A non‐profit accountability framework is developed from the broader academic literature, both within non‐profit studies and beyond. The framework includes a comprehensive set of stakeholders that non‐profits need to be accountable to, as well as resources to be accountable for. These stakeholders and resources are then contrasted on a matrix. Sommaire : Un cadre d'imputabilité pour le secteur à but non lucratif est élaboréà partir de la documentation. Le cadre inclut un ensemble exhaustif de parties prenantes auxquelles le secteur à but non lucratif doit rendre des comptes, ainsi que des ressources pour lesquelles il est imputable. Ces parties prenantes et les ressources sont alors mises en contraste sur un tableau.

One can imagine two futures for public administration, public management and public service around the world. A first would be what we see as a continuation of the status quo: with public administration essentially continuing as a series of national discourses, with perhaps a bit of cross‐fertilization, but with this characterized by a classic core‐periphery model. The preferable model, outlined in this paper, would see the development of an integrated community of scholars of public affairs. At least three hurdles need to be overcome to arrive at this integrated community. A first concerns the tension in the periphery between an epistemic nationalism and epistemic colonialism. The second hurdle to be overcome concerns the central role of the American literature in intellectual discourse in public administration. A third hurdle is more specific to public administration: what Canadian Iain Gow has referred to as public administration's profile, as ‘une science empirique par excellence’.

An analysis of data from the premier public administration journals in Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States shows academic public administration has taken both a narrow and a conservative approach to four social equity issues, including gender, race, sexual orientation, and social class. The findings show these periodicals (a) seldom and sometimes never publish articles on the four themes; (b) confine nearly all their social equity writings to race and gender; sexual orientation and social class receive little or no attention; and (c) only publish such papers long after the matter has become fashionable in most other social circles. The article concludes by suggesting ways American public administration can develop a more intellectually diverse, proactive professoriat, thereby allowing for publishing more-and more timely-articles about emerging social equity topics.

The author draws on the Brazilian public administration literature to discuss the conflict between the need to remain open to lessons from elsewhere, while at the same time remaining grounded in a particular local context. The article begins by presenting calls by a number of Brazilian public administration scholars for what might be termed an "administrative particularism," or an assertion that universal lessons do not apply in the discipline. This is followed by a discussion of the challenges that these and other Brazilian public administration scholars identify. Further discussion will suggest these challenges, and many of the solutions most commonly offered for them, imply that, far from a uniquely Brazilian public administration, the country seeks to move closer to the model of public administration practiced elsewhere, especially in the developed world.

The nature of the international public administration academic community is assessed through content analysis of articles in the Australian Journal of Public Administration (ARPA), Revista de Administração Pública (RAP), and Canadian Public Administration (CPA). The method is based on that used by existing US research, allowing for comparison with that national context. The focus is on the institutional context, disciplinary influences, research methods, and locus of research in these national contexts. In conclusion, the paper finds that the various national communities studied are generally navigating a careful path between “a naïve, nationalist xenophobia” and a healthy “sociological reduction.” Sommaire: La nature du monde de l'enseignement de l'administration publique à l‘échelle internationale est évaluée à travers l'anlyse du contenu d'articles parus dans Australian Journal of Public Administration (AJPA), Revista de Administração Pública (RAP) et Administration publique du Canada (APC). La méthode est fondée sur la recherche américaine actuelle qui permet d’établir une comparaison avec ce contexte national. L'accent est mis sur le contexte institutionnel, les influences disciplinaires, les méthodes et lieux de recherche dans ces contextes nationaux. En conclusion, l'article révèle que les différentes collectivités nationales étudiées procèdent généralement avec prudence entre une “xénophobie nationaliste naïve” et une “réduction sociologique” saine.

Alberto Guerreiro Ramos's public life and scholarly works challenge us to rethink and reconceptualize the field of public administration, particularly in this era of public cynicism and theoretical uncertainty. This article examines the historical context of his earlier writings and how they influenced his later scholarly work. As a prominent Brazilian scholar working in the United States, Guerreiro Ramos's “in‐betweenness,” as he called it, provided him a unique and little‐appreciated perspective from which to reevaluate the social sciences. The result was his last book, The New Science of Organizations: A Reconceptualization of the Wealth of Nations, one of the most polemical works published in the field and an examination of the fundamental assumptions of public administration and the social sciences.

No abstract

No abstract