The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

Presentation of
Presentation of a school of a school of
government model through a government

comparative study of
selected schools
Mohammad Abdolhosseinzadeh Received 18 May 2019
Revised 16 September 2019
Department of Decision-making and Policy making, 3 December 2019
Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran, and Accepted 8 December 2019

Mahdi Abdolhamid
Department of Management and Philosophy of Science and Technology, Iran
University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to promote governance quality by presenting a school of
government model.
Design/methodology/approach – To this end, seven schools were selected from among 25 outstanding
existing schools of government by purposive sampling. Subsequently, these schools were carefully examined
and categorized into primary and support processes through a comparative study and the categorical content
analysis approach.
Findings – The resulting four primary processes of education, research and agenda-setting, discourse-
making and networking, and training and cadre-building, and the five sub-systems of schools of government
were extracted. The outputs of the school of government model were classified into the three categories of
training cadres experienced in public policy and administration, discourse-making and influencing the
environment and theorizing. Finally, the extracted categories were approved by the relevant experts through
the fuzzy Delphi method.
Originality/value – This paper can contribute to the training of policymakers and policy researchers, as
well as to the establishment, and more effective management, of schools of government.
Keywords Public policy, Governance, Education, School of government, School of public policy
Paper type Research paper

Introduction and statement of the problem

School of government or governance is a term used to refer to schools and think tanks
engaged in the field of public affairs, international affairs and public policy. Schools of
government, as one of the most important actors in the field of public policy, contribute to
policy integrity in the formulation, implementation and evaluation, and underpin the
agenda-setting and implementation of integrity policies in the targeted policymaking
system. The school of government can be viewed as a place for education, research and
discourse-making in the science of public policy and public administration to identify,
prioritize and solve public problems. Schools of government are organized to effect change
and improvement in their environment through cadre-building, systematization and Kybernetes
discourse-making in the context of governance promotion. Therefore, they should have a © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
very close and strong connection with the science of public policy and public administration. DOI 10.1108/K-05-2019-0328
K Schools of government are independent institutions, which train rulers and conduct
multi-disciplinary applied research with the aim of influencing the real process of public
policy and promoting governance quality (Dunn and Rand Corporation, 1975). These
schools are interested in a wide range of policy issues and seek to solve public problems by
taking advantage of a variety of specializations and from a comprehensive and
multidisciplinary viewpoint (Mahbubani, 2013). The school of government is a place for the
education and training of students interested in policy and public administration
[Development Policy Centre (Crawford School of Public Policy), 2010, p. 2]. Policy
researchers at schools of government should integrate new sets of analytical skills in
relation to learning, negotiation and mediation; in other words, in addition to providing
policy advice to policymakers, they should help reinforce the design and implementation of
policies. (Allison, 2008). Research conducted at schools of government focuses on practical
solutions to public problems (School of Government and International Relations, 2015).
For a systematic study of the issues of government and governance, it is necessary to
establish schools of government in every country. In this regard, the present study is
designed to identify sub-systems, activities and components, and finally, the school of the
government model. This is qualitative exploratory research based on the following question:
“What is the school of government model?” To answer this question, it uses a comparative
study of the renowned schools selected from around the world.
For this purpose, secondary resources were first reviewed and a number of generalities
were obtained about the school of government. Next, schools of government around the
world were identified and seven renowned and influential schools of government were
selected by purposive sampling. Subsequently, the sub-systems, components and elements
of the selected schools of government were extracted using the content analysis method.
Finally, the results of the content analysis, elements and components were evaluated by
experts using the fuzzy Delphi method.

Significance of the research

Today’s complex problems require policymakers who understand the depth of the
complexities and are able to address them. Schools of government seek to focus on the depth
of the issues and adopt decisions based on a strategic vision and profound theories
(Mahbubani, 2013, p. 43). Policymaking in today’s complicated world requires experts and
up-to-date specialized information. One cannot prevail in sophisticated economic, social and
cultural conditions without specialized tools and knowledgeable and competent human
resources (Cappe, 2015, p. 17). Schools of government enable the creation of applied
knowledge focused on governance and administration. What is formulated and presented at
schools of management, political science and economics are not focused on solving the
entirety of the state problem, rather it focuses on certain parts of the problem. This
fragmented approach often leads to a fragmented understanding and perceptual deficits.
In the USA and other developed countries, a multitude of prestigious centers are
responsible for connecting public policy knowledge and proposed policies to policymakers;
schools of government are the most important of these centers. Accordingly, these centers
constantly seek to enhance their relationship with the government, thus increasing their
influence over government agendas. As Alison points out, one way of influencing
governments is to obtain executive and advisory positions in the government. It should also
be noted that these centers function as shadow governments that avoid the controversy of
policy implementation and focus exclusively on comprehending public policy and providing
solutions to public problems (Cappe, 2015).
 Many policy analysts are present in schools of government. These analysts work for Presentation of
governments or groups that are directly affected by public policies and focus on policy a school of
testing. Schools of government may have specific political orientations under the influence government
of their financial supporters; however, they typically have some degree of autonomy.
Schools of government are generally interested in the practical aspects of policies and prefer
to focus on policy implications or consequential tools and techniques (Mahbubani, 2013).
In short, the following highlight the necessity of establishing schools of government:

Formulation of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary theories of governance and
administration, and the integration of literature on various disciplines.

Establishment of a synthetic policymaking methodology community through the
reconciliation of quantitative and qualitative analysts based on the thesis, antithesis
and synthesis triad.

Establishment of the process of policy package formulation with various
considerations related to policymaking.

Promotion of governance health and quality.

Enabling policy testing and simulation prior to implementation.

Providing systematic solutions to complicated problems, including socio-economic,
political, cultural and administrative problems.

Scientific and specialized focus on the issue of governance and administration,

Accountability for the consequences of policy advice offered and providing
appropriate social feedback.

Mediation in the public policy system between universities and the policy
implementation environment.

Training staff experienced in public policy and administration.

