@article{svara_brunet_2020, title={The Importance of Social Equity to Prevent a Hollow Public Administration}, volume={50}, ISSN={0275-0740 1552-3357}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074020910509}, DOI={10.1177/0275074020910509}, abstractNote={In their contribution to this journal, Robert F. Durant and David H. Rosenbloom (2017) seek to identify factors that have contributed to shortcomings in linking public administration research and theory to practice. In their view, the field faces a “theory–practice conundrum” (p. 719). They raise a wide range of issues that could be explored further, but we think it is imperative to address one of the arguments in this commentary—that the emphasis on social equity has weakened public administration and should be removed as a central defining value of the field. They “critique the logic and empirical basis of two major pillars of public administration”—efficiency (a topic for another discussion) and social equity (p. 719). They view these normative values as “weak and decontextualized” (p. 720). Some of our work on social equity is highlighted in the discussion and repeats a debate that occurred 15 years ago (Rosenbloom, 2005; Svara & Brunet, 2004, 2005). Some of the key points in the earlier exchange are repeated here, but there have also been advances in research and practice related to social equity that Durant and Rosenbloom ignore. They criticize the weak definition of social equity—it is “still lacking a standard definition” and view it as “almost purely normative—it is an ‘ought’ rather than an ‘is’” (p. 723). The weak definition along with other factors they discuss contribute to “theories” developed by scholars that “lack empirical validity for scholarship and face validity— and thus relevance—for practitioners” (p. 720). It is hard to understand how they could suggest that social equity lacks empirical validity in scholarly research and relevance to practitioners. The definition of social equity is complex, but this is necessary considering the multiple ways that social inequity can be manifested and the range of actions that may be needed to promote social equity. The alleged lack of a definition is a curious criticism. The version they refer to from the Social Equity Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] covers the essential elements:}, number={4-5}, journal={The American Review of Public Administration}, publisher={SAGE Publications}, author={Svara, James H. and Brunet, James R.}, year={2020}, month={Feb}, pages={352–357} }
 @misc{svara_2005, title={Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance}, volume={65}, number={4}, journal={Public Administration Review}, author={Svara, J. H.}, year={2005}, pages={500–506} }
 @misc{svara_2005, title={The  adapted city: Institutional dynamics and structural change}, volume={65}, number={4}, journal={Public Administration Review}, author={Svara, J. H.}, year={2005}, pages={500–506} }
 @article{svara_2001, title={The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration}, volume={61}, ISSN={["0033-3352"]}, DOI={10.1111/0033-3352.00020}, abstractNote={At the heart of the practice of public administration is the relationship between administrators, on one hand, and political leaders and the public on the other hand. The nature of that relationship and the proper role of administrators in the political process have been the subject of considerable debate. Anxiety about administrative legitimacy has been particularly intense in the United States, where the rise of the administrative state was out of synch with a democratic society (Stillman 1997), but similar issues have arisen in other countries as well (Rutgers 1997). As the field emerged, it was important to differentiate a practice based on professional knowledge and values from political particularism, but the extent and scope of the differentiation were unclear. It was also necessary to reconcile the tensions among complying with the directions of elected officials, maintaining professional integrity, and serving the public. Observers differ as to whether American thinking about the relationship of public administration to society has experienced major shifts over time or has gradually evolved. Along the lines developed by Lynn, the case can be made that there has generally been continuity in the development of public administration in the United States rather than an abandonment of the traditions of the field. Whereas Lynn organizes his reexamination around the bureaucratic paradigm, my emphasis is the core relationship between politicians and administrators.(1) Not only did traditional thought, as Lynn observes, seek to maintain "balance between administrative capacity and popular control on behalf of public purposes defined by electoral and judicial institutions," it also sought to justify the contributions of public administrators to shaping the definition of public purposes. Put simply, early contributors to the development of public administration acknowledged a policy role for administrators that has often been ignored. Even the politics-administration dichotomy that is a part of the traditional paradigm usually incorporates the ideas of accountability and responsibility--although the paradigm can be expressed in ways that seem to preclude these qualities by portraying administration as mechanically instrumental--but the emphasis on a strict dichotomy of politics and administration will not accommodate the policy role of administrators that has come to be widely recognized. In the past--and, I would argue, in the present as well--there was simultaneous emphasis on separation and insulation of administrators from political interference, on one hand, and interaction and incorporation of administrative contributions in the design and the implementation of public policy, on the other hand. Wilson and Goodnow favored such contributions, as did Leonard White, who acknowledged but dismissed concerns about the growth of administration "controlling in the first instance the application of law to the individual case, cooperating also in the formulation of policy" (1926, 33). Although legislative control of administration is critical, he argued, "it is nevertheless important to remember that the administration cooperates indispensably with the legislature, and that without its assistance, the task of legislation would become much less informed and much less effective." These founding fathers of the field never advocated the dichotomy attributed to them--a conclusion demonstrated repeatedly (Golembiewski 1977; Rabin and Bowman 1984, 4; Rohr 1986, 31; Van Riper 1984, 209-10).(2) Still, the myth that public administration began as a narrow, confined, and insulated activity is regularly repeated partly because, as Lynn implies, it is self-satisfying to view ourselves as enlightened and to view earlier, particularly prewar scholars and practitioners, as benighted. There are a number of reasons why the dichotomy idea has persisted. It is convenient to explain the division of roles in terms of total separation because it is easier to explain than a model based on sharing roles, particularly since the separation model does not limit the actual policy contributions of administrators in practice. …}, number={2}, journal={PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW}, author={Svara, JH}, year={2001}, pages={176–183} }
