Week 3 - Assignment: Write a Personal Memo Relating Management and Organizational Behavior to Your Dissertation

Richard C. Box Gary S. Marshall BJ. Reed Christine M. Reed University of Nebraska at Omaha

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy

The authors are concerned that a remaining refuge of substantive democracy in America, the public sector, is in danger of abandoning it in favor of the market model of management. They argue &iat contemporary American democracy is confined to a shrunken procedural remnant of its earlier substantive form. The classical repuUican model of citizen involvement faded with the rise of liberal capitalist society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Capitalism and democracy coexist in a society emphasizing procedural protection of individual liberties rather than substantive questions of individual development. Today's market model of government in the form of New Public Management goes beyond earlier "reforms," Hireatening to eliminate democracy as a guiding prin- ciple in public-sector management. The authors discuss the usefulness of a collaborative model of administrative practice in preserving the value of democracy in public administration.

Introduction: The Challenge This is an article about the relationship between Ameri-

can democracy and public administration in a time when the public sector is under considerable pressure to adopt the values and operational techniques of the private mar- ket sector. We are concerned about the nature of contem- porary American democracy and the effect it has on people and the physical environment. Today, despite the success of American democracy in securing individual liberties and the material success of a wealthy society that pro- vides more goods and services to a broader range of Americans than ever before, vexing problems remain: poverty, poor-quality education, inequalities of race, gen- der, and wealth, crime and violence, destruction of for- est, farmland, wildlife habitat and other natural resources, and pollution of air and water.

These are not trivial, new, or surprising problems, and the technology and resources are, for the most part, avail- able to make significant improvements. One reason the problems persist is that the public lacks the knowledge and political influence to give public administrative agencies a mandate to solve them. Various barriers stand in the way, such as control of information and the policy-making pro- cess by interest groups and economic elites, inertia in bu-

Richard C. Box is a public administration faculty member at the University af Nebraska at Omaha, where he is chair af the doctaral program and editor of Administrative Theory and Praxis, the journal of the Public Administration Theory Network. He worked in local governments in Oregon and California for 13 years before completing his doctorate at the University of Southern California in 1990. His published research focuses on democracy and the theory and practice of community governance. Email: [email protected].

Gary S. Marshall is an associate professor in the Department of Public Ad- ministration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He is a coordinator for the Public Administration Theory Network, an international network of pro- fessionals interested in the advancement of public administration theory. His research interests include public administration theory, public policy media- tion, and human resource development. His work can be found in Public Administration Review, Administrative Theory and Praxis, American Behav- ioral Scientist, American Review of Public Administration, and Journal of Public Affairs Educotion. Email: [email protected].

B.J. Reed has been an the faculty af the University of Nebraska at Omaha since 1982 and serves as dean of the College of Public Affairs and Commu- nity Service. He has published in several journals in public administration and is the author of books on economic development, strategic planning, financial administration, and intergovernmental management. He serves on the national council of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration and is past recipient of the Elmer Stoats Career Public Service Award. Email: [email protected].

Christine M. Reed is a professor in the Department of Public Administra- tion at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. She joined the faculty at UNO in 1982, and recently she served a five-year term as interim associ- ate dean for graduate studies and associate vice chancellor for research and dean of graduate studies, returning to the PA faculty in the fall of 2000. Her teaching and research interests are administrative law and pub- lic administration iheory. She is currently the chair of the Section on Public Law and Administration of ASPA, as well as a member of the editoriol boards of Public Administration Review and Administrative Theory and Proxis. Email: [email protected].

608 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 6 1 , No. 5

reaucratic organizations, and resistance by "experts" to democratic governance (McSwite 1997; Yankelovich 1991). The resulting disconnect between the potential wishes of an informed populace and the condition of soci- ety is as old as the idea of democracy. In 1927, John Dewey called it "the problem of the public" (1985, 208, emphasis in original).

One could argue that "the people" have chosen an equi- librium in the balance between democracy and efficiency (Okun 1975) that includes an instrumental, efficient pub- lic administration, one that does not challenge the status quo or unilaterally set out to solve problems. But this ar- gument is based on the questionable assumption that citi- zens possess relatively complete knowledge of the condi- tion of society, along with the ability to effectively wield the available political and institutional tools to effect change. Instead, the contemporary situation appears to us to be the result of constraints imposed upon public action by what may be termed "liberal democracy in a capitalist setting." By "liberal" we mean the classical, Lockean view of the relationship of the individual to society from the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centu- ries, one that emphasizes protecting the individual from society. It is the polar opposite of the older, classical, re- publican tradition emphasizing the social nature of the in- dividual in constructing society jointly with others. By "capitalist" we mean a society based on the idea that each individual economic actor should be relatively free to ac- cumulate wealth independently from social control or col- lective determination of the "public good."

Liberal democracy "is capable of fiercely resisting ev- ery assault on the individual—his privacy, his property, his interests, and his rights—but is far less effective in resist- ing assaults on community or justice or citizenship or par- ticipation" (Barber 1984,4). This negative and procedural, rather than positive and substantive, conception of democ- racy has a solid foundation in American political thought, but so does a more substantive view of democracy as "a quality pervading the whole life and operation of a national or smaller community, or if you like a kind of society, a whole set of reciprocal relations between the people who make up the nation or other unit" (Macpherson 1977,5-6, emphasis in original). However, the problems remain, the public sector moves to fashion itself after private business, and we ask what it is about American democracy that al- lows this to occur. We further ask what the position of a "self-aware" (Waldo 1981, 10-11) public administration should be in such circumstances. As the problems are not new, our questions are time-worn companions to the study of public administration, though the answers have changed over the decades. Public administrators play an important role in the formulation and implementation of public policy; if they do not value and promote a substantive model of

democracy, the likelihood of constructively dealing with pressing public problems decreases significantly.

In this article, we argue that democracy as we know it is a shadow of the ideal, and modeling the public sector after the private may aggravate this problem. After examining the history and condition of democracy, we explore the nature of the current wave of governmental "reform." Plac- ing it in historical context, we show that, while earlier re- form efforts included democracy as a central value (even if as a facade), today's reform efforts have largely side- stepped the question of democracy altogether, weakening the connection between citizens and the broader commu- nity. Next, we discuss the contemporary meanings of "com- munity" and "democracy" using managed health care as an example, discovering that imposing the market model on citizens and administrators does not support democratic self-determination.

Recently, Jane Mansbridge (1999, 706) argued that we are in a "holding pattern" in relation to democracy: Today, "not many Americans care about making this country more democratic," but "at some point a larger fraction of the populace will come to care deeply about democracy again. When they do, several scholarly traditions have ideas that will help." Though Mansbridge may not have meant to in- clude public administration in the list of traditions that might help, we believe our field has something to offer in the recovery of substantive democracy. Thus, we conclude our analysis of the condition of democracy with thoughts about implications for public administration and the pos- sibility of moving toward a collaborative, as opposed to a market-oriented, model of public practice.

Rediscovering Substantive Democracy In the twentieth century, Americans have largely come

to accept the procedural view of democracy associated with classical liberalism, which "as a philosophy is rooted in the twin ideas of individualism—negative liberty—and a distrust of government.... In this context, anything and everything, including democracy, take second place" (Hollinger 1996, 7). In liberal democracy, the role of citi- zen consists of voting for representatives who act on be- half of their constituents. Substantive issues of social jus- tice, economic inequality, and the relationship of capitalism and the physical environment are addressed in the "public space" when problems become so severe they threaten sta- bility or safety (for example, social conditions during the Depression, or destruction of the ozone layer).

Separating the procedural and substantive spheres in democracy leaves unanswered questions about "outcomes, conditions of people's lives, and realization of all people's political potential that made democracy a politically ex- plosive concept in the past" (Adams et al. 1990, 220). Is-

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy 609

sues that affect the whole citizenry are dealt with in the context of liberal democracy, tightly controlling the extent to which the public, through institutions of govemment, can take action. The contemporary definition of democ- racy is characterized by the split between procedure and substance, with the public sphere being limited largely to questions of process. As Ellen Wood puts it, "The very condition that makes it possible to define democracy as we do in modem liberal capitalist societies is the separa- tion and enclosure of the economic sphere and its invul- nerability to democratic power" (1996, 235).

