CJUS 745 Quantitative Analysis Report: Nonparametric Tests You will take part in several data analysis assignments in which you will develop a report
Attached below are the instructions, questions and tables for assignment 4. Please read the instructions carefully and answer the questions.
Bible perspectives must be included.
DUE DATE: by 10am on Friday, June 17, 2022. NO LATE WORK!!!!
CJUS 745
Quantitative Analysis Report: Nonparametric Tests Assignment Instructions
DUE DATE: by 10am on Friday, June 17, 2022. NO LATE WORK!!!!
Must include bible perspectives
Assignment #4
Overview
You will take part in several data analysis assignments in which you will develop a report using tables and figures from the IBM SPSS® output file of your results. Using the resources and readings provided, you will interpret these results and test the hypotheses and writeup these interpretations.
Instructions
· Copy and paste all tables and figures into a Word document and format the results in APA current edition.
· Interpret your results.
· Final report should be formatted using APA current edition, and in a Word document.
· 4-5 double-spaced pages of content in length (not counting the title page or references).
The Quantitative Analysis Report: Nonparametric Tests Assignment has two parts and uses the 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (Federal Employee Survey 2018. sav), which you used in a previous module. Load the data set into SPSS.
1. Address the following research question using a nonparametric Mann Whitney U test:
RQ 6: Is there a significant difference in the agreement as to whether the federal agency supervisor provides the employee with opportunities to demonstrate his or her leadership skills (Q43) based on the sex of the employee (DSEX)?
· H06: There is no statistically significant difference in the agreement as to whether the federal agency supervisor provides the employee with opportunities to demonstrate his or her leadership skills (Q43) based on the sex of the employee (DSEX).
· Ha6: There is a statistically significant difference in the agreement as to whether the federal agency supervisor provides the employee with opportunities to demonstrate his or her leadership skills (Q43) based on the sex of the employee (DSEX).
1. Now, perform a nonparametric Mann Whitney U test with:
· sex (DSEX) as your independent variable groups (male=1 and female=2) and;
· Q43 as your dependent variable.
2. Use Cronk and provided resources to interpret the results of the Mann Whitney U test.
3. Click on Analyze, Nonparametric Tests, Independent Samples.
4. Click on use Compare Medians. This is because the dependent variable Q43 is ordinal and not normally distributed.
5. Move Q43 to test Fields box and MSEX to Groups box.
6. Then, Click on Run arrow.
7. The Hypothesis Summary appears. Double click on it and you get the graph and table as well on auxiliary view.
2. Address the following research question using a Kruskal Wallis H test:
RQ 7: Is there a significant difference in the agreement as to whether the federal agency supervisor provides the employee with opportunities to demonstrate his or her leadership skills (Q43) based on the education level of the employee (DEDUC)?
· H07: There is no statistically significant difference in the agreement as to whether the federal agency supervisor provides the employee with opportunities to demonstrate his or her leadership skills (Q43) based on the education level of the employee (DEDUC).
· Ha7: There is a statistically significant difference in the agreement as to whether the federal agency supervisor provides the employee with opportunities to demonstrate his or her leadership skills (Q43) based on the education level of the employee (DEDUC).
1. Now, perform a nonparametric Kruskal Wallis H test with:
· education level of the employee (DEDUC) as your independent variable groups (Less than Bachelor’s=1, Bachelor’s=2, and Beyond Bachelor’s=3) and;
· Q43 as your dependent variable.
2. Use Cronk and provided resources to interpret the results of the Kruskal Wallis H test.
3. Click on Analyze, Nonparametric Tests, Independent Samples.
4. Click on use Compare Medians. This is because the dependent variable Q43 is ordinal and not normally distributed.
5. Move Q43 to test Fields box and MSEX to Groups box.
6. Select Settings tab.
7. In the Settings tab, check Kruskal Wallis test.
8. Then, click on the Run arrow.
9. The Hypothesis Summary appears. Double click on it and you get the graph and table as well on auxiliary view.
General Instructions
As doctoral students, your assignments are expected to follow the principles of high-quality scientific standards and promote knowledge and understanding in the field of public administration. You should apply a rigorous and critical assessment of a body of theory and empirical research, articulating what is known about the phenomenon and ways to advance research about the topic under review. Research syntheses should identify significant variables, a systematic and reproducible search strategy, and a clear framework for studies included in the larger analysis.
