Determinants of Local Civil Servants’ Perceptions of Intergovernmental Tensions: Experimental Evidence from Korea

References

• Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bello-Gomez, R. A. (2021). Human resources in multilevel service provision performance: The role of field offices and local organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(1), 3–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, G., Coppock, A., & Moor, M. (2020). When to worry about sensitivity bias: A social reference theory and evidence from 30 years of list experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1297–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, G., & Imai, K. (2012). Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis, 20(1), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 2), i253–i277. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (2012). Reflections on street‐level bureaucracy: past, present, and future. Wiley Online Library.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2015). How can policy theory have an impact on policymaking? The role of theory-led academic–practitioner discussions. Teaching Public Administration, 33(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739414532284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callanan, M. (2003). Where stands local government? In M. Callanan & J. Keogan (Eds.), Local government in Ireland: Inside out (pp. 475–501). Institute of Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Cesare, S. J., & Thornton, C. (1993). Human resource management and the specialist/generalist issue. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 8(3), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949310027763
   Google Scholar
• Cho, C.-L., Hong, J.-H., & Wright, D. S. (2010). Intergovernmental relations in Korea: From dependency to interdependency (pp. 377–400). Public Administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, J. E. (1985). The political economy of federalism. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 994–1015. https://doi.org/10.2307/1956245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024363
   Google Scholar
• Currivan, D. B. (1999). An analysis of causal relationships in a model of organizational commitment [Unpublished dissertation]. The University of Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, M. S. (2000). The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 38(2), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewalt, J. A. G., & Jennings, E. T. Jr, (2004). Administration, governance, and policy tools in welfare policy implementation. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00391.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewert, B., Loer, K., & Thomann, E. (2021). Beyond nudge: Advancing the state-of-the-art of behavioural public policy and administration. Policy & Politics, 49(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15987279194319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, P. J., Blair, P. S., & Pease, A. (2015). Sudden unexpected death in infancy: Aetiology, pathophysiology, epidemiology and prevention in 2015. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100(10), 984–988. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-306424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, C. D., & Plowden, F. J. (1996). The state under stress: Can the hollow state be good government? Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldin, C. (2016). Human capital. In C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (Eds.), Handbook of cliometrics (pp. 55–86). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Goldsmith, M. (2002). Central control over local government-A Western European comparison. Local Government Studies, 28(3), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/714004150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouldner, A. W. (1958). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles. II. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(4), 444–480. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabner-Kräuter, S., Tafolli, F., & Breitenecker, R. J. (2023). Consequences of public sector employees’ CSR perceptions in a developing country: Organizational benefits and beyond. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(2), 472–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2170433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramlich, E. M. (1972). Intergovernmental grants: a review of the empirical literature. In W. Oares (Eds.), The political economy of fiscal federalism. D.C. Heath & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Grindle, M. S. (2007). Going local: Decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gualmini, E. (2008). Restructuring Weberian Bureaucracy: Comparing Managerial Reforms In Europe And The United States. Public Administration, 86(1), 75–94. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00691.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, J. R., & Kjeldsen, A. M. (2018). Comparing affective commitment in the public and private sectors: A comprehensive test of multiple mediation effects. International Public Management Journal, 21(4), 558–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1276033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan, M. S., Raja Ariffin, R. N., Mansor, N., & Al Halbusi, H. (2021). An examination of street-level bureaucrats’ discretion and the moderating role of supervisory support: Evidence from the field. Administrative Sciences, 11(3), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedge, D. M., & Scicchitano, M. J. (1994). Regulating in space and time: The case of regulatory federalism. The Journal of Politics, 56(1), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, J. D., & Shipan, C. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion?: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Imai, K. (2011). Multivariate regression analysis for the item count technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2011.ap10415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingraham, P. W., Sowa, J. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2004). Linking dimensions of public sector leadership to performance. In P. W. Ingraham & L. E. Lynn (Eds.), The art of governance: Analyzing management and administration (pp. 152–170). Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding street‐level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02131.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. S. (2020). Executive control of bureaucracy and presidential cabinet appointments in East Asian democracies. Regulation & Governance, 14(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. S., Meyer-Sahling, J. H., & Park, S. (2022). Learning effects of anti-corruption reform in public organisations: Explanations from social psychological theory. Public Management Review, 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. S., & Park, S. (2020). Ministerial leadership and endorsement of bureaucrats: Experimental evidence from presidential governments. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. S., & Park, S. (2021a). What motivates street-level bureaucrats to implement the reforms of elected politicians? Policy & Politics, 49(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15955052478653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. S., & Park, S. (2021b). Civil servants’ perceptions of agency heads’ leadership styles: The role of gender in public sector organizations. Public Management Review, 23(8), 1160–1183. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1730941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Mathieu, C., Fabi, B., Lacoursiere, R., & Raymond, L. (2016). The role of supervisory behavior, job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(1), 113–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2007). Collaborative service arrangements: Patterns, bases, and perceived consequences. Public Management Review, 9(4), 479–502.
