Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.

1093/ppmgov/gvaa008/5810402 by Library, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology user on 10 April 2020
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2020, 1–6
doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa008
Article

Article

A Place at the Table: Organization Theory and

Public Management
Andrew B. Whitford,* H. Brinton Milward,†, Joseph Galaskiewicz,†
Anne M. Khademian‡
*University of Georgia; †University of Arizona; ‡Virginia Tech

Address correspondence to the author at [email protected].

Abstract
In November 2018, the University of Arizona’s School of Government and Public Policy hosted an
international workshop on the role of organization theory in public management. The intention was
to renew interest in organization theory in public management research. Scholars such as Herbert
Simon, Herbert Kaufman, and Richard Selznick made seminal contributions to organization theory
through the study of public organizations from the 1940s through the 1960s. In our estimation, or-
ganization theory is underrepresented in public administration scholarship for the last several dec-
ades. There are natural reasons for this trend, including the discipline’s turn towards organizational
behavior and the ascendancy of techniques that advance the study of large datasets and those that
allow for experimental control. The recent emergence of “behavioral public administration” is a
prominent example of this evolution. This symposium is an attempt to make a place at the table of
public management for organization theory. The articles in this symposium contain articles from
scholars who operate in the tradition of classic organization theory in new and innovative ways to
lend intellectual purchase to studies of public organizations and public organizational networks.

Introduction for experimental control. The recent emergence of

In late 2018, the University of Arizona’s School of “behavioral public administration” is a prominent ex-
Government and Public Policy hosted an international ample of this evolution. In comparison, research on or-
workshop on the role of organization theory in public ganizations and networks of organizations is a retail
management. The intention was to renew interest in rather than a wholesale data collection effort.
organization theory in public management research, Perhaps another reason for the decline in organiza-
which, in our estimation,1 has been underrepresented tion theory in public administration is the increased
in public administration journals for the last several attention to theory creation in public administration
decades.2 There are natural reasons for this trend, rather than using theories from other disciplines.
including the discipline's turn towards organizational Weimer (2020) argues that while public administra-
behavior and the ascendancy of techniques that ad- tion scholars need descriptive theory to guide their
vance the study of large datasets and those that allow empirical research, they do not need to produce it at
the same level as disciplinary scholars in political sci-
1 “The following workshop participants through their comments and ence, sociology, and economics. “Economics, political
critiques added to the rigor and quality of these papers. They are Mary science, and sociology provide descriptive theories
Feeney, Tom Hammond, Kim Isett, Robin Le Maire, Angel Saz-Carranza, informing the design of institutional and organiza-
and Ian Turner.” The workshop was dedicated to our late friend and
colleague, Keith Provan.
tional arrangements (Weimer 2020, 2).” Since public
2 Public management and public administration will be used administration is a field connected to practice, a major
interchangeably in this article. part of research on public and nonprofit organizations

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association. 1
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
2 Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa008/5810402 by Library, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology user on 10 April 2020
is normative in the sense that the results make positive neo-institutional theory similarly borrowed from
statements about administrative matters that should the Carnegie School as well as sociology (DiMaggio
be useful to practitioners. In this case, useful means and Powell 1991); and embeddedness theory drew
helping practitioners attend to their multiple and on a long history of research on social networks and
conflicting bottom lines—efficiency, effectiveness, ac- Polanyi’s (1944) classic work. This is the way explana-
countability, responsiveness, and equity (Wilson 1967) tory theories are built as well. Thus neither theoretical
so they can make meaningful tradeoffs among them. exercise is more or less “pure.” Both are needed, and
This normative element makes public administration a indeed we suspect that the next new “block-buster” ex-
professional field. planatory theory will emerge from efforts of applied
Earlier in public administration’s evolution as a researchers to explain some ordinary organizational
field, many theories of organizations were developed phenomena who will find that their explanations of the
from research on public organizations. Max Weber particular have broad, general applicability. It is well
(1946), Luther Gulick (1937), Herbert Simon (1947), to remember that Van de Ven (1989) (quoting Lewin
Philip Selznick (1949), and Herbert Kaufman (1960) 1945) statement that “nothing is quite so practical as
were present at the founding and added their work on a good theory.”
