Bibliometric Analysis of Public Administration Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsbm.v3i03.2242Keywords:
Public Administration, Bibliometric Analysis, VOSviewer, Public Policy, E-GovernmentAbstract
This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of public administration research using data retrieved from the Scopus database and visualized through VOSviewer. The objective is to map the intellectual structure, thematic evolution, and global collaboration patterns in the field from 2000 to 2024. The analysis includes co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, temporal overlay, and density visualizations to identify the most influential authors, institutions, countries, and research topics. The findings reveal that while traditional themes such as bureaucracy, public policy, and administrative reform remain central, there has been a notable shift toward contemporary topics such as e-government, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and sustainability. The United States emerges as the leading contributor in terms of publication volume and collaborative influence. The study offers practical insights for researchers, policymakers, and academic institutions, while also contributing theoretically by highlighting the evolution and diversification of public administration as a multidisciplinary field. Despite limitations related to database scope and keyword standardization, this research provides a valuable foundation for guiding future studies and strengthening strategic collaboration in the discipline.
References
[1] J. M. Shafritz, E. W. Russell, C. P. Borick, and A. C. Hyde, Introducing public administration. Routledge, 2022.
[2] A. Farazmand, “Globalization and public administration,” Public Adm. Rev., pp. 509–522, 1999.
[3] D. F. Kettl, “Public administration at the millennium: The state of the field,” J. public Adm. Res. theory, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7–34, 2000.
[4] N. Henry, Public administration and public affairs. Routledge, 2015.
[5] M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,” J. Informetr., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017.
[6] N. Van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010.
[7] J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby, and L. Bloomberg, “Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management,” 2014, Wiley Online Library.
[8] S. P. Osborne and K. Strokosch, “It takes Two to Tango? Understanding the C o‐production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives,” Br. J. Manag., vol. 24, pp. S31–S47, 2013.
[9] W. Vandenabeele, “Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation: An institutional approach,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 545–556, 2007.
[10] S. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. Jilke, A. L. Olsen, and L. Tummers, “Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2017.
[11] C. Ansell, E. Sørensen, and J. Torfing, “The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 949–960, 2021.
[12] D. P. Carpenter and G. A. Krause, “Reputation and public administration,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 26–32, 2012.
[13] H. Wang, W. Xiong, G. Wu, and D. Zhu, “Public–private partnership in Public Administration discipline: a literature review,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 293–316, 2018.
[14] K. R. Isett, I. A. Mergel, K. LeRoux, P. A. Mischen, and R. K. Rethemeyer, “Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go,” J. public Adm. Res. theory, vol. 21, no. suppl_1, pp. i157–i173, 2011.
[15] B. George and S. K. Pandey, “We know the Yin—But where is the Yang? Toward a balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship,” Rev. public Pers. Adm., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 245–270, 2017.
[16] T. Christensen and P. Lægreid, “Complexity and hybrid public administration—theoretical and empirical challenges,” Public Organ. Rev., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 407–423, 2011.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Loso Judijanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com