What do we mean when we talk about ‘hybrids’ and ‘hybridity’ in public management and governance?

Abstract

The public administration literature uses the concept of hybridity to describe situations where policy designs involve the interaction of government, business, civil society, and not-for-profits. Yet the concept lacks a theoretical context and poses the empirical problem of distinguishing between hybrid and non-hybrid forms. This paradox – a concept that is widely used but seems to play no useful function in theory building or advice to policy-makers – is explored through a discussion of five theories. Transaction cost economics, management theory, archetype theory, and institutional theory begin to resolve the theoretical and empirical problems, but significant difficulties remain. Cultural theory offers a productive solution to the paradox by understanding hybridity as a process through which new possibilities for public administration and governance can emerge within a diverse and plural society.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.