Master of Public Administration and Master of Public Policy degrees: Differences and similarities in the curricula and course contents

Abstract

The historical origins of public administration and public policy analysis suggest that Master of Public Administration and Master of Public Policy programs should have different focuses in their curricula: the former on management skills and the latter on analytical skills. To investigate whether and to what extent the two types of programs are different and whether the accreditation standards of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration have a homogenizing effect on them, we investigated the titles and descriptions of the courses in their core curricula. The results show some differences between Master of Public Administration and Master of Public Policy programs, but no clear distinction. Analytical skills are required by both Master of Public Administration and Master of Public Policy programs. Master of Public Policy programs distinguish themselves from Master of Public Administration programs primarily by requiring economics and economic analysis courses. Higher percentages of Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration-accredited programs require organization studies, human resource management, and public budgeting courses.

Keywords

Master of Public Administration Master of Public Policy NASPAA accreditation analytical skills economics

Introduction

Graduate education in public affairs has evolved in the last century. Master of Public Administration (MPA) degrees have been in existence for almost 90 years; Master of Public Policy (MPP) degrees emerged almost half a century ago (Henry et al., 2009). Some institutions offer similar degrees with other names, such as Master of Public Affairs and Master of Public Policy and Administration. As the programs and their names evolved, a group of researchers investigated the differences and similarities between MPA and MPP programs, particularly in the last three decades (Averch et al., 1992; Elmore, 1986; Henry et al., 2009; Hur and Hackbart, 2009; Infield and Adams, 2011; Koven et al., 2008; Lowery, 1994; Roeder and Whitaker, 1993). A key question some of them asked was, are the contents of MPA and MPP programs substantially different from each other? More specifically, are they different in a way the historical traditions in their respective fields suggest?

In this paper, we follow up these earlier studies and update their findings, particularly with comparisons of the most recent curricula of MPA and MPP programs. In our study, we also investigated possible effects of the accreditation standards of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) on both kinds of programs in the US. We included in our study only the programs in the US and focused only on the NASPAA as the accrediting agency—we did not include the programs in other countries that were accredited by NASPAA or those accredited by the European Association for Public Administration Accreditation (EAPAA)—for methodological reasons, as we discuss later in the paper. The results of this study can be used by university and college faculties and administrators in their decisions on the types of programs they consider offering and how to revise their curricula to attract new students.

In the next section, we provide brief histories and evolutions of public administration and public policy analysis. Then we summarize the findings in the earlier studies, present the research questions of this study, discuss the data collection and analytical methods we used, and present our results. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings.

A brief history of public administration and public policy analysis

The roots of the similarities and differences between the MPA and MPP programs can be found in the histories and evolutions of the academic fields of public administration and public policy analysis. Both fields have long historical roots in practice, but their current principles and practices were formulated in the 20th century. What follows is a historical overview of these programs and their developments.

MPA programs were the products of the intellectual and practical developments in the USA. The first MPA programs were established in this country to educate generalist public administrators in the 1930s and their numbers increased substantially in the 1950s and 1960s (Stokes, 1996). Historically, the primary goals of the public administration practice have been to implement the decisions of rulers (whether democratically elected or not) and serve the needs of their publics. The public administration scholarship in the USA followed this tradition. Early American scholars such as Wilson (1887) emphasized that for the implementations to be effective and efficient, the theory and practice of public administration had to be separated from the politics of how public decisions were made. Consequently, public administration education mainly focused on the problems of implementation, particularly management of human and financial resources in public organizations. NASPAA’s definition of MPA programs reflects this focus. NASPAA’s website states the MPA degree is to be used in “management careers in public service…[and its] curriculum is designed to aid students in developing the skills and techniques used by leaders and managers to implement policies, projects, and programs that resolve important societal problems” (NASPAA, n.d.-a).

The function of public policy analysis can be defined broadly as giving advice to rulers. In its modern form, public policy analysis came of age in the USA after World War II, more specifically in the 1950s and 1960s (Radin, 2013; Stokes, 1996). A distinguishing aspect of modern public policy analysis is its emphasis on the use of scientific and analytical methods to produce policy-relevant information (Dunn, 2015). This scientific orientation was articulated by Lasswell (1951), who proposed a “policy sciences of democracy” with the primary purpose of developing “a science of policy forming and execution” (p. 15).

The early intellectual leaders of public policy analysis such as Dror (1967) stressed that this emerging field could be differentiated from public administration. The goal of public policy analysis was to improve policymaking, whereas that of public administration was to improve the implementation of public policies. The designs of the first MPP programs, which were created at academic institutions such as Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Duke, Harvard, Michigan, RAND, Texas, and Stanford in the 1960s and the 1970s reflected this vision; their mission would be to educate students in policymaking processes and analytical methods that could be used in developing policies (Ellwood, 2008; Frederickson and Stazyk, 2016; Radin, 2013; Stokes, 1986). The Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) was created in 1978, primarily as the organization of public policy analysis schools and programs; although its name and the name of its official journal (the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management) includes “management,” the main focus of its conferences and the journal has been policy analysis (Radin, 2013).

After some experimentation in the curricula of MPP programs in the 1980s and 1990s, the programs began to deemphasize politics of policy processes and organizational processes and to accentuate quantitative analyses and economics (Radin, 2013). NASPAA, which accredits MPP programs, as well as MPA programs, distinguishes the former by stating that the focus of MPP programs is “analyzing and evaluating information to solve policy problems” and that their graduates “work with quantitative and qualitative data to develop, assess, and evaluate alternative approaches to current and emerging issues” (NASPAA, n.d.-a).

