第一工業大学研究報告第33号（2021）pp.123-137

Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences

公共部門における公務員の所有権属性と結果
Mohammad Showkat Ali ¹ Hiroo Ishidao ²

Shunichi Takeshita ³

１ Mohammad Showkat Ali, PhD Student, Graduate School of East Asian Studies, Yamaguchi
University, Japan.
２ 石田尾博夫 第一工業大学 名誉教授
〒899-4395 鹿児島県霧島市国分中央 1 丁目１０－２

３ 竹下 俊一 第一工業大学 共通教育センター准教授〒899-4395 鹿児島県霧島市国分中央 1 丁目１０－２

Abstract
In the route of sustainable progress of any country, the public sectors are answerable to the public.
Public sectors are controlled by political government and run by civil servants. Since civil servants arepermanents for doing public works though they are not owners of the public sectors, the main objectiveof numerous human resource strategies in the public sectors is to progress and hold ownership attributeamong the civil servants. If the authority of public sectors wants to take advantage from civil servantsin running and managing of public sectors, that requisites bring the trust that the authority necessarily
implements policies that improve civil servants’ ownership attribute. Civil servants support government
in formulation of policy, implementation of policy, delivering government goods and services,
assistance in development works and establishment of public safety and security. Ownership attributeof civil servants is the spiritual commitment, which has positive relationship with the efficiency of civil
servants as well as the performance of public sectors. Civil servants are duty-bound to ensure ownershiptrait among them in running public sectors, which are owned by community. They must have motivationand commitment, which create ownership attribute among them. Absence of ownership attribute among
civil servants causes agency problem between civil servants and the public sectors’ authority.
1. Introduction
The objective of the paper is to provide the significant of ownership attribute of civil servants to thegovernment of Bangladesh. It will support government to comprehend for commencing training
programs of civil servants to confirm ownership attribute among them. There is no evident that any
research is done on that issue. Ownership attribute of civil servants is the main configuration concept
in the public sectors. Why? In the process of sustainable development of any nation, the public sectors
are accountable to the community (Alinska, Filipiak & Kosztowniak, 2018). The public sectors havesignificant influences on public strategies prompting economic development and preserving social andlegal basis, delivering public goods and services, keeping competition, reallocating income and第一工業大学研究報告 第33号 （2021）