Literature review
School of government
The school of government is a place to train and educate the students interested in the fields
of policy and public administration [Development Policy Centre (Crawford School of Public
Policy), 2010]. The main approach in schools of government is to view policies as a cycle of
problem-solving efforts consisting of repeated problem analysis and review of solutions.
The School of Public Administration is another term used in some countries such as Greece
for schools of government (Vernardakis, 1994, p. 1487). By emphasizing a set of fundamental
principles, schools of government seek to apply innovative thinking to improve the
performance of the government through education, research and participation (Blavatnik
School of Government, 2016).
The establishment of schools of government has a close relationship with the
establishment of public administration and public policy as academic disciplines. Therefore,
to describe the historical background to the establishment of schools of government, one
must consider the background to the establishment of these disciplines. The establishment
of the first school of public administration can be attributed to Woodrow Wilson’s early
efforts at the White House and later at a Princeton University college. He began his work
with an article entitled “The Study of Administration” in 1887 (Wilson, 1887). In the decades
following the World War II, policy analysts were trained in schools of government through
K case studies, workshops, simulations and real-world projects by people many of whom are
now present in bureaucracies and research institutes (Yates, 1977).
The investigation of government and administration’s actions and practices began in
earnest in the United States and was followed in Canada shortly afterward. At present, these
discussions have become prevalent in Europe, Asia and the developing world. In America,
the main reason the government and administration came under the spotlight was the
exponential increase of government expenditure after World War II and the growth of
military expenditure during the Kennedy administration (1961-1963), which prompted more
scientific approaches to enhance government efficiency (Allison, 2008).
As the US Federal Government grew from the 1960s onwards, it needed a new cadre of
trained analysts (Trow, 1973). In response to this need, prominent universities offered
programs designed to educate students on policy analysis (Crecine, 1971). The growth of the
science of public administration in America was evident in the development of educational
institutions. First, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs was founded at
Syracuse University in 1924. In 1930, the School of Public and International Affairs was
founded at Princeton University and was later renamed Woodrow Wilson School. The
Graduate School of Public Administration was founded in 1936 at Harvard University,
which was later renamed Kennedy School of Government. This school specializes in the
review of government and governance issues with a public affairs and public policy
approach. The Columbia School of International and Public Affairs was established in 1946.
The Goldman School of Public Policy was founded in 1969 at the University of California,
Berkeley. The University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy was founded in 1988.
This trend has continued ever since in the USA (Cappe, 2015).
In Canada, during the 20th Canadian Ministry in the 1960s, public policy issues came
under increasing scrutiny (Geva-May and Maslove, 2006). In Europe, Oxford University’s
Blavatnik School of Government was established in the UK and the Hertie School of
Governance in Germany. Currently, a number of schools of government have been
established in East Asia, Africa, South America, etc., following the example of American
and European schools of governance.

Governance of the school of government

Over the centuries, colleges and universities have taken a plethora of forms, and complex
decision-making structures have emerged within them to accommodate the various internal
and external constituencies competing (Lane, 2011). To understand and characterize
organizations, academic and otherwise, one should focus on common elements such as
environment, strategy and goals, work and technology, formal and informal structures and
people (Hendrickson et al., 2013). (Table I)

The McKinsey 7S Nadler and Tushman’s congruence Hatch and Cunliffe’s Leavitt’s model, Scott
model, Hayes (2014) model, Scott and Davis (2007, p. 20) (2013, p. 16) model (1997, pp. 15-18)

Strategy Formal organization Culture Behavioral structure

Skills Informal organization Physical structure Normative structure
Style People Social structure People
Table I. Structure Work/technology Technology Goals
The components of Systems Strategy and goals Power Technology
some organizational Staff Environment
models Shared values
Currently, three theoretical models of governance predominate. Multiple centers of decision- Presentation of
making authority cause the common organizational theories unable to completely account a school of
for the academic organizations. Given that there are multiple centers of decision-making government
authority in the academic environments, the models of governance seek to create an accurate
understanding of the academic organizations based on the structural (bureaucratic model),
relational (collegial model) (Millett, 1962) and legislative (political model) considerations.
These governance models provide a useful perspective in understanding the
interrelationship between and among the organizational participants (Hendrickson et al.,
2013) (Table II).

Research methodology
The present research is a comparative study. In comparative studies, subjects are studied in
terms of their common or sometimes contradictory characteristics and attributes.
Comparative studies aim to achieve a guiding model and a benchmark (Newman, 2014,
p. 488). Part of the present study compares and contrasts the differences and similarities
between the selected schools of government. This was done by referring to online databases
and the documents and reports published by the schools in question.
In this research, information and data obtained from the selected schools of government
was analyzed using content analysis. Weber defines content analysis as a method for
obtaining valid and repeatable results from textual data (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 17). In the
present study, content analysis was used using category analysis, whereby the constituent
elements of a set were classified by identifying their differences and then re-coding them
based on the established criteria (Table III). The obtained analysis was validated using the
fuzzy Delphi method.
The present study uses the proposed Delphi method of Ishikawa et al. (1993), which is
one of the most commonly used Delphi fuzzes internationally. The steps that have been
taken to perform the fuzzy Delphi method are including:

Features/University
governance model Political model Bureaucratic model Collegial model

Basic image Political system Hierarchical Professional community

bureaucracy
Basic theoretical Conflict theory Weber’s bureaucratic Human relations approach
foundations Interest group theory model to organizations
Open-systems theory Classical formal Literature on
Community power theory systems model professionalism
Change processes Primary concern Minor concern Minor concern
Conflict Viewed as normal; key to Viewed as abnormal; to Viewed, as abnormal;
analysis of policy be controlled by eliminated in a “true
influence bureaucratic sanctions community of scholars”
Social structure Pluralistic; fractured by Unitary; integrated by Unitary; united by the Table II.
subcultures and diver- the formal bureaucracy “community of scholars A comparison of
gent interest groups
three models of
Legislative. Process. (i.e. Negotiation, bargaining, Rationalistic, formal Shared, collegial decisions
decision-making) and political influence bureaucratic procedures higher education
processes governance
Policy Emphasis on formulation Emphasis on execution Unclear; probably more according to
emphasis on formulation Baldridge (1971)
K Row Text Category

1 The mission of the Hertie School of Governance is to prepare Produce governance and
students for leadership positions in government, business policymaking knowledge
and civil society institutions, to produce knowledge for good
governance and policymaking
2 The School brings together students, faculty, and Internationality approach
practitioners from Europe, North and South America, Asia,
Africa, the Middle East and other world regions and is an
integral part of a network of leading policy schools
3 The placement of students in outside institutions to expose Practice orientation
them to the complexities of modern governance and
policymaking; and the School’s assistance in identifying
opportunities for students upon graduation
4 The Doctoral Programme in Governance does not have Financial support and
tuition costs. To ensure that our PhD students can focus on scholarships
Table III.
their research, we offer a limited number of living-cost
An example of the stipends for excellent candidates
categorical content 5 The Hertie School can offer living cost stipends to two Gifts and general grants
analysis used in this doctoral students: 1,200 EUR/month (including 100 EUR for
research research and traveling) for a period of up to three years

(1) Collecting the ideas of the decision group (Experts); for this purpose, a seven-choice
range of linguistic variables was used. This range was categorized as entirely
inappropriate to a perfectly appropriate.
(2) Conversion of linguistic variables to triangular fuzzy numbers; the method
presented by Klir and Yuan (1995) was used to convert the linguistic variables into
triangular fuzzy numbers. As the different characteristics of individuals affect
their mental interpretation of the qualitative variables, experts have answered the
questions with the same mindset and by defining the range of the qualitative
variable. These variables are defined as triangular fuzzy numbers according to the
table below (Table IV).
(3) Assign the triangular fuzzy number of Tij to each expert; for each criterion, the Tij
is representative of a given expert as follows:


Tij ¼ Lij ; Mij ; Uij

Linguistic variables The corresponding triangular fuzzy number

Perfectly appropriate (9, 10, 10)

Appropriate (7, 9, 10)
Nearly appropriate (5, 7, 9)
Affectless (3, 5, 7)
Nearly inappropriate (1, 3, 5)
Inappropriate (0, 1, 3)
Table IV. Entirely inappropriate (0, 0, 0)
Triangular fuzzy
numbers of linguistic Note: aLinguistic variables and triangular fuzzy numbers form the basis of the method presented by Klir
variablesa and Yuan (1995) and are the same as the ones used by Chen (2000)
 In which the following cases can be considered: Presentation of
Lij = Min {Lij}Vj: Minimum values of expert opinions; and a school of
Uij = Max {Uij}Vj: Maximum values of expert opinions.
government

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Mij ¼n Pni¼1 Mij

Index i refers to the expert i, and the index j refers to the criterion j, so that:
Xij, is the assessment value of the expert i in the criterion j (i = 1, 2, . . ., n; j = 1, 2,
. . ., m).
The geometric mean of Mij in a triangular fuzzy number is used to refer to the
agreement of the expert’s group about each criterion. Maximum and minimum values
of expert opinions are used as two endpoint of triangular fuzzy numbers. It should be
noted that the maximum and minimum values of the experts’ views do not represent
the entire range of changes adequately (Mikhailov, 2003) and reduce the accuracy of
the calculations. To overcome this problem in the aggregation of experts’ views, the
geometric mean of the initial and end values were used (Davis, 1994):

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Lij ¼ n Pni¼ 1 Lij

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Uij ¼ n Pni¼1 Uij

(4) Defuzzification. Defuzzification is done with a simple center of gravity point

formula:

Lij þ 4Miij þ Uij

Sij ¼
6

(5) A threshold value a has been selected to screen inappropriate factors:

The effective factor is accepted if: Sij  a.

The effective factor is not accepted if: Sij < a.
Basically, the threshold value will be determined by the decision-makers deduction, and will
directly affect the number of factors that are screened. There is no simple way or general
rule to determine this threshold value. In this study, given the number of propositions, the
number 7 was considered as the threshold value.
Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the reliability of the test. The obtained alpha
coefficients for each of the calculated variables and dimensions were greater than 0.7 (0.79)
demonstrating the reliability of the questionnaire. The study findings were validated by a
panel of 20 experts in the fields of governance, public policy and public administration using
the fuzzy Delphi method and snowball sampling, and the components and indices of the
school of government model were valued from their point of view. The results of the fuzzy
Delphi method will be presented in the next tables.
K Unit of study and sampling method
The study unit in this research is schools of government, and the sampling technique used is
purposive sampling in which researchers determine the characteristics in the study
population to be used as selection criteria (Newman, 2014, p. 252). Among the 54 identified
schools of governance, 25 schools were selected based on their rankings. Finally, researchers
considered seven schools of government selected through purposive sampling in terms of
the criteria “similarity between the schools”, “oldness”, “reputation and authority” and
“geographical dispersion”, and then, by examining these schools, they extracted the
necessary data and information[1]. For example, the Kennedy School of Government which
is one of the selected schools is the reference and model of the seven other schools of
government, such as the Indonesian School of Government and Public Policy, Federmann
School of Public Policy and Government (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Dubai School of
Government (UAE), Istanbul Policy Center, (Sabanci University), School of Government
Peking University - China, Crawford School of Public Policy (Australian National
University), The Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA), (Seoul National
University). Geographic diversity has also been considered in the selection of schools of
government, and the elected schools of government from the countries and universities
of the Americas and Europe have been selected. The names of the seven elected schools of
government are:
(1) The John F. Kennedy School of Government, (Harvard University) – USA;
(2) The Blavatnik School of Government, (University of Oxford) – UK;
(3) Helms School of Government (Liberty University) – USA;
(4) Bush School of Government and Public Service –USA;
(5) School of Public Policy and Governance (SPPG), (University of Toronto) – Canada;
(6) LSE – The London School of Economics and Political Science (the London School
of Economics or LSE) – England; and
(7) Hertie School of Governance – Germany.

Analysis of the findings

A careful review of the experiences of prominent schools of government in the world and the
extraction of their pivotal concepts and categories through content analysis highlighted the
need to adopt a holistic approach to present the final model. Schools of government, like
other systems, comprise the following components: vision and mission, goals, individual
characteristics, processes and allocation of resources, especially financial resources, to the
establishment and sustainable development of the system.
The processes in schools of government can be assigned to two categories, namely,
primary activities and support activities. The primary activities of schools of government
consist of education, research, agenda-setting, discourse-making and networking and
training and cadre-building. The support activities of schools of government include their
physical structure and architecture, budget allocation system, financial support and
scholarships, social structure and administration and facilities, opportunities and supports.
The outputs of the school of government are threefold: training of a cadre experienced in
public policy and administration, discourse-making and influencing the political
environment and theorizing. The ultimate effect of schools of government is a
transformation of the domestic and international environment.
 primary activities

education system
training of a
cadre
experienced in
public policy
and
administration
research system

discourse- transformation of the domestic and

agenda setting system ,discourse-making and networking making and
influencing the
political
international environment
environment

training and cadre-building system

Objectives of schools
Vision and Mission of schools

Student and faculty community

theorizing
School's physical social structure facilities ,

Establishment and resources of the schools

Admission criteria for professor and student
budget allocation financial support
structure and and opportunities
architecture system and scholarships
administration and supports

Impact

input Out put

supportive activities
a school of
Presentation of

government

School of
Government Model
Figure 1.
K In the following, the components and dimensions of the school of government model are
described in more detail (Figure 1).
One of the most important characteristics of government schools is intelligence. In other
words, these schools should governance as intelligent organizations in the environment to
perform their missions better (Schwaninger, 2019). In the above model, this intelligence and
responsiveness to the environment is considered in inputs, outputs and impacts.

