Conference Agenda

This study explores the portrayal of public administration in cinema across the US, the UK, and Continental Europe from the 1940s to the 2020s. By examining films that depict aspects of public services, the paper aims to understand how cinema reflects and critiques the cultural and institutional dimensions of public administration over time and across different national contexts.

The research employs a qualitative content analysis of selected films from each region and decade, focusing on narratives that center around public administration and public services. The selection criteria included films that are set within the respective countries, exclude foreign affairs or historical settings predating the 20th century, and have a significant focus on public administrative themes. The analysis of about 40 films draws upon sociological theories of film and cultural studies to interpret the representations and their implications.

The analysis reveals distinct thematic evolutions and regional differences. Across the examined period (1940s–2020s), cinematic depictions of public administration evolve from idealistic, sometimes comic or satirical portrayals of government and bureaucracy, to increasingly critical, complex, socially grounded reflections on institutional power, accountability, and citizen-state relations. Over time, public administration in film tracks broader political shifts — from post-war optimism to neoliberal disillusionment and fragmented legitimacy. The focus shifts from systems to people, from macro-political institutions to micro-level citizen experience. Films increasingly reflect and shape trust or distrust in public institutions, providing a valuable lens to assess public sentiment across geography and time.

The comparison across the United States, United Kingdom, and Continental Europe shows that each region developed a distinct cinematic grammar to represent the relationship between citizens and public administration. US films are broadly oriented towards the moral drama of the individual versus the system. Individual challengers are positioned against a flawed but redeemable system, typically through moral confrontation articulated via whistleblowing, legal advocacy, or journalistic investigation. The ideal of redemption is under strain in later decades, however, where institutional resistance to oversight persists. UK films focus on mundane frustrations and the quiet human costs of bureaucratic governance. British cinema emphasizes inertia, absurdity, and proceduralism — often with an undertone of melancholy. Rather than grand confrontation, drama is found in everyday interactions, like when citizens face an indifferent system. Small triumphs are celebrated (like a playground built or a welfare form approved), but systemic change is rare or fleeting. These narratives reflect a cultural realism — or cynicism — about reform. European cinema is more inclined to depict public administration as a structural force, embedded in regimes of control, surveillance, and ideological violence. While US and UK films often frame bureaucracy as frustrating but potentially responsive, European films highlight its dehumanizing and sometimes lethal consequences — portrayals shaped by histories of authoritarianism, war, and fragile democracies.

In sum, the analysis indicates profound questions that films – as expression of popular culture – pose about public administration, like: Can individuals maintain integrity within bureaucratic systems? Does bureaucracy inherently dehumanize public service? Who holds public institutions accountable when oversight fails?

Governments have in recent years developed various new climate governance procedures in their efforts to get to net zero emissions. These systems may help generate common knowledge and ensure continuous revisiting, evaluation, and improvement of overall climate governance. There are numerous strategies for organizing domestic climate governance (Boasson & Tatham, 2023; Dubash, 2021; Guy et al., 2023), and bureaucratic institutions for climate action (Limberg et al., 2024; Meckling & Nahm, 2018; Tosun, 2018). So far, we have little knowledge of how and why these differences in governance develop. Understanding the reasons for variation in climate governance systems is important because it may lead us to understand how these systems can be organized most efficiently within different contexts. Therefore, this paper seeks to answer the following question: what are the key mechanisms that influence variation in climate governance systems?

This paper establishes a framework that explains how domestic contexts influence the development of varying types of climate governance systems. It does so by studying the development of such systems in Norway and Denmark, two countries that share many similarities but have ended up with quite different climate governance systems. While the Norwegian strategy involves climate governance integrated in another existing governance cycle, the Danish strategy was to create a separate climate governance system that other sectors can contribute to. Additionally, Denmark established an independent expert council that regularly reviews and gives advice to the overall climate governance. The differences have implications for how efficiently each country work towards reaching climate targets.

The theoretical framework focuses on four main mechanisms that drive the development of climate governance: playing field shift, political translation, bureaucratic politics and administrative translation. These mechanisms point to conditions in the administrative and political apparatus that drive variation in climate governance. Changes in the playing field refer to how popular movements can lead to shifts when conditions are favorable. Political translation involves politicians learning from and adapting strategies used in other settings. Bureaucratic politics underline how power relations among various administrative sectors shape governance structures. Administrative translation refers to how current institutions and processes are applied to climate governance. The mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and the presence of different mechanisms can lead to variations in the form of the climate governance system.

The analysis is built on extensive qualitative data, including official documents and qualitative interviews, which is analyzed through an abductive research strategy.