Bowles and Gintis (1987, 41-62) suggest that Ameri- can democracy has gone through several "accommoda- tions" that provided temporary equilibria between prop- erty and personal rights. The first, the Lockean accommodation, limited political rights to the propertied classes, who would not be a threat to the economic order. This was followed in the nineteenth century by the Jeffersonian accommodation, which was based on abun- dant land and the idea that every free-bom male would have a chance to be a landowner and share in the economic advance of the nation.

The Madisonian accommodation of the late nineteenth century and into the mid-twentieth century protected the "few from the many" by allowing pluralist competition to cancel out demands by the masses that might threaten the elite. After World War II, the Keynesian accommodation placated citizens with economic success and egalitarian economic policies. Today, it is difficult to predict how the globalization of economics and the expansion of market concepts into the public sector will affect democracy and public service, or to foresee the nature of the current and future accommodation.

During the latter half of the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century, citizens ceded control of public- sector policy making and implementation to bureaucratic professionalism. This made sense as part of building an administrative state to meet the demands of a growing na- tion, wars, depression, and so on. But now people mistrust the public sphere, regarding politicians as corrupt, bureau- crats as self-serving and inefficient, and goveming as "a matter of invisible negotiations conducted in govemment offices by public officials and private interests" (King and Stivers 1998b, 15).

This gloomy view is countered somewhat by the long history of substantive democracy in American thought, indicated by the views of the anti-Federalists and other founding-era figures such as Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's view of democracy included both classical liberal protec- tion of individual liberty and a classical republican ele- ment, drawn from the ancient Greeks and from eighteenth- century Scottish moral philosophers, in which democracy begins with people actively shaping a society grounded in

social relationships (Sheldon 1991; Wills 1979). For Jefferson govemment is not top-down, but begins with the individual in a "pyramid structure ... in which each higher level is held directly and immediately accountable to its next lower level" (Matthews 1986, 126).

The republican philosophy included "the idea that lib- erty is participation in govemment and therefore is self- govemment" (Dagger 1997, 17). Jefferson's "radical de- mocracy" required "an egalitarian redistribution—and redefinition—of the social good(s) on an ongoing basis ... and govemments must either be stmctured or dissolved and restmctured" to achieve that goal (Matthews 1986, 122). The ideal of citizen self-govemance can be found in the twentieth century as well. In the early part of the cen- tury, John Dewey envisioned a future democracy in which the political and economic spheres would be joined. De- mocracy would be an ongoing process of citizens working toward cooperative, shared govemance of social institu- tions, including those of the market (Campbell 1996,177- 84). In Dilemmas of a Pluralist Democracy (1982), Rob- ert Dahl argued that it might be possible to mitigate some of the problems of liberal democracy by ensuring a fair distribution of wealth and making some economic deci- sions subject to democratic control. In his book. Strong Democracy (1984), Benjamin Barber advocated a shift from the "weak," liberal version of democracy to a form he described in this way: "Strong democracy is a distinc- tively modem form of participatory democracy. It rests on the idea of a self-goveming community of citizens who are united less by homogeneous interests than by civic education and who are made capable of common purpose and mutual action by virtue of their civic attitudes and par- ticipatory institutions rather than their altruism or good nature" (117).

Scholars have cautioned against assuming that a more active, substantive, "communitarian" democracy will re- sult in a "better" community (Conway 1996). They also note that a pure, classical, republican society may have serious consequences for individual liberty. Societies of the past that exhibited a greater commitment to shared govemance often did so at the expense of groups excluded from the definition of citizenship, such as women, out- siders, and slaves in ancient Athens (Phillips 1993). How- ever, it may not be necessary to abandon hard-earned progress on pluralism and individual rights and liberties to gain ground on substantive democracy (Dagger 1997, 3-7). Nor need substantive democracy represent an ex- treme departure from what we know and feel comfort- able with today.

