PMRC 2025

This proposed workshop introduces methods used for the analysis of networks in public affairs research, particularly public management and public policy. Network concepts are now increasingly used to describe how stakeholders in public policy and management form and maintain relationships, which in turn help to understand decision making, learning, innovation, and other outcomes of interest in the public sphere. Network concepts are prevalent across a wide range of social science disciplines, and are often used as a tool to study complex phenomenon such as cooperation, diffusion of innovation, and social capital. Public managers with an understanding of the theory and methods of networks are better equipped to deal with complex, emerging problems within a “VUCA” world of vulnerability, uncertainty, complexity, and uncertainty.

This workshop will introduce participants to three major research questions in the study of policy and public management networks, including:

1) How do various types of networks influence public management and policy problems of interest?
2) How do networks self-organize and evolve over time?
3) What contextual or institutional factors influence how networks evolve and influence problems?

Although the workshop is theoretically motivated, the primary focus is the development of grounded skills that participants may use to gather, manage, and analyze network data. The following topics are addressed through hands-on tutorials and grounded examples from real-world research studies:

• The measurement of networks, including organizational networks, using secondary data and survey,
• How to manage these data in Excel, R, and Visone,
• Visualization of network data using R and Visone,
• Quantitative description of networks using measures of node centrality, clustering, modularity, and segregation,
• Network comparison and correlation using quadratic assignment procedure (QAP),
• Understanding network dynamics using exponential random graph models (ERGM).

This workshop is designed for the beginner with no prior training in network analysis.

Theorizing is an important part of the academic contribution required by articles in highly ranked public administration journals, yet it is also something that many researchers struggle with.

In this full-day workshop with the editors of JPART and PPMG, we focus on academic writing with a particular emphasis on developing a theoretical contribution.

The workshop format includes presentations by the editors on requirements and tips, open discussions and exchanges of experiences among workshop participants, as well as individual feedback on each participant’s own paper.

• Part 1 Morning: Making a theoretical contribution
o Presentation of both journals – what does a JPART and PPMG paper look like
o Ways to make a theoretical contribution (which many researchers struggle with) – and how this is different in JPART and PPMG

• Part 2 Afternoon: Application to participants’ own papers
o Groups, discussion, editors visit all groups and give feedback
o General lessons and workshop conclusion

Organized by the JPART editors Ole Helby Petersen and Kim Sass Mikkelsen & the PPMG editors Jessica E. Sowa and Kim Isett

Statement of Objectives & Relevance to the Field
Our objective is to bring together an international group of scholars working on questions related to the management and leadership of city governments (and municipal authorities more broadly). We invite participation from scholars examining city management and leadership from a theoretical perspective as well as empirically, using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods.

The workshop aims to generate inclusive discussions about the meaning and measurement of effective city management and leadership, the causes, correlates, and supporting conditions of effective city management and leadership, and the effects and consequences of city management and leadership. Possible themes for discussion during the workshop include the importance of collaboration and innovation for city management and leadership as well as the use of data and evidence, public narrative, and time management.

In line with the theme of this year’s conference, we also welcome a discussion of how the promotion of democratic values relates to city management and leadership. Finally, the pre-conference workshop will also serve as a space to develop a new network for scholars of public management and public administration working on cities and local vernments.

Session 1: K-Pop, Politics, and Protest: Korea’s Fandom Culture and Political Mobilization in Asia

Session 1 Overview

South Korea’s vibrant political landscape has been influenced by its cultural dynamics, more recently by the global phenomenon of K-pop. This workshop discusses how political participation in South Korea is increasingly influenced by cultural fandom practices, commercialisation, and “transnationalized” digital political participation. The session will focus on how political fandom mobilization has developed under the framework of traditional strong-state governance, a young democracy, and the recent political turbulence in South Korea.

This session will be of interest to scholars studying governance, pop-culture, digital political participation, political communication, and Asian studies, which will offer scholarly discussion on how contemporary political actors mobilise support using pop culture-inspired tactics.


Key Themes of Session 1

1. Political Merchandise as a Tool for Participation

Political branding has become a key instrument in public identity and solidarity. Similar to the way K-pop fandoms collect and trade merchandise, South Korean political figures and parties have embraced consumer-driven tactics to gain support.

2. The Role of Political Pop-Up Stores and Consumer-Centric Campaigning

South Korean political parties and interest groups have adopted marketing strategies from pop culture, such as pop-up stores featuring branded goods. For instance, the 2024 election campaign stores in Seoul showed the rising influence of consumerism in political movements, with high demand for political-themed items signalling a shift in political participation among younger Gen-Z to Millennials generations.

3. K-Pop-Inspired Protest Tactics

Protest culture in South Korea has increasingly used the aesthetics and organisation of K-pop fandoms including symbolic tools such as LED light sticks, pre-pay refreshments, and K-pop music (such as “New World” by Girls’ Generation) as part of political activism.

4. Transnationalization of K-Pop: Case of Southeast Asian Countries’ adoption of K-Pop Protest Culture

The impact of K-pop-aided political participation is not confined to South Korea. K-pop fandoms in Southeast Asia showed remarkable mobilising power during recent political protests, raising significant funds, advertising boycotts, and cross-border solidarity, leveraging their influence in digital spaces.


