IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/porgrv/v20y2020i4d10.1007_s11115-020-00464-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucratic Bashing and Praising: What Effect Does it Have on the Performance Citizens Assign Agencies?

Author

Listed:
  • James Gerard Caillier

    (Department of Political Science)

Abstract

An online experimental survey was conducted to examine the impact of bureaucracy framing on respondents’ views regarding the performance of a local government entity. Several important findings emerged. First, bureaucracy bashing and bureaucracy praising were not found to have an effect on the performance respondents assigned to the entity. Second, political ideology was found to negatively influence the ratings assigned by respondents, with liberals more likely to give high ratings and conservatives more likely to give low ratings. Finally, political ideology was not found to influence the impact of either bureaucracy bashing or bureaucracy praising on perceived performance.

Suggested Citation

  • James Gerard Caillier, 2020. "Bureaucratic Bashing and Praising: What Effect Does it Have on the Performance Citizens Assign Agencies?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 685-701, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:20:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11115-020-00464-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11115-020-00464-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11115-020-00464-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11115-020-00464-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weatherford, M. Stephen, 1992. "Measuring Political Legitimacy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 149-166, March.
    2. Hill, Andrew J. & Jones, Daniel B., 2017. "Does partisan affiliation impact the distribution of spending? Evidence from state governments’ expenditures on education," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 58-77.
    3. Gregg G. Van Ryzin, 2004. "Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 433-448.
    4. Chingos, Matthew M. & Henderson, Michael & West, Martin R., 2012. "Citizen Perceptions of Government Service Quality: Evidence from Public Schools," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 7(4), pages 411-445, October.
    5. David Mason & Carola Hillenbrand & Kevin Money, 2014. "Are Informed Citizens More Trusting? Transparency of Performance Data and Trust Towards a British Police Force," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 321-341, June.
    6. Vladimir Kogan & Stéphane Lavertu & Zachary Peskowitz, 2016. "Do School Report Cards Produce Accountability Through the Ballot Box?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(3), pages 639-661, June.
    7. Gregg G. Van Ryzin, 2015. "Service Quality, Administrative Process, and Citizens' Evaluation of Local Government in the US," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 425-442, March.
    8. Nelson, Thomas E. & Clawson, Rosalee A. & Oxley, Zoe M., 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 567-583, September.
    9. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Morten Hjortskov, 2020. "Interpreting expectations: Normative and predictive expectations from the citizens’ viewpoint," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    2. Jonathan D. Caverley & Yanna Krupnikov, 2017. "Aiming at Doves," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(7), pages 1482-1509, August.
    3. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    4. Yu-Chuan Chen & Yung-Ho Chiu & Tzu-Han Chang & Tai-Yu Lin, 2023. "Sustainable Development, Government Efficiency, and People’s Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1549-1578, April.
    5. Carolyn‐Dung Thi Thanh Tran & Brian Dollery, 2021. "All in the Mind: Citizen Satisfaction and Financial Performance in the Victorian Local Government System," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(1), pages 51-64, March.
    6. Vringer, Kees & Carabain, Christine L., 2020. "Measuring the legitimacy of energy transition policy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Mubashar Hasan & Mushfique Wadud, 2020. "Re-Conceptualizing Safety of Journalists in Bangladesh," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 27-36.
    8. Delhey, Jan & Newton, Kenneth, 2004. "Social trust: Global pattern or nordic exceptionalism?," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2004-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Johanna Dunaway & Regina P. Branton & Marisa A. Abrajano, 2010. "Agenda Setting, Public Opinion, and the Issue of Immigration Reform," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(2), pages 359-378, June.
    10. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    11. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    13. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    15. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    16. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    17. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    19. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    20. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bashing and praise;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:20:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11115-020-00464-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.