top-Down and Bottom-Up perspectives are recognized. The Top-Down approach emphasizes traditional administrative relationships with hierarchical primacy of authority, while the Bottom-Up approach addresses relationships from the grassroots level (Roth Deuble, 2009).
More contemporary alternatives include neocorporatism, network analysis, and action theory. These approaches emphasize the importance of understanding policy issues within complex networks involving various actors from different sectors (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1986, 1993; Grantham, 2001; Wasserman and Faust, 1994; Scott, 1991; Fischer et al., 2007).
In addition to cognitive approaches (narrative and discursive) and governance perspectives, the notion of urban governance is interesting for its focus on deep connections between policies, levels of government, and actors during territorial and urban development processes (Londoño Zapata and Bolaños Mesa, 2019; Rodríguez Calzadíaz and Bass Zavala, 2022).
In Latin American studies on public policies, debates have centered around the use of general theories versus the uniqueness of the region (Franceschet and Diez, 2012). These debates have evolved, with increasing emphasis on the use of general theories, especially generated by debates focused on comparative politics and the apprehension of the new institutionalism. However, some authors recommend reaching a middle point, considering the different political realities (Franceschet and Diez, 2012).
The findings highlight widespread dissatisfaction among respondents with the dominance of analytical frameworks from the United States and the developed world in shaping public policy studies in Latin America. This dominance is attributed to asymmetries in knowledge production centers and evaluation systems favoring Northern institutions. Overcoming this hegemony is complex due to the diverse nature of Latin American countries and the need to balance regional specificities with mainstream paradigms. Recommendations include fostering collaborative research, addressing institutional deficiencies in policy formulation and implementation, and acknowledging the influence of international factors on policy decisions. Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of developing contextually relevant theoretical frameworks to effectively address public policy challenges in Latin America.
For example, Bentacurt et al 2023 studied how Latin Americans were teaching public policy. Their findings highlight widespread dissatisfaction among respondents with the dominance of analytical frameworks from the United States and the developed world in shaping public policy studies in Latin America. This dominance is attributed to asymmetries in knowledge production centers and evaluation systems favoring Northern institutions.
By overcoming this Northern hegemony is complex due to the diverse nature of Latin American countries and the need to balance regional specificities with mainstream paradigms. Recommendations include fostering collaborative research, addressing institutional deficiencies in policy formulation and implementation, and acknowledging the influence of international factors on policy decisions. Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of developing contextually relevant theoretical frameworks to effectively address public policy challenges in Latin America.
Regardless of the positions assumed, three essential elements are crucial in analyzing Latin American public policies: the state and its relations with society, the role of institutions in socioeconomic inequalities, and the broader contexts shaping policy problems and solutions (Franceschet and Diez, 2012).
Research done on how to teach public policy
The overview synthesized in the preceding paragraphs expresses the dissatisfaction of the majority of respondents with the hegemony of analytical frameworks on public policies originating from the United States, in particular, and more generally from the developed world, as well as their search for surpassing alternatives. This is not a straightforward operation, for multiple reasons. Notes from Bentancur et al. 2023:
Firstly, due to the noticeable asymmetry between knowledge production centers. The observed theoretical predicament is not a phenomenon that operates exclusively on Latin America but holds a global dimension due to the considerable scientific accumulations and prestige of US academic institutions. Similarly, academic research evaluation systems tend to reward products validated by institutions, journals, and peers from Northern universities, thereby incentivizing the assimilation and use of predominant theories and methods, while penalizing innovation outside those parameters. This is compounded by the significant inequality of available resources between institutions and researchers from the Global North and South.
Furthermore, it is challenging to develop alternatives that account for Latin American particularities due to the diversity of these countries, which, although sharing historical, geopolitical, and contextual variables, differ in relevant political-institutional and social aspects.
Despite these constraints, it is understood that the development of public policy studies in Latin America can be strengthened by considering some key guidelines. Primarily, it is necessary to confront the risk of endogamy and particularism, i.e., opposing ad hoc and exclusively idiosyncratic national explanations to dominant paradigms. Neglecting a perspective that encompasses the region and illustrates both the similarities and differences among countries would lead these academies to relinquish any genuinely scientific pretension.
Similarly, it is crucial to expand collaborative work among researchers from different countries, fostering shared and continuous work in the preliminary stages of development and inquiry. This includes promoting the circulation of graduate students among existing offerings in the region and incorporating contributions from Latin American perspectives and authors into study programs.
In anticipation of these emerging advancements, a specific and significant task that should be systematically addressed is the survey and dissemination of theoretical approaches and models already developed by authors from different nations. In our investigation, we identified a large number of academics widely cited in their own country but barely referenced in other Latin American latitudes, perhaps due to ignorance of their work.
