“Framework, Paradoxes in Public Administration and Management Theories -Pendulums, Practice, Particularism”

Phua Chao Rong, Charles

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), National University of Singapore

1

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF AND PARADOXES IN PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT (PAM) THEORIES FROM 1900-2013:

PENDULUMS, PRACTICE, PARTICULARISM & WHAT'S NEXT

Broad Conceptual frameworks of PAM theories are sparse. The closest is by Laurence Lynn

Jr.1 who attempted to give a broad history of PAM from ancient to modernity: China invented

entry exams for public service and the concept of public trust.2 But the 'modern bureaucratic

state was a social invention of Western Europe'.3 In Prussia, civil service was a duty to the

people and Frederick the Great instituted exams and a civil service commission. Akin to

'managerialist ideology'4, Prussia advocated meritocracy, administrative science, standardised

principles and professionalism. (Traditional) Public Administration is an American invention5

and Americans regard their own democratic governance as unique, even paradigmatic, and

their methods of study (emphasis on theory-based quantitative analysis), as more rigorously

scientific; US advocated Scientific Managerialism (with an emphasis on dichotomy between

politics and administration and management based on scientific principles).6 However, there

was an 'intellectual crisis'7 in in 1970s within US field of Public Administration with

competitors: 'Simon's behaviourism, March & Simon's organisation theories; old institutional

managerialism; new Scientific Managerialism, Minnowbrook & Blacksburg's normative

manifestos; public choice theory, new economics of organisation, institutional studies in

sociology, economics & political science'.8 Hence, according to Lynn9, notwithstanding

intellectual depth and historical continuity from 1660-1970, 1970s is a paradigm shift

towards frugal and efficient government. In the US, this led to a brand of New Public

Management (NPM), with the 'US academic reinvention featuring managerial deregulation,

quality, entrepreneurship and is best represented by 1993 Government and Performance Act,

George W. Bush's 'Management Agenda' emphasising performance-driven, Federal

outsourced management and 'program assessment rating tool' in budgeting'.10 In Europe, the

1980s awakened European interest was inspired by politics (primarily by economic crisis of

mid 1970s and complex challenges of post-war welfare state).11 This NPM, originating from

1 Laurence Lynn, 'Public Management: A Concise History of the Field.'in Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr &

Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, (New York: Oxford University Press),

2005, pp. 27-50. 2 H. G. Creel, 'The Beginnings of Bureaucracy in China: The Origin of the Hsien', Journal of Asian Studies, 23,

1964, pp. 155-84. 3 Hans Rosenberg, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience 1660-1815, (Boston:

Beacon Press), 1958, p. 2. 4 Christopher Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience, (Oxford: Basil

Blackwell), 1990. 5 F. C. Mosher, 'Introduction', in F. C. Mosher, (Ed.), American Public Administration: Past Present, Future,

(Alabama: Alabama University Press), 1975. 6 A. Dunsire, Administration: The Word and the Science, (New York: John Wiley & Sons), 1973, p. 94. 7 V. Ostrom, The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration, (Alabama: Alabama University Press), 1973. 8 Laurence Lynn, op cit, 2005, pp. 40-1. 9 Ibid, p. 41. 10 Ibid, p. 42. 11 Ibid, p. 42.



2

UK's Thatcher, Australia & New Zealand's ‘managerialist’ reforms12 suited the neo-

conservatives13 with its as 'popularised mixture of management, business motivation

psychology and neo-liberal economy.'14 There appears a seeming global consensus that

private sector could out-perform traditional institutions15 and what was required was just a

'slenderised state with well-functioning competitive markets.'16 . Lynn should be given credit

for his broad history of PAM, primarily for recognising the historical continuity of TPA from

1660-1970. However, given its breadth, it failed to articulate the diversity and nuances of

PAM theories in the last century in depth. Besides TPA and NPM, other PAM theories such

as New Public Service (NPS), Public Value Management (PVM), Governance and

Postmodernism were not discussed to demonstrate the vibrancy of PAM field.

This article seeks to follow on from Lynn’s article to discuss in depth the modern PAM

theories in the last century within the larger historical and intellectual framework. Using that

as a background, it will reflect on three paradoxes in PAM: Pendulums, Practice and

Particularism. Moving ahead, this article looks at the 'what's next' for PAM with a normative

appraisal of New Synthesis (Complexity Thinking) and Pragmatism17 as the potential next

paradigm.

Historical Influences on PAM

In order to build a conceptual framework of PAM, it is pertinent to start by embedding the

evolution of PAM theories within the historical context for two reasons: Real events are

exogenous factors that can influence either the theory or praxis of PAM. Ideally, theory-

building should not happen in a vacuum and ‘is always for someone and for some purpose

(reaction to real events or theoretical development to influence reality)’.18 Hence, it is useful

to embed PAM theories within its historical context. In this context, due to the

aforementioned US dominance in PAM, US, selected UK and global events will be used for

illustration (see Fig 1 below):

12 Christopher Hood, (1990), 'Public Management for All Seasons', , pp. 496 in Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde

& Sandra J. Parkes, Classics of Public Administration, CA: Wadsworth), 2008. 13 Christopher Pollitt, op cit, 1990. W. J. M. Kickert, 'Public Management in the United States and Europe', in

W. J. M. Kickert, (Ed.), Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe, (Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar), 1997, pp. 15-38. 14 K. Konig, 'Entrepreneurial Management or Executive Administration: The Perspective of Classical Public

Administration', in W. J. M. Kickert, (Ed.), Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe,

(Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 1997, pp. 219. 15 Martin Minogue, Chris Polidano & David Hulme, (Eds.) Beyond the New Public Management: Changing

Ideas and Practices in Governance, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 1998. 16 K. Konig, 'Entrepreneurial Management or Executive Administration: The Perspective of Classical Public

Administration', in W. J. M. Kickert, (Ed.), op cit, 1997, pp. 213. 17 John Alford & Owen Hughes, 'Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management', The

American Review of Public Administration, 38 (2), 2008, pp. 130.148. 18 Robert W. Cox, 'Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Theory', Millennium Journal

of International Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981, p. 128



3

Fig 1: Historical Influences on PAM

Orthodoxy – State for Market Failure

At risk of over-generalising, modern PAM theory formally started, as an academic discipline,

in the last century with Woodrow Wilson's seminal article in 1887 followed by Leonard D.

White's arguably first PAM textbook in 1926.19 Since then, traditional PA, with its

application of Taylor's Scientific Management principles and Weber's Bureaucracy20, was

regarded as the paradigm. To a large extent, revolution was a crucial influence in

transforming monarchical systems of government into modern bureaucracies.21 Two world

wars and interwar depression (1929) meant that central coordination of resources was

important in the management of ravaged economics; this led to the post-1945 Keynesian

Consensus and 'welfare state'.22 Concomitantly, this period also witnessed the decolonisation

and the rise of 'developmental' states.23 Together with the Cold War which entailed strong

government planning of military and strategic affairs, these required primacy of the state over

other sources of power such as markets or civil society.

New Orthodoxy – Markets for State Failure

19 Woodrow Wilson, (1887), 'The Study of Administration', pp. 16-27 and Leonard D. White, (1926),

'Introduction to the Study of Public Administration', pp. 49-56 in Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde & Sandra J.

Parkes, Classics of Public Administration, CA: Wadsworth), 2008. 20 Frederick Taylor, (1912), 'Scientific Management', pp. 36-8 and Max Weber, (1922), 'Bureaucracy', pp. 43-8

in Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde & Sandra J. Parkes, op cit, 2008. 21 Martin Minogue, 'The Internationalisation of New Public Management', in Willy McCourt & Martin

Minogue, The Internationalisation of Public Management, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 2001, p. 4. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid.



4

However, this TPA paradigm began to be increasingly challenged by real events in 1970s.

