Determinantes de intensidad administrativa en los Centros Públicos de Investigación: análisis longitudinal

Autores/as

  • Claudia E. Nava Galván Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7799-191X
  • Alberto Pastrana Palma Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/rinn18.35-e4

Resumen

La intensidad administrativa se ha tratado en la literatura como un concepto unidimensional determinado por el tamaño de la organización. En este trabajo se considera que la intensidad administrativa es multidimensional ya que existen diferentes variables que la determinan. Se utilizó una metodología cuantitativa longitudinal a través de datos de panel (2010-2020) correspondiente a los Centros Públicos de Investigación. Esta investigación se centró en tres aspectos sobre la intensidad administrativa: primero, se analizó a través de regresión lineal si las medidas de razón de la intensidad administrativa y el tamaño de la organización distorsionan o sesgan los resultados para analizar las economías de escala administrativa, además se probó que estas medidas de razón tienen implicaciones correctas y apoyan la teoría de economías de escala administrativa relacionada con el tamaño de la organización, segundo, se identificaron los efectos de tres determinantes de la intensidad administrativa (tamaño de la organización, diferenciación funcional y especialización). El tamaño tuvo un efecto negativo en la intensidad administrativa pero al agregar el término cuadrático a la variable de tamaño se observó una relación no lineal. La diferenciación funcional tuvo un efecto positivo sobre la intensidad administrativa. La relación entre la intensidad administrativa y especialización fue positiva, y tercero, la intensidad administrativa tuvo un efecto positivo en la productividad. Esta investigación muestra evidencia empírica con implicaciones prácticas para las políticas organizacionales de los Centros Públicos de Investigación.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Métricas

Cargando métricas ...

Citas

Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation. Sociology, 5(1), 63-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857100500105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857100500105

Akers, R., & Campbell, F. L. (1970). Size and the administrative component in occupational associations. Pacific Sociological Review, 13(4), 241-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1388455 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1388455

Anderson, T. R., & Warkov, S. (1961). Organizational size and functional complexity: A study of administration in hospitals. American Sociological Review, 23-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2090509 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2090509

Andrews, R., & Boyne, G. A. (2009a). Size, structure and administrative overheads: An empirical analysis of English local authorities. Urban studies, 46(4), 739-759. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009102127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009102127

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2009b). Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 19(1), 57-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum039

Astley, W. G. (1985). Organizational size and bureaucratic structure. Organization Studies, 6(3), 201-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068500600301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068500600301

Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American political science review, 634-647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979

Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1975). School district organization and student achievement. American Sociological Review, 55-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2094447 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2094447

Blau, P. M. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American sociological review, 201-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2093199 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2093199

Bohte, J. (2001). School bureaucracy and student performance at the local level. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 92-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00008

Boyne, G. A., & Meier, K. J. (2013). Burdened by bureaucracy? Determinants of administrative intensity in public organisations. International Public Management Journal, 16(2), 307-327. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.817261 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.817261

Child, J. (1972). Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Aston study. Administrative science quarterly, 163-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393951 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393951

De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The stata journal, 6(4), 482-496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600403

Decreto 04/2020, de 23 de abril, por el que se establecen las medidas de austeridad que deberán observar las dependencias y entidades de la Administración Pública Federal bajo los criterios que en el mismo se indican. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Disponible en: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5592205&fecha=23/04/2020

Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Londres, Little Brown & Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/CB156

Elston, T., & Dixon, R. (2020). The effect of shared service centers on administrative intensity in English local government: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 113-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz002

Freeman, J. H. (1973). Environment, technology, and the administrative intensity of manufacturing organizations. American Sociological Review, 750-763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2094136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2094136

Freeman, J. H., & Kronenfeld, J. E. (1973). Problems of definitional dependency: the case of administrative intensity. Social Forces, 52(1), 108-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/52.1.108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/52.1.108

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 72-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391213

Holdaway, E. A., & Blowers, T. A. (1971). Administrative ratios and organization size: A longitudinal examination. American Sociological Review, 278-286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2094044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2094044

