Public sector challenges in different administrative regimes: Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60733/PMGR.2024.03Keywords:
government performance, citizen satisfaction, citizen survey, service quality, effectivenessAbstract
When public sector challenges are manifold, the citizens act as an important source of performance feedback on government practices. In this article, we explore current public sector challenges as perceived by citizens of five countries (n = 4,182)—Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. We analyze to what extent citizens rate a list of public sector topics as major challenges for the public sector as a whole, and for cities and municipalities. The findings indicate that citizens from all five countries are concerned about high-quality public infrastructure and an efficient and effective public service provision. However, some differences regarding the rating of public sector challenges were identified among the countries. For example, Danish citizens score transparency about public performance substantially less challenging than citizens of other countries. Based on a detailed discussion of our findings, we provide directions for (comparative) public administration research and policy development.
References
M. E. Warner, “The Future of Local Government: Twenty-First-Century Challenges,” Public Administration Review, vol. 70, no. s1, pp. s145–s147, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02257.x.
S. Dekker and D. Hansén, “Learning under Pressure: The Effects of Politicization on Organizational Learning in Public Bureaucracies,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 211–230, Apr. 2004, doi: 10.1093/jopart/muh014.
V. Lapuente and K. Suzuki, “Politicization, Bureaucratic Legalism, and Innovative Attitudes in the Public Sector,” Public Administration Review, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 454–467, May 2020, doi: 10.1111/puar.13175.
P. Norris and J. Lovenduski, “Why Parties Fail to Learn: Electoral Defeat, Selective Perception and British Party Politics,” Party Politics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 85–104, Jan. 2004, doi: 10.1177/1354068804039122.
J. M. Bryson, “What to do when Stakeholders matter: Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques,” Public Management Review, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 21–53, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.1080/14719030410001675722.
S. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. Jilke, A. L. Olsen, and L. Tummers, “Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology,” Public Administration Review, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2017, doi: 10.1111/puar.12609.
O. James, S. R. Jilke, and G. G. Van Ryzin, “Behavioural and experimental public administration: Emerging contributions and new directions,” Public Administration, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 865–873, 2017, doi: 10.1111/padm.12363.
J. Thomas, “Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management,” Public Administration Review, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 786–796, 2013, doi: 10.1111/puar.12109.
M. Painter and B. G. Peters, “Administrative Traditions in Comparative Perspective: Families, Groups and Hybrids,” in Tradition and Public Administration, M. Painter and B. G. Peters, Eds., London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2010, pp. 19–30. doi: 10.1057/9780230289635_2.
G. G. Van Ryzin, S. Immerwahr, and S. Altman, “Measuring Street Cleanliness: A Comparison of New York City’s Scorecard and Results from a Citizen Survey,” Public Administration Review, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 295–303, 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00863.x.
S. Van de Walle and G. Bouckaert, “Perceptions of Productivity and Performance in Europe and The United States,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1123–1140, Aug. 2007, doi: 10.1080/01900690701225309.
G. Van Ryzin, “Pieces of a Puzzle: Linking Government Performance, Citizen Satisfaction, and Trust,” Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 521–535, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576300403.
OECD, “Demography - Population - OECD Data.” Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://data.oecd.org/pop/population.htm
Eurostat, “Total general government expenditure, 2020, % of GDP.” Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Total_general_government_expenditure,_2020,_%25_of_GDP.png
Statista, “New Zealand - ratio of government expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) 2027,” Statista. Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/436523/ratio-of-government-expenditure-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-new-zealand/
Eurostat, “General government gross debt - annual data.” Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/teina225/default/table?lang=en
OECD, “General government - General government debt - OECD Data,” OECD. Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm
OECD, Government at a Glance 2021. in Government at a Glance. OECD, 2021. doi: 10.1787/1c258f55-en.
OECD, “General government - Trust in government - OECD Data,” OECD. Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://data.oecd.org/gga/trust-in-government.htm
UN E-Government Knowledgebase, “Data Center,” Country Data. Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data-Center
World Justice Project, “WJP Rule of Law Index.” Accessed: Jan. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index
J. Asseburg, J. Hattke, D. Hensel, F. Homberg, and R. Vogel, “The Tacit Dimension of Public Sector Attraction in Multi-Incentive Settings,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 41–59, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1093/jopart/muz004.
F. Keppeler and U. Papenfuß, “Employer Branding and Recruitment: Social Media Field Experiments Targeting Future Public Employees,” Public Administration Review, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 763–775, 2021, doi: 10.1111/puar.13324.
O. Neumann, K. Guirguis, and R. Steiner, “Exploring artificial intelligence adoption in public organizations: a comparative case study,” Public Management Review, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 114–141, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2048685.
J. Willems, L. Schmidthuber, D. Vogel, F. Ebinger, and D. Vanderelst, “Ethics of robotized public services: The role of robot design and its actions,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 101683, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101683.
