Conference Agenda

Teaching in Public Administration should explicitly connect to best practices in advancing democracy, particularly as contemporary democracies struggle to foster meaningful dialogue across partisan divides. This essay proposes six nested to enhance the teaching of public administration in addressing this challenge: (1) Can democracy be taught in similarly in different nations? (2) Is it possible to engage elected officials at all career levels in MPA programs as participants, faculty, and advisors bridge the gap between academia and governance; (3) Is the scaffolding or support for student learning similar for moving beyond theoretical knowledge and into practical democratic action, including reflection and skill-building; (4) Can you develop in different nations and across nations “hotbeds of talent” that bring together students and alumni to exchange best practices for advancing democracy; (5) Does focusing on the distinct roles and relationships within public administration advance democracy in varied nations? and (6) Is developing public trust as a foundational element of democratic governance a skill that is central and can be taught in different nations through case studies. This explores the potential for finding common ground in teaching democracy in varied nations, as well as identifying distinct approaches.

The contemporary challenges of democratic backsliding (Bauer, and Becker, 2020), loss of public trust in democratic institutions (OECD, 2024), the collapse of nurturing new democracies (Brenner, 2024) and growing state capture of power and resources accruing to a few (Economist, 2025) calls into question the effectiveness of teaching of public administration in advancing appreciation and support for democracy's institutions. This essay questions the role of contemporary public administration— intended as a terminology to include public management and public policy and public affairs— across nations in teaching democracy seriously.

Fundamentally, the inquiry centers on public administration students as “conservators” of democracy (Terry, 1990). The rhetoric of the contemporary political environment nationally finds democratic processes, such as voting integrity and public organizations, with nonpartisan, professional staffing, and institutions repeatedly undermined as ineffective, systemically biased, or partisan. Internationally, the reduction in the number of democracies has led to the term democratic backsliding, with a range of research seeking to explain the increases in the number of authoritarian regimes displacing democratic institutions (Bauer and Becker, 2020).

The relationship between democratic governance and the teaching of public administration is under-explored, perhaps with implicit taken for granted assumptions. Fundamentally, the question is: can practitioners be taught the skills for building and sustaining institutions central to democratic governance. If so, how to connect research on effective teaching through experiential approaches (Grant, 2023) with democratic political theory and practice central to the democratic rule of law? The implicit democratic context in public administration has been neglected in favor of different lines of inquiry, in at least five different directions.

Moving forward, the teaching practices for the master of public administration and related degrees can more directly connect research currently fragmented and explicitly relate the key findings to addressing questions of democracy.

Purpose of the Paper

This research explores the role of university-based Living Labs (Hossain et al., 2019) as enablers of participatory and sustainable policymaking. It compares two exemplary cases where student-initiated projects were adopted as formal municipal policies. In alignment with the shift toward democratic, participatory, and action-oriented educational models, the university is framed not only as a site for knowledge transmission but also as a space for co-creation and civic experimentation. The EducAction approach (Di Gerio et al., 2020) is presented as a transformative model that places students at the centre of shared knowledge production and collective responses to complex societal challenges (Lönngren & Van Poeck, 2021). The study addresses three key literature gaps:

1. Lack of operational models that integrate the Quintuple Helix (academia, public administration, business, civil society, environment) with youth-oriented Living Labs practices to create sustainable value and long-term solutions.

2. Limited focus on the active role of students and younger generations as prosumers (producers-users) in decision-making processes.

3. Scarce documentation of institutional mechanisms that translate bottom-up proposals into formal public policies.

Research Approach and Methods

Adopting the Quintuple Helix theoretical framework (Carayannis et al., 2012), the study adopts a double case study methodology to examine how two student-driven initiatives evolved into formal municipal policies through university-based Living Labs. These ideas originated from participatory processes at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, which function as Living Labs integrating experiential learning, collaborative planning, and engagement with external stakeholders. A qualitative, interpretative approach guides the analysis, focusing on educational and planning practices within the university setting.

