Policy responsiveness requires changing public policies to follow public opinion, but previous macro-level studies generally focus on the role of politicians and fail to touch on substantive policy regulations, whereas micro-level studies are limited to bureaucrats’ case-by-case responses. This study extends the connotation of policy responsiveness to local individual executive bureaucrats and develop the concept of bureaucrats’ policy responsiveness, which denotes government bureaucrats’ intention to modify policies in response to public opinion. We develop a framework integrating external interventions and intrinsic motivations to analyse how accountability and public service motivation (PSM) jointly shape bureaucrats’ policy responsiveness. Based on a survey experiment conducted among Master of Public Administration (MPA) students in China, the results show that strategic accountability rather than functional accountability has a significantly positive effect on bureaucrats’ policy responsiveness. Bureaucrats with high PSM express high policy responsiveness intentions, and accountability does not significantly crowd out the role of PSM. These conclusions emphasise the role of bureaucrats in policy responsiveness and link it to accountability and motivation.
AleksovskaMSchillemansTGrimmelikhuijsenS (2019) Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: a systematic literature review. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration2(2): 1–18.
2.
AleksovskaMSchillemansTGrimmelikhuijsenS (2021) Management of multiple accountabilities through setting priorities: evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment. Public Administration Review82(1): 132–146.
3.
BorinsS (2001) Public management innovation: toward a global perspective. The American Review of Public Administration31(1): 5–21.
4.
BovensM (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. European Law Journal13(4): 447–468.
5.
BrandsmaGJSchillemansT (2013) The accountability cube: measuring accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory23(4): 953–975.
6.
BrummelL (2025) Stakeholder involvement as a form of accountability? Perspectives on the accountability function of stakeholder bodies in Dutch public agencies. Public Policy and Administration40(1): 27–49.
7.
CaillierJG (2015) Towards a better understanding of public service motivation and mission valence in public agencies. Public Management Review17(9): 1217–1236.
8.
CaugheyDWarshawC (2018) Policy preferences and policy change: dynamic responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014. American Political Science Review112(2): 249–266.
9.
ChenC (2023) Policy responsiveness and media attention. Policy & Politics51(3): 602–625.
10.
ChenJPanJXuY (2016) Sources of authoritarian responsiveness: a field experiment in China. American Journal of Political Science60(2): 383–400.
11.
ChoiS (2023) Exploring performance paradox in public organizations: analyzing the predictors of distortive behaviors in performance measurement. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(2): 501–518.
12.
ChoiSChunYH (2021) Accountability and organizational performance in the public sector: analysis of higher education institutions in Korea. Public Administration99(2): 353–370.
13.
CorduneanuRDudauAKominisG (2020) Crowding-in or crowding-out: the contribution of self-determination theory to public service motivation. Public Management Review22(7): 1070–1089.
14.
DeciE (1971) Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology18(1): 105–115.
15.
EbrahimA (2003) Accountability in practice: mechanisms for NGOs. World Development31(5): 813–829.
16.
EsteveMvan WitteloostuijnABoyneG (2015) The effects of public service motivation on collaborative behaviour: evidence from three experimental games. International Public Management Journal18(2): 171–189.
17.
FreyBSJegenR (2001) Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys15(5): 589–611.
18.
HanY (2020) The impact of accountability deficit on agency performance: performance-accountability regime. Public Management Review22(6): 927–948.
19.
JacobsenCBJensenLE (2017) Why not “just for the money”? An experimental vignette study of the cognitive price effects and crowding effects of performance-related pay. Public Performance and Management Review40(3): 551–580.
20.
JacobsenCBHvitvedJAndersenLB (2014) Command and motivation: how the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public service motivation. Public Administration92(4): 790–806.
21.
KáchaORuggeriK (2019) Nudging intrinsic motivation in environmental risk and social policy. Journal of Risk Research22(5): 581–592.
22.
KangSGPowellGBJr. (2010) Representation and policy responsiveness: the median voter, election rules, and redistributive welfare spending. The Journal of Politics72(4): 1014–1028.
23.
KiN (2022) The effectiveness of monetary and promotion rewards in the public sector and the moderating effect of PSM (PSM-reward fit or PSM crowding out): a survey experiment. Administration & Society54(2): 277–310.
24.
KimDHBakH (2020) Reconciliation between monetary incentives and motivation crowding-out: the influence of perceptions of incentives on research performance. Public Performance and Management Review43(6): 1292–1317.
25.
KimSELeeJW (2010) Impact of competing accountability requirements on perceived work performance. The American Review of Public Administration40(1): 100–118.
26.
KimSVandenabeeleW (2010) A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review70(5): 701–709.
27.
KoppellJG (2005) Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review65(1): 94–108.
28.
KornreichY (2019) Authoritarian responsiveness: online consultation with “issue publics” in China. Governance32(3): 547–564.
29.
KrollAPorumbescuGA (2019) When extrinsic rewards become “sour grapes”: an experimental study of adjustments in intrinsic and prosocial motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(4): 467–486.
30.
LaCombeSJ (2023) Institutional design and policy responsiveness in US States. American Politics Research51(2): 210–222.
31.
LaxJRPhillipsJH (2012) The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 148–166.
32.
LiFLiuYMengT (2019) Discursive strategy of opinion expression and government response in China: text analysis based on online petitions. Telematics and Informatics42(9): 101238.
33.
LiuBTangTL (2011) Does the love of money moderate the relationship between public service motivation and job satisfaction? The case of Chinese professionals in the public sector. Public Administration Review71(5): 718–727.
34.
LiuYWuJQiJ, et al. (2023) Can economic growth reduce public dissatisfaction? Evidence from a panel threshold model in Chinese cities. Urban Affairs Review59(3): 918–948.
