See below for the following calls:
- Symposium: Understanding and Reducing Public Corruption
- Symposium: Entrepreneurship in the Public and Nonprofit Sectors
Symposium: Understanding and Reducing Public Corruption
Globally corruption costs governments and businesses trillions of dollars each year. It distorts public policy objectives and damages trust. This makes for great difficulties for public administration, however scholarly analysis of public corruption is meager, especially in public administration and related fields. This symposium seeks to better understand how corruption affects public administration and how public administration can mitigate corruption. It is intended to advance research and generate a comprehensive knowledge base on public corruption.
The Panama Papers, released in 2016 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, as well as the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and issues related to the Trump Administration’s perceived conflict of interest, favoritism, or reduced transparency in various industries and sectors once again stir up concerns about public corruption in democratic societies. Such concerns urge us to study corruption in the new era, in which corruption has evolved into a more complex sociopolitical phenomenon.
We invite a broad range of manuscripts that promote interdisciplinary dialogues, practical relevance, innovative methodology, or international comparison in corruption studies. Scholars and practitioners from various disciplines and from around the world are encouraged to submit their work to this forum. In particular, we welcome theoretical, empirical, and practically relevant research papers that contain, but are not limited to, the following:
- Conceptualization of public corruption that integrates perspectives from multiple disciplines, such as public administration, public policy, political science, management science, sociology, economics, criminal justice, psychology, anthropology, etc.
- Features of public corruption in the new era related to the use of new information technology, complicated organizational design, or public-private partnerships; and the challenges for corruption detection and anticorruption institutions in the new era.
- The role of public participation, non-profit organizations, and civil society organizations in corruption detection and in anticorruption movement.
- Innovative approaches to measuring corruption at different governmental and organizational levels, such as “big-data” approach, lab or field experiments, or qualitative tools seeking micro-level evidence through an ethnographic approach.
- Examination of anti-corruption strategies targeting different forms of public corruption, including bribery, kickbacks, embezzlement, fraud, extortion, patronage, nepotism, cronyism, conflicts of interest, and state capture.
- Comprehensive literature review that systematically assesses the body of existing theory and empirical research, or meta-analysis based on empirical studies in public corruption.
- Comparative studies of anti-corruption strategies that may examine the mechanisms for certain anti-corruption initiatives to work or not to work in different social and political contexts, or comparative studies that provide lessons learned from other countries.
Manuscripts are due by November 1, 2017, to Yahong Zhang (email@example.com) and David Jancsics (firstname.lastname@example.org). After initial screening, authors of selected manuscripts will be invited to submit directly to the Public Administration Review (PAR) online site for double-blind review, with final decisions regarding publication being made by PAR’s editors. All authors should comply with PAR’s style guidelines.
- Yahong Zhang, Associate Professor in School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA), Director of Rutgers Institute on Anti-Corruption Studies (RIACS) at Rutgers University in Newark. Her research focuses on the politics-administration dichotomy, citizen participation, and anticorruption. She is the editor of Government Anti-Corruption Strategies: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, published by Taylor & Francis in 2015.
- David Jancsics, Post-Doctoral Associate, School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University in Newark (Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs, San Diego State University, beginning date: Sept. 2017). His research focuses on corruption, organizational wrongdoing and informal practices. In 2014 his co-authored paper, “The Role of Power in Organizational Corruption”, was selected as the winner of the Best Article Award of the Public and Nonprofit Division of the Academy of Management.
- Adam Graycar is Professor of Public Policy at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. He has held senior academic positions at the Australian National University and at Rutgers University. He spent 22 years as a government official (Federal and State) in Australia. His latest book is Understanding and Preventing Corruption (with Tim Prenzler) Palgrave Macmillan, NY, 2013.
Call for Papers for a Symposium on:
“Entrepreneurship in the Public and Nonprofit Sectors”
Public Administration Review
David B. Audretsch
Donald S. Siegel
Arizona State University (as of 7/1/17)
Norwegian School of Economics, Norway
Entrepreneurship is a topic of growing interest to academics and policymakers. Scholars in the field of public administration have been slower than academics in other fields (e.g., business administration and economics) to embrace the study of entrepreneurship. That is not surprising since entrepreneurial activity has traditionally focused on the private sector and the pursuit of profit.
