Introduction: Public Administration’s Need for a Th eory of Governance 223
Th at stability was irretrievably upset by the worldwide movement to develop
and adopt alternate methods of carrying out policy and providing public service.
Although this movement was not centrally directed or planned and varied widely
in specifi cs, it was characterized by common core elements. Th ese included adop-
tion of market-based management and resource allocation techniques, an in-
creased reliance on private-sector organizations to deliver public services, and a
deliberate and sustained eff ort to downsize and decentralize government’s role as
the central policy actor in society.
Th ese changes amount to more than just another administration reform fad.
Not only is the nature of government itself being questioned and changed, but
also the powers and responsibilities of the city, the state, and the nation-state are
becoming less defi ned and increasingly merged with other jurisdictions and the
private sector. Th e administrative state is now less bureaucratic, less hierarchi-
cal, and less reliant on central authority to mandate action. Accountability for
conducting the public’s business is increasingly about performance rather than
about discharging a specifi c policy goal within the confi nes of the law (Moe and
Gilmour 1995). Since the 1980s, the scholarly record has seen increased attention
devoted to the “hollow state,” a metaphor for government that contracts public
service provision out to networks of (mostly) nonprofi t organizations and re-
duces its role as a direct supplier of public goods (Milward and Provan 2000b,
240). Increasingly, “public policies and programs in the United States and else-
where are being administered . . . through complicated webs of states, regions,
special districts, service delivery areas, local offi ces, nonprofi t organizations, col-
laborations, networks, partnerships and other means for the control and coordi-
nation of dispersed activities” (Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill 2001, 1). Scholars have
labeled this development “hybridity” (Skelcher 2005) or “mixed” institutions
(Koppell 2011), requiring diff erent theoretical frameworks and methodological
techniques—a point we return to later in the chapter.
Th ese changes challenge a good deal of existing public administration theory
because they reshape the concept at the heart of the discipline. Traditionally, the
“public” in public administration meant government. As the traditional role of
government changes, and with it expectations about how that role is to be ful-
fi lled, public administration is being forced to redefi ne and reposition itself both
in applied practice and as a fi eld of scholarship. To keep up with the new reality,
public administration scholars are being forced to rethink their discipline and its
theoretical foundations. Th e hollow state literally redefi nes what the “public” in
public administration means. At a minimum, the defi nition of “public” must now
include a broad variety of institutions and organizations traditionally considered
outside the realm of government, as well as the relationships these organizations
have with each other and with policymaking authorities. Th is new defi nition dra-
matically increases the number and complexity of the explanatory targets public
administration theory must account for.