Interpretive Public Governance versus the curse of ‘presentism’: narratives on the future study of public administration, 1945–2025

Abstract

The focus in this article is on the study, not the practice, of Public Administration; that is, on British academics and their descriptions and explanations of how British government administration works. ‘Presentism’ refers to a bias toward current events and values—interpreting the past through a modern lens—and as an excessive focus on the present, neglecting historical context or future consequences. The article seeks to counter this bias by identifying the main intellectual stands of the postwar period, arguing that every narrative is ‘interbedded’ and each continues to influence the evolution of the discipline.
The main narratives between 1945 and 2000 are described: Traditional Public Administration (TPA), New Public Management (NPM), and New Public Governance (NPG). For the 2000s to date, a plurality of approaches is identified that contend for our attention: New Public Service (NPS), Digital Era Governance (DEG), and Behavioural Public Administration (BPA). Finally, a new approach is recommended and explained: ‘Interpretive Public Governance’.
In conclusion, we Public Administration scholars need to:
•Set our own research agenda.
•Interrogate our own traditions and not focus exclusively on the present day.
•Celebrate the plurality of our field, not look for the Holy Grail of an agreed disciplinary core, and explore the interdisciplinary opportunities for yet more diversity.
•Develop the radical research agenda of Interpretive Public Governance, which uses ethnographic methods to study the knaves practicing court politics.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for R.A.W. Rhodes: orcid.org/0000-0002-1886-2392

Catalogue record

Export record

Altmetrics