Journal of Behavioral Public Administration <p><em>Journal of Behavioral Public Administration (JBPA)</em> is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary open access journal that focuses on behavioral and experimental research in public administration, broadly defined.&nbsp; JBPA encourages submissions of both basic scholarly and applied work conducted by academics or practitioners.</p> en-US <p>Manuscripts accepted for publicaction in JBPA are licensed under a <a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License</a> (CC-BY 4.0).&nbsp; It allows all uses of published manuscripts but requires attribution.</p> <p>The CC-BY license applies also to data, code and experimental material, except when it conflicts with a prior copyright.&nbsp; Common courtesy requires informing authors of new uses of their data, as well as acknowledging the source.</p> (Sebastian Jilke) (Ivan Lee) Wed, 01 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0000 OJS 60 Editorial Sebastian Jilke, Kenneth Meier, Gregg Van Ryziin Copyright (c) 2020 Sun, 16 Feb 2020 19:38:03 +0000 Revealing the “Hidden welfare state”: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures <p>In this article, we explore how specific policy information shapes public opinion toward the “hidden welfare state” of tax expenditures. These politically and socioeconomically consequential policies—most of which bestow their greatest benefits on upper-income people—are complex and opaque, and scholars’ understanding of citizen attitudes toward them is limited. In response, we use a randomized, general population, online survey experiment to test the effects of providing people with varying amounts and kinds of information about three policies. We find that learning the basic design and rationale of key tax expenditures tends to increase public support for them. However, when informed of the distributive effects of the two policies that favor upper-income people, subjects become much less supportive of these policies. Moreover, policy-specific information appears to help subjects align their preferences with their immediate material interests. Learning the upward tilt of tax expenditures especially makes lower- and middle-income people less supportive of the policies. Our results suggest that if political elites, government administrators and news media routinely offered clear information about tax expenditures, public opinion toward the hidden welfare state would be more firmly grounded. By virtue of their design, these policies discourage public awareness of their mechanisms and distributive effects. Still, greater informational outreach regarding complicated and arcane tax expenditures could bolster public accountability for government actions that favor economically narrow and privileged segments of the population.</p> Matt Guardino, Suzanne Mettler Copyright (c) 2020 Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:00:51 +0000 Testing the open government recipe: Are vision and voice good governance ingredients? <p><span lang="EN-GB">Existing research shows that open government can result in better governance outcomes. However, there remains a gap in our understanding of how open government’s two component dimensions of transparency and participation – “vision” and “voice” – affect governance outcomes, and how they relate to each other within public decision-making. We use a survey experiment to test the impact of transparency and participation on a range of governance outcomes (satisfaction, perception of fairness, and trust) in a municipal decision-making process. The findings show that both transparency and participation positively affect these governance outcomes. However, we do not find support for an interaction effect of transparency and participation. Implications for research and practitioners are discussed. </span></p> Alex Ingrams, Wesley Kaufmann, Daan Jacobs Copyright (c) 2020 Sun, 16 Feb 2020 20:59:55 +0000 Does a business-like approach to diversity in nonprofit organizations have a chilling effect on stakeholders? <p>Despite widespread commitment to promoting diversity in the nonprofit sector, increasing diversity poses a continued challenge for many nonprofits. Even nonprofits with explicit diversity statements often struggle to diversify their organizations. One potential impediment to achieving diversity may result from the framing and communication of diversity values within nonprofits. We evaluate the reactions of hypothetical stakeholders to two forms of diversity framing – instrumental and moral frames – focusing on potential divergence amongst racial-minority and White perspectives. Experiment 1 demonstrates that Black and Latino participants feel marginally more dehumanized and anticipate racial minorities will feel more devalued in an organization espousing the moral (compared to instrumental) diversity frame. In contrast, Whites feel less valued, more dehumanized, and perceive organizations as less authentically dedicated to diversity when viewing an organization that espouses the instrumental (compared to moral) frame. Experiment 2 extends these results demonstrating that Whites who are particularly concerned about their place in future job markets are more likely to feel devalued by instrumental frames to diversity. We discuss how these results diverge from existing findings of similar frames applied to business, rather than nonprofit, contexts. These findings extend our understanding of the implications of outcome-oriented versus moral frames within nonprofit organizations as well as informing understanding of how diversity frames may offer divergent signals to underrepresented and non-underrepresented stakeholders.</p> Ines Jurcevic, Rachel Fyall Copyright (c) 2019 Sun, 01 Dec 2019 18:02:47 +0000