Managing Boundaries in American Administration: The Collaboration Imperative
Abstract
Boundaries have long played a central role in American public administration. In part, this is because boundaries are central to the administrative process, as they define what organizations are responsible for doing and what powers and functions lie elsewhere. It is also because of the nation’s political culture and unusual system of federalism, in which boundaries have always been the focus of conflict. Five boundaries have historically been important in the American administrative system: mission, resources, capacity, responsibility, and accountability. New forces make managing these boundaries increasingly difficult: political processes that complicate administrative responses, indirect administrative tactics, and wicked problems that levy enormous costs when solutions fail. Working effectively at these boundaries requires new strategies of collaboration and new skills for public managers. Failure to develop these strategies—or an instinct to approach boundaries primarily as political symbolism—worsens the performance of the administrative system.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 42 · Cited by 376
- Authors
- Kettl, D. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kettl, Donald F.
- ORCID
- Kettl, Donald F.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-11-09
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- 10-19
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2127493267
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 36.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Keywords
- administrative boundaries, public administration, collaboration, federalism, responsibility boundaries, accountability, wicked problems, indirect administration, political process, administrative performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review