110 5: Th eories of Public Management
objectively or conclusively demonstrating the scientifi c superiority of one view
over another; (4) they are oft en contradictory; (5) they are unstable, the changing
fads and fashions of taste makers; and (6) they tend to rotate—old ideas dressed
in new clothes (1991, 17–18).
Unlike scientifi cally verifi able principles, these doctrines are accepted for rea-
sons best explained not by hard data but by the analytic techniques associated
with rhetoric. In rhetoric, one persuades or infl uences another by developing a
linguistic solution to a problem, or by “naming” the problem in a way that elicits
general agreement about a course of action. Th e use of metaphor is key because
all institutions are so-called cognitive paradigms grounded in shared understand-
ings and meanings. One thinks of the deeply contentious contemporary debate
over abortion in the United States. During his candidacy for president, Bill Clin-
ton stated, “I am personally against abortion. Abortion is, however, the law of the
land, but it should be safe, and rare.” By repeating that statement, he seemed to
fi nd a center position acceptable to most, though not to those at the extremes.
Rhetoric requires the generous use of ambiguity, the craft ing of general po-
sitions that can be favorably viewed from a wide spectrum of public positions.
Positions must be aligned with the general or greater good. Arguments are se-
lective, which means that evidence supporting the arguments is used, whereas
contrary evidence is not. For rhetoric to be successful, those who listen to it or
witness it must be willing to suspend disbelief, just as one does when watching
good theater (Hood and Jackson 1991). A doctrine such as “a government that
works better and costs less” has a powerful rhetorical appeal, is a “solution” that
matches contemporary values, is ambiguous, is supported by selected best prac-
tices, is identifi ed with the greater good, and, it being evident that costing less is
at best unlikely, requires one to suspend disbelief.
Th e problem, of course, is that a theory of management in public administra-
tion built on such an epistemology is decidedly out of phase with ordinary defi -
nitions of science. Th e “doctrines of management” model tested by the logic of
rhetoric is at once postmodern and retrograde, an up-to-date version of Aristotle’s
description (1932) of linguistic solutions to social problems. From the perspective
of those who actually practice policymaking and public administration, the logic
of the doctrines of management is a close theoretical approximation of reality—
certainly much closer than theories of rational choice or decisionmaking—but the
latter have a much greater cachet in the academy.
Th e doctrines of administration can be described this way (this is a consid-
erably adapted, much simplifi ed, and condensed version of doctrines found in
Hood and Jackson [1991, 34–35]):
- Doctrines of scale
a. Large, intermediate, small
b. Centralized, decentralized