These brief histories suggest that MPA programs were initially designed to focus on the implementation of polices, whereas MPP programs to focus on analytical methods. In more specific terms, MPA programs would teach organizational management knowledge and skills, whereas MPP programs would teach analytical skills. A closer look at the intellectual traditions and evolutions of public administration and public policy analysis reveals a more complex picture than this dichotomous categorization. Both fields had their intellectual roots in political theory, and the roots of public administration were also in administrative law to some degree. Their intellectual founders (e.g., Woodrow Wilson and Harold Lasswell), who were eminent political theorists of their times, aimed to separate their respective fields from political theory and, in the case of public administration, from law.

The intellectual discussions in the decades that followed the founding of these fields suggest the legitimacy of their separations from political theory and law was controversial. Long (1949) questioned the legitimacy of separating political power from administrative practices, for example. Another issue of contention was the role of normative thinking (values and legal principles) in public administration scholarship and practice. The Simon-Waldo debate on whether public administration should be an empirical area of study or be based on normative thinking crystalized the issue (Waldo, 1952; Simon et al., 1952). Scholars such as Frederickson (1971), Rohr (1978, 1986), and Gooden and Portillo (2011) argued that public administration could not be separated from its roots in ethics and law. It is reasonable to expect that as a result of the influence of scholars, the knowledge of politics (power, institutional arrangements) and normative thinking (law and ethics) play some role in public administration education today.

In his original vision for the “policy sciences of democracy,” Lasswell recognized the importance of both science and democratic values in policy analysis and policymaking. His vision generated some uncertainty in the definition and orientation of policy analysis, particularly in whether it should be purely analytical or factor in the role of normative theory, such as the role of democratic values in policymaking, and the importance of the knowledge of political institutions in policy analysis (Farr et al., 2006). The complexity of Lasswell’s legacy suggests the curricula of public policy education are likely to include components of politics and normative knowledge.

Comparisons of MPA and MPP programs and possible effects of NASPAA accreditation

The above summaries of the origins and intellectual traditions of public administration and public policy analysis suggest that MPA and MPP programs have somewhat different orientations, but they may not have completely different contents. Not surprisingly, the findings in the literature on the differences between MPA and MPP programs are mixed.

A group of researchers found that in their core curricula, public administration programs emphasized the topics of the management of people and public organizations (budget and finance, human resources, leadership, management, public administration, and organizational theory), whereas public policy programs emphasized economics and analytical methods (Elmore, 1986; Henry et al., 2009; Hur and Hackbart, 2009; Koven et al., 2008; Roeder and Whitaker, 1993). Some also found that the curricular differences between them were not substantial (Averch et al., 1992; Ellwood, 2008; Henry et al., 2009; Koven et al., 2008) and the differences between their curricula had eroded over time (Lowery, 1994).

A possible reason for the similarities between the curricula of MPA and MPP programs is the homogenizing effects of accreditation standards. There are two well-known accreditation organizations for public affairs programs: NASPAA and the EAPAA. Possible homogenizing effects of both organizations could be studied. We decided to delimit our study to the programs in the USA and focused on the possible homogenizing effects of NASPAA only to be able to make valid comparisons (see the Methods section).

NASPAA’s required core competencies include managerial skills, policy processes, and analytical skills (NASPAA, n.d.-b). It is conceivable the NASPAA accreditation process facilitated the homogenization of the curricula of the MPA and MPP programs. In their study of NASPAA-accredited programs, Breaux et al. (2003) found that NASPAA accreditation had a homogenizing effect in the core curricula of Master of Public Affairs programs and that the environmental factors they controlled for (institutional location, the nature of specialization tracks, etc.) had only little relationships with the contents of their core curricula. These researchers did not differentiate between MPA and MPP programs in their study, probably because there was no MPP program accredited by NASPAA at that time.

In our study, we investigated the possible homogenizing effect of the NASPAA accreditation, particularly on MPP programs. This possibility is important to investigate because the NASPAA standards for educational programs in public affairs were set by the leaders of public administration programs, who were the founders of this organization in the 1970s (Henry, 2015). Public policy programs were recognized by NASPAA later, more specifically when it changed its name to the “Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration” (emphasis added) in 2013 (NASPAA, nd-c).

The most recent NASPAA accreditation standards at the time of writing (2018) had been adopted in 2009. If the standards had any effects on the curricula of the programs, 10 years should have been sufficient time to observe such effects in our study.

We included APPAM affiliation of MPP programs as a factor in our study, because APPAM represents an intention among its affiliates to carve out a distinct orientation and identity for the educational programs in policy analysis, particularly a distinct from that of public administration programs. APPAM was created in 1979 and has since accepted institutional membership, as well as individual membership, but it does not serve as an accrediting body. Some of the existing MPP programs are housed in APPAM member institutions and they are not accredited by NASPAA; others are accredited by NASPAA. This difference between the two groups of MPP programs allowed us to investigate the effects of NASPAA accreditation on this type of program.

The focus and research questions of this study

In this study we followed up the findings of the earlier studies. To investigate the extent to which MPA and MPP programs were different, we compared the curricula of the two types of programs, particularly the core (required) courses in these programs. We limited our study to comparisons between the MPA and MPP programs in the USA. Although these and similar types of programs have also been established outside the USA in recent years, their numbers are still small and their geographic distribution is wide, which would make meaningful comparisons difficult. According to the NASPAA data, there were eight MPA programs, four MPP programs, and three others outside the USA that were accredited by this institution in 2016 (NASPAA, n.d.-a).

The main research question of this paper is to what extent are the curricula of the MPA and MPP programs in the USA different from and similar to each other? As we noted earlier in this paper, these two types of programs originated with different pedagogical orientations, but the intellectual traditions of public administration and public policy analysis and recent findings by some researchers indicate the two kinds of program may not be sharply different in their curricular contents.