Economically, the 1970s OPEC oil crisis affected US which was heavily dependent on oil;

coupled with the US stagflation (economic stagnation with inflation) in 1980s, these

indirectly highlighted the weaknesses of Keynesian economics and ushered in its Monetarist

competitor spearheaded by Milton Friedman. Politically, the Watergate scandal involving

President Nixon increasingly led the US populace to lose confidence in its elected

representatives. Given these exogenous events in the 1970s, then came in US President

Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in the 1980s, who brought in neo-

liberal ideas to address 'government-failure'24 by reasserting the primacy of the elected

politician over the bureaucrat as well as trimming the 'fat' bureaucracy using private sector

management principles25; this NPM was later codified as an intellectual movement in early

1990s, best represented by Osborne & Gaebler's Reinventing Government.26

To a large extent, the 1990s can be considered the peak of NPM movement and several

factors contributed to this. Globally, the end of Cold War literally meant the dominance of

US hegemony. In the US, NPM was practised widely as evident by the 1993 Government and

Performance Act and, George W. Bush's 'Management Agenda' emphasising performance-

driven, Federal outsourced management and 'program assessment rating tool' in budgeting'.27

In UK, albeit not enshrined as a formal strategy or reform document, NPM was driven largely

by political will of successive Prime Ministers, supported by organisational clout of the

Cabinet office, and informed by the market-oriented perceptions of private sector advisors.28

To an extent, NPM is arguably internationalised29 in two ways: First, in theory, the

internationalisation of NPM can be argued as the result of post-Cold War dominance of US-

led neo-liberal model (Washington Consensus which is pro-market and anti-state30) and

policy learning/transfer by band-wagoning countries supported by Information

Communication Technology (ICT) and globalisation. Second, in practice, NPM was

institutionally forced upon non-European-Atlantic Countries through World Bank,

International Monetary Fund, to some extent UNDP, and bilateral donors which require

recipient countries to adopt NPM reforms in order to receive aid.31 Although it is

questionable whether NPM reforms was accepted internationally or merely forcefully

implemented in various developing countries, some piecemeal and decontextualised adoption

24 Ibid, p. 5. 25 NPM had two constituent theoretical paradigms. The former emphasis represented Public Choice Theory

and the latter represented ‘Managerialism’. As cited in Peter Aucoin, 'Administrative Reform in Public

Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums', Governance: An International Journal of

Policy and Administration, Vol. 3, No. 2, Apr 1990, pp. 117-8. 26 David Osborne & Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming

the Public Sector, (New York: Plume), 1993. 27 Laurence Lynn, op cit, 2005, p. 42. 28 Martin Minogue, op cit, 2001, p. 10. 29 Ibid. 30 J. Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, (London: Grata), 1998, as cited in Martin

Minogue, op cit, 2001, pp. 1-2. 31 David Mathiasen, 'International Public Management' in Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr & Christopher

Pollitt (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005, pp.

659-64. See also Martin Minogue, op cit, 2001, p. 7.



5

of NPM can be argued. This conclusion is corroborated with Cheung & Scott32 and

Manning's33 study of piecemeal adoption of NPM in Asia and developing countries

respectively.

Globalisation, US Hegemony, Democratisation and ICT

What is seldom discussed is the historical context of the efforts to explore 'what's next after

NPM'. These PAM theories include PVM34 and Governance35 (late 1990s), revival of

Postmodernism36 (early 2000s), NPS (2007)37 and Complexity Thinking/New Synthesis

(CT/NS)38 since 2011. These PAM theories should be seen in the context of increasing

globalisation, US hegemony, democratisation and popularisation of ICT. While these global

exogenous forces are hard to measure, a few milestone events can act as proxy measures of

its effects and they include: (1) 50,000-100,000 anti-trade/pro-democracy protesters from all

over the world congregating in Seattle against the WTO meeting there in Nov 1999;39 this

signifies the power of civil society, people and networks across borders; (2) 11 Sep 2001 Al

Qaeda attacks on World Trade Centre in New York signifies the power of transnational

terrorism enabled by globalisation and ICT. Collectively, these events brought an awareness

that civil society (enabled by citizens and networks) is a key stakeholder to be reckoned with.

Hence, PVM and citizens reasserted the primacy of citizens and called for 'inclusive

management' to maximise public participation, 'active user involvement in service design and

delivery' to the extent of 'co-production'.40 The fact that PVM was co-developed between

theorists and practitioners is evidence of the practitioners' realisation of the need to engage

civil society and citizens. Governance (New Public Governance), with its roots in

organisational sociology and network theory41, had to accept the increasingly fragmented and

32 Anthony B. L. Cheung & Ian Scott, 'Governance and Public Sector Reforms in Asia: Paradigms, Paradoxes

and Dilemmas', in Anthony B. L. Cheung & Ian Scott, Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia: Paradigm

Shifts or Business as Usual?, (London: RoutledgeCurzon), 2003, pp. 1-24. 33 Nick Manning, 'The Legacy of the New Public Management in Developing Countries', International Review

of Administrative Sciences, 67, 2001: pp. 297-312. 34 See Mark H. Moore, Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, (MA: Harvard

University Press), 1998. See also John Bennington & Mark H. Moore, Public Value: Theory and Practice,

(Basingstoke: MacMillan Palgrave), 2011 35 See Anne Mette Kjaer, Governance, (Cambridge: Polity Press), 2004. See also Patricia W. Ingraham &

Laurence E. Lynn, The Art of Governance, (Washington: Georgetown University Press), 2004. 36 George Frederickson & Kevin B. Smith, The Public Administration Theory Primer, (Colorado: Westview

Press), 2003, pp. 127-59. 37 Robert B. Denhardt & Janet Vinzant Denhardt, The New Public Service: Serving not Steering, (New York:

M.E. Sharpe), 2007. 38 Jocelyne Bourgon, A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving the 21st Century, (Montreal McGill-

Queen's University Press), 2011. See also Mary Lee Rhodes, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir & John A. Murray,

Public Management and Complexity Theory: Richer Decision-making in Public Service, (New York:

Routledge), 2011. Goktug Morcol, A Complexity Theory for Public Policy, (New York: Routledge), 2012. 39 Accessed from: http://www.globalissues.org/article/46/wto-protests-in-seattle-1999. Accessed on 1 Nov

2013. 40 John Bennington & Mark H. Moore, op cit, 2011, p. 25. 41 Stephen P. Osborne, 'The New Public Governance', Public Management Review, Vol. 8, Issue 3, 2006, pp.

377-387.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/46/wto-protests-in-seattle-1999



6

uncertain nature of PAM42 and include the following aspects of participative (with public

consultation and negotiation)43 and flexible government44 (through E-Government45 and

Virtual Organisations46); foci on non-state institutions (non-profit and for-profit contractors,

non-governmental organisations, inter-governmental organisations)47 and networks48 to 'do its

work';49 and primacy of citizens as 'equal partners' to Governments in 'Collaborative

management'.50 The fact that NPM pioneer countries of US, UK, Australia and New Zealand

adopted Governance reforms51 is evidence of the common global circumstances that render

NPM useless and engender a rethink of a PAM theory that can handle reality. NPS's focus on

serving citizens (not customers), valuing citizenship (over entrepreneurship), thinking

strategically and acting democratically and valuing people (not just productivity)52 is

essentially reasserting the primacy of citizens as part of the democratisation process.

Postmodernism (technically widened to include the Minnowbrook Conference series53 which

championed post-positivism54 since late 1960s albeit the difference between anti-

foundationalist Postmodernism and foundationalist post-positivism is noted) can be

considered as the epistemological twin of PVM/Governance/NPS. PVM's focus on

multiplicity (actors, goals, objectives, preferences, accountability, and alternatives) and

42 A. Haveri, 'Complexity in Local Government Change: Limits to Rational Reforming', Public Management

Review, Vol. 8, Issue 10, 2006, pp. 31-46. 43 Guy Peters, The Future of Governing, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas), 2001 as cited in H. George

Frederickson, 'Whatever Happened to Public Administration? Governance Governance Everywhere', in Ewan

Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr & Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) op cit, 2005, p. 288. 44 Ibid, p. 288. 45 Ignance Snellen, 'E-Government: A Challenge for Public Management', in Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr

& Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) op cit, 2005, pp. 398-421. 46 Helen Margetts, 'Virtual Organisations', in Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr & Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) op

cit, 2005, pp. 305-25. 47 H. George Frederickson, 'Whatever Happened to Public Administration? Governance Governance

Everywhere', in Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr & Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) op cit, 2005, p. 290. 48 R. A. W. Rhodes, 'Governance and Public Administration', in J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating Governance:

Authority, Steering and Democracy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 54-60 as cited in H. George

Frederickson, 'Whatever Happened to Public Administration? Governance Governance Everywhere', in Ewan

Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr & Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) op cit, 2005, p. 286. 49 D. Kettl, Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets, (Washington D. C.: Brookings

Institution), 1993, pp. xxi as cited in H. George Frederickson, 'Whatever Happened to Public Administration?

