Suchergebnisse

The concept and ideal of statesmanship have been handed down to us from ancient to modern times, but it has a paradoxical relationship with the modern state. While terminology suggests that statesmanship presupposes the state, in fact it appears rather incongruent with modern (i.e., constitutional, democratic, and bureaucratic) statehood. Nonetheless, statesmanship continues to be promoted and new understandings, such as judicial and administrative statesmanship, have been proposed. Some hope, moreover, that statesmanship becomes more feasible again as we transfer from state government to multilevel governance. There are problems, however, with conceiving of statesmanship, either in its original or in its newer meanings, under these new conditions. Despite the enduring appeal of statesmanship, the changing role of the state in present-day governance does not mean that this ideal can be easily regained.

Disappointing results and negative consequences of government reforms inspired by New Public Management (NPM) ideas have recently stimulated Public Administration scholars to develop alternative approaches to governance. Prominent alternatives in current debates are the Neo-Weberian State, Public Value Management, new arrangements of civic participation, and evidence-based policy making. In this article, the authors build on a reconstruction of the ideas of Alasdair MacIntyre to argue that these alternatives are likely to become as disappointing after their implementation as NPM, as they share its basic modernist and managerialist flaws. They believe MacIntyre's lessons for Public Administration point toward a more promising route. © 2011 SAGE Publications.