PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
The Foundations of Public Administration Series is a collection of articles written by experts in 20 content areas, providing introductory essays and recommending top articles in those subjects.
Selection of PAR articles on or relevant to ‘Theory and Scope of Public Administration’ And articles referenced in the Introductory Essay and Syllabus The selection presented here is, on the one hand, broader than strictly articles reflecting on theory and scope in general, and, on the other, excludes articles on specific theories, methods, and the like; i.e., a kind of middle ground between very few, and an overload of articles has been attempted. Depending on one’s interest and focus, many more article from the PAR archives could have been in- or excluded. An in between overview has been attempted. It implies that, generally speaking, some topics have only been included very minimally, they concern: articles on specific theoretical approaches; on specific methods; on methods in use (in dissertations, journals); on the links between theory and praxis, and /or professionalism; on PA curricula and training programs. Allison, G.T., Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Particulars?, in R.T. Golembiewski and F.K. Gibson (eds.), Readings in Public Administration Institutions, Processes, Behavior, Policy, 4th Edition, Houston Mifflin Company, Boston, 1983, p.1-19. Amburger, E. (1966). Geschichte der Behördenorganisation Russlands von Peter dem Grossen bis 1917 [Historry of the Russian Civil Service Staff form Peter the Great till 1917]. Leiden: Brill. Argyle, N.J., (1994). Public Administration, Administrative Thought, and the Emergence of the Nation State (pp. 116). In: Farazmand, A. (Ed.). Handbook of Bureaucracy, New York, Basel, Hong Kong: Marcel Dekker. Argyris, C. (1973) Some Limits of Rational Man Organizational Theory, Public Administration Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 253-267 Argyris, C. (1973). Organization Man: Rational and Self-Actualizing, Public Administration Review, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Jul. - Aug., 1973), pp. 354-357. Bailey, M.T. (1992). Do Physicists Use Case Studies? Thoughts on Public Administration Research. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 47-54. Barth, T.J. &. Green, M.T. (1999). Review: Public Administration Handbooks: Why, How, and Who? Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, No. 6. (Nov. - Dec., 1999), pp. 535-544. Benn, S.I. & G.F. Gaus (1983). The liberal conception of the public and the private. In S.I. Benn & G.F. Gaus (Eds.), Public and private in social life (pp. 31-65). New York: St. Martin's Press Berki, R.N. (1979). State & society: An antithesis of modern political thought. In J.E.S. Hayward & R.N. Berki (Eds.), State and society in contemporary Europe. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
1
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Bingham, R.D. & Bowen, W.M. (1994). "Mainstream" Public Administration over Time: A Topical Content Analysis of Public Administration Review. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 204-208. Bogason, P. (2001). Postmodernism and American public administration in the 1990s, Administration & Society, 33(2); 165-193. Bowman, J.S. & Hajjar, S.G. (1978). The Literature of American Public Administration: Its Contents and Contributors. Public Administration Review, 38(2), 156-165. Box, R.C. (1992). An Examination of the Debate over Research in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 62-69. Box, R.C. (2004). Chapter 4. Critical Theory & The Paradox of Discourse. In: idem, Critical Social Theory in Public Administration (pp. 69-88). New York: M.E.Sharpe. (20 pp) Brown, B. & R.J. Stillman II (1986). A Search for Public Administration: The Ideas and Career of Dwight Waldo. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Burnier, D. (2005). Making it meaning full: postmodern public administration and symbolic interactionism. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(3), 498-516. Caiden, G.E. (1971). The Dynamics of Public Adminstration. Guidelines to Current Transformations in Theory and Practice. Hinsdale: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Caldwell, L.K. (1976). Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Heritage of American Public Administration, Public Administration Review, Vol. 36, No. 5, Special Bicentennial Issue: American Public Administration in Three Centuries. (Sep. - Oct., 1976), pp. 476-488. Connolly, W.E. (1984). The Politics of Discourse. In M.J. Shapiro (Ed.), Language and Politics. (pp. 139-167). Oxford: Blackwell. Chevallier, J. & D. Lochak (1987). La science administrative [The science of administration], 2nd ed. Parijs : Presses Universitaires de France. Cunningham, R. & L. Weschler (2002) The theory and the public administration student/practitioner, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, pp.101-111 Dahl, R.A. (1947). The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems. Public Administration Review, 7(1), 1-11. Daneke, G.A. (1990). A Science of Public Administration?. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 383-392. De Groot, A.D. & F.L. Medendorp (1986). Term, begrip, theorie. Inleiding tot signifische begripsanalyse [term, concept, theory. An introduction to signific concept analysis]. Amsterdam: Boom. Denhardt, R.B. (1981). Toward a Critical Theory of Public Organization. Public Administration Review, 41(6), 628-635. Dewey, J. (1981). The Pattern of Inquiry (1938). In: J.J.McDermott, The Philosophy of John Dewey (pp 223-239), 2nd ed. Chicago & Londen: University of Chicago Press.