It is beyond the scope of this text to propose a theoretical corpus capable of addressing the identified deficiencies. Such an endeavor would require multiple, diverse, and qualified contributions that could only be combined in a larger collective effort. However, as a contribution to a roadmap for this undertaking, we can suggest some variables to be addressed specifically in teaching and research. These involve focusing on certain distinctive characteristics widely prevalent in the region's public policies, which already have analytical precedents worthy of rescue and development.
Firstly, it is necessary to question the degree of autonomy that our States have in formulating their policies. The historically predominant political model in the region is corporatist and has manifested asymmetrically due to structural differences and the influence of various groups. Therefore, the undisputed territorial control that constitutes the origin of the contemporary State's autonomous power is challenged in Latin America.
Secondly, unlike in liberal-democratic contexts, in the region, States are significant actors in guiding the policy process. However, paradoxically, they lack the political and administrative capacities necessary to produce effective and efficient public policies across the wide spectrum of issues they seek to address. Their organizations have been categorized as "low trust bureaucracies" due to the unequal treatment they give to citizens and the subordination of their rights and obligations to unreliable and unpredictable procedures and behaviors. Naturally, these deficiencies particularly affect the policy implementation stage.
Thirdly, several political systems in the region have been categorized as having "fragile institutionalism," where formal arrangements have proliferated alongside other equally relevant informal ones, without which the regulation of social life cannot be fully explained.
Fourthly, when studying the relationships between the executive and legislative branches, it is essential to assume that, unlike the US model of checks and balances, in Latin America, presidents have more institutional resources, which questions the role of parliaments in directing policies.
Fifthly, the imprint of political parties in Latin America cannot be linearly equated with that of their northern counterparts. The former are less pragmatic and more ideological, resulting in greater distance between them, and politics rarely acquires centripetal dynamics. Additionally, the role of the leader or caudillo and personalistic relationships are significantly more serious than in the much more institutionalized North American party system.
Sixthly, decision-making in the region exceeds the more traditional frameworks of representative democracy, incorporating diverse societal or hybrid formats, such as forums, social dialogues, citizen assemblies, or participatory budgets. Novel actors have also emerged, such as social movements, with various links to political parties, constructing a governance model that requires specific analysis.
Seventhly, the study of change in public policies must necessarily generate other questions when studying the Latin American panorama. In these latitudes, the primary challenge is not explaining change, as suggested by incrementalist approaches and their derivatives, but rather the stability of policies, which is a difficult value to achieve.
Lastly, it is essential to account for the influence of the international dimension in defining Latin American public policies, amplified in times of globalization. These states are constrained by external factors that, in the form of "soft" (ideas) or "hard" power (financing, sanctions), condition their decisions.
In conclusion, while we have focused on aspects of the production, dissemination, and assimilation of theoretical constructs, the analysis presented and the reflection promoted are far from being reduced to exclusively academic discussions. Analytical approaches constitute the lenses through which we view our public policies. If they provide us with distorted images, it is unlikely that our work can effectively contribute to the better understanding and resolution of the main public problems. For these reasons, we need better theoretical tools to study Latin American public policies.
Overall What Latin American can Provide to the Public Policy Debate
Therefore, the analysis presented in the preceding paragraphs can be classified as both epistemological and methodological within the realm of knowledge formation. It delves into the dissatisfaction among scholars with the dominance of analytical frameworks originating from the United States and the developed world in shaping public policies, particularly in Latin America, indicating a critical examination of the foundations and methodologies used in policy analysis.
Epistemologically, the analysis questions the asymmetry between knowledge production centers, highlighting the global dimension of the theoretical predicament and the influence of academic research evaluation systems favoring Northern institutions. It challenges the hegemony of predominant theories and methods, suggesting the need for alternatives that consider Latin American particularities and incorporate diverse perspectives.
Methodologically, the analysis proposes guidelines for strengthening public policy studies in Latin America, emphasizing the importance of confronting endogamy and particularism, expanding collaborative research efforts, and surveying and disseminating theoretical approaches developed by authors from different nations. It outlines specific variables to address in teaching and research, focusing on distinctive characteristics prevalent in the region's public policies and questioning traditional analytical frameworks.
Overall, the analysis seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in studying Latin American public policies, advocating for the development and adoption of better theoretical tools that account for local realities and promote a more inclusive and contextually relevant approach to policy analysis.
References:
Birdsall, Nancy, Augusto De La Torre, and Rachel Menezes. (2007). Fair Growth: Economic Policies for Latin America's Poor and Middle-Income Majority. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
Córdoba Pumalpa, E. (2017). "Institutionalism and Public Policy." Colombia Internacional, (92), 111-133. doi:10.7440/colombiaint92.2017.05
Dunn, N. (2017). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Routledge.
