Search results

It seemed that "Alas, Poor Yorick" was an appropriate subtitle for this attempt to respond to Understanding Public Administration. Yorick, you will remember, was the deceased royal jester, whose skull Hamlet inspected in the churchyard in Elsinore, causing him to meditate on the vanity of human life. "Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come." Though not a professional jester, I am keenly aware of the ephemeral character of the work of Professors of Government and Public Administration, or at least of this particular one; though Festsehriften may be said to "lay it on thick", they cannot altogether disguise the rather plain face beneath. I am glad to be fortified by having the more distinguished countenance of Robert Parker alongside me, and I mean that.

The title of this address results in part from discontent with much of the literature of Public Administration and Public Policy. It is mild discontent, and I do not want unduly to depreciate our writings. But I stop reading many books and articles disappointed, at finding old or obvious ideas restated in new words; at seeing a useful idea refined by scholasticism into complex and empirically untestable propositions; feeling that I am being "got at"; worst of all, with a sense that the work casts only a fitful or elusive light on the important problems it claims to deal with. Schuyler Wallace said years ago when I was starting my academic career that administrative study had been mainly built on the basis of half‐truths and fictions,1 and I believe this is still true. If I had remembered this phrase earlier, I might have called the paper "Half‐Truths and Fictions in Public Administration". If it reflects some real discontents, it is also intended to be a bit jokey. Should the jokes fall flat or degenerate into vulgar abuse, blame the author.