Behavioural and experimental public administration: Emerging contributions and new directions

Abstract

This article introduces the symposium on the emerging subfield of behavioural public administration. The nine articles of the symposium each combine a focus on behavioural theory with the use of experiments as the method for testing theoretical expectations. The contribution of this work to public administration theory is revealed in the expanding set of insights into core topic areas, and there are associated contributions to public administration as a design science informing policy and practice. We analyse the variety of experimental methods employed by investigators in the subfield and the current relative popularity of survey experiments. We note maturation of the subfield embodied in emerging programmes of multiple experiments on particular topic areas. In conclusion, we propose directions for future research in which behavioural public administration develops as complementary to more established approaches to theory and method.

Biased, not blind: An experimental test of self‐serving biases in service users’ evaluations of performance information

“…This article does not have the ambition to make claims about cases where citizens cannot choose between competing providers. Other sources of bias may exist in these situations (Baekgaard and Serritzlew ; James and Van Ryzin ), but this article's choice‐driven hypothesis should not be expected to apply in the absence of choice.…”

“…The insights above are central to the literature on politically motivated reasoning where the focus is on the distortive impact of political identities and attitudes on people's processing of information with political implications (Taber and Lodge ; Groenendyk ; Bisgaard ; Baekgaard and Serritzlew ; Baekgaard et al ; James and Van Ryzin ; Kahan et al ). However, factors other than political identities and attitudes can also motivate closed‐minded defences of preselected conclusions.…”

“…This article aims to broaden and nuance the literature on motivated biases with the potential to distort people's performance evaluations. The existing literature has done an excellent job pointing to the relevance of psychological insights when studying performance information (Grimmelikhuijsenet al ; James et al ), and there are studies that have made important contributions by uncovering the distortive impact of politically motivated reasoning whenever performance information has political implications. This is relevant, for example, when people evaluate benchmark data about public and private providers of welfare services, in which case ideologically founded attitudes towards the size of the public sector become likely to distort people's evaluations (Baekgaard and Serritzlew ; Baekgaard et al ).…”

“…This is relevant, for example, when people evaluate benchmark data about public and private providers of welfare services, in which case ideologically founded attitudes towards the size of the public sector become likely to distort people's evaluations (Baekgaard and Serritzlew ; Baekgaard et al ). It is also the case when highly contested policies are evaluated (James and Van Ryzin ). However, while the distortive impact of political attitudes is well documented in the existing literature, much less is known about the relevance of motivated biases in the absence of a link between political attitudes and performance information.…”

The role(s) of accounting and performance measurement systems in contemporary public administration

“…The role of institutional forces has been considered in empirical research on performance measurement systems (see Brignall and Modell ; Van Helden et al ; Johansson and Siverbo ; Modell ; Korac et al ). However, applying an experimental design, the authors not only set foot on paths newly created by scholars focusing on behavioural public administration but at the same time introduce a contextual perspective (James et al ), by modifying scenarios to mirror coercive, mimetic and normative pressures. While coercive pressures (comparisons with a centrally set performance standard) appear to lead to a higher intended performance information use, normative pressures (comparisons with performance standards recommended by a professional organization) encourage respondents to share contact details in order to learn more about the performance indicator.…”