Th eory in Public Administration 269
that such universals are beyond the reach of any explanation of social phenom-
ena and casts a skeptical eye on all theory-building projects having positivist
aspirations.
Given this background, there are two views of theory in public administration.
Th e fi rst, given an intellectual anchor by postmodernism, is of a discipline in dif-
fi culty, struggling to defi ne itself and repeatedly failing to fi nd much traction. Th is
lack of forward movement comes despite increasingly desperate attempts to catch
a ride with whatever extradisciplinary intellectual vehicle is currently fashionable
in other social sciences. Th e second, and the one favored here, is of an intellectual
fi eld engaged in a healthy introspection, not tied to any paradigmatic dogma, con-
stantly experimenting with fresh approaches, and beginning to formulate original
ways of thinking about its arena of study. At a minimum, the projects covered in
this book shaped the scholarly and applied worlds in important ways even when
they fell short of their ambitious theoretical goals. For example, rational choice
concepts are central to NPM, and management gurus seem to be in a continual
process of rediscovering the applied benefi ts of the insights Simon fi rst codifi ed in
Administrative Behavior (1947/1997). Given this track record, we suggest there is
ample evidence that public administration theory has repeatedly met its ultimate
test: It has been found useful in an applied or practical sense.
Public administration theory is not always as fragmented as it seems. Although
we have presented a series of in-depth examinations of various intellectual move-
ments as independent theoretical projects, this is to some extent misleading. Th e
astute reader will surely have noticed the recurrence of themes and arguments
throughout this tour of public administration thinking. Th eory here consists of
a persistent mixing of the established and (at least to public administration) the
new into creative and original perspectives. Any linear process of theory in pub-
lic administration, any semblance of a steady incremental march toward a cen-
tral paradigm or disciplinary objective—these disappeared long ago. Th e loss of
theoretical hegemony gave public administration an identity crisis and made it
vulnerable to colonization from other disciplines, but it also caused an evolution
in theory that has successfully branched out into many directions. Pick any two
of these branches, and it’s possible to recognize common building blocks—for
example, NPM with rational choice, theories of bureaucratic politics with theo-
ries of political control—even though their diff erences are equally clear. Even the
foundations of decision theory and rational choice, which have been seriously
challenged, now seem to be moving in similar directions.
In conclusion, we should also point out not only the interconnectedness of
theory in public administration but also the limited sample of frameworks that
any one volume can carefully consider. Network theory, for example, is arguably
an intellectual framework important enough to warrant separate treatments on
its merits, rather than be assigned to the supporting role it played here. Similar
arguments can be made for numerous other frameworks distinct enough to claim
their own labels. Our goal, however, was not to present a comprehensive guide