Governance Governance Everywhere', in Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn Jr & Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) op cit,

2005, p. 286. 50 Eran Vigoda,'From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of

Public Administration', Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, No. 5, Sep-Oct 2002, pp. 527-40. 51 Guy Peters, op cit, 2005, p. 287. 52 Janet V. Denhardt & Robert. B. Denhardt, op cit, 2007. 53 Syracuse University Minnowbrook Conference since late 1960s have actively challenged the orthodoxy with

its core ideas in postmodern public administration such as public administration cannot be neutral; technology is

dehumanising; public administration must be built on post-behavioural and post-positivist logic of more

democratic, more adaptable, more responsible to changing social, economic and political circumstances. As

cited in George Frederickson & Kevin B. Smith, op cit, 2003, p. 128. Also see 'The Future of Public

Administration in 2020: The Spirit of Minnowbrook 2011', Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory (JPART), Special Issue III, 2011. 54 Raul Pere Lejano, 'Postpositivism and the policy process', in Eduardo Araral Jr, Michael Howlett, M Ramesh

& Xun Wu (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, (New York Routledge), 2013, pp. 98-112.



7

relationships55 reflects post-positivism; NPS is a self-declared Postmodern project.56

Postmodernism advocates for democratisation, citizen empowerment and civil society, all of

which are key terms afore-covered by Governance and NPS.

'Global Wicked Problems' of Chaos, Uncertainty and Complexity

The next watershed event is probably the US/global financial crisis in 2007/2011,57 which

highlighted the complex and uncertain nature of (economic reality) and that these wicked

problems are hard to resolve without making trade-offs and engaging all stakeholders. A

political corollary is probably the Global War on Terror (GWOT); amidst the decade long

GWOT in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a realisation, during the Obama administration58,

that toppling the Taleban and Saddam regime (wicked problem) was not sufficient to usher

peace in the region and that the complex (politico-strategic) reality require engagement of

international and regional stakeholders. These events probably provided the context to

CT/NS59 since 2011. CT/NS saw public administration as a dynamic system with the

capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and to co-evolve with society: government

transforms society and is transformed by it'.60 It argues that 'public results are a combination

of public policy results and civic results' and public servants, as stewards, are to 'mediate and

leverage on collective capacity (of public, private and civic spheres) for better results'.61 Its

emphases on dynamism (non-linearity), adaptability, co-evolution, synergistic co-production

with public, private and civic spheres are evidence that blind faith on NPM's linearity,

markets, steering, productivity and results are insufficient to deal with wicked problems such

as global financial crisis. Philosophically, CT is beyond dualism (e.g. TPA's pro-state vs

NPM's pro-market) and embraces the 'Power of &'62 in generating consensus, and co-

producing with multiple stakeholders across systems and boundaries in 'one-ness'; this can be

seen in Obama's abandonment of the Bush dualist rhetoric of 'you are either with us or

against us in the fight against terror'63 and instead embarked on a 'all countries are close

55 Janine O'Flynn, 'From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial

Implications', The Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2007, p. 361. 56 Janet V. Denhardt & Robert. B. Denhardt, op cit, 2007, pp. 39-42. 57 Accessed from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/07/global-financial-crisis-key-stages.

Accessed on 1 Nov 2013. 58 This is evident in 2010 National Security Strategy which steered away from George W. Bush's unilateral

military might and emphasised on engaging US's allies and partners in GWOT. Accessed from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052701044.html. Accessed on 1

Nov 2013. 59 Jocelyne Bourgon, op cit, 2011. See also Mary Lee Rhodes, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir & John A. Murray,

op cit, (New York: Routledge), 2011. Goktug Morcol, op cit, (New York: Routledge), 2012. 60 Jocelyne Bourgon, 'Reclaiming Public Administration', Ethos, No. 4, Apr 2008. See also Jocelyne Bourgon,

'Serving Beyond the Predictable', Ethos, No. 7, Jan 2010. 61 Jocelyne Bourgon, 'The New Synthesis: Preparing Government for Challenges of the 21st Century', Ethos,

No. 10, Oct 2011. 62 Simon S. C. Tay, Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide From America, (Singapore: John Wiley &

Sons), 2010, p. xiii. 63 Accessed from: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/. Accessed on 2 Nov 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/07/global-financial-crisis-key-stages

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052701044.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/



8

allies'64 rhetoric. This admission of complexity is also found in Moore (2011) revised version

of PVM where he acknowledged the changing context as 'complex adaptive systems' (CAS)

and the need to 'make sense of this complex new pattern of polycentric networked

governance'65 (link to networked Governance). As such, Moore (2011) reformulated PVM to

guide 'networked community governance' (NCG) and focus on relationships between state,

civil society and citizens.66

Intellectual Influences on PAM

Fig 2: Intellectual Influences on PAM

The previous section described how history has a direct influence on PAM albeit the exact

causality is hard to determine with precision even in retrospect. It is because reality is

dynamic and the role of academic theories is supposedly to help humans 'lead a good life'67

amidst these uncertainties and it is these theories that we now turn to. Within the sub-

disciplines of social and policy sciences (SPS), there is a sub-conscious cross-learning and

intellectual borrowing between sub-disciplines albeit the exact cross-learning and reflective

learning (with regard to historical events) process would require further research. This article

asserts that broad academic paradigms that have influenced SPS would have influenced PAM

theories as much as it has influenced IR and a comparison would illustrate this nexus (see Fig

2 above).

Positivism

64 Accessed from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100190755/obama-administration-declares-

we-have-no-greater-ally-than-france-what-about-britain-canada-and-israel/. Accessed on 1 Nov 2013. 65 John Bennington & Mark H. Moore, op cit, 2011, p.15. 66 Ibid, p. 35. 67 Robert H. Jackson, ‘Martin Wight, international theory and the good life’, Millennium: Journal of

International Studies, 19(2), 1990, pp. 261-72.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100190755/obama-administration-declares-we-have-no-greater-ally-than-france-what-about-britain-canada-and-israel/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100190755/obama-administration-declares-we-have-no-greater-ally-than-france-what-about-britain-canada-and-israel/



9

Similar to PAM, IR has been deemed an American Social Science due to the sheer

quantitative dominance of American scholars.68 In Realism69 vs Liberalism70, the debate was

on agency and within a positivist paradigm whereby agency will, by nature, act in a certain

manner (period). Agency in the PAM context would probably refer to TPA's bureaucratic,

NPM's market and Governance's civil society. There was a ‘behaviouralist’ turn in Political

Science which affected IR71 where formal modelling and quantitative studies became

prevalent. Neo-Realism72 and Neo-Liberalism73 focused on structures in international

relations that drive agents to behave in a certain manner (period); Structures in the PAM

context would probably refer to role in institutions in Public Policy (PP) literature and how

government structures (classical institutionalism) determine policy outcomes.74 There was an

intense neo-neo debate75 between both camps. Both these strands of thought represent the

Rationalism and Positivism in IR and there was even a structure-agency debate arguing

whether structure, by itself, drives agents to behave in certain manner or agents have self-

volition to behave as they wish.76 This structure-agency debate can also be observed within

PP with the policy dynamics frameworks such as Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Design

(IAD) and Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF).77

Post-Positivism

68 Stanley Hoffmann, 'An American Social Science: International Relations', Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3,

Discoveries and Interpretations: Studies in Contemporary Scholarship, Volume I (Summer), 1977, pp. 41-60 69 Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (6th ed.), (New York:

Knopf), 1985, pp. 1-51. E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis (London: Macmillan), 1946. Kenneth Waltz,

Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press), 1959. For Classical Realism, see Thucydides.

The Peloponnesian War, Book 1, paras 1-23, 66-88, 118-24, 140-46; Book 4, paras 37-51; Book V, Melian

dialogue; Book 6, paras 84-116. 70 Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, (New York: Basic Books), 1984, pp. 3-105, 145-91. Michael

Doyle, 'Liberalism in World Politics', American Political Science Review, 80 (4), 1986, pp. 1151-69. 71 Jeffry A. Frieden and David A. Lake, 'International Relations as a Social Science: Rigor and Relevance', 23

Mar 2005. Accessed from http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Frieden%20Lake%202005.pdf.

Accessed from 1 Dec 2013. 72 Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, (McGraw Hill), 1979. Robert Jervis, 'Realism, Game

Theory, and Cooperation', World Politics, 40, 1988, pp. 317-349. 73 Robert Keohane, (Ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics, (New York: Columbia University Press), 1986. 74 R. Kent Weaver & Bert A. Rockman, 'When and How do Institutions Matter?' in R. Kent Weaver & Bert A.