Why Attend?

• Gain scholarly discussion of the relationships between culture, consumerism, and political participation in contemporary governance in Asia.
• Analyse the implications of Asia’s strong-state tradition in re-shaping contemporary political communication strategies.
• Understand how digital and fandom-driven mobilisation strategies are influencing political participation in Asia.
• Discuss how global political movements are adapting entertainment-based methods for civic participation.

Session 2 Policy to Pop Culture: How Culture Policy Influences Korea’s Global Entertainment Industry


Session 2 Overview

This session discusses the crossroad between Korean cultural policy and the global expansion of K-Pop culture, with a focus on the historical development of cultural governance in South Korea. The discussion will offer analysis on how government-led initiatives have shaped the trajectory of Korea’s cultural industries, which is influencing not just domestic cultural production but also the international soft power of Korean pop culture.

South Korea’s cultural policies have played a fundamental but possibly indirect role in supporting the creative industries, especially through state investment, deregulation, and institutional frameworks. Korea’s approach to cultural governance has developed from early developmental state strategies to more market-driven and hybrid models, where both government and private industries interact in cultural sector.

This session will provide a policy-focused analysis of the key mechanisms that have enabled the development of Korean pop culture and expansion of K-pop and other cultural exports, while also discussing how these historical path dependencies continue to influence K-pop industry and its global expansion.


Key Themes

1. Government Investment and Foundations of Cultural Policy

South Korea has consistently allocated significant funding to cultural development. Each year, the government invests approximately USD 1 billion in the cultural sector, supporting initiatives such as cultural vouchers, arts subsidies, and cultural infrastructure projects. This session will offer analysis on how these investments have influenced the institutionalisation of cultural policy and contributed to Korea’s success in global entertainment.

2. From Regulation to Market Expansion: The Role of Policy in K-Pop’s Growth

The 1990 establishment of the Ministry of Culture marked the beginning of structured cultural governance in South Korea. This session will examine how deregulation, market incentives, and state-funded cultural initiatives created an environment where entertainment industries could survive and thrive, and ultimately seeing unprecedented success of K-pop as a global phenomenon.

3. Cultural Policy and National Branding: Soft Power and Global Influence

Korea’s cultural industry has become a key component of its soft power strategy, which now leverages its diplomatic and economic results worldwide. The Korean government has actively facilitated the globalisation of K-pop through initiatives such as the Korean Wave (Hallyu) support programmes, international cultural exchange policies, and government-backed cultural expos. This session will discuss how cultural diplomacy has reinforced Korea’s economic and geopolitical positioning, aided by cultural contents and resources.

4. Institutionalising Creativity: Role of Arts and Cultural Education

Another crucial policy mechanism has been the establishment of Korea National University of Arts and other specialised institutions for training in cultural production. By investing in talent pipeline, Korea has been working on creating a sustainable ecosystem for its cultural industries, aimed at reinforcing the integration of education, policy, and industry.

5. The Future of Korean Cultural Policy

As K-pop and Korean pop culture continue to expand globally, new challenges arise in digital governance, cultural fatigue, platform regulation, and intellectual property rights. This session will discuss how Korean cultural policy is adapting to address issues in streaming, digital content distribution, and global market competition.


Why Attend?
• Gain scholarly analysis on the development of Korean cultural policy and its role in forming the global K-Pop entertainment industry.
• Understand the relationship between government policies, market-driven growth, and creative industries.
• Analyze the international impact of Korea’s cultural strategies and how they contribute to soft power and global influence.
• Discuss the future trajectory of cultural governance in Korea and its implications for other countries looking to develop their creative industries.


Session 3 Marketing Korea or Meaningful Aid? Rethinking K-Pop’s Role in ODA and Public Diplomacy

Session 3 Overview

As South Korea has emerged as a global cultural powerhouse, its soft power strategies, especially the use of K-pop in diplomacy and development aid, have drawn both admiration and skepticism. While the Korean government has sought to integrate cultural diplomacy into its Official Development Assistance (ODA) framework, concerns have been raised about the appropriateness, effectiveness, and ethical implications of using K-pop and other entertainment-driven initiatives in international development.

This session critically discusses the use of K-pop as a tool in ODA and public diplomacy, especially its role in international perceptions of Korea, cultural exchange, and foreign policy objectives. It also discusses key criticisms, including concerns that such strategies may merely serve national branding over substantive aid efforts, reinforce cultural hegemony, or reduce ODA to mere promotional marketing campaigns rather than sustainable development initiatives.

The session will discuss specific questions surrounding cultural soft power strategies in ODA, the risks of over-reliance on entertainment-driven diplomacy, and the implications for governance, ethics, and global perceptions of Korean development aid.


Key Themes of Session 3

1. The Role of K-Pop in Korea’s ODA Strategy and Cultural Diplomacy

The increasing use of K-pop and Hallyu (the Korean Wave) in Korea’s international development policies shows a trend of integrating cultural exports into diplomatic and economic strategies. While the global popularity of Korean culture has helped improve Korea’s international image, it raises questions about the role of K-culture entertainment in development assistance and public diplomacy. There is ongoing debate over whether these cultural exports serve as effective tools for international cooperation or whether they function primarily as self-serving mechanisms of soft power expansion. This session will discuss how cultural diplomacy influences ODA initiatives and whether recipient countries view these initiatives as meaningful forms of help or as promotional exercises that overshadow more pressing development needs.

2. Risks of Cultural Propagation and Limits of K-Pop as a Diplomatic Tool

Although K-pop’s global success is often framed as a product of Korea’s cultural policies, much of its expansion has been driven by industry-led transnational collaboration and localization in various regions. The Korean government’s strategic promotion of K-pop as a universal cultural export raises questions about the extent to which recipient countries feel ownership over these cultural exchanges. If Korea monopolizes credit for the global reach of K-pop, it may alienate recipient countries that have contributed to its adaptation and growth. Furthermore, over-reliance on K-pop’s “show business” nature in public diplomacy efforts could result in cultural fatigue and resistance among international audiences, especially if such initiatives do not adequately appreciate local contexts or priorities.

3. Cultural Hegemony, Development Ethics, and the Future of Korea’s ODA

Official development assistance should prioritize sustainable and equitable development, yet entertainment-driven aid initiatives may be viewed as “performative” rather than substantive. Policymakers must carefully balance cultural diplomacy with the need to support meaningful development initiatives that prime the needs of recipient countries. It is essential to question whether recipient nations view Korea’s promotion of K-culture within ODA as a genuine effort to encourage cooperation or as a means of advancing Korea’s strategic interests. The discussion will also probe the risks of positioning K-pop as a dominant cultural export, which could undermine cultural diversity and the creative industries of recipient countries.

Why Attend?

• Critically discuss the role of K-pop in Korea’s ODA and international development strategies.
• Understand the ethical, political, and economic risks of cultural soft power in development cooperation.
• Discuss Explore alternative approaches to integrating culture into ODA without reinforcing cultural dominance or reducing aid to promotional efforts.

For the past 40 years, scholars have analyzed public-private relationships through the lenses of agency theory, transaction cost economics, and resource dependency theory. Many aspects of these theories may span national boundaries, such as information asymmetry, challenges of aligning incentives, and the importance of power dynamics. However, there are also important differences between countries that influence both the theoretical understanding and practical implementation of public procurement. Critical differences include institutional contexts, cultural dimensions, market and economic conditions, and policy and administrative capacity, among others. These differences are understudied in research on government contracting and public procurement.

In their seminal article Brown, Potoski, and Van Slyke (2006) identify three considerations with important implications for the success or failure of government contracts: values, institutions, and markets. Since then, many studies have tackled the relative importance of market elements, largely centered on ideas of asset specificity and measurability. Fewer studies have addressed values and institutions, despite Brown, Potoski, and Van Slyke’s assertion that “values, institutions, and service markets are interrelated and should be viewed by practitioners and scholars as interacting to produce contracting outcomes” (p. 329). One setting where values and institutions can be analyzed is through comparison across nations. Serving as institutional, policy, management, and cultural laboratories, nations approach public procurement very differently.

By examining these longstanding differences in culture, values, and processes of public procurement, scholars can gain insights into the different ways that procurement is designed, managed, and implemented around the world, ultimately building an improved understanding of the different factors that affect the success or failure of privatization and contracting out. To help facilitate this kind of scholarship, this pre-conference workshop will interrogate differences in approaches to public procurement around the world with the ultimate goal of developing a broader research agenda for the comparative study of public procurement.

This half day workshop, planned for 20-25 participants, provides understanding of best practice in design, implementation, and reporting of experimental research in behavioral public administration, with the following goals:

1) To become part of a community that exchanges ideas about best practice in experimental design applied to public management research.
2) To improve the design of your experiments so that they more clearly and precisely operationalize theoretically relevant research questions.
3) To know how to pre-register an experimental design and analysis plan, including how to handle and report deviations from a pre-registration.
4) To understand how to report effectively the design, implementation, and data analysis from an experimental study.
5) Finally, in combination with the prior learning goals, to improve your chances that an experimental study will be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Three sessions, accompanied by suggested advance readings include:

Session 1: Designing an experiment. Design of randomized controlled trials and possibility of quasi-experimental designs. Drawing on the counterfactual framework of causal inference, we will discuss the importance of aiming for exogeneity of the treatment and how to do so (particularly but not only via random assignment), designing theoretically relevant treatments and how to measure outcomes.

Session 2: Pre-registering an experiment. Distinguishing confirmatory (hypothesis testing) and exploratory aspects of research, discussing the philosophy and practices of pre-registration and research transparency, including reporting how a study was conducted and the sharing of data protecting both study participants and junior authors who want to ensure their work is recognized.

Session 3: Publishing an experimental study. Strategies for analysis and presentation of the results of an experiment in ways that facilitate understanding and enhance its chances of publication in a peer-reviewed journal.