Main findings and Implications

The findings reveal that action-oriented, cross-institutional educational practices enable the university to function as a civic lab and driver of social innovation. Integrating teaching with the university’s Third Mission activities supports a systemic reconfiguration in which students shift from passive learners to active agents of change. Through co-design experiences with public authorities and private entities, students not only acquire technical and transversal skills but also deepen their civic awareness and capacity to shape social and territorial transformation. The study thus proposes a renewed vision of the university as a democratic agent, generating public value through inclusive, participatory, and sustainability-focused education. The EducAction model emerges as a strategic framework for rethinking academic institutions as responsive and engaged components of democratic society.

References

Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship, 1, 1-12.

Di Gerio, C., Fiorani, G., & Paciullo, G. (2020). Fostering sustainable development and social responsibility in higher education: the case of tor vergata university of rome. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 8(1), 31-44.

Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of cleaner production, 213, 976-988.

Lönngren, J., & Van Poeck, K. (2021). Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 481-502.

In an era of democratic uncertainty and civic fragmentation, public administration education must respond with more than technical skill—it must cultivate the democratic capacities of future public servants. This presentation introduces the concept of the civic professional and argues for the integration of civil discourse and deliberative practice into public administration curricula. By preparing students to engage diverse publics, facilitate inclusive dialogue, and support participatory governance, public administration programs can strengthen democratic resilience from within. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Ithaca Initiative at the Biden School of Public Policy embodies these democratic principles and practices, serving as an example of dedicated focus to the integration of civil discourse and deliberation into public affairs education.

Additionally, drawing on educational initiatives and institutional case studies from the U.S. and global contexts, the session demonstrates how public administration education can be reoriented toward democratic renewal. Participants will engage with strategies for embedding deliberative and civic practices into professional formation and consider how these approaches can inform their own institutional settings.

Two thousand twenty-one marked the 100th anniversary of the Budget and Accounting Act (BAA) of 1921, a landmark law designed to improve efficiency and accountability across the federal government. The Act established foundational rules for budgeting, transforming the relationship between the executive branch and Congress by requiring the President to submit an annual budget. Over the past century, this process has shaped federal priorities and decision-making. However, despite its historic importance, the BAA’s relevance and effectiveness have diminished as new fiscal and political challenges emerged.

While the Act set clear expectations for federal budgeting, reforms since then have struggled to meet its requirements or keep pace with the nation's growing financial complexities. Persistent deficits remain a defining feature of the federal budget, largely due to rising spending that exceeds revenues. Political leaders from both parties have contributed to this issue, often making popular promises without identifying sustainable funding sources. Instead, they shift blame for deficits onto their opponents, sidestepping accountability for expanding the national debt.

For decades, public budgeting scholars have identified structural flaws that continue to undermine fiscal responsibility. First, insufficient investment in institutional infrastructure has weakened budget mechanisms. Second, increasing political polarization has disrupted the budget process, reducing its efficiency and responsiveness. Third, the federal government has grown so large that existing procedures can no longer effectively manage budgetary demands. Finally, and most critically, the concept of an annual federal budget has become problematic. The BAA’s requirement for yearly budget submissions conflicts with the need for long-term planning and flexibility. This structure prevents agencies from pursuing multi-year projects and hampers the government’s ability to respond to unexpected crises.

Presidential administrations from Bush to Biden have built upon the BAA to shape their economic and policy priorities, yet they have all struggled with the same core issues. Major fiscal challenges—such as defense spending, entitlement program costs, and a growing national debt—remain unresolved. The ideal of a balanced budget has become obsolete, while frequent partisan battles over the debt ceiling and government funding have led to repeated shutdown threats and legislative gridlock.

Moreover, the BAA did not anticipate modern challenges like the global technological revolution or evolving accounting standards. Today’s budget process is complex, lacks transparency, and does little to encourage program evaluation or public engagement. Continuing resolutions have become routine, signaling

legislative dysfunction and eroding democratic accountability.

In conclusion, while the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 established a vital framework for federal budgeting, it has grown outdated. Political polarization, growing deficits, and an inflexible annual budgeting process have rendered it increasingly ineffective. After a century, it is clear that executive branch budgeting is dysfunctional and that serious reform is needed to modernize the process and address today’s fiscal realities.