steadying the economy (Corrado, Haskel & Jona-Lasinio, 2015). For sustainable development of any
nation, public sectors are significantly liable, the public sectors are owned by the public, though public
sectors are significant for nation building, they are not run and controlled by the owner and the public
sectors are run by the civil servants and controlled by the government on behalf of the public (Ahmed& Javed, 2017). The usage of some public goods and services is open for all. In those cases of public
goods and services that are opened for all, a customer may be capable to gain the facilities of a good orservice without paying (Pasour, 1981). In that situation, if the customer is reluctant to pay for the
consumption of the goods and services, it is not technically possible to exclude them form the usage of
public goods and services (Merickova & Muthová, 2019). Who can reduce that problem? The community
leaders, who support the government system, can resolve the problem of using goods and services ofpublic sectors without paying (Ozono, et al., 2016). Who are the community leaders in the public
sectors? Muir (1930) has stated that when political governments rise and fall, ministers come and go,
the civil servants of a nation drive on ever. Civil servants are significant for nations building. Civil
servants support into construct policy, execute policy, deliver government facility, accomplish
development works and establish public security and safety. Public Service Commission of South
Africa (2007) has stated that civil servants provide support to the government in growth anddevelopment. Ministry of Civil Service and Labor of Rwanda (2002) has identified that the civil
servants are the substantial component behind economic development and progress of community.
UPSC (Union Public Service Commission of India, 2015) indicated that the volume of complex anddiverse issues in the public sectors have enhanced the significance of the civil servant in modern
civilization. Which attribute of civil servants can reduce the gap of running and managing public sectors
by them, not by owners or community? According to Javed (2017), it is the ownership attribute of civil
servants that can minimize the gap of running and managing of public sectors by civil servants. Satish(2004) has said that civil servants have influences to increase the value of public goods and services
through ownership attribute to facilitate the citizens that are vital for sustainable economic development
and growth. According to the Norwegian Ministry of Defence (2012), the notion of civil servants is theholding professionalism, integrity and ownership attribute that are the significant for solving any
shortage of running and management in the public sectors by civil servants. So, the public sectors aren’t
run and managed by owners, those activities are done by civil servants on behalf of the community andthe ownership attribute of civil servants can minimize that the absence of owners in those matters.
2. The concept of ownership attribute of civil servants
The ownership attribute of civil servants in activities is a spiritual element that generates an alignment
between the community’s work and responsibility of civil servants in the public sectors (Uslu, 2015).
It is the mental commitment and inherent inspiration of civil servants to the public sectors (Uslu, 2014).
It is the situations, where the civil servants understand the community wants, they work for their
responsibility for community and they give effort for running and managing of public sectors by trustAli・石田尾・竹下：Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences(Eisenberger et al., 1990). It is the psychological promise by civil servants to the owners of public
sectors and an intermediary contribution by civil servants to run and manage the public sectors insteadof community (Mayhem et al., 2007).
3. Significance of ownership attributes of civil servants in the public sectors
The public sectors are owned by the society and they don’t come to manage the public sectors, so theownership attribute of civil servants are needed for social responsibility, since the civil servants run the
public sectors (Perry & Rainey, 1988). As the owners are a far from control and management of the
public sectors, the civil servants’ management is required in the public sectors, so civil servants have aduty to hold ownership attribute for running and managing the public sectors (Caron & Giauque, 2006).
The civil servants must be independence in the public sectors for higher performance and on the contrary,
they must have accountability to the community, if the community can realize that civil servants haveownership attributes for community’s work, they will provides more independent to civil servants forwork (De Visscher & Varone, 2004). As the owners are absent in case of regulation in the public sectors,
civil servants do the society’s work and ownership trait of civil servants is recognized as an essentialcondition for public sectors’ effectiveness to bring the optimum balance between regulation ofcommunity and self-regulation of civil servants (Arrow, 1974). When political government rise and fall,ministers come and go, the civil servants of a nation drive on eternally, hence civil servants are dutybound to have ownership attribute to do the society’s work (Muir, 1930).
4. Ownership attributes of civil servants and its inputs
The social recognition and job security generate motivation and commitment among civil servant for
public sectors, that motivation and commitment create ownership attribute among civil servants (Becker& Huselid, 2006). The inspiration and commitment come to the civil servants by job satisfaction andgovernment should take initiatives to confirm job satisfaction of civil servant and that inspiration andcommitment bring ownership attribute among civil servants (Hosmer, 2007). The ownership attributeof civil servants for public sectors is generated from motivation and promise aspect of civil servants,
those inspiration and promise of civil servants come from potential social acknowledgment and to what
extend the government provides the self-determining authority for taking decision in activities to thecivil servants (Payne & Wayland, 1999). The work for the progress of nation is a courageous effort andsuch emotion in the civil servants of the public sectors generates motivation and commitment among
them and that motivation and commitment create ownership attribute among civil servants (Beauchamp
et al., 2011). Promising responsibilities of civil servants inspire and make committed in the public
sectors, that inspiration and commitment produce stewardship among civil servants (Hosmer, 2007).
The commitment and motivational standards enhance ownership among civil servants (Fagbemi, 2006).
The issue of motivation and promise among civil servants attempted to bring stewardship among civil

第一工業大学研究報告 第33号 （2021）

servants (Phillips, 1999). The civil servants do community’s work in the public sectors; because theowners are remote from the running of public sectors and that community’s responsibility generates
commitment and motivation and consequently ownership attribute among civil servants (Parker, 2000).
The inspiration and promise of civil servants in the public sectors denotes to the degree of their feelingof rights and that inspiration and promise have positive relationship with ownership attribute of civil
servants (Parker, Wall & Jackson, 1997). The motivation and inspiration of civil servants in the public
sectors come from the satisfaction of needs by salary of the government and those motivation andcommitment of the civil servants produce ownership attribute among them (Minns, 1996). Therefore, it
is clear ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors comes from motivation andcommitment attributes of them.
We can hypothesize that;
Hypothesis-H1: Motivations and commitment attribute of civil servants have positive relationship withownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors.

