Search

Autonomy and control are important dynamics in each advisory system. Autonomy is important because it ensures independent and critical advice and allows advisors to ‘speak truth to power’ (Wildavsky 1989; Pielke 2010). At the same time, government control is also an important aspect (Van Twist et al. 2015; Craft and Halligan 2015; Halligan 1995) to assure that advices are on-topic, on-time, in the right format, and relevant for government decision-making,- and policymaking processes. This paper describes the trade-off the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom make with regard to the level of ‘autonomy’ and ‘control’ of their policy advisory bodies. We make a distinction between legal, economic, and operational means (Kunneke 1991) through which autonomy is stimulated or control is exercised on a managerial and policy (primary processes) level of policy advisory bodies.

Many empirical studies of European public administration and public management are case studies. In light of a trend towards more quantitative research and the rise of behavioural public administration, this chapter makes an argument for the continuity of case study research, as it is often better equipped to deal with macro-level phenomena and processes. This chapter then ventures into the practice of case study research by European scholars, providing information concerning the nature of 103 case studies published by Governance and Public Administration in 2001, 2006, 2010 and 2015. Based on this review and recent developments in case study methodology, we provide some suggestions for case study designs, including theoretically informed case selection, competitive theory testing and more sensitivity to “time” and its various manifestations.

Contains fulltext : 141078.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) This article aims to contribute to recent debates on research methods in public administration by examining the use of quantitative methods in public administration research. We analyzed 1,605 articles published between 2001–2010 in four leading journals: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), Public Administration Review, Governance, and Public Administration (PA). Results show that whereas qualitative methods are still predominant compared to quantitative methods (56% versus 44%), the field is becoming increasingly quantitative. Of quantitative methods used, surveys are most dominant, while a combination of methods is used far less often. In general, very few studies use a mixed methods design. As to the areas of research, we found that the use of quantitative methods is unequally distributed; some subfields (public management) use quantitative methods more often than others (policy and politics), and some journals (JPART, PA) publish articles on quantitative research more than others (Governance). Implications for public administration research are discussed. 26 p.

In the last decades, scholars from Scandinavia to Italy and from Australia to United States have begun focusing on public networks; accordingly, literature on the topic has developed considerably. Despite the “global” nature of the phenomenon, some doubts have arisen on the existence of a “global” community of public network scholars. Our paper aims to empirically analyze the different geographical/“country-based” communities of public network scholars, investigating their similarities and differences, analyzing their evolution over time while exploring and suggesting some initiatives to foster dialogue between these communities.