Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Teaching public management to undergraduate students is challenging. This paper examines one such attempt: to explain public management to undergraduate political science students enrolled in an introductory public administration course. In recent decades, much has been written about managing the public sector more like a business and less like a government. Government management is generally termed wasteful and paper focuses less on how to teach public management in the public interest to undergraduates and more on what should be taught about public management in the public interest. In order to accomplish this goal the paper does three things: 1) it defines public management, 2) describes several competing theories of public management, 3) explains how the New Public Service is applied to various public management situations and realities, and 4) offers conclusions and implications for teaching and research in public management.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper reports on a new effort at Gallup to revive what Daniel Yankelovich characterized as The Volatility Index. It includes a measuring six issues on a modified (and newly termed) "Public Judgment Index" (named in honor of Yankelovich's book, Coming to Public Judgment, where he outlined his concepts more fully). Results here will be compared the results of related work at Gallup, reported last year by Moore and Jones, as "directive vs. permissive" public opinion.

Background

In the late 1970s, Yankelovich and Time were concerned about the volatility of public opinion, especially on foreign policy issues. They felt that such volatility undermined the credibility of public opinion polling, but they also felt that volatility does not always characterize public opinion. "People's views are most volatile when an issue is new or when it is so rife with conflict that they avoid coming to grips with it," wrote Yankelovich.1 So, Yankelovich and Time "agreed that it would be a service to readers to distinguish between public views that were firm and stable and views (on which foreign policy decision could be securely grounded) and views that were unstable and mushy."

After more than two years of research, including an extensive literature search, a series of small-scale laboratory experiments, and a specially designed national survey, Yankelovich produced a Volatility Index, unofficially referred to as a "mushiness index." The elements of the Volatility Index were published in the April/May 1981 edition of Public Opinion.2 Despite the considerable effort put into the project, Yankelovich later ruefully admitted that "sad to say...nothing happened. To my knowledge, the volatility index has never been used, not even by Time magazine, whose support and stated interest in improving the reporting of public opinion was made evident in many ways....3
Yankelovich was concerned to distinguish "mass opinion" (poor quality public opinion, characterized by inconsistency, volatility, and non-responsibility) and "public judgment" (good quality public opinion, characterized by stability, consistency, and responsibility).
Current Research
This paper will discuss how a modified Public Judgment Index (PJI) might be more acceptable than the original version, and it will present the results of a poll that measures six issues on the PJI. The paper will also address the question of whether opinion results should be presented routinely on the basis of a subset of Americans -- those who score high enough on the PJI to be classified as having a "high degree" of judgment. This would distinguish "mass public opinion" from the "public judgment." The rationale for reporting on such a subset can be linked to the "likely voter" models, typically used by polling organizations before elections to report results based only on a "relevant" population.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This study attempts to explore national determinants of world governments’ Web public diplomacy interactivity, which presumably promotes effective public diplomacy and international public relations to some extent, by content-analyzing the 191 UN-affiliated countries’ public diplomacy Web sites. Based on the result, it is revealed that nation-states’ economic scale and level of social freedom are significant determinants of their level of Web public diplomacy interactivity, whereas their political system is not. Implications and suggestions for future studies are presented as well.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: C. Wright Mills called for a sociology that helped people understand the complex social forces influencing their lives. Social inequality was one of his driving concerns. In this paper, we look at how the use of public funding for new professional sports stadiums is a prime example of the need for a public sociology. Approximately $10 billion of public money have gone toward sports stadiums since the 1980s (Keating, 1999), while urban areas suffer through rising inequality and inadequately funded social services. We argue that “local growth coalitions” are a driving force to build new stadiums with public money, even in the face of evidence that it is not a particularly wise investment. Stadium building has become part of the accepted “growth strategy” of many local growth coalitions in their efforts to revitalize cities. We suggest this policy is misguided and may contribute to rising inequality.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This project attempts to explain levels of public support for increases in state cigarette taxes. Existing models of policy making expect that support for policy proposals is at least somewhat linked to expectations of the efficacy of the policy. At a minimum, this project tests that hypothesis by addressing the link between support for a cigarette tax increase and expectations that such an increase will reduce smoking. However, cigarette taxes are not merely public health regulations. They are also public finance tools, and can serve as a reliable revenue stream for a state government. The second question this project thus addresses is: does support for a cigarette tax increase diminish, even amongst those who expect the tax to reduce smoking, if the revenue is to be used for the general fund (rather than, say, a public health or anti-smoking program)? In other words, do cigarette taxes have to be justified as public health policies in order to secure public support, or are expectations of effectiveness in reducing smoking sufficient? Data for the project have already been collected, via a survey of 1,950 adults in the state of Iowa, conducted in 2006.