Suchergebnisse

Abstract: In this paper we first examine the dominant instrumental paradigm of organization, and the critique to which it has been subjected from both social action theory and a more structural analysis of organizational life. Secondly, we draw on critical theory to construct an alternative paradigm. This addresses some of the problems left by critiques of the dominant paradigm, focuses on the relationship between structure and action, and the way in which each of these constitutes, and is constituted by, the other. In the final section we outline the implications of this analytical approach for analysis and practice in public administration. Public administration is about what people do, but also about how this activity is perceived and talked about. This distinction between thought and practice is not the same as the distinction between the academic and the practitioner. Although the academic operates largely in the world of thought — through teaching, research and writing — the work of the practitioner also rests on foundations in the world of thought, namely, the perception of the organization as an instrument for the accomplishment of some purpose, and of the administrator as the controller of that instrument for the better achievement of the end. We contend that these approaches to analysis and practice mask significant aspects of the ways that relationships within and between organizational contexts come to be structured and conducted, and do not provide a basis for understanding or evaluating either organizational processes or the activities of managers within these.

Though democratic government calls for well-designed and implemented policy, there is surprisingly little expert guidance available for policy makers and politicians. Working for Policy fills that gap, addressing the nature of policy work and offering necessary guidance. The contributors bring together academic and experiential knowledge in their analysis and evaluation of what modern policy makers do in given situations and of how such actions contribute to the policy process. This unique book demonstrates how scholars can help to ensure that policy makers can acquire the skills and knowledge required in governing complex modern societies.

The development of policy rests on skilled practice by knowledgeable practitioners – 'policy work' – and it is important to know what skills and knowledge this work calls upon, and where these are learned. Although there is substantial academic knowledge and courses in this field, many practitioners will argue that policy work is 'as much an art as a science' and is something that 'you learn as you go'. This article reports on an exploratory study of policy practitioners' accounts of their practice, what counts as knowledge, and in what contexts it is 'useful'. We examine the discourses through which policy work is accomplished, the way in which people learn to do it, and the place of academic work in the constitution of these discourses. Drawing on our respondents understanding of policy practice, we discuss what more might be done to facilitate learning about the work of policy.

Public management is a domain of research that is now roughly three decades old. Researchers in this area have made important advances in understanding about the performance of public organizations. But questions have been raised about the scope and methods of public management research (PMR). Does it neglect important questions about the development of major institutions of the modern state? Has it focused unduly on problems of the advanced democracies? Has it made itself irrelevant to public debates about the role and design of government, and the capacity of public institutions to deal with emerging challenges? This set of eight short essays were prepared for a roundtable held at the research conference of the PMR Association at the University of Aarhus in June 2016. Contributors were asked to consider the question: Is PMR neglecting the state?