4.1. The concept of motivation and commitment attribute
Motivation of civil servants is the procedure that keeps, directs and initiates goal focused actions in the
public sector (Vandenabeele et al., 2004). It is the inspiration of civil servants in the public sectors toachieve the community’s goals (Giauque et al., 2013). It comprises the emotional and communal
influence of civil servants (Brewer & Selden, 1998). It is the biological and mental commitment of civil
servants (Wright, 2001). It is a motive for readiness, movements and objectives (Perry, 1996). It is thefulfillment of satisfaction of civil servants in the organizations, (Perry, 1990).
Commitment of civil servants in the public organizations is a bonding responsibility of civil servants
for the community (Abdul-Nasiru, et al., 2014). It is the engagement and obligation of civil servants for
public sectors (Adu, 1968). It is the circumstance of worth of being committed to the community’s
activities by civil servants in the public sectors (Angle & Perry, 1981). It is the devotion and loyalty forcommunity by civil servants in the public sectors (Heady, 1984). It is the obligation and responsibility
to the community by civil servants in the public sectors (Kumasey, Bawole & Hossain, 2016). It is theduty and burden to the society by civil servants of public sectors (Abdul-Nasiru et al., 2014)
4.2. The ownership attributes of civil servants in the public sectors and its output
If the civil servants own the public sectors, an alignment is established between the community’s workand duty of civil servants and that procedure improves the proficiency of civil servants and performanceof the public sectors (Javed, 2017). The ownership attribute of civil servants to the public sectors is thepsychological agreement between the community and civil servant and that psychological agreement

Ali・石田尾・竹下：Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences

enhances the performance of public sectors (Kruse, 2016). It creates liability among civil servants forthe public sectors and that liability of civil servants has positive interaction with performance of public
sectors (Michie, Oughton & Bennion, 2002). Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors
is the spiritual inspiration and commitment, which has positive relationship with the efficiency of civil
servants as well as the performance of public sectors (Beauchamp, 2011). It creates wide answerability
and morals of civil servants, they are nominated agents and used community’s wealth and that processenhances the competence of civil servants and performance of public sectors (Caramelli, 2011). If thecommunity recognizes the activities of civil servants that wide the ownership attribute among civil
servants for the public sectors, this procedure increases operative contribution and efficiency of the civil
servants and the performance of public sectors (Wong, 2012).
We can hypothesize that;
Hypothesis-H2: Ownership attribute of civil servants has positive relationship with performance of the
public sectors. .
4.3. The concept of performance
Performance is the accomplished effort by the workers that are allotted to them in the organizations(Borman, Motowidlo & Schmit, 1997). It is the work connected actions likely to perform by an
employee and it indicates the act, which is accomplished a by person (Campbell, 1990). In an
organizational condition, performance is a recommended assigned objective between a supervisor anda subsidiary that are accomplished as the responsibility of employees in the organizations (Conway,
1999). Performance is the employees’ achievement, for which they are indebted in the organizations(Donohoe, 2019). It is the employees’ work connected with the organization's goals and objectives(Swarthout, 2018).
Sometimes ownership attribute is not generated among civil servants in the public sectors properly. It
is lack of ownership.
4.4. The concept of lack of ownership attributes of civil servants in the public sectors
Lack of ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors is the non-existence of relationshipbetween civil servants and public sectors (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). It is the absence of affiliation
between public sectors and civil servants (Heracleous, 2010). If agency relationship does not work
appropriately, the lack of ownership attribute between civil servants and public sectors is raised (Jensen& Meckling, 1976). Lack of ownership attribute between civil servants and the public sectors is the
deficiency of relationship (Chen & James, 2020). It is the absence of association between civil servantsand public sectors (Eisenhardt, 1989).

