Recent articles in Administration & Society have probed the question of administrative discretion, with most advocating an expanded sphere of responsibility for the administrator. This article argues that calls for greater discretion are useful from a normative viewpoint, but that administrative practice is constrained by the relationship between the administrator and the governing body. A typology of discretion is offered which distinguishes between normative theory and descriptive theory, or theory-in-use. An examination is made of the literature and practice of local administration as a locus for evaluating how administrators determine their sphere of discretion in daily practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adrian, C. R. (1958). A study of three communities. Public Administration Review, 18, 208-213.
2.
Booth, D. A. (1968). Are elected mayors a threat to managers?Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 572-589.
3.
Box, R. C. (1990). The economic model of administrative behavior in local government (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2513.
4.
Boynton, R. P. , & Wright, D. S. (1971). Mayor-manager relationships in large council-manager cities: A reinterpretation. Public Administration Review, 31, 28-36.
5.
Cooper, T. L. (1984). Public administration in an age of scarcity: A citizenship role for public administrators. In J. Rabin &J. S. Bowman (Eds.),Politics and administration: Woodrow Wilson and American public administration (pp. 297-314). New York: Marcel Dekker.
6.
Cooper, T. L. (1987). Hierarchy, virtue, and the practice of public administration: A perspective for normative ethics. Public Administration Review, 47, 320-328.
7.
Fannin, W. R. (1983). City manager policy roles as a source of city council/city manager conflict. International Journal of Public Administration, 5, 381-399.
8.
Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in representative government. Public Administration Review, 1, 335-350.
9.
Fox, C. J. , & Cochran, C. E. (1990). Discretion advocacy in public administration theory: Toward a Platonic guardian class?Administration & Society, 22, 249-271.
10.
Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New public administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
11.
Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In C. J. Friedrich & E. S. Mason (Eds.), Public policy (pp. 3-24). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
12.
Henry, C. T. (1982). A profession under stress. Public Management, 64, 10-13.
13.
Jos, P. H. (1990). Administrative responsibility revisited: Moral consensus and moral autonomy. Administration & Society, 22, 228-248.
14.
Kammerer, G. M. (1964). Role diversity of city managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 421-442.
15.
Logan, J. R. , & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California.
16.
Loveridge, R. O. (1971). City managers in legislative politics. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
17.
Lovrich, N. P. (1981). Professional ethics and the public interest: Sources of judgment. Public Personnel Management Journal, 10, 87-92.
18.
Mendonsa, A. A. (1977). Council-manager relations and the changing community environment. Public Management, 59(9), 5-7.
19.
Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739-777.
20.
Nalbandian, J. (1987). The evolution of local governance: A new democracy. Public Management, 69(6), 2-5.
21.
Nalbandian, J. (1989). The contemporary role of city managers. American Review of Public Administration, 19, 261-278.
22.
Nalbandian, J. (1990). Tenets of contemporary professionalism in local government. Public Administration Review, 50, 654-662.
23.
Ostrom, V. (1973). The intellectual crisis in American public administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
24.
O'Toole, L. J. (1990). Legitimacy, legitimation, and public administration. Administration & Society, 22, 58-65.
25.
Protasel, G. J. (1988). Abandonments of the council-manager plan: A new institutionalist perspective. Public Administration Review, 48, 807-812.
26.
Schubert, G. A. (1957). "The public interest" in administrative decision-making: Theorem, theosophy, or theory?American Political Science Review, 51, 346-368.
27.
Skaggs, S. M. (1977). View from the elected official. Public Management, 59(9), 8-10.
28.
Sparrow, G. (1985). The emerging chief executive: The San Diego experience. National Civic Review, 74, 538-547.
29.
Spicer, M. W. (1990). A contractarian approach to public administration. Administration & Society, 22, 303-316.
30.
Stever, J. A. (1990). The dual image of the administrator in progressive administrative theory. Administration & Society, 22, 39-57.
31.
Stillman R. J. (1974). The rise of the city manager: A public professional in local government. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
32.
Stillman, R. J. (1982). Local public management in transition. Public Management, 64(5), 2-9.
33.
Svara, J. H. (1985). Dichotomy and duality: Reconceptualizing the relationship between policy and administration in council-manager cities. Public Administration Review, 45, 221-232.
34.
Svara, J. H. (1987). Mayoral leadership in council-manager cities: Preconditions versus preconceptions. Journal of Politics, 49, 207-227.
35.
Thompson, V. A. (1975). Without sympathy or enthusiasm: The problem of administrative compassion. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
36.
Waldo, D. (1981). The enterprise of public administration. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp.
37.
Wamsley, G. L. , Goodsell, C. T., Rohr, J. A., Stivers, C. M., White, O. F., & Wolf, J. F. (1987). The public administration and the governance process: Refocusing the American dialogue. In R. C. Chandler (Ed.), A centennial history of the American Administrative state (pp. 291-317). New York: Free Press.
38.
Whitaker, G. P. , & DeHoog, R. H. (1991). City managers under fire: How conflict leads to turnover. Public Administration Review, 51, 156-165.
39.
White, O. F. , & McSwain, D. J. (1990). The phoenix project: Raising a new image of public administration from the ashes of the past. Administration & Society, 22, 3-38.