2
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Dimock, M.E. (1937). The Study of Administration, American Political Science Review, 31, 28-40 Dunsire, A. (1973). Administration. The Word and the Science. Oxford: Martin Robertson. Feyerabend, P.K. (1970). Consolidation for the Specialist. In: I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp 197-230). Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press Feyerabend, P.K. (1975). Against Method : Outline for an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Londen: NLB Feyerabend, P.K. (1978). Inkommensurabilitaet [incommensurability]. In: idem, Der wissenschaftstheoretische Realismus und die Autoritaet der Wissenschaften, Volume II (pp 178-203). Braunschweig-Wiesbaden. Fisher, F. (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage Frederickson, H.G. (1976). Public Administrationin the 1970s: Developments and Directions, Public Administration Review, 36, 564-576 Frederickson, H.G. (1997). The Spirit of Public Administration, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Frederickson, H.G. (1991). Toward a Theory of the Public for Public Administration, in Administration & Society, 22(4), 395-417. Frederickson, G. & K.B. Smith (2003) ThePublic Administration Theory Primer. Cambridge Ma.: Westview. Gadamer, H.-G. (1972). Wahrheit und Methode [Truth and Method. 3rd ed. Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr. Golembiewski, R.T. (1977). Public Administration as a Developing Discipline. New York & Basel: Marcel Dekker Inc. Golembiewski, R.T. (1977). A critique of 'Democratic administration' and its supporting ideation, American Political Science Review, 71(4), 1488-1507. Golembiewski, R.T. (1977). Observations on 'Doing political theory': A rejoinder, American Political Science Review, 71, 1526-1531. Golembiewski, R.T. (1996). The Future of Public Administration: End of a Short Stay in the Sun? Or a New Day A-Dawning? Public Administration Review, 56(2), 139-148. Goodsell, C.T. (2006). A New Vision for Public Administration. Public Administration Review. 66, 623-635 Gulick, L.H. (1990).Reflections on Public Administration, Past and Present. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 599-603. Haque, M.S. (1996). The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration in the current epoch of privatization, Administration & Society, 27(4), 510-537. Hart, C. (2000). Chapter 7. Writing the review. In: idem, Doing a literature review. Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination (pp. 172-206) London: Sage. (35 pp) Held, D. (1985). Introduction: Central perspectives on the modern state. In Held, D., States & societies (pp. 155). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
3
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Henry, N. (19975). Paradigms of Public Administration, Public Administration Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. (Jul. Aug., 1975), pp. 378-386. Hintikka, J. (1988). On the Incommensurability of Theories, Philosophy of Science, 55, 25-38 Hollis, M. (1994). The philosophy of social science. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Honderich, T. (ed.) (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press Houston, D.J. & Delevan, S,M. (1990). Public Administration Research: An Assessment of Journal Publications. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 674-681. Jochoms, Th.P.C.M. & M.R. Rutgers (2006). Coming to terms with the complementarity of agent and structure. Public Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 383-412 Jun. J.S. (1997). Interpretative and critical perspectives, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 19(2), 146-153. Kettl, D.F. (1990). The Perils-And Prospects-Of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 50(4), 411-419. König, K. (1970). Erkenntnisinteressen der Verwaltungswissenschaft [Knowledge Interest of the sudy of public administration]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot König, K. (1980). Les tendances Intégrationnistes dans la science administrative [Integrative tendencies in the science of administration]. In: G. Langrod (ed.), Science et Action Administratives (pp 25-47). Paris : Éditions d'Organisation Kuhn, Th.S. (1970). Reflections on my critics. In: I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp 231-278). Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press Kuhn, Th.S. (1972). Scientific Paradigms. In: B. Barnes (red.) Sociology of Science (pp 80-104). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Locke, J. (1978). An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Sussex/New Jersey: The Harvester press/Humanities press. Luhmann, N. (1966). Theorie der Verwaltungswissenschaft: Bestandaufnahme und Entwurf [Theory of the study of public adminstration: present status and design]. Köln/Berlin: Grote Luton, L. (1996). What does it mean to say, ‘public’ administration?, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 18(1), 138146. Lynn, N.B. & A. Wildavsky (1990), Public Administration. The State of the Discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. Martin, D.W. (1987). Déjà Vu: French Antecedents of American Public Administration, Public Administration Review, Vol. 47, No. 4. (Jul. - Aug., 1987), pp. 297-303. Mainzer, L.C. (1994). Public Administration in Search of a Theory. The Interdisciplinary Delusion, Administration & Society, 26, 359-394
4
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Mesaros, W. & D.L. Balfour (1993). Hermeneutics, Scientific Realism, and Social Research: Towards a Unifying Paradigms For Public Administration, Administrative Theory and Praxis, 15, 25-36 Miewald, R.D. (1984). The Origins of Wilson's Thought - The German Tradition and the Organic State. In J.Rabin & J.S.Bowman (Eds.), Politics and Administration - Woodrow Wilson and American Public Administration. (pp. 17-36). New York/Basel: Marcel Dekker. Miller, H.T. & Jaja, C (2005). Some Evidence of a Pluralistic Discipline: A Narrative Analysis of Public Administration Symposia. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 728-738 Moe, R.C. & Gilmour, R.S. (1995). Rediscovering Principles of Public Administration: The Neglected Foundation of Public Law. Public Administration Review, 55(2), 135-146. Musolf, L.D. & Seidman, H. (1980). The Blurred Boundaries of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 40(2), 124-130. Newland, C.A. (1994). A field of Strangers in Search of a Discipline: Seperatism of Public management Research from Public Administration, Public Administration Review, 54, 486-488 Neumann, Jr., F.X. (1996). What Makes Public Administration a Science? Or, Are Its "Big Questions" Really Big? Public Administration Review, 56(5), 409-415. Nieuwenburg, P. & Rutgers, M. R. (2001). Politics and administration: Some remarks on the conceptual roots of the dichotomy, Jahrbuch für europäische Verwaltungsgeschichte/Yearbook of European administration history, 12, 185-202 Ostrom, V. (1974). The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration, revised editon. Alabama: University of Alabama Ostrom, V. (1977). Some problems in doing political theory: A response to Golembiewski's "Critique of 'democratic administration' and its supporting ideation," The American Political Science Review, 71(4), 1508-1525. O'Toole, Jr. L.J. (1987). Doctrines and Developments: Separation of Powers, the Politics-Administration Dichotomy, and the Rise of the Administrative State. Public Administration Review, 47(1), 17-25. Overeem, P. (2008). `Beyond Heterodoxy: Dwight Waldo and the Politics/Administration Dichotomy. Public Administration Review. 28(1): 36-45. Page, R.S. (1969). A New Public Administration? Public Administration Review, 29 (3), 303-304. Painter, M. & Peters, B.G. (eds.) (2010). Tradition and Public administration, New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Pauw, J.C. (1999). The concept of public administration. In J.S. Wessels & J.C. Pauw (Eds.), Reflecting public administration: Views from the South (pp. 9-25). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Pesch, U. (2003). The public/private dichotomy and the assessment of democratic administration: An evaluation of "The intellectual crisis of American public administration" and "The government is us". In M.R. Rutgers (Ed.). Retracing Public Administration). JAI/Elsevier.
5
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Peterson, P.L. (1984). Semantic indeterminacy and scientific underdetermination. Philosophy of Science, 51, 464-487. Pierre, J. (2000). Conclusions: Governance beyond state strength.. In Pierre, J. (Ed.), Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy (pp. 241-246). Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press. Quine, W.V. (1996). Ontological Relativism & Other Essays. New York: Colombia University Press Raadschelders, J.C.N. (1999). A Coherent Framework for the Study of Public Administration, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 281-303. Raadschelders, J.C.N. (2000). Understanding Government in Society: We See the Trees, but Could we See the Forest? Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22, 192-225 Raadschelders, J.C.N. (2003a). Understanding Government Through Differentiated Integration, In: M.R.Rutgers, Retracing Public Administration (pp. 329-356). Amsterddam etc: Jai/Elsevier Raadschelders, J.C.N. (2003b). Government. A Public Administration Perspective. Armonk etc: Sharpe Raadschelders, J.C.N. (2008). Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration, Public Administration, 86(4), 925-949 Raadschelders, J.C.N. (2008). Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration, Public Administration, 86(4) (925-949) Raadschelders, J.C.N. (2010). Indentity without boundaries: Public administration’s canon(s) of integration. Administration & Society, 42(2), 131-159 Raadschelders, J. C. N. & Rutgers, M. R. (1999). The waxing and waning of the state and its study. Changes and challenges in the study of public administration. In R. J. Stillman & W. J. M. Kickert (Eds.), The modern state and its study (pp. 17-35). London: Elgar Rabin, J., B. Hildreth & G. Miller (2007). Handbook of Public Administration. 3rd ed. Boca Raton etc: Taylor & Francis. Rapoport, A. (1958). Various Meanings of `Theory', American Political Science Review, 52, 972-988 Roberts, J.S. (1969). Language and Development Administration. Public Administration Review, 29(3), 255262. Rodgers, R & Rodgers, N. (2000). Defining the Boundaries of Public Administration: Undisciplined Mongrels versus Disciplined Purists. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 435-445. Rosecrance, R. (1996). ‘The Rise of the Virtual State’, Foreign Affairs, 4, 75, 45-61 Rosenau, J.N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In Rosenau, J.N. & Czempiel, E.O. (Eds.). Governance without government: order and change in world politics (pp. 1-29) Cambridge [etc.]: Cambridge University Press. Rosenbloom, D.H. (1983). Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of Powers, Public Administration Review, Vol. 43, No. 3. (May - Jun), pp. 219-227.
6
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Rutgers, M.R. (1993). Tussen Fragmentatie en Integratie. Over de bestuurskunde als kennisintegrerende wetenschap [Between fragmentation and integration. On the study of public administration as an knowledge integrating study]. Delft: Eburon. Rutgers, M.R. (1994). Can the Study of Public Administration Do Without a Concept of the State? Reflections on the Work of Lorenz Von Stein, Administration and Society, 26, 4, 395-412 Rutgers, M.R. (1996).The Meaning of Administration. Translating Across Boundaries, Journal of Management Inquiry,1,14-20. Rutgers, M.R. (1997). Beyond Woodrow Wilson. The Identity of the Study of Public Administration in Historical Perspective, Administration and Society, 28, 1997, 164-188. Rutgers, M.R. (1998). Paradigm Lost. Crisis and Identity of the Study of Public Administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol.64, no.4, pp.553-564 Rutgers, M.R. (2001), Traditional Flavors? The different sentiments in European and American Administrative Thought, Administration & Society, 33(2), 220-244. (25 pp) Rutgers, M.R. (2002). Introduction. In M.R. Rutgers (Ed.), The Renaissance of Public Administration, Research in Public Administration (volume 7). JAI/Elsevier. Rutgers, M.R. (2004). Grondslagen van de bestuurskunde. Historie, begripsvorming en kennisintegratie [Foundations of the study of public administration. History, conceptualization and knowledge integration]. Bussum: Coutinho. Simon, H.A. (1952). Reply to Waldo. American Political Science Review, 2, 494-496 Simon, H.A. (1973). Organization Man: Rational or Self-Actualizing? Public Administration Review, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Jul. - Aug.), pp. 346-353. Simon, H. (1976). Some problems of Administrative Theory (chapter 2). In: Administrative Behavior. 3rd ed. (pp. 29-49). New York: The Free Press. (21 pp) Simon, H.A. (1998). Guest Editorial: Why Public Administration? Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 1. (Jan. - Feb., 1998), pp. ii.1 Spicer, M.W. (1995). The Founders, the Constitution, and Public Administration. A Conflict in World Views. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Spicer, M. (2004). Public Administration, the History of Ideas,and the Reinventing Government Movement, Public Administration Review, 64(3), 353-362 Spicer, M.W. (2005). Public Administration enquiry and social science in the postmodern condition: some implications of value pluralism, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(4), 669-688 Stillman, R.J. (1982). The Changing Patterns of Public Administration Theory in America. n: J.A. Ueveges (ed.) Public Administation History and Theory in Contemporary Perspective (pp. 5-37). New York/Basel: Marvel Dekker.
