The DOI matches its Crossref record; 129 of the 129 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Policy Feedback and the Politics of Administration
Abstract
This article surveys the policy feedback framework developed in political science and clarifies its implications for public administration. A feedback perspective encourages us to ask how policy implementation transforms the webs of political relations that constitute governance. Administrators play a key role in shaping the political conditions of bureaucratic performance and the organization of power in the broader polity. At the same time, this perspective underscores that policies are more than just objects of administrative action. Policies are political forces in their own right that can alter key components of administration, including phenomena such as organizational capacity, structures, routines, authorities, motivations and cultures. These sorts of administrative themes have received little attention in policy feedback research, just as the political effects of policies have been overlooked in public administration studies. Bridging these perspectives offers a basis for exciting new agendas and advances in public administration research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
Gioia, D. A., Mehra, A., & Weick, K. E. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259169 · Cited by 15,614
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Sufrin, S. C., & Olson, M. (1966) · Industrial and Labor Relations Review · doi:10.2307/2521228 · Cited by 11,518
Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies
Perry, J., & Kingdon, J. W. (1985) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.2307/3323801 · Cited by 11,225
Organizational Culture and Leadership
Tierney, W. G., & Schein, E. H. (1986) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258322 · Cited by 9,601
Agendas, alternatives, and public policies
Kingdon, J. W. (1984) · Cited by 9,299
Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services
Lipsky, M. (1981) · Michigan Law Review · doi:10.2307/1288305 · Cited by 8,981
Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics
Pierson, P. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2586011 · Cited by 8,094 · cited 2×
“But they are political insofar as they entail phenomena such as power relations, authority structures, ideological commitments, rights and obligations, and decisions regarding “who gets what, when, how” (Lasswell 1936).”
BackgroundPolyarchy: Participation and Opposition.
Ericson, J. E., & Dahl, R. A. (1972) · American Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2711442 · Cited by 7,203
Cited by
Bringing political science back into public administration research
Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2022) · Governance · doi:10.1111/gove.12705 · Cited by 93
Not my debt: the institutional origins of Robodebt
Priergaard, J. (2025) · Australian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12658 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Moynihan, D. P., & Soss, J.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-04-16
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 320-332
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2157653962
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 129
- FWCI
- 37.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Policy Feedback and the Politics of Administration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/puar.12200
- The paper
- Moynihan, D. P., & Soss, J. (2014). Policy Feedback and the Politics of Administration. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12200
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.