Where we are (headed): Knowledge, Social Cohesion, and Public Value in Islamic Public Administration

Kenneth Kernaghan and Canadian Public Administration: Editor's Note and Remembrances

The establishment of the Constitutional School of U.S. Public Administration is one of the most enduring efforts to shape the priorities and responsibilities of running the Constitution in the 21st century. The selections in this book demonstrate empirically how public administration scholars can ground their multi-faceted research in democratic-constitutionalism and the rule of law, both of which advance American constitutional tradition. When Public Administration Review published Stephanie Newbold’s 2010 article on the Constitutional School, the editors classified it as a “big idea” in public administration theory. The purpose of this edited volume is to make the Constitutional School’s presence within the field’s literature even more prominent, vibrant, and useful to scholars and practitioners alike. With this objective in mind, there is a need to be bold. We have discussedin previous work our growing concerns over the direction the field of U.S. public administration has taken, intellectually and pedagogically (Newbold, 2011, 2014; Newbold & Rosenbloom, 2014). Ever since Herbert Simon published Administrative Behavior in 1946, the public administration community has been on a quest to make its research and knowledge base more scientific. That effort has led to an overwhelming emphasis on the application of statistical models and quantitative techniques to answer some of the most central questions affecting public administrative management. Without question quantitative and qualitative methodologies play important roles in public administration scholarship and pedagogy. Equally unquestionably if a comprehensive science of public administration develops, future scholars and practitioners will look back on contemporary research as but a stepperhaps only a very preliminary one-in its evolution. In the spirit of incorporating scientific methods into the field, we have inadvertently undermined the importance of more traditional epistemological and methodological approaches to answering and addressing major issues affecting the administrative state. In Simon’s (1991) autobiography even he observed that the pendulum had swung too far in favor of using scientific approaches and quantitative techniques to solve political problems (pp. 56, 285). In contributing to the further development and advancement of the Constitutional School, we seek to provide greater intellectual balance in the field’sspace organization, design, and behavior of polities have a place to call home and where normative questions concerning law, constitutional thought, ethics, and democratic-constitutionalism are supported and encouraged. Reflecting on the great intellectual history of U.S. public administration isboth rewarding and disheartening. It is rewarding because it allows for serious, thoughtful reflection into some of the most engaging ideas of the modern era. These include questions about the purpose of government (Appleby, 1945; Brownlow, Gulick & Merriam, 1937; Gaus, 1950; Gulick & Urwick, 1937; Mosher, 1968; Pfiffner & Presthus, 1935; Waldo, 1948; Wilson, 1908); the importance of politics to administration (Gaus, 1950; Goodnow, 1900; Kaufman, 1969; Storing, 1962; Waldo, 1948); the value public institutions bring to the citizens they serve (Selznick, 1957; Waldo, 1948); the contemporary relevance of political and administrative history to democratic governance and public management (Mosher, 1976; Storing 1970, 1981a, 1981b; White, 1948, 1951, 1954, 1958); democracy (Appleby, 1945; Mosher, 1968; Strauss & Cropsey, 1963; Waldo, 1948); law and the federal courts (Hart & Witte, 1937; Pfiffner & Presthus, 1935; Schaeffer, 1953; Willoughby, 1929; Wilson, 1908); the political, governing, and managerial responsibilities required by public administrative institutions (Brownlow, 1937; Gulick & Urwick 1937; Pfiffner & Presthus, 1935; Polenberg, 1966; White, 1926; Wilson, 1887); and bureaucracy (Downs, 1966; Kaufman, 1977; Merton, 1957; Weber, 1922). It is disheartening, because we recognize that the work produced byhighly influential thinkers and intellectual contributors to the history of American public administration including but not limited to Paul Appleby, Louis Brownlow, John Gaus, Frank Goodnow, Luther Gulick, Herbert Kaufman, Charles Merriam, Frederick Mosher, Herbert Storing, Dwight Waldo, Leonard White, and W.F. Willoughby would likely find their work desk rejected by some of our field’s leading academic journals if they were writing today. These scholars all focused on big ideas; ideas that provided extraordinary insight into the affairs of governance. They were not dependent upon big data to create a big idea. They delineated the core concerns and big questions that define public administration and public management and created the theories and theoretical frameworks that continue to guide research and practice even as the contemporary focus on quantitative analysis and the use of big data progresses. Without their ideas the fields of public administration and public management would not have developed as they did; without intellectual space for the introduction and discussion of new ideas of their magnitude, these fields will stagnate. Indeed, it is not unfair to say that today these fields are embraced by narrowness of depth and thinness of breadth that fills journal pages but leaves very little room for big theoretical ideas to take center stage. As Larry Terry often observed, the only numbers you find in Simon’s Administrative Behavior are forConstitutions matter. We cannot begin to understand U.S. public admin-istration without first developing a foundation for how natural law and common law underpin the Constitution and the rule of law that govern the American state and its administrative institutions. Although Leonard White (1926) first argued that the study of public administration should begin with a management orientation rather than a legal foundation, after working in the F.D. Roosevelt administration he recognized how unrealistic that recommendation was to both the study and practice of public administrative management. This transformation provides one of the most valuable examples for how practice can inform theory, and exemplifies a very big idea regarding the power to reframe our disciplinary perspectives. U.S. public administration is oftentimes thought of as operating on acontinuum where Dwight Waldo and Herbert Simon anchor each end. Over the past forty years, the field has moved substantially towards Simon’s orientation. An important goal of the Constitutional School is to shift the discourse in the direction of Waldo and the intellectual traditions he fully established and brought to the forefront of public administrative theory and research. Waldo emphasizes the need for more focus on what types of norms, values, and behaviors contribute to how the three branches of government shape the modern American administrative state and the processes of democratic governance it engages. As Gary Wamsley (1990) observed more than two decades ago, public administrators make the most influential decisions when they acquire as much information as possible. The same holds true for the intellectual development of our field. The fundamental reason that democratic-constitutionalism and the rule of law form the foundational bedrock of public administration is precisely because over time constitutional principles and values become institutionalized in our everyday lives as citizens. This institutionalization is publicly reflected through shared norms, expectations, and values that define rights, create public and private space, and establish multiple forms of mutual accountability (Newbold, 2014). As such, it is not just court cases and laws that we must examine and understand, but it is the institutionalization of broad constitutional tradition that requires us to incorporate and rely on sociology, the arts and humanities, and the natural sciences to help explain how these values reflect and change the public meaning of citizenship, roles, and expectations, all of which govern the relationship between leaders and followers, government and citizens, public agencies and the individuals they serve (Newbold, 2014, p. 17). The Constitutional School of U.S. Public Administration works to createthe space needed for scholars and practitioners to come together and analyze, debate, refute, and create common understandings that are focused on a variety of topics relating to democratic-constitutional traditions. It also helps us to explain how and why our values and preferences for governance might be changing. Not everyone has to agree with the perspectives ofthis school of thought regarding which democratic norms and values should inform practice and how. The field does, however, have to take the Constitutional School seriously. It deserves to be engaged substantively and intellectually. For as James Madison noted more than 200 years ago in Federalist 51: “The interest of the man must be connected to the constitutional rights of the place” (Cooke, 1961, p. 349). The Constitutional School anchors public administration precisely where the American framers wanted it to reside-within the rule and philosophy of law.

