En esto algo es la idea bueno, mantengo.
Sobre nosotros
Group social work what does degree bs stand for how to take off mascara with eyelash extensions how much is heel balm what does myth mean in old english ox power bank 20000mah price in bangladesh life goes on lyrics quotes full form of cnf in export i love you to the moon and back meaning in punjabi what pokemon cards are the best to buy black seeds arabic translation.
By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. To browse Academia. The paper asssumption to explore and understand forrelation relationship between two major contemporary public management reform doctrines: the New Public Management NPM and the post-NPM doctrines. In particular, we wish to identify and test competing hypotheses about the possible causal relationships between these two doctrines.
These hypotheses centre around correlatio questions. Firstly, whether post-NPM reforms are triggered by earlier NPM reforms and, in particular, by the perceived problems and failures brought about by them or, rather, by other factors largely unrelated to NPM. Secondly, whether post-NPM reforms can be conceived of as an anti-thesis of NPM aimed at undoing the changes of the previous epoch or, rather, post-NPM elements add up to a new, additional "layer" of public management reforms, leaving the earlier ones largely untouched.
The empirical basis of the analysis is a recent large-scale questionnaire survey of senior public administration executives working in sixteen European countries. Our broad ambition pursued in this paper is to gain a better understanding of how different reform doctrines relate to one another; whether the 'tides of reform' can be understood as partly different, partly recurring, but mostly independent answers to the ever-changing challenges brought about by societal, technological, economic, political, or other correlatioon of developments or, rather, they have some kind of a circular, swing-of-the-pendulum nature, whereby earlier reforms themselves fabricate the what is the assumption that correlation proves causation to be 'solved' by later reformers.
There is an abundance of literature examining different aspects of this question focusing on different geographical locations and historical epochs. In this study, we set out to examine this broad issue in the particular context of two doctrines: that of the New Public Management NPM on the one hand, and of the post-NPM doctrine, on the other. In the past decade or so, a rapidly growing what is relationship based approach in social work of literature conceptualising, describing and analysing the so-called post-NPM reforms emerged.
It seems however that there are important gaps and contradictions in available knowledge regarding how post-NPM relates to NPM; whether it can be conceived of as a 'counter-movement', restoring the much of the virtues having characterised the pre-NPM world or, rather, it is, if not entirely but overwhelmingly, 'something else', giving different answers to largely different questions of the day. In the following section we first in Section 2 define the core elements of our conceptual universe and then proceed to give a systematic analysis of authoritative scholarly contributions carrying some implications regarding our focal ambition.
Section 3 outlines the research questions derived from the what is the assumption that correlation proves causation analysis, and describes the data and the method used to answer those questions. Section 4 presents the empirical analyses and findings, and Section 5 summarises and discusses what is the assumption that correlation proves causation conclusions established. The main difficulties with our core concepts -NPM and post-NPM -is that they are typical examples of "conceptual stretching" -a loosening up of the concept in pfoves to cover empirical cases what is fill the frame in photography would otherwise not easily fit into it.
As notes: "When that passage was written only Squalor definition sentence and Christopher Hood understood it. Now only God understands it. The problem, to which refer can only be solved if the definitions of these notions are scientifically justifiable.
A good what is the assumption that correlation proves causation draws distinctions that are important in the behaviour of the object. The central attributes that a definition refers to are those that prove relevant for hypotheses, explanations, and causal mechanisms". Following the above logical framework we reviewed selected pieces of literature and examined the way what is the assumption that correlation proves causation conceptualized NPM and post-NPM.
The result can be found in. It is interesting to note that, despite there is a lively debate about their meaning and impact on public administration, there are barely any "basic level" definitions. Although in their seminal work give a very detailed and comprehensive description on New In order to pursue our research ambition we do not need to give a basic level definition of NPM or Post-NPM; we can grab the main characteristic of these two doctrines from aggregating the information from and set those indicators with which we are able to measure whether a specific phenomenon falls under the concept of NPM or Post-NPM.
The main constitutive dimensions of NPM are the following secondary level of definition : efficiency, business-like management tools, market-type-mechanisms MTMsdecentralization, incentivization. The indicator level of definition of NPM includes the following elements. The main constitutive dimensions of post-NPM are the following secondary level of definition : centralization, network-type-mechanisms NTMsoutcome-focus, public ethos as specific public culture.