A. Ritz, G. A. Brewer, and O. Neumann, “Public Service Motivation: A Systematic Literature Review and Outlook,” Public Administration Review, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 414–426, 2016, doi: 10.1111/puar.12505.
G. Schwarz, N. Eva, and A. Newman, “Can Public Leadership Increase Public Service Motivation and Job Performance?,” Public Administration Review, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 543–554, 2020, doi: 10.1111/puar.13182.
A. Ingrams and H. L. Schachter, “E-participation Opportunities and the Ambiguous Role of Corruption: A Model of Municipal Responsiveness to Sociopolitical Factors,” Public Administration Review, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 601–611, 2019, doi: 10.1111/puar.13049.
M. J. Moon, “Shifting from Old Open Government to New Open Government: Four Critical Dimensions and Case Illustrations,” Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 535–559, May 2020, doi: 10.1080/15309576.2019.1691024.
L. Schmidthuber, A. Ingrams, and D. Hilgers, “Government Openness and Public Trust: The Mediating Role of Democratic Capacity,” Public Administration Review, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 91–109, 2021, doi: 10.1111/puar.13298.
M. Cucciniello, G. A. Porumbescu, and S. Grimmelikhuijsen, “25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions,” Public Administration Review, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 32–44, 2017, doi: 10.1111/puar.12685.
L. Schmidthuber, J. Willems, and B. Krabina, “Trust in Public Performance Information: The Effect of Data Accessibility and Data Source,” Public Administration Review, vol. first published 31 December 2022, 2023, doi: 10.1111/puar.13603.
J. Boon and H. H. Salomonsen, “Public Sector Organizations and Reputation,” in The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2020, pp. 215–227. doi: 10.1002/9781119263203.ch14.
S. M. Zavattaro, A. Marland, and J. Eshuis, “Public Branding and Marketing: Theoretical and Practical Developments,” Public Administration Review, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 728–730, 2021, doi: 10.1111/puar.13372.
S. Andersson and H. Ekelund, “Promoting Ethics Management Strategies in the Public Sector: Rules, Values, and Inclusion in Sweden,” Administration & Society, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1089–1116, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1177/00953997211050306.
T. Ashikali, S. Groeneveld, and B. Kuipers, “The Role of Inclusive Leadership in Supporting an Inclusive Climate in Diverse Public Sector Teams,” Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 497–519, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1177/0734371X19899722.
K. Suzuki and M. A. Demircioglu, “Is impartiality enough? Government impartiality and citizens’ perceptions of public service quality,” Governance, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 727–764, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1111/gove.12527.
C. Callens, K. Verhoest, and J. Boon, “Combined effects of procurement and collaboration on innovation in public-private-partnerships: a qualitative comparative analysis of 24 infrastructure projects,” Public Management Review, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 860–881, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1867228.
S. Verweij and S. A. Satheesh, “In search of the collaborative advantage of public-private partnerships: A comparative analysis of Dutch transport infrastructure projects,” Public Administration Review, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 679–690, 2023, doi: 10.1111/puar.13589.
E. J. Brunner, M. D. Robbins, and B. Simonsen, “Citizen perceptions of public school efficiency: evidence from the U.S.,” Public Management Review, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1475–1497, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2158211.
C. A. Cooper, H. G. Knotts, and K. M. Brennan, “The Importance of Trust in Government for Public Administration: The Case of Zoning,” Public Administration Review, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 459–468, 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00882.x.
P. Dunleavy and C. Hood, “From old public administration to new public management,” Public Money & Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 9–16, 1994, doi: 10.1080/09540969409387823.
V. Lapuente and S. Van de Walle, “The effects of new public management on the quality of public services,” Governance, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 461–475, 2020, doi: 10.1111/gove.12502.
C. Pollitt and G. Bouckaert, Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, 2004.
C. Grandy, “The ‘Efficient’ Public Administrator: Pareto and a Well-Rounded Approach to Public Administration,” Public Administration Review, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1115–1123, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02069.x.
J. Hartley, E. Sørensen, and J. Torfing, “Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship,” Public Administration Review, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 821–830, 2013, doi: 10.1111/puar.12136.
D. H. Kim and H.-J. Bak, “Reconciliation Between Monetary Incentives and Motivation Crowding-Out: The Influence of Perceptions of Incentives on Research Performance,” Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1292–1317, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1080/15309576.2020.1771387.
A. Meijer, D. Curtin, and M. Hillebrandt, “Open government: connecting vision and voice,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 10–29, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1177/0020852311429533.
J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby, and L. Bloomberg, “Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management,” Public Administration Review, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 445–456, 2014, doi: 10.1111/puar.12238.
A. Ingrams, W. Kaufmann, and D. Jacobs, “Testing the open government recipe: Are vision and voice good governance ingredients?,” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.30636/jbpa.31.114.
A. Scupola and I. Mergel, “Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 1, p. 101650, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650.