第一工業大学研究報告 第33号 （2021）

4.5. Lack of ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences
Lack of ownership attribute is the deficiency of link between civil servants and public sectors and that
deficiency of link produces agency problem between civil servants and public (Gaul & Stebunovs,
2009). The lack of ownership of civil servants of public sectors creates inefficiency in running andmanaging of community’s work by civil servants, that inefficiency is liable for the agency problem(Oliveira & Filho, 2017). If the civil servants of public sectors do not own the business of community,
the agency problem will come (Ross, 2019). Lack of ownership attribute of civil servants in the public
sectors creates frustration among the community and such frustration of community generates theagency problem in the public sectors (Boshkoska, 2014). It is a way to prevent progress of nations andif the progress of nations is prevented, the community is deprived that generates the agency problem
between civil servants and public sectors (Eun & Resnick, 2004). It generates the non-existence of therelationship between the civil servants and public sectors, that non-existence of relationship generates
agency problem between them (Roach, 2016). It creates absence of possession of community’s workthat generates agency problem of between civil servants and public sectors (Moe, 1984). If the civil
servants in the public sectors go home early and leave the task incomplete, the lack of ownership
attributes is generated among them and in that situation the agency problem is created in the public
sectors (Tipuri & Podrug, 2010). If the impact of the civil servants’ work in the public sectors doesn’t
recognize by the community, the deprived feeling comes to the mind of civil servants and the lack ofownership attribute is generated among the civil servants and from that the agency problem comes into
public sectors (Lasher, 2008).
We can hypothesize that;
Hypothesis-H3: Lack of ownership attribute of civil servants has positive relationship with agency
problems between civil servants and public sectors.
4.6. The concept of agency problem
The agency problem is the non-existence of relationship between two parties (Roach, 2016). It is the
problem between principal and agent in the organization (Moe, 1984). The agency problem is a conflictof importance in any association where one party is estimated to do work in another's top willingness(Gaul & Stebunovs, 2009). It is the breaking of mental and institutional agreements between two parties(Oliveira & Filho, 2017).
5. Methodology
The author has gathered the primary data from the civil servants of Bangladesh. The sample size is 200.
The author has selected sample by random access method. Different categories of civil servants are
selected randomly. The author collected most of the data by face to face meeting with respondents andsome are collected through internet. Prescribed questionnaires were set to collect primary data. The

Ali・石田尾・竹下：Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences

author examined data from views of hypotheses built. The author similarly used secondary data. The
secondary data are used in literature study of the paper. The paper acknowledged descriptive analysis
approach which used together expressive (means & standard deviations) and inferential measurements(correlation & regression study) for effective creation. The arithmetical programme, the paper uses the
SPSS version seventeen (25) to examine the data. Except else noted, all items were on a 5-point Likert
answer scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

6. Results
The author will analyze the important of data. To test the important of the data, the mean, standard
deviation and coefficient of variance are calculated.
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient of Variances

Variables

Mean
4.5425

Standard
Deviation
0.40961

CV=
SD/Mean0.090172

Motivation and commitment attribute
Ownership attribute (dependent)

4.27180.39682

0.092892

Ownership attribute (Independent)

4.44470.46425

0.104450

Performance

3.96880.455930.114878

Lack of Ownership attribute

4.53250.36432

0.80379

Agency problem

4.16630.367770.088272

Source: Prepared by author.

From the above Table, the maximum of the mean values are more than 3.9. It indicates, items relating
to motivation and commitment attribute of civil servants, ownership attribute of civil servants(dependent), ownership attribute of civil servants (independent), performance of the public sectors, lackof ownership attribute of civil servants and agency problem are supported by respondents. In the mostcases, the standard deviations are less than one. It indicates that the dispersion of a dataset relatively
low. A CV >= 1 indicates a relatively high variation, while a CV < 1 can be considered low. In all cases,
it is shown that CV values are less than 1, so variances or deviations are less. Statistically those data aresignificant.
The correlations and R2 between variables and P values of all variable are given in the Table;
Table 2: The correlations and 𝐑𝟐 between variables and P values of all variable
Correlations and 𝐑𝟐 between independent anddependent variables
Independent:
attribute

Motivation&commitment

Correla
tions
(R)
.917

𝐑𝟐

.841

VariablesP
Value

Motivation and commitment attribute.000

Ownership attribute (dependent).000

第一工業大学研究報告 第33号 （2021）

Dependent: Ownership attribute (dependent)
Independent:

Ownershipof

attribute

.933

.870

Ownership attribute (Independent).000

Performance.000

Lack of Ownership attribute.000

Agency problem.000(independent)
Dependent: Performance
Independent: Lack of ownership attribute

.925

.855

Dependent: Agency problem
Source: Prepared by author.

