246 9: Th eories of Governance
al. drastically narrow the scope of governance. In operation, their model boils
down to focusing on one dependent variable (agency performance or outcomes)
and is heavily predicated on econometric models employing a specifi c set of input
factors. Regarding its conceptual utility, “the application of governance to public
administration would be improved by narrowing the scope of the subject” (Fred-
erickson 2005, 300).
Others, however, disagree with the notion of repositioning governance within
the fi eld of public administration. Drawing on the writings of Luther Gulick
(1937), Kenneth Meier (2011, S285) calls for complete embrace of governance as
the defi ning concept for the fi eld. Interest groups, nonprofi t organizations, polit-
ical institutions, and both formal and “informal organizations” play critical roles
in the way government provides for its citizens. Frederickson’s regime theory of
governance does not deny the role of such actors; in fact, regime theory, specif-
ically public nongovernmental governance, places particular emphasis on “in-
formal” institutions and institutional development. Th e apparent disagreement
between Frederickson and Meier is not so much a debate as two sides of the same
coin; both agree that the role of governmental and nongovernmental institutions
is critical, and that the future of public service delivery will be characterized by
collaborative relationships between both types of institutions. Instead, Freder-
ickson is attempting to defi ne the limits of governance theory, whereas Meier is
describing the key explanatory variables that will be needed. Th e challenge for
scholars is to merge these two conversations in such a way as to produce a viable
theoretical framework of governance.
Koppell’s work on global governance perhaps provides an important step
in this direction. Like Frederickson, Meier, and many contemporary public ad-
ministration scholars, Koppell (2011) recognizes that the way in which services
are delivered and individual public interests are met is rapidly changing; citi-
zens interact with both public and private institutions that are both domestic
and foreign. Unfortunately, “the pages of our journals feature limited discussion
of the distinctive administrative issues associated with transnational bound-
aries” (S51). As a way forward, Koppell proposes that public administration
move away from the notion that only government can provide public goods.
Instead, scholars should discuss the “publicness” of the good being provided
without any regard to the “governmentalness” of how it is delivered (S52). Th is
argument is similar to that made by Wachhaus (2014, 2012) and Frederickson
(2007), as well as the literature on collaborative governance. Th is more general
argument challenges scholars and practitioners to examine the type of good
being provided, not the source, and most likely will lead to “a more expansive
conceptualization of public administration—one that is empirically and histor-
ically grounded—that accommodates the varied forms and approaches to the
implementation of public policy” (Koppell 2011: S53).
As the line between the public sector and the private sector becomes increas-
ingly blurred and traditional policymaking roles and processes are rearranged or