Behind and beyond the standard(ization) trap: diversifying power sources by differentiating centralization and standardization

Junesoo Lee

International Review of Public Administration, 2024, vol. 29, issue 1, 1-19

Abstract: Standardization, often seen as a means to increase power through uniform working methods, has both benefits and drawbacks. Scholars and practitioners highlight the risk of a ‘standard(ization) trap’, where initial benefits lead to unforeseen costs. This study reviews literature and practices in standardization, identifying confusion between two power sources: substance power, concerning WHETHER to standardize, and decision-making power, dealing with WHO standardizes. It introduces a matrix differentiating these sources, offering insights into standardization methods. This matrix proposes four archetypes of standardization: centralized standardization, centralized de-standardization, decentralized standardization, and decentralized de-standardization. These archetypes offer theoretical and practical insights for addressing standardization challenges.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/12294659.2024.2310899 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rrpaxx:v:29:y:2024:i:1:p:1-19

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RRPA20

DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2024.2310899

Access Statistics for this article

International Review of Public Administration is currently edited by Ralph Brower

More articles in International Review of Public Administration from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().