Manuscripts should not be written in first person (“I”). All material should be 12-point, Times New Roman type, double-spaced with margins of one inch.
All manuscripts should be clearly and concisely written, with technical material set off. Please do not use jargon, slang, idioms, colloquialisms, or bureaucratese. Use acronyms sparingly and spell them out the first time you use them. Please do not construct acronyms from phrases you repeat frequently in the text.
Structure of Assignment Paper
1. Use the following structure for your research article: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review/Theory, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Include a robust discussion section distinct from your conclusion.
2. Give your article a Title that is both descriptive and inviting to prospective readers. Your article title should appeal to both scholars and practitioners. Use a shortened version of the main idea of your article in the title.
3. Your Abstract should inform readers what your article is about and its most important findings. Readers, including scholars and practitioners, should be able to understand your topic, argument, and conclusions. Make your abstract straightforward and do not use technical language or jargon.
4. In the Lit Review/Theory, cite only literature and theory pertinent to the specific issue and not those that are of only tangential or general significance. When summarizing earlier works, avoid nonessential details; instead, emphasize pertinent findings, relevant methodological issues, and major conclusions. Citation of relevant earlier literature is a sign of scholarly responsibility and it is critical for the growth of a doctoral student in public administration.
5. Methods: The Methods section “describes in detail how the study was conducted, including conceptual and operational definitions of the variables used in the study. Different types of studies will rely on different methodologies; however, a complete description of the methods used enables the reader to evaluate the appropriateness of your methods and the reliability and the validity of your results” (APA current edition). Include a description of your sample size and procedure, participants, how data collected, and research design.
6. Results include data analysis used, results of the analysis including tables and figures.
7. Discussion section includes interpretations from the analysis. How do your analyses relate to the results found by scholars in your lit review/theory section. In this section, evaluate and interpret their implications, especially with respect to your original hypotheses.
8. Provide a distinct Conclusion that tells readers what you found, why it is important, and what difference it will make for research and practice. Ensure you separate your discussion section from the conclusion of the article. Synthesize your article; do not summarize it. Show readers how the pieces of your article fit together. Answer the question “So what?” Why is your article significant, and how is it relevant?
Page 2 of 2
,
Credible Commitment and Council-Manager Government: Implications for Policy Instrument Choices
Author(s): Richard C. Feiock, Moon-Gi Jeong and Jaehoon Kim
Source: Public Administration Review , Sep. – Oct., 2003, Vol. 63, No. 5 (Sep. – Oct., 2003), pp. 616-625
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3110103
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review
This content downloaded from �������������208.95.48.49 on Thu, 02 Jun 2022 20:40:16 UTC��������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Richard C. Feiock
Moon-Gi Jeong Florida State University
Jaehoon Kim Seoul National University of Technology
Credible Commitment and Council-Manager
Government: Implications for Policy
Instrument Choices
The credible constraint of morally hazardous or opportunistic behavior can enhance efficiency. This idea is applied to an examination of local government institutions to identify how council- manager government constrains opportunism in economic development by substituting low-power bureaucratic incentives for high-power electoral incentives. A panel design isolates changes in the
use of development strategies or instruments in 516 cities.
The central argument presented here is that the Progressive ideology of the separation of politics and administration, institutionalized in the council-manager plan, allows administrators and elected
officers to more easily resist opportunistic behavior. Economic and political forces have significant effects that are different for mayor-council communities than for council-manager communities. The influence of strategic planning is evident in council-manager cities, but not in mayor-council communities. Under council-manager government, development is carried out in a discriminating
manner, leading to lower levels of financial incentives but more loan and business-attraction pro- grams. In conclusion, the authors discuss how the career patterns of city managers are shaped by the incentive structures created by the council-manager plan.
Questions about whether and how different forms of
municipal government influence policy choices have oc-
cupied scholars of urban politics and administration for
several decades (Lineberry and Fowler 1967; Ostrom, Bish,
and Ostrom 1988; Ruhil et al. 1999). Much of the theoreti-
cal underpinning of this inquiry derives from the study of
structural reforms introduced by the municipal reform
movement. This article revisits the history of municipal
reform and examines how different forms of governments
influence the incentives of local actors and the problems
of moral hazard and credible commitment.