Also, as we noted earlier, possible similarities between MPA and MPP programs may be, at least partly, caused by the common accreditation standards of NASPAA for both types of program. Both MPA and MPP programs that are accredited by NASPAA should include the five core competencies in their curricula (NASPAA, n.d.-b): (a) to lead and manage in public governance; (b) to participate and contribute to the policy process; (c) to analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems, and make decisions; (d) to articulate and apply a public service perspective; and (e) to communicate and interact productively with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry. In particular, the first three of these competencies can have a homogenizing effect on both MPA and MPP programs. The first one is about management (initially the mission of MPA programs). The second brought the topics of public policy into MPA programs. The third requires an emphasis on research methods and analytical skills.

To answer the main research question of this study (to what extent are the curricula of the MPA and MPP programs in the USA different from and similar to each other?), we asked the following specific research questions. These questions were informed by the above summaries of the intellectual traditions of public administration and public policy analysis and the discussions on the NASPAA accreditation standards.

Are there differences between MPA and MPP programs in their emphases on the following areas of expertise (skills) in their curricula?

a. Management versus analysis

The number of analytical (research methods) courses required in the curricula

Types of analytical skills they teach, particularly quantitative versus qualitative analytical skills

Specific analytical methods they teach

b. Policy process versus policy analysis, program evaluation, government/politics

c. Normative theory (ethics, law)

d. Economics

e. Other areas

Because of the NASPAA accreditation requirements (NASPAA’s possible homogenizing effect), are NASPAA-accredited MPA and MPP programs alike in their curricular content? In other words, do both types of NASPAA-accredited programs (NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP) have curricular similarities, compared to the MPP programs that are affiliated only with APPAM (APPAM MPP)? We compare these three program groups in the following areas.

a. Management versus analysis

The number of analytical (research methods) courses required in the curricula

Types of analytical skills they teach, particularly quantitative versus qualitative analytical skills

Specific analytical methods they teach

b. Policy process versus policy analysis, program evaluation, government/politics

c. Normative theory (ethics, law)

d. Economics

e. Other areas

We aimed to answer these questions by comparing the types of courses MPA and MPP programs require in their core curricula. The details of how we selected the courses to compare, how we coded the information in them, and how we analyzed the information are presented in the Methods section.

Methods

Selection of programs

As we noted earlier, we delimited our study to the MPA and MPP programs in the USA and focused on possible homogenizing effects of NASPAA only. We excluded the non-US programs that were accredited by NASPAA, the programs that were accredited by EAPAA, and the non-accredited programs outside the USA for two methodological reasons. First, we did not have a clear definition of the universe of non-accredited programs outside the USA, whereas we had well-defined universes of the NASPAA-accredited and APPAM-affiliated programs in the USA. Second, the numbers of NASPAA-accredited programs and those affiliated with APPAM were available and they were large enough to conduct meaningful statistical analyses (about 200), whereas the number of EAPAA-accredited European programs were much lower (about 50) and the number of unaccredited programs in Europe was unknown to us at the time we collected our data (EAPAA, n.d.). For these reasons, comparing the programs outside the USA would have created validity problems.

We selected the MPA and MPP programs in the USA to be included in our analyses in three stages. First, we identified the institutions (colleges and universities) that had graduate-level master’s programs in public affairs, using the information NASPAA’s database of programs and the APPAM website. In our initial selection of the programs, we followed NASPAA’s most updated categories of public affairs programs: Master of Public Administration, Master of Public Policy, Master of Public Affairs, Executive Master of Public Administration, Master of Public Management, Master of Public Policy and Administration, and Master of Science in Public Administration, Public Administration, and Public Affairs. Second, we selected the MPA and MPP categories for our analyses and excluded all the other categories because most of the other programs included administration and policy components at varying degrees, which would make it difficult to disentangle the effects of these components, if there were any.

After the second stage in our selection, we identified five groups of institutions that had: (a) only NASPAA-accredited MPA programs, but no other public affairs programs (153 institutions); (b) only NASPAA-accredited MPP programs (eight institutions); (c) APPAM-affiliated MPP programs only, and no NASPAA-accredited programs (21 institutions); (d) NASPAA-accredited MPA programs and NASPAA-accredited, but not APPAM-affiliated MPP programs (four institutions); and (e) NASPAA-accredited MPA programs and APPAM-affiliated but not NASPAA-accredited MPP programs (10 institutions).

There were 153 institutions with NASPAA-accredited MPA programs in the NASPAA database at the time of our study. Because this number was much larger than those of the other four categories combined, including all the MPA programs in the study would not be practical. Instead, we selected a simple random sample of 43 institutions with NASPAA-accredited MPA programs only to match the total number of the institutions in the other four categories.

After our initial assessments and analyses, we decided to remove the last two groups of institutions (institutions with NASPAA-accredited MPA programs and NASPAA-accredited, but not APPAM-affiliated MPP programs and those with NASPAA-accredited MPA programs and APPAM-affiliated but not NASPAA-accredited MPP programs) from further analyses, because their inclusion could have introduced an uncontrolled interaction between our two independent variables (MPA versus MPP and the NASPAA accreditation). After removing these two groups, we kept all the 43 institutions with NASPAA-accredited MPA programs only (NASPAA MPA) in our analyses because it would not be meaningful to reduce this number to match the total of the remaining groups: institutions that had NASPAA-accredited MPP programs only (NASPAA MPP) and those that had APPAM-affiliated MPP programs only (APPAM MPP). Please see the appendix for the list of the institutions included in this study.