public organizations to the general organization theory What will a renewed emphasis on organization
canon. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a spectacular theory in public administration add to our discipline?
array of new macro-organizational theory including We see a number of benefits coming out of this sym-
transaction cost analysis (Williamson 1975), organiza- posium. Just as public administration contributed in
tional ecology (Hannan and Freeman 1977), resource many ways to building the early foundations of general
dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), neo- organization theory, modern public administration can
institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), and again contribute to the production of general organiza-
network embeddedness theory (Granovetter 1985). tion theory. For instance, public administration theory
Disciplines and professional fields all differentiate on topics as diverse as governance mechanisms, or-
over time, and by the time these theories sprang to ganizational networks, or routines can be important
life, they claimed to be general theories that applied contributions to the organization theory used in other
to private, public, and nonprofit organizations. While disciplines as well as our own. A renewed emphasis on
general theories, these theories focused on phenomena organization theory will improve empirical and experi-
as well, for example, Williamson’s focus on mergers mental work in public administration at the level of the
and acquisitions, DiMaggio and Powell’s attention to network, organization, or organizational subunit. One
homogeneity, and Hannan and Freeman’s study of or- consequence of the turn toward experiments in other
ganizational births and deaths. In contrast, research disciplines is that causal inference often trumps causal
in public administration is generally not focused on explanation. In almost all cases, causal stories are
general theory but rather explaining variance in the rooted in strong theoretical foundations. Continued
outcome of organizational activities, drawing on what- emphasis on organization theory in public administra-
ever theories will work best in a given case (Provan tion can only improve our empirical research.
and Milward 1995) like resource dependence theory
of Pfeffer and Salancik (1978). Often the phenomenon
to be explained has practical importance, for example, The Symposium Papers
organizational performance, consumer satisfaction, In the opening paper in the symposium, Daniel
turnover, and the analyst’s task is to identify the key Carpenter offers a new and intriguing view on a classic
variables that explain the outcome regardless of their theory drawn directly from the heart of public admin-
theoretical pedigree. istration: the way that James Q. Wilson used and truly
Readers may object that phenomenon focused the- pioneered the development of categories throughout
ories are somehow “impure” graphing bits and pieces his corpus of research. This paper is a foundational
of earlier theoretical works together, combined with contribution because scholars throughout public
some common sense or fieldwork perhaps, to come up management’s history have sought to formulate and
with a new recipe. However, we should remember that apply categories. As Carpenter demonstrates, Wilson
resource dependency theory built on exchange theory built and deployed categories in three basic ways:
which was developed in the 1960s (Emerson 1962; assigning observed objects to conceptual groups in
Blau 1964); transaction cost economics drew on the the Weberian tradition; “type-dependent theoriza-
work of Herbert Simon and the Carnegie School as tion” when thinking about the roles of incentives and
well as the work of Thompson (1967); Coase (1937) styles; and measurement in the behavioralist tradition
and Commons (1934), ecological theory borrowed when assigning observed objects to applied analytic
heavily from Hawley (1950) and Stinchcombe (1965); categories.
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa008/5810402 by Library, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology user on 10 April 2020
This paper engages some of the most important books Like many others in public management, Patrick
in the public management tradition—Wilson’s Varieties Kenis and Jörg Raab see organizational networks as
of Police Behavior (Wilson 1968) and his Bureaucracy fundamental building blocks for our understanding of
(Wilson 1989) in a way that seeks to rejuvenate the use governance arrangements. They argue in their paper
and implementation of categorization. But the paper that the preponderance of academic attention has
also moves beyond documentation and exhortations been on networks as a new way to get things done,
to help researchers understand the state of categoriza- as a method of creating public value. They recognize
tion in modern public management—as well as help us that many obstacles get in the way of using networks
better understand the limits and consequences of cat- for these purposes. But they also argue that one obs-
egorization. In Carpenter’s framework, some quantita- tacle is that most of the academic literature on or-
tive and qualitative comparisons are nonsensical from ganizational networks has been descriptive. They also
first principles. While many research methods classes in argue that efforts at building comprehensive concep-
our field discuss such issues as concerns, we rarely con- tual models are useful but inevitably limited in their
sider them as problems with how we build theory. In utility.