Inputs of the school of government

The analysis of the selected schools of government shows that these schools can be
established in different ways including the following:

Establishment of schools of government by universities: Some universities have
established schools of government to develop a multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary approach and increase their influence in the public sector. For
example, the University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance was
established by the University of Toronto and has considerable influence over the
Canadian domestic affairs and trains international students from around the world.

Establishment of schools of government by universities in collaboration with
foundations and institutions: In this method, the school of government is
established by universities in collaboration with prominent foundations, institutions
and political parties. For example, the Helms School of Government was founded by
Liberty University in collaboration with the Jesse Helms Center. Also, the Kennedy
School of Government was originally established as a result of the collaboration
between the Littauer Foundation and Harvard University.

Establishment of schools of government by foundations and institutions: In this
method, prominent national and international foundations establish schools of
government according to their needs and mission. For example, the Hertie School of
Governance was established by the Hertie Foundation in Germany, and its missions
and functions have been set in line with the foundation’s missions.

Establishment of schools of government by wealthy individuals with political and
economic influence: Schools of government may also be established by wealthy and
philanthropic individuals with specific goals in mind, such as influencing the
national and international landscape. For instance, the Blavatnik School of
Government was founded with the support of Leonard Blavatnik.

Table V presents the goals and missions of the schools of government obtained through the
comparative study and content analysis of the selected schools of government. The results
of the fuzzy Delphi method are also presented in this table.

Primary processes of schools of governance

The primary processes of schools of government are directly related to their philosophy and
mission and play a fundamental role in the realization of their goals and objectives. The
primary processes of an organization are designed and determined based on its ideals,
strategies and missions, and, to achieve those ideals, the organization must carry out
missions and operational processes. The primary processes are closely intertwined, and
defects in any of the primary processes will cause system malfunction and an undesirable
output. The primary processes in schools of government are classified into the four sub-
systems of education, research and agenda-setting, discourse-making and networking, and
training and cadre-building.
 The geometric Geometric Geometric
mean of the mean of the mean of the
The process model lower bound of middle bound upper bound of
dimensions and elements the fuzzy of fuzzy fuzzy Defuzzified
of school of government Components triangular no. triangular no. triangular no. no.

School of Objectives Solving governmental and political problems 8,351 9,121 9,252 9,015
Government and challenges in the domestic and international
Entrances arena
Improving the performance of government and 8,621 9,024 9,302 9,003
public organizations with an interdisciplinary
approach
Creating a better world in which better services 8,514 9,312 9,469 9,205
are provided
Improving the quality of public policies around 8,313 9,104 8,941 8,945
the world
Improving the quality of public services, 8,796 9,135 9,397 9,122
influencing decision-making centers and the
policymaking process in the country and around
the world
Functioning as a scientific research center to 8,983 9,116 9,395 9,140
offer creative solutions to the widespread policy
issues
Missions Increasing innovative and constructive 8,351 8,921 9,202 8,873
cooperation with public organizations and
NGOs
Contributing to the development of national 8,121 9,024 9,302 8,920
plans and policies
Urging government actors to pay more attention 7,914 8,312 9,039 8,367
to public needs and promoting social welfare
Employing its knowledge, expertise and 8,543 9,034 9,231 8,985
academic skills to positively influence the public
policymaking process
(continued)

schools of
Table V.

government
missions of the
The objectives and
a school of
Presentation of

government
 K

Table V.
The geometric Geometric Geometric
mean of the mean of the mean of the
The process model lower bound of middle bound upper bound of
dimensions and elements the fuzzy of fuzzy fuzzy Defuzzified
of school of government Components triangular no. triangular no. triangular no. no.

Offering undergraduate and graduate degree 8,121 9,354 9,452 9,165

programs in public policy, public administration
and governance
Conducting applied and operational research 8,014 9,012 9,139 8,867
projects on policymaking
Conducting criticism and theorizing courses, 8,743 9,034 9,251 9,022
workshops, conferences, meetings, seminars,
symposiums and sessions
Education system Presentation of
In today’s world, the educational function of universities is one of their key functions that a school of
enable knowledge production and transfer and the training of a specialized workforce. One
of the most important prerequisites for designing an effective educational system in schools
government
of government is the mechanism of recruiting lecturers and students. Table VI presents
some of the most important features of the faculty members of the schools of government.
Wildavsky states that policy analysts and students of schools of government should be
scientifically qualified and possess intellectual skills built on collective wisdom such as
persuasion, argumentation, creativity and intuition (Wildavsky, 1976). With regard to
admissions, schools of government prefer students with characteristics and attributes
shown in Table VII.
Classroom teaching and management is one of the most vital functions of any university.
In other words, desirable educational outcomes can be achieved only through efficient and
effective classroom teaching. Educating students who are not isolated from the community
and responsive to the environment is one of the most important aspects of governance
schools. If students are educated regardless of community, they will have a passive
approach to society. Experiential learning and participative approaches should be used to
train students as active citizens (Perko and Mendiwelso-Bendek, 2019). Given the practical
and operational nature of schools of government, different teaching methods are used at
these schools. The teachings should prepare the students for theorizing in the area of
government and administration on the one hand, and equip them with operational and
practical skills to prepare them for leadership positions and policymaking on the other.
Some of the requirements and characteristics of classes and teaching methods at the schools
of government are listed in Table VIII.

Research system
The research system is another component of schools of government defined in line with
school missions. The importance of research in higher education and the fact that effective
education is built on research highlights the necessity of appointing an individual as the
vice-president for research at universities. The research activities or missions of the schools
of government are presented in Table IX.

Agenda-setting, discourse-making and networking system

Agenda-setting, discourse-making and networking are the primary processes exclusive to
schools of government. Schools of government perform their agenda-setting and discourse-
making functions by communicating with and advising policymakers; holding conferences,
seminars and symposiums to convene the elites in each field; active involvement in
associations and important national and international committees; providing policy papers
and policy recommendations to policymakers and decision-makers; visiting the offices of
politicians and holding meetings with them; attending weekly radio programs and
reviewing policy issues; establishing research centers and institutions affiliated with the
school to perform operational tasks such as the Government Performance Lab (2019); and
collaborating with other schools in holding joint courses and conferences. Table X
summarizes activities related to agenda-setting and discourse-making in the schools of
government.
The use of students as teaching assistants, the establishment of an alumni network,
recruitment of honor students as faculty members and training of managers for
employment in major policymaking centers are among the main networking activities of
schools of government.
 K

Table VI.

government
the schools of
features of the
Characteristics and

faculty members of
Schools of government Fuzzy Delphi
The London Geometric mean Geometric
School of of the lower mean of the Geometric mean
Kennedy Economics Blavatnik Toronto Helms bound of the middle bound of the upper
School of and Political School of Bush School Hertie School of School of School of fuzzy triangular of fuzzy bound of fuzzy Defuzzified
Components Government Science Government of Government Governance Governance Government no. triangular no. triangular no. no.

