Abstract In this article, we critically examine prevailing narratives to trust in artificial intelligence that prioritize trust as an unqualified good, arguing instead for a more balanced approach that implies a shift from “trust-maximization” to calibrated trust, grounded in citizen vulnerability and public accountability. Such critical appraisal is even more necessary as artificial intelligence systems become deeply embedded in governance, raising crucial questions about public authority and democratic legitimacy. Three core concerns are highlighted: the decoupling of trust from trustworthiness and the corresponding underestimation of the role of distrust, the neglect of vulnerability as foundational to trust, and the emergence of “trust externalities,” where AI adoption shifts costs of failure to citizens without recourse or choice. Emphasizing the value of both trust and distrust, we discuss the merit of a “trust but verify” paradigm, underscoring the dangers of manufactured trust. We also call for contextual, experience-based methods to study trust and stress the critical role of accountability to realign technological reliance with institutional responsibility and citizen protection in AI-infused public governance. We propose that accountability stands as an important linchpin to recouple the link between trust and vulnerability, enabling trust to play its regulating role against the technology’s abuse, misuse, or overuse.
Governments increasingly use digital technologies to streamline public services and enrich citizen-state interactions. Yet, digital services can create onerous, costly experiences or administrative burden, especially for the less resourced and/or those with complex needs. This systematic literature review consolidates fragmented interdisciplinary research on administrative burden and digital services. Building on the Technological-Organizational-Individual framework, it synthesizes how burden can emerge across technological (e.g., digital administrative discretion, information infrastructure, transparency), organizational (e.g., hybrid service provision, proactivity, program complexity), and individual (e.g., digital literacy, coping behavior, social capital) factors. In doing so, we propose a holistic overview that illuminates the conditions under which digital services influence burdens and associated costs. This review also identifies research gaps and proposes a research agenda.
This article theorizes on how patterns of policy inaction emerge, where policymakers systematically fail to address pressing societal issues or signals about failing policies. Building on Herbert Simon's core concept of decision premises, we argue how such patterns of inaction result from the systematic biases and blind spots inherent in the organizational design and institutional context of ministerial departments and public agencies. By explicitly specifying the microfoundations underlying policy inaction, we build a theoretical model that provides a mechanistic explanation of how entrenched policy goals and rigid organizational structures can impede policy action. This model is illustrated through two specific cases: the childcare benefits scandal involving the Dutch tax authority and the mining-induced earthquakes in the province of Groningen. A discussion of these cases leads to several theoretical propositions on how patterns of policy inaction are created. We highlight the internalization of formalized policy objectives, the cognitive biases induced by horizontal specialization, the dampening effect of vertical hierarchy, and responsibility avoidance due to rigid role divisions as the primary mechanisms through which decision premises link institutional structures to patterns of policy inaction.
A recent wave of government contract cancellations under Termination for Convenience (TfC) clauses underscores the risks embedded in contemporary public contracting. These clauses, designed to preserve flexibility, have increasingly shifted from safeguards of last resort to instruments of routine discretion, exposing suppliers to sudden termination regardless of performance. We theorize this as the public sector hold-up problem, where relationship-specific investments that build collaborative capacity are vulnerable to unilateral state authority. Unlike private markets, where bilateral exposure and governance tools mitigate hold-ups, public contracting features structural asymmetries: (1) legal immunities insulating agencies, (2) political dynamics triggering unpredictable cancellations, and (3) constitutional constraints that preclude reciprocal safeguards. Extending hold-up theory into the public domain, this framework highlights how unchecked flexibility can undermine collaborative capacity essential for democratic governance.
This article explores the implications of democratic backsliding for public administration (PA), both as a discipline and as a research subject, using Brazil as an exemplary case. Grounded in two experiences of conducting empirical research on the federal bureaucracy during the Bolsonaro administration (2019-2022), we argue for the need to understand the complexities involved in studying PA-particularly bureaucrats-during democratic backsliding. In Brazil, researchers identified changes to research agendas and priorities, to the training of civil servants, and to the academic curriculum, as well as new issues and challenges in public debate. The Brazilian case also made it apparent that research protocols require revisions, with heightened protections when involving bureaucrats at risk of persecution. Ultimately, the article contends that democratic backsliding demands a rethinking of PA as both a field of practice and an object of study.
In the United States in 2020 and early 2021, two historic crises relating to public health and election administration placed significant stresses on democratic institutions and civil servants, and contributed to the erosion of democratic accountability standards and the promulgation of democratic backsliding. Employing critical events analysis, a set of seven democratic accountability standards serve as benchmarks against which detailed timelines for each event are assessed. The study concludes that both critical events contributed to the erosion of democratic accountability standards, particularly seen in the failures of public leaders to demonstrate forbearance toward democratic institutions; to respect and defer to the professional discretion of career civil servants; and to draw on truth claims and evidence to guide decisions and actions. Implications for the present state of American democracy and public administration are considered.