Course comparisons

To compare the core curricula of the MPA and MPP programs, we grouped the courses in their core curricula into the following categories: research methods (e.g., quantitative and qualitative methods, data analysis and management); public budgeting and finance (e.g., finance, budgeting); organizational studies (e.g., organization theory and behavior, strategic planning); management (e.g., managing public sector organization, managing networks); human resources (e.g., human resource management, talent management); public policy processes (e.g., policy process, policy implementation, law and public policy); policy analysis (e.g., introduction to policy research, policy design, and analysis); program evaluation (e.g., public program evaluation, performance measurement); economics (e.g., economic foundations of public service, micro/macroeconomics); economic analysis (e.g., economics for policy analysis, econometrics); public administration/public service (e.g., introduction to/ foundations in public administration/public service management); government and politics (e.g., policy and politics, advocacy and lobbying, governance); law (e.g., administrative law, law and public policy); ethics (ethical leadership, accountability); professional skills (e.g., professional/business writing, strategic presentation skills); information technology and other core courses (e.g., diversity in the workplace); nonprofit (nonprofit management, nonprofit fundraising); community development (e.g., theories of community development, poverty alleviation strategies). In our study we also included MPA and MPP closing exercises or requirements (e.g., capstone project, thesis, internship). Finally, when there were courses that did not fall clearly in one category, we used a residual category named “Other.” We used the categories listed in this paragraph to identify the kinds of core courses offered by the programs in the study.

To answer the questions 1a through 1e and 2a through 2e, we compared the titles and descriptions of the courses in the core curricula of the programs, based on the information available on the websites of the institutions. Comparing the titles and descriptions of the courses is a limitation of our study; we accepted it because more detailed course information (e.g., course syllabuses) was not available for most of the courses we identified in our searches. Also, we noted that the syllabuses we could find were not uniformly structured, which would have limited the validity of our analyses.

Because the dichotomy of management versus analysis was important in the original designs of MPA and MPP programs, as we noted in our discussion of the histories of these two types of programs and NASPAA’s definition of the two types of programs make this distinction, we investigated questions 1a and 2a in more detail. We aimed to find out whether there were differences between MPA and MPP programs, and between NASPAA-accredited and APPAM-affiliated programs, not only in the numbers of analytical (research methods) required in their curricula (questions 1a-i and 2a-i), but also the types of analytical skills they teach, particularly quantitative versus qualitative analytical skills (questions 1a-ii and 2a-ii) and the specific analytical methods they teach (1a-iii and 2a-iii). To answer the questions about qualitative versus quantitative skills and the specific analytical methods (1a-ii, 1a-iii, 2a-ii, and 2a-iii), we analyzed not only the descriptions of research methods and statistics courses, but also the courses in public policy analysis, evaluation, and economics—all areas that are likely to include applications of analytical methods. To identify whether a course was primarily quantitative or qualitative in nature, we reviewed the language in the course description. To identify the specific methods taught in these courses, we conducted keyword searches in the course descriptions using the (COUNTIF) function in Excel. In our searches, we used the following keywords: research design, theory/logic, hypothesis testing, survey, sampling, experimental, regression, descriptive analysis, probability, correlation, microeconomic analysis, reporting/disseminating/presentation.

Analyses

After coding the information as described above, we conducted descriptive analyses (tabular comparisons) and one-way Chi-square tests (i.e., one-dimensional goodness of fit tests) among the three categories of programs (NASPAA MPA, NASPAA MPP, and APPAM MPP), with the alpha level 0.05. The one-way Chi square tests the null hypothesis that the percentage of cases in each category is not significantly different than an expected value of percentages. In our analyses, we tested the null hypothesis that the percentage of the cases in each category (NASPAA MPA, NASPAA MPP, and APPAM MPP) is not significantly different than the expected value of the percentage of the cases in the total number of courses in our dataset. We specifically tested the differences in the percentages of programs requiring particular courses, methodological tendencies in core courses (qualitative vs. quantitative), and specific analytical methods taught in the core courses.

Results

We present the results of our Chi-square analyses of the pairwise comparisons between the three groups of programs (NASPAA MPA, NASPAA MPP, and APPAM MPP) in three tables. The tables include the percentages of those programs that require the categories of core courses, as defined in the previous section, in each of the three groups of programs. They also show the Chi-Square probabilities for the pairwise comparisons among the three categories. In the tables, we indicate whether hypothesizes (differences between the MPA and MPP programs and NASPAA’s effects on the programs) are supported at α=0.05 with asterisks and whether the results are significant after Bonferroni corrections of the α level (Bonferrroni-corrected α=0.017). When they are not supported at the Bonferrroni-corrected α level (0.017), we mark that with the sign (B). We note the observed significant differences between MPA and MPP programs and the effects of NASPAA accreditation in the text as “MPA vs MPP” and “NASPAA effect” respectively. If the results are not significant at the Bonferrroni-corrected α level (0.017), we interpret them as “weak effects.”

Core courses in MPA and MPP programs

Table 1 presents the core courses in the NASPAA-accredited MPA and MPP programs (NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP) and APPAM-affiliated MPP programs (APPAM MPP). The table shows that research methods courses are required by all MPA and MPP programs. There is no difference between any of the groups compared (questions 1a-i and 2a-i). Our further analyses indicate that 30% of the NASPAA MPA programs, 50% of the NASPAA MPP programs, and 30% of the APPAM MPP programs include two or three research methods courses in their core curricula (not shown in the table).

Table 1.

Core courses in MPA and MPP programs (percentages).