However, in recent years, we have witnessed a substantial rise in entrepreneurial initiatives in the public and non-profit sectors. These initiatives involve numerous government and non-profit entities, including federal agencies, universities, foundations, and state and local governments. Entrepreneurship in the public and non-profit sectors has broader social goals than conventional forms of entrepreneurship, such as the more rapid commercialization and use of inventions and new technologies arising from federally-funded research, enhancement of regional economic development, sustainability and other environmental objectives, and remedying other market failures with innovative solutions. These new initiatives also have important implications for the “entrepreneurial” behavior of public sector managers (e.g., Lewis, 1980; Schneider and Teske, 1992) and thus, the vast literature in public administration and political science on public entrepreneurship (e.g., Ostrom 1964, 2005; Wagner, 1966; Osborne and Gaebler, 1993; McGinnis and Ostrom, 2012).
The proposed symposium seeks to bring together papers that address these issues. Another key goal of the symposium is to foster stronger links among entrepreneurship researchers in a variety of social science disciplines (including the field of management) and public administration scholars.
Some themes that papers in the proposed symposium might address are:
- Public entrepreneurship and public sector entrepreneurship (Bellone and Goerl, 1992; Moon, 1999; Bernier and Hafsi, 2007; Leyden and Link, 2015)
- Public policies and programs to promote entrepreneurship, e.g., the Bayh-Dole
Act (Aldridge and Audretsch, 2011; Berman, 2012), the Small Business
Innovation Research Program (Audretsch, Link, and Scott, 2002), and the NSF
I-Corps Program (Pellicane and Blaho, 2015)
- Social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in the non-profit sector
(Frumkin and Kim, 2001; Korosec and Berman, 2006; Waddock and Post,
1991; Terjesen, Bosma, and Stam, 2015; Schneider, 2017; Terjesen, 2017)
- Academic/university entrepreneurship, including technology transfer offices and property-based institutions, such as incubators/accelerators and science/technology parks (Link, Siegel, and Wright, 2015; Siegel, Waldman,
and Link, 2003; Yu, Stough, and Nijkamp, 2009)
- The contribution of entrepreneurship to regional economic development (e.g., Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda, 2014)
The Symposium will incorporate regular PAR features, including Theory to Practice, Research Synthesis, Public Administration and the Disciplines, Book Reviews, Perspectives and Commentary.
The Review Process and Tentative Timetable
The following is a tentative schedule for the proposed symposium:
- Submission of papers: May 2018
- First Round Completed Reviews of submitted papers: August 2018
- Developmental workshop at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. September 2018
- Submission of final papers: January-March 2019
Note that there will be a special developmental workshop for highly promising papers under review, which will be held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C.
Aldridge, Taylor and David B. Audretsch (2011). “The Bayh-Dole Act and Scientist Entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1058-1067.
Audretsch, David B., Albert N. Link, and John T. Scott (2002). “Public/Private Technology Partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-Supported Research,” Research Policy 31, 145-158.
Bellone, Carl J. and George Frederick Goerl (1992). “Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy,” Public Administration Review 52: 130-134.
Berman, Elizabeth Popp (2012). Creating the Market University, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bernier, Luc and Taïib Hafsi (2007). “The Changing Nature of Public Entrepreneurship,” Public Administration Review 67: 488-503.
Borins, Sandford.( 2000). “Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers, or Enterprising Leaders? Some Evidence about Innovative Public Managers,” Public Administration Review, 60(6): 498-507.
Decker, Ryan, John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. (2014). “The Role of Entrepreneurship in US Job Creation and Economic Dynamism,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3): 3-24.
Frumkin, Peter, and Mark T. Kim. (2001). “Strategic Positioning and the Financing of Nonprofit Organizations: Is Efficiency Rewarded in the Contributions Marketplace?” Public Administration Review, 61(3): 266-275.
Korosec, Ronnie L., and Evan M. Berman. (2006). “Municipal support for social entrepreneurship.” Public Administration Review, 66(3): 448-462.
Lewis, Eugene. (1980). Public Entrepreneurship: Toward a Theory of Bureaucratic Political Power: The Organizational Lives of Hyman Rickover, J. Edgar Hoover, and Robert Moses. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Leyden, Dennis and Albert Link. (2015). Public Sector Entrepreneurship: US Technology and Innovation Policy. New York: Oxford University Press
.Moon, Myung J. (1999). “The Pursuit of Managerial Entrepreneurship: Does Organization Matter?,” Public Administration Review 59: 31-43.
Link, Albert N., Donald S. Siegel, and Mike Wright (2015). Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McGinnis, Michael D., and Elinor Ostrom. (2012). “Reflections on Vincent Ostrom, Public Administration, and Polycentricity.” Public Administration Review, 72(1): 15-25.
