Definitions and Typologies in Public Administration Research: The Case of Decentralization

Abstract

The field of public administration knows many concepts. By focusing on one such concept, this research shows how definitions can be deceptive, and how typologies unable to capture all dimensions of a concept can blind policy makers and researchers. We concentrate our attention on decentralization. This has been a core concept in the field of public administration for decades. Definitions and typologies of decentralization have flourished. The present study gives an overview. We categorize definitions and analyse their different emphases. Typologies serve to order and compare items, but have themselves become prone to disorder. We provide a meta-analysis of typologies, exposing the wide variety of policy dimensions. Even after aggregation, typologies ignore—and definitions explicitly exclude—certain aspects of decentralization. One such issue is “silent decentralization.” It is characterized by absence of explicit decentralization reform, and thus distinguishes itself mainly by its potential origins: network changes, initiative shifts, policy emphasis developments, or resource availability alterations. Highlighting this particular aspect might well proof useful for other concepts in the field as well.

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 — 109 citations exist upstream.

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