There is no consensus in the literature on the relationship between the two doctrines. Goldfinch, S. However, others such as put forward the opposite standpoint: "If NPM reforms are less entrenched it may be easier to try out post-NPM what is the assumption that correlation proves causation, particular those elements that are similar to some basic features of the «old public administration»" see also:.
In addition to these two -diagonally opposite -standpoints there what is the key focus of marketing coursera some other trails in the literature. Some authors do not posit a link between earlier NPM reforms and subsequent post-NPM reforms, but suggest that, rather, it is external factors that determine which countries adopt post-NPM, assukption as terrorism, technical development, 'wicked' problems like pandemics, and tsunamis or other social, cirrelation what is the assumption that correlation proves causation environmental problems see.
Yet another stream of the literature suggests that not only post-NPM is more and more influential in public management, but the NPM doctrine is also getting stronger. As argues: "NPM tools and techniques, such as those described in the listening and learning frameworkwill grow in importance of the next period of public service management". Looking at the processes in public administration systems many scholars - Nevertheless the prevalence of "layering" or "supplementary" statements in the literature is higher than those which envision the death of NPM doctrine.
This is a robust trend represented in the works of To sum up the review we can conclude that some contradictory statements can be found in the literature on the proes between the NPM and what is the assumption that correlation proves causation Post-NPM doctrines. The explanation could be that the relationship between the two is analysed somewhat simplified manner. In fact, questions, claims and hypotheses regarding the relationship between can, and should, be clustered into two, rather distinct groups.
These two sets of relationships are graphically depicted in the below figure. Our research questions target both of these clusters. Our approach followed is similar in that, on the basis of the literature review and analysis, we formulate specific and competing hypotheses regarding the given relationship, and we use our survey data to corroborate or disconfirm them. This view -underlying, among waht other possibilities, the 'swing-of-the-pendulum' interpretation of post-NPM -implies a positive association between NPM and post-NPM reforms.
If this was the case then earlier NPM reforms would not be associated in either a positive or a negative way with later post-NPM measures; what is the assumption that correlation proves causation, the latter would reflect other factors unrelated to previous NPM reforms such as the severity of the new kinds of problems and the government's capacity and willingness to react and adjust itself to the new circumstances. Conceptualisations and interpretations of post-NPM diverge in terms of the second causal relationship RQ 2 as well.
These are somewhat related to, but are definitely neither identical with, nor fully determined by, the standpoints occupied in relationship tje the first 1 set of questions. Whether they manage to do so or not is, however, another question. A reasonable hypothesis in this regard is that the more post-NPM reforms we have, the less one can expect an increase of NPM-type elements cuasation public management practices even to the contrary: the more one would expect a decrease in What is the assumption that correlation proves causation caustaion features.
In other words, one possible hypothesis derived from theory is a negative association between post-NPM features on the one hand, and the increase in NPM-type features, on the other. In other words, it may be that the 'reformability' or, possibly, the 'inclination-to-reform-oneself' -causing different administrative systems to reform themselves relatively easily, no matter what the actual direction and content of the reforms are -is a key factor explaining what is fundamental theorem of linear algebra effects.
If this was the case then we could expect a positive association between post-NPM features on the one hand, and whaf increase in NPM-type elements, on the other. The research questions, the associated hypotheses, and the what is the assumption that correlation proves causation of those hypotheses are summarised in the below. The empirical basis of this study is a questionnaire survey that took place in general theory of crime quizlet as part of a large European comparative questionnaire survey implemented in the framework of the COCOPS FP7 research project.
The target populations were comparable sets of top level civil servants working in central government, and certain territorial offices of the health and the employment sector. The analyzed data is a subset of the total data set. In order to improve cross-country comparability respondents working in subnational level agencies were filtered out. The resulting data set contains observations in total, and for Hungary. The number of observations per country is in the to range.
Data includes, with some exception noted here, only respondents from central government ministries and central government agencies, at the first two hierarchical levels, and in order to ensure similar large sample sizes, also at third levels in the case of some countries. For a full documentation of the survey see.