this way, through these elaborations, this paper helps Instead, Kenis and Raab ask us to consider organ-
move the ball forward in our regular conversations izational networks as organizations in the sense of the
about what is good theory and what are its limitations. classical definition of March and Simon (1958). As or-
Martha Feldman’s paper also pushes the boundaries ganizations, networks have to solve problems like task
of theorizing in public management, in ways that both division, task allocation, reward provision, and infor-
complement and challenge the viewpoints documented mation provision. This shift of theoretical lens offers
and considered by Carpenter. From her perspective, distinct advantages, which they demonstrate through
theorizing in our space is a practice of boundary span- dissection of an extended case from the management
ning because of the value of approaching topics from of housing expenses in a Dutch municipality. This
viewpoints drawn from both sociological studies and joining of lens and case offers additional opportunities
management practice. in the sense that propositions can be derived to guide
Because our theorizing sits at this boundary, Feldman further research.
argues that we must also consider the way our views A broader contribution of this paper is to show the
depend on two competing logics. One is a logic of prob- portability of widely-accepted theoretical advances
ability, which resides within sociological studies. We in one area of organization studies to new and less-
may not recognize this dependence, in part, because of developed empirical topics such as networks. This
the nature of training programs. Our empirical focus is offers a model of expanding utility—one that we
on documenting causes of social problems; that know- hope provides a roadmap for other areas that could
ledge base is meant to inform discussions about what gain theoretical purchase through the consideration
policies and practices may help alleviate those prob- of bodies of theory developed in other areas of public
lems and their consequences for society. Our empiric- management. We recognize that portability is often
ally informed beliefs about causality, and the way we contentious. Carriers of a given theoretical tradition
assemble that empirical information, drive this process, may dispute its applicability in other domains; those
thus forming a logic of probability. Yet, the logic of developing knowledge about emerging empirical phe-
possibility is intrinsic to the practice of management. nomena may dispute the need for extant theory. In
Knowledge about drivers or causes of success may not practice, though, what is true about those assessments
tell us much about solving tough management prob- is not known until articles, such as those presented in
lems in settings that need managerial attention. As such this symposium, take such theory and apply it in new
theory building in public management must straddle settings.
the logic of probability and that of possibility—how In a departure from most theory papers, Branda
managers create and deploy solutions in cases where Nowell and Joseph Stutler offer a grounded theory
the logic of probability points toward failure. perspective that shows many of the remaining gaps in
This is Feldman’s most important contribution—to our theoretical understanding of public agencies. Their
force theory building and empirical research in public extended case comes from the late November 2016 fire
management to consider both logics, their entangle- in a remote area in the interior of the Great Smoky
ment, and what a lack of focus on the logic of pos- Mountain National Park in the United States that had
sibility may do to limit our impact. To show this in a major impact on a city, Gatlinburg, TN. They argue
practice, Feldman offers an introduction and valuable that natural disasters are a dramatic example of a more
summary of the impact of the work done by scholars in general situation faced by many public agencies that
multiple disciplines to understand organizational rou- work on the front line in the context of more frequent
tines in action. disasters fueled by climate change.
