Suchergebnisse

The use of lethal technologies by global terror networks has elevated domestic security policy to a central concern of 21st-century public administration. Twentieth-century public administration scholars, influenced by Progressivism, Pluralism, and Public Choice, led the field to believe that it could both develop and administer domestic security policy without a coherent state theory to guide this policy. This scission between security policy and state theory must be repaired. The relevance of the field to pressing 21st-century security questions as well as the security of the public depends on renewing this linkage.

Twentieth century progressivism produced intergovernmental models that do not work in this era of terrorism. Their shortcomings surfaced during the Gulf War, with efforts to involve the National Guard in disaster relief, and are now quite apparent. Four assumptions should guide the adaptation of existing intergovernmental models: (a) recognizing the new linkage between intergovernmental relations and the military; (b) mastering new proactive methods rather than waiting on the slow processes of incremental reform; (c) accepting new values (timeliness, flexibility, and containment of the deadly consequences of terrorism) to constrain 21st century intergovernmental relations; and (d) rebuilding the shattered intergovernmental context.

Books reviewed:Richard Stillman II, Creating the American State: The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made.Camilla Stivers, Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era.David H. Rosenbloom, Building a Legislative‐Centered Public Administration: Congress and the Administrative State—1946–1999.

The new scholarship on pragmatism and public administration bears properties reminis cent of speculative philosophy. It proposes that pragmatism and public administration have historically existed in parallel universes. The articles written by Keith F. Snider and Karen G. Evans outline how pragmatism and public administration developed along parallel courses with minimal interchange between these two bodies of thought. However, they differ on whether these two bodies of thought should be fused. Evans argues for an immediate merger whereas Snider is more cautious. The issue of fusion is a serious issue for the field and deserves careful consideration.