Ejea Mendoza, J. (2006). Decision Making in Public Policy: Models and Methods. CRC Press.
Fischer, F., et al. (2007). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. CRC Press.
Franceschet, A., & Diez, T. (2012). Comparative Perspectives on Latin American Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ganapati, Sukumar. (2004). "The Idea of Development in the 21st Century." Working paper.
Glaser, M. A. (2012). "Commentary: Social Equity and the Public Interest." Public Administration Review, 72, S14–S15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41688033
Gooden, S., & Portillo, S. (2011). "Advancing Social Equity in the Minnowbrook Tradition." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 21, i61–i76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40961919
Gooden, S. T. (2015). “PAR”’s Social Equity Footprint. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 372–381. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24757996
Grodzins, Morton. (1966). The American System. Rand McNally.
Gulick, Luther. (1937). "Notes on the Theory of Organization." In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration. Institute of Public Administration.
Gulrajani, N., & Moloney, K. (2010). "Globalizing Public Administration: Today's Research and Tomorrow's Agenda." Public Administration Review. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02261.x
Hill, M. (2013). "Book Review: Theories of the Policy Process." Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 15(4), 388-389. doi:10.1080/13876988.2013.824381
Irarrazaval, A., et al. (2020). Policy Analysis: A Toolkit for Public Service Professionals. SAGE Publications.
Kaufman, Herbert. (1969). Administrative Decentralization and Political Power.
Kettl, Donald F. (2000). Global Management Revolution. Brookings Institution Press.
Light, Paul. (1998). Tides of Reforms: Making Government Work, 1945-1995. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lustig, Nora (Editor). (2022). Commitment to Equity Handbook: Estimating the Impact of Fiscal Policy on Inequality and Poverty, Second Edition, Volume 2: Methodological Frontiers in Fiscal Incidence Analysis. CEQ Institute at Tulane University and Brookings Institution Press. Washington, D.C.
McCandless, Sean, and John C. Ronquillo. (2020). "Social Equity in Professional Codes of Ethics." Public Integrity, 22(5), 470-484.
McDonald, Bruce, and Sean McCandless. (2022). "Incorporating Social Equity." In Teaching Public Budgeting and Finance: A Practical Guide. Edited by Bruce McDonald and Meagan M. Jordan. Routledge Public Affairs Education. New York, NY.
McDonald, Bruce, and Sean McCandless. (n.d.). "Budging for Social Equity: Exploring the (nearly) Unknown" [Manuscript].
McDonald, B. D., et al. (2024). "The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Public Administration: An Agenda for Future Research." Journal of Public Affairs Education. doi:10.1080/15236803.2023.2294654
Milner, Hellen. (2005). "Globalization, Development, and International Institutions: Normative and Positive Perspectives." Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 833-854.
Moloney, Kim. (Forthcoming). "Deconstructing the Philosophical Positionalities of Social Equity: A Postmodernist Perspective." In S. Viswanath, S. McCandless, & M. Sabharwal (Eds.), Handbook of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Peet, Richard. (1999). Theories of Development. Guilford Press.
Porter, David O., and Teddie Wood Porter. (1974). "Social Equity and Fiscal Federalism." Public Administration Review, 34(1), 36-43.
Riccucci, Norma M. (2019). "Equality: Norma M. Riccucci." Public Integrity, 21(6), 632-634.
Rosas-Huerta, A. (2020). The Public Policy Cycle: Theories and Models. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Riggs, Fred W. (1961). The Ecology of Public Administration. Asia Publishing House.
Roth Deuble, D. (2009). "Organized Anarchy Revisited: Legacies, Linkages, and Learning." Administration & Society, 41(4), 474–497. doi:10.1177/0095399709335512
Sachs, Jeffrey. (2005). The End of Poverty. Penguin Press.
Sierra Arias, M. (2018). "Neoinstitutionalism and Its Contributions to the Analysis of Public Policy." Revista de ciencia política (Santiago), 38(3), 631-653. doi:10.4067/s0718-090x2018000300631
Stivers, Camilla. (2000). Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing a Feminist Theory of Public Administration. University of Alabama Press.
Taylor, Frederick W. (1912). Scientific Management. Harper & Brothers.
White, Leonard D. (1926). Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. Macmillan.
Wilson, Woodrow. (1887). "The Study of Administration." Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197-222.
Wooldridge, B., and Heidi Jane Smith. (2017). "US Subnational Governmental Response to the ‘Great Recession’: Implications for the Equitable Distribution of the Costs and Benefits of Public Services." International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(3), 1-18.
Comments