Trustworthiness      8,514 9,312 9,439 9,200

Experience and expertise   8,743 9,034 9,231 9,018
Scientific reputation      8,571 9,214 9,192 9,103
National and international
reputation    8,479 9,236 9,051 9,079
Multidisciplinary
knowledge      8,514 9,312 9,439 9,200
Spirit of public service    8,138 9,101 9,213 8,959
Spirit of leadership     8,889 9,217 9,501 9,210
Experience of
administrative, managerial
and policymaking positions     8,192 9,140 9,098 8,975
 Schools of government Fuzzy Delphi
Geometric
Geometric mean mean of the
of the lower Geometric mean upper bound
Characteristics and Kennedy The London School of Blavatnik Bush School Hertie Toronto Helms bound of the of the middle of fuzzy
attributes of students the School of Economics and School of of School of School of School of fuzzy triangular bound of fuzzy triangular Defuzzified
School of Government Government Political Science Government Government Governance Governance Government no. triangular no. no. no.

Analytical skills     8,541 9,201 9,510 9,143

Decision-making ability      7,984 8,630 8,952 8,576
Strong educational
background        8,189 8,539 8,413 8,460
Spirit of public service      8,240 8,527 9,001 8,558
Ability to solve complicated
issues    8,474 9,131 9,397 9,066
Creativity and innovation in
offering solutions      8,743 9,034 9,231 9,018
Appropriate response in
complex environments    8,439 9,109 9,191 9,011
Graduates of economics, law
and political science    8,571 9,214 9,102 9,088

schools of
Table VII.

government
students of the
attributes of the
Characteristics and
a school of
Presentation of

government
 K

schools of
government
and holding
Table VIII.

classrooms at the
Method of teaching
Method of teaching Schools of government Fuzzy Delphi
and holding The London Geometric mean of
classrooms in Kennedy School of Blavatnik Hertie Helms the lower bound of Geometric mean of Geometric mean of
Schools of School of Economics and School of Bush School of School of Toronto School School of the fuzzy triangular the middle bound of the upper bound of Defuzzified
Government Government Political Science Government Government Governance of Governance Government no. fuzzy triangular no. fuzzy triangular no. no.

Workshop      8,351 9,121 9,202 9,006

Case studies  8,321 9,324 9,392 9,168
Attendance by
politicians, elites
and government
executives    8,634 9,112 9,339 9,070
Visits to policy
centers and offices
of public officials      8,681 9,224 9,392 9,162
An environment
conducive to
collaborative and
group learning and    8,214 9,006 9,439 8,946
Use of advanced
technologies        8,351 9,121 9,202 9,006
 Schools of government Fuzzy Delphi
Geometric Geometric
The London mean of the Geometric mean mean of the
Research activities and Kennedy School of Blavatnik Hertie Toronto Helms lower bound of the middle upper bound
proceedings in schools of School of Economics and School of Bush School of School of School of School of of the fuzzy bound of fuzzy of fuzzy
government Government Political Science Government Government Governance Governance Government triangular no. triangular no. triangular no. Defuzzified no.

Production of new
governance and public policy
knowledge        8,179 9,236 9,001 9,021
Holding conferences,
seminars and workshops to
introduce the latest public
policy theories       8,514 9,312 9,439 9,200
Proposing areas of research
to students and observing
their progress   8,138 9,101 9,213 8,959
Publishing scientific books
and journals with an
international focus     9,089 9,217 9,501 9,243
Conducting applied and
operational research        8,112 9,140 9,098 8,962
Offering research funding
and grants to professors        8,351 9,121 9,202 9,006
Offering research grants to
students under the
supervisors     8,121 9,024 9,302 8,920
Establishment of research
centers and institutions       8,514 9,312 9,439 9,200

the schools of
research system of

government
Specifications of the
a school of
Presentation of

Table IX.
government
 K

Table X.

government
the schools of
Agenda setting and
discourse-making in
Schools of government Fuzzy Delphi
Agenda setting and Kennedy The London School Blavatnik Bush School Hertie Toronto Helms Geometric mean of the Geometric mean of Geometric mean of
discourse-making in the School of of Economics and School of of School of School of School of lower bound of the the middle bound of the upper bound of Defuzzified
school of government Government Political Science GovernmentGovernmentGovernanceGovernanceGovernment fuzzy triangular no. fuzzy triangular no. fuzzy triangular no. no.

Communicating with, and

advising, policymaking
institutions        8,183 9,116 9,295 8,990
Holding conferences,
seminars, and
symposiums to convene
elites in each field        8,241 9,201 9,110 9,026
Active involvement in
associations and important
national and international
committees     7,983 8,630 8,952 8,576
Providing policy papers
and policy
recommendations to
policymakers and
decision-makers        7,189 8,539 8,413 8,293
Visiting the offices of
politicians and holding
meetings with them     7,189 8,539 8,413 8,293
Attending weekly radio
programs and reviewing
policy issues     8,183 8,916 9,295 8,857
Establishing research
centers and institutions
affiliated with the school to
perform operational tasks
and influence society and        8,241 8,853 9,110 8,794
Collaborating with other
schools joint courses and
conferences     7,883 8,630 8,952 8,559
Educational system in schools of government Presentation of
Educational and cultural activities along with instructional activities are an integral part of a school of
academic institutions. Schools of government are not focused just on instructional activities,
rather they include cultural and educational activities in their curricula to exert influence
government
over their students. The measures implemented to educate students at the schools of
government are presented in Table XI.

