Promoting understanding of quality in the context of good governance can be a challenging classroom exercise not only because of the potential for hijacking politicization of the discussion, but also because of the variety of ways in which public sector goals can be defined, even in the context of a single policy. Standards of quality in the present in the contemporary practice of public administration include many words beginning with “E” in the English language. Employing the “E’s are Good” taxonomy helps communicate different aspects of good governance to students in public administration and policy courses. In this article, literature surrounding the public sector standards of quality is reviewed using this framework. Examples of discussion of the E concepts drawn from legislative discourse surrounding Canadian health and social policy designed are then considered as an empirical case study.
AdamsGB (1992) Enthralled with modernity: The historical context of knowledge and theory development in public administration. Public Administration Review52(4): 363–373.
2.
AdamsGBalfourD (2009) Unmasking administrative evil. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
3.
AlfordJ (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public Administration Review62(3): 337–346.
4.
BaileySK (1964) Ethics and the public service. Public Administration Review24(4): 234–243.
5.
BainesD (2004) Pro-market, non-market: The dual nature of organizational change in social services delivery. Critical Social Policy24(1): 5–29.
6.
BarzelayMArmanjaniBJ (1992) Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
7.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (2010) Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BehnR (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
9.
BoxRC (1999) Running government like a business. The American Review of Public Administration29(1): 19–43.
10.
BreretonMTempleM (1999) The new public service ethos: An ethical environment for governance. Public Administration77(3): 455–474.
11.
BumstedJM (2011) A history of the Canadian peoples. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
ChristensenTLaegreidP (2011) Complexity and hybrid public administration – Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review11(4): 407–423.
13.
CooperTL (1987) Hierarchy, virtue and the practice of public administration: A perspective for normative ethics. Public Administration Review47(4): 320–328.
14.
DahlRA (1947) The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review7(1): 1–11.
15.
DenhardtRBDenhardtJV (2000) The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review60(6): 549–559.
16.
DunleavyPHoodC (1994) From old public administration to new public management. Public Money and Management14(3): 9–16.
17.
FischerF (1995) Evaluating public policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
18.
FredericksonG (2005). The state of social equity in American public administration. National Civic Review94(4): 31–38.
19.
FredericksonHG (1990) Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review50(2): 228–237.
20.
FredericksonHG (1996) Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration. Public Administration Review56(3): 263–270.
21.
GoodenSPortilloS (2011) Advancing social equity in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 21: 61–76.
22.
GostickAEltonC (2009) The carrot principle: How the best managers use recognition to engage their people, retain talent, and accelerate performance. New York, NY: Free Press.
23.
GrayAJenkinsB (1995) From public administration to public management: Reassessing a revolution?Public Administration73(1): 75–99.
24.
GregoryRJ (1999) Social capital theory and administrative reform: Maintaining ethical probity in public service. Public Administration Review59(1): 63–75.
25.
GrissomJANicholson-CrottyJNicholson-CrottyS (2009) Race, region and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review69(5): 911–919.
26.
HartDK (1974) Social equity, justice and the equitable administrator. Public Administration Review34(1): 3–11.
27.
HansenMB (2011) Antecedents or organizational innovation: The diffusion of new management into Danish local government. Public Administration89(2): 285–306.
28.
HoodC (1991) A public management for all seasons?Public Administration69(1): 3–19.
29.
IococcaL (2008) Where Have All the Leaders Gone?Chicago, IL: Scribner Publishers.
30.
KettlDF (2002) Interpreting American politics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
LandauM (1969) Redundancy, rationality, and the problem of duplication and overlap. Public Administration Review29(4): 346–358.
32.
LaneJE (1997) Public sector reform: Rationale, trends and problems. London: SAGE.
33.
LevinJTadelisS (2010) Contracting for government services: Theory and evidence from U.S. cities. The Journal of Industrial Economics58(3): 507–541.
34.
MartinDM (1998) The fading legacy of Woodrow Wilson. Public Administration Review48(2): 631–636.
35.
MoeRCGilmoreRS (1995) Rediscovering principles of public administration: The neglected foundation of public law. Public Administration Review55(2): 135–146.
36.
MooreMH (1995) Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
OstromVOstromE (1971) Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review31(2): 203–216.
38.
PerryJLWiseLR (1990) The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review50(3): 367–373.
39.
PetersBGPierreJ (1998) Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8(2): 223–243.
40.
PoisterTHHenryGT (1994) Citizen ratings of public and private service quality. Public Administration Review54(2): 155–160.
41.
PollittC (1988) Bringing consumers into performance measurement. Policy and Politics16(1): 77–87.
42.
RiccucciN (2005) Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges. 4th ed. New York, NY: Longman.
43.
RiccucciN (2010) Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
44.
SabatierPAJenkins-SmithHC (1993) Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
45.
SayreWS (1958) Premises of public administration: Past and emerging. Public Administration Review18(2): 102–105.
46.
ScottWRDavisGF (2006) Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47.
SimonHA (1946) The proverbs of public administration. Public Administration Review6(1): 53–67.
48.
SimonHA (1964) Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York, NY: Macmillan.
49.
SpinaS (2013) Addressing remnants of the past: Proactive responses to equity in public administration. State and Local Government Review42(2): 98–107.
50.
StillmanRJII (1973) Woodrow Wilson and the study of administration: A new look at an old essay. The American Political Science Review67(2): 582–588.
51.
SvaraJH (2001) The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public Administration Review61(2): 176–183.
52.
SwissJE (1992) Adapting total quality management (TQM) to Government. Public Administration Review52(4): 556–562.
53.
The New Oxford American Dictionary. Available at: www.oed.com (accessed 5 January 2015).
VigodaE (2002) From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review62(5): 527–540.
56.
WalshK (1994) Quality and public services. Public Administration69(4): 503–514.
57.
WilsonW (1887) The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly2: 197–222.