There is not space here, even if we felt equipped for the task, to construct a fully developed description of what our society would be like if it were more oriented toward substantive democracy. With many other thinkers, the au-

610 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 6 1 , No. 5

thors cited in the preceding paragraphs have examined as- pects of the economy, social life, the voluntary sector, and govemment, offering ideas that emphasize substance and the normative character of governance as well as process and protection of rights. For the limited purposes of this essay, our conception of the ideal of substantive democ- racy may be summarized as a setting in which people may, if they choose, take part in goveming themselves with a minimum of interference or resistance (for example, from economic or other elites, or administrative "experts"), and without being required to assume in advance a uniform or universal set of constraints (such as representative systems of decision making, or the normative, classical liberal view of the proper sphere of citizen action). This is a setting that allows people to create a society and future through in- formed dialogue and exchange of ideas (the classical re- publican model), in addition to the traditional American concem with defining rights and protecting and distinguish- ing the individual from the collectivity (the classical lib- eral model). It allows people to freely discuss their values and preferences absent the limitations of a predetermined split between the public (political) sphere and the private (economic) sphere. Thus, substantive democracy involves rekindling a public discourse about the purposes of collec- tive action, accepting a role for citizens and public admin- istrators in shaping the future.

Public administration must be a key actor in any effort to rediscover substantive democracy because of the com- plexity of providing public services in contemporary soci- ety. Creating new forms of public discourse and imple- menting the policy outcomes requires attention to the administrative apparatus of govemment and to the inter- play of policy formulation and implementation. The task of rediscovering substantive democracy is made more dif- ficult by the spread, over the past three decades, of eco- nomic theory throughout the social sciences, "a phenom- enon commonly referred to as 'economic imperialism'" (Udehn 1996, 1). Over the past decade or two in the field of public administration, economic theory has become an important normative infiuence on the management of public organizations and their relationship to the broader society. As a result, elements of New Public Management (NPM) are the expected mode of operation for many public agen- cies in the United States and in a number of other nations (Ketd 1997).

This market-based model includes the familiar elements of shrinking govemment and making administration more efficient through use of private-sector performance-man- agement and motivation techniques. It advocates treating citizens like customers, separating public administrators from the public policy process, and convincing both that govemment is nothing more than a business within the public sector. The assumption is that people are rational

self-maximizers who compete with others and respond primarily to economic incentives. When such behavior occurs, it may be efficient in some sense, but it may also pose a threat to democratic govemance (Terry 1998).

This, then, is the problem of democracy and public ser- vice in a postindustrial, liberal capitalist society. It is a so- ciety in which democracy is equated with equal procedural and personal rights, but not democratic determination of economic property rights. To the extent this situation is at variance with the American ideal of democracy, today we have something of a false democracy. Liberal capitalism and procedural democracy displaced the earlier republi- can vision (Sandel 1996) as Americans built the profes- sional, bureaucratic, administrative state. Today the trend continues as the public sphere of life is increasingly occu- pied by the behaviors and values of the individualistic eco- nomic market. The effect on public administration is that the ideal public sector is thought to be small in size, effi- cient, and subservient, while simultaneously providing a broad range of effective, expertly mn services. This is para- doxical and frustrating, but not surprising given the politi- cal culture associated with liberal capitalist democracy.

The Difference of New Public Management

In many ways. New Public Management has character- istics of previous management reform efforts, particularly in the twentieth century. The progressive movement in- cluded the rise of the city manager form of govemment, the Hoover and Brownlow Commission recommendations, management by objectives, and program, planning, and budgeting systems, all of which spoke to values of man- agement efficiency, effectiveness, and performance im- provement that are so much a part of NPM. Rosenbloom refers to this and the "public administration orthodoxy" reflected in the politics-administration dichotomy (Rosenbloom 1993, 503). However, we argue that these were all couched or justified within the framework of broader democratic values. Moe (1994) makes a similar point about the National Performance Review (NPR), not- ing that NPR was fundamentally different from previous reforms, which "all emphasized the need for democratic accountability of departmental and agency officers to the President and his central management agencies and through these institutions to the Congress" (112). Though the NPR is different in several ways from NPM, they share a focus on economic, market-based thinking in govemment.