Core course	Type of program (n) and percentage of course presence			Chi-square analysis results (p values)
Core course	NASPAA MPA (n=43)	NASPAA MPP (n=8)	APPAM MPP(n=21)	NASPAA MPA vs APPAM MPP	NASPAA MPA vs NASPAA MPP	NASPAA MPP vs. APPAM MPP
Research methods	100.0	100.0	100.0	1.00	1.00	1.00
Public budgeting & finance^b	97.7	87.5	19.0	0.00	0.37	0.00
Organizational studies^c	69.8	25	4.8	0.00	0.00	0.00
Management	53.5	62.5	47.6	0.54	0.30	0.11
Human resources^c	72.1	25	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00
Public policy procedures^a	46.5	87.5	85.7	0.00	0.00	0.88
Policy analysis^b	46.5	37.5	66.7	0.04^d	0.25	0.00
Program evaluation^c	37.2	12.5	23.8	0.08	0.00	0.05^d
Economics (theory/concepts)^a	14.0	62.5	76.2	0.00	0.00	0.21
Economic analysis^a	16.3	50	42.9	0.00	0.00	0.41
Public administration/public service^a	79.1	50	0.0	0.00	0.00	0.00
Government and politics^a	18.6	37.5	42.9	0.00	0.00	0.52
Law^b	20.9	12.5	4.8	0.00	0.10	0.02^d
Ethics	32.6	25	42.9	0.20	0.25	0.02^d
Professional skills (presentation, public speaking)	11.6	25	19.0	0.14	0.00	0.31
IT^b	16.3	12.5	0.0	0.00	0.41	0.00
Nonprofit^a	9.3	0	0.0	0.01	0.00	1.00
Community development	4.7	0	4.8	0.97	0.04^d	0.05^d
Capstone, thesis, internship, practicum	100.0	100	90.5	0.47	1.00	0.44

^a Significant difference between MPA and MPP programs (α=0.05).

^b Significant difference attributed to NASPAA effect (α=0.05).

^c Significant difference is both MPA versus MPP and the NASPAA effect (α=0.05).

^d Significant difference at α=0.05, but not after Bonferroni correction (0.017).

APPAM = Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management; IT = information technology; MPA = Master of Public Administration; MPP = Master of Public Policy; NASPAA = Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration.

The table also shows that significantly larger percentages of NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs require public budgeting and finance courses, compared to APPAM MPP programs (questions 1a and 2a: NASPAA effect only). There are no significant differences among the three categories of programs in their requirements for management courses. There are differences in the organization theory and human resource courses they require, however. Significantly larger NASPAA MPA programs require both of these courses, compared to NASPAA MPP and APPAM MPP programs. Also, significantly larger percentages of NASPAA MPP programs require these courses, compared to APPAM MPP programs (questions 1a and 2a: both MPA vs MPP and NASPAA effects). It is noteworthy that the percentages of programs that require courses in public budgeting and finance, organization theory, and human resource management decline from NASPAA MPA to NASPAA MPP to APPAM MPP programs.

The answers to our research questions 1b and 2b (about courses in policy process vs. policy analysis, program evaluation, government/politics) are mixed. The table shows that a significantly larger percentage of APPAM MPP programs require policy analysis courses, compared to both NASPAA MPA programs and NASPAA MPP programs, but the difference between NASPAA MPA and APPAM MPP programs disappear after the Bonferroni correction (weak NASPAA effect). The table also shows that significantly larger percentages of both APPAM MPP and NASPAA MPP programs require public policy process courses, compared to NASPAA MPA programs. There is no difference in the percentages for the two groups of MPP programs (MPA vs. MPP difference). There is a significant difference between the NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs in their requirements of program evaluation courses (MPA vs. MPP difference). There is also a borderline significant difference between the NASPAA MPP and APPAM MPP programs at α=0.05, which disappears after the Bonferroni correction (weak NASPAA effect).

Only NASPAA-accredited programs require public administration/public service courses and there is a significant difference between NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs (a smaller percentage of MPP programs require these courses). These results can be interpreted as MPA vs MPP difference and NASPAA effect. The table also shows that significantly larger percentages of both APPAM MPP and NASPAA MPP programs require government and politics courses, compared to NASPAA MPA programs (MPA vs. MPP difference).

There are significant differences in the percentages of the NASPAA MPP and APPAM MPP programs that require normative courses (law and ethics), but each in a different direction: more APPAM programs require ethics, whereas more NASPAA programs require law courses. Also, a significantly larger percentage of NAPAA MPA programs require law, compared to APPAM MPP programs (questions 1c and 2c). Because the significance differences disappear after the Bonferroni corrections, we interpret these results as a weak MPA versus MPP difference and weak NASPAA effect.

In answering our research questions 1d and 2d, we found significant differences between the NASPAA MPA programs on one hand and the NASPAA MPP and APPAM MPP programs on the other, in both the economics (concept and theory) and economic analysis courses. Significantly larger percentages of the MPP programs (both NASPAA and APPAM) require economics and economic analysis courses compared to the MPA programs (MPA vs. MPP).

Small percentages of the programs in all three categories require courses in information technology (IT), nonprofit management, and community development (research questions 1e and 2e). There are significant differences between NASPAA-accredited programs (both MPA and MPP) and APPAM-affiliated programs in the IT courses they require: NASPAA programs require them, APPAM programs do not (NASPAA effect). Only MPA programs require nonprofit courses (MPA vs MPP). There are significant differences between NASPAA MPP programs (they do not require it) and NASPAA MPA and APPAM MPP programs in the community development courses, but the significant differences between NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs and those between NASPAA MPA and APPAM MPP programs disappear after the Bonferroni corrections (weak MPA vs. MPP difference and weak NASPAA effect). There are no significant differences among the three groups in their capstone, thesis, or internship requirements. Almost all the programs require them.

Larger percentages of both APPAM MPP and NASPAA MPP programs require professional skills (presentation, public speaking) courses, compared to NASPAA MPA programs and the difference between the NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs is significant even after the Bonferroni correction (weak MPA vs. MPP difference).

Comparisons of methods taught

Table 2 provides answers to the research questions 1a-ii and 2a-ii. It shows the percentages of programs that require quantitative and qualitative methods (as described the course descriptions). It should be noted that not all the courses we identified had descriptions; that is why the total number of courses in this table are not the same as the ones in Table 1. Also, the courses offered in some of the programs include some combination of these categories (quantitative and qualitative), so the percentages in the table do not add up to 100 in each column. The table indicates that large percentages of the programs in all three categories require quantitative courses and there are no significant differences among them in the quantitative courses they require. Qualitative courses are required in small percentages of NASPAA-accredited MPA and MPP programs, whereas none of the APPAM-affiliated programs require them (NASPAA effect).