4 Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa008/5810402 by Library, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology user on 10 April 2020
They situate this case by arguing that while cata- for improved implementation across multiple settings.
strophic events often catch agencies unaware, those This spanning has connections to Feldman’s essay that
same agencies often have weeks or longer before the is worth consideration. At a minimum, readers should
event where they could have taken protective action. note that routines play important roles in the imple-
But they also argue that ex post thinking like that mentation process and that they do so because man-
may be too convenient—that traditional solutions like agers can try to shape them to affect organizational
punishing leaders or agencies often obscure the dis- outcomes.
covery of more systemic vulnerabilities. Wolfgang Seibel’s paper returns to long-standing
They document the fire in painstaking detail; the fire concerns in public management about the relative
is the largest the park’s history. But they also show that amount of attention paid by researchers to the study
the fire’s devastation itself obscures broader and deeper of formal public organizations versus that paid to new
dynamics—that the fire surprised an underprepared organizational forms, hybrid organizations, or affili-
responsible agency, and that it was preceded by, and ated organizations in other sectors. He argues that the
evolved out of, a known situation. As such, an innov- attention paid to the New Public Management (NPM)
ation in this paper is to show how such surprises can school has pulled researchers away from the study of
happen when public managers are “inoculated” and traditional, “formal” attributes such as structures that
do not recognize when they are in an unprecedented promote autonomy, the degree and practice of discre-
situation. They demonstrate this through an extended tion, the nature of institutional integrity, and the role
discussion of two kinds of organizational characteris- of responsibility among leaders. He argues that “to
tics: those that inhibit sensemaking processes (Maitlas neglect these classic ingredients of bureaucracy may
and Christianson 2014; Weick 1995) and those that imply to neglect its classic virtues as well.”
cause organizations to take standard responses in non- His paper shows how these attributes are inter-
routine situations (Allison 1969). In doing so, they tie related; then, he shows how public values connect insti-
the case to Karl Weick’s (1993) classic work on or- tutional integrity and responsible leadership. The crux
ganizational sensemaking that was developed out of a of his argument is that public values must be under-
similar wildfire disaster. stood and specified—and that that exercise underpins
Jodi Sandfort and Stephanie Moulton turn our at- the other attributes, taken together. From this, he pro-
tention to one of the foundational questions in the ceeds to elaborate on the ranking of values and the or-
study of public administration: why is there variance dering of basic values of democracy and more familiar
in success? We know that successful programs in one second-order values.
jurisdiction often fail in other contexts. We also know He then grounds this theoretical position in an ex-
that scholars vary in their attribution of that variance: tended case study meant to show how public leader-
some focus on the institutional system, whereas others ship serves as a prerequisite of classic bureaucracy.
focus on human agency. Inevitably, scholars disagree Yet, the overall message here is centered on this foun-
on the relative weight of different factors in different dational statement: that the future of public manage-
settings. ment theorizing is to start with (and take seriously)
Sandfort and Moulton sidestep this by focusing on the public organization itself in both an empirical and
structuration processes—specifically the use of tools normative sense.
like rules, routines, culture, and resources to affect im- Julia Smith’s paper returns to the topic of network
plementation. While many theories in public adminis- governance to focus on collaboration through the lens
tration center on exogenous forces, their focus is on of network performance. Her review essay centers on
endogenous factors within a given implementation the traditional question of the factors associated with
system; rather than working purely at the macro level, performance, but in a way that pushes beyond the
their interest is on how the agency of actors within traditional study of networks as governance structures
the setting can shape the use of those tools. Overall, that started in public administration literature in the
they map from micro dynamics to meso conditions. 1980s. In part, this review paper can be seen as a re-
Naturally, this leads to a discussion of the opportun- statement of the importance of foundational research
ities for innovation and learning. on networks by Provan and Milward.
Recently, scholars in sociology have turned atten- Unlike economics, public administration has spent
tion again to the effect of levels of analysis on research less time documenting the “history of our theory.” In
studies (Fligstein and Adams 2012). In public adminis- economics, we know that competing and fulfilling
tration, Roberts (2020) has brought a renewed concern economic theories have marched through time—and
with micro, meso, and macro differentiation. Sandfort thus knowing something about how macroeconomic
and Moulton also push these boundaries, and in so theory evolved helps young economics theorists avoid
doing, they help us better understand the prospects the mistakes already discovered by earlier traditions.