The progressive movement began as a reaction against political machines and perceived subversion of democratic values through corruption and patronage systems that con- trolled who was elected to political office and who was rewarded with govemment employment. The rise of man-

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy 611

agement reforms during this period focused on broaden- ing participation and increasing access to elected office and the political process. Judd argues that there was a clear class bias in this effort, in that "municipal reformers shared a conviction that it was their responsibility to educate and instruct the lower classes about good government" (Judd 1988, 89). Judd also links this movement to the rise of "municipal experts." Similar arguments were made in the South in advocating for wresting control of the political process from the segregationist elements of the Democratic Party and "reforming" the political process.

Richard Childs, a founder of the city manager form of government and an excellent example of the progressive management-reform spirit, said the purpose of the coun- cil-manager plan is "not good government... but demo- cratic government" (Childs 1952, 141). Childs's intent was for the city manager form to achieve a "practical working of the democratic process" that would include "sensitive responsiveness" that will "diligently cater to the sovereign people" (141). This is not to say that pro- gressive reformers embraced these values or were even sympathetic to them in operation. Stivers (1995) has been critical of the motives of "bureau men" whose concerns about economy and efficiency, in her view, far outweighed social welfare interests. While one can debate whether the primary focus of progressive reformers was service or administrative efficiency (Schachter 1997), there is no doubt that preserving democratic values was a key argu- ment used to justify these efforts. Efficiency was always offered as a way to help achieve democratic accountabil- ity. Many of the management reforms proposed by the Taft, Brownlow, and Hoover commissions were also couched in terms of preserving democratic values. Luther Gulick, the driving force behind the Brownlow Commis- sion, was focused on how to link democratic leadership and accountability (Wamsley and Dudley 1998,329). The Brownlow Commission, describing government effi- ciency, stated the following: "The efficiency of govern- ment rests upon two factors: the consent of the governed and good management. In a democracy consent may be achieved readily, though not without some effort as it is the cornerstone of the Constitution. Efficient management in a democracy is a factor of peculiar significance" (President's Committee 1937, 2-3).

The Hoover Commission framed its recommendations primarily in terms of the executive branch's accountabil- ity to Congress and the need to fix responsibility to the people, noting that "responsibility and accountability are impossible without authority" (Commission on Organi- zation 1949, 154). Mosher and Appleby both note the concerns, however, that existed over the rise of profes- sional management during this period. Mosher wrote that threats to public service and the "morality" of the service

during this time included the potential move toward "the corporate, the professional perspective and away from that of the general interest" (1982, 210). Appleby (1952) ex- pressed concern about protecting democratic values and argued that two factors were most critical: exposing ad- ministrators and their decisions to the electoral process, and a bureaucratic hierarchy that forces managerial deci- sions to be reviewed by broader and more politically aware upper level administrators.

As Arnold (1998) notes, the NPR reflects a very differ- ent orientation than previous reforms, even those that oc- curred under Carter and Reagan. As with NPM, this differ- ence is that NPR makes little or no distinction between the role of government and the role of the marketplace. Jn fact, NPR moves beyond the concept of managing government organizations like a business to the idea that business itself should perform governmental functions. Arnold (1998) and Rosenbloom (1993) both note that NPR has a distinctively populist cast combined with a heavy focus on public choice economics. Rosenbloom refers to NPR's use of "neo-popu- list" prescriptions that advocate "decentralization, compe- tition, deregulation, load-shedding, privatization, user fees, and 'enterprise' culture" (506).

Managerial ism and New Public Management have been worldwide phenomena. Democratic regimes in New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom have all imple- mented some range of reforms consistent with NPM (Eggers 1997; Pollitt 1993; Stewart and Kimber 1996). Malta and Austria have also implemented NPM elements (Maor 1999). Each of these initiatives has had some com- bination of elements including cost cutting, creating of separate agencies or "business enterprises" to eliminate traditional bureaucracies, separating the purchaser of goods from the provider of those goods, introducing market mechanisms, decentralizing management authority, intro- ducing performance-management systems, moving away from tenure-like civil service systems to contractual and pay-for-performance personnel systems, and increasing use of customer-focused quality improvement systems (Armstrong 1998, 13).

Credit for the impetus of these reforms is given to Ameri- can ideas, "particularly the ideas of American public choice economists" (Orchard 1998, 19-20). Pollitt (1993) links managerialism to Erederick Taylor and to Luther Gulick. While the ideas may have come from intellectual tradi- tions in the United States, their implementation has pri- marily occurred in other countries. They are being imple- mented in very different ways, largely as a result of legal, social, political, and historical traditions that exist in each country. New Zealand is most often cited as "leading the way" in implementing NPM beginning in 1984. However, Pollitt notes that the United Kingdom had actually begun implementing such reforms in the mid- to late 1970s (52).

612 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 61, No. 5

It is clear that New Zealand's reforms have been the most substantial and ongoing, for several reasons. New Zealand's initiative started with a Labour government and not with the more conservative National Party, but the NPM initiatives were supported by both. Second, New Zealand has no written constitution, a unitary rather than federated political system, a unicameral legislature, and a nonparti- san civil service. All these factors made implementation much easier to accomplish (Eggers 1997, 35-7). Coun- tries with federal systems like Australia have had mixed experience with implementing NPM. This is the primary reason managerialism reforms have had less impact in the United States, where the federal structure is the most de- centralized in the world. Also, NPM initiatives in the United States started locally, whereas in other nations they started at the national level (Osbome and Gaebler 1993).

If success is defmed by the elements of NPM, some success has been achieved. Privatization of traditional gov- ernment functions has been dramatic in New Zealand. In addition, there has been a clear demarcation between civil service managers and policy decisions made by political executives (Eggers 1997; Maor 1999). Australian public service has become less bureaucratic in terms of layers of hierarchy, rigidity of duties and centralization of functions (Stewart and Kimber 1996, 47-9).

However, if one defines success as substantive involve- ment of citizens in shaping the direction of policy that af- fects their lives, there is little indication of such involve- ment beyond what existed before NPM implementation began. As Pollitt (1993) notes, citizenship is an awkward concept for those promoting managerialism, where the term "customer" is more common. He argues that the collectiv- ist view of citizenship is "alien to an individualist model where the market is the chief focus of transactions and values" (125-6). Armstrong (1998) notes in his assessment of Australian implementation of NPM that the concept of meeting customer needs "ignores the ability of customers to articulate their needs or make choices, either because they are uninformed or do not have the resources to do so" (23-5). Rhodes further argues that in Australia, "there is no evidence to show that (NPM) has provided customers with any means whatever of holding the government to account" (1996,106-10). Those claiming success for NPM have focused on short-term effects and on issues of effi- ciency. While it may be too early to assess the long-term impact of NPM in countries such as New Zealand and Australia, the evidence supporting democratic accountabil- ity and citizen engagement is not encouraging.

This concept of management has little to do with de- mocracy and democratic values, shedding the reality or the facade of democracy found in earlier public-sector re- forms. What is left is a core of market orientation to eco- nomic efficiency in the public sector.

What Do People Want from Their Government?

Thus far, we have argued that the market model of ad- ministration evident in NPM hinders any return to sub- stantive democracy and limits the degree to which citizens can meaningfully affect policy and administration. New Public Management claims to make government customer- centered and therefore more responsive in its delivery of services. We suggest, however, that recent reforms fail to understand the basic foundation of public administration in democratic practice. As Borgmann (1992) argues, when citizens are recast as consumers, they operate within an attenuated form of democracy: "But to extol the consumer is to deny the citizen. When consumers begin to act, the fundamental decisions have already been made. Consum- ers are in a politically and morally weak position. They are politically weak because the signals that they can send to the authorities about the common order are for the most part ambiguous. Does the purchase of an article signal ap- proval, thoughtlessness, or lack of a better alternative?" (115).

The issue of treating citizens solely as customers has also been addressed by others (deLeon and Denhardt 2000; Kettl 1997; Terry 1998). However, a deeper issue is the underlying debate about what people want from govern- ment. In our view, the market model of public administra- tion reflects a disenchantment with the modern welfare state. The market model symbolically saves society from the bureaucratic leviathan to which the public service is wed and provides a clean, seemingly apolitical, solution to the messiness of social life. Though much of the cri- tique of the welfare state is on target, there is value in hold- ing on to seemingly anachronistic ideas such as citizen- ship, the public interest, social responsibility, and dialogue. In other words, we want to continue to claim there is a connection between public administration, governance, and social life (White and McSwain 1993).