Kalleberg, A. L., & Van Buren, M. E. (1996). Is bigger better? Explaining the relationship between organization size and job rewards. American sociological review, 47-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2096406 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2096406

Kelman, S. (2006). Downsizing, competition, and organizational change in government: is necessity the mother of invention?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 25(4), 875-895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20212 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20212

Kimberly, J. R. (1976). Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review, critique, and proposal. Administrative science quarterly, 571-597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391717 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391717

Kuh, E., & Meyer, J. R. (1955). Correlation and regression estimates when the data are ratios. Econometric, Journal of the Econometric Society, 400-416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1905347 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1905347

Labovitz, S., & Gibbs, J. P. (1964). Urbanization, technology, and the division of labor: Further evidence. Pacific Sociological Review, 7(1), 3-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1388460 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1388460

Leslie, L. L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: Seeking explanations. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 187-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1995.11774772 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1995.11774772

Lioukas, S. K., & Xerokostas, D. A. (1982). Size and administrative intensity in organizational divisions. Management Science, 28(8), 854-868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.8.854 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.8.854

Mansfield, R. (1973). Bureaucracy and centralization: An examination of organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 477-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392200 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392200

Matsui, A., & Postlewaite, A. (2000). Specialization of Labor and the Distribution of Income. Games and Economic Behavior, 33(1), 72-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1999.0773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1999.0773

McKinley, W. (1987). Complexity and administrative intensity: The case of declining organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 87-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392744

Meier, K. J., & Bohte, J. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 455-470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003511 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003511

Meier, K. J., Polinard, J. L., & Wrinkle, R. D. (2000). Bureaucracy and organizational performance: Causality arguments about public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 590-602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669266 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669266

Meer, M. W. (1972). Size and the structure of organizations: A causal analysis. American Sociological Review, 434-440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/257509 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2093182

Millan, A. M., & Daft, R. L. (1979). Administrative intensity and ratio variables: The case against definitional dependency. Social Forces, 58(1), 228-248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.1.228 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.1.228

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?. Journal of public administration research and theory, 20(4), 849-866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004

Nickols, F. (2003). The span of control and the formulas of VA Graicunas. Distance Consulting.

Niskanen, W. A. (1979). Competition among government bureaus. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(5), 517-524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200505 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200505

Oszlak, O. (2005). State bureaucracy. Politics and policies, en janoski, Alford, hicks y Schwartz (eds.), 482-505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818059.026

Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 1-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7

Pondy, L. R. (1969). Effects of size, complexity, and ownership on administrative intensity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391361 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391361

Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International journal of manpower. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729710182260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729710182260

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1969). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 115-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391367

Rutherford, A. (2016). Reexamining causes and consequences: Does administrative intensity matter for organizational performance?. International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 342-369. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1032459 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1032459

Rutherford, A., & Van Der Voet, J. (2019). Shifting administrative intensity and employee composition: Cutback management in education. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(6), 704-719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018794701 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018794701

Rushing, W. A. (1967). The effects of industry size and division of labor on administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 273-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391552 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391552

Rushing, W. A., & Davies, V. (1969). Note on the Mathmatical Formalization of a Measure of Division of Labor. Soc. F., 48, 394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2574658

Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2004). A mixed relationship: Bureaucracy and school performance. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 728-736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00419.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00419.x

Stake, R. A. (2007). Investigación con estudio de casos. Madrid: Ediciones Morata.

Terrien, F. W., & Mills, D. L. (1955). The effect of changing size upon the internal structure of organizations. American Sociological Review, 20(1), 11-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2088193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2088193

Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 1-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391646 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391646

Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zia, Y. A., & Khan, M. (2014). A Comparative Review of Traditional and New Public Administration and Critique of New Public Management. Dialogue (Pakistan), 9(4).

Descargas

Publicado

2021-08-29

Cómo citar

Nava Galván, C. E., & Palma, A. P. (2021). Determinantes de intensidad administrativa en los Centros Públicos de Investigación: análisis longitudinal. Innovaciones De Negocios, 18(35). https://doi.org/10.29105/rinn18.35-e4

Número

Sección

Avances de Investigación