No abstract

In recent years, public service motivation (PSM) research has grown substantially, but is still largely limited to the field of public administration. To be able to export the theory and measures of PSM to other disciplines, we need more conceptual clarity. Some suggest PSM is analogous to altruism, whereas others warn not to confound the two concepts. Is PSM separate from altruism? How does each motivational construct relate to prosocial behaviors? We use a nationally representative panel of respondents to the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) to measure both altruism and PSM among respondents before the 2016 election and measure respondents’ participation in prosocial behaviors after the 2016 election. Using linear probability models with state fixed effects, we find that although PSM and altruism predict prosocial behaviors separately, altruism has no effect after controlling for PSM. PSM is a more consistent predictor of some prosocial behaviors than altruism, particularly in more formal contexts such as volunteering with an organization.

With the rise of third‐party government, the lines between the sectors have blurred as has accountability. Public service delivery failures can erode government legitimacy and trust, but who do citizens blame when something goes wrong? To answer this question, we employ an experiment to see whether citizens hold local governments and private contractors equally accountable for service delivery failure. We also examine how they expect the employees to be held accountable. Results demonstrate that blame is attributed to those providing the service directly. However, the introduction of a budget shortfall lessens the blame assigned to the contractor, and implicates the city even when the service is provided indirectly through a contract. Finally, citizens are less in favour of terminating the employment of both public and contract employees under budget shortfalls. Findings suggest that if citizens are given information about the context and who is in control of the service, they attribute blame accordingly.

Women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions, but how does the intersectionality of being both a woman and from a racially underrepresented group influence leadership representation and inclusion in the U.S. federal government? This study answers the call of scholars to examine intersectionality that has received little attention in public administration despite the emphasis on representative bureaucracy and social equity. Drawing upon data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, we find that women from racially underrepresented groups are less likely to be supervisors and feel less included in the workplace. However, we find significant variation across dimensions of inclusion, where women from racially underrepresented groups are more likely to feel their workplaces are cooperative and empowering but less likely to view them as fair, open, or supportive. Findings illustrate the importance of examining both intersectionality and different aspects of inclusion to paint a more complete picture of diversity management efforts.

No abstract