In this article, I demonstrate how a humanity-driven approach to Public Administration (PA) can be used to resolve macro-level value conflicts. I define a humanity-driven approach to PA as one that prioritizes human emotion, lived-experience, perceptions, and acceptance at all stages of governing. I then present three value conflicts in PA, and apply a humanity-driven approach to reclassify conflicts into value hierarchies that provide a roadmap for conducting future research and theory development. The work builds on existing research prioritizing social equity, lived experience, and the resident-state interaction in the application of the administrative state.
AdamsG. B.BalfourD. L. (2016). Public-service ethics and administrative evil: Prospects and problems. In George FredericksonH.GhereR. K. (Eds.), Ethics in public management (pp. 122–146). Routledge.
2.
AdamG. B. (2011). The problem of administrative evil in a culture of technical rationality. Public Integrity, 13(3), 275–286.
3.
BattaglioR. P.Jr.BelardinelliP.BelléN.CantarelliP. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304–320.
4.
CairneyP. (2020). The myth of “evidence-based policymaking” in a decentred state. Public Policy and Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720905016
5.
FredericksonH. G.SmithK. B.LarimerC. W.LicariM. J. (2012). The public administration theory primer. Westview Press.
6.
FordM. R. (2017). The consequences of governance fragmentation. Lexington Books.
7.
FordM. R.IhrkeD. M. (2019). Perceptions are reality: A framework for understanding governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(2), 129–147.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.JilkeS.OlsenA. L.TummersL. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56.
10.
GuyM. E. (2019). Expanding the toolbox: Why the citizen-state encounter demands it. Public Performance & Management Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1677255
11.
GuyM. E.MastracciS. H. (2018). Making the affective turn: The importance of feelings in theory, praxis, and citizenship. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 40(4), 281–288.
12.
GuyM. E.McCandlessS. A. (2012). Social equity: Its legacy, its promise. Public Administration Review, 72(Suppl. 1), S5–S13.
13.
HoffmanM. C.PyneJ.GajewskiM. (2012). The ten masks of administrative evil. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(1), 125–132.
14.
HummelR. P. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51, 31–41.
15.
JohnsonN. J.SvaraJ. H. (2011). Justice for all: Promoting social equity in public administration. M. E. Sharpe.
16.
JosP. H. (2016). Advancing social equity: Proceduralism in the new governance. Administration & Society, 48(6), 760–780.
17.
KasdanO. D. (2020). Toward a theory of behavioral public administration. International Review of Administrative Science, 86(4), 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318801506
18.
KettlD. F. (2017). Can governments earn our trust?Polity Press.
19.
KettlD. F. (2018). The politics of the administrative process (7th ed.). SAGE.
20.
LavertuS. (2016). We all need help: “Big data” and the mismeasure of public administration. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 864–872.
MoynihanD. P. (2018). A great schism approaching? Towards a micro and macro public administration. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 1(1), 1–8.
23.
MurnameR. J.WillettJ. B. (2011). Methods matter. Oxford University Press.
24.
NisarA. M. (2020). Practitioner as the imaginary father of public administration: A psychoanalytic critique. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(1), 44–61.
RobertsA. (2020a). Bridging levels of public administration: How macro shapes meso and micro. Administration & Society, 52(4), 631–656.
29.
RobertsA. (2020b). The third and fatal shock: How pandemic killed the millennial paradigm. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13223
30.
RutgersM. R. (2008). Sorting out public values? On the contingency of value classification in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30(1), 92–113.
31.
SeldenS. C.BrewerG. A.BrudneyJ. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration & Society, 31(2), 171–204.
32.
SimonH. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). The Free Press.
33.
SpicerM. W. (2004). Public administration, the history of ideas, and the reinventing government movement. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 353–362.
34.
SpicerM. W. (2009). Value conflict and legal reasoning in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(4), 537–555.
35.
StillmanR. J. (1999). Preface to public administration (2nd ed.). Chatelaine Press.
36.
SvaraJ. (1990). Official leadership in the city: Patterns of conflict and cooperation. Oxford University Press.
37.
ThacherD.ReinM. (2004). Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance, 17(4), 457–486.
38.
WangJ.McFaddenE. S. (2016). The absence of social equity measurement in municipal service privatization: Are residents feeling dumped on?State and Local Government Review, 48(1), 21–29.
39.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.
