BEYOND THE PRIVATE SECTOR: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN PUBLIC SERVICES
MANUEL-VICTORAȘ STĂNILĂ
, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania
ORCID: 0009-0000-5496-8103
Email: victor.stanila@amp.ase.ro
SORIN BURLACU
, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania
ORCID: 0000-0002-0189-2472
Email: sburlacu@amp.ase.ro
EDITA BOKOR
, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania
ORCID: 0009-0002-8702-738X
Email: bokoredita24@stud.ase.ro
(corresponding author)
CONSTANTIN MARIUS PROFIROIU
, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania
ORCID: 0000-0002-1076-3744
Email: mprofiroiu@ase.ro
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/cike2025.11
Pages: 94–105
Abstract
Abstract: The study focuses on the theoretical framework and dynamic evolution of corporate governance in the public sector and offers a comprehensive analysis of corporate governance. The main objective of the research was to systematically review the main governance theories applied to public services to clarify the developments in concepts and identify emerging trends. Using VOSviewer software, bibliometric methods have been used. Data from the Web of Science Core Collection was collected and strict filters were used to narrow the initial set to 196 relevant publications over the past two years. The analysis included co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, network analysis, and mapping influential works, dominant themes, and research relationships. The results show a clear shift from the traditional efficiency-oriented model to a more holistic approach to governance paradigms. Although agency theory has an impact, it is now supplemented by stakeholder theory and management theory that emphasize ethical leadership and social responsibility. The study found that academic contributions are concentrated in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, although emerging contributions from Latin America and other regions show growing diversification. A key discovery is the increasing relevance of sustainability and social responsibility in the research on the governance of the public sector.
Keywords: Public services, Bibliometric analysis, Agency theory, Stakeholder theory, Sustainability
JEL Classification: G34, H83, M14, L38
References
1. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. T. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public administration, 86(1), 225-242.
2. Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government
service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration research and theory, 13(4), 441-468.
3. Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis
techniques. Public management review, 6(1), 21-53
4. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional
public administration and the new public management. Public administration review, 74(4), 445-456.
5. Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A
closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative science quarterly, 50(2), 167-199.
6. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management.
Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.
7. do Rosario Anjos, M., & Mimoso, M. J. (2019). Services of general economic interest and foreign investment:
Risks, opportunities and protection of human rights. Economic and Social Development: Book of
Proceedings, 115–122.
8. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and
implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
9. European Parliament. (1996). Resolution on public services and undertakings. Official Journal C 320.
10. Fiedziuk, N. (2013). Putting services of general economic interest up for tender: Reflections on applicable
EU rules. Common Market Law Review, 50(1), 87–112.
11. Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2012). The public administration theoryAnnual International Scientific Conference
“Competitiveness and Innovation in the Knowledge Economy”September 26-27, 2025
Chisinau, Republic of Moldovaprimer (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
12. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
13. Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-
154.
14. Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Management, 30(6), 837-857.
15. Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A Government That Worked Better and Cost Less? Evaluating Three Decades
of Reform and Change in UK Central Government. Oxford University Press.
16. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
17. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (2019). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure. In Corporate governance (pp. 77-132). Gower.
18. Kinder, T., & Stenvall, J. (2023). A critique of public service logic. Public Management Review, 1–23.
19. Kociubiński, J. (2011). Services of general economic interest – Towards a European concept of public
services. Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration and Economics, 1(2), 49–64.
20. Krajewski, M. (2008). Providing legal clarity and securing policy space for public services through a legal
framework for services of general economic interest: Squaring the circle? European Public Law, 14(3), 377–
399.
21. Larsen, A. G., & Følstad, A. (2024). The impact of chatbots on public service provision: A qualitative
interview study with citizens and public service providers. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2),
101927.
22. Ølykke, G. S., & Møllgaard, P. (2016). What is a service of general economic interest? European Journal of
Law and Economics, 41(1), 205–241.
23. Petrović, D. (2013). Concept of services of general economic interest in the EU member states and the
possibilities of its application in the Republic of Serbia. The Review of International Affairs, 64(1150), 67–
80.
24. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2015). External control of organizations—Resource dependence perspective. In
Organizational behavior 2 (pp. 355-370). Routledge.
25. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
26. Plumb, I., Androniceanu, A., & Abăluță, O. (2003). Managementul serviciilor publice. București: Editura
ASE.
27. Profiroiu, A., & Popescu, I. (2005). Bazele administrației publice. București: Editura Economică.
28. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243-1264.
29. Rivera, J. D., & Knox, C. C. (2023). Bureaucratic discretion, social equity, and the administrative legitimacy
dilemma: Complications of New Public Service. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 65–77.
30. Rott, P. (2005). A new social contract law for public services? Consequences from regulation of services of
general economic interest in the EC. European Review of Contract Law, 1(1), 61–80.
31. Sabie, O. M., Bunea, O. I., & Popescu, R. I. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions on
public service quality and performance: Trends, themes and future directions. Applied Research in
Administrative Sciences, 5(2), 1–15.
32. Sauter, W. (2008). Services of general economic interest and universal service in EU law. European Law
Journal, 14(3), 310–335.
33. Schillemans, T., & Bjurstrøm, K. H. (2020). Trust and verification: Balancing agency and stewardship theory
in the governance of agencies. International Public Management Journal, 23(5), 650-676.34. Scutella, M., Plewa, C., & Reaiche, C. (2024). Virtual agents in the public service: Examining citizens’ value-
in-use. Public Management Review, 26(1), 73–88.35. Taibi, M. (2023). Public service translation: Critical issues and future directions. In M. Taibi (Ed.), The
Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting (pp. 106–122). Routledge.
36. Van de Walle, S. (2006). The impact of public service values on services of general interest reform debates.
Public Management Review, 8(2), 183–205.
37. Van de Walle, S. (2008). What services are public? What aspects of performance are to be ranked? The case
of “services of general interest.” International Public Management Journal, 11(3), 256–274.
38. Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government–nonprofit social
service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157-187.
39. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American journal
of sociology, 87(3), 548-577.