Logics of Legitimacy

Three Traditions of Public Administration Praxis

Margaret Stout

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351559775
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The discipline of public administration draws predominantly from political and organizational theory, but also from other social and behavioral sciences, philosophy, and even theology. This diversity results in conflicting prescriptions for the "proper" administrative role. So, how are those new to public administration to know which ideas are "legitimate"?

Rather than accepting conventional arguments for administrative legitimacy through delegated constitutional authority or expertise, Logics of Legitimacy: Three Traditions of Public Administration Praxis does not assume that any one approach to professionalism is accepted by all scholars, practitioners, citizens, or elected representatives. Instead, it offers a framework for public administration theory and practice that fully includes the citizen as a political actor alongside elected representatives and administrators. This framework:

• 
  
  

• Considers both direct and representative forms of democracy
• Examines concepts from both political and organizational theory, addressing many of the key questions in public administration
• Examines past and present approaches to administration
• Presents a conceptual lens for understanding public administration theory and explaining different administrative roles and practices

The framework for public administration theory and practice is presented in three traditions of main prescriptions for practice: Constitutional (the bureaucrat), Discretionary (the entrepreneur), and Collaborative (the steward). This book is appropriate for use in graduate-level courses that explore the philosophical, historical, and intellectual foundations of public administration. Upon qualified course adoption, instructors will gain access to a course outline and corresponding lecture slides.

Chapter 1
The Legitimacy Question

The question at hand addresses the problem of legitimacy within the political order, meaning legitimate political authority or the rightful empowerment of various governance actors to decide and to act. As a starting point, the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of powers in which the executive branch and its administrative organizations are limited in regard to legislative and judicial functions. Similarly, citizens are limited to the franchise of suffrage, the right to petition the government, and vague references to powers not reserved by the branches of government. Because the Constitution does not name and describe specific powers of administration per se, its legitimate role in governance is a contested matter. One must look to subsequent laws and precedent held within Supreme Court rulings to interpret what degree of administrative discretion is appropriate. At its worst, this lack of clarity leads to what has been called an identity crisis in the field—does public administration have a legitimate role in governance?

While a few theories of public administration match this existing constitutional order (see, for example, Lowi 1993), most contemporary theories challenge or reinter pret the constitution by claiming powers given to the three branches. Other theories claim a stronger role for citizens, to be facilitated by public administrators. For these reasons, some scholars suggest that we should stop worrying about the problem of administrative legitimacy (see, for example, McSwite 1997a; Spicer and Terry 1993; Warren 1993; Wise 1993). Yet others extend the legitimacy crisis to an intellectual crisis within the study of public administration (Ostrom 1989) “in which the agreed-upon bases of theory fail to reflect or respond to the needs of actors in the field—theorists, practitioners, and citizens” (Denhardt 2000, 158).

However, this debate is not limited to theory. For example, depending on their roles (elected representatives, administrators, or citizens), actors in the governance process appear to have differing ideas about who rightfully exercises political authority in decision-making processes (Stout 2010b). These conflicts contribute to the “crisis of legitimacy” that has been widely acknowledged in reference to the citizenry’s lack of trust and confidence in government (King, Stivers, and collaborators 1998). From this perspective, the legitimacy issue is complicated by the fact that politics and administration are not typically differentiated in the minds of citizens—government is both. Therefore, administrative legitimacy is conflated with democratic political legitimacy. If someone believes that the political system is illegitimate, then no amount of administrative responsibility or accountability to that system will make government legitimate. If people believe that the administrative system is illegitimate, they are apt to believe it is the fault of the political system that is meant to guide or control the administration in its exercise of delegated authority. Thus, both politics and administration must be considered when questioning democratic legitimacy from the citizen’s perspective—both are caught up in questions of political authority and democratic sovereignty (Catlaw 2007a).