As in other organizations, governance structures in cit-
ies create incentives for specific behaviors. Some high-
power incentives produce benefits that can be realized
directly by decision makers. In markets, high-power in- centives lead to innovation and enhanced productivity as
entrepreneurial leaders respond to profit motives
(Williamson 1988). Nevertheless, high-power incentives
Richard C Feiock is a professor and director of the doctoral program at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, and he directs the local governance program at the DeVoe L. Moore Center at Florida State Univer- sity. He is coauthor of Institutional Constraints and Policy Choice (SUNY Press) and has published widely on issues of local government and governance. Email: [email protected]
Moon-Gi Jeong is a PhD student at the Askew School of Public Administra- tion and Policy and a DeVoe L. Moore graduate fellow. His interests are state and local economic development, regulation, and public finance. Email: [email protected]
Jaehoon Kim is an associate professor of public administration at Seoul
National University of TechnolTy and a visiting scholar at the Askew School of Public Administration and Poicy. His interests are economic development policy, intergovernmental relations, and public budgeting and financial man- a ement. He has published articles in various journals, including the Journal oXPublic Administration Research and Theory and Korean Puglic Adminis- tration Review. Email: jikI [email protected]
616 Public Administration Review * September/October 2003, Vol. 63, No. 5 This content downloaded from
�������������208.95.48.49 on Thu, 02 Jun 2022 20:40:16 UTC�������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
in government may lead to political opportunism and rent
seeking as actors seek private gain through public ad- ministration (Frant 1996; Feiock and Kim 2001). Many
Progressive Era municipal reforms were intended to elimi-
nate the corruption of machine party politics, often by
reducing politicians' ability to deliver particularistic ben-
efits. Reform proposals limited elected officials' ability
to reward supporters and to punish opponents (Frant 1993;
Knott and Miller 1987). From a transaction-cost perspec-
tive, these measures were institutional changes that re-
placed high-power incentives with low-power incentives
(Frant 1996).
Progressive Era reforms sought to improve administra-
tive efficiency and to break the influence of partisan poli-
tics on local decisions (Ostrom, Bish, and Ostrom 1988).
The key municipal reform proposal was the council-man-
ager form of government, in which an elected council and
its employee-the manager-have distinct responsibilities that separate the articulation of policy from its execution.
Recent findings drawn from several policy areas suggest
the institutional rules of the game in reform governments
create low-power incentives that emphasize citywide is- sues and constituencies and enhance the role of profes-
sional expertise in informing public decisions (Clinger-
mayer and Feiock 2001; Feiock and Kim 2001; McCabe
and Feiock 2001).
The Transaction Cost of Local Governance The form of government embodied in the city charter
operates as a constitutional contract that determines the
transaction costs experienced by various actors and inter-
ests in their efforts to influence public choices (Maser 1985,
1998; Miller 1985). Centralized organizations of all types
are distinguished by the broad powers of their leaders to
intervene in lower-level decisions (Milgrom and Roberts
1990). Political intervention in policy and administrative affairs has been a primary concern of reformers because it
can undercut the security of property rights and contract
enforcement (Clingermayer and Feiock 1997). From the
standpoint of business, developers, service suppliers, or other external actors, the uncertainty resulting from politi-
cal opportunism makes entering into relationships with local government risky. Elected officials who are wary of displeasing contending coalitions or alliances of constitu- ents may not be able to make credible commitments to important stakeholders. This is a problem of commitment because government leaders themselves wish to be pub- licly constrained from interventions that may promote their short-term electoral interests, but which harm the commu- nity and their electability in the long term. Constraining themselves ahead of time is a positive action that can en- hance efficiency. Paradoxically, the long-run political and
economic benefits to elected leaders are secured only by
denying themselves short-term political gains.
Control of the apparatus of local government can be used
to extract political rents that undermine the efficiency of
government's actions (Olson 1964; Feiock 2002). Princi-
pal-agent approaches argue that efficiency is enhanced when the agent's goals are the same as the principal's. Fol-
lowing Schelling (1960), Miller (2000) argues just the op-
posite: The usefulness of the agent depends on the agent
having preferences and pursuing goals that are quite dif-
ferent from the principal. Managers can best pursue the
interests of citizens and the council by working toward
professional goals rather than the political interests of the
voters and the council.
