01916nam a22001697a 4500999001900000008004100019100005600060245012600116260004600242300003800288520111900326650011001445773004501555906002601600942000701626952011301633  c517699d517699210724b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aYoung, S.L., Wiley, K.K. and Searing, E.A.M.927957  a“Squandered in real time”: How public management theory underestimated the public administration–politics dichotomy  aAmerican Review of Public Administration   a50(6-7), Aug-Oct, 2020: p.480-488  aThe United States places great emphasis on the public administration–politics dichotomy, but what happens to public management when the dichotomy breaks down? The authors critically evaluate the public management frameworks, New Public Management and New Public Governance, in the context of two major public management failures: the U.S. State of Illinois Budget Impasse during 2015–2017 and the COVID-19 Pandemic. A definition of public management failure is proffered, and both public management frameworks are found to have polarized and opposing views on whether process or outcome should have priority in crisis. We question whether the two major seminal theories in our field are still generalizable when their assumptions about the dichotomy and political neutrality are challenged in times of crises. The polarized perspectives were found to contribute to the public management failures. Ultimately, both frameworks were found to minimize the political influences that public administration and public management operate under, leaving a need for a more holistic and realistic framework. - Reproduced   aPublic administration dichotomy, Nonprofit, COVID-19, New public management, New public governance925671  aAmerican Review of Public Administration  aPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION  cAR  00102ddc40709391766aIIPAbIIPAd2021-07-24h50(6-7), Aug-Oct, 2020: p.480-488pAR124959r2021-07-24yAR