Suchergebnisse

Central agencies in New Zealand are now defining public management performance to include both the quality of a manager's 'account' of output‐outcome links and the manager's record of delivering efficient outputs. This article: (1) argues that the hard edge of accountability for deliverables must be dulled somewhat in order to pursue outcomes more vigorously; (2) shows how managers can use evaluation tools known as theories‐in‐action or logic models to give accounts of policy and management thrust; (3) proposes preliminary performance criteria for outcomes‐focused management; and (4) attempts to sketch a new 'managing for outcomes' accountability bargain. The conclusions apply broadly to any jurisdiction interested in holding managers accountable for outcomes‐focused management.

Public administration plays an integral role at every stage of social policy creation and execution. Program operators' management decisions shape policymakers' perceptions of what can and should be accomplished through social programs, while public administrators wield considerable power to mobilise tangible and intangible resources and fill gaps in policy designs. This handbook aims to capture what is being learned across six geographical regions: Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, Latin America, and the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, each regional section will contain 6-10 chapters canvassing a particular set of promising practices or emerging challenges at the regional or sub-regional level, in addition to a brief overview written by the section editor.

This textbook explores the theory and practice of policy-making and how good analysis and advice add value to public decisions and decision-makers. The authors discuss the roles of advisors and analysts both within and across jurisdictions, and how they affect policy processes and methods in Australia and New Zealand. This is a must-have text for managers, administrators and students who want an integrated perspective to the field of policy analysis and advising

PurposeThe public management and the occupational stress literatures are both silent on stressors associated with the work of government policy advisors. This paper aims to fill that gap with an exploratory study to identify the potential work stressors for this occupation.Design/methodology/approachIn‐depth interviews with 13 policy advisors/managers in a single government department and a focus group with 11 policy managers from 11 government departments are reported.FindingsThe stressors experienced can be clustered under the well accepted labels of role overload, control, culture, and interpersonal relationships. However, results indicate that the practical reality of these stressors in public sector policy advice environments is different from the generic concepts associated with the labels.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper underlines the importance of occupation‐specific understanding of stressors, and has implications at a workplace level for human resource management, and at an analytical level for the public management, policy and occupational stress literatures. Fruitful areas for future study include deeper exploration of qualitative role overload, examining how and why advisory roles proliferate, and how resulting stress levels affect performance.Practical implicationsThe paper highlights tensions for public sector managers in meeting obligations to protect the health and safety of their employees, while also placing top priority on serving the minister and government of the day.Originality/valueThe paper provides new insight to the stressors in public sector policy environments, and alerts public sector managers to key factors in managing policy unit performance and well‐being.

Chapter 1. Introduction: Chinese Social Policy in a Time of Transition. - Karen Baehler and Douglas J. Besharov, S. 1. - Chapter 2. Welfare Regimes in the Wake of State Socialism: China and Vietnam. - Jonathan London, S. 18. - Chapter 3. Social Benefits and Income Inequality in Post-Socialist China and Vietnam. - Qin Gao, Martin Evans, and Irwin Garfinkel, S. 48. - Chapter 4. Social Security Policy in the Context of Evolving Employment Policy. - Barry Friedman, S. 68. - Chapter 5. Urban Social Insurance Provision: Regional and Workplace Variations. - Juan Chen and Mary Gallagher, S. 86. - Chapter 6. Health and Rural Cooperative Medical Insurance. - Song Gao and Xiangyi Meng, S. 101. - Chapter 7. The Quest for Welfare Spending Equalization: A Fiscal Federalism Perspective. - Xin Zhang, S. 121. - Chapter 8. Financing Migrant Child Education. - Jing Guo, S. 142. - Chapter 9. Labor Migration, Citizenship, and Social Welfare in China and India. - Josephine Smart, Reeta Tremblay, and Mostaem Billah, S. 160. - Chapter 10. Ethnic Minorities and Trilingual Education Policies. - Bob Adamson, Feng Anwei, Liu Quanguo, and Li Qian, S. 180. - Chapter 11. Danwei, Family Ties, and Residential Mobility of Urban Elderly in Beijing. - Zhilin Liu and Yanwei Chai, S. 196. - Chapter 12. Marriage, Parenthood, and Labor Outcomes for Women and Men. - Yuping Zhang and Emily Hannum, S. 223. - Chapter 13. Implications of the College Expansion Policy for Social Stratification. - Wei-Jun Jean Yeung, S. 249. - Chapter 14. The Evolving Response to HIV/AIDS. - Zunyou Wu, Sheena G. Sullivan, Yu Wang, Mary Jane Rotheram,and Roger Detels, S. 270. - Index, S. 297

Administrative burden on its most basic level refers to "an individual's experience of policy implementation as onerous". The concept of administrative burdens raises complex questions of both theory and practice for public administrators and scholars. Ambitious agendas have been laid out for investigating the origins, mechanisms, and impacts of administrative burdens, and for building practical knowledge about how to minimize administrative burdens without sacrificing program effectiveness and efficiency. Those same authors, and others, have advanced the concept theoretically as well. This article builds on those efforts to address a normative question at the concept's core—namely, the question of what makes an administrative burden acceptable or excessive, reasonable or unreasonable. Our inquiry begins with the recognition that administrative burdens sometimes perform important functions and principles and methods are needed for determining when a specific type or degree of burden crosses the threshold from reasonableness to unreasonableness. Toward that end, we propose a five-part test, similar to those employed by the Supreme Court, for bureaucrats to use when assessing the justifications for bureaucratic procedures and requirements that involve administrative burden.