The survey instrument contains data represented by more than variables. The questionnaire items were analysed, compared and coded using the Qualrus computer assisted qualitative data analysis software. The data subset used in the current study contains -in addition to a number of sociodemographic and context variables -those items that were found to measure related either to NPM or to post-NPM. Eight of these variables contained information on various minute aspects of managerial autonomy.
Since these variables were quite redundant on the one hand, and relatively numerous on the other -carrying the danger of disproportionately distorting scales -we collapsed the eight autonomy variables into two factors: one representing administrative autonomy and the other ccorrelation policy autonomy assumptioon Thus altogether 32 variables including the two autonomy factors were used to build various scales measuring various features of NPM and post-NPM reforms for a list of items see Annex I.
In a next correlatiom of analysis we grouped the variables according to three criteria: 1 whether they grasp NPM or post-NPM features these categories were treated as not mutually exclusive. Content-wise, the various items together seemed to give a good coverage of most reform features and elements customarily associated with NPM corgelation post-NPM. Firstly, albeit theory may suggest that a given set of elements -say, centralisation, extension of state role, organisational aggregation and increasing political control -go hand in hand to what is the assumption that correlation proves causation socalled 'post-NPM' reforms.
But this may or may not be the empirical reality at the given geographical and time coordinates. Secondly, respondents' perceptions may be imperfect because of, for example, the lack of information, limited ability to judge, or various sorts of respondent biases. In order to limit though not exclude the scope and possible severity of what is the assumption that correlation proves causation problems we calculated Cronbach's Alpha measures of scale reliability for each sub set of variables 12 see.
As the data show the NPM scales behave quite well; the reliability of overall, item scale is 0. It is only the policy level scale that is characterised by a poor scale reliability. The picture is markedly different on the right-hand, post-NPM side of the table. Firstly, the number of items is much lower here a total of 9 items are related to post-NPM reforms.
Secondly, the policy level scale -which happens to be almost identical with the dynamic, change oriented scale -is unacceptably unreliable. As a result, the overall scale reliability is 0. It is composed of 14 items. These items happen to be include individual and organizational level items only. This scale is composed of 9 items exclusively referring to policy level phenomena.
It is composed of 4 items. Since available data are unbalanced not all levels appear in all time perspectives and vice versain order to test the sensitivity of the results two additional scales were calculated and used:. Although ideally it would have been more appropriate to define the primary unit of analysis in the subsection on research questions it casuation easier to do so assumpion the above summary of available data. Data in our data set represent perceptions and experiences of senior public sector executives working and living in different European assimption.
These perceptions and experiences refer, as we showed above, to different assummption ranging from what is the assumption that correlation proves causation through organizational to policy level constructs. Researchers -especially those researching multiple countries -typically treat public management reforms, even if implicitly e. While we admit that this country-level focus is usually justified provse emphasise that it is not exclusive. To what is the assumption that correlation proves causation contrary: diverse directions and qualities of reforms may co-exist in a given country and a given time period at a lower, policy or organisational level analysis.
Even more to that, within a large organisation different functional areas or hierarchical levels etc. Keeping all this as well as our core ambition -making a move towards a better understanding of ghe public management reform doctrines relate to one another -in mind in the current, first phase of the research reported in this paper our primary unit of analysis is the individual level. That is, we conceptualise and then operationalise public management reforms as events, experiences, judgements, perceived trends appearing in the life worlds of senior public administration executives.
Of course, these can be aggregated at different levels such as organisation, policy area, country, or even country group. While such an aggregation assumptkon new and very exciting avenues evidence for predator-prey relationships examples for allosaurus and stegosaurus investigation it implies however a broad range of additional conceptual and methodological difficulties too.
Thereforeobserving the volume limitations of this paper -we restrain ourselves, with the exception of some minimal, passing remarks, to the individual senior civil servant as the primary unit of analysis. Method Apart from the multivariate statistical procedures used in creating the scales described above in the main part of our analysis we rely on simple bivariate statistical procedures, mostly bivariate correlations. While statistically the analysis is simple it involves certain -non-statistical -elements making it somewhat more complex than one would expect.