Share your Research
01 April 2021
Administrative Theory & Praxis
Special Issue Editor(s)
Murdoch University, Australia
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration
University of the West Indies, Jamaica
Beyond Administrative Sovereignty: Rethinking Directionalities and Objects in Administration and Policy
This Call seeks conceptual or theory-driven empirical scholarship that questions the assumed ‘administrative sovereignty’ of public administration and the object of public service delivery, offers unique transnational perspectives, and, where relevant, engages multiple levels of governance (from local to regional to global). We encourage authors to consider one or more of the following subjects and questions. Other thematically related subjects may also be welcomed.
1. Engaging Transnational Administration. We suggest that the administrative sovereignties of typical public administration and public policy (Muth 2019, Stone & Ladi 2015, Stone & Moloney 2019) may no longer be absolute. The administrative state’s exclusive ability to direct and influence its public policy and administration is increasingly challenged in both developing and developed country contexts. This Call observes a plethora of regional and global governance actors with influence upon state administrative and policy actions. This includes the typically studied international (governmental) organizations (e.g. Moloney and Rosenbloom, 2020) such as the United Nations or the World Bank but also transnational public-private partnerships, global policy networks (e.g. Stone, 2004), international bodies with de jure (delegated private authority) or de facto (entrepreneurial private authority) along with think-tanks, foundations, and NGOs with global reach.
o Potential Questions: Are certain administrative states more or less likely to have their sovereignty influenced by international organizations and/or non-state global governance actors? What are the implications of a changing administrative sovereignty on how administrative and policy sciences ‘know what it knows’? Does an increasing removal of the word ‘public’ (e.g. the state) from global (public) policy creation and its transnational (public) administration alter how we ‘know what we know’? Do our answers vary by sector such as education (Chou et al. 2016), health, social policy (Yeates 2014), and the environment (Luton 2015)? Do our answers vary by concept such as evaluation, ethics, personnel management, collaboration, policy design, and so on?
2. Moving Beyond Unidirectionality: Knowledge generation within public administration and public policy frequently assumes a unidirectionality from its knowledge “creator” (the West or Global North) to an “other” or the “rest”. This assumption is found in administrative and policy advice, guiding narratives or viewpoints (e.g. Miller 2014), ontological assumptions, epistemological bases, and requirements placed on non-OECD states by the states, international organizations, NGOs, and scholars from a so-called ‘Global North’ (for a discussion within regional governance and international relations scholars, see Acharya 2012, Vitalis 2015 among others). We suggest this unidirectionality may be unwarranted and potentially harmful to knowledge creation and sharing.
o Potential Questions: How should Judeo-Christian assumptions of ‘Western’ administrative and policy practice be altered by Islamic, Buddhist, Hindi, Taoist, Confucian (among others) perspectives (e.g. Cho 2006, Drechsler 2013, Henderson 2005, Kim 2012, Tsui 2006)? How might knowledge of the indigenous and/or the displaced improve ‘Western’ administrative and policy theory and practice and/or cross-fertilize non-‘Western’ theory and practice? Which administrative and policy theories, concepts, and practices within sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, South and Southeast Asia, East Asia, Pacific, Caribbean, and Central and South America should inform ‘Western’ administrative practice? How might unidirectionality’s removal challenge what we know, how we know it, and how public service is conceptualized and delivered? What challenges are faced by scholars who wish to limit administrative and policy unidirectionality? What are the outputs and outcomes when such unidirectionality is challenged?
3. Redefining (Global) Citizenship and Public Service. The assumed object of public service has long been the citizen of one’s state. We wish to question whether citizens are and should be the only recipients of public service in an increasingly globalized world with polarizing economic and political developments. Citizenship studies have documented diverse pathways towards accessing citizenship rights, including the rise of ‘citizenships for sale’ often to the economic elites residing in authoritarian regimes or supranational citizenship such as the one EU offers to their nationals. The changing demographics of refugees have led OECD countries to debate how to integrate refugee children through education. We suggest that administrative and policy scientists should reconsider and conceptualise the ways in which public service delivery revolving around citizens have emerged and evolved.
o Potential Questions: How might states similarly or differently provide administrative service delivery (or expect different citizen-to-state interactions) among dual citizens, permanent residents, refugees, asylum seekers, tourists, and others (e.g. Lucio 2009)? How are citizenship and service redefined when administrative actors treat their own citizens as de facto non-citizens or ‘outsiders’ on the basis of social class, ethnicity, sexuality, etc? How might public (and/or public-private) service delivery interact with a growing body of international law, norms, and procedures to encourage an efficient, effective, and equitable delivery of service? Should one’s citizenship be the primary driver on whether or why delivery is or is not given, is altered, or is differentiated? How might global citizenship studies alter what we think our discipline knows about administration, policy, and its delivery (e.g. Cooper 1999, Falk 1993, Lucio 2009)?
Acharya, A. (2012) Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time has Come? The International Spectator, 47(1), 3-15.
Cho, Y. H. (2006). Korean Public Administration and Indigenous Theory Building. International Review of Public Administration, 10(2), 1-5.
Chou, M.-H., Kamola, I. Pietsch, I. (2016, Eds) The Transnational Politics of Higher Education: Contesting the Global / Transforming the Local, Abingdon: Routledge.
Cooper, T.L., Yoder, D.E. (1999). The Meaning and Significance of Citizenship in a Transnational World: Implications for Public Administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21(2): 155-204.
Drechsler, W. (2013). Three Paradigms of Governance and Administration: Chinese, Western, and Islamic. Society and Economy, 35(3), 319-342.
Falk, R. (1993). The Making of Global Citizenship. In J. Brecher, J.B. Childs, J. Cutler (Eds.), Global Visions: Beyond the New World Order (pp. 39-52): South End Press.
Henderson, K. M. (2005). The Quest for Indigenous Administration: Asian Communist, Islamic Revivalist, and Other Models. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5(55-67).
Kim, P.S. (2012). A historical overview of Korean public administration: discipline, education, association, international cooperation and beyond indigenization International Review of Administrative Science, 78(2), 217-238.
Lucio, J. (2009). Customers, citizens, and residents: The semantics of public service recipients. Administration & Society, 41(7), 878-899.
Luton, L.S. (2015). Climate Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Evolving Dynamics of a Belief in Political Neutrality. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 37(3): 144-161.
Miller, H.T. (2014). Narrative Competition in Public Discourse. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 36(3): 287-307.
Moloney, K., Rosenbloom, D.H. (2020). Creating Space for Public Administration in International Organization Studies American Review of Public Administration, 50(3), 227–243.
Muth, K. (2019). The Potential and Limits of Administrative Sovereignty. In K. M. Diane Stone (Ed.), Oxford Handbook on Global Policy and Transnational Administration (pp. 59-74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of European public policy, 11(3), 545-566.
Stone, D., Ladi, S. (2015). Global Public Policy and Transnational Administration. Public Administration, 93(4), 839-855.
Stone, D., Moloney, K. (2019). The Rise of Global Policy and Transnational Administration. In Moloney, K. Diane Stone (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Global Policy and Transnational Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsui, A. S. (2006). Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 1-13.
Vitalis, R. (2015). White world order, black power politics: The birth of American international relations. Cornell University Press.
Yeates, N. (Ed.). (2014). Understanding global social policy. Policy Press.
Looking to Publish your Research?
We aim to make publishing with Taylor & Francis a rewarding experience for all our authors. Please visit our Author Services website for more information and guidance, and do contact us if there is anything we can help with!
Invitations to submit full papers will be sent to authors by January 1, 2021. Full papers are due by April 1, 2021. An invitation to submit a manuscript does not guarantee publication. All submitted full papers will be double blind reviewed and should be uploaded to the journal’s online system below.
Select "Beyond Administrative Sovereignty" when submitting full manuscripts. Full papers are due April 1, 2021, with expected publication in 2022.