There is a value to citizens in a democracy in hiring
public managers who have preferences that are dis- tinct from those of citizens themselves. There is a
benefit to be derived from training a body of profes-
sional bureaucrats who are granted a certain degree
of discretion in the exercise of public trust. In the
United States, that discretion has been enhanced by
the Progressive reform prescription which has pro-
vided bureaucrats with a useful myth and protective
ideology. The useful myth is that of the politics/ad- ministration dichotomy, and the protective ideology
is the ideology of neutral professional competence.
Together, these often provide a credible constraint on the efficiency-undermining rent-extraction activi-
ties of those in political power. (Miller 2000, 314)
The city management profession's commitment to pro-
fessional standards and its attachment to the mythology of
neutral competence enhance efficiency because they pro-
vide bureaucrats with political weapons that can help them
fulfill the public trust (Miller 2000, 325). The politics-ad- ministration dichotomy may be no more than a myth, but it
provides a structure for governance that is biased against partisan political interference and in favor of professional values and expertise. This is exactly the message of Lineberry
and Fowler (1967), who argued that reform institutions in- sulate municipal government from private demands.
The council-manager form of government is presumed
to allow for greater consideration of long-term interests, and
therefore encourages long-term development projects, such
as revenue bond-funded infrastructure projects. City man-
agers' actions may also be constrained by professional norms
embodied by organizations such as the International City/ County Management Association (Nalbandian 1989). Con- versely, the incentive structure of mayor-council government
may lead officials to use development policy as a stage to promote personal and political goals. In cities experiencing economic decline, political leaders may maximize electoral support by promoting costly, high-risk development instru- ments such as financial incentives which can provide short-
Credible Commitment and Council-Manager Government 617 This content downloaded from
�������������208.95.48.49 on Thu, 02 Jun 2022 20:40:16 UTC�������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
term political benefits. In general, mayor-council govern-
ment has been regarded as responsive to popular demands
and less likely to insulate local decisions from demands and
pressures in the community (Lineberry and Fowler 1967;
Lyons 1978). Mayor-council government can provide in-
centives for the emergence of narrow issues and constituen-
cies, place constraints on the role of professional expertise
in informing public decisions, and lead local officials to be
more attuned to political credit-claiming opportunities
(Clingermayer and Feiock 2001; Sharp forthcoming).
The Roots of Municipal Reform The municipal reform movement of the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries left an indelible mark on lo-
cal government structure. The origin of municipal reform
dates back to the early days of the Progressive movement
(Hofstadter 1956). One target of the Progressives was elec-
toral influence on bureaucracies, which was linked to in-
efficiency and corruption. The movement to reform gov-
ernment introduced a number of changes designed to
professionalize local government. The crown jewel of mu-
nicipal-level Progressive reform was the institution of the
council-manager form of government.
Progressive reform efforts were rationalized as a re-
sponse to the widespread corruption created by the patron-
age of urban political machines. The system of patronage
politics can be traced to the Andrew Jackson administra-
tion and reached its peak toward the end of the nineteenth
century. Groups that had been systematically excluded from
the political arena coalesced and mounted full-fledged at-
tacks against patronage politics (Shefter 1994). The Na-
tional Civil Service Reform, formed in the late 1800s,
played a major role in influencing the development and
passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883. These efforts laid
the foundation for the next generation of reformers-the
Progressives, who directed their attention to the local level.
Efficiency was the theme of the Progressives; they
sought to make local governments more efficient and pro-
fessional. Revisionist historians, particularly Richard
Hofstadter and Samuel P. Hays, argued the Progressive
movement was led by elite, upper-class men of old wealth
who had lost power after the Industrial Revolution, when
newly rich corporate leaders allied themselves with the
urban political-machine bosses. Progressivism, in short, was "led by men who suffered from the events of their
time not through shrinkage in their means but through the changed pattern in the distribution of deference and power" (Hofstadter 1956, 135).
At the local level, the principal change in government institutions promoted by reformers was the replacement
of the mayor-council form of executive government with
the council-manager plan. A common set of municipal re-
forms was proposed in an effort to create a "nonpolitical,
essentially technical organization and management"
(Knott and Miller 1987, 3). Municipal reformers believed
the best candidates for administrative positions would be
those with professional training and technical experience.