The literature on democratic backsliding has paid relatively little attention to the role of the public administration in its potential to contain institutional dismantling. We introduce a theoretical model of the bureaucratic capacities that shape public agencies' possibilities to resist political attacks by populist incumbents. The focus on organizational capacities fills a gap in bureaucratic contestation research, more commonly interested in the attitudes and policy preferences of individual public servants, or the legal strategies pursued by both parties. Our model grants particular attention to a set of autonomy-asserting incentives, in combination with agencies' unique access to strategic governmental resources, to highlight their importance for bureaucratic contestation. In presenting the model, we contribute to the literature on administrative capacities and highlight existing contradictions that must be handled by specifying and limiting the institutional context where capacity is assessed.
While the field of strategic planning and management has mostly focused on single organizations, a new strand of literature on "strategy management at scale" (SMAS) is exploring the way strategic management can address large-scale, cross-organizational, cross-level, often cross-boundary challenges. The appearance of this new strand has coincided with renewed emphasis on concepts such as public value governance, whole-of-government approaches, and mission-oriented innovation. This essay connects the nascent SMAS literature with longer-standing concepts from collaborative governance to better theorize what is meant by "at scale" in SMAS. We apply Ansell and Torfing's scale framework, which pinpointed diverse ways in which collaborations could scale, to foundational SMAS literature. SMAS currently emphasizes jurisdictional and functional aspects of scale, with less attention to geographic or temporal considerations. We suggest ways that a more multi-dimensional understanding of scale could inspire new research and enhance strategic management's role in tackling global challenges.
This article examines the role of facts and values in public-sector decisions. I articulate an argument that has a place for both factual and evaluative inputs, developing a blended view that moves away from the fact-value dichotomy. On the one hand, knowledge of what works through facts and data is useful and necessary, given that interventions in the public sector are inherently practical and geared toward outcomes. On the other hand, the intelligibility of facts presupposes values and thus judgments are value-laden. In examining decisions, I sketch a framework regarding decision-making in the public sector. All decisions have factual and evaluative inputs; however, not all inputs are the same for all decisions. Some decisions are more sensitive to facts and data, whereas others are more indeterminate and require deliberation. The conclusion discusses some implications for decision makers and areas for further examination in connection with public value and emerging technologies.
While human-centered design is increasingly deployed by governments, nonprofits, and philanthropies around the globe, public policy and administration scholars do not have a clear, theoretical understanding of this adoption. In this essay, I consider these events and describe the robust methodological approach unpinning human-centered design or what scholars have termed "inspirational design." I anchor it within the fields of public policy and administration and consider how pragmatist philosophy enables us to recognize that this is a strategic set of activities worthy of scholarly investigation. Through more intentional consideration of this approach, I argue that scholars should examine design doing, a praxis that combines action and knowledge, as an approach to making programmatic, organizational, and institutional change that both responds to citizens and societal needs and creates more public value.
In this article, we develop a conceptual framework for understanding and analyzing what we call stereotype articulation-the practice and process of expressing and conveying stereotypes in social interactions. Building the theoretical insights from analysis of empirical material from an ethnographic study of encounters between schoolteachers and pupils in Danish schools, we find school teachers articulate stereotypes about groups of students in different forms and contexts, and that the stereotype takes form from the social space in which it is articulated and the task to which it is directed. We suggest a conceptual framework to understand stereotype articulations focusing on the form, task, and social space in which the articulation is performed. In doing so, we shift the analytical focus from individual cognitive processes to the interactional dynamics through which stereotypes are expressed, negotiated, and experienced. This approach offers new insights into how stereotypes are constructed and sustained within street-level bureaucracies, and how they contribute to patterns of inequality in public service encounters.
Interest in public sector innovation has been growing, yet many studies on the topic still rest on the assumption that the public sector is less innovative than the private sector. This assumption further contributes to the perception that the public sector's lower innovativeness is due to differences in the drivers of innovation between the two sectors. By problematizing these commonly held beliefs about differences in innovative activity, we argue that such distinctions are questionable. In fact, both sectors share underlying theories of innovation. This discussion bridges innovation studies that have traditionally developed separately in each sector and encourages a rethinking of a core motivation behind public sector reform in order to foster innovation. It does so by moving beyond the dominant public-versus-private dichotomy and redirecting the focus to what fundamentally drives innovation in organizations.
