10 1: Introduction: Th e Possibilities of Th eory
place of theory as the appropriate means to express reality and guide action.
Public administration theory derived from historical analyses, institutional
study, and philosophy is now understood to be as legitimate as public adminis-
tration theory derived from statistical analysis and mathematical models. Fuzzy
phenomena, such as leadership and the “principles of public administration,”
are now the subjects of empirical analysis and theory-building (Behn 1991;
Hood and Jackson 1991).
Th e reconciliation of traditional and behavioral public administration refl ects
this perspective: “Science is not a substitute for insight, and methodological rigor
is not a substitute for wisdom. Research that is merely rigorous may well be rou-
tine, mechanical, trivial, and of little theoretical or policy value. However, . . . in
the absence of such rigorous and controlled analysis even the most operational
data are of little value” (Singer 1966, 15).
Even with this reconciliation, theory-building in public administration is in-
fl uenced by tastes and fashions. Th ere is always the law of the instrument: When
the theorist has a methodological or conceptual hammer, everything begins to
look like a nail. In the policy schools, the case method has taken on some aspects
of a hammer; the market model and mathematical conclusions so derived have
been applied to a lot of nails lately. Nevertheless, despite examples of method-
ological and theoretical excesses, public administration theory has never been
healthier than at present.
From the traditionalist and behavioralist positions of thirty years ago, public
administration has evolved to a fi eld enjoying a considerable theoretical richness.
A single dominant theory, an intellectual hegemony, would have impoverished
the fi eld. Instead, there are several strong and important theories and many im-
portant theorists, a condition befi tting a fi eld as applied and interdisciplinary as
public administration.
Finally, we come to the uses or purposes to which theory in public adminis-
tration may be put. Th ere are countless examples of public administration the-
ory applied to less than wholesome purposes; the program-planning-budgeting
systems devised to make it appear that the United States was winning the war in
Vietnam comes to mind. Th e willingness of the fi eld to embrace and rationalize
cutback management without being forthright about a resulting diminution in
organizational capacity is another example. Our predictive capacities are limited,
and even when we can predict, predictions sometimes run counter to the public
administration wisdom of the day. What, for example, would we predict about
the long-range eff ects of the currently popular idea of reducing governmental
purchasing and bidding regulations? A sensible prediction would be that reduc-
tion in excessive regulation will increase effi ciency. But too much deregulation in
this area will in the long run almost certainly result in greater corruption. It was
corruption, aft er all, that caused many of the regulations to be adopted in the fi rst
place (Frederickson 1999a).