Rockman, (Eds.) Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad,

(Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution), 1993, pp. 445-61. 75 Robert Powell, 'Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate', International

Organization, 48 (Spring) 1994, pp. 313-344. 76 David Dessler, 'What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?' International Organization, 43:3, 1989, pp.

441-473. Alexander Wendt, 'The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory', International

Organization, 41 (Summer), 1987, pp. 35-73. 77 Goktug Morcol, op cit, 2012, p. xii.

http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Frieden%20Lake%202005.pdf



10

Next, positivism in IR was greatly challenged by the post-positivists.78 There were various

camps: Critical Theorists79 argued that ‘theory is always for someone and for some purpose'

and that civil society is necessary to counter the ‘Gramscian’ hegemony of the state80, hence

respectively refuting the value-free claim of positivism and unitary and unchallenged

influence of the state. In PAM, the emphasis on civil society enabled by networks,

democratisation and globalisation in PVM/Governance/NPS can be argued as an outcome of

this intellectual influence of Jurgen Habermas's Frankfurt School of Critical Theory81

(Sociology) on SPS (IR included). Social Constructivists82 argued that ‘anarchy is what

states made of it’ and that international politics is socially constructed by ideas83, interests84,

culture85 and norms86, rather than 'out there to be discovered' in the (positivist) natural

sciences. This has much parallel in PP literature on role of institutions (norms and cultures in

sociological neo-institutionalists)87, interests and ideas.88 In PAM, the roles of ideas, culture

and norms can be inferred from PVM where citizens will search for what is good (public

value) for wider society.89 This reflects the larger intellectual influence of Lev Vygotsky's90

Social Constructivism/Constructionism (Sociology and Psychology) on SPS.

Postmodernists91 argued that meaning is negotiated through discourses and is relative to

context. As aforementioned, PAM has its own strand of postmodernism and hence the

78 Steve Smith, Ken Booth, Marysia Zalewski, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press), 1996. 79 Robert W. Cox, op cit, 1981, p. 128. 80 Robert W. Cox, 'Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations: An Essay in Method', Millennium Journal

of International Studies, 12, 1983, pp. 162-175. 81 Roger S. Gottlieb, 'The Contemporary Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas', Ethics, Vol. 91, No. 2 (Jan.,

1981), pp. 280-295. 82 Alexander Wendt, 'Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics', International

Organization, 46 (Spring), 1992, pp. 391-425. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics,

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1999. Emanuel Adler, 'Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism

in World Politics”, European Journal of International Relations, 3:3, 1997, pp. 319-363. Ruggie, John Gerard.

1998. 'What Makes the World Hang Together: Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge'

International Organization, 52 (4), 1998, pp. 855-885. 83 Judith Goldstein & Robert Keohane, 'Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework', in Judith

Goldstein & Robert O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change,

(Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 1993, pp. 3-30. 84 Martha Finnemore, National Interest in International Society, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 1996. 85 Peter Katzenstein, (Ed.), The Culture of National Security, (New York: Columbia University Press) 1996. 86 Samuel Barkin and Bruce Cronin, 'The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of Sovereignty

in International Relations', International Organization, 48, 1994, pp. 107-130. 87 P. A. Hall & R.C.R. Taylor, 'Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms', Political Studies, Vol.

44, pp. 936-57. 88 D. Braun, 'Interests or Ideas? An Overview of Ideational Concepts in Public Policy Research', in D. Braun &

A. Busch, (Eds.), Public Policy and Political Ideas, (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 1999, pp. 11-29. 89 John Bennington & Mark H. Moore, op cit, 2011, p. 24. 90 Lev Vygotsky, Social Development Theory, 1978. As cited in http://www.k-

state.edu/musiceducation/eportfolio/cexum/images/Images%20File%20for%20Eportfolio/Lev%20Vygotsky%2

0Social%20Development%20Theory%20Class%20Hand%20Out.pdf. Accessed on 1 Nov 2013. 91 James Der Derian, On Diplomacy: The Genealogy of Western Estrangement, (London: Blackwell), 1987. R.

B. J Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press), 1992. Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations,

(Colorado: Lynne Rienner), 1994. Jenny Edkins, Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the

Political Back In, (Colorado: Lynne Rienner), 1999.

http://www.k-state.edu/musiceducation/eportfolio/cexum/images/Images%20File%20for%20Eportfolio/Lev%20Vygotsky%20Social%20Development%20Theory%20Class%20Hand%20Out.pdf





11

intellectual influence of sociolinguists and philosophers as Foucault and Derrida has

permeated to both PAM and IR.

Complexity Thinking

IR does not have an equivalent to PAM's Complexity Thinking and here, without a long

genealogy into Economic thought, a slight digress is instructive. NPM is a child of

(traditional) neo-classical economics.92 Complexity Economics (CE) steered away from

Traditional Economics in the following ways: (1) open, dynamic, non-linear systems far from

equilibrium (vs closed, static, linear systems in equilibrium); (2) agents have incomplete

information and subject to errors and biases but can learn and adapt over time (vs complete

information and perfection without errors, biases and need to learn); (3) macro patterns are

emergent result of micro-level interactions (vs macro and micro are separate disciplines);(4)

evolutionary process of differentiation, selection and amplification to provide novelty for

growth in view of complexity (vs no endogenous mechanism for growth).93 CE has strong

parallels with CT/NS in PAM as both adapted from CT and CAS which was inspired by

'various philosophical theories such as dynamical systems theory, chaos theory, biological

evolution, genetics, cybernetics, game theory and science of networks'.94 This is the epitome

of intellectual cross-learning and accumulation of knowledge in action.

Historical & Intellectual Influences on PAM

Hence, to take stock, both real events and developments within SPS have influenced PAM

(see Fig 3 below) and such influences will remain dynamic (PAM theories could, in theory,

also potentially influence SPS and real events). The primacy of positivism prevalent in neo-

classical economics and behaviouralist IR has also impacted PAM as evident by the positivist

tendencies of TPA and NPM where singularity, unitary, static-ness and ideological one-ness

is lauded. This starkly contrasts with post-positivist IR (critical theory, constructivism and

post-modernism). In PAM, to an extent, PVM's focus on multiplicity (actors, goals,

objectives, preferences, accountability, alternatives) and relationships95 reflects post-

positivism; NPS is a self-declared postmodern project;96 Governance and Collaborative

Management are arguably postmodernist in their emphasis on democratisation, citizen

empowerment and civil society. Intellectual borrowing within SPS is often active albeit

further research could be separately conducted to frame up the rich cross-learning between all

sub-disciplines of SPS.

92 Stephen P. Osborne, 'The New Public Governance?' Public Management Review, Vol. 8, Issue 3, 2006, p..

382. 93 Eric Beinhocker, The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity and the Radical Remaking of Economics,

(MA: Harvard Business School Press), 2006, pp. 97. 94 Goktug Morcol, op cit, 2012, p. 2. 95 Janine O'Flynn, 'From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial

Implications', The Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 353-366. 96 Janet V. Denhardt & Robert. B. Denhardt, The New Public Service: Serving not Steering, (New York: M.E.

Sharpe), 2007.



12

Fig 3: Historical & Intellectual Influences on PAM

Paradoxes: Pendulums

Based on the broad conceptual framework of PAM, there are three interesting paradoxes:

Pendulums, Practice and Particularism. By Pendulums, there is an observed 'two steps

forward, one step backward' phenomena where theories progress in a '3D pendulum effect'.97

In this 3D Pendulum Effect, PAM started with a pro-state TPA, then to anti-state, pro-market

NPM, to the current anti-market, pro-civil society Governance with a flavour of reasserting

the public (state).98 In each of these 'paradigms', a new entity is championed in order to

thumb down the incumbent. Civil society was not an invention of the 2000s but it was never

holistically account for in the NPM paradigm; similarly, markets were in existence during the

TPA era but in order to champion state-led reforms, the market and civil society was thumbed

down. As a result, the 3D Pendulum Effect impeded the progress of PAM as a field. It took

97 Pendulum effect is creatively adapted from Light, P. C. (1998), The Tides of Reform, Making Government

Work 1945-1995, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). 98 M Ramesh, Eduardo Araral Jr & Xun Wu (Eds.) Reasserting the Public in Public Services: New Public

Management Reform, (Oxon: Routledge), 2010.



13

almost a century before CT in the form of NS99 broke through by asserting that state, market

and civil society are equally important.