This paper investigates the influence of ethical-religious values on corporate sustainability reporting, with a focus on water utilities operating in Italy and UK, countries historically shaped by Catholic and Protestant traditions, respectively. While sustainability reporting has become a crucial tool for enhancing transparency and responding to stakeholder expectations (De Villiers & Marques, 2016; Baldini et al., 2018), concerns persist regarding the authenticity of these disclosures (Delmas & Burbano, 2011), particularly in sectors like utilities that are closely tied to public service and complex environmental challenges (Imperiale et al., 2023). Despite growing interest in the role of ethics in sustainability communication (Fassin et al., 2011; Torelli, 2021), the impact of religiosity on the construction of corporate narratives and materiality analysis remains underexplored (Farooq et al., 2019; Terzani & Turzo, 2022).

The study is grounded in the Sociology of Worth (SOW) theoretical framework (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991; 2006), which identifies multiple "worlds of value" through which actors justify decisions and actions. This lens is particularly suited to examine how Catholic and Protestant ethical principles inform the justificatory logics embedded in sustainability disclosures. SOW enables a shift from a descriptive to an interpretive approach, allowing for a deeper understanding of how organizations legitimize their priorities through culturally embedded value systems.

Methodologically, the paper adopts a qualitative content analysis, combining deductive coding of predefined sustainability themes with inductive thematic analysis to uncover latent narratives and legitimation strategies (Joffe, 2012; Braun et al., 2019). The empirical material consists of sustainability reports from water utilities in Italy and UK, selected for their role in managing public goods and addressing environmental externalities (Bresnihan, 2016; D’Amore et al., 2023). Reports are analysed to evaluate how ethical-religious values influence the selection of material topics, the framing of sustainability narratives, and the type of legitimacy pursued (symbolic vs. substantive).

The study addresses three research questions:

RQ1: How do Catholic and Protestant values shape sustainability narratives?

RQ2: What differences emerge in the material themes between Italian and UK water utilities?

RQ3: How do cultural values influence the type of legitimacy pursued?

This research contributes to literature on sustainability reporting and business ethics, offering a novel lens to interpret disclosure practices and emphasizing the need to integrate cultural and normative dimensions into corporate communication strategies.

As agricultural systems grapple with the dual challenges of water-use efficiency and climate change, public governance and policies have emerged as a critical force for sustainable transformations. This paper presents a comparative policy analysis of how the Netherlands and India—two countries at different stages of development and administrative capacity—have approached water conservation in agriculture. While the Netherlands exemplifies data-driven, institutionalized, and decentralized water governance, India represents a complex federal system struggling with fragmented implementation and deeply entrenched groundwater exploitation. The study aims to highlight how differences in administrative design, policy coordination, and strategic planning shape the effectiveness of sustainability-oriented reforms.

The research has basis in a qualitative analysis of secondary sources, including national policy documents, irrigation strategy and plan reports, and international datasets such as Eurostat, FAO AQUASTAT, the Indian Minor Irrigation Census (MIC), and government and parliamentary evaluation reports. The study applies a comparative governance lens to examine institutional capacity and arrangements, policy tools, and performance indicators related to agricultural water use.

Findings reveal that the Netherlands has institutionalized a robust system of decentralized water governance through Waterschappen (regional water authorities) and technological integration. Initiatives like the Green Deal for Sustainable Water Use in Agriculture, the Digital Soil Passport, and climate-resilient zoning laws have enabled precise monitoring and adaptive water use. Between 2010 and 2022, water use per hectare in agriculture declined by 11%, while maintaining high productivity levels. Policy convergence across agriculture, environment, and water sectors is built through integrated planning and cross-sectoral digital platforms.

In contrast, India has made substantial investments through the overarching Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) and its ‘Per Drop More Crop’ initiative, which expanded micro-irrigation coverage from 8.6 to 14.6 million hectares between 2014 and 2022. However, administrative fragmentation—between federal-state schemes, state agriculture departments, and irrigation authorities—often limits coordinated implementation. Moreover, entrenched electricity subsidies, unsustainable cropping patterns (monocultures), inefficient hybrid varieties, especially in northwestern region, continue to undermine water-conservation efforts. Evaluation reports show limited convergence between irrigation schemes, extension services, and groundwater governance.

The comparative analysis underscores that public management is not solely about program design but critically depends on institutional coherence, inter-agency coordination, and the capacity to adapt policy tools to local ecological and socio-economic contexts. The Netherlands demonstrates how sustained investment in data systems, stakeholder participation, and regulatory integration can drive sustainable water use.

This paper contributes to the literature on comparative public administration by highlighting how differences in state capacity, administrative culture, and strategic planning affect environmental policy outcomes. It calls for greater policy transfer and cooperation between the EU and developing countries in designing adaptive governance frameworks. Strategic management, when effectively embedded in public administration, can serve as a powerful instrument to mediate between competing goals of agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability.

The findings have implications for international efforts, policy designers, and administrators aiming to mainstream sustainability within agricultural governance across diverse political economies.