A wide array of political and social theory addresses the problem of legitimacy at this macro level. In the postmodern context, traditional claims to the legitimate exercise of authority are widely challenged, even to the degree of collapse (see, for example, Arendt 1968; Habermas 1975; Schaar 1981). However, beyond a relatively small “legitimacy question” literature (see, for example, Adams 1992; Catlaw and Hu 2009; Kaboolian 1998; King, Feltey, and Susel 1998; King, Stivers, and collaborators 1998; Lynn 1998; McSwite 1997a; Peters and Pierre 1998; Rhodes 2000; Spicer and Terry 1993; Stivers 2002b, 2008), most theoretical discussion in public administration remains at the level of means to administrative legitimacy rather than meanings of democratic legitimacy in either its representative or direct forms.

For example, scholars suggest ways to achieve legitimacy through accountability to the political and legal hierarchy; responsibility for desirable outcomes; and responsiveness to affected citizens. But, they rarely question or fully explicate the underlying logic of legitimacy these actions are designed to realize. The associated theory of the state, politics, or governance is seldom discussed. As a result, some public administration theories promote behavior that is aligned with our republican system of government, while silently assuming its presence. Others promote actions that are contradictory to this system, in effect reinterpreting the Constitution and its implied role for public administration. Yet other theories of public administration directly challenge the assumption that democratic legitimacy can be achieved through any means designed within the context of the representative political system. Such theories call for a new form of public responsiveness, responsibility, and accountability directly to and from citizens. This shift requires a new formulation of democratic legitimacy and corresponding elements of administrative theory and practice. The last two types of theory are therefore revolutionary from a constitutional perspective (Stout 2009a).

In support of these prescriptions for action, numerous role conceptualizations are put forward in public administration theory (see, for example, Kass and Catron 1990). However, when considering various logics for achieving legitimacy, scholars often offer paradoxical or conflicting normative guidelines. For example, in some role conceptualizations, administrators are charged with being both discretionary based on their own expertise and obedient to external masters (e.g., managers, politicians, and law). These two characteristics are based on two different logics of legitimacy, and it is questionable whether they can be successfully integrated when they conflict. Perhaps certain elements of various approaches to public administration can be combined into one role conceptualization, while others cannot. But even to begin to sort out these possibilities, the competing ideations require full explication across associated theoretical dimensions. Only then can they be rigorously compared normatively or tested empirically.

While it is reasonable to suggest no definitive answer to this question is possible in a diverse democratic society, a better understanding of the competing logics being used might help to improve thoughtful choice making among the roles. Toward that end, the Traditions framework contends that logics of legitimacy (e.g., who should be most empowered in governance) generate different role conceptualizations, and that when they are not in agreement their competition creates crises in governance beyond disagreements about substantive issues. It follows that aligning role conceptualizations will reduce those disagreements and facilitate social action. Indeed, as sociologist Max Weber observes, “action, especially a social action which involves a social relationship, may be guided by the belief in the existence of a legitimate order” (1968, 31). Only a shared understanding of that order can ensure that an administrator’s motivations, attitudes, and resulting actions will be deemed “valuable or worthwhile for society” (Brewer and Selden 1998, 417). Indeed, the capacity for the political system to claim legitimacy depends on perceptions of such appropriateness (Schaar 1981).

Because social action is expressed by individual actors, investigation of the legitimacy problem is often pursued at the individual level of analysis (McSwite 1997a; Stivers 2002b). Thus, there has been a corresponding emphasis in the field on practices such as managerial oversight, performance measurement, program evaluation, and codes of ethics as means to ensure proper behavior in individual administrators. Therefore, the crisis of legitimacy is often linked to evaluative concepts of accountability, responsibility, and responsiveness. Unfortunately, most of these discussions do not explore specifically how these three criteria of proper behavior differ from one another in terms of democratic legitimacy in either its representative or direct forms: “Often missing in literature and discourse is recognition that reformers of institutions and civic philosophies must show how the capacity to effect public purposes and accountability to the polity will be enhanced in a manner that comports with our Constitution and our republican institutions” (Lynn 2001, 155). While Lynn refers here to one specific approach to legitimacy, the sentiment is applicable more generally. Instead of explaining the meaning of legitimacy itself, theories assume that if administrators can demonstrate the behavior described, then they will presumably achieve democratic legitimacy. But when multiple meanings of legitimacy exist, one particular behavior or set of behaviors may not achieve legitimacy from all perspectives.