The analyses are done to test the strength the relationship between the independent variables anddependent variables. There are considerably high positive correlations between the independent anddependent variables. In the first hypothesis, the independent variable is motivation and commitment
attribute of civil servants and dependent variable is ownership attribute of civil servants. Motivationand commitment attribute of civil servants have strong optimistic relation with ownership attribute ofcivil servants. In the second hypothesis, the independent variable is ownership attribute of civil servants,
dependent variable is performance of the public sectors, and they have very strong positive relationship.
From hypothesis three, it is proved that lack of ownership attribute of civil servants has positive relation
with agency problem between civil servants and public sectors. The values of R-square are near to R
values. Therefore, it is clear that all hypotheses are satisfied.
The smaller the p-value, the stronger the evidence that the survey rejects the null hypothesis. A pvalue less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against thenull hypothesis. In the Table, it is shown that p-values of all variables are near to zero, so the survey isstatistically significant.
The regression analysis are displayed in the following Table.
Table 3: Regression analysis
Variables

R

Square R

Adjusted
Square R

0.917

0.841

0.840

0.933

0.870

0.869

0.925

0.855

0.854

Motivation and commitment attribute
Ownership attribute (dependent)

Standardized
Coefficient
Beta

0.000

.158730.917.165000.933.14050

0.925

0.000

Lack of Ownership attribute
Agency problem

Standard
Error

0.000

Ownership attribute (Independent)
Performance

T Values
Sig. (2-tailed)

0.000
0.000

Source: Prepared by author.

0.000

Ali・石田尾・竹下：Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences

The regression analysis is to test the hypothesis. In all cases, R-values between independent anddependent variables are more than 0.917. Therefore, all hypotheses are proved i. e. motivation &commitment attribute of civil servants generate ownership attribute of civil servants, ownership
attribute of civil servant increases performance of the organizations and lack of ownership attributecreates the agency problem
R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. It is also known
as the coefficient of determination, or the coefficient of multiple determinations for multiple regressions.
The definition of R-squared is straightforward; it is the percentage of the response variable variationthat is explained by a linear model. Zero percentage indicates that the model explains none of thevariability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all thevariability of the response data around its mean. In general, the higher the R-squared, the better themodel fits the data. In the Table, it is found that, R square value is enough for best-fitted data. Adjusted
R-square is used to measure the goodness-of-fit statistic. The adjusted R-squared value actually
decreases when the term does not improve the model fit by a sufficient amount. In each case, the valuesof adjusted R-square are less than R-square.
The lesser the t-value, the stronger the indication that the study rejects the null hypothesis. A t-value lessthan 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically substantial. It directs durable indication against the null
hypothesis. In the Table, it is revealed that t-values of all variables are close to zero, so the survey isstatistically substantial.

The standardized coefficient is measured in units of standard deviation. A beta value of 0.917 indicatesthat a change of one standard deviation in the motivation & commitment attribute variable results in a
0.917 standard deviations increase in the ownership attribute variable. In the most cases, values are nearto one. Therefore, change one standard deviation in independent variables’ will change the standard
deviation of dependent variables are near to one. The regression models are best fitted here.
The Standard Error being relatively small, gives us an indication that our mean is relatively close to thetrue mean of our overall population. In the most cases, the Standard Error is relatively small.
Table 4: Main effects of demographic variables (an effect is statistically significant if “Sig.” <0.05)
Variables

Gender (Sig. Value)
Male

FemaleTenure ( Sig. Value)
Tenure-1

Tenure-2

Motivation and commitment attribute

0.918

0.339

Ownership attribute (dependent)

0.929

0.330

第一工業大学研究報告 第33号 （2021）

Ownership attribute (Independent)

0.754

0.788

Performance

0.895

0.883

Lack of Ownership attribute

0.247

0.179

Agency problem

0.520

0.298

Source: Prepared by Author.
Tenure-1 includes the civil servants whose length of service is up to 15 years. Tenure-2 includes thecivil servants whose length of service is more than 15 years. If the significance values are less than 0.05,
the relationship between demographic variables and independent & dependent variables are significant.
From the Table, it is shown that all the values are more than 0.05. The author concludes that therelationship between demographic variables with dependent & independent variables are insignificance.

7. Conclusion
In the research, the independent variables are motivation & commitment attribute, ownership attributeand lack of ownership attribute of civil servants. The dependent variables are ownership attribute ofcivil servants, performance of the public sectors and agency problems between civil servants and public
sectors. In the first hypothesis, ownership attribute of civil servants is dependent variable and in thesecond hypothesis, it is the independent variable. The research’s findings have proved the hypothesis
one i.e. motivation and commitment attribute of civil servants have positive relation with ownership
attribute of civil servants. The research’s results have proved the hypothesis two i.e. ownership attributeof civil servants has very strong relation with the performance of the public sectors. The research’s
outcomes have proved the hypothesis three i.e. lack of ownership attribute of civil servants has positive
correlation with agency problem in the public sectors. The supports of this paper observed in the lightof several limits. The author collects the primary data from one point of place i. e. from civil servantsof Bangladesh. The empirical studies want more association conclusions on the connections. Anotherlimit is the reliant on self-reported survey data, creating agonies about probable mono-technique andbias extravagant techniques. Some data are collected through internet and there was no face to facecommunications between author and respondents.

.

Ali・石田尾・竹下：Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences

References

1.

Abdul-Nasiru, I. Mensah, R. Amponsah-Tawiah, K. & Simpeh, K. N. (2014). Organisational
Commitment in the Public Service of Ghana: An Empirical Study. Developing Country Studies,
4(1): 49-55.

2.

Adu, L.A. (1968). Civil Service in Commonwealth Africa, London.

3.

Javed, A. (2017). The Effect of Public Sector Development Expenditures and Investment on
Economic Growth: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Economics and Political Economy,
4(2): 203-214.

4.

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market
Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488-500.

5.

Alinska, A. Filipiak, B. Z. & Kosztowniak, A. (2018). The Importance of the Public Sector in
Sustainable Development in Poland. Sustainability, 1-24.

6.

Angle, H.L & Perry, J.L (1981). An empirical assessment of organisational commitment andorganisational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 1-13.

7.

Arrow, K.A. (1974). The Limits of Organization. Norton, New York, NY.

8.

Beauchamp, T. (2011). Conceptual Framework Task Force Consultation Paper 1:
Characteristics of Public Sector Entities, West Toronto, October 15, 2011. Conceptual
Framework Task Force.

9.

Becker, B. E. & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic Human Resource Management: Where do wego from Here? Journal of Management, 32(6): 898–925.

10.

Belarbi, A. El-Refae, G. A. & Abu-Rashed, J. (2012). Issues of asymmetric information in
public-private partnership contracts within Jordanian healthcare sector. International Journalof Behavioural and Healthcare Research, 3(1):46 – 54.

11.

Bloomenthal, A. & Boyle, M. ( 2020). Asymmetric Information. Investopia, 4(7).

12.

Borman, W. C. Motowidlo, S. J. & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences intask and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2): 71–83.

13.

Boshkoska, M. (2014). The Agency Problem: Measures for Its Overcoming. International
Journal of Business and Management, 10(1): 204-209.

14.

Brewer, G. A. & Selden, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: new evidenceof the public service ethic. Journal of public administration research and theory, 8(3): 413439.

15.

Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial andorganizational psychology. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 687–732.

第一工業大学研究報告 第33号 （2021）

16.

Caramelli, M. (2011). Civil servant Ownership and Corporate Performance: Towards
Unlocking The Black Box. Civil Servants Ownership and Shared Capitalism, 7: 177-209.

17.

Caron, D. J. & Giauque, D. (2006). Civil servant identity at the crossroads: New challenges for
public administrations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(6):543-555.

18.

Chen, J. & James, M. (2020). Agency Problem. Corporate Finance & Accounting, 8(20).

19.

Conway, J.M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance formanagerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 3–13.

20.

Corrado, C. Haskel, J. & Jona-Lasinio, C. (2015). Public Intangibles: The Public Sector andEconomic Growth in the SNA. Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A.
Working Paper Series No. 1.

21.

David, M. (2017). 5 Key Components of Any Successful Performance Management Process.
HR Bertender.

22.

De Visscher, C. and Varone, F. (2004). La Nouvelle Gestion Publique ‘en action’. Revueinternationale de politique compare´e, 11(2).

23.

Donohoe, A. (2019). Employee Performance Definition. Bizfluent, https://bizfluent.com/facts7218608-employee-performance-definition.html. Date: 04.07. 2019.

24.

Pasour, E. C. (1981). The Free Rider as a Basis for Government Intervention. The Journal of
Liberrorion Studies, 4: 453-464.

25.

Eisenberger, R. Fasolo, P. & Davis-Lamastro, V. (1990). Perceived Organizational Support andCivil servant Diligence, Commitment and Innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 5159.

26.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management
Review, 14: 57–74.

27.

Eun & Resnick (2004). International Financial Management (3rd ed.). The McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc. New Jersey.

28.

Fagbemi, A. O. (2006). Customer Service Delivery in Public Sector Management. Lagos.
Concept Publications.

29.

Gaul, L. & Stebunovs, V. (2009). Ownership and Asymmetric Information Problems in the
Corporate Loan Market: Evidence from a Heteroskedastic Regression. Financial Economist,
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency & Viktors Stebunovs, Economist, Board ofGovernors of the Federal Reserve System, 4: 1-29.

30.

Giauque, D. et al. (2013). HRM Practices, Intrinsic Motivators, and Organizational
Performance in the Public Sector. Public Personnel Management, 42(2): 123–150.

31.

Greater London Authority (2006). The rationale for public sector intervention in the economy.
City Hall. The Queen’s Walk. London.

Ali・石田尾・竹下：Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences

32.

Heady, F. (1984). Public Administration: A comparative perspective, Third Edition, Marcel
Dekker.

33.

Heracleous, L. (2010). Rethinking Agency Theory: The View from Law. Academy ofManagement Review, 35(2): 294–314.

34.

Hosmer, L. T. (2007). The Ethics of Management, 6th Edition. New York. McGraw-Hill.

35.

Hosmer, L. T. (2007). The Ethics of Management, 6th Edition. New York. McGraw-Hill.

36.

Javed, T. (2017). Impact of Civil servant Ownership on Organizational Performance: A
Mediating Role of Civil servant Satisfaction. Academy of Taiwan Business Management
Review, 13: 49-60.

37.

Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency
Cost and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-360.

38.

Kruse, D. (2016). Does civil servant ownership improve performance? Civil servant ownershipgenerally increases firm performance and worker outcomes. IZA World of Labor, 311: 1-12.

39.

Kumasey, A. S. Bawole, N. & Hossain, F ( 2016). Organizational commitment of public
service employees in Ghana: do codes of ethics matter? Article in International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 83(1S) : 59-77.

40.

Lasher, W. (2008). Practical Financial Management (5th ed.). USA.

41.

Marrelli, M. et al. (2001). Public Decision-Making Processes and Asymmetry of Information.
New York, Springer Science + Business Media.

42.

Mayhew, M. G. Ashkanasy, N. M. Bramble, T. & Gardner, J. (2007). A Study of the
Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 147(5): 477–500.

43.

Merickova, B. & Muthová, N. (2019). The Value of Public Good. Free Rider Problem.
Conference Paper: July, 2019.

44.

Michie, J. Oughton, C. & Bennion, Y. (2002). Civil servant ownership, motivation andproductivity: A research report for Civil servants Direct from Birkbeck and The WorkFoundation. The work foundation, 21: 1-34.

45.

Miller, G. j. & Whitford, A. B. (2002). Trust and Incentives in Principal-Agent Negotiations
The‘Insurance/Incentive Trade-Off’. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 7(1): 231-267.

46.

Minns, R. (1996). The Social Ownership of Capital. The Left Review, 219: 42-61.

47.

Moe, T. M. (1984). The New Economics of Organization. American Journal of Political
Science, 28: 737-777.

48.

Muir, R. (1930). How Britain is governed: A critical analysis of modern developments in the
British system of government. Frank H. Underhill. Douglas Francis.

第一工業大学研究報告 第33号 （2021）

49.

Oliveira, C. B. & Filho, J. R. F. (2017). Agency problems in the public sector: the role ofmediators between central administration of city hall and executive bodies. Revista deAdministração Pública, 1(15): 4.

50.

Ozono, H. Jin, N. Watabe, M. & Shimizu, K. (2016). Solving the second-order free rider
problem in a public goods game: An experiment using a leader support system. Scientific
Reports: 1-8.

51.

Parker, S. K. (2000). From Passive to Proactive Motivation: The Importance of Flexible Role
Orientations and Role Breadth Self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49: 447–69.36.

52.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D. & Jackson, P. R. (1997). That’s not my job’: Developing Flexible
civil servant work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 899–929.

53.

Payne, S. L. & Wayland, R. F. (1999). Ethical Obligation and Diverse Value Assumptions in
HRM. International Journal of Manpower, 20(5/6): 297–308.

54.

Perry, J. & Wise, L. R (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public administration
review, 50(3): 367-373.

55.

Perry, J. L. & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A
Critique and Research Strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 13(2): 182-201.

56.

Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: an assessment of construct reliability
and validity. Journal of public administration research and theory, 6(1): 5-23.

57.

Phillips, J. J. (1999). Accountability in Human Resource Management. Houston, Woburn.
Gulf Publishing Company.

58.

Roach, M. L. C. (2016). An Application of Principal Agent Theory to Contractual Hiring
Arrangements within Public Sector Organizations. Theoretical Economics Letters, 6: 28-33.

59.

Ross, S. (2019). How Do Modern Corporations Deal With Agency Problems? Investopedia,
Updated May 6, 2019.

60.

Schillemans, T. & Bjurstrom, H. B. (2019). Trust and Verification: Balancing Agency and
Stewardship Theory in the Governance of Agencies. International Public Management
Journal, 2: 1 – 35.

61.

Swarthout, D. (2018). What Is Employee Performance? https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-employee-performance-lesson-quiz.html. Dated: 04.07.2019.

62.

The Norwegian Ministry of Defence (2012). Professionalism and integrity in the public service.
Guides to Good Governance.

63.

Tipuri & Podrug. (2010). Theoretical conceptualization and empirical validation of
Stewardship Theory. Proceedings of the Faculty of Economics in Zagreb.

Ali・石田尾・竹下：Ownership attribute of civil servants in the public sectors and its consequences

64.

Uslu, T. (2014). Perception of organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover
intention in M&A process: a multivariate positive psychology model, PhD Thesis, Marmara
University, Department of Business Administration.

65.

Uslu, T. (2015). Innovation Culture and Strategic Human Resource Management in Public andPrivate Sector within: The Framework of Civil servant Ownership. Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 195: 1463 – 1470.

66.

Vandenabeele, W. Depré, R. Hondeghem, A. & Yan, S. (2004). The Motivational Patterns ofCivil Servants. Viesojipolitika IR Administravimas, 13: 53-63.

67.

Wiedenhofer, A. (2006). Information asymmetry in principal-agent relationships. Term Paper,
06: 33.

68.

Wong, W. (2012). The Civil Service. 10.5790/hongkong/9789622098299.003.0005.

69.

Wright, B. E. (2001). Public sector work motivation: a review of the current literature and arevised conceptual model. Journal of public administration research and theory, 11(4): 559586.