Support processes in schools of government

Support processes do not deal with the organization’s missions, rather they are meant
to support primary processes. Support activities are non-linear, i.e. they can be performed in
parallel and separately.
Support activities in schools of government are indispensable to the success of primary
activities. It should be noted that support activities do not have a direct impact on the
missions and goals of schools of government; however, they are critical for creating an
appropriate setting for the fulfillment of the main missions. Support processes in schools of
government can be classified into four groups:
(1) Facilities, architecture and physical structure: Support and facilities are essential for
achieving the main goals of schools of government. An architecture based on the national
culture; the proximity of the school to green spaces and nature; amenities such as libraries,
dormitories, study halls, conference halls and rooms and offices for researchers, lecturers
and students; workshops; colors and designs suitable for an educational environment; and
the beautiful landscape around the school (mountains, rivers, green spaces, etc.,) are among
the architectural characteristics of schools of government.
(2) Social structure and administration model: The social structure and administration
models in schools of government are among other support processes in these
schools. Needless to say, leadership and management are among the most vital
support activities in schools of government and contribute significantly to the
realization of their missions and objectives. Administration of schools of
government by a board of directors and the accountability of the manager to the
board of directors are among the most important managerial characteristics and
attributes of schools of government.
(3) Financing and budgeting system: Funding is another important support component
in the administration of schools of government. Relative financial independence
from public funding is a key feature of schools of government. Tuitions; research
contracts; contributions by wealthy and philanthropic donors, alumni and
companies and organizations affiliated with the school; government grants;
endowments; and general gifts and grants constitute the major funding sources of
schools of government.
(4) Financial and academic support system: Allocation of facilities, loans and grants;
reimbursement of travel expenses for attendance at conferences; living allowances;
scholarships; waiver of tuition for eligible students; finding suitable jobs for
students; and professor and student insurance are among the financial and
academic support offered by schools of government.

Achievements and impacts of schools of government

Graduates are the main products of schools of government. Transformation of the domestic
and international environment and social and public value creation are the ultimate impacts
 K

Table XI.

government
the schools of
Educative and
cultural activities in
Schools of government Fuzzy Delphi
Geometric
mean of
Geometric Geometric the upper
Educative and The London mean of the mean of the bound of
Cultural Activities Kennedy School of Blavatnik Hertie Toronto Helms lower bound middle bound fuzzy
in Schools of School of Economics and School of Bush School of School of School of School of of the fuzzy of fuzzy triangular Defuzzified
Government Government Political Science Government Government Governance Governance Government triangular no. triangular no. no. no.

Creating the spirit

of public service in
students      8,521 9,524 9,602 9,370
Strengthening
nationalistic and
religious sentiments
in students    8,114 8,912 9,439 8,867
Creating and
nurturing
communication
skills in students    8,321 9,024 9,322 8,957
Establishing
various student
associations in the
areas of culture
science, sports, etc.     7,514 8,712 9,039 8,567
Striking a balance
between life, work
and study  7,189 8,539 8,913 8,376
Enhancing
teamwork skills    8,351 8,921 9,202 8,873
Appointing a
counselor for each
student and    8,121 9,024 9,302 8,920
Establishing
academic
achievement
centers at
universities   8,521 9,524 9,602 9,370
schools of government strive for. The expected achievements of schools of government, Presentation of
which are virtually constant across all schools of government, are as follows: a school of

Training personnel experienced in the field of public administration.
government

Discourse-making and influencing the environment.

Theorization in the area of government, public policy and public administration.

The results of the fuzzy Delphi validation of support processes and the achievements of the
schools of government are presented in Table XII.

Conclusions and suggestions

Government and governance are modern and multifaceted phenomena, which are
considered to be among the most complicated social systems. Institutions responsible for
understanding and directing society need to study it more than any other institution. In
modern societies, schools of government are in charge of studying the institution of
government and educating future rulers. No government will succeed unless it educates like-
minded leaders and policymakers and capitalizes on their capabilities.
The present study was designed to highlight the significance of such a necessity. As a
first step, the experiences of other countries were reviewed by a comparative study of
schools of government selected from around the world. It should be noted that schools of
government are value-centered and ideologically oriented, and can vary according to the
core values and ideologies of different governing systems. There are, however, many points
of resemblance between these schools, which can be found through comparative studies.
The results of this study indicate that the major functions of schools of government include
education, research, agenda-setting, networking, discourse-making and training and cadre-
building. The combination of these functions and an emphasis on the practical applications of
policy sciences distinguish schools of government from universities and think tanks. These
schools do not just provide theoretical knowledge, rather they seek to produce and deliver
applied knowledge to solve the real problems of society. This knowledge lies at the boundary
between theory and practice and provides a framework for putting theoretical knowledge into
practice and turns public administration actors into public entrepreneurs.
Finally, based on the results of this study, the following suggestions are presented:

Providing the preliminaries to and requirements for the establishment and
development of the schools of governance in developing countries through
explaining the importance and necessity of research policy for the authorities and
governmental agents, and organizing series of conferences and meetings with
professors, scholars and policy researchers.

One of the impacts of founding the schools of government is to train governmental
managers (Table XII); in this article, the characteristics of the students admitted the
school have been mentioned in Table VII and the educative measures have been
mentioned in Table XI; Nevertheless, independent studies should be conducted to
identify the ideal characteristics of these schools’ alumni as the ideal governmental
managers of countries. Furthermore, the methods and mechanisms of training the
desired governmental managers for the developing countries and their required
systems should be explained through library-based and field studies.

Conducting in-depth interviews with graduates of schools of government selected from
around the world to understand the different aspects and functions of these schools.
 K

schools of
government
Table XII.

processes and the

achievements of the
Validation of support
Dimensions and
elements of the school Geometric mean of the lower Geometric mean of the Geometric mean of the
of the government bound of the fuzzy triangular middle bound of fuzzy upper bound of fuzzy Defuzzified
process model Components no. triangular no. triangular no. no.

Architecture and Traditional architecture 8,745 9,034 9,231 9,019

physical structure Proximity of school to green spaces and 8,111 9,224 9,302 9,052
nature
Amenities such as a library, dormitory, 8,414 9,352 9,439 9,210
study hall, conference hall, etc.,
Rooms and offices for lecturers and 8,002 9,324 9,231 9,088
students
Workshop Sessions 8,109 8,959 9,191 8,856
Colors and designs suitable for the 8,571 8,914 9,102 8,888
educational environment
Beautiful landscape around the school 8,179 8,936 9,001 8,821
(mountains, rivers, green spaces, etc.,)
Funding system Tuition 8,534 9,312 9,439 9,204
Research contracts 8,108 9,212 9,213 9,028
Wealthy and philanthropic donors 8,089 8,852 9,301 8,800
Companies and organizations affiliated 8,152 9,140 9,198 8,985
with the school
Government grants and support 8,351 9,121 9,202 9,006
Alumni 8,321 9,324 9,392 9,168
Endowments 8,634 9,112 9,339 9,070
General gifts and grants 8,681 9,224 9,392 9,162
Social structure and Establishment of a board of directors 8,214 9,006 9,439 8,946
administration model and supervision of school affairs
Appointment of a chairman and 8,965 9,312 9,439 9,275
director by the board of directors
Delegation of executive and operational 9,103 9,034 9,231 9,078
tasks to the director
(continued)
Dimensions and
elements of the school Geometric mean of the lower Geometric mean of the Geometric mean of the
of the government bound of the fuzzy triangular middle bound of fuzzy upper bound of fuzzy Defuzzified
process model Components no. triangular no. triangular no. no.