Therefore, to get at those underlying beliefs and attitudes, the problem of legitimacy is approached through the notion of role conceptualization or ideation. Ideation is a mental image of something. When a person says, “I am a public administrator,” “I am an elected representative,” or “I am a citizen,” an image of what that means to the person comes to mind. These particular images involve the amount of political authority imbuing these governance roles. But, what do we do when these images differ from one another? Whose ideation is right?

The crisis of identity resulting from competing role conceptualizations has been identified as one of the most pressing concerns for the field in the new millennium (Agranoff and McGuire 2001). It flows “in large part from different, often conflicting, ideas in American political philosophy” (Kettl 2000a, 14, emphasis in original). Therefore, Lowi (1993) suggests that the legitimization of public administration is something every political regime must do, noting various attempts through the course of U.S. history to do so. Even rational empiricists understand “legitimacy is at root not a legal but a psychological matter. A legal or any other system of authority is legitimate only to the extent that those persons to whom it is directed feel that they ought or must accept it” (Simon, Smithburg, and Thompson 1974, 86).

The current identity crisis has been conceived as both an academic and existential concern, which in turn affects both the study and practice of public administration (Raadschelders 1999). This book explores the “deeper problem of the legitimacy of the public administrative role” (Cooper 1984, 148). As eloquently summarized elsewhere:

While the external legitimacy problem—the question of how to theorize bureaucracy as a legitimate part of democracy—has occupied the greatest attention of the public administration theory community during the past several years, it is the internal legitimacy problem—the difficulty of finding an identity acceptable to all associated with the field—that is the more serious issue. Perhaps, in fact, resolving the identity issue is the key to solving the problem of bureaucracy in a democracy. (McSwite 1997b, 174)

In short: What is the position of public administration within the state and society; why do we do what we do as practitioners; and why is there a perceived lack of legitimacy when we do it?

Assuming a legitimacy crisis exists in government in the United States, these questions cannot be ignored—administrative legitimacy simply is not a settled matter theoretically or in practice. The academic field needs to develop theories that articulate and explain legitimacy at the deepest levels possible—the underlying political philosophies and assumptions about human nature. Toward this end, this book identifies (1) differing logics of legitimacy grounded in different governance roles (political representative, administrator, and citizen); (2) the elements of public administration theory that have an impact on administrative role conceptualization; (3) differentiating characteristics of varying role conceptualizations and key attempts to combine them; and (4) the hypothetical fit of these role conceptualizations to empirical accounts of contemporary governance. The resulting typology and analyses enable faculty and students alike to organize conflicting ideas to make intentional and conscientious choices among them, rather than presenting public administration theory as a mixed bag of philosophical tensions and conflicting views that each practitioner must sort out alone. These choices have profound implications for how an administrator might be perceived by peers, political leaders, and citizens—indeed, his or her professional legitimacy is riding on it. Writ large, the future of democratic governance itself is at stake.

Chapter 2
Why Worry about Role Conceptualization? Professional Socialization in Public Administration

Introduction

Addressing the process of professional socialization does not mean to suggest, tacitly or otherwise, that public administration is a profession per se, professionalism as popularly defined, or any one specific formula for professionalism. Indeed, the three Traditions can be used to deconstruct the meaning of professionalism to reveal conflicting understandings of legitimacy. In other words, each Tradition promotes a different form of professionalism, so no one definition can be asserted without question. These notions of professionalism are tied directly to role conceptualizations. So, the first task at hand is to understand this theoretical relationship.