 @article{svara_1999, title={Complementarity of politics and administration as a legitimate alternative to the dichotomy model}, volume={30}, ISSN={["0095-3997"]}, DOI={10.1177/00953999922019049}, abstractNote={ Although the politics-administration dichotomy model has frequently been presented as historically important but conceptually and empirically faulty, the criticisms have missed two fundamental points. First, it is not—as commonly presumed—the founding theory of public administration in the United States but rather a poorly grounded characterization of the early literature that took hold in the late 1950s. The term dichotomy was rarely used before that time and never used by the “founders” of the field who were supposed to have invented the model. Second, there is an alternative model of complementarity that has been present in the literature from Wilson onward. It stresses interdependency, reciprocal influence, and extensive interaction between elected officials and administrators along with recognition of the need for distinct roles and political supremacy. The politics-administration complementarity model—elaborated here with references to the “old” public administration literature prior to 1960—offers a strong foundation on which we can build. }, number={6}, journal={ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY}, author={Svara, JH}, year={1999}, month={Jan}, pages={676–705} }
 @article{svara_1999, title={The shifting boundary between elected officials and city managers in large council-manager cities}, volume={59}, ISSN={["0033-3352"]}, DOI={10.2307/977478}, abstractNote={Council-manager governments in the United States have been an important venue for observing the general relationship between politics and administration. Although the roles of the mayor and council members, on the one hand, and the city manager and staff, on the other, have sometimes been viewed as strictly separate, officials have blended democracy and professionalism in ways that maintain distinct but shared roles. It is possible, however, that changing conditions in local government may create pressures that alter official roles and the relative contributions of officials. This is particularly likely in large cities about which the question has perennially been asked whether the council-manager form of government is viable. Although the council-manager form has been most commonly used in moderately small to moderately large cities, only in recent decades have many cities that use council-manager government grown into "large" cities.(1) Now over two-fifths of cities exceeding 200,000 in population use the council-manager form. This study focuses on these 31 cities.(2) The group includes five cities at or near the million population mark--Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, and San Jose. All of these as well as 23 of the other 26 are sunbelt cities. Although the sunbelt has been viewed as relatively placid and homogeneous, its cities have become ever more diverse places with intense interest group politics (Ehrenhalt, 1991; Benest, 1991). Determining whether roles are shifting presumes norms against which to measure current attitudes and behavior. As a starting point, we will presume that elected officials set broad goals and ultimately approve most policy decisions, oversee program accomplishment, and appraise the city manager's performance but refrain from direct involvement in implementation and service delivery or in specific management decisions. City managers advise the council on the city's direction, propose policies, and handle implementation and organizational management. Empirical research has shown that officials generally fill these roles in a coordinated way and, as cause and consequence of coordination, maintain a positive relationship. The question to be explored is whether these characteristics are changing and whether the conceptual model needs to be revised in large cities where one finds a high level of political activity that may strain the coordination of roles and cooperative relationship among officials. Changing Roles and Relationships in Large. Council-Manager Cities It has long been presumed that the council-manager form of government faces special challenges in large cities,(3) and there are several reasons to expect unique circumstances in such cities. They are more heterogeneous, and the media magnify political affairs. The problems large cities face tend to more complex, more interrelated, and more difficult to handle. In general, the political environment of the large city is highly charged. Some argue that the council-manager form is not well suited to manage conflict (Banfield and Wilson, 1963) and that a strong elected executive is needed in such cities (Gurwitt, 1993, versus Blodgett, 1994). As a consequence, relationships may be strained and the coordinated division of roles may break down in large council-manager cities. These expectations have never been tested in systematic research on the performance of council-manager government in large cities. To fill this gap, a questionnaire was distributed to the mayor and council members and to the city manager, deputy and assistant city managers, and the department heads in Finance, Public Works, and Police in the large council-manager cities.(4) Initial mailings were sent in 1995 with follow-up requests in early 1996. For council members, it is possible to compare results with responses in a 1989 national survey of elected officials in cities over 200,000 in population.(5) Some important comparisons can also be made with the attitudes of council members and administrators from six moderately large council-manager cities who were interviewed in 1985 (from Svara, 1990). …}, number={1}, journal={PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW}, author={Svara, JH}, year={1999}, pages={44–53} }
 @inbook{svara_1998, title={Local government leadership}, volume={3}, booktitle={International encyclopedia of public policy and administration}, publisher={Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press}, author={Svara, J. H.}, year={1998}, pages={1305–1310} }
 @article{svara_1998, title={The evolving roles of regional councils}, volume={64}, number={1998 Spring}, journal={Popular Government}, author={Svara, J. H.}, year={1998} }
 @article{svara_1998, title={The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberration}, volume={58}, number={1}, journal={Public Administration Review}, author={Svara, J. H.}, year={1998}, pages={51–58} }
 @article{svara_1997, title={The ethical triangle: Synthesizing the bases of administrative ethics}, volume={2}, number={1997}, journal={Public Integrity Annual}, author={Svara, J. H.}, year={1997}, pages={33–41} }
 @book{svara_1994, title={Facilitative leadership in local government: Lessons from successful mayors and chairpersons (1st ed.)}, ISBN={0787900079}, publisher={San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers}, author={Svara, J. H.}, year={1994} }