Accountability of the director to the 8,439 9,109 9,191 9,011

board of directors
Full authority of faculty members to 8,371 9,214 9,102 9,055
implement general educational and
research policies
Student participation in school 8,579 9,236 9,501 9,171
administration
Supervision and evaluation of faculty 8,714 9,312 9,459 9,237
members, and the general status of the
school, by the school board of directors
Financial and Allocation of facilities, loans and grants 8,638 9,121 9,213 9,056
academic support Reimbursement of travel expenses for 8,889 9,217 9,531 9,215
system attendance at conferences
Living allowances 8,012 9,001 9,098 8,852
Scholarships 8,351 9,101 9,252 9,001
Waiver of tuition for eligible students 7,921 8,824 9,002 8,703
Finding suitable jobs for students 8,514 9,112 9,439 9,067
Professor and student insurance 8,121 9,024 9,302 8,920
Achievements and Training personnel experienced in the 8,371 9,214 9,102 9,055
impacts field of public administration
Discourse-making and influencing the 8,579 9,236 9,501 9,171
environment
Theorization in the area of government, 8,714 9,312 9,459 9,237
public policy, and public
administration
a school of
Presentation of

Table XII.
government
K
In Table XII, the existing methods of funding the schools of governance have been
mentioned. Thus, it is strongly suggested that the schools of governance use
multiple methods of funding to maintain their independence in offering their expert
opinions as well as to create sustainable financial resources. It is also suggested that
to identify and formulate new ways and means of funding of the schools of
governance, independent and extensive studies be conducted.

Based on the components “establishment of research centers and institutions,”
“conducting applied and operational research,” “production of new governance and
public policy knowledge” (Table IX), and to aid the promotion of the governance
school’s educational system, particularly in the components “workshop,” “case
studies,” and “use of advanced technologies,” it is suggested that the schools of
governance establish satellite institutions such as governance lab for
operationalizing and localizing the existing knowledge about governance (for
example, see the Government Performance lab, Kennedy School of Government
(Harvard University), Governance Lab of the Tandon School of Engineering).

Based on the components “experience and expertise,” “spirit of public service,” “spirit of
leadership,” “experience of administrative, managerial and policymaking positions”
(Table VI) and the components “workshop,” “case studies,” “attendance by politicians,
elites, and government executives” and “visits to policy centers and offices of public
officials,” (Table VIII) the mentoring method and presentation of professional training
courses at the schools of governance is a principle. Correspondingly, it is suggested that
the faculty members of these schools should become the basis of education and act as
autonomous mentors (Hernandez and Flores, 2019). Thus, the faculty members of the
schools of government/governance, as presented in Table VII, must be selected from
among the professionals with a strong background and the education programs should
be shaped based on their successful experience in governance.

Note
1. In the Appendix, the names of the schools in each of the sampling stages are given.

References
Allison, G. (2008), Emergence of Schools of Public Policy: Reflections by a Founding Dean, in Goodin, R.,
Moran, M. and Rein, M. (Eds), 1st ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 58-79.
Baldridge, J.V. (1971), Models of University Governance: Bureaucratic, Collegial, and Political, S.l.,
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
Blavatnik School of Government (2016), “2016 Annual report”, Report on the Blavatnik School of
Government’s activities and achievements over the past year.
Cappe, M. (2015), Public Policy on Public Policy Schools, Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario,
Toronto.
Chen, C.-T. (2000), “Extensions to the Topsis for group decision-making under fuzzy environment”,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Crecine, J.P. (1971), “University centers for the study of public policy: organizational viability”, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-32.
Davis, M.A.P. (1994), “A multicriteria decision model application for managing group decisions”, The
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Development Policy Centre (Crawford School of Public Policy) (2010), Development Policy Centre: Presentation of
Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, Canberra.
a school of
Dunn, W.L and Rand Corporation (1975), A Comparison of Eight Schools of Public Policy. Santa Monica,
Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
government
Geva-May, I. and Maslove, A. (2006), “Canadian public policy analysis and public policy programs: a
comparative perspective”, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 413-438.
Government Performance Lab (2019), The John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
available at: https://govlab.hks.harvard.edu/
Hatch, M.J. and Cunliffe, A.L. (2013), Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern
Perspectives, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hayes, J. (2014), The Theory and Practice of Change Management, Palgrave Macmillan, London, p. 137,
ISBN 978-1-137-27534-9.
Hendrickson, R.M., Lane, J.E., Harris, J.T. and Dorman, R.H. (2013), Academic Leadership and
Governance of Higher Education: A Guide for Trustees, Leaders, and Aspiring Leaders of Two-
and Four-Year Institutions, Stylus Publishing, Sterling.
Hernandez, C. and Flores, I. (2019), “Pedagogical mentoring and transformation of teaching practices in
university”, Kybernetes, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 1534-1546, doi: 10.1108/K-04-2018-0212.
Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R. and Mieno, H. (1993), “The max-min
Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 55
No. 3, pp. 241-253.
Klir, G.J. and Yuan, B. (1995), Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, ISBN: 0131011715.
Lane, J.E. (2011), “Importing private higher education: International branch campuses”, Journal of Comparative
Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 367-381, doi: 10.1080/13876988.2011.583106.
Mahbubani, K. (2013), Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy: Building a Global Policy School in Asia,
World Scientific Publisher, Singapore.
Mikhailov, L. (2003), “Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgement”, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, Vol. 134 No. 3, pp. 365-385.
Millett, J.D. (1962), The Academic Community: An Essay on Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage Publisher, London.
Newman, W.L. (2014), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Pearson,
Boston.
Perko, I. and Mendiwelso-Bendek, Z. (2019), “Students as active citizens: a systems perspective on a
Jean Monnet module, experiential learning and participative approaches”, Kybernetes, Vol. 48
No. 7, pp. 1437-1462.
School of government and international relations (2015), A Leading Centre of Learning in Government
and International Relations, Griffith University, South East Queensland.
Schwaninger, M. (2019), “Governance for intelligent organizations: a cybernetic contribution”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 35-57.
Scott, W.R. (1997), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open System, 2nd ed., Printice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Scott, W.R. and Davis, G. (2007), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System
Perspectives, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Trow, M. (1973), “Public policy school attuned to modern to complexities”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 250-252.
Vernardakis, G. (1994), “The national school of public administration in Greece: a preliminary
comparative study”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1485-1506.
K Wildavsky, A. (1976), “Principles for a graduate school of public policy”, Journal of Urban Analysis,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 127 -152.
Wilson, W. (1887), “The study of administration”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 197-213.
Yates, D.C. (1977), “The mission of public policy programs: a report on recent experience”, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 363-373.