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa008/5810402 by Library, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology user on 10 April 2020
Likewise, that knowledge helps researchers explain implementation efforts; and on the interplay between
current events that do not fit with current theory by institutional integrity and the underlying values of
giving researchers access to older, less-discussed the- leadership. Beyond “behavior” or “structure”—sin-
ories. Perhaps the most notable example of this is gular lenses that provide explanations that are most
the resurrection of Hyman Minsky’s work on equity “probable” or relatable—is the rejection of dichoto-
markets after the most recent Great Financial Crisis mies and incorporation of the logic of the possible at
(Minsky 1992). the dynamic intersection of agency and structure, and
In a number of important ways, Smith’s paper helps at the intersection of public administration and organ-
provide this backbone for current scholars of network ization theory, more generally.
performance by tracing advances in “whole network Several research challenges emerge when this inter-
theory” from Provan and Milward’s 1995 article section is considered. First, how can we understand
through their later work on service delivery networks networks or organizations in the context of “govern-
and then through researchers who have followed in ance in action?” From the enactment of processes at
this tradition. micro, meso, and macro levels of governance, public
administration is action, and organizations and net-
works are in constant states of organizing. In addition
The Future of Organization Theory in Public to categories, typologies, and snapshots in time, the or-
Administration ganizing lens suggests we focus on the enactment of
The papers in this PPMG symposium issue illustrate processes and practices that are evolving and context-
a renewed interest in organization theory to advance ually contingent and mutually constituent. Focusing
public administration, and they highlight how modern on the role of managers in fostering transitions in the
public administration drawing on networks, routines, governance of networks or organizations, the infor-
and a range of governance mechanisms, can contribute mational and relational work of governance interacts
to organization theory. Classic organization theory, as with the patterns, practices, and organizing activities
Kenis and Raab argue, provides insights to understand of members, and provides an explicit engagement be-
task allocation and division, information and rewards tween public administration and organization theory.
in organizational networks, for example. What is per- Second, how can we incorporate “unknown un-
haps most exciting is the possibility of insight, for both knowns” into our theorizing or the “space” in the
practicing public administration and explaining the practice of public administration that holds potential
phenomenon, from the intricate blending and mutu- for contextually contingent reconfiguration and new
ally reinforcing dynamics of “agency” and “structure” directions? What can we learn from the study of or-
examined and theorized in both fields. “[A] more ro- ganizational networks, or the relationship between
bust understanding of the interplay between institu- values and institutional integrity, to help managers
tional structures and human agency,” Sandfort and manage the unknowable unknowns? In organizational
Moulton argue, “indicates that there is substantial op- worlds of routines and practices, consistent constitu-
portunity for actors within TANF implementation sys- encies, and resource constraints, where are the spaces
tems to be agents of change.” Recognizing and working for change, and what scale and scope of management
with the interaction of structure and agency, in turn, is reach must be in place to bring about the transitional
an opportunity for public administration scholars to moments in the governance of programs, organiza-
be agents of change in the capacity, reach, and insight tions or networks? Empirical insights into these mo-
of the field. ments (how goals were redefined, resources deployed,
Just as Feldman’s work encourages us to incorp- relationships built, etc.) may be a window of insight
orate a “logic of possibility” into our theorizing for for public administration practitioners.