The reasons for this Pendulum is multi-folded, many of which are abstract and empirically

untestable, but this article will focus on one: the Western Knowledge Enterprise because

PAM as a field has been dominated by western (US) academia. At-risk of over-generalising,

PAM in the last century is intellectually bounded by philosophical reductionism, which is

related to the positivism/modernism in SPS. This means that success in the knowledge

creation needs to be definitive: there must be a winner and the right answer with no room for

uncertainty. Philosophical Reductionism in science means that a complex system can be

explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. For example, the processes of biology are

reducible to bio-chemical processes within the body. In economics, this means that

Keynesian school will argue that all economic reforms must be state-led lest another Great

Depression (due to market failure) occurs; whilst the later Monetarist school will argue that

state-led reforms is bad (look at the 1970s!) and hence market-led reforms are better. Today,

the US/global financial crisis in 2007/2011100 points to the failure of Monetarism.101 So does

that usher another era of Keynesian reforms? The pendulum will indeed be in play again.

A twin-related point to this reductionist thinking is philosophical dualism: the Western

tendency to think in binary opposites. According to Jacques Derrida102, meaning in the West

is defined in terms of binary oppositions, 'a violent hierarchy' where 'one of the two terms

governs the other.' Hence, in TPA, state governs the market, and vice versa in NPM. The

implication is that in order to win, one has to find all ways to thumb down the other in this

zero sum game. Hence, despite subtle convictions that the state might still be useful to an

extent, proponents of NPM/monetarism are inclined to argue, at all cost, for the affirmative

success of pro-market reforms and affirmative failure of pro-state reforms. Beyond PAM,

this thinking in false dichotomies has also been institutionalised in other areas. In typical

school debates, there will be a proposition and opposition, all of which are tasked to argue

their position, at all cost, regardless of their personal convictions. In the legal scene,

prosecutors and defendant lawyers are tasked to role-play different opposites of the legal

process but the typical (personal vs professional) ethical dilemma arises when 'defendant

lawyers need to defend the guilty and prosecutors need to prosecute the innocent'.103

99 Jocelyne Bourgon, A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving the 21st Century, (Montreal McGill-

Queen's University Press), 2011. See also Mary Lee Rhodes, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir & John A. Murray,

Public Management and Complexity Theory: Richer Decision-making in Public Service, (New York:

Routledge), 2011. Goktug Morcol, A Complexity Theory for Public Policy, (New York: Routledge), 2012. 100 Accessed from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/07/global-financial-crisis-key-stages.

Accessed on 1 Nov 2013. 101 Accessed from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/weekinreview/13goodman.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed on 1

Dec 2013. 102 Jacques Derrida, Positions, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1981, p. 41. 103 Richard J. Heafy, 'Moral Attorneys; Moral People', Accessed from

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/moralattorneys.html. Accessed on 1 Dec 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/07/global-financial-crisis-key-stages

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/weekinreview/13goodman.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/moralattorneys.html



14

The implication of reductionism and philosophical dualism is real and immense. For one, the

half century-long Cold War was essentially a Western divide between the US Liberals and

Soviet Marxists and an almost Armageddon-like incident occurred with the 1962 Cuban

Missile Crisis. It was a case of 'both Americans and Soviets thinking that their political

ideals were better and that there can be only one right answer', and the entire world was

literally made to choose sides (with the exception of non-alignment movement comprising

mainly non-Western countries). What was significant was the self-brainwashing effect of

thinking about one’s own superiority, and a digress into psychology is illustrative.

In psychology's in-group/out-group theory, a person will psychologically identify as being a

member of a group and display in-group favouritism (affinity for one’s in-group over the out-

group, or anyone viewed as outside the in-group). Conversely, there will be out-group

derogation whereby an out-group is perceived as being threatening to the members of an in-

group.104 It has been argued that this is a natural consequence of the categorisation process.105

As such, once countries have identified each other as in its in-group (Liberals), there will be

both a natural affinity to help its in-group, and a natural defence against the out-group

(Marxists). The modern rendition is George W. Bush's statement during the Global War on

Terror: 'you are either with us or with the terrorists'.106

The extent of brainwashing in such a role-play can easily go out-of-hand as seen in the

Stanford Prison Experiment. Simply put, it was a case of role playing of prisoner and prison

guard in a mock prison scenario with the guards enforcing authoritarian measures to the

extent of psychological torture and many prisoners passively accepted such abuses. This

role-play can be compounded by human's tendency to obey authority as demonstrated by the

Milgram experiment, which was 'a test of how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on

another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist'.107 Milgram

concluded that when 'stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral

imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the

victims, authority won more often than not';108 at the first experiment, 65% of experiment

subjects administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very

uncomfortable doing so.109 Hence, the Prison and Milgram experiments demonstrated that

once in-groups are identified, humans are quick to re-align to their roles and especially so

when there is an authority as exemplified in the Cold War.

104 Henri Tajfel, 'Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour', 1974. Accessed from

http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/13/2/65.full.pdf. Accessed on 1 Dec 2013. 105 Zhong Chen-Bo, Katherine W. Phillips, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli & Adam D. Galinsky, 'Negational

categorization and intergroup behavior', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (6), 2008, pp. 793–806.

Accessed from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1839102.5 Accessed on 1 Dec 2013. 106 'You are either with us or against us', CNN, 6 Nov 2001. Accessed from

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/. Accessed on 1 Dec 2013. 107 Stanley Milgram, 'Perils of Obedience', Harper's Magazine, 1974. 108 Ibid. 109 Stanley Milgram, 'Behaviourial Study of Obedience', Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (4),

1963, pp. 371–8. Accessed from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf.

Accessed on 1 Dec 2013.

http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/13/2/65.full.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18391025

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdf



15

Paradoxes: Practice

The next paradox is the theory-praxis divide (theory vs practitioner led theory development).

In the last century, with the exception of NPM, PVM and CT, most PAM theories were

derived from the academic ivory tower and represent the normative ideals of the theorists.

NPM was unique in that it was first practised by Anglo-Saxon countries (including Australia

and New Zealand) before it was codified by Christopher Hood's 'A Public Management for

All Seasons'110 and later popularised by Osborne & Gaebler's Reinventing Government111 a

decade later. Hence, it was already a positive (what is) theory upon codification.

PVM is instructive in its iterative albeit episodic theorist-practitioner theory development.

Specifically, Moore (1998)112 was initially developed not primarily from academic theory or

desk research, but out of long process of interactive teaching and engagement with public

managers. Once the book was published, the ideas were tested and developed further, mainly

through debate by teachers on courses for public managers at Harvard, Melbourne and

Warwick universities, and practical applications by these trained public managers in their

workplaces.113 Although the later developments (1998-2008) where 'academic debate about

public value has lagged behind the emerging practice' symbolised the limits of self-serving

academia, PVM (1998) can be considered an episodic success of iterative theorist-practitioner

theory development albeit the theory remained normative (what should be) from the

perspective of both theorists and practitioners.

CT, in the form of NS, can be considered a success in collective and sustainable theorist-

practitioner theory development. NS114 was a cross-national project which started in 2009

involving close to 200 theorists and practitioners in international roundtables in The Hague,

Ottawa, Singapore, Rio de Janeiro and London. It sought to establish 'an intellectual

framework, that integrates past practices of enduring value, lessons learnt from 30 years of

public sector reform and reality of practice in a post-industrial era, ... to prepare government

to serve the public good and collective interest in face of increasing complexity, uncertainty

and volatility.'115 The project participants achieved consensus on the following interpretation

of the current context116:

Nature of governance is changing.117

110 Christopher Hood, (1990), op cit, pp. 495-507. 111 David Osborne & Ted Gaebler, op cit, 1993. 112 Mark H. Moore, Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, (MA: Harvard University

Press), 1998. 113 John Bennington & Mark H. Moore, Public Value: Theory and Practice, (Basingstoke: MacMillan

Palgrave), 2011, p. 16. 114 Jocelyne Bourgon, A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving the 21st Century, (Montreal McGill-

Queen's University Press), 2011. 115 Jocelyne Bourgon, 'The New Synthesis: Preparing Government for Challenges of the 21st Century', Ethos,

No. 10, Oct 2011. 116 Ibid. 117 These differences will transform the role of government, public servants, and relationship between public

institutions, public organisations and citizens.



16

Past practices will be insufficient to cope.118

Virtual communities have real influence to shape public policy issues.

