Understanding Government: Four Intellectual Traditions in the Study of Public Administration

Abstract

In this article a conceptual map of the identity of the study of public administration is developed that encompasses its theoretical diversity and richness. It organizes public administration scholarship into four main intellectual traditions: practical wisdom, practical experience, scientific knowledge and relativist perspectives. The objective is to outline the study’s fundamental heterodoxy and interdisciplinarity. While the study clearly has strong national components everywhere, the four main intellectual traditions go across and beyond national traditions of government and of its study.

Public Administration in a Globalized Asia: Intellectual Identities, Challenges, and Prospects

“…Second , although the existing concepts and theories of public administration are often claimed to be universal, they are largely based on Western thoughts and beliefs. In particular, as Raadschelders (:925) highlights, there has emerged the global domination of American public administration knowledge, which is too narrow and specialized. This tendency of American dominance is interpreted by Candler et al .…”

“…Third , the aforementioned universality claim of Western public administration, which underpins its worldwide intellectual imposition or imitation, is epistemologically founded upon the positivism‐led empiricist research method and knowledge‐building. As Jun (:11) observes, “since the 1950s, the field of public administration has been heavily emulating the scientific and positivistic methods from field of natural sciences, economics, and business administration.” The positivist–empiricist research in American public administration, which aims to build “scientific” universal knowledge (Raadschelders, ), is inappropriate for the inter‐subjective and context‐based analysis needed for understanding the sociocultural milieu of public administration in Asian countries. Thus, in order to build an authentic Asian public administration, it is crucial to transcend the existing empiricist mode of research and adopt more interpretive methodological options.…”

Government Programme as a Strategy—The Finnish Experience

“…[29, pp. 210-211] If we take a more continental approach, which regards public administration as part of the public entity or the state, we are doomed to this exact discussion (see [30] [O]n the other hand we see policy-makers using administrative reform to displace accountability from public policy; on the other hand we see the very same policy-makers trying to increase their control over bureaucracy. Whilst this appears to be two inconsistent developments, they may in fact reflect a general desire among elected politicians to increase their influence over bureaucracy while at the same time avoiding responsibility for the actions of the bureaucrats.…”

Government Programme as a Strategy—The Finnish Experience

“…If we take a more continental approach, which regards public administration as part of the public entity or the state, we are doomed to this exact discussion (see [32]). Pierre expresses it as follows: ( [33], cited in [34] (p. 143)):…”