The impossibility of a universal public service perspective

Introduction

The suggestions made in the call for papers in this symposium on Democracy and the Teaching of Public Administration are quite compelling. Can there be a one-size-fits all approach to democratic public service when considering global diversity in governance systems? If we are preparing students to engage in state-building in emerging or non-democratic societies, what type of democracy should we be promoting? Following the answers to these questions, how do we prepare students accordingly? These questions speak directly to the role of public administration in democratic governance—an issue that has been debated since the emergence of public administration as a self-aware field of study (Waldo, 1984).

The Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA), has taken on responsibility for determining “a generic core of knowledge” that can “be imparted through education and assessed through examination” (Hays and Duke, 1996: 425). NASPAA establishes educational standards through peer deliberations and peer volunteers guide academic programs through a process of self-study, peer review, and accreditation determination (Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration, 2017). As a result of these efforts, Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree programs are fairly uniform in their admission requirements, curricula, and teaching approaches (Denhardt, 2001). While NASPAA began in the United States, it has recently expanded its scope to become the international accrediting organization for public service pedagogy. In fact, the organizational tag line reads, “The global standard in public service education.” This lofty goal demands that all accredited MPA programs prepare students for “universal competencies” to:

lead and manage in public governance;

While these competencies may indeed be comprehensive and universal, there are definitely competing ways to interpret their meanings and approach the various tasks described. For example, there are many different theories of leadership and management, each of which may or may not be appropriate in varying contexts. Differing roles for public administrators in the policy process are each considered legitimate, based on whether authority is grounded in political representation, expertise, or democratic sovereignty (Stout, 2013). While we wish all administrators to have critical analytical skills in problem solving, the degree to which we empower them in decision-making varies widely. Based on these differences, what can be articulated and successfully applied as a public service perspective will also differ situationally, particularly when considering the dynamic and diverse global context.

Because some scholars believe definitive answers are not possible or desirable, even within an individual democratic nation, a catholic approach to teaching the historical and intellectual foundations of public administration is recommended. The following sections explore the impossibility of a universal public service perspective before turning to curricular concerns of the substantive content covered and the pedagogical techniques used in learning about alternative theories of public administration and exploring their meanings for practice. A description is provided of a course designed to develop each student’s capacity “to articulate and apply a public service perspective” in consideration of “a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry”—a perspective that is individually developed and chosen through analytical reflection on alternatives in both theory and practice, considering contextual factors. The article concludes with discussion of the potential usefulness of this curricular and pedagogical approach in the global context, given the diversity of public service contexts in which graduates may find themselves.

Rival public service perspectives

Democratic government has been described as a system that “cannot be understood except in terms of the public employees themselves, their conceptions of their positions, and the attitudes of the public about what is required in and from our civil servants” (Appleby, 1945: 3). Due to these complex perspectives on professional identity, Waldo argues, “No single, agreed, and authoritative definition of Public Administration is possible” and therefore education for public service “is a confusing and controversial enterprise” (Waldo, 1980: 58). Yet, MPA programs are charged with helping students form and adopt an ideation of the public service role that can serve to: (a) bring diverse occupations into a common sense of purpose, professional identity, and trust; (b) establish standards for professional action; and (c) provide legitimacy to the public (Stever, 1988).

Role conceptualizations stem from “legitimating myths”—images of the identity of the public administrator or the enterprise of public administration within our political system (Kass, 1990). As noted by Morgan (1986), images and metaphors of this type are used not only as descriptors, but as prescriptive guides for attitudes and action. In fact, a historical review of the field “shows that the debate over defining the role of the administrator in governance has actually been a struggle of political ideology concerning who has discretion over policy and how this discretion is to be exercised” (McSwite, 1997: 229–230). Thus, role conceptualization implies competing conceptions of democratic legitimacy. Public service has been described as “a concept, an attitude, a sense of duty—yes, even a sense of public morality” (Staats, 1988).

As a result, MPA programs instill the competing ethical standards of both the bureaucratic ethos and the democratic ethos (Heijka-Ekins, 1988) and both are found in practice (Pugh, 1991). However, changes in administrative theory and practice demand new professional identities (van Bockel and Noordegraaf, 2006). The shift from traditional government agencies to governance networks is creating a new “identity project” in which the vocational ethos of public service is changing (Considine and Lewis, 1999; Du Gay, 1996). One emergent ethos is the managerialist or entrepreneurial model promoted by the New Public Management and similar initiatives such as reinventing government (Horton, 2006). The most recent addition is the ethos of participatory democracy, “a collaborative approach to government, where experts are simply part of a cooperative process in which they have no superior role” (McSwite, 2002: 77). Each ethos has a specific logic, ethical framework, and corresponding role identity for public administrators (Horton, 2006).

Professions that are imbued with a particular ethos are generally referred to as a vocation (McSwite, 2002) or a calling (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2003) that has a “cohesive set of job-related values and attitudes” (Selden et al., 1999: 175). Significant efforts have been made to operationalize the vocation of public administration through public service motivation, or PSM (Brewer et al., 2000; Perry, 1997; Selden et al., 1999) because “a professional’s socialization to his or her ethical responsibility should positively influence public service motivation” (Perry, 1997: 185). Three of the five antecedents to PSM found through studies of Western democracies are religious socialization, professional identity, and political ideology (Perry, 1997). Clearly, in a pluralistic society, there cannot be a singular, universal public service perspective. If the identity of public administrators is achieved through socialization (Caron and Giauque, 2006), we must prepare students to make informed choices that will be appropriate for their professional context as well as their own values and motivations (Stout, 2009a). In other words, we can help students find a good fit, but we cannot determine which choices are “right.”

Substantive content

The course described herein is designed for the US context. However, the curricular principles translate to other pluralist democracies. In order to help students to develop and articulate a public service perspective, the many principles proposed in the literature are explored through the historical and intellectual foundations of public administration, considering their implications for citizens, elected representatives, and administrators in a democratic society. In addition to supplemental sources, the primary course text is a book written specifically for teaching the theoretical foundations of alternative administrative roles in democratic governance, Logics of Legitimacy: Three Traditions of Public Administration Praxis (Stout, 2013). As indicated by the title, three ideal-types are described, each of which draws from similar typologies and associated theories. For example, Rosenbloom (2015) explains legal, managerial, and political approaches to public administration. Stillman (1996) suggests that founding fathers Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson modeled three different approaches to governance and public administration that have gained prominence in various time periods of US history. Kooiman (2003) describes hierarchical, co-governance, and self-governance modes of organizing, each with differing prescriptions for administrative practice. White (1990) argues that classical conservatism, modern liberalism, and Marxist humanism prefigure dramatically different approaches to administrative practice.

Following McIntyre’s (1988) notion of traditions as logically aligned social and intellectual presuppositions, Logics of Legitimacy: Three Traditions of Public Administration Praxis presents a discourse analysis of a very broad sample of the public administration literature in order to identify and construct theoretical “ideal-types” (Weber, 1949). In order of historical emergence, the resulting traditions are labeled: Constitutional, Discretionary, and Collaborative. Each tradition has philosophical commitments to specific meanings of political ontology, the limits of administrative scope and authority, a particular criterion of proper behavior, an appropriate decision-making approach, a suitable organizing style, assumptions about the governance context, and a particular administrative role conceptualization.

The Constitutional Tradition is grounded in the logic that political authority should be held by the political elite who are best able to determine what is right and good. As conceived by Orthodox Administration, in this government of the people, elected representatives determine the will of the state and citizens are answerable to the state. Similarly, a functional dichotomy and hierarchical system of authority constrains administrative discretion and scope of action to policy implementation. To ensure proper behavior, administrators are held accountable to the political and legal system through rules and procedures established by those holding more authority up through the chain of command. Thus, decision-making follows a deontological approach, thereby emphasizing the democratic value of equality through procedural fairness. A bureaucratic hierarchy best organizes administrative action to follow this arrangement of authority and accountability. Because governance is assumed to be contained within government agencies, this structure is easily maintained. The resulting administrative role most closely matches images of the bureaucrat; a politically neutral conservator of regime values who is in service to the political/legal system and considers citizens to be abstract objects of governance or passive recipients of public services.

The Discretionary Tradition is grounded in the logic that political authority should be held by administrators who hold the wisdom and expertise necessary to determine what is in the public’s interest. Reflecting ideas found in both New Public Administration and New Public Management, this government for the people expands administrative discretion and scope of action throughout the pluralist policy process. However, with this increased political authority comes greater responsibility. Administrators must demonstrate their ability to achieve desired outcomes as judged by performance criteria such as efficiency, effectiveness, ethics, and equity. This leads to teleological approaches to decision-making that emphasize the democratic value of liberty in the pursuit of outcomes determined through agonistic procedures. This level of discretion is best enabled by a flattened, matrix-like organizing style which decentralizes authority and supports more responsive vertical and horizontal relationships. Because the right expertise might actually be found outside the halls of government, this approach assumes governance reaches outward through public–private partnerships of various types. This potentially intersectoral and intergovernmental administrative role best reflects images of the innovative social entrepreneur who sees citizens as active customers or clients within the pluralist competition of governments, markets, and communities alike.

The Collaborative Tradition is grounded in the logic that political authority should be retained by sovereign individuals—the citizenry—trusting mature individuals to work together in determining what is right and producing what is good. Reflecting ideas found in New Public Service and Transformational Public Service, in this government by the people, socially-situated individuals are mutually answerable as responsible democratic sovereigns. Therefore, they join together with elected representatives and administrators alike to formulate and implement policy. Administrators are charged with facilitating a process that demands responsiveness from all, including themselves. Decision-making is therefore a phenomenological process that seeks to produce intersubjective agreement through egalitarian dialogue and deliberation. This policy-making method emphasizes the democratic value of unity or fraternity, as measured by the degree to which agreement and cooperation is achieved through collaborative action. The organizing style that best supports this approach is a network structure that enables fluid, situation-specific networks that interlock with other networks in a confederating manner. Given broad inclusion of networks across societal domains, this produces a democratic system of coordination among governments, markets, and communities. Administrators in this system take on an educative and facilitative role similar to that of a steward; one who shepherds cooperation in a democratic way of life.

Because these Traditions are ideal-types, we do not anticipate finding them in pure form in practice, nor do we expect to see a given scholar holding strictly to just one—although some examples of extreme theorists are noted (see for example Lowi, 1979, 1987, 1993). Instead, scholars formulate recommendations they believe will provide the balancing act necessary to successful administrative practice. Specifically, theories may integrate bits and pieces of two or three logics together in a prescription for adequately meeting associated expectations. Appleby (1952) offers one of the most comprehensive recipes, but many others are explored as well (see for example, Box, 1999;Denhardt and Denhardt, 2003; Frederickson, 1997; Rohr, 1990; Svara, 2006; Wamsley, 1990; Woller, 1998). Others take a conciliatory approach, seeing the logics as checks and balances across governance domains and administrative functions (Rosenbloom, 2015) or across historical periods (Stillman, 1996). A few suggest that the logic associated with the Collaborative Tradition actually represents a dialectical synthesis of the other two—one which fulfills the objectives of both while avoiding their pitfalls (see for example, Follett, 1998; Stout and Love, 2015, 2017). However, because no government has yet reformulated itself according to such a synthesis, this logic can only be presented as one which exists in a complementary position to the other two.

Clearly, according to public administration theory, there is no way to legitimately claim a universal public service perspective—even within the context of US governance. Therefore, educators are challenged to present the varying perspectives that are considered legitimate and craft assignments that will enable students to find their own recipe that will fit their career goals and context.

Pedagogical techniques

Armed with this substantive content and theoretical argument for heterodoxy, a variety of pedagogical techniques can be used to link theory to practice—a critical task in public administration (Bowman, 1978). MPA courses often use case studies to illustrate and analyze how theory works in practice (see for example, Denhardt and Hammond, 1992; Golembiewski et al., 1997; Lerner and Wanat, 1998; Meyer and Brown, 1989; Miller and Alkadry, 1998) and some actually frame introduction courses in their entirety around case studies (see for example, Garvey, 1997; Lutrin and Settle, 1992; Stillman, 2005). However, relying on such sources has become substantially more difficult over the last decade or so as the student body of MPA programs has evolved from largely mid-career students to young adults coming directly from undergraduate study or with minimal career experience in between. While in-service students read between the lines by drawing from experiential knowledge, pre-service students have difficulty contextualizing and comprehending brief written case studies. Furthermore, case studies are generally written toward a particular type of analysis or analytical finding, rather than leaving the situation open to student analysis using any theoretical lens.

Therefore, an alternative set of pedagogical methods have been developed which, in combination, enable students to lock in their own understanding of theory and its implications for both administrative practice and democratic outcomes (Stout and Holmes, 2013). These activities include role-play exercises, popular film illustration, written analytical essays, and a summative reflective essay. Each will be described in turn.

Discussion and recommendations

This approach to learning about the diverse political contexts in which MPA graduates may find themselves is particularly useful in the global context. Yet, MPA programs typically give little attention to the theoretical foundations of the field as a whole. While programs provide specific theories for topics such as leadership and management, human resources, or budget and finance, they are generally not situated in a broader understanding of the relationship between public administration and society. As previously reported, based on a review of program and course information available on the web sites of 136 peer NASPAA accredited programs, only about 35% of the MPA foundation courses describe introducing the field’s history and intellectual heritage, covering aspects of both organizational theory and the political, legal, and economic context (see Stout and Holmes, 2013). Given the objective of preparing graduates to articulate and apply a public service perspective within a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry, this lack of attention to philosophical foundations is disconcerting. In a field where “ideas do make a difference” because “thought leads to action” (Denhardt and Catlaw, 2015: x), it is important for programs of study to include reflection on such theoretical questions. When it comes to matters of democracy, we must connect normative political theory to administrative practice. There is no universal answer to questions of administrative approach—how—because there is no universal answer to questions of political theory—why.

Taking the MPA universal competency to “participate in and contribute to the policy process” as an example, there are three very different approaches to this participation based on the logics described above. From a Constitutional perspective, administrative participation in the policy process is largely constrained to implementation in order to keep political authority in the hands of elected representatives. From a Discretionary perspective, everything from issue framing to policy choice and implementation is dependent upon input from or delegated to administrative experts. From a Collaborative perspective, administrators educate the citizenry and engage them in participatory policy-making and sometimes coproduction in implementation. In short, the why drives the how; political theory shapes prescriptions for practice.

These ideas about the connection between political theory and administrative practice are nothing new to the field; in fact, this argument is found in the writing of principal architects of the discipline. As Woodrow Wilson so eloquently stated, “The principles on which to base a science of administration for America must be principles which have democratic policy very much at heart” (Wilson, 1887: 220). Therefore, “the study of administration, philosophically viewed, is closely connected with the study of the proper distribution of constitutional authority” (Wilson, 1887: 213). In contemporary theory, this is understood as the determining relationship between our political and ontological assumptions and administrative practice (Catlaw, 2007; Howe, 2006). In short, our assumptions about reality, ourselves, and others drive everything from the question of sovereignty to a public ethic and the proper institutions of government. Therefore, ontology ultimately prefigures both political theory and administrative practice (Stout, 2012; Stout and Love, 2016).

Today, we find several divergent logics behind recommendations for the proper delegation of political authority in the US alone. As Rosenbloom (2015) and Stillman (1996) each point out, while all of these approaches are valid based on democratic values, they do represent trade-offs or checks and balances. If we emphasize one over the others too much, we find ourselves in a “trinitarian cul-de-sac” of public administration theory that stands to either: (a) over-empower political micromanagement; (b) over-empower administrative discretion; or (c) disempower both politics and administration altogether (Golembiewski, 1996). While White (1990) argues that Marxist humanism overcomes the lack of citizen authority found in both classical conservativism and modern liberalism, participatory democracy has not yet found its way into the Constitution (Stout, 2009b). Therefore, it cannot be offered as a sole prescription for practice.

Expanding the pedagogical scope to the global context complicates this issue even further. To the competition among proponents of representative versus participatory democracy, we must also add considerations of monarchist and communist understandings of political authority. While Rosenbloom (2015) presents the most recent edition of his book as “international”—indeed, it has been translated into a number of other languages—we cannot simply sweep these differences under the rug. We can neither blithely declare them “wrong” nor treat them as externalities to administrative practice. Contextual political theories are woven into the fabric of administrative practice and we must acknowledge that public administration theories are steeped in philosophical commitments and ideological assumptions. This is particularly problematic where administrative theory from Western nations is imported to non-Western nations (Amoah, 2012; Welch and Wong, 1998). Without consideration of the social, economic, and political context in which administration is embedded, recommendations for practice may be a very poor fit.

Pedagogically, this means we must attend to the logics of political legitimacy that undergird administrative practice in each given place and time. One approach to this challenge has been offered herein, along with an invitation for other professors to consider these pedagogical methods in their own courses. Furthermore, MPA programs are encouraged to integrate course content on the political relationship between public administration and society in their plans of study more frequently than we currently see. If we do not present theoretical options to students and encourage individual choice-making based on thoughtful analysis of contextual factors, we tacitly insist through the sin of omission that there is one best public service perspective. If we pursue the homogenization of public service in the likeness of one particular approach, we engage in indoctrination rather than education. When considering this practice in light of an increasingly global, diverse, and changing workforce and citizenry, this becomes an undeclared hegemonic project, even if unintended.