7
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Stillman II, R.J. (1990). The Peculiar ‘Stateless’ Origins of American Public Administration and the Consequences for Government Today, Public Administration Review, 50, 156-167. Stillman II, R.J. (1991). Preface to Public Administration; a Search for Themes and Direction. New York: St. Martin's Press Stillman, II, R.J. (1997). American vs. European Public Administration: Does Public Administration Make the Modern State, or Does the State Make Public Administration? Public Administration Review, 57(4), 332-338. Stillman II, R.J. (2010). public administration ; concepts & cases, 9th ed./International edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Stivers, C. (1990) Toward a Feminist Perspective in Public Administration Theory, in Shafritz, J.M. and Hyde, A.C. (eds.) Classics of Public Administration (pp. 481-490). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. (10 pp) Svara, J.H., (1999). Complementarity of Politics and Administration as a Legitimate Alternative to the Dichotomy Model. Administration & Society, 30, 676-705. Thayer, F.C. (1974). A Comment on the Argyris-Simon Debate, Public Administration Review, Vol. 34, No. 2. (Mar. - Apr., 1974), pp. 185-188. Thompson, F.J. (1999). Symposium on the advancement of public administration: introduction. Journal of Public Affairs, 5(2), 119-125 (6 p) Thompson Klein, J.T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press Van Kersbergen, K. & F. van Waarden (2004). ‘Governance’ as a bridge between disciplines: Crossdisciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy, European Journal of Political Research, 43 (2), 143-171. (29 pp Wald, E. (1973). Toward a Paradigm of Future Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 33(4), 366-372. Waldo, D. (1952). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review, 46, 81-103 Waldo, D. (1953). Reply to Simon. American Political Science Review, 47, 500-503 Waldo, D. (1955). The Study of Public Administration. New York: Random House. Waldo, D. (1968). Scope of the Theory of Public Administration. In: J.C. Charlesworth (ed.), Theory and Practice of Public Administration: Scope, Objectives, and Methods (pp. 8-9). Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science
8
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
Waldo, D., (1968). What is Public Administration? In: idem, The Study of Public administration. 11th ed. (pp. 114). New York: Chandler & Sharp. Waldo, D. (1987). Politics and Administration: On Thinking about a Complex Relationship. In R.C. Chandler (Ed.), A centennial history of the American administrative state (pp. 89-112). New York: Free Press. Wamsley, G.L. en J.L. Wolf, Introduction. Can a High-Modern Project Find Happiness in a Postmodern Era? Weintraub, J. (1997). The theory and politics of the public/private distinction. In J. Weintraub & K. Kumar, Public and private in thought and practice: perspectives on a grand dichotomy (pp. 1 – 42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. White, L.D. (1926). Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New York: MacMillan White, J.D. (1986). On the growth of knowledge in Public Administration, Public administration review, 46, 15-24. Wilson, W. (1987). The Study of Adminstration (1887), in: J.M. Shafritz & A.C. Hyde, Classics of Public Administration (pp 10-25). Chicago: The Dorsey Press. Winch, P. (1988). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. 15th ed. Londen/NY: Routledge Wing-yee Lee, E. (1995). Political Science, Public Administration, and the Rise of the American Administrative State, Public Administration Review, Vol. 55, No. 6. (Nov. - Dec., 1995), pp. 538-546.
9
(c) 2010 ASPA
PAR
Foundations of Public Administration Theory and Scope – References Mark R. Rutgers
About the Author Mark R. Rutgers is professor of the philosophy of public administration at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His main interests include the nature of the study of public administration, public values, and the foundations of administrative thought.
[email protected]
10
(c) 2010 ASPA