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). If saying “I am a public administrator” brings to mind varying images and determinations of which image is “proper” is contested, students and practitioners of public administration have a problem—which model do they follow? Educators in public administration have a similar problem: Which ideation should they promote? Indeed, Waldo asserts, “What kind of enterprise is education for public service? The answer must be, above all, that it is a confusing and controversial enterprise. … No single, agreed, and authoritative definition of Public Administration is possible” (Waldo 1980, 58).

Nonetheless, education is an important element of professional socialization for both preservice and in-service students. Master of Public Administration (MPA) and doctoral programs help students form and adopt an ideation of the public administration role that can serve to (1) bring diverse occupations into a common sense of purpose, professional identity, and trust; (2) establish standards for professional action; and (3) provide legitimacy to the public (Stever 1988). Doctoral programs further prepare scholars who will define the field through research and reproduce the field as faculty through pedagogy. However, the presence of multiple and distinct ideations of public administration serves to intensify the ambiguity of the postmodern condition (see, for example, Catlaw and Stout 2007) and exacerbates questions of legitimacy (see, for example, McSwite 1997a).

For example, MPA programs have been found to instill the competing ethical standards of both the bureaucratic ethos and the democratic ethos (Heijka-Ekins 1988). Another examination of theories that promote progressive values found seven distinct approaches (Box 2008). Students and practitioners of public administration can benefit from navigational tools that present these competing ideations and their practical and philosophical implications for comparison. These tools can also be used to identify scholars who share similar beliefs and prefer a similar approach to action. Ultimately, that is the aim of this book. This chapter explains how theories affect how we understand our social role as public administrators, offering a framework for understanding professional socialization and describing how these processes feed into role conceptualization.

The Importance of Role Conceptualization in Public Administration

Role conceptualizations stem from “legitimating myths”—images of the identity of the public administrator or the enterprise of public administration as a whole within our political system (Kass 1990a). As noted by Morgan (1986), images and metaphors of this type are used not only as descriptors but also as prescriptive guides for attitudes and action. Role conceptualizations formulate what we wish to be, not just do: “This is partly a matter of self-conception … self-knowledge … and … self-summoning” (Selznick 1957, 143, emphasis in original). 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 1997a, 229–230). Thus, role conceptualization implies competing conceptions of democratic legitimacy.

Public administration is in large part considered to be a profession. In the classical view, a profession is believed to have a number of characteristics: (1) It is a full-time occupation or principal source of income; (2) it requires a commitment to a calling or enduring set of normative and behavioral expectations; (3) various signs and symbols differentiate the profession from the laity; (4) it requires specialized training or education, including both esoteric and useful knowledge; (5) it serves clients competently; and (6) its members proceed by their own judgment and authority, enjoying autonomy restrained by responsibility to the other characteristics of professionalism (Moore and Rosenblum 1970). While some do not believe public administration to be a profession “in the strict sense” (Waldo 1980, 61), if we perceive our enterprise to be something like a profession, then perhaps it is time for us to consider the manner in which we reproduce it and to what degree we accept this type of definition of profession given our democratic context. For example, if the activities of governance are increasingly delegated to those not a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Author
• SECTION I WHY AND HOW THE TRADITIONS FRAMEWORK WAS CREATED
• 1 The Legitimacy Question
• 2 Why Worry about Role Conceptualization? Professional Socialization in Public Administration
• 3 Using Theoretical Frameworks as Interpretive Lenses
• 4 How the Traditions Framework Was Created
• SECTION II THE TRADITIONS FRAMEWORK
• 5 The Generic Elements of Each Tradition
• 6 The Constitutional Tradition—Bureaucratic Accountability to the Constitutional Order
• 7 The Discretionary Tradition—Entrepreneurial Responsibility for Desirable Outcomes
• 8 The Collaborative Tradition—Stewardship Responsiveness to the Citizenry
• SECTION III CRITIQUE AND ANALYSIS
• 9 Mutual Critiques among Traditions
• 10 Integrations, Conciliations, and Dialectical Syntheses
• 11 Assessing Contextual Fit of the Traditions—A Mental Experiment
• References
• Appendix: Foundations Course Outline
• Index