Administrative Performance and Administrative Power: Complexities, Conflicts, and Consequences

DOI10.1177/00953997211022438
Date01 July 2021
Published date01 July 2021
Subject MatterEditorial
https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211022438
Administration & Society
2021, Vol. 53(6) 815 –816
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00953997211022438
journals.sagepub.com/home/aas
Editorial
Administrative
Performance and
Administrative Power:
Complexities, Conflicts,
and Consequences
As we move into the second half of Volume 53, the July 2021 issue again
illustrates the remarkable richness and diversity of the research and scholar-
ship delivered in the pages of Administration & Society (A&S). Questions
concerning U.S. immigration policy, government advisory council effective-
ness, performance measurement systems, organizational boundary spanning,
and the effects of policy inconsistencies are brought to the fore in this issue.
Vicki Lens and Samantha Kanelstein lead off the issue with an analysis of
judicial responses to the Trump Administration’s reinterpretation of U.S. asy-
lum law and the extent and limits of administrative power in a quintessential
arena of presidential policy discretion. Quim Brugue, Joan Font, and Jorge
Ruiz analyze the characteristics of advisory councils in Spain across levels of
government, discerning signs of performance variation across levels, espe-
cially with respect to participant satisfaction.
Asking what makes boundary spanning work at the level of the boundary
spanner, Nicholas Zingale and Alexandra Higl use a detailed case study of the
Ohio Children’s Trust Fund to delve into the question. They examine how
public administrators exercise philosophical hermeneutics in the context of
the uncertainties of program transition and the boundary spanning necessary
to form collaborative networks. Luke Fowler and Joel Vallett test the explan-
atory value of the multiple streams framework to highlight the conditional
relationship among the streams in a setting where the intended goal of a new
policy is to establish a consistent norm of administrative behavior.
In the realm of performance measurement, Yi Lu, Kaifeng Yang, and
Blair Thomas scrutinize the NYPD’s Compstat performance management
regime for evidence of the drivers of unintended consequences. They find
several key drivers in the form of excessive pressure, expectations mis-
matches, and ambiguity about government performance. Finally, in a new
contribution to our year-old Perspectives feature, Peter Woelert also looks at
1022438AAS0010.1177/00953997211022438Administration & SocietyEditorial
editorial2021

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT