Patrick Overeem

The Value of The Dichotomy: Politics, Administration, and The Political Neutrality of Administrators

Post-war students of public administration have widely rejected the politics-administration dichotomy, but, paradoxically, they have, as a rule, not abandoned the historically and conceptually closely related value of political neutrality of administrators. Rather, they reconceptualized the classical politics-administration dichotomy as a policy-administration dichotomy. This blurring of “politics” and “policy” has eclipsed the dichotomys close relationship with political neutrality, as both notions call for the exclusion of administrators from “partisan politics” rather than from “policy politics.” The argument that the politics-administration dichotomy is “false” because of administrations deep involvement in policy-making is a non sequitur, however. The value of political neutrality can help to recover the meaning and sense of the politics-administration dichotomy. Acceptance of the former should be complemented by a rehabilitation of the latter.

Escaping the Iron Cage: Weber and Hegel on Bureaucracy and Freedom

: Based on the assumption that the study of public values cannot neglect the wider purposes of administration in society, this article discusses the diverging views of Weber and Hegel on the relationship between bureaucracy and freedom. They provide interesting Continental-European alternatives to the standard, liberal account so dominant in America. Although their accounts of bureaucracy are superficially similar, their conceptions of freedom radically differ, due to deep divergences in their political philosophies. While Weber has a concept of freedom as existentialist choice on top of classical liberal freedoms, Hegel instead has a more social concept of freedom. While Weber is particularly aware of the danger of Beamtenherrschaft (domination by officials), Hegel offers a constitutionalist account of the relationship between bureaucracy and freedom, and leaves much room for the notion of public values.

The Concept of Regime Values: Are Revitalization and Regime Change Possible?

Among the plethora of public values, one special class is that of “regime values.” This notion plays a central role in the constitutional approach to public administration mainly developed by the late John A. Rohr. In this article, an attempt is made to assess the viability of Rohr’s concept of regime values and its applicability outside the United States. After brief overviews of the constitutional approach in general and Rohr’s use of the concept of regime values in particular, it is argued that Rohr’s conceptualizations of “regime” and “values” are too narrow and result in ambiguities within the concept of “regime values” itself. The applicability of the concept of “regime values” is unnecessarily affected by the typically American reference points Rohr uses and can best be improved, it is suggested, by treating “regime values” more frankly as an inherently normative concept.

Moral dilemma's, theoretical confusion: Value pluralism's supposed implications for public administration

In philosophical ethics, value pluralism is the idea, often associated with Isaiah Berlin, that there are many objective, conflicting, even incommensurable values and that this necessitates often tragic moral choices. Several administrative theorists (notably Wagenaar and Spicer) have argued that value pluralism has far-reaching implications for public administration. The cogency of their arguments is, however, questionable. This article critically examines the uses of value pluralism in administrative theory and concludes that its claimed implications are neither valid, nor exhaustive, nor congruent. Hence, the implications of value pluralism for public administration (if any) remain open to debate.In philosophical ethics, value pluralism is the idea, often associated with Isaiah Berlin, that there are many objective, conflicting, even incommensurable values and that this necessitates often tragic moral choices. Several administrative theorists (notably Wagenaar and Spicer) have argued that value pluralism has far-reaching implications for public administration. The cogency of their arguments is, however, questionable. This article critically examines the uses of value pluralism in administrative theory and concludes that its claimed implications are neither valid, nor exhaustive, nor congruent. Hence, the implications of value pluralism for public administration (if any) remain open to debate.

Forum: In Defense of the Dichotomy: A Response to James H. Svara

(2006). Forum: In Defense of the Dichotomy: A Response to James H. Svara. Administrative Theory & Praxis: Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 140-147.

Against a Study of the History of Public Administration: A Manifesto1

Abstract What is the value of administrative history for the study of public administration? It is common to stress the enlightenmentfunction history can have for theorists and practitioners. Thus administrative history is presented as an independent topic next to the “real” study of public administration. It is time to “tum the tables”. Administrative history is not “just a topic” to students of public administration, it is the very subject matter of their enterprise. Historical sources are used in abundance in the study of public administration. This is hardly ever noticed or acknowledged. Public Administration scholars do not pay attention to the nature of historical research as part of their methodology. It should be realized, however, that Public Administrationists do constantly generate histories and undertake research with strong historical dimensions. This manifesto argues that the historical perspective should be considered part of the core of the study of public administration.

Statesmanship Beyond the Modern State

ABSTRACT The concept and ideal of statesmanship have been handed down to us from ancient to modern times, but it has a paradoxical relationship with the modern state. While terminology suggests that statesmanship presupposes the state, in fact it appears rather incongruent with modern (i.e., constitutional, democratic, and bureaucratic) statehood. Nonetheless, statesmanship continues to be promoted and new understandings, such as judicial and administrative statesmanship, have been proposed. Some hope, moreover, that statesmanship becomes more feasible again as we transfer from state government to multilevel governance. There are problems, however, with conceiving of statesmanship, either in its original or in its newer meanings, under these new conditions. Despite the enduring appeal of statesmanship, the changing role of the state in present-day governance does not mean that this ideal can be easily regained.

Aristotle’s Politikos: Statesmanship, Magnanimity, and the Rule of the Many

Present-day political theory pays much attention to citizenship but hardly any to statesmanship. Classical political philosophy, by contrast, discussed the latter at least as much as, if not more than the former. This chapter inquires how Aristotle conceived of the statesman in relation to on the one hand his moral ideal of the virtuous man and on the other that of the politeia as the best practically possible form of government. Studying Aristotle’s conception of statesmanship is important, because much too often Aristotle is presented, in contrast with Plato, as an anti-elitist champion of citizenship and political participation, without a serious role for statesmanship. But Aristotle saw roles for both citizens and statesmen, without equating them. For Aristotle, statesmanship is closely connected but not identical to his conception of the good man and it is possible in various but not all forms of government. So Aristotle’s notion of the politikos offers a useful entrance to various core issues at the nexus of his moral and political thought. And the topic is a stepping-stone to timely questions about statesmanship (as well as virtue and honor) in modern constitutional democracies.

Value Pluralism and the Usefulness of Philosophical Theory for Public Administration

Taking stock of the DSF debate on value pluralism, this final contribution offers some (for now) concluding thoughts. It considers to which extent the original criticisms of the use of value pluralism by Spicer and Wagenaar can be maintained and which nuances should be added. Next, it discusses the use of philosophical concepts such as value pluralism for understanding administrative practice and developing administrative theory. It concludes this use can be considerable, provided such concepts are treated with sufficient carefulness.

Johannes Althusius on Public Administration

After centuries of neglect, the political thought of Johannes Althusius (1557-1638) is receiving renewed scholarly attention. His thinking about administration, however, has so far been hardly considered, even though more than half of his most important work (Politica Methodice Digesta) is devoted to it. This article explores Althusiuss discussion of administration and its relation to his views on politics and communication. In particular, it discusses what (public) administration actually is, according to Althusius, who exercises it, and how it should be performed. Although Althusiuss Calvinist approach is clearly at odds with some basic tenets of modern thinking, it can foster a better understanding of public administrations role in the present-day situation of diffusing state sovereignty. Moreover, he reminds us that public administration is a mandate from the people and needs to be exercised with prudence.