Global Crises, American Public Administration, and the “New Interventionism” Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With global financial, climate, demographic, and terrorist threats challenging nations worldwide, many observers have argued that a return to activist or “neointerventionist” government in the United States and abroad is underway. Incorporating a neo-Weberian perspective on American political development (APD), this article argues that those who see the rise of a new Leviathan in the United States under the Obama administration falsely conflate the “ends” or “how much?” state intervention question with the “means” or “how implemented?” question. When one looks today and historically at the “how implemented” question in the face of domestic and global crises, one repeatedly finds interventionist state policies creating implementation structures which ensure that organized market (or “producer”) interests preserve power, access, and influence in the administration of programs. Thus, the perceived dominance of the state when “ends” shift to meet domestic and global crises is offset in the United States by the perdurability of market interests in the implementation (or “means”) phase because of the path-dependent, constitutive, and layering effects that drive APD. Consequently, the past is likely prologue to the future, regardless of continuing or future U.S. domestic and global crises. The article concludes by assessing the implications of this realpolitik for public administration as a field of practice, research, and administrative theory building.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".