Table 2.

Comparisons of different types of methods courses (percentages).

	Type of program (n) and percentage of course presence			Chi-square analysis results (p values)
Core Courses	NASPAA MPA (n=43)	NASPAA MPP (n=8)	APPAM MPP ONLY (n=21)	NASPAA MPA vs APPAM MPP	NASPAA MPA vs NASPAA MPP	NASPAA MPP vs. APPAM MPP
Quantitative methods courses	83.7	87.5	100.0	0.20	0.72	0.32
Qualitative methods courses^a	18.6	12.5	0.0	0.00	0.21	0.00

^a Significant difference between MPA and MPP programs (α=0.05).

^b Significant difference attributed to NASPAA effect (α=0.05).

^c Significant difference is both MPA vs MPP and the NASPAA effect (α=0.05).

APPAM = Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management; MPA = Master of Public Administration; MPP = Master of Public Policy; NASPAA = Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration.

Table 3 presents the results of our keyword searches to identify the specific research methods taught in the descriptions of the core courses of the programs (research questions 1a-iii and 2a-iii). The table shows the percentages of the total number of courses that include each type of research method in each category of the programs. The total number of cases in each category in this table is different from those in the previous two tables, because we identified the methods taught using keyword searches in all core courses that included a method component, and in several programs there was more than one core course that included methods.

Table 3.

Research methods taught in core courses (percentages).

	Type of program			Chi-square analysis results (p values)
Core courses (in # of courses)	NASPAA MPA(n=89)	NASPAA MPP(n=21)	APPAM MPP (n=66)	NASPAA MPA vs. APPAM MPP	NASPAA MPA vs. NASPAA MPP	NASPAA MPP vs. APPAM MPP
General
Research design	28.09	19.05	24.24	0.59	0.14	0.39
Theory / logic^c	15.73	4.76	30.30	0.03^d	0.01	0.00
Hypothesis testing^a	5.62	14.29	12.12	0.11	0.01	0.63
General design
Surveys	10.11	14.29	7.58	0.55	0.29	0.08
Sampling	6.74	4.76	12.12	0.2	0.51	0.07
Experimental / quasi- experimental^c	3.37	19.05	7.58	0.19	0.00	0.00
Analytical approach/methods
Regression^a	13.48	23.81	25.76	0.04^d	0.03^d	0.76
Descriptive analyses	10.11	14.29	10.61	0.91	0.29	0.39
Probability^a	5.62	14.29	16.67	0.01	0.01	0.64
Microeconomic analyses^a	3.37	9.52	13.64	0.01	0.02^d	0.36
Correlation	5.62	4.76	12.12	0.11	0.76	0.07
Presentation / dissemination / reporting^a	15.73	4.76	4.55	0.02^d	0.01	0.94

^aSignificant difference between MPA and MPP programs (α=0.05)

^bSignificant difference attributed to NASPAA effect (α=0.05)

^cSignificant difference is both MPA v. MPP and the NASPAA effect (α=0.05)

^d Significant difference at α=0.05, but not after Bonferroni correction (0.017).

Table 3 shows that most of the significant differences are between the MPA and MPP programs. Significantly larger percentages of MPP programs (both NASPAA and APPAM) require teaching regression and microeconomic analyses, but the significant differences between these two groups of programs disappear after the Bonferroni corrections (weak MPA vs. MPP difference). Significantly larger percentages of both NASPAA MPP and APPAM MPP programs require teaching probability (MPA vs. MPP difference). A significantly larger percentage of MPA programs teach presentations and dissemination skills, compared to both NASPAA and APPAM MPP programs, but the difference between the NASPAA MPA and APPAM MPP programs disappear after the Bonferroni correction (weak MPA vs. MPP difference).

In some areas the effects of MPA versus MPP differences or the effects of NASPAA accreditation are not clear, or the differences are mixed. About 20–30% of the programs in the three groups require general research design topics in their core courses and there are no significant differences between the pairs of the three groups. There are significant differences between the three groups in their requirements of theory/logic of methodology courses. The largest percentage among them is APPAM MPP programs, followed by NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs. The significant difference between the NASPAA MPA and APPAM MPP programs disappear after the Bonferroni correction. We interpret these results as NASPAA effect and weak MPA versus MPP difference.

There is a significant difference between the NASPAA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs in hypothesis testing: a smaller percentage of MPA programs require hypothesis testing compared to MPP programs (MPA vs. MPP difference). There is no significant difference among the three groups in their requirements of survey research methods or sampling. There are significant differences between NASPA MPA and NASPAA MPP programs and between NASPAA MPP and APPAM MPP programs in teaching experimental/quasi-experimental methods: a smaller percentage of NASPAA MPA programs teach these topics, compared to the MPP programs (MPA vs MPP difference).

Discussion and conclusions

The brief histories of public administration and public policy presented in the introduction suggest the early intellectual leaders of the public administration and public policy analysis aimed to carve out separate niches for their fields. The goal of the former would be to improve the implementation of public policy decisions and would be separated from policymaking, whereas the goal of the latter would be to improve policymaking and would be separated from implementation issues. Public administration would emphasize management skills and public policy analysis would emphasize analytical skills. Do the contents of contemporary MPA and MPP programs reflect these two distinct visions?

