Search

Public administration as a field of work and study offers a theoretically rich yet practical tool to enact student engagement and the ideal of students-as-partners: the principles of service co-creation. Public administration, as an interdisciplinary and applied field, promoting and reflecting democratic principles, is a good source of tools for practice. As such we expect it to be particularly suitable for curriculum co-design principles. Our research sets potential benefits and challenges in facilitating a co-designed curriculum for public administration programmes. In doing so we make the case for more co-design and co-production of teaching as a tool to achieve enhanced understanding of these concepts and greater student engagement.

Public Administration & Development is a journal that focuses on the intersections between public administration and development studies, particularly in non-Western contexts. As the second oldest British public administration journal, it has a rich history that reflects the nature of academic publishing and the discipline of public administration. The journal has evolved from its practitioner origins to become a leading academic journal, with a strong international focus. The 75th anniversary special issue includes articles that explore various topics, such as autocracies in Central Asia, gender equality, decolonizing knowledge, and disaster management. The journal aims to continue adapting to new challenges, embracing diverse perspectives, and remaining at the forefront of discussions on public administration and development. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Public Administration & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How can UK and devolved governments be more effective when addressing chronic problems like inequalities or crises like climate change? The dominant story is of pessimism: policymaking is bound to a Westminster tradition of short-termism, elitism, and centralization, and reform efforts are doomed to failure. We present a more cautiously optimistic account about the prospects for a more effective government, grounded in theory-informed lessons from two decades of UK and devolved government reform efforts. We describe a potentially more innovative and less blundering state and present a coherent Positive Public Policy agenda that can help to realize this potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is broadly accepted that learning is important in supporting the delivery of change. Furthermore, during times of public sector budget cuts there is a growing interest in innovation and change. However, it is also generally accepted that austere times typically lead to a reduction in training and development budgets -- particularly within the public sector. This paper explores the extent to which the assumed link between learning and change is contested during austerity. Fifty-one public sector managers from Wales and Scotland participated in the study, over a period of 13 months, from a wide range of public sector organisations across two devolved parts of the UK. The research explored issues surrounding motivations for learning, expectations of outcomes and perceptions around the drivers of change. It is found that public sector budget cuts are having a direct impact on learning and development opportunities across the UK public sector. Whilst budget cuts may lead to change, this is likely to be piecemeal rather than strategic. In conclusion, this research supports the view that austerity is a barrier to meaningful change in the public sector and not a driver.

The civil service has seen dramatic changes over the last 50 years, symbolized by the shift from Traditional Public Administration, to New Public Management and now New Public Governance. Likewise, the role and nature of people management functions has changed with the development of Strategic HR and Human Resource Development (HRD). Finally, the nature of higher education has changed with a growing emphasis on research impact, knowledge exchange, and industry-academia links such as focusing on employability. In this research we explore the development of the Bahrain Institute for Public Administration's (BIPA) Master in Public Management (MPM) program. Drawing on extensive fieldwork with students, managers, and stakeholders we identify how this program was established, how students were selected, and the implications of their study on the program for the success of the Bahrain government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a catalyst for change, but such change can only happen through collaborative leadership which maintains a focus on relationships and purpose rather than solely on outputs or outcomes. This conceptual article explores how health and social care integration has been offered as one potential solution to the challenge of health and social care transformation. Specifically, Integrated Care Systems in England are intended to provide regional governance, to provide public services in a coherent and robust way. We explore this development in relation to three key aspects: the macro-level global policy context; the meso-level organizational behaviour and culture; and the micro-level practice of individual leaders and managers. It is found that, whilst the organizational structure of Integrated Care Systems offers great promise, collaborative leadership is critical to realize truly resilient and sustainable collaborative relationships. MAD statement Integrated Care Systems have been developed at the system level with little consideration of the leadership that will be required to implement collaborative action across health and social care. Coming out of the COVID-19 crisis there is an opportunity to create leadership for the common good – but this will require energy, purpose, and courage across all levels of the governance system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Public Administration is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper analyzes a UK polity that is characterized by fragmentation, differentiation, and decentered governance which is evident at multiple layers of public policy and administration. The development of devolved governments as well as ongoing debates around regional and local governance have created increasingly fragmented places. The intensification of policies associated with the new public management has fragmented the provision of public services. And the absence of a common approach to professional development has led to growing fragmentation of public service workers from different professions and sectors. We argue that these trends reflect many of the aspects of an advanced or late‐stage new public governance. This is ripe territory for further research and demonstrates that UK public administration continues to have much to offer to international scholars. It also raises important questions about what forms of public administration might emerge next. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 10 March 2024 the Commission on the Centre of Government published its final report: Power with Purpose. The aim of the commission had been to explore why Number Ten, the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury do not always work as well as they should and to explore what could be done to improve the centre of government radically. Perennial concerns about the existence of a ‘hollow crown’ at the centre of British government were, the final report recommended, to be resolved through the implementation of a ‘radical’ reform agenda. This article interrogates the commission's proposals from a critical perspective and builds upon existing concerns as to the viability of further centralising power in Whitehall. It achieves this by reflecting on an understanding of why history, criticality, governance, evidence and relationships matter when seeking to cope with complexity or when designing genuinely ‘radical’ new governance capabilities. It is argued that a full appreciation of these factors is essential to any project to strengthen the core executive and offers a more balanced, relational and systemic approach to nurturing strategic capacity in government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]