Council-manager plans essentially abolished the political position of the mayor. Instead, professional administra-
tors were hired by municipalities to conduct the daily ex-
ecutive decisions to operate the city. If the position of the
mayor was not completely eliminated, the mayor was re-
duced to little more than a ceremonial figurehead by mak-
ing the mayor a part-time position and reducing the vot-
ing power of the mayor. Other municipalities also changed their method of electing mayors, so that the city council
members were entrusted to select the mayor rather than
relying on direct election.
In 1912, Sumter, South Carolina, became the first city
to adopt the council-manager plan. Over the next two de-
cades, Progressive reformers succeeded in changing the
forms of government in hundreds of cities across the coun-
try (Karning and Welch 1980; Ruhil et al. 1999). While the municipal reform movement originated in the North-
east, the movement had its most significant impact in the
Southwest. The Progressives had some success in the
Northeast, but it was in the racially and economically ho-
mogeneous West and Southwest that their goals of profes-
sional public management were most fully realized. Ur-
ban scholars' focus on the reform attempts in the urban
settings of the Northeast, to the neglect of other regions, may have led them to underestimate the true impact of the
Progressive movement (Bridges 1997).
Opportunism and Local Economic Development
Economic development presents a policy arena in which
high transaction costs can create a barrier to efficiency,
and high-power political incentives are likely to be present.
Evaluations of economic development programs report
some success in attracting new firms and investment, but
these efforts often do not substantially improve employ- ment opportunities in a community (Feiock 1991). This
has been especially true for financial incentives, which often
are criticized as zero-sum (or negative) transfers or as cor-
porate welfare. This raises a question: Why do so many
cities aggressively pursue development programs despite their failure to generate jobs? Empirical research suggests the answer lies in political opportunism. In cities that face a loss of population or jobs, development policy provides opportunities for elected officials to use certain policy in- struments that allow them to visibly reward loyal constitu-
ents or to solidify political support (Wolman 1988;
Clingermnayer and Feiock 2001).
618 Public Administration Review * September/October 2003, Vol. 63, No. 5 This content downloaded from
�������������208.95.48.49 on Thu, 02 Jun 2022 20:40:16 UTC�������������� All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
While the form of government is often included as a
variable in explanatory models of development policy
(Fleischmann, Green, and Kwong 1992; Neiman and
Fernandez 1996; Neiman and Lewis 2001), the extant work
does not adequately capture whether council-manager gov-
ernments insulate citizens from high-power incentives, for
two reasons. First, most research treats institutional effects
as additive rather than interactive. This specification masks
the mediating role of institutions in shaping responses to
political and economic forces. Second, the literature often
does not differentiate among the policy development in-
struments that are employed. This is critical because some
instruments (such as financial incentives) provide much
greater potential for opportunistic behavior. Each of these
issues will be discussed in turn.
The Mediating Role of Governance Institutions
Rather than directly determining policy and adminis-
trative choices, the form of government influences devel-
opment decisions through its influences on incentives-
and thus the propensity to respond to political and economic
changes in a morally hazardous manner. Reformed gov-
ernment structures are expected to attenuate the relation-
ship between certain economic conditions, administrative
organizations, and economic development activity-an in-
teractive rather than an additive effect. The council-man-
ager form of government has long been viewed as a means
of insulating local decisions from external political pres-
sures (Lineberry and Fowler 1967; Lyons 1978). By insu-
lating development processes, council-manager govern- ments provide local officials an opportunity to respond to
underlying economic problems and to match development
policies to specific needs, rather than simply responding
to political pressures for development. While most scholars have examined the additive effects
of reform institutions, the literature provides limited em-
pirical support for interactive institutional effects on in-
strument choice. Sharp (1991) examines how the form of
government conditions the link between fiscal stress and
the number of financial-incentive programs offered by de-
velopment agencies. She found that "the pressure to re-
spond to fiscal stress with financial incentives and the adop-
tion of many development strategies appears to be
negligible in reformed settings [council-manager], but sub- stantial in unreformed settings [mayor-council]" (1991, 142). However, her conclusions are based on a compari-
son of bivariate correlation coefficients between distress and policies selected under different forms of government which is inadequate for evaluating conditional relationships
(Wright 1976; Aiken and West 1991). Sharp's recent work
on local morality policies examines multivariate relation-
ships between issue characteristics and policy responses
separately for communities with city managers and may-
ors (Sharp forthcoming). She finds that the more politi-
cized character of mayor-council government translates into
outcomes that are responsive to interest-group activism
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.