The results presented in the previous section help us answer our research questions about (a) the effects of the different origins of the pedagogical orientations of MPA and MPP programs and (b) possible homogenizing effects of NASPAA’s accreditation standards on MPA and MPP programs in the USA. Similar to the results of the earlier studies, ours yielded mixed results. There are differences between MPA and MPP programs in their core course components, as some of the earlier researchers found (Elmore, 1986; Henry et al., 2009; Hur and Hackbart, 2009; Koven et al., 2008; Lowery, 1994; Roeder and Whitaker, 1993). But there are also noticeable similarities, as some earlier researchers found (Averch et al., 1992; Ellwood, 2008; Henry et al., 2009; Koven et al., 2008). Our findings also indicate that NASPAA accreditation is likely to have some homogenizing effects on MPA and MPP programs, as the similarities between these two types of programs that are accredited by it indicate.

The primary difference between the two is that higher percentages of MPA programs require human resource management and organizational studies in their cores, confirming the management focus of these programs. There is no clear distinction between MPP and MPA programs in the area of research methods or analysis, however. Both MPA and MPP programs require research methods courses in their cores, and roughly 30–50% of them require more than one methods course. There is no difference between the types of programs in their quantitative method requirements: large majorities of programs (83–100%) of both types require quantitative methods. Those programs that require qualitative methods in their core courses are in the minority in all three categories, and mainly the NASPAA MPA programs require them.

There are significant differences between MPA and MPP programs in the specific methodological approaches and analytical methods they teach. Table 3 shows that significantly larger percentages of MPP programs require hypothesis testing, regression analyses, probability, and microeconomic analyses, compared to MPA programs. A significantly larger percentage of MPA programs require presentation/dissemination/reporting skills.

An area that is quite strongly emphasized in MPP programs is economics and economic analysis. There is also a split between MPA and MPP programs in the courses they require on general public administration and government/politics. A difference that can be observed in Table 1 is that significantly larger percentages of MPP programs teach policy processes, and significantly larger percentages of MPA programs teach program evaluation. There is no clearly discernible difference between the two in their ethics and laws course requirements. As one can expect, although some MPA programs require nonprofit management in their cores, MPP programs do not.

We can conclude from these findings is that there are some differences between MPA and MPP programs, but no clear distinction. The original visions for these two types of programs (that MPA programs would teach management skills, whereas MPP programs would teach analytical skills) seems to have been fulfilled only partly. Indeed, MPA programs stress management-related courses (organizations and human resource management) and finance/budgeting. However, both types of programs require analytical skills almost universally, and large majorities in both types of programs require quantitative analytical skills. There are some differences in the specific methodological approaches between the two. MPP programs distinguish themselves primarily by requiring economics and economic analysis courses in their cores.

Our comparisons of NASPAA-accredited MPA and MPP programs on one side and the APPAM-affiliated programs on the other show that NASPAA accreditation may have affected the programs primarily in the areas of organization studies, human resource management, and public budgeting: significantly larger percentages of NASPAA-accredited MPA programs require these courses, compared to their APPAM-affiliated counterparts. Similar effects can be observed in qualitative methods, law, and IT courses required by the programs: larger percentages of NASPAA-accredited programs require them, compared to APPAM-affiliated ones.

Our findings indicate the vision of the intellectual leaders of public policy analysis in the 1960s, which was that it would be a distinct field than public administration (e.g., Dror, 1967), has not been realized. The differences between MPA and MPP programs are nuanced. In particular, the distinction between managerial and analytical skills that was envisioned by the leaders does not seem to have materialized.

Our findings also indicate the educational programs in public administration and public policy analysis have not distanced themselves from their intellectual roots in political theory and law. Both MPA and MPP programs require courses in the politics of public policy processes, law, and ethics, at varying degrees.

Earlier researchers suggested there was a convergence between the two types of programs (Averch et al., 1992; Ellwood, 2008; Henry et al., 2009; Koven et al., 2008). Without using longitudinal data, we cannot confirm the similarities we found between them are the result of a convergence process. Instead, our findings indicate that if there has been a convergence, (a) it is strongest in the universality of the requirement for research methods/analytical skills in all programs and (b) NASPAA accreditation of both MPA and MPP programs seem to have played a role in the convergence, as the significant differences between the NASPAA-accredited programs and APPAM-affiliated but not NASPAA-accredited programs in Tables 2 and 3 indicate.

Is there a reason for this possible convergence? Arguably, analytical skills are needed by both public administrators and policy analysts in an increasingly complex systems of governance in the 21st century. As other researchers observed, the world of public administrators and policy analysts have become complex and intertwined, in the sense that public decision-making and implementation involves horizontal and vertical interactions among multiple governmental and non-governmental actors (Kettl, 2002; Koliba et al., 2011; Radin, 2013).

The findings of this study may help institutions and programs critically assess their fit within the public affairs education spectrum and understand the effects of accreditation on program curricula. The results can also be useful for NASPAA and its accrediting arm, Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation. Although we did not study the effects of EAPAA accreditation on the programs in Europe, our findings may be relevant for them also, because there are similarities between the accreditation criteria used by NASPAA and EAPAA. Future studies on the effects of EAPAA accreditation can be compared to identify differences and similarities between the effects of accreditation in the USA and Europe, which can be useful for EAPAA.

We could not answer two key questions in this study: (a) how the evolution of NASPAA accreditation specifically affected the evolutions of the contents of MPA and MPP programs and (b) how the market demands for the public administration and policy analysis knowledge and skills affected MPA, MPP, and other public affairs programs. Future longitudinal studies in the USA, Europe, and possibly other countries can help answer the first question. The second question would require a broader study that focuses on the effects of the changes in the administrative and political environments in the MPA and MPP programs in recent decades. A comparative study between the USA and Europe can particularly yield meaningful results on this question.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Göktuğ Morçöl

