Keywords
public institutions
expert interviews
Poland
COVID-19
How to Cite
Number of views: 312
Number of downloads: 209
Abstract
This paper discusses a research project that attempted to examine selected public institutions' response strategies to a pandemic. The most important research question of the project was the relationship between the pandemic and innovativeness of the sector of public institutions (understood as the desire to introduce new ways of operating, new inter-institutional links, new patterns of relations with stakeholders, etc., resulting from the knowledge provided to individual institutions by functioning under the conditions of the pandemic). During qualitative research we found that the researched institutions' predominant reaction to the challenges of the pandemic was not an orientation towards innovation but a striving to maintain a mode of functioning that is as similar as possible to that from before the pandemic. The innovations made (transition to remote working, simplification of some administrative procedures) resulted from external pressure to a greater extent and internal reflexivity to a lesser extent. The narratives captured in the study about the everyday life of public institutions during the pandemic have three common elements. First, they all focus less on large and spectacular innovations and more on micro-innovations (not treated as innovation, but understood as dozens of micro-improvements, minimal adjustments to existing routines). Second, they all miniaturize the experience of the pandemic, regarding it as events so extreme as to be useless for designing a better institutional order. Thirdly, all the reconstructed narratives are situated in an institutional zone of in-between, which means that they perceive themselves as a transparent medium fluctuating between the state and society and as a subject without influence on the shape of its own functioning. On the one hand, this would depend on the level of civic culture and, on the other hand, on the policy created at the highest levels of the state.
Funding
This work was supported by the Adam Mickiewicz University [grant no. 28/2020].
References
Agger, A., Sørensen, E. (2018). Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory 17(1): 53–73. doi:10.1177/1473095216672500
Berger, L., Berger, N., Bosetti, V. et al. (2021). Rational policymaking during a pandemic. PNAS 118(4): e2012704118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2012704118
Berger, P.L., Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: The Penguin Press.
Brodkin, E.Z., Majmundar, M. (2008). Organizations and exclusion: an inquiry into bureaucratic proceduralism. National Poverty Center Working Paper Series, University of Michigan. <http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/?publication_id=155&>.
Brol, M. (2013). Racjonalizacja działalności organizacji zbiurokratyzowanych. Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne 61(1): 46–56. <https://repozytorium.uwb.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/11320/630/1/04_Marcin%20BROL.pdf>.
Cohen, S. (2011). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: Routledge.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S120.
CBOS (2020). Komunikat z badań nr 43, kwiecień 2020 – „Zaufanie społeczne”. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo CBOS.
Daniel, J. (2020). Education and the COVID‑19 pandemic. Prospects 49: 91–96.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Learning in the time of COVID-19. Forbes Mar 19, 2020. <https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindadarlinghammond/2020/03/19/learning-in-the-time-of-covid-19/#7693e8967203>.
da Silva, L.A.P. (2020), Green swan 2 – climate change and covid-19: reflections on efficiency versus resilience. The Bank for International Settlements. <https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp200514.htm>.
Diefenbach, T., Todnem, R. (2012). Bureaucracy and hierarchy – what else!?, [in:] T. Diefenbach, R. Todnem (eds.), Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy – From the Bureau to Network Organizations (Research in the Sociology of Organizations 35). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 1–27. doi:10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035003
Drozdowski, R., Frąckowiak, M., Krajewski, M., Kubacka, M., Luczys, P., Modrzyk, A. Rogowski, Ł., Rura, P., Stamm, A. (2020a). Życie codzienne w czasach pandemii. Raport z pierwszego etapu badań. <https://issuu.com/wydzialsocjologiiuam/docs/_ycie_codzienne_w_czasach_pandemii_-_wydzia__socjo>.
Drozdowski, R., Frąckowiak, M., Krajewski, M., Kubacka, M., Luczys, P., Modrzyk, A. Rogowski, Ł., Rura, P., Stamm, A. (2020b). Życie codzienne w czasach pandemii. Raport z drugiego etapu badań <https://issuu.com/wydzialsocjologiiuam/docs/z_ycie_codzienne_w_czasach_pandemii_8a63943c6eb314>.
Drozdowski, R., Krajewski, M. (2008). Wyobraźnia społeczna. Poznań: Wydawnictwo NaukoweUAM.
Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Edelman Trust Barometer (2020). <https://www.edelman.com/trust/2020-trust-barometer>.
Frey, C.B., Chen, C., Presidente, G. (2020). Democracy, culture, and contagion: political regimes and countries responsiveness to Covid-19. Covid Economics 18: 222–238. <https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:06808503-78e4-404f-804f-1f97ab2c7d7e>.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gokmen, Y., Baskici, C., Ercil, Y. (2021). The impact of national culture on the increase of COVID-19: a cross-country analysis of European countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 81: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.12.006
Heywood, P., Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2013). Danger zones of corruption: how management of the ministerial bureaucracy affects corruption risks in Poland. Public Administration & Development 33(3): 191–204. doi:10.1002/pad.1644
Kerres, M. (2020). Against all odds: education in Germany coping with Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education 2: 690–694. doi:10.1007/s42438-020-00130-7
Klimek J. A. (2020). Multi-criteria assessment of the bureaucracy in Poland – the individual decisionmaking aspect. Procedia Computer Science 176: 2434–2444. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.321
Koch, P., Hauknes, J. (2005). On innovation in the public sector – today and beyond, Public Report D20, NIFU Step, Oslo. <http://www.aviana.com/step/publin/reports/d20-innovation.pdf>.
Krajewski, M. (2017). Incydentologia. Warszawa: Fundacja Bęc Zmiana.
Krajewski, M., Frąckowiak, M. (2021). W poszukiwaniu strategii. Działania instytucji teatralnych w czasie pandemii. Raport z badania prowadzonego z osobami kierującymi instytucjami teatralnymi w Polsce. Warszawa: Instytut Teatralny im. Zbigniewa Raszewskiego.
Krajewski, M., Frąckowiak, M., Kubacka, M. et al. (2021). The bright side of the crisis. The positive aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic according to the Poles. European Societies 23: S777-S790. doi:10.1080/14616696.2020.1836387
Krastev, I. (2020). Is It Tomorrow Yet? Paradoxes of the Pandemic. London: Penguin Books.
Kirp, D.L. (1976). Proceduralism and Bureaucracy: Due Process in the School Setting. Stanford Law Review 28(5): 841–876. doi:10.2307/1228146
Margraf, J., Brailovskaia, J., Schneider, S. (2020). Behavioral measures to fight COVID-19: an 8-country study of perceived usefulness, adherence and their predictors. PLoS One 15(12):e0243523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243523
Meier, K.J., Compton, M., Polga-Hecimovich, J. et al. (2019). Bureaucracy and the failure of politics: challenges to democratic governance. Administration & Society 51(10): 1576–1605. doi:10.1177/0095399719874759
Moyson, S., Scholten, P., Weible, C.M. (2017). Policy learning and policy change: theorizing their relations from different perspectives. Policy and Society 36(2): 161–177.
Nowakowski, K. (2008). Wymiary zaufania i problem zaufania negatywnego w Polsce. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 70(1): 213–233.
Nutt, P.C. (2006). Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(2): 289–318. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui041
Onyema, E. M., Nwafor, N.Ch., Obafemi, F.A. et al. (2020). Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic on Education. Journal of Education and Practice 11: 108–121. doi:10.7176/JEP/11-13-12
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65–78. doi: 10.1353/jod.1995.0002.
Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modem Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sanford A.G., Blum D., Smith S.L. (2020). Seeking stability in unstable Times. COVID-19 and the bureaucratic mindset, [in:] J.M. Ryan (ed.), COVID-19. Volume 2: Covid-19: Social Consequences and Cultural Adaptations. London: Routledge: 47–60.
Seibel, W. (2020). Are public bureaucracies supposed to be high reliability organizations? Global Perspectives 1(1): 17643. doi:10.1525/gp.2020.17643.
Sobiech, R. (2017). Zaufanie do władz publicznych. Efekt zaklinania deszczu a instytucjonalizacja nieufności. Zoon Politikon 8: 61–86. doi:10.4467/2543408XZOP.17.003.9262
Spicer, A. (2020). Organizational culture and COVID-19. Journal of Management Studies 57(8): 1737–1740. doi: 10.1111/joms.12625
Stull, D.D., Maynard-Moody, S., Mitchell, J. (1988). The ritual of reorganization in a public bureaucracy. Qualitative Sociology 11(3): 215–233. doi:10.1007/BF00988956
Sztompka, P. (2007). Zaufanie. Fundament społeczeństwa. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak.
Świderski, K. (2021). Biurokratyczne załatwianie spraw. Studia Prawa Publicznego 1(33): 35–53. doi:10.14746/spp.2021.1.33.2
Zajac, G., Comfort, L.K. (1997). “The Spirit of Watchfulness”: public ethics as organizational learning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(4): 541–570. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024365
Weber, M. (1979). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. University of Oakland: California Press.
Weible, C.M., Nohrstedt, D., Cairney, P. et al. (2020). COVID-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sciences 53: 225–241. doi:10.1007/s11077-020-09381-4
License
Copyright (c) 2022 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.