   Google Scholar
• May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S., & Portillo, S. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In R. Durant (Ed.), Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252–277). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McBrayer, M. (2021). The local revolution under second‐order devolution: The effect of county governments on TANF administration. Policy Studies Journal, 49(3), 909–933. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. Jr, (2006). Political control versus bureaucratic values: Reframing the debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00571.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng, H., Luo, Y., Huang, L., Wen, J., Ma, J., & Xi, J. (2019). On the relationships of resilience with organizational commitment and burnout: A social exchange perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(15), 2231–2250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1381136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng, T., Pan, J., & Yang, P. (2017). Conditional receptivity to citizen participation: Evidence from a survey experiment in China. Comparative Political Studies, 50(4), 399–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014556212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, M. K., & Vorsanger, S. (2003). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In B. Guy Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 245–256). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. J. (1992). Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. J., & Whitford, A. B. (2016). Above politics. Bureaucratic discretion and credible commitment. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, M. J., & Hwang, C. (2013). The state of civil service systems in the Asia-Pacific region: A comparative perspective. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13484831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance-information use. Administration & Society, 36(4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399704266748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J. Jr, (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/976691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00006486
   Google Scholar
• Park, S., & Lee, D. S. (2021). Political crisis in central government and bureaucrats’ responses in provincial government: The impact of governors’ characteristics. Political Research Quarterly 75(4), 1186–1200. 10659129211053625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, S., Lee, D. S., & Son, J. (2021). Regulatory reform in the era of new technological development: The role of organizational factors in the public sector. Regulation & Governance, 15(3), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polsky, A. J. (1993). The rise of the therapeutic state. In The rise of the therapeutic state. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Presthus, R. V. (2018). Authority in organizations. In Democracy, bureaucracy, and the study of administration (pp. 454–463). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, H. G. (2014). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Randma, T. (2001). A small civil service in transition: The case of Estonia. Public Administration and Development, 21(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randma-Liiv, T. (2002). Small states and bureaucracy: Challenges for public administration. Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(4), 374–389. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2002.4.06
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. A. (1980). Analysing intergovernmental relations. European Journal of Political Research, 8(3), 289–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1980.tb00575.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. A. W. (2018). Control and power in central-local government relations. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romzek, B. S. (1990). Employee investment and commitment: The ties that bind. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 374. https://doi.org/10.2307/976619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, S., Wenger, J. B., & Wilkins, V. M. (2012). When claimant characteristics and prior performance predict bureaucratic error. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(6), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011435151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, M., Snijders, V., & Hallsworth, M. (2018). Behavioural science and policy: Where are we now and where are we going? Behavioural Public Policy, 2(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.17
   Google Scholar
• Sathyanarayan, D. K., & Lavanya, D. B. L. (2018). Effect of organizational commitment, motivation, attitude towards work on job satisfaction, job performance and turnover intention‖-VUCA perspective. Journal of Management, 5(4), 445–457.
   Google Scholar
• Schelling, T. C. (1956). An essay on bargaining. American Economic Review, 46, 281–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict: With a new preface by the author. Harvard university press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K.-H. (2007). Organizational commitment: A further moderator in the relationship between work stress and strain? International Journal of Stress Management, 14(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.26
   Google Scholar
• Scholz, J. T., Twombly, J., & Headrick, B. (1991). Street-level political controls over federal bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85(3), 829–850. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, P. G. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024341
   Google Scholar
• Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 391–407. 10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teodoro, M. P. (2011). Bureaucratic ambition: Careers, motives, and the innovative administrator. JHU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomann, E., van Engen, N., & Tummers, L. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummers, L. (2011). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework. Revue Internationale Des Sciences Administratives, 77(3), 575–604. https://doi.org/10.3917/risa.773.0575
   Google Scholar
• Tummers, L. (2012). Policy alienation of public professionals: The construct and its measurement. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02550.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummers, L., Bekkers, V., & Steijn, B. (2009). Policy alienation of public professionals: Application in a new public management context. Public Management Review, 11(5), 685–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Voet, J., Steijn, B., & Kuipers, B. S. (2017). What’s in it for others? The relationship between prosocial motivation and commitment to change among youth care professionals. Public Management Review, 19(4), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1183699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Doninck, D., Pieters, D., Wynen, J., Kleizen, B., Verlinden, S., & Verhoest, K. (2023). Can we mitigate Covid-19 related work strain among civil servants? Examining the role of organizational commitment, job autonomy and workplace social support. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(1), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2123836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren, D. E., Gaspar, J. P., & Laufer, W. S. (2014). Is formal ethics training merely cosmetic? A study of ethics training and ethical organizational culture. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(1), 85–117. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq2014233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterman, R. W., & Meier, K. J. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024377
   Google Scholar
• Webb, S., & Webb, B. (1963). The development of English local government 1689-1838. Read Books.
   Google Scholar
• Whitchurch, C. (2004). Administrative managers–A critical link. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2004.00274.x
   Google Scholar
• Whitford, A. B. (2007). Decentralized policy implementation. Political Research Quarterly, 60(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912906298529
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, B. D. (1991). Federalism and policy responsiveness: The clean air case. The Journal of Politics, 53(3), 851–859. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worrall, L., Collinge, C., & Bill, T. (1998). Managing strategy in local government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(6), 472–493. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513559810246354
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B. E., Hassan, S., & Park, J. (2016). Does a public service ethic encourage ethical behaviour? Public service motivation, ethical leadership and the willingness to report ethical problems. Public Administration, 94(3), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynen, J., Boon, J., & Verlinden, S. (2022). Reform stress in the public sector? Linking change diversity to turnover intentions and presenteeism among civil servants using a matching approach. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(3), 605–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2037003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment: Literature review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2015-0004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar