The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy
Abstract
Scholars have devoted increasing attention to similarities and differences between public and private organizations. This paper critiques the comparative literature on these organizations in order to assess the usefulness of the public-private distinction in organization theory and concludes that further analysis of this distinction is valuable. Several avenues for improving research are suggested, including clarification of the categories through an extension of previous conceptions, and assessment of a proposed typology of subcategories across the public-private continuum.
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
The New Economics of Organization
Moe, T. M. (1984) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110997 · Cited by 1,974
Cited by
Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators
Damanpour, F. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256406 · Cited by 6,542
The antecedents of deinstitutionalization
Oliver, C. (1992) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069201300403 · Cited by 1,746
Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.145 · Cited by 739
Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter?
Wright, B. E. (2007) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00696.x · Cited by 391
Validating a Scale for Citizen Trust in Government Organizations
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Knies, E. (2017) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852315585950 · Cited by 366
Dynamic Capabilities in Public Organizations: A literature review and research agenda
Piening, E. P. (2013) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.708358 · Cited by 270
Sustainable procurement in Malaysian organizations: Practices, barriers and opportunities
McMurray, A. J., Islam, M. M., Siwar, C., & Fien, J. (2014) · Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management · doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2014.02.005 · Cited by 151
Loyens, K., & Maesschalck, J. (2010) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399710362524 · Cited by 142
Leadership in the Administrative State: The Concept of Administrative Conservatorship
Terry, L. D. (1990) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/009539979002100401 · Cited by 71
Handbook of Research on Artificial Intelligence in Government Practices and Processes
(2022) · Advances in Electronic Government, Digital Divide, and Regional Development · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-9609-8 · Cited by 18
Resource Dependence Patterns and Organizational Behavior/Structure in Korean Nonprofit Organizations
Seo, J. (2016) · Nonprofit Management and Leadership · doi:10.1002/nml.21235 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1988-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 182
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145817486
- Cited by
- 911
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.19
- 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
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.