35.
LiuYAraralEWuJ (2024a) Policy responsiveness and its administrative organisation in China. Policy & Politics52(3): 360–383.
36.
LiuYZhengYWuJ (2024b) Implementation responsiveness: linking public opinion to policy implementation. Journal of Chinese Governance9(4): 558–578.
37.
LoonNMV (2016) Is public service motivation related to overall and dimensional work-unit performance as indicated by supervisors?International Public Management Journal19(1): 78–110.
MaggettiMPapadopoulosY (2023) Happily unaccountable? Perceptions of accountability by public managers. Public Policy and Administration38(4): 381–404.
40.
MengTSuZ (2021) When top-down meets bottom-up: local officials and selective responsiveness within fiscal policymaking in China. World Development142: 105443.
41.
Meyer-SahlingJMikkelsenKSSchusterC (2019) The causal effect of public service motivation on ethical behavior in the public sector: evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory29(3): 445–459.
42.
MikkelsenMFJacobsenCBAndersenLB (2015) Managing employee motivation: exploring the connections between managers’ enforcement actions, employee perceptions, and employee intrinsic motivation. International Public Management Journal20(2): 183–205.
43.
NajamA (1996) NGO accountability: a conceptual framework. Development Policy Review14(4): 339–354.
44.
ParkSMWordJ (2012) Driven to service: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for public and nonprofit managers. Public Personnel Management41(4): 705–734.
45.
Pérez-DuránI (2024) Twenty-five years of accountability research in public administration: authorship, themes, methods, and future trends. International Review of Administrative Sciences90(3): 546–562.
46.
PerryJL (1996) Measuring public service motivation: an assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory6(1): 5–22.
47.
PerryJLWiseLR (1990) The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review50(3): 367–373.
48.
PerryJLHondeghemAWiseLR (2010) Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review70(5): 681–690.
49.
PilonMBrouardF (2022) Accountability theory in nonprofit research: using governance theories to categorize dichotomies. Voluntas34: 585–599.
50.
PooleG (2019) How institutional culture trumps tier effects: evidence from government responsiveness to FOI requests. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory29(2): 210–226.
51.
PowellGBJr. (2004) The quality of democracy: the chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy15(4): 91–105.
52.
RobertsAKimBY (2011) Policy responsiveness in post-communist Europe: public preferences and economic reforms. British Journal of Political Science41(4): 819–839.
53.
RomzekBS (2000) Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences66(1): 21–44.
54.
RomzekBSDubnickMJ (1987) Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review47(3): 227–238.
55.
RomzekBSDubnickMJ (2000) Accountability. In: ShafritzJM (ed) Defining Public Administration: Selections from the International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 382–395.
56.
RyanRMDeciEL (2002) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology25(1): 54–67.
57.
SchakelW (2021) Unequal policy responsiveness in the Netherlands. Socio-Economic Review19(1): 37–57.
58.
SchillemansT (2016) Calibrating public sector accountability: translating experimental findings to public sector accountability. Public Management Review18(9): 1400–1420.
59.
SchillemansTAleksovskaM (2024) Making nonpunitive accountability matter: exploring behavioral effects of nonpunitive accountability in a conjoint experiment. Public Administration103: 392–416.
60.
StanicaCMBalicaDHendersonAC, et al. (2022) The weight of service delivery: administrative and rules burdens in street-level bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences88(1): 240–257.
61.
StazykEC (2012) Crowding out public service motivation? Comparing theoretical expectations with empirical findings on the influence of performance-related pay. Review of Public Personnel Administration33(3): 252–274.
62.
SuZMengT (2016) Selective responsiveness: online public demands and government responsiveness in authoritarian China. Social Science Research59: 52–67.
63.
TuW (2024) The interactive effect of extrinsic controls and public service motivation on blame avoidance. Public Personnel Management54: 159–183.
64.
TuWGongT (2022) Accountability intensity and bureaucrats’ response to conflicting expectations: a survey experiment in China. Public Management Review24(11): 1779–1801.
65.
VigodaE (2000) Are you being served? The responsiveness of public administration to citizens’ demands: an empirical examination in Israel. Public Administration78(1): 165–191.
66.
WangYQiYChenG (2022) Participatory governance and local government responsiveness: evidence from participation in politics on television in China. Local Government Studies48(5): 995–1016.
67.
WenzelAKrauseTAVogelD (2019) Making performance pay work: the impact of transparency, participation, and fairness on controlling perception and intrinsic motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(2): 232–255.
68.
WillemsTVan DoorenW (2012) Coming to terms with accountability: combining multiple forums and functions. Public Management Review14(7): 1011–1036.
69.
WittelsAS (2023) Participatory governance and responsiveness: do motivational interventions increase engagement with citizen input?Political Research Quarterly76(2): 741–756.
70.
WlezienC (2017) Public opinion and policy representation: on conceptualization, measurement, and interpretation. Policy Studies Journal45(4): 561–582.
71.
WlezienCSorokaSN (2012) Political institutions and the opinion–policy link. West European Politics35(6): 1407–1432.
72.
WrightBEChristensenRKPandeySK (2013) Measuring public service motivation: exploring the equivalence of existing global measures. International Public Management Journal16(2): 197–223.
73.
XiaoSZhuX (2022) Bureaucratic control and strategic compliance: how do subnational governments implement central guidelines in China?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory32(2): 342–359.
74.
YeZMaBLiY (2023) Wrestling with multiple accountabilities in times of crisis: findings from the experiences of Chinese local governments in responding to COVID-19. The Review of Policy Research. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12573.
75.
ZhangPBaiZ (2024) Leaving messages as coproduction: impact of government COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions on citizens’ online participation in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11: 875.
