Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

With many universities facing pressures to economize, proposals for the restructuring and consolidation of academic units have become common. Departments of public administration are particularly susceptible to such maneuvers, given the interdisciplinary nature of the field and the absence of consensus over the best structural configuration for the departments. One configuration that has attracted the attention of university administrators is the co-location of departments of public administration and those related to business administration. Yet, little research is available on the implications of this structural arrangement for public administration programs. This paper reviews the experiences of public administration programs that are currently located in business schools as well as those that have left business schools. The authors identify multiple advantages and disadvantages of this arrangement as well as the impediments to a successful partnership. They also present two models that illustrate commonly found configurations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International). (2011, January 31). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation (3rd ed.). Tampa, FL: Author.

Allison

G. T.

(1992). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In Stillman

R. J.

III , Public administration: Concepts and cases (5th ed., pp. 282–288). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

DeAngelo

Zimmerman

J. L.

(2005). What’s really wrong with U. S. business schools? Retrieved from http://fisher.osu.edu/∼young_53/DeAngelo-DeAngelo-Zimmerman.pdf.

Frederickson

H. G.

Smith

K. B.

(2003). The public administration theory primer. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.

Goldsmith

Eggers

(2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Hearn

J. C.

Anderson

M. S.

(2002). Conflict in academic departments: An analysis of disputes over faculty promotion and tenure. Research in Higher Education, 43, 503–529.

Henry

(1995). Keeping business at bay. In Early NASPAA History. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/about_naspaa/about/history.asp#Keeping%20Business%20At%20Bay

Henry

(1975). Paradigms of public administration. Public Administration Review, 35, 378–386.

Ingraham

P. W.

Zuck

(1996). Public affairs and administration education: An overview and look ahead from the NASPAA perspective. Journal of Public Administration Education, 2, 161–174.

10.

Ira

(2009). Regulation is not the answer. Harvard Business Review, 87, 113–113.

11.

Kettl

(2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

12.

Leone

R. A.

(1977). The real cost of regulation. Harvard Business Review, 55, 57–66.

13.

Litchfield

(1956). Notes on a general theory of administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 3–29.

14.

Mangan

K. S.

(2002). The new “arms race” in business-school buildings. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, A30.

15.

Martin

W. F.

Lodge

G. C.

(1975). Our society in 1985—Business may not like it. Harvard Business Review, 53, 143–152.

16.

Okunade

A. A.

Wunnava

P. V.

Walsh

Jr. (1994). Charitable giving of alumni: Microdata evidence from a large public university. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53, 73–84.

17.

Ortega

(2012, February 15). Group: Facilities hard to oversee, aren’t cost effective. Arizona Republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com

18.

O’Toole

Bennis

W. G.

(2005). How business school lost its way. Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.

19.

Pfeffer

Fong

C. T.

(2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 78–95.

20.

Ritchie

(2012, February 28). State, IBM blame each other as trial involving Indiana’s canceled welfare contract begins. Indianapolis Star. Retrieved from http://www.indystar.com

21.

Salancik

G. R.

Pfeffer

(1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administration Science Quarterly, 19, 453–473.

22.

Scherer

R. F.

Javagli

R. G.

Bryant

Tukel

(2005). Challenges of AACSB international accreditation for business schools in the United States and Europe. Thunderbird International Business Review, 47, 651–669.

23.

Student Demographics. (2011, August 21). Chronicle of Higher Education, 58, 32–40.

24.

The Profession. (2011). Chronicle of Higher Education, 58, 22–29.

25.

Ventriss

(1991). Contemporary issues in American public administration education: The search for an educational focus. Public Administration Review, 51, 4–14.

26.

Wiseman

(2011, August 21). Hunkering down, colleges rethink financial strategies. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(1), 6–6.

27.

Wooldridge

(1987). Increasing the professional management orientation of public administration courses. American Review of Public Administration, 17, 93–100.

28.

Yoon

B. M.

(1968). Management discipline in a school of administration: A reappraisal in the public service. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 279–289.

Departments of Public Administration and Colleges of Business Administration: Allies or Aliens?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References