National Science Foundation. (2011). “Empowering the National Through Discovery and Innovation; NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016.” www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/nsfstrategicplan_2011_2016.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2017.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Plume.
Ostrom, Elinor (1964). “Public Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Ground Water Basin Management,” University of California, Los Angeles, CA, (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation).
Ostrom, Elinor (2005). “Unlocking Public Entrepreneurship and Public Economies,” Working Paper DP2005/01, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
Pellicane, Christina, and John A. Blaho. (2015). “Lessons Learned from Adapting the NSF I-Corps Curriculum to Undergraduate Engineering Student Entrepreneurship Training,” Venture Well.
Schneider, Aaron. (2017). “Social Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Collectivism, and Everything in Between: Prototypes and Continuous Dimensions,” Public Administration Review, doi: 10.1111/puar.12635.
Schneider, Mark, and Paul Teske. (1992). “Toward A Theory of the Political Entrepreneur: Evidence from Local Government,” American Political Science Review, 86(3): 737-747.
Siegel, Donald S., David Waldman, and Albert N. Link (2003). “Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Relative Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study,” Research Policy, 32(1): 27-48.
Terjesen, Siri (2017). “Social Entrepreneurship amongst Women and Men in the United States,” Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration: Special Report.
Terjesen, Siri, Niels Bosma, and Erik Stam (2016). “Advancing Public Policy for High-growth, Female, and Social Entrepreneurs,” Public Administration Review, 76
Waddock, Sandra, and James Post. (1991). “Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change,” Public Administration Review, 51(5), 393-401.
Wagner, Richard E. (1966). “Pressure Groups and Political Entrepreneurs: A Review Article,” Public Choice 1: 161-170.
Yu, Junbo, Roger R. Stough, and Peter Nijkamp. (2009). “Governing Technological Entrepreneurship in China and the West.” Public Administration Review, 69(1): 595-600.
Call for Papers: Does a New Public Governance Demand New Public Ethics?
- Gjalt de Graaf, Full Professor at the Department Political Science and Public Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Michael Macaulay, Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Deadline: November 30, 2016
Public management is living in a new and still relatively untested age. Traditional public administration gave way to New Public Management and continues to evolve into new forms of public governance. This development has gone hand in hand, of course, with other massive social, political, economic and technological changes: individualization, globalization, information technology and many more. As a result, institutions disaggregate and realign in increasingly complex forms; hybridization and collaboration are becoming increasingly the norm while more formal institutional arrangements wither.
Remaining at the heart of each of these manifestations, however, is the concept of public ethics. As new forms of governance have emerged we have witnessed a parallel rise in the ways we try to understand integrity and ethics. Integrity systems, for example, have been developed at all levels: organizational, local, national, and international. New policy initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership have brought values such as transparency and integrity to the fore on the global stage and have led to cross-cultural conversations. Yet despite these trends, or perhaps because of them, scientific evidence about the nature, legitimacy, and ethics of new governance paradigms remains relatively scarce. The normative dimensions of new governance dimensions are not well understood.
This call for papers on the ethics of new public governance is intended to remedy limitations in current scientific and normative knowledge. We welcome empirical and theoretical papers in the following areas:
- What new institutional forms have arisen for dealing with ethical conduct, anti-corruption activity and standards of behavior, and what has their impact been?
- Are there new connections between public values (integrity, democracy, accountability, transparency) in new governance contexts, or have there been any new clashes?
- What has been the impact of the continuing reconceptualization of the citizen (as client, consumer, co-producer, collaborator, etc.) on the ethical lenses in which we frame relationships with the state?
- To what extent have increasingly diverse forms of public participation had an influence upon new forms of legitimacy in public governance?
- How do we learn about integrity and ethics? Can we meaningfully measure and evaluate integrity in the ever changing socio-political landscape?
- What is the role of organizational learning for ethical culture, climate and behavior? Has it yielded genuine results or simply been used as window dressing?
- In what ways , if any, have collaboration, cross-agency working and policy transfer helped to develop robust and resilient ethical practice?
We hope to provide a forum for papers that addresses both what we know about the changing landscape and how we know it. In so doing we hope to bring forth lessons that will be of practical benefit to policy makers and public servants, as well as promoting academic rigor in this exciting arena.
Manuscripts are due no later than November 30, 2016, to the coordinating guest editors email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org. After initial screening, authors of selected manuscripts will be invited to submit directly to Public Administration Review (PAR)’s Editorial Manager for double-blind review, with final decisions regarding publication being made by PAR’s editors. All authors should comply with PAR’s style guidelines.