The Paradox of Transforming Public Administration

Abstract

Directing organizational change requires the ability to interpret—and reinterpret—the meanings customarily ascribed to crucial institutional values, norms, and events. If public managers are prepared to live with contradiction, conflict, and ambiguity, they can gain a new perspective on the complex social process of organizational change. An appreciation of the inherent tensions among crucial constructs in public administration—the binary opposition of bureaucracy and democracy, leadership and representation, policy making and implementation, centralization and decentralization, and the like—would allow administrators to determine if it is possible to reconcile tensions in particular instances. One element of contradiction in contemporary public administration is found in the debate concerning “modern” and “postmodern” perspectives of administrative practice, representing conflicting interpretations of substantive and normative aspects of institutional change. This study probes this issue at the intersection of the social and administrative sciences with administrative practice and also examines what the authors see as the paradoxical interplay of postmodernist theory, critical theory, and theories of political and economic development. An ancillary purpose is to assess the prospective value of critical-modern and postmodernist models for contemporary public administration.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alcazar, J. (1992). Las Consequencias de la Modernidad de Anthony Giddens [The consequences of Anthony Giddens' modernism]. Sociologica, 7, 245-249.

Bell, D. (1973). The coming of postindustrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

Bell, D. (1976). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New York: Basic Books.

Berger, P. , Berger, B. , & Kellner, H. (1973). The homeless mind: Modernization and consciousness. New York: Vintage.

Best, S. , & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. New York: Guilford.

Bolman, L. G. , & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Callinicos, A. (1990). Against postmodernism: A Marxist critique. New York: St. Martin's.

Connor, S. (1989). Postmodernist culture: An introduction to theories of the contemporary. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Derrida, J. (1973). Speech and phenomena (D. B. Allison, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

10.

Derrida, J. (1981a). Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

11.

Derrida, J. (1981b). Margins of philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Durkheim, E. (1938). The rules of sociological method. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

13.

Escobar, A. (1992). Imagining a post-development era? Critical thought, development and social movements. Social Text, 31-32, 20-56.

14.

Goldman, R. , & Papson, S. (1994). The postmodernism that failed. In D. Dickens & A. Fontana (Eds.), Postmodernism and social inquiry (pp. 224-253). New York: Guilford.

15.

Gómez Sánchez, L. E. (1988). Deconstrucción o Nueva Síntesis: Aproximaciones Críticas a la Noción de Postmodernidad [Deconstruction of new synthesis: Critical assessments and the notion of postmodernism]. Estudios Sociológicos, 6, 603-625.

16.

Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of Western sociology. New York: Basic Books.

17.

Haber, H. F. (1994). Beyond postmodern politics. London: Routledge.

18.

Habermas, J. (1972). Toward a rational society. London: Heinemann.

19.

Habermas, J. (1981). Mondernity versus postmodernity. New German Critique, 22, 3-14.

20.

Habermas, J. (1983). Neoconservative culture criticism in the United States and West Germany. Telos, 16, 79-89.

21.

Habermas, J. (1986). Autonomy and domination ( P. Dews , Ed. & Trans.). London: Verso.

22.

Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

23.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

24.

Handy, C. B. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

25.

Horkheimer, M. , & Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Seabury.

26.

Hoy, D. (1985). Jacques Derrida. In Q. Skinner (Ed.), The return of grand theory in the human sciences (pp. 41-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

28.

Jun, J. S. (1994). Philosophy of administration. Seoul, Korea: Daeyoung Moonhwa International.

29.

Kainz, H. P. (1988). Paradox, dialectic, and system. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

30.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Linstead, S. (1993). Deconstruction in the study of organizations. In J. Hassard & M. Parker (Eds.), Postmodernism and organizations (pp. 49-70). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

32.

Lyon, D. (1994). Postmodernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

33.

Lyotard, J. -F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

34.

Ortega, J. (1995). Identidad y Postmodernidad en América Latina [Identity and postmodernism in Latin America]. Socialismo y Participación, 70, 41-52.

35.

Quinn, R. E. , & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.). (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Boston: Ballinger.

36.

Racevskis, K. (1993). Postmodernism and the search for Enlightenment. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

37.

Reed, M. (1993). Organizations and modernity: Continuity and discontinuity in organization theory. In J. Hassard & M. Parker (Eds.), Postmodernism and organizations (pp. 163-182). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

38.

Toffler, A. (1990). The third wave. New York: William Morrow.

39.

Weber, M. (1971). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Unwin.