public administration, the papers in this symposium Third, can we understand governance practices not
issue project the possibilities for theory building when merely as observations, but as guides for organizing
our focus is on the dynamics of agency and struc- and influencing the forward-thinking efforts of man-
ture; on the interplay of managed networks and the agers and others? Practices become templates for how
context within which they operate; on suppression participants think about and enact their roles within
of sensemaking in the clash between organizational networks and organizations, and any governance ar-
logics and predictable practices in an era of unprece- rangement “easily conceals inequalities and power
dented problems; on renewed appreciation of admin- relations” (Nuijten 2004, 124). The concept of a net-
istrative process, routines and technologies in response work itself is a tool for coordination and policy elab-
to quantitative, problematic measures of behavior; oration and implementation. Rather than focus on the
on the transition from “knowing what” to “knowing determinants of networks or models of governance, a
how” and the role of context and social dynamics in deeper understanding of the purposive and strategic
6 Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2020, Vol. XX, No. XX

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ppmg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa008/5810402 by Library, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology user on 10 April 2020
impetus behind the governance of networks, not only Lewin, Kurt. 1945. The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Sociometry 8: 126–35.
by policy makers, but by the managers of networks
Maitlas, Sally, and Marlys Christianson. 2014. Sensemaking in organizations:
could be explored. Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals
Finally, in a field long defined by an emphasis on 8 (1): 57–125.
public and professional values that shape the integrity March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York,
of governance, how is institutional integrity and ac- NY: Wiley.
Minsky, Hyman P. 1992. The Financial Instability Hypothesis May 1992.
countability preserved in settings that are dynamic and
The Jerome Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 74. Available
increasingly dispersed? In this symposium issue, Seibel at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=161024 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
argues, “for the sake of institutional integrity, public ssrn.161024
administration leadership has to be based on an appro- Nuijten, Monique. 2004. Governance in action: Some theoretical and prac-
priate understanding of public values and their speci- tical reflections on a key concept. In Globalization and development, eds.
Don Kalb, Wil Pansters, and Hans Siebers. Dordrecht: SpringerLink.
ficity.” With this in mind, what role do managers play
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organ-
in the integration of goals, relationships, resources and izations: A resource dependence approach. New York, NY: Harper and
representation to achieve institutional integrity and Row Publishers.
accountability? Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The great transformation: The political and economic ori-
gins of our time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press (2001 edition).
Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 1995. A preliminary theory of
References interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four
community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 40
Allison, Graham. 1969. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. The
(1): 1–33.
American Political Science Review 63 (3): 689–718.
Roberts, Alasdair S. 2020. Bridging levels of public administration:
Blau, Peter M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John
How macro shapes meso and micro. Administration and Society
Wiley & Sons.
52(4):631–56.
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405.
Selznick, Philip. 1949. TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley and Los Angles: Univ.
Commons, John R. 1934. Institutional economics: Its place in political
of California Press.
economy. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Simon, Herbert A. 1947. Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited:
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational
Handbook of organizations, ed. James G. March, 142–93. Chicago, IL:
fields. American Sociological Review 48:147–60.
Rand McNally.
———. 1991. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and col-
Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of
lective rationality in organizational fields. In The new institutionalism in
administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
organization analysis, eds. Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, 63–82.
Van de Ven, Andrew H. 1989. Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory.
Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 486–9.
Emerson, Richard M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American
Weber, Max. 1946. From max weber: Essays in sociology, ed. H. H. Gerth and
Sociological Review 27 (1): 31–41.
C. Wright Mills. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Fligstein, Neil, and Doug McAdam. 2012. A theory of fields. New York, NY:
Weick, Karl E. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann
Oxford Univ. Press.
gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (4): 628–52.
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem
———. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481–510.
Weimer, David L. 2020. Public administrative theory: Normative necessity.
Gulick, Luther. 1937. Notes on the theory of organization. In Papers on the
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 3 (1): 7–11.
science of administration, eds. Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick, 1–45.
Williamson, Oliver E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies. New York: The Free
New York, NY: Columbia Univ.: Institute of Public Administration.
Press.
Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of or-
Wilson, James Q. 1967. The bureaucracy problem. The Public Interest 6:3–9.
ganizations. American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 929–64.
———. 1968. Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order
Hawley, Amos H. 1950. Human ecology: A theory of community structure.
in eight communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
New York, NY: Ronald Press.
———. 1989. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1960. The forest ranger: A study in administrative be-
New York, NY: Basic Books.
havior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.