Calls to make public administration research more relevant beyond the Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD)1 world are frequent, but neglect a perennial yet timely topic: the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy. This even though public administration theorists have long argued that democratic principles and practices are at the core of modern bureaucracies. This article aims to lay a foundation for addressing this deficit. It first synthesizes the many ways in which the bureaucracy-democracy nexus has been discussed in the “Western”-centric public administration literature at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels and identifies a set of core assumptions. Then, drawing on literature on and from the Global South, it discusses the applicability of these assumptions outside the WEIRD world, suggests possible modifications, and outlines a set of research questions that can advance our understanding of the democracy-bureaucracy nexus in developing and developed countries alike.
Street-level workers are crucial to promoting equity and equality in public service delivery. Their discretionary decisions can either perpetuate biases and stereotypes or enhance equity by acknowledging citizen-clients' diverse social backgrounds. While current research often focuses on the micro-level behaviors of street-level bureaucrats (SLBs), there is limited exploration of how societal structures, historical patterns, and cultural beliefs shape these decisions. This Roundtable article argues for incorporating sociological imagination into the study of equity in public service delivery. Three key areas are proposed: (1) societal structures and dynamics-examining how social stratification and political conditions influence equity and equality in service delivery; (2) historical patterns of inclusion and exclusion, and the long-term effects of inequity and inequality on citizen-clients' attitudes and behaviors; and (3) cultural beliefs about (in)equality and (in)equity-exploring perceptions of just inequalities and inequities among workers and the public. Together, these dimensions provide a richer understanding of equity and equality in public service delivery that can advance the public administration and public management knowledge base.
Despite extensive research on the sociopolitical conditions of refugees and camp life, little is known about the governance of refugee camps. This is concerning given the importance of governance in meeting refugee needs, upholding rights, and providing opportunities. In this essay, we explore the relevance of refugee camps to major areas of public administration research and examine possible challenges the field might face in studying refugee camp governance. We invite public administration scholars to lead the charge in studying, understanding, and ultimately improving refugee camp governance.
Governments worldwide are challenged to regulate emergent AI technologies while fostering innovation. Existing AI governance frameworks, though numerous (over 100), often focus narrowly on specific sectors, lack adaptability to evolving technologies, and fail to balance ethical standards with public accountability. This systematic review identifies these gaps, particularly in frameworks that prioritize either the public or private sector. The Unified AI Governance Framework (UAIGF) offers a unified, flexible model that integrates core and peripheral principles across sectors. Unlike existing frameworks, which are often limited in scope or focus on specific sectors, the UAIGF adapts to both sectoral needs and the rapid technological advancements, providing governments with a comprehensive tool to navigate the evolving landscape of AI regulation. By synthesizing shared principles, the UAIGF bridges sectoral divides, ensuring both innovation and accountability in high-stakes areas like healthcare and finance. The UAIGF represents a necessary step toward addressing the fragmented efforts in AI governance, offering a cohesive and adaptable approach for future regulation.
This study examines how the use of magic concepts in public sector reform can simultaneously promote and undermine the achievement of reform. By integrating insights from magic concepts and paradox theory, the study suggests deploying magic concepts in reform can activate clusters of organizational paradoxes that in turn create unique opportunities for transformative change. Case studies from two Scandinavian municipalities illustrate the double-edged nature of magic concepts in reform: Only when an organization has the capacity to deal with heightened paradoxical tensions in an integrative way can the magic concept effectively contribute to achieving the desired reform outcomes.
In an environment of turbulence and an era of intensifying hostility to public servants, how can we chart a more positive pathway for the field of public administration and management? In the 2025 Donald C. Stone Lecture at the American Society for Public Administration, new foundations to inform a more human(e) approach were explored as a way of addressing this question. Important dynamics in the current environment are sketched out, followed by four ideas to shape thinking on the future: positivity, complexity, humility, and empathy. Each of these big ideas is presented as pieces of a broader movement toward a new paradigm of public administration and management.
Public sector contracting represents a major share of government spending worldwide and is crucial for the effective management of public resources. Like many other government functions, contracting requires a highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce to perform effectively. However, little conceptual research has addressed the human resources for contract management in the public sector. This article integrates the public sector contracting and human resource management (HRM) literatures to develop a taxonomy and integrative framework for contract management skills and knowledge. Drawing from a systematic review of the public contracting literature, we develop a taxonomy of essential competencies for public sector contract management: technical skills, interpersonal skills, strategic skills, market management skills, and foundational contracting knowledge. Based on this taxonomy, we develop an integrative framework linking contracting skills and knowledge to public sector contract performance, moderated by three key circumstances of exchange: products, markets, and stakeholder sensitivity. This article advances public management scholarship by offering a conceptual framework that can guide research into the human resources of effective public sector contract management across common circumstances of market exchange.
