<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01209pab a2200157 454500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="008">180718b1999   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Gregory, Robert J.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Social capital theory and administrative reform: maintaining ethical probity in public service</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">1999</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.63-75</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="362" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Jan-Feb</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This article suggests that the concept of social capital may be relevant to an understanding of the possible impact of public-sector reform on standards of ethical probity within public services, particularly regarding instances of personal corruption. Using New Zealand as an example, it is argued that, especially where such reforms have been largely underpinned by the new institutional economics and public choice theory, they may tend to counter more piecemeal efforts to maintain standards of ethical integrity in the bureaucracy. These efforts may need to be reinforced by new approaches to the rebuilding of institutionalized public service, based on a fuller understanding of the important distinctions between public and corporate management. - Reproduced</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Administrative reform</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Public Administration Review</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">40450</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">40450</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">40450</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">Volume no: 59, Issue no: 1</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR40825</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2018-07-19</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
