Global Public Policy and Governance
Abstracts of Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2021
1. Developing a strategic user orientation: a key element for the delivery of effective public services
Stephen P. Osborne, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK；
Kirsty Strokosch, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
This paper argues that the application of strategic planning and management to public services has been hampered by the failure to link these to strategic orientation. This paper suggests that this is essential to the development of resilient and sustainable public services for the future and that this orientation needs to privilege creating value in the lives of public service users rather than internal organisational efficiency in isolation from such value.
Yijia Jing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China；
René Torenvlied, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands；
Minna van Gerven, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland；
Jia Cao. Fudan University, Shanghai, China
This paper offers an empirical account of the engagement and success of nonprofits in contracting for elderly care in China and the Netherlands as two contrasting contexts. While contracting as an innovation demonstrates a state-centered approach in China, its Dutch counterpart has sought a balance between state and professional influences. The paper argues that public sector reforms, civil society development and social regulation support schemes contextualize the engagement and success of nonprofits in contracting for elderly care. Surveys among the managers of 176 elderly care organizations in Shanghai and 70 elderly care organizations in the Netherlands shows that the fundamental elements of nonprofit contracting in elderly care are strikingly similar between both contexts, although their manifestation is shaped by each specific institutional context.
Martin de Jong, Rotterdam School of Management & Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
With the societal cracks resulting from decade-long neoliberal policies becoming increasingly visible in many countries, capitalism as the most suitable institutional system to produce material wealth, environmental sustainability and social stability has come under growing attack. This contribution examines what the growing army of recent heterodox scholars in economics and business have to say on what one could call ‘inclusive capitalism’. This concerns both the flaws in current capitalist systems and the behavioral assumptions that underpin it, as well as the possible institutional fixes they propose. I first sketch the background of the crisis surrounding capitalism, delve into its conceptual foundations and offer a working definition. I subsequently examine what social and environmental inclusion refer to and use Kate Raworth’s conceptualization of the doughnut economy as a point of departure to explore what ‘inclusive capitalism’ may imply. I also identify requirements for its implementation in institutional practices. It appears that ‘purpose’ rather than utility maximization or profit maximization is what novel economists and business scholars perceive as the key driver in ‘stakeholder-oriented capitalism’ or the ‘economics of mutuality’. Their claim is that at the end of the day this is not only a moral imperative for companies but also more beneficial for them in terms of long-term profitability. Moreover, they see a far more important role for government in shaping markets and leading the way into a more inclusive future than it is currently fulfilling. I argue that it is time for scholars in the field of public policy to take heed of these new theoretical developments in neighboring disciplines and respond to them.
Kim Moloney, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
Global governance is transnationally administered. Today, global governance is no longer dominated by just states or even international organizations. It is an increasingly populated arena in which multiple actors have global policy power and transnational administrative influence. Each impacts a nation-state’s assumed administrative sovereignty. Global policy and its transnational administration may be decentralized, devolved, dispersed, and/or delegated away from exclusive state control. This reconfiguration of administrative sovereignty is explored via five case studies: Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the Inspection Panel of the World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Social Forum. The resulting heuristic showcases a diversity of transnational administrative acts, articulates their “institutional center”, and provides opportunities for further public administration research.
Lihua Yang, School of Government, Institute of State Governance Studies, and Institute of Public Governance, Peking University, Beijing, China；
Zhuanjia Du, School of Government, Institute of State Governance Studies, and Institute of Public Governance, Peking University, Beijing, China；
Cheng Cheng, School of Public Administration and Workshop for Environmental Governance and Sustainability Science, Beihang University, Beijing, China；
Pengyun Shen, School of Public Administration and Workshop for Environmental Governance and Sustainability Science, Beihang University,Beijing, China
As a particular common pool resource (CPR), space has undergone tremendous changes and the current space governance has already shown its negative effects. To promote sustainable space development, this paper aims to establish a new compound and collaborative governance framework. The framework consists of four parts, including institutional arrangements, organizational system, implementation mechanism, and implementation actors. Institutional arrangements for space governance refer to the related laws and regulations, which are core part of the entire system and can be reflected throughout the organizational systems, implementation mechanism, and implementation actors. Organizational systems should contain three levels—international level, regional level, and state level. The implementation mechanism covers five procedures—information sharing, negotiation, collaboration, evaluation, and feedback. And the implementation actors mainly include relevant governments, international organizations, enterprises, experts and scholars, universities and research institutes, news media, and others. In this framework, all implementation actors are associated to formulate a “honeycomb” architecture, which means the actors should avoid the way of working separately and facilitate the implementation of multi-collaboration in space governance so that the true collaboration can be actualized.
Yefei Hu, College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
Book review of The Dragon, the Eagle, and the Private Sector: Public-Private Collaboration in China and the United States.
7. Edoardo Ongaro: philosophy and public administration: an introduction, 2nd edition
Yi Yang, School of Government, Peking University, Beijing, China
Book review of Philosophy and Public Administration: An Introduction.
For more information, please see the homepage of GPPG.
