Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
TheFoundationsofPublicAdministrationSeriesisacollectionofarticleswrittenbyexpertsin20
contentareas,providingintroductoryessaysandrecommendingtoparticlesinthosesubjects.
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1 A Search for Identity
MarkR.Rutgersisprofessorofthe
philosophyofpublicadministrationat
theUniversityofAmsterdam,the
Netherlands.Hismaininterests
includethenatureofthestudyof
publicadministration,publicvalues,
andthefoundationsofadministrative
thought.
m.r.rutgers@uva.nl
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
and justice, to society, law, and, last but not least, the
state. Yet, no reason to despair, for as indicated most
fields of study only have some vague comprehensive
notion of what they are about, i.e. their subject matter.
Thus sociology is about the social, psychology about
the psyche, and political science about politics.
Usually these encompassing core concepts are much
disputed and their meaning remains implicit and vague.
Also authors may wonder what precisely is politics? Is
it just about who gets power? Or is it about social
interaction more generally, or about peaceful resolving
social strive, or. Whatever? What we choose makes a
difference to what is regarded a relevant phenomena or
also how it should be interpreted or explained. Without
exception, the social sciences or studies presuppose a
normative image of humanity and society. At first
glance, the difficulty to pin point is perhaps a special
concern for social sciences, because their object of
study is usually not some simply empirically observable
phenomenon. Rather social sciences are intertwined
with ideas about, for instance, justice, order, (proper)
behavior, responsibility, i.e. with social constructs.
Nevertheless, similar issues surround physics (the
sciences). For instance the famous physicist Feynman
is known to have redrawn the field by means of
writing a new textbook. He presented the field, its
topics, concerns, and the interrelationships between
them in a new way, thereby providing a different
understanding of what the study was about. In one
sense the average scientist is just doing his or her job
and not really bothered by discovering its overarching
subject matter. Thats left to others, the theoreticians
and philosophers of the field arguing firm foundations
or encompassing perspectives, as well as, to textbook
authors and journal editors pragmatically determining
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
administration can refer to a social reality of people and
organizations, budgets, administrators, and so on. Next
the term may distinguish between its everyday, nonscientific use in social practice, and its scholarly
application. In the former case, the term refers to fuzzy
and/or different concepts. In the latter case, the term
denotes the object of study and ideally allows for a
clear or clearer definition. For example the term
bureaucracy: in every day circumstances it implies
government, bureaucrats, red tape, and so on with
usually (negative) normative connotations. On the
other hand, an academic study of bureaucracy defines
it a following specific theories of, for instance, Weber.
Thus the term is used with a precise meaning, i.e.
referring to a special kind of organization, and is not
intended to be normative (although the term idealtype itself leads into considerable semantic confusion).
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
However, in German (and other languages) social
studies, the study of history and of law all refer to
Wissenschaft, no natural science methodology is
included in the meaning of the term. As we will see
later on, linguistic and cultural differences are also
pronounced in the conceptualization of the object of
administrative study.
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
availableguesses or hypotheses. Scientific or
academic research aims at refining theories by testing
through application of the most rigorous
methodological standards. Issues regarding theories
(and their scope) in the study of public administration
thus concern the questions about what kind of theories
are needed and/or possible to discover.
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
administration in prehistoric, i.e. illiterate, societies we
now know a fair amount; based on archeology, records
by contemporary authors, and anthropological studies
of societies with oral traditions. From such sources
numerous ideas about what is currently viewed as
leadership, administrative organization, and the like
were present. Some fundamental insights are literally
older than history. The evidence of the achievements of
these people can be found at Stonehenge, Mesa Verde,
as well as other early sites with remains of mankind.
First records of what can be called administrative ideas
are Sumerian. Sumeria marks the birth in a formal
sense and of the Classic Period. It actually does not yet
include the rise of any conscious study of public
administration, but does contain roots of several
administrative ideas and insights. In fact, script was
itself a prime administrative invention for the first city
states. From early on ideas concerning proper behavior
in the public service were written out and handed
down to new generations in schools. The so-called
instruction literature provided moral guidance for how
to behave and work in government over 3000 years.
The Middle Ages in the Western Mirrors of Princes
moral treatises were written on the behavior of a future
king, at the same time as a means of instruction for
those involved within government.
Prehistory
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
repeatedly
studied,
Incremental
changes
or
developments can be noticed. Especially towards the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries topics
such as the choice of a spouse for the prince were
dropped, whereas political economy and administrative
law rose in prominence.
1Positivismasthebelieveintheadvancementofsocietyby
thescience,inparticularempiralsciencesisusuallylinkedwith
ClaudeHenrideSaintSimon(17601825)and,more
importantly,withtheideasofAugusteComte(17981857).
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
(economics, political science, sociology, psychology)
and law (the latter more prominent in Europe). An
important characteristic of the modern period is that
authors sought theoretical unity, as well as a singular
foundation; their goal was a comprehensive, unifying
theory. European forerunners of the study were
unsuccessful in this respect, as were the pre-WWII
American authors, for the search for principles and a
normative foundation.
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Discussions about the scientific status of the field and
on its theoretical foundations continued unabated
finding its focal point at the 1968 Minnowbrook
Conference.
10
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
disappeared and new ones arrived. In principle all
relevant knowledge and approaches, from the earliest
founders onward, were deemed important for
consideration. What topics took priority, which
approaches should be dominant, and included within
administration studies, never resulted in consensus at
least in general terms.
11
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
rise and fall of programming, planning and budgeting
system (PPBS) and, a decade later, of zero base
budgeting. The image of what public administration is
about does not easily arise out of such an eclectic array
of topics.
12
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
governance as a specific concern is interesting as an
argument can be made that governance is replacing
public administration as the key term to denote its
object of study. But that is an issue to be discussed in a
later.
13
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
public administration, the aim is to improve upon
everyday observations and meanings, i.e. to improve
our criteria for similarity and difference, our
assumptions and theories. An important aspect
required to be able to make improvements, is to realize
the nature of our observations and the meanings
applied. Perhaps three dichotomies, it will be later
argued, are at the heart of our understanding of public
administration (politics & administration, public &
private, and state & society). None of these provides
clear cut, let alone undisputed criteria for similarities
and differences or rather, suggest semantic fields of
possible meanings.
14
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
15
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Politics and Administration
16
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
relation to state and society are, however, rare.
Nevertheless, the literature on state and society in
general, i.e. in political theory, is overwhelming (cf.
Dyson, 1980).
17
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Cf"governancewithoutgovernment",butalso:"
governmentwithoutgovernance"(Rosenau,1992:5),and
theroleofgovernmentingovernance(Pierre,2000:241).
18
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Thediscussiononthenatureofnationaltraditionsinthe
developmentofpublicadministrationasdescribedinPainter&
Peters(2010)underlinesthelocalcontextofour
conceptualizations.
5
19
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
theory and scope of the study, a metaperspective is
needed. Both arguments result in rejecting in advance a
fixed theory of theory, i.e. of choosing a specific
methodology or ontology.
Naturalism
For simplicity, we can distinguish between two major
approaches to theory: the naturalistic approach and the
interpretative. To start with the former, the basic idea
of naturalism is that theories fill a full range of specific
criteria, the most important one being that theories are
in principle universal in application. Theories are in fact
the attempts to explain observed regularities or laws.
They enable us to argue from contingent observation
to universal knowledge. For example, Newtons claims
of observation that there is a law of gravity; again and
again an objects fall is explained by means of a theory
of gravity stating that object attract one another and
that the earth (a pretty big object) will attract an apple
(a small one, so the former appears to fall towards the
latter). Theories thus enable us to explain and, what is
more, to predict as theories are supposed to express
causal relations. The focus on causal explanations, i.e.
in terms of causes and effects, makes explanation and
prediction, or description and prescription, symmetrical
according to this methodology. That is, if a
phenomenon can be explained in terms of its causes,
prediction what will happen in every case a specific
cause is present is therefore possible. From this logic
derives so called positivistic claims, i.e. the idea that
science can help improve society for it can offer the
means to predict and thus establish courses of action.
For this reason, an ability to predict, i.e., the predictive
power of a theory, is regarded an important
20
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
with actual observations on how the sciences in reality
work (cf. Honderich, 1995, p. 871)
21
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
explanation, versus understanding, i.e. so called reasonexplanations. An underlying idea is that reasons are not
considered simply causes, for these would possess
causes in turn, and so on. The latter, it is sometimes
argued, would have serious implication for the
possibility of morality and responsibility. Also laws or
law-like explanations are generally regarded of less
importance, i.e. for understanding may be specific to
time and place (such as Why did Caesar cross the
Rubicon?). Another way of expressing the difference
between naturalism and interpretative approach is that
the former approaches reality externally, while the latter
attempts to understand what goes on internally, i.e.
within a persons mind. Another important difference
is that the hermeneutic methodology rejects the
possibility of objective observation; all observation, or
at least explanation and interpretation is somehow
theory driven. This can be illustrated by the problem
of double hermeneutics: in the natural sciences
scientists chose concepts to describe and explain
physical reality and thus interpret the observed
phenomena. In social sciences and humanities scientists
must interpret human interpretations. As a
consequence, observed social reality may actually
change based on resulting interpretations (or even
simply observing people may change their behavior).7
Human action is very much knowledge driven in the
first place. What is more, choice of terms and concepts
22
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
23
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Debates
Within these two major categories of naturalism and
hermeneutics many more specific methodological
stances can be distinguished (such as phenomenology,
scientific realism, among others). Thus critical theory
can be regarded a variant of hermeneutics, i.e. an
explicit emancipatory impulse demanded of scholars.
For instance, some argue that rejecting naturalistic
objectivity should result in an explicit normative stance
of scientists to aid the underprivileged, whereas
generally science supports the interest of the elite and
the wealthy. Also most so called post-modernists fit
within the hermeneutic methodology. Though building
on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Michel
Foucault, they point to the linguistic nature of all
knowledge, all discourse, and regard knowledge (and
rationality) which is bounded by its local context. A
most extreme stance is Jacques Deridat, who even
rejects the universality of the requirement to be
consistent. One may object that this makes all claims to
knowledge and truth empty. On the other hand within
the naturalistic framework Karl Popper already argued
what may be said as relativistic, i.e. that we can have
either truth or certainty, never both. These matters,
However it should be noted that there are also authors in the area
interpretative research that do argue specific methods for theory
construction. In my opinion, this usually implies a rejection of what is
at the heart of hermeneutics and a recurring to positivistic ideas (cf.
Winch, 1988).
24
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Similarly, rarely is attention limited to merely economic,
psychological, or sociological theories in order to
explain or solve an administrative dilemma. In brief,
the call for Interdisciplinarity arises from the practical
necessity to cope with social problems which require
many different sources or disciplines input. This
derived perspective from administrative practice was as
relevant three hundred years ago as it is today.
However, cogency increased due to the specialization
within the sciences, i.e. the fragmentation of our
knowledge (cf. Jos Raadschelders, 2008).
25
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
26
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
improve the status of their field by first legislating
agreement on fundamentals and then turn to puzzle
solving, they are badly misconstruing my point" (Kuhn,
1970: 245). On several occasions Kuhn highlights that his
theory is hardly applicable to the social sciences as they
are at best only partial parallels to be found among them
(mainly in psychology).
27
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
ideas and regulations for research that have to be learned
and adhered to by participants. This implies that within
the discipline certain ways of thinking and reasoning are
approved of, others not; some phenomena are regarded
as real and/or important, others not. As Rapoport puts
it: discipline" means constraint on the mode of
thought. It prescribes a repertoire of concepts, the
patterns of classification, the rules of evidence, and the
etiquette of discourse" (1958, p.972). Just like a paradigm,
a discipline supposedly determines how research is
carried out, warrants the acceptability, and signifies
significance of its statements and conclusions. A
discipline in this methodological sense is probably rare
within the social sciences. Stephen Toulmin (1972)
argues that physical sciences, the legal profession, and
engineering traditions can be regarded disciplines in this
strict sense. He regards the social sciences "would be
disciplines" as there is limited agreement on specific
methodologies or on the nature of society, i.e., there is a
plurality in learnings rather than discipline of thought
uniting social science scholars. Factors Toulmin
mentions as hampering the development of a discipline
are probably familiar to students of public administration:
a great variety and complexity of objects of research,
absence of common concepts used for structuring the
study, and lack of fully developed methods for resolving
problems. Toulmin emphasizes: "The crucial element in a
collective discipline... is the recognition of a sufficiently
agreed goal or ideal, in terms of which common
outstanding problems can be identified" (Toulmin, 1972,
p.364). At the beginning of this introduction, as Waldo
pointed out the study of public administration lacks
precisely such unity and thus ended up in its present-day
crisis of identity.
28
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Images of an Integrated Study of Public Administration
29
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
developed in later years. His approach is questionable
since it fails to encompass all theories as originally
claimed; Rather, has social systems become simply one
more addition to the increasing fragmentation of existing
knowledge about public administration?
30
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
unification, particularly the variety of images of
humanity that authors assume; i.e. ontological
differences that cannot be simply bridged by one
theory.
31
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Finally, Jos Raadschelders who also takes the issue of
the integration of theories as a central issue for the
study of public administration: how to arrive at (some)
coherence in the multiplicity of relevant studies on
public administrative phenomena? The identity crisis
of public administration has an academic or
epistemological (theory and method) as well as an
existential dimension (discipline or sub-field in other
discipline) that are further compounded by an identity
crisis in the real world of public administration or
government (Raadschelders, 2003). He outlines four
reasons for such compartmentalization of knowledge
about public administration ranging from simple
specialization and work division to a profound
fragmentation of Western thought, as well as four types
of integration of knowledge, from professional to a
unified science (Raadschelders, 2000). The types of
fragmentation can be connected to types of integration.
Ultimate integration is impossible in his view The fact
that contesting frameworks of reference exist does not
leave much hope that unity of knowledge in public
administration, or in the social sciences at large, can be
achieved. (p. 207). The best available alternative would
be, according to Raadschelders, differentiated
integration: This is still not an integration at a
theoretical level, but rather an integration around either
an organization of the field or around a conceptual approach
to the field. (p. 206).13 It implies that integration and
coherence might potentially achieved by starting from a
explicit unifying conceptualization. Raadschelders does
so himself, for instance, in his textbook Government; a
Public Administration Perspective: various disciplines and
13
32
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
33
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
case of the social sciences and humanities this is even
more problematic due to their inherent complexity and
lack of a common mathematical language, i.e., the very
absence of paradigmatic unity. Despite these problems,
theories on and methods for the integration of
knowledge, i.e. for interdisciplinarity research,15 are very
rare. One can hardly blame scholars of public
administration wrestling with the nature of their study, if
other studies and in particular the philosophy of the
social sciences do not provide a helping hand.
34
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
35
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
36
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
37
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Bibliography
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 Behrdenorganisation 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.
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.
38
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
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.
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.
39
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
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.
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.
Knig, K. (1970). Erkenntnisinteressen der Verwaltungswissenschaft [Knowledge Interest of the sudy of public
administration]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
Knig, K. (1980). Les tendances Intgrationnistes dans la science administrative [Integrative tendencies in the
science of administration]. In: G. Langrod (ed.), Science et Action Administratives (pp 25-47). Paris :
ditions 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
40
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
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]. Kln/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). Dj 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
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 fr europische 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.
41
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
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.\
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.
Peterson, P.L. (1984). Semantic indeterminacy and scientific underdetermination. Philosophy of Science, 51,
464-487.
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. & 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
42
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
Rosenbloom, D.H. (1983). Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of Powers, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 43, No. 3. (May - Jun), pp. 219-227.
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.
43
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
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
Waldo, D., (1968). What is Public Administration? In: idem, The Study of Public administration. 11th ed. (pp. 114). New York: Chandler & Sharp.
44
PAR
FoundationsofPublicAdministration
Theory and Scope
Mark R. Rutgers
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.
45