At issue is the method used to define in the discipline. For example, when we discuss ethics, we base our inquiry on regime values and ignore the broader established literature concerning the common spiritual of mankind. Like much of western culture, secularization as a value strongly influences public administration. This article examines the history of in public administration research and questions secularization with its removal of linkage between spiritual wisdom and public values. Research in public administration evolved from a valueneutral basis immortalized in Woodrow Wilson's political/administrative dichotomy, to a logical positivism basis advanced by Herbert Simon, to a call for the return to value-based traditions. Recent research in the field, including research on ethics for public administrators, has acknowledged that do play an integral role and that the value-free neutrality approach was invalid. This article makes the case that public administration should not narrow its choice of to only secularization but should use the full range of human inquiry available to us, including the various Holy Scriptures from not only the Jewish and Christian traditions but other traditions as well, such as the Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic. The excitement and meaning of our very existence-indeed. the future of life itself on this planet-is linked to the administrative process. Theory, and practice are inexorably interwoven and enmeshed. It is this complex net which is the center of attention in the study of public administration. (Simmons and Dvorin 1977, 3-4) In their book Public Administration Values, Policy, and Change (1977), Robert Simmons and Eugene Dvorin make a strong argument (as noted above) for the importance that play in public administration. They note the existence of a 473/Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Much of this article flows from two sets of activitiesfirst, from the editing of a collection of chapters addressing philosophy and public administration. Some of the ideas in the article reflect those draft articles-an example is the draft chapter by Lance deHaven-Smith. Second, from a speech given at a joint conference of the Institute of Canadian Public Administration and the American Society for Public Administration, held in 1995 in Toronto, and from a paper presented at the Ninth National Symposium on Public Administration Theory, which was held in 1996 in Savannah, Georgia. J-PART 7(1997): 3:473-487 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.71 on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:07:35 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

This article offers historical interpretation of the role of the administrative state in the construction of social order and articulates the foundation of theoretical modelfor the study of the relationship between globalization and public administration. The author contends that the study of public administration in times of global interpenetration requires reinterpretation of the administrative state at historic moment when profound changes are underway in conventional understanding of the general interest, of social responsibility, and of the relationship between the market and the state. In order to actively participate in building the new structures of social relations that globalization is bringing about, the discipline of public administration must develop its theoretical capacity to transcend the ahistorcal, voluntaristic, instrumental, parochial, and state-centered nature of its approaches and explanations. Reviews of the historical evolution of the discipline of public administration often acknowledge that the practice of public administration is as old as society itself.' This awareness, however, has not generated systematic efforts to elucidate the relationship between sociohistorical change and public administration.2 The result of this is absence of sound explanations of the role of public administration in the formation, reproduction, and transformation of social relations and social order. Therefore, the study of public administration lacks of the state and explanation of the role of state bureaucracy in the development of modern political societies.3 The objective of this article is both to develop historical interpretation of the evolution and social significance of the administrative state and to develop foundation for theoretical for the study of public administration in times of global 615/Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 'This article discusses the public administration tradition initiated by Woodrow Wilson. 2This is not to suggest that there have not been important and successful attempts to explain this relationship within specific temporal and spatial contexts (see Stillman 1991; Rouban 1993). 3To large extent, the absence of such and explanation is due to the fact that the intellectual development of public administration has been based largely on the view of the United States as stateless society (see Stillman 1991, 19-41). J-PART 7(1997):4:615-638 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.176 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 06:47:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Public Administration in Times of Global Interpenetration interpenetration.4 The purpose of the is to facilitate understanding of the broad framework of historical limitations and possibilities within which public administrators operate today. Needless to say, this is only preliminary attempt to overcome public administration's inability to deal theoretically with the relationship between sociohistorical change and the administrative state. Part 1 of this article is critical characterization of the intellectual foundations of the public administration discipline. Part 2 outlines and interprets the historical evolution of the administrative state. Out of this historical analysis public administration emerges as systemic activity-the purpose of which is to institutionalize patterns of social relations over time and space. This conceptualization is central to the rationale of the theoretical that is presented in part 3. Part 4 offers some concluding remarks about the study and the practice of public administration at century's end. THE STUDY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A CHARACTERIZATION Critical analyses of the intellectual foundations of public administration abound (see for example, Dahl 1947; Mosher 1956; Charlesworth 1968; Heady 1979; Guerreiro Ramos 1981; Daneke 1990; Riggs 1991; Bailey and Mayer 1992). Nevertheless, the discipline continues to be characterized by the ahistorical, instrumental, voluntaristic, parochial, and state-centered nature of its approaches and explanations. These characteristics severely limit public administration's capacity to deal theoretically with the crucial relationship between sociohistorical change and the administrative state. Public administration is ahistorical because it is fundamentally concerned with the synchrony of the administrative state rather than with its dyachrony (see de Saussure 1986, 80).5 In other words, it is concerned with the study of the functions and structures that characterize the administrative state within given moment of its history rather than with the study of the evolution of the administrative state over time.6 Ahistorical approaches in public administration follow instrumental theoretical orientation. Public administration generally can be regarded as instrumental because it is concerned primarily with the immediate and practical problems of public administration rather than with explaining the historical and structural factors that condition the organization and administration of the state.7 6161J-PART, October 1997 4A can be defined as a conceptualization of group of phenomena, constructed by means of rationale, where the ultimate purpose is to furnish the terms and relations, the propositions of formal system which, if validated, becomes, theory (Willer 1967, 15. The rationale of constitutes an explanation of the nature of the included phenomena and leads to the nominal definitions of the concepts of the model

In order for public affairs and administration education programs to successfully prepare future public administrators, the link between public service values (PSVs), professionalism in the public sector, and information literacy (IL) needs to be acknowledged and elevated. Through the development of a Communications for Public Administrators course focused on IL with a public service perspective, the Master of Public Administration (MPA) program at West Chester University (WCU) is attempting to do just that. This article considers separately the role of PSVs, professionalism, and IL in the study and practice of public administration and discusses the rationale for linking the three concepts in public affairs and administration education programs. Recommendations for the institutionalization of the PSVs-professionalism-IL nexus are also considered. The article then describes a specific WCU MPA course used to explore the efficacy of integrating PSVs, professionalism, and IL into a graduate public affairs curriculum. The benefits of this approach and its applicability to other public administration, public policy, and public affairs graduate programs are discussed.

Bridging the Discipline and Practice of Public Administration in Philippine Governance: Concerns and Prospects of the National College of Public Administration and Governance

Citation (2023), "Prelims", Caruana, J., Bisogno, M. and Sicilia, M. (Ed.) Measurement in Public Sector Financial Reporting: Theoretical Basis and Empirical Evidence (Emerald Studies in Public Service Accounting and Accountability), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. i-xxiv. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-161-820231012

The article aim is to identify the methodological dilemmas and practical problems associated with research of human resource management (HRM) in public administration, which now needs urgent modernization of this area of its operation. Identified dilemmas of public administration research including: isolation and definition the public administration as the subject of the study (group of organizations and employees forming the public administration), the impact of elements of strategic management of the state of HRM in the public administration, methods of research appropriate for the study of the public administration problems. In the last dilemma the advantages and weaknesses of different methods and tools were discussed including: economic and praxeological analysis of law and „inside law” in public administration, the possibility of using surveys, in-depth interviews and focus group interviews, comparative studies and case studies. The last part of the article presents a proposal for resolution of the previously mentioned methodological dilemmas and practical problems by using a matrix approach to identify the current status of human resource management in public administration as a whole. Part of the proposal allows the study of public administration as a whole, and the rest of this proposal concerns the study of purposely-selected groups of organizations and pubic administration employees. The dimensions of the matrix include: existing law, the most important elements strategic management of the state, key areas of HRM described in the existing human resource management strategies (programs) in public administration and recognized by managers of organizations within the public administration. Selection of research methods and techniques is a result of the assumptions and characteristics of isolated research problems.

Public value is intrinsic to all discussions related to the public sphere and public life – consisting of the social, political and economic dimensions of them. Discussions on public value have been central to public administration and public management scholarship and practices (Alford & O’Flynn, 2008; Bryson, Crosby & Bloomberg, 2014). Although it is not a new concept, the last three decades have witnessed a surge in public value literature. The key interest has been in understanding the process of creating, realizing, and managing public value. The key credit for re-emergence of the concept in public administration and management scholarship goes primarily to Mark Moore (1995) and his seminal book Creating Public Value. The comeback of the concept was widely celebrated in academic training and research, and received considerable endorsement from scholars, public servants, and policy advisers. Evidence of such endorsements can be found in the academic curriculum and special journal issues and symposiums. Public value enthusiasts viewed this re-emergence as “a new public administration movement” that moves beyond traditional and new public management (Bryson et. al., 2014). It has been even coined as a “new paradigm” (Benington, 2015; O’flynn, 2007; Stoker, 2006). The last two decades have witnessed a plethora of symposiums and special journal issues on public value. Among them are the special issue on public value in the Australian Journal of Public Administration (AJPA) in 2004, the symposium on “Creating Public Value in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power’ in 2012, the special issue in Public Administration Review (PAR) in 2014, the special issues on public value in the American Review of Public Administration (ARPA) in 2014, and in the International Journal of Public Administration (IJPA) in 2016 and 2021 (Bryson et al., 2014; Fukumoto & Bozeman, 2019; Jørgensen & Rutgers, 2015; Van Der Wal, 2016). In many reputed educational programs, “from Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University to the Warwick Business School in the UK and the Melbourne Business School in Australia” (Rhodes & Wanna, 2007, pp. 406-407), public value has been central to training public managers. However, ambiguity remains among proponents of public value as to what it entails.

This paper examines the ideas of David Hume and their importance to American public administration writing and practice. Hume’s ideas on empiricism, scepticism, and constitutionalism have indirectly, via their impact on modern philosophy, encouraged both support for and criticism of empiricist approaches in public administration. Also, Hume’s ideas on constitutionalism, because of their influence on the Founders' writings and design, provide an important legacy for the practice of public administration. The paper argues that Hume’s notion of mitigated scepticism, as well as his constitutional ideas, have continuing relevance for the study and practice of contemporary public administration. This paper examines the ideas of David Hume and their importance to American public administration writing and practice. Hume’s ideas on empiricism, scepticism, and constitutionalism have indirectly, via their impact on modern philosophy, encouraged both support for and criticism of empiricist approaches in public administration. Also, Hume’s ideas on constitutionalism, because of their influence on the Founders' writings and design, provide an important legacy for the practice of public administration. The paper argues that Hume’s notion of mitigated scepticism, as well as his constitutional ideas, have continuing relevance for the study and practice of contemporary public administration. This paper examines the ideas of David Hume and their importance to American public administration writing and practice. Hume’s ideas on empiricism, scepticism, and constitutionalism have indirectly, via their impact on modern philosophy, encouraged both support for and criticism of empiricist approaches in public administration. Also, Hume’s ideas on constitutionalism, because of their influence on the Founders' writings and design, provide an important legacy for the practice of public administration. The paper argues that Hume’s notion of mitigated scepticism, as well as his constitutional ideas, have continuing relevance for the study and practice of contemporary public administration. This paper examines the ideas of David Hume and their importance to American public administration writing and practice. Hume’s ideas on empiricism, scepticism, and constitutionalism have indirectly, via their impact on modern philosophy, encouraged both support for and criticism of empiricist approaches in public administration. Also, Hume’s ideas on constitutionalism, because of their influence on the Founders' writings and design, provide an important legacy for the practice of public administration. The paper argues that Hume’s notion of mitigated scepticism, as well as his constitutional ideas, have continuing relevance for the study and practice of contemporary public administration.

R. G. S. Brown, The Management of Welfare: A Study of British Social Service Administration, Fontana/Collins, London, 1975, published jointly with Martin Robinson, Studies in Public Administration. 318 pp. £3.95, paper £1.50 - M. Spiers, Techniques and Public Administration: A Contextual Evaluation, Fontana/Collins, London, 1975, published jointly with Martin Robinson, Studies in Public Administration. 256 pp. £3.50, paper £1.25. - Volume 5 Issue 3

This article offers a conceptual framework and examines a range of cases around the theme of comparative studies in public policy and public administration. It sets the scene for a discussion about issues of comparative analysis in public policy and is aimed at generating debate regarding what comparative analysis can achieve. Finally, it turns our attention to what should be the underlying principles in comparative research and in comparative discourse.

Public values are being promoted as a core concept in the study of public administration, in particular, in discourses surrounding Moore’s public value management and Bozeman’s public value failure. This article outlines the approaches to the concept of values and public values. Particular attention is paid to the founding distinction between facts and values, which proves to be less clear than usually assumed. After discussing a range of possible characteristics of public values, an encompassing definition is attempted, which consequently has to accommodate opposing characteristics. It is concluded that the concept of public value is a fuzzy concept, and that is probably “as good as it gets.”

Global policy making is unfurling in distinctive ways above traditional nation-state policy processes. New practices of transnational administration are emerging inside international organizations but also alongside the trans-governmental networks of regulators and inside global public—private partnerships. Mainstream policy and public administration studies have tended to analyse the capacity of public sector hierarchies to globalize national policies. By contrast, this Handbook investigates new public spaces of transnational policy making, the design and delivery of global public goods and services, and the interdependent roles of transnational administrators who move between business bodies, government agencies, international organizations, and professional associations. This Handbook is novel in taking the concepts and theories of public administration and policy studies to get inside the black box of global governance. Transnational administration is a multi-actor and multi-scalar endeavour having manifestations at the local, urban, sub-regional, subnational, regional, national, supranational, supra-regional, transnational, international, and global scales. These scales of ‘local’ and ‘global’ are not neatly bounded and nested spaces but are articulated together in complex patterns of policy activity. These transnational patterns represent an opportunity and a challenge for the study of both public administration and policy studies. The contributors to this Handbook advance their analysis beyond the methodological nationalism of mainstream approaches to re-invigorate policy studies and public administration by considering policy processes that are transnational and the many new global spaces of administrative practice.

There have been few studies on topic difficulty in the public administration curriculum of African universities. This is further problematized by non-existent literature on the relationships between gender, future career interest and country of study on student difficulty in the study of public administration. This is a gap in the public administration literature which this study attempts to fill. The work is significant to the extent that our understanding of ‘where the shirt tights’ regarding topics that students find difficult will guide teachers and other stakeholders in applying appropriate remedies. The purpose of the study is to find out (a) what topics in public administration students find difficult to learn; (b) if there are statistically significant relationship between gender and concept difficulty in the study of public administration in African universities; (c) if there are statistically significant relationship between student’s career interest and concept difficulty in the study of public administration; and (d) if there are statistically significant relationship between country of study and concept difficulty in the study of public administration. Quantitative method was employed with sample (N = 650). The study reports bureaucracy, decentralization, public policy and politics as moderately difficult; significant relationship between gender and concept difficulty; and significant relationship between student future career interest and concept difficulty. We suggest curriculum development that would improve students’ knowledge by laying more emphasis on the perceived difficult areas in the study of public administration, gender, and encourage early students’ interest in public sector career choices.