In the wake of developments such as evidence-based policy-making, performance management, and big data, decision-makers possess historically unrivalled information on societal issues, their origins, and potential solutions (Van Dooren & Van De Walle, 2016). Paradoxically, this abundance of information leads to an ever-increasing scarcity of attention, as the available information greatly exceeds decision-makers’ information-processing capacities (Simon, 1971).
Attention is the sine qua non of policy-making: What is attended to can be addressed in policy responses; what is overlooked or goes unnoticed cannot. Amidst an affluence of societal issues and an abundance of information, political processes are increasingly unsuccessful in providing the administrative apparatus with an attainable agenda of clear and consistent policy objectives. As a consequence of such “political failure” (Meier et al., 2019), top-level bureaucrats must increasingly navigate both administrative functions of implementation, as well as political functions of issue prioritization.
Building on these observations, this article seeks to extend behavioural theory (cf. Cyert and March, 1992) by examining how top-level bureaucrats prioritize societal issues amidst political failure. For this purpose, this article further develops Andersen et al.’s (2016) typology of public performance characteristics. The framework outlines several issue characteristics that may underlie prioritization, including stakeholders (e.g. is the issue articulated by for instance politicians, citizens, or professionals?), formality (e.g. is a performance target for the issue formally defined?), subjectivity (e.g. is the issue expressed in objective or subjective indicators?), and unit of analysis (e.g. does the issue concern the organization, a policy program, or an individual?), and type of indicator (e.g. is the issue expressed as quantitative or qualitative information?). Utilizing a sample of top-level bureaucrats in Dutch local administrations, we examine issue prioritization through a discrete choice experiment in which participants prioritize issues that vary on the above-mentioned characteristics.
This article aims at developing a theory of bureaucratic issue prioritization amidst political failure and provides a framework of issue characteristics that explains which societal issues are most likely to be prioritized by top-level bureaucrats in the absence of clear and consistent political objectives.
References
Andersen, L. B., Boesen, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2016). Performance in Public Organizations: Clarifying the Conceptual Space. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 852–862.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). Behavioral Theory of the Firm (2 edition). Wiley-Blackwell.
Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., Levinthal, D. A., & Ocasio, W. (2012). The Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Assessment and Prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 1–40.
Meier, K. J., Compton, M., Polga-Hecimovich, J., Song, M., & Wimpy, C. (2019). Bureaucracy and the Failure of Politics: Challenges to Democratic Governance. Administration & Society, 51(10), 1576–1605.
Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing Public and Private Organizations: Empirical Research and the Power of the A Priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–470.
Simon, Herbert A (1971). Designing Organizations for an Information-rich World. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 37–52.
Van Dooren, W., & Van De Walle, S. (2016). Performance Information in the Public Sector: How it is Used. Springer.