Governments require active contribution of people, families and multiple actors as

public results will be increasingly a shared responsibility requiring collective effort.

New ideas, new capacities and new ways of doing things are needed to address these

complex issues.119

NS is an 'enabling framework that helps to frame questions and explore a space of

possibilities'.120 It argues that 'public results are a combination of public policy results and

civic results' and public servants, as stewards, are to 'mediate and leverage on collective

capacity (of public, private and civic spheres) for better results'.121 Innovation is hence

strongest when 'synergistic sharing of roles and responsibilities between people, government

and society' in this open concept of governance.122 This adaptive system of government

would require four sub-systems123:

Efficient Compliance sub-system include constitutions, conventions, rules and norms

that govern how we live in society and help to 'set priorities, forge societal and

political consensus and conserve energy within a context of constrained actions and

behaviours'.

Effective Performance sub-system transforms public purpose into concrete action. It

'thinks across systems and work across boundaries, sectors and disciplines' to

'reconcile hierarchical accountability with shared responsibility to achieve system-

wide, government-wide and societal public results'.

Strong Emergence sub-system helps build government's capacity to 'anticipate and

detect emerging issues and phenomena and introduces proactive interventions to

mitigate the risks associated with undesirable events'. It also 'taps collective

intelligence to shape emergent solutions and co-create responses to complex policy

issues'.

Powerful Resilience sub-system provides the 'reality check to adaptive capacity of

government and society'. It seeks to 'co-produce public results, encourage active

participation of citizens, families, communities as value creators and build the

adaptive capacity of society to prosper and adapt in all circumstances'.

118 Past practices will be insufficient to cope with increasing number of complex public policy issues and an

environment characterised by uncertainties, volatility and cascading global crises. 119 This entails multiple integrations, interactions and relationships to forge emergent solutions to daunting

challenges. 120 Jocelyne Bourgon, 'Exploring New Frontiers of Public Administration: The New Synthesis Project',

Canadian Government Executive, 17(3), Mar 2011, pp. 16-8. 121 Jocelyne Bourgon, 'The New Synthesis: Preparing Government for Challenges of the 21st Century', Ethos,

No. 10, Oct 2011. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. See also Jocelyne Bourgon, A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving the 21st Century,

(Montreal McGill-Queen's University Press), 2011, pp. 59-61.



17

NS self-proclaims as a 'work in progress'124 and it is indeed so. First, it falls short of a

positive (what is) theory in that not all participant countries have fully adopted NS in

practice. Second, the four sub-systems of adaptive government are hitherto normative (what

should be) statements with no empirical proof of success. Nonetheless, NS has much

potential to the extent that positive interpretation of the complex reality and normative

postulation of solution (adaptive governance) is the result of collective wisdom of 200

theorist-practitioners from 24 organizations in 6 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, the

Netherlands, Singapore and the United Kingdom). The remarkable point is the NS project's

commitment to sustenance possibly due to inter-governmental funding.125 Recently, this NS6

Network held its first NS lab,126 an experimental tool through which the NS Framework is

tested in practical domains to help grow practitioners’ capacity to build a dynamic and co-

evolving system of governance and build a “new synthesis” of public administration that is

adapted to their particular context, in Singapore in spring 2013.

The theory-praxis gap is real and perhaps best described by Marysia Zalewski's self-

explanatory seminal article entitled 'All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up: theory,

theorists, theorising'.127 Although published in the field of international relations (IR), at risk

of over-generalising, Zalewski's comment is relevant across academic fields where the

interaction and cross-fertilisation of ideas between practitioners and theorists are limited. In

IR, this led to the recent 'Practice turn'128 and emphasis of Pragmatism as a potential solution

(to be elaborated later).

While there is strong merit for practitioners to lead theory development due to their

supposedly closer proximity to empirical reality than theorists, that is difficult to achieve due

to the increasing professionalisation of public service and academia. Hence, adopting a non-

binary and pragmatic approach to theory development, theory should neither be theorist-led

nor practitioner-led and instead should be co-developed by both theorists and practitioners to

tap the strengths of both entities. This said, although there are apparent incentives for

academics to co-theorise with practitioners a la PVM or CT, lest their theories become

irrelevant to practice, such cooperation is not yet the norm.

124 Jocelyne Bourgon, 'The New Synthesis: Preparing Government for Challenges of the 21st Century', Ethos,

No. 10, Oct 2011. 125 Accessed from http://www.nsworld.org/. Accessed on 1 Dec 2013. 126 An NS Lab covers topics such as positioning, leveraging, engaging, capacity building, and a dynamic and

adaptive state. It emphasizes interaction-based learning that is grounded in the context of the country in which it

occurs, and draws on the experience and expertise of senior “master practitioners” from the respective country’s

civil service. With the guidance of the NS Project Leader, an NS Lab is an exploratory conversation that seeks to

build practitioners’ individual capacities to effectively address the practical challenges they are facing in their

domains of work, as well as the collective (institutional) capacity to build resilient organizations, institutions and

societies that are fit for the times. The goal of an NS Lab is to test the robustness of the NS Framework and to

help grow practitioners’ capacity to build a dynamic and co-evolving system of governance—to build a “new

synthesis” of public administration that is adapted to their particular context. 127 Zalewski, Marysia (1996) ‘”All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up”: theory, theorists, theorising’,

in Smith, Steve, Booth Ken and Zalewski, Marysia (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, pp. 340-

353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 128 See Millennium Journal Vol 40, 2012 on 'Weaving the Theories and Practices in International Relations'.

http://www.nsworld.org/



18

Paradoxes: Particularism

The final paradox is particularism (vs universalism). Here, PAM is plagued by the inherent

desire to generalise a particular PAM theory, constructed from and perhaps for specific

contexts, to all contexts (universalism). Prima facie, this would have been a red flag for any

student of a research design 101 class to critique on such a theory's external validity.

However, across PAM, and perhaps even SPS broadly, many theories are written as though it

is the universal theory. NPM is a case in point. In its peak, NPM could possibly claim to be

the paradigm; there were even claims of the 'Internationalisation' of NPM as aforementioned.

From a 'global' perspective with regard to the larger PAM discourse, NPM appeared to be an

overused label for both the bureaucratic reform agenda in many OECD countries from late

1970s,129 and public management reforms in the 1990s.130 Technically, NPM is a patchwork

of practices, many of which existed before the broader concept was articulated.131

Nevertheless, in the post-Cold War era, policymakers often approached public management

reforms as a means for meeting domestic needs and whether the resulting reform proposals

were NPM or closely associated is not a significant issue to them.132 However, it has

somehow been marketed as the Public Management reform when it is one of the many

contending strands of reform.133 What is amusing is that even transfers between western

countries, e.g. France134, were difficult135 due to differences in local political culture. The

final punch to NPM is its contentious efficacy when there is 'merely anecdotal evidence that

any of NPM initiatives (performance management, competitive mechanisms and quality-of-

service initiatives) actually improved services in the OECD heartlands of NPM reform'.136

This episode is instructive for theory development in three aspects: First, theory development

is becoming increasingly complex with persistent tensions between globalisation and

nationalism. In theory, globalisation could fuse all nation-states into a melting pot towards

one-ness and hence theory A developed in country A should work in country B. However, in

practice, theory A developed in country A's specific context (history, geography, culture,

politics and economics) would unlikely work in country B, given its different context. This

will likely stay true since empirically no two nation-states have the same context. Second,

nonetheless, while universal theory is unachievable, particular theory is still useful when

applied with caution. Hence, 'near-generic' principles may be repeatedly induced but its

deductive application needs to be sensitive to intricacies of context. E.g. NPM was derived in

129 Christopher Hood, (1990), 'Public Management for All Seasons', p. 495 in Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde

& Sandra J. Parkes, Classics of Public Administration, (CA: Wadsworth), 2008. See also Peter Aucoin, op cit,

Apr 1990, pp. 115-137. See also Christopher Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services: the Anglo-

American experience, (Oxford: Blackwell), 1990. 130 Martin Minogue, op cit, 2001, p. 2. 131 David Mathiasen, op cit, 2005, pp. 645. 132 Ibid, pp. 656. 133 Martin Minogue, op cit, 2001, p. 10. 134 Ibid, p. 10. 135 D. Dolowitz and D. Marsh, 'Policy Transfer: a Framework for Comparative Analysis', in Martin Minogue,

C. Polidano & D. Hulme, (Eds.), Beyond the New Public Management: Ideas and Practices in Governance,

(Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 1998. 136 Martin Minogue, op cit, 2001, p. 13.



