Scholars in public administration now recognize three levels of analysis: macro, meso, and micro. But there is uncertainty about the relationship between levels and concern about a “schism” in research. However, linkages between levels can be demonstrated easily. At the macro-level, leaders develop an overall strategy for pursuing national priorities, which determines the broad architecture of the state. Institutions must be built, renovated, or managed to give effect to these strategies: This is the meso-level of public administration. Overall, strategies also shape the micro-level relationship between people who rule and people who are ruled. This is done by categorizing people—as subjects or citizens, for example—and by redefining categories. Macro-level strategies evolve, with consequences for the agenda at the meso- and micro-levels. Experience at lower levels also shapes strategy at the macro-level. The interaction among levels is illustrated by comparison of three eras in modern American history.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alasdair Roberts (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: