CPSA/CAPPA section on Public Administration

K07 - Bureaucracy, Politics and Expertise

Date: May 30 | Time: 03:15pm to 04:45pm | Location: Classroom - CL 316 Room ID:15711

Chair/Président/Présidente : Peter Constantinou (York University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Ken Rasmussen (University of Regina)

The "Technical Fix"? The Discursive Foundations of Public Bureaucracy in Canada: Justin Leifso (University of Alberta)
Abstract: In this paper, I trace how public bureaucracies in Canada have transformed over time. More specifically, I examine the extent to which neoliberal forms of public bureaucracies differ in their reliance on “neutral” forms of technical expertise from their mid-century counterparts. “Recent critical scholarship on neoliberalism,” writes Collier (2017, 25), “has argued that neoliberalism is grounded in a purportedly neutral expert economic knowledge that serves as a cover for a radical political project.” Such work places “its policy proposals beyond political dispute and thereby depoliticizes government administration and undermines democracy.” As understood through this critical approach, the story of New Public Management or “governance” is the story of public bureaucracies adopting technical “best practices” (Brown 2015). Collier argues that such critiques rely on their own ahistorical assumptions, retroactively and romantically assigning previous bureaucratic forms a democratically-embedded character. In this paper, I explore this claim in the context of Canadian public administration. Drawing on Royal Commissions, I argue that Collier is correct in his observation that previous bureaucratic forms were as seemingly “technical” as they are now and answer his call to address this gap in critical scholarship. I argue that it is the meaning of the concepts underwriting technical bureaucratic forms that have changed. Rather than being less or more technical or apolitical, current forms of public bureaucracies differ from previous forms in the accepted normative and discursive assumptions that underwrite them, shifting alongside the broader political rationalities around them.

Management Turnover and Organizational Learning: Christopher Cooper (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Research studying public and private organizations have examined various factors affecting organizational learning. This article contributes to this research by examining the relationship between turnover of supervisors and organizational learning among the remaining employees. From a perspective that focuses on the social component of learning, this work argues that succession of managerial personnel disrupts interpersonal relationships among remaining employees that negatively affects their learning. Using survey data from a census of federal public servants in Canada, the relationship between turnover of supervisors and employees’ organizational learning is tested with multivariate regression. Controlling for several variables including the organizational size, adequate resources, and the age and gender of employees, the results show that turnover of supervisors has a statistically significant negative relationship with organizational learning.

Institutionalizing Team Science: Empirical Evidence from Faculty and Lessons from Political Science: Garrett Richards (University of Saskatchewan), Toddi Steelman (University of Saskatchewan)
Abstract: Contemporary research often necessitates an interdisciplinary or "team science" approach within universities. Although discussion of such approaches is quite common in the relevant literature, there is a lack of concrete guidance on how to effectively administer and foster team science. Existing analysis tends to run up against "how" and "where" barriers concerning institutional structure. For example, does primary responsibility for incentivizing team science lie at the department level or at the university level? To contribute to this scholarly discussion, we bring multi-level governance (MLG) concepts from political science to bear on the issue of team science administration in universities. That is, we suggest that different levels of university administration can be theorized in a similar manner to different levels of government, allowing us to apply a variety of theoretical concepts, such as subsidiarity and type-I and type-II MLG. We ask: in what ways are these concepts able to generate practical guidance for team science administration? To answer this, we draw upon qualitative data from focus groups about team science among faculty and research centre representatives at the University of Saskatchewan (UofS). Specifically, we code the responses deductively using MLG concepts in order to extract additional meaning and broader significance. Preliminary results suggest that type-II MLG is a particularly relevant concept in the context of team science administration. Our work broadens findings of the team science research at the UofS for potential application in other cases and also demonstrates an innovative application of political science.

1116.Richards.Steelman.pdf

Influence and Information: Is Lobbying a Response to Political Uncertainty?: Maxime Boucher (University of Waterloo), Christopher Cooper (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Research coming from various fields defines lobbying as a response to political uncertainties. Political scientists describe lobbying as an exchange process involving actors that seek information on political issues that affect (or may affect) their interests. Similarly, in the fields of economics and management sciences, lobbying is defined as a non-market strategy whose main goal is to reduce risks and uncertainties associated with the policy process. In that perspective, lobbying is viewed as a (reactive) response to uncertainties generated by political changes, and not as a proactive campaign to promote policy changes. But to what extent do political changes such as the appointment of new ministers and deputy ministers motivate organizations to lobby the government? By using data from the Canadian Lobbyists Registry over a period of nearly a decade (2008-2017), this paper examines the impact of changes in ministers (and deputy ministers) on the relations between lobbies and the federal government. The main objective of this research is to determine whether the appointment of new ministers and deputy ministers – and the election of a new government – fuels political mobilization and generates a growth in lobbying activity targeting these new governmental actors.