19

the US context where private sector leadership has proven to be more capable than its public

sector equivalent, and the former is more popularly regarded by citizens than the former.

Hence, NPM's deregulations and privatisation makes sense. But in elsewhere such as

Singapore where the public sector leadership is traditionally stronger than private sector, the

blind adoption of NPM may dilute the 'public' of public service.137 Third, well-established

theories are liable to be pragmatically hijacked by practitioners for political reasons

unanticipated during the theory development/codification process. As aforementioned, NPM

was an overused label from late 1970s through to the 1990s,138 and was also publicised as the

paradigm when non-OECD nation-states were forced to adopt NPM-like reforms through

World Bank, IMF and UNDP.

Hence, a century of modern PAM should have ushered in the maturity to note the inherent

poverty of any self-proclaimed universal PAM theory. Indeed, as a critical IR theorist

mentioned, 'theory is always for someone and for some purpose'.139 Social science theories

are probably, by nature, particular theories as opposed to the potentially universal natural

science theories. Hence, it is important for PAM to not have the illusion of creating any

universal PAM theory. The hitherto next best alternative is perhaps exemplified by NS where

the pro-active NS6 Network continually tested its framework against case studies, beyond the

original six. Now, after its first NS lab in 2013, NS6 has tested against 32 countries and its

external validity will continue to be strengthened through future labs.

What's Next: Complexity Thinking

After conceptually framing PAM in the last century, juxtaposing against historical events and

SPS paradigms and reflecting on its inherent paradoxes, it is apt to conclude with a discussion

on what's next for PAM. The verdict is not out. This author even opines that even the

paradigm succeeding NPM is not clear because in this 'Hundred Flowers Blossom' post-NPM

era, NPM simply became a convenient target to critique and a springboard to advance diverse

normative visions. It begs the question: where is the fruit (paradigm) from these 'Hundred

Flowers Blossom'. Against the context of post-Cold War US hegemony, democratisation,

ICT and globalisation, these post-NPM theories merely responded to this reality (neo-liberal

democratisation narrative) with different proposals to support democratisation through

empowerment of civil society and citizens whilst leveraging on ICT networks. Hence, if the

evolution of PAM is broadly pro-state TPA, to post-state, pro-market (reassert market) NPM,

then the current post-market, pro-civil society/citizen (reassert the 'Public') XX paradigm is

unclear albeit contenders of XX is PVM, NPS, Governance and ??. A hypothetical

explanation is that many theories, less PVM and CT/NS, were developed by theorists alone;

hence, there are so many theories, much discourse (from the academic ivory tower and in the

postmodern sense of negotiated meaning) but seeming lack of consensus of the next paradigm

in the Kuhnian sense. This is in stark contrast to TPA and NPM. TPA's application of

137 M. Ramesh, Eduardo Araral & Xun Wu, op cit, 2010. 138 Martin Minogue, op cit, 2001, p. 2. 139 Robert W. Cox, op cit, 1981, p. 128.



20

Taylor's Scientific Management principles and Weber's Bureaucracy140 was regarded as the

paradigm until the NPM paradigm.

Perhaps CT/NS can break through this gridlock. With reference to aforementioned details of

NS, NS is a strong candidate in three aspects: First, by design, NS is a cumulative synthesis

of past PAM theories and hence break away from the aforementioned '3D Pendulum

Effect'141. It combines several unique strengths of previous NPM theories. By emphasising

collective capacity (of public, private and civic spheres) for better results, NS effectively

synthesises TPA's focus on strong public sector, NPM's public sector with private sector

characteristics and Networked Governance's focus on people/civic spheres. NS's

acknowledgement of the real influence of virtual communities is an affirmation of Networked

Governance. Its focus on public servants as stewards conceptually parallels that of NPS's

focus on serving, instead of steering. To the extent that post-modernism is a post-positivist

challenge to positivism of TPA and NPM where linearity, objectivity and rationality prevails,

NS's focus on non-linearity (dynamism), contextuality and multiplicity is refreshing to PAM's

epistemological and ontological debates. Second, NS seeks to bridge the theory-praxis gap

by involving 200 theorists and practitioners, from six countries, to triangulate and sense-make

complex reality, problem-set and co-evolve solutions together in time and space. This is also

likely an iterative inductive-deductive approach whereby best practices help to inductively

derive principles for the Framework and the Framework can be deductively applied by

participating practitioners in their countries142, since there is consensus throughout the

process. Third, it is a cumulative knowledge enterprise in its approach to strengthen external

validity through NS Lab with its theory tested against hitherto 32 countries and growing.

However, the successes of NS cannot be over-stated; the existing literature (book-length) in

this emerging field is thin. Rhodes et. al. wrote about CT and Public Management143 while

Morcol wrote about CT and Public Policy.144 Interest in CT in PA theory likely started in

2005 with Jeffrey Weber noting that 'public administration theories is drifting and no longer

relevant to practitioners and proposed that theories of complexity may reinvigorate the

discipline and increase coherent of theory across many perspectives'.145 Rhodes devised a

CAS Framework comprising146: (1) System; (2) Endogenous and exogenous environment

rules and factors; (3) Agents; (4) Processes; (5) Outcomes.147 CAS will exhibit the following

140 Frederick Taylor, (1912), 'Scientific Management', pp. 36-8 and Max Weber, (1922), 'Bureaucracy', pp. 43-8

in Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde & Sandra J. Parkes, Classics of Public Administration, (CA: Wadsworth),

2008. 141 In this 3D Pendulum Effect, PAM started from pro-state then to pro-market then to pro-civil society and

reasserting the public (state). Pendulum effect is creatively adapted from Light, P. C. (1998), The Tides of

Reform, Making Government Work 1945-1995, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). 142 This includes Canada, Netherlands, Brazil, Singapore, UK, Australia and New Zealand. 143 Mary Lee Rhodes, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir & John A. Murray, op cit, 2011. 144 Goktug Morcol, op cit, 2012. 145 Jeffrey Weber, 'Introduction to chaos, complexity, uncertainty and public administration: a symposium,

Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 2005, pp. 262-7. 146 Mary Lee Rhodes, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir & John A. Murray, op cit, pp. 10-3. 147 (1) System refers to the boundaries that separate system from its environment; (2) Endogenous and

exogenous environment rules and factors that will affect behaviour of agents and outcomes; (3) Agents who are

individuals engaging in processes within the system to accompolish objectives; (4) Processes which are actions



21

dynamics of complex systems148: (1) self-organisation; (2) adaptation; (3) path-dependency;

(4) emergence; (5) bifurcation.149 While NS articulated a normative framework of how

Complexity should work to anticipate (emergence), forge consensus (compliance), work

across boundaries (performance) and adapt (resilience) in face of increasingly complex policy

issues and environment, CAS represents a positive albeit conceptual framework of how CT

and CAS dynamics will work in a given context (with illustrated case studies on Irish urban

regeneration and healthcare information systems).

Morcol dissected CT on conceptual, epistemological and methodological planes and will

complement NS at these meta-theoretical dimensions. CT views public policy and

organisations as a complex (living) system like a biological and human systems that are

contextually (non-reducible to simple laws) and socially constructed (non-deterministic) due

to complex interaction with system actors; adaptive and resilient (not static) as a system

where change is dynamically and endogenous driven (internal cause) in close interaction with

external stimuli/environment (exogenous); and changes with time (non-linear).150 Apart from

'system-ness' and system dynamics, it also exhibits emergence and self-organisation as

articulated by Rhodes. It requires a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods

(mixed methods) to understand the nature of the agents of social complex systems and their

(inter)relationships.151

Hence, in conclusion, NS and CT are still works in progress. NS is a normative framework,

CAS is a positive framework and Morcol attempted to articulate CT's meta-theoretical bases.