Futher reading
Bush School of Government and Public Service (2016), “Bush school of government”, available at:
http://bush.tamu.edu/ (accessed 27 June 2016).
Liberty University (2016), “Helms school of government”, available at: www.liberty.edu/academics/
helmsschoolofgovernment/ (accessed 27 June 2016).
Hertie School of Governance (2016), “Hertie school of governance”, available at: www.hertie-school.org/
home/ (accessed 27 June 2016).
LSE – The London School of Economics and Political Science (2016), “The London School of Economics
or LSE”, available at: www.lse.ac.uk/home.aspx (accessed 27 June 2016).
Makoto, O. (2017), “School of government”, available at: http://edb.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/bull/html/pdf/
03_schools/grd17_gov
The Blavatnik School of Government, (University of Oxford) (2016), “Blavatnik school of government”,
available at:www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/ (accessed 27 June 2016).
The John F. Kennedy School of Government, (Harvard University) (2016), “Kennedy school of
government”, available at: www.hks.harvard.edu/ (accessed 27 June 2016).
Tandon School of Engineering (2019), “Governance lab”, available at: www.thegovlab.org/
University of Toronto (2016), “School of Public Policy and Governance (SPPG)”, available at: http://
publicpolicy.utoronto.ca/ (accessed 27 June 2016).

Corresponding author
Mahdi Abdolhamid can be contacted at: Mahdi_abdolhamid@iust.ac.ir
Statistical population
Ateneo School of Government at the Ateneo de
Manila University(Philippines)
Bush School of Government and Public
Service
College of Public Administration and
Governance at the University of Northern
Philippines
Crawford School of Public Policy, (Australian
National University)
Department of Government and Public Policy
at the National Defence University, Islamabad
Dubai School of Government (UAE)
Faculty of Politics and Government, Central
University of Chile
Federmann School of Public Policy and
Government, (Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Goldman School of Public Policy
Helms School of Government | Liberty
University
Hertie School of Governance
Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis
(IGPA) at the University of Canberra
Istanbul Policy Center, (Sabanci University)
Jindal School of Government and Public
Policy, New Delhi
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and
Public Affairs
Table AI.
sorted by the
The Names of the
sampling stages
Governance Schools
Initial sampling based on the ranking Research sample
The John F. Kennedy School of Government, The John F. Kennedy School of Government,
(Harvard University) (Harvard University) - USA Appendix
the School of Government and Public Policy at The Blavatnik School of Government,
the University of Arizona (University of Oxford) – UK
School of Government and Public Policy- Helms School of Government | Liberty
Indonesia University - USA
Dubai School of Government (UAE) Bush School of Government and Public
Service -USA
Federmann School of Public Policy and School of Public Policy and Governance
Government, (Hebrew University of Jerusalem (SPPG), (University of Toronto) - Canada
Istanbul Policy Center, (Sabanci University) LSE - The London School of Economics and
Political Science (the London School of
Economics or LSE) - England
School of Government Peking University- Hertie School of Governance - Germany
china
Crawford School of Public Policy, (Australian
National University)
The Graduate School of Public Administration
(GSPA), (Seoul National University)
The Australia and New Zealand School of
Government (ANZSOG)
The Blavatnik School of Government,
(University of Oxford)
The Jindal School of Government and Public
Policy (JSGP), (O.P. Jindal Global University) -
south Africa
School of Government and Public Policy
Glasgow- UK
The School of Public Policy and Management
(SPPM), (Tsinghua University)
School of Public Policy and Governance
(SPPG), (University of Toronto)
(continued)
a school of
Presentation of
government

Table AI.
Statistical population
Local Government Program (MPA and DPA)
at University of Western Ontario
LSE - The London School of Economics and
Political Science (the London School of
Economics or LSE)
Luiss School of Government at Libera
Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali
Guido Carli, Rome
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance
(Netherlands)
Management Development Institute - School
Of Public Policy And Governance
Master of Governance and Public Policy at the
University of Queensland
McCourt School of Public Policy (MSPP),
(Georgetown University)
Melbourne School of Government at
Melbourne University
National Centre for Public Administration and
Local Government (EKDDA)
National College of Public Administration and
Governance at University of the Philippines
Diliman
Portland State University Hatfield School of
Government
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and
Policy, (University at Albany, State University
of New York)
Schar School of Policy and Government
School of Government and Public Policy
Glasgow- UK
K
Initial sampling based on the ranking Research sample
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and
Public Affairs
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
(the National University of Singapore (NUS)
Bush School of Government and Public
Service
School of Public Policy and Administration
(SPPA), (Carleton University)-canada
Hertie School of Governance
The Graduate School of Public Policy
(GraSPP), (University of Tokyo)
LSE - The London School of Economics and
Political Science (the London School of
Economics or LSE)
The Department of Public Policy, (College of
Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, City
University of Hong Kong)
Helms School of Government | Liberty
University
Goldman School of Public Policy
(continued)
Statistical population Initial sampling based on the ranking Research sample

School of Government and Public Policy-

Indonesia
School of Government Peking University-
china
School of Policy, Government, and
International Affairs, (George Mason
University)
School of Public Affairs and Governance at
Silliman University
School of Public Policy and Governance
(SPPG), (University of Toronto)
School of Public Policy and Administration
(SPPA), (Carleton University)-canada
Swiss School of Public Governance
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad -
Master of Arts in Public Policy and
Governance (MA PPG)
The Australia and New Zealand School of
Government (ANZSOG)
The Blavatnik School of Government,
(University of Oxford)
The Department of Public Policy, (College of
Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, City
University of Hong Kong)
The Graduate School of Public Administration
(GSPA), (Seoul National University)
The Graduate School of Public Policy
(GraSPP), (University of Tokyo)
(continued)

Table AI.
a school of
Presentation of

government
 K

Table AI.
Statistical population Initial sampling based on the ranking Research sample

The Jindal School of Government and Public

Policy (JSGP), (O.P. Jindal Global University) -
South Africa
The John F. Kennedy School of Government,
(Harvard University)
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
(the National University of Singapore (NUS)
the School of Government and Public Policy at
the University of Arizona
The School of Government and Public Policy
(Indonesia)
The School of Public Policy and Management
(SPPM), (Tsinghua University)
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Department of Government
University of Nairobi, Kenya School of
Government
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
School of Government
University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute of
Government
Virginia Commonwealth University, L.
Douglas Wilder School of Government and
Public Affairs
Yeditepe University M.A. in Local
Government and Governance(Turkey)