Author: cprokop

EPSA conference, 2019, Belfast

Presenting joint work with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe: “Who supports EEO policies? Empirical Evidence on the Individual Attitudes towards Equality and Merit in Public Hiring” at epsa annual conference, Belfast/Northern Ireland from June, 20 to June 22, 2019 .

We address the questions  who supports EEO policies and who perceives a trade-off between EEO policies and bureaucratic migrant-representation. We find that individual political attitudes as well as the working sector have an influence on both.

PMRC 2019 at UNC, Chapel Hill

Presenting joint work with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe: “Political Ideology and Public Sector Work: Empirical Evidence on the Individual Attitudes towards Equality and Merit in Public Hiring” at PMRC in Chapel Hill, North Carolina/USA from June, 11 to June, 14 2019 . We address the questions  who supports EEO policies and who perceives a trade-off between EEO policies and bureaucratic migrant-representation. We find that individual political attitudes as well as the working sector have an influence on both.

Annual Meeting of the DVPW working group decision theory, 2019

Presenting recent work on the influence of the individual political orientation on the attitudes toward EEO policies among public and private employees (“Politisierte Verwaltung? Determinanten der Einstellung gegenüber der anonymisierten Bewerbung im öffentlichen Dienst” / “Politicized Public Service? Determinants of individual preferences towards anonymous applications in public service recruitment”) at the annual meeting of the DVPW working group decision theory (AK Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheory) in Bremen/Germany, 23. /24. May 2019.

Norddeutsches Kolloquium Sozialwissenschaften, Socium, Bremen

Presenting a study on the relationship between political attitudes and individual opinion towards public policies: “Determinanten der Einstellung gegenüber dem Verfahren der anonymisierten Bewerbung im öffentlichen Dienst” (“Determinants of individual preferences towards anonymous applications in public service recruitment”) on the biannual meeting of the Norddeutsches Kolloquium Sozialwissenschaften, at the Socium, University of Bremen, on February, 1st, 2019

Publication in IPMJ

Do future bureaucrats punish more? The Effect of PSM and studying Public Administration on Contributions and Punishment in a Public Goods Game, International Public Management Journal (forthcoming), with Markus Tepe

Abstract:

This study tests the effect of PSM and studying public administration on subjects’ behavior in a repeated Public Goods Game with a costly option to punish free riders. Conducting the experiment on 136 students from three subject pools (public administration, social science and business science) shows the following: (1) PSM has a twofold effect, as compassion is associated with higher contributions and attraction to policy making is associated with punishing free riders. (2) Students of public administration do not contribute more than the other two student groups, but they are more likely to punish free riders. (3) Both, attraction to policy making and studying public administration, are associated with more severe behavior towards free riding, as these subjects punish even small amounts of free riding. Due to its implications for policy-implementation, it seems to be worthwhile to pay more attention to preferences of social norm enforcement when selecting public personnel.

IRSPM SIG on PSM, PhD-seminar in Utrecht

I present a preliminary version of the study “On the Support for Equal Employment Opportunity Policies: The Effect of PSM, Political Attitudes, and Public Sector Work” (together with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe) which addresses the questions  what drives attitudes towards EEO policies and which mechanisms lead to perceiving a trade-off between EEO policies and migrant-representation.

Thanks for organizing the PhD-Seminar “Hard questions about Public Service Motivation” to Gene A. Brewer, Adrian Ritz, and Wouter Vandenabeele and for the valuable discussions to all participants of this workshop.

Talk at Rutgers University in October 2018

I presented a preliminary version of the study “Who wants to jeopardize the merit principle? Evidence from an Issue Framing Experiment among Citizens and Future Bureaucrats” (together with Michael Jankowski and Markus Tepe) which addresses the question whether critics of Equal Employment Opportunity policies are correct by stating that supporters of these policies are willing to give up the merit principle in public hiring. We find a relationship between right-wing poltical attitudes and overemphasizing support for the merit principle when potential migrant discrimination is taken into account. The findings count for civic respondents as well as respondents with a public administration background.

Thanks to Gregg Van Ryzin and Sebastian Jilke from the School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University Newark/New Jersey,
USA, for inviting me to present recent work and to all participants for their fruitful comments on the paper.

Publication on female risk preferences

Risk Attitudes, Gender, and Risk Behavior: Evidence from Two Laboratory Experiments, in Debus M., J. Sauermann, M. Tepe: Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 145-178

This study analyzes whether self-reported attitudes in economic risk taking predict experimentally revealed risk behavior, and how gender moderates the relationship between both measures. Prior research often finds women reporting higher risk averse attitudes than men and showing more risk averse behavior in observational or experimental studies. This study analyzes observations from 369 students who participated in two laboratory experiments and answered a survey about their risk preferences. The findings show that risk attitudes are not likely to predict risk behavior directly, but being female predicts risk averse behavior robustly. Most interestingly, the analyses show that in the experiments, women behave consistently to their self-reported risk attitudes, but men do not. Methodological and practical implications are briefly discussed.