However, CT has yet to become a coherent paradigm with framework, theories and 'testable'

propositions. Nonetheless, NS and CT has demonstrated promise as an alternative PAM

paradigm in four aspects: First, from an epistemological (nature of knowledge) perspective,

CT changes the conversation of positivism-postpositivism debate; CT is beyond dualism and

embraces the 'Power of &'152. NS is about generating consensus, co-producing, co-evolving,

co-creating with multiple stakeholders across systems and boundaries as well as to 'one-ness'

to have stewardship to leverage collective capacity. In tangible terms, positivists will argue

that top-down bureaucracy a la Max Weber's will translate the state's will to action but post-

positivist (specifically the post-modernist) will argue that street-level bureaucrats153 have

much volition in policy implementation. A CT (CAS) advocate will likely say that street-

and interactions among agents to connect behaviour (constrained/facilitated by system) with outcomes; (5)

Outcomes which are results or impacts of system. 148 Mary Lee Rhodes, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir & John A. Murray, op cit, pp. 14-5. 149 (1) self-organisation (natural consequence of interaction between simple agents); (2) adaptation (changes

made by agents in response to other participants, environmental conditions or emergent system characteristics);

(3) path-dependency (tendency for systems to lock into particular behaviours early due to environmental

conditions, nature of agents and early interactions); (4) emergence (creation of new properties at higher level of

abstraction that cannot be predicted based on antecedent actions or component elements of phenomena); (5)

bifurcation (dynamic to illustrate structures in semi-equilibrium which collapsed into disorder before adopting a

new form and equilibrium state from spontaneous self-organisation). 150 Goktug Morcol, op cit, pp. 1-44; 143-162; 262-275. 151 Ibid, pp. 191-198. 152 Simon S. C. Tay, op cit, 2010, p. xiii. 153 George Frederickson & Kevin B. Smith, The Public Administration Theory Primer, (Colorado: Westview

Press), 2003, p. 159.



22

level bureaucrats as agents will interact with endogenous rules and factors of bureaucracy to

produce different outcomes depending on context. Second, from an ontological (nature of

reality) perspective, the acknowledgement of complex, uncertain and volatile reality is a key

impetus to build adaptive and resilient organisations that will act as best defence against

harsh reality; this is in stark contrast to positivism's reductionist tendencies which blatantly

disregards reality's inherent complexity. Third, from a methodological perspective, CT

professes to use mixed-methods as 'quantitative methods and models are drastically

simplified pictures of inherently complex reality and should be complemented with

contextual and qualitative understandings of systems and their actors. This is in stark

contrast with the current gridlock: 'to post-positivists, (positivists') quantitative models

merely scratch the surface of institutions, and to positivists, (post-positivists') discursive

approaches appear to be pure artifice'.154 Lastly, as a framework/theory, CT (especially CAS)

has the potential to be a dynamic framework for decision-making (beyond Rationality155,

Bounded Rationality156 and the Garbage Can Model157), policy dynamics (a la Punctuated

Equilibrium Framework,158 Advocacy Coalition Framework159); for one, CAS has already

considered the Path Dependence Framework160 in its theoretical construct. Therefore, for a

increasingly complex policy environment, the need for CT is apparent. Riding on the

commendable theorist-practitioner partnership in NS, the theoretical robustness of CT would

likely grow and evolve with dynamic theoretical iterations with praxis.

What's Next: Complexity Thinking-Pragmatism Hybrid?

Prima facie, it appears that CT is the next paradigm, but the author wishes to exercise

academic creativity by postulating a CT-Pragmatism hybrid. Taking cue from the

aforementioned Practice Turn and emphasis on Pragmatism in IR, if there is an active cross-

learning within SPS, then Pragmatism will likely permeate into PAM soon, in full force.

Although the discourse of Pragmatism in IR is still in its infancy, with Pragmatism itself

being under-theorised, and comprises mainly theoretical expositions, rather than empirical

studies of Pragmatism at work in IR or specific country's foreign policy, three book length

expositions161 were published and is gaining traction within IR. Hitherto a normative thesis,

154 Raul Pere Lejano, 'Postpositivism and the policy process', in Eduardo Araral Jr, Michael Howlett, M

Ramesh & Xun Wu (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, (New York Routledge), 2013, p. 109. 155 Clinton J. Andrews, 'Rationality in Policy Decision-making', in Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller & Mara S.

Sidney, Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, (Boca Raton: CRC Press), 2007, pp.

43-62. 156 Herbert Simon, Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative

Organisations, (New York: Free Press), 1997. 157 M. J. March & J. Olsen, 'A Garbage Can Model of Organisational Choice', Administrative Science

Quarterly, 17(1), 1972, pp. 1-25. 158 J. L. True, B. D. Jones & F. R. Baumgartner, 'Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and

Change in American Policymaking', in Paul Sabatir (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder: Westview

Press), 1999, pp. 97-115. 159 Paul Sabatier, 'An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented

Learning Therein', Policy Sciences, 21 (2/3), 1988, pp. 129-68. 160 James Mahoney, 'Path Dependence in Historical Sociology', Theory and Society, 29(4), 2000, pp. 507-48. 161 See Millennium Journal Vol 40, 2012 on 'Weaving the Theories and Practices in International Relations'.

Harry Bauer & Elisebetta Brighi, (Eds.) Pragmatism in International Relations, (Oxon: Routledge), 2009.



23

it proposes that Pragmatism can improve IR theory through (1) empirical insight that concrete

problems, not grand theories, should be at the fore of their explanatory models; (2) 'stoic

optimism' or the belief that a prudent and productive path towards solving global problems

lies somewhere between the extreme theoretical perspective (e.g. Realism and Liberalism);

(3) the notion of 'Collaborative culture' or that attention the social cultural context, not simply

isolated agents and their motivations, promises theorists and practitioners a more holistic

understanding of the international situation;162 These are also relevant to PAM.

In PAM, there are also faint signals of Pragmatism being considered with Alford & Hughes

(2008) alluding to the usage of Pragmatism in Public Value Pragmatism. Specifically, they

noted that all theories posit their 'One Best Way' to understand/explain (positive) or prescribe

(normative) for public administration and management. However in reality, 'there is no one

best way, there are many possible answers'.163 E.g. NPM's contracting can be beneficial in

some circumstances and harmful in others. It makes more sense to take the perspective that

'it all depends – on the nature of task, context, available technologies and resources'.164

Therefore, it is useful to 'be open to alternative possibilities in each situation' and do

'problem-solving through pragmatic means (many possible solutions to problems)'.165

Conclusion

In the final conclusion, while both appear to be from different academic disciplines (CT from

biology and Pragmatism from philosophy), a CT-Pragmatism hybrid is a possibility.

Epistemologically, CT works towards epistemological one-ness through philosophical holism

while Pragmatism embraces eclecticism in that 'there are many possible answers' which is

conceptually similar to one-ness in its consideration of many perspectives. Ontologically, CT

is concerned about the complex reality and Pragmatism implicitly presupposes such a

complex reality when it states that 'there is no one best way [to deal with this complex

reality]'. Methodologically, CT professes to use mixed-methods and Pragmatism's 'there are

many possible answers' is essentially an invitation to pragmatically use any [mixed] methods

that achieve the desired outcome. Lastly, as a framework, CT has the potential to be a

dynamic framework for PP and PAM, while Pragmatism is, to an extent, a predisposition in

theory development and in application to real PP issues. In this respect, fully-established CT

can be both a theory of how things are (positive - complexity) and should be (normative –

deal with complexity) within the knowing realm ; fully-established Pragmatism can perhaps

be the guiding principle in actual problem solving of real PP issues in terms of how to

pragmatically deal with complexity and wicked problems within the doing realm. The

Shane J.. Ralston, (Ed.), Philosophical Pragmatism and International Relations: Essays for a Bold New World,

(Plymouth: Lexington Books), 2013. 162 Eric Thomas Weber, 'On Pragmatism and International Relations', in Shane J.. Ralston, (Ed.), op cit, 2013,

pp. 36-43. 163 R. D. Behn, 'The New Public Management paradigm and Search for Democratic Accountability',

International Public Management Journal, 1(2), 1998, p. 140 as cited in John Alford & Owen Hughes, 'Public

Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management', The American Review of Public Administration, 38

(2), 2008, p. 138. 164 John Alford & Owen Hughes, op cit, 2008, p. 141. 165 Ibid, pp. 143, 145.



24

prospect of a CT-Pragmatism hybrid as the next paradigm is conceptually exciting but the

fruition of a theoretically coherent and practically useful paradigmatic theory will require a

dedicated research program, befitting its potential paradigmatic status.

Phua Chao Rong, Charles ([email protected]; [email protected])

Doctoral Candidate & NUS Lee Kong Chian Graduate Scholar

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), Singapore

*Please kindly do not quote from this paper without express consent from the author.

7536 words

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

“Framework, Paradoxes in Public Administration and Management Theories -Pendulums, Practice, Particularism”

Documents