Adam Williams

Derek R Slagle

Appendix: Institutions whose programs are included in the study

NASPAA-accredited MPA program only (NASPAA MPA)	NASPAA-accredited MPA program only (NASPAA MPA) cont.	APPAM-affiliated MPP program only (APPAM MPP)
Western Kentucky University	Georgia State University	Brandeis University
Tennessee State University	Valdosta State University	Claremont Graduate University
Wayne State University	Kansas State University	College of William and Mary
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill	Kentucky State University	Duke University
Texas State University	University of Washington	Georgetown University
George Mason University	Cleveland State University	Georgia Institute of Technology
Northern Illinois University	Governors State University	Hopkins University
Columbia University	Northern Kentucky Univ.	Pepperdine University
Appalachian State University	Old Dominion University	Princeton University
Grand Valley State Univ.	University of Oregon	University of California - LA
University of La Verne	University of Nebraska at Omaha	University of California - Berkeley
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY	Texas Tech University	University of California - San Diego
Bridgewater State University	Clark Atlanta University	University of California - Riverside
North Carolina State University	California State University, Stanislaus	University of Chicago
Nova Southeastern University	Florida International University	University of Denver
Portland State University	University of Louisville	University of Houston
University of Connecticut	University of Baltimore	University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Texas A&M University	NASPAA-accredited MPP program only (NASPAA MPP)	University of Michigan
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa	Jackson State University	University of Texas at Dallas
Penn State Harrisburg	Mississippi State University	University of Virginia
Florida Gulf Coast University	Oregon State University	Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College
Suffolk University	Rutgers - New Brunswick
University of New Orleans	University of Maryland, College Park
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	University of Minnesota
Seattle University	University of Missouri - St. Louis
East Carolina University	Carnegie Mellon

References

Averch

Dluhy

Elmore

(1992) Teaching public administration, public management, and policy analysis: Convergence or divergence in the master’s core. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11(3): 541.

Breaux

Clynch

Morris

(2003) The core curriculum content of NASPAA-accredited programs: Fundamentally alike or different? Journal of Public Affairs Education 9(4): 259–273.

Dror

(1967) Policy analysts: A new professional role in government service. Public Administration Review 27(3): 197–203.

Dunn

(2015) Public Policy Analysis. 6th ed. New York: Routledge.

EAPAA (n.d.). European Association for Public Administration Accreditation. Available at: https://www.eapaa.eu/ . (accessed 30 January 2020).

Ellwood

(2008) Challenges to public policy and public management education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27: 172–187.

Elmore

(1986) Graduate education in public management: Working the seams of government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6(1): 69–83.

Farr

Hacker

Kazee

(2006) The policy scientist of democracy: The discipline of Harold D. Lasswell. The American Political Science Review 100(4): 579–587.

Frederickson

(1971) Toward a New Public Administration. In Marini

, ed. Toward a New Public Administration. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing, pp. 309–333.

10.

Frederickson

Stazyk

(2016) Ranking public policy and administration graduate programs, 1995–2016: An analysis and discussion. American Review of Public Administration 46(5): 507–525.

11.

Gooden

Portillo

(2011) Advancing social equity in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(suppl_1): i61–i76.

12.

Goodnow

(1900) Politics and Administration. New York: Russell and Russell.

13.

Henry

(2015) Education for public service: The growth of university study of public administration and public affairs and the origins and founding of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. Available at: https://www.naspaa.org/sites/default/files/docs/2019-02/Education%20for%20Public%20Service%20-%20Laurin%20Henry.pdf (accessed 4 November 2019).

14.

Henry

Goodsell

Lynn

, et al. (2009) Understanding excellence in administration: The report of the Task Force on Educating for Excellence in the Master of Public Administration degree of the American Society for Public Administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education 15(21): 117–133.

15.

Hur

Hackbart

(2009) MPA vs. MPP: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(4): 397–422.

16.

Infield

Adams

(2011) MPA and MPP Students: Twins, siblings, or distant cousins? Journal of Public Affairs Education 17(2): 277–303.

17.

Kettl

(2002) The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

18.

Koliba

Mills

Zia

(2011) Accountability in governance networks: An assessment of public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review 71(2): 210–220.

19.

Koven

Goetzke

Brennan

(2008) Profiling public affairs programs: The view from the top. Administration and Society 40(7): 691–710.

20.

Lasswell

(1951) The policy orientation. In: Lerner

Lasswell

eds. The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 3–15.

21.

Long

(1949) Power and administration. Public Administration Review 9(4): 257–264.

22.

Lowery

(1994) Comparing public administration and policy analysis approaches to public service education. American Review of Public Administration 24(1): 25–42.

23.

NASPAA (n.d.-a) MPA and MPP degrees. Available at: http://www.naspaa.org/students/faq/faq.asp (accessed on 19 April 2019).

24.

NASPAA (n.d.-b) Accreditation standards for master’s degree programs. Available at: https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/naspaa-accreditation-standards.pdf (accessed 19 April 2019).

25.

NASPAA (n.d.-c) NASPAA history. Available at: https://www.naspaa.org/naspaa-history (accessed 5 November 2019).

26.

Radin

(2013) Beyond Machiavelli: Policy Analysis Reaches Midlife. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

27.

Roeder

Whitaker

(1993) Education for public service: Policy analysis and administration in the MPA core curriculum. American Review of Public Administration 24(4): 512–540.

28.

Rohr

(1978) Ethics for Bureaucrats. New York: Marcel Dekker.

29.

Rohr

(1986) To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State. Lawrence: The University Press of Kansas.

30.

Simon

Drucker

Waldo

(1952) Development of theory of democratic administration: replies and comments. The American Political Science Review, 46(2): 494–503. Download from PSU library databases. DOI: 10.2307/1950843. Stable URL: https://www-jstor-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/1950843

31.

Stokes

(1986) Political and organizational analysis in policy curriculum. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5: 45–55.

32.

Stokes

(1996) Presidential address: The changing environment of education for public service. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15(2): 158–170.

33.

Waldo

(1952) Development of theory of democratic administration. The American Political Science Review 46(1): 81–103.

34.

Wilson

(1887) The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly 2(2): 197–222.