Patrick Overeem and Jelle Verhoef pose a serious challenge to Hendrik Wagenaar and Michael Spicer, both of whom attempt to derive prescriptive conclusions for public administration from value pluralism (VP). Wagenaar and Spicer have responded with puzzlement, adding the counter-charge that Overeem and Verhoef have misinterpreted their views. Indeed, there is misinterpretation afoot, but the culprits are Wagenaar and Spicer. Although they both claim to have adopted VP, neither demonstrates an adequate grasp of that position. Consequently, they miss the force of Overeem and Verhoef’s arguments, and their responses introduce new confusions.
BerlinI. (1990). The crooked timber of humanity. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
2.
BerlinI. (2002). Liberty. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
CrowderG. (2002). Liberalism and value pluralism. London, England: Continuum Books.
4.
GalstonW. (2002). Liberal pluralism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
GrayJ. (2000). Two faces of liberalism. New York, NY: The New Press.
6.
HampshireS. (2000). Justice is conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
HildebrandD. (2003). Beyond realism & antirealism: John Dewey and theneopragmatists. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
8.
KekesJ. (1993). The morality of pluralism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
KekesJ. (1998). A case for conservatism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
OvereemP.VerhoefJ. (2014). Moral dilemmas, theoretical confusion: Value pluralism and its supposed implications for public administration. Administration & Society, 46, 986-1009.
11.
RortyR. (1989). Contingency, irony, solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
SpicerP. (2001). Value pluralism and its implications for American public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 23, 507-528.
13.
SpicerP. (2010). In defense of politics in public administration: A value pluralist perspective. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
14.
SpicerP. (2014). In defense of value pluralism in public administration. Administration & Society, 46, 1010-1019.
15.
WagenaarH. C. (1999). Value pluralism in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21, 441-449.
16.
WagenaarH. C. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
17.
WagenaarH. C. (2014). The necessity of value pluralism in administrative practice: A reply to Overeem. Administration & Society, 46, 1020-1028.