It is quite evident that the highly individualized, tech- nologically dynamic society in which we live is congru- ent with the market model of administration. For example, in the United States we are more and more likely to see ourselves as individualized users of discrete public goods and services. To a large degree, this has led to an evacua- tion of public life. Public managers, in turn, are focused more on the management of performance-based contracts than with face-to-face contact with the citizen. Clarke and Newman argue,

[This] means that the capacity of organisations and management processes to respond to critical issues facing public services is very limited. Such issues have been termed "wicked issues" (Stewart 1994) and include crime, poverty, community safety, the

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy 613

care of the elderly and of people with disabilities, economic regeneration, environmental issues, trans- port, child protection and a host of others.... The pursuit of unconnected initiatives as organisations or govemment departments pursue an ever narrow- ing agenda and set of programmes defined around their core businesses serves to exacerbate, rather than address, such complex social issues and prob- lems. The combined managerial and policy defi- cits in a dispersed field of power militates against the development of a capacity to address issues which resist being neatly defined as managerial problems. (1997, 148)

They go oti to warn that the market model is very weak in its notions of citizenship and community: "The increas- ing adoption of consumerist discourse involves the disman- tling of notions of collective power in favor of individual- ized users of services. It is the very power of this symbolism that leads to attempts to incorporate other formulations alongside it, as in organizational mission statements which talk of 'serving communities' as well as 'serving custom- ers,' and the deployment of the language of 'citizens' to fill the spaces in the impoverished individualism of the discourse" (128).

Public administration is in an interesting position, as people no longer look to models of democratic practice to solve public problems. Ironically, by using the language of management, we are relegated to using technique to rep- resent the democratic pole of the tension between bureau- cracy and democracy. In this situation the market model is primarily about transforming the bureaucratic state, appeal- ing to the public at large and to those in govemment, whose charge is to make the govemment "mn better" and "cost less." To us, this appears to be too easy a solution because the market model assumes a retum to homogenous society with very stable social institutions—a realm of social ex- perience that no longer exists (what Clarke and Newman term "regressive modemization"). For example, welfare- to-work programs assume that all families are capable of getting off the welfare rolls if they just have a bit of "moral fiber." This model implicitly claims that welfare recipients have a responsibility to become self-sufficient because of the financial obligation that welfare payments place on other members of the community.

What this view does is erase an entire generation of so- cial and political research that has identified structured differences and inequalities in society—class, gender, race and ethnicity, "ableness," and so forth. The result is a ten- dency to reduce complex social and economic issues to the management of diversity at the level of the individual organization. What we are suggesting is that the manage- rial state, that is, the market model of administration, avoids addressing the underlying social issues that affect society.

Substantive issues at the core of contemporary life, such as racism, poverty, and disabihty, become individual prob- lems rather than matters to be addressed through substan- tive democracy.

According to Clarke and Newman, the managerial state is an inherently unstable solution to the problems of the welfare state. Their argument, while written in the context of Great Britain's public management reform, applies equally to the United States:

The imagery of the nation [as mono-cultural and free of conflict] is constantly interrupted by questions of the care of black elders, by the question of pension benefits for non-married couples and gay or lesbian partners, by employment tribunals confronted by evidence of the racist, sexist or homophobic organi- zational cultures of public services, by disability activists demanding citizenship rights, and by the long-running—and multi-faceted—"crisis of the family." In these and many more ways the unresolved crisis of the social settlement ensures that the for- mation of a new relationship between the state and the public will remain embattled—and unstable. (Clarke and Newman 1997, 155)

As citizens increasingly identify themselves as indi- vidual consumers and discrete users of govemment ser- vices, social issues are also cast in the same language and framework. For those in public administration to "buy in" to such a model seals their fate as managers of technique. In this way, the politics-administration dichotomy reas- serts itself quite clearly. However, as we see it, society is being reconstructed with the political dimension being re- cast as issues of individual choice. People as individuals, and not society as a collective entity, are now responsible for solving complex problems. The result is a superficial gloss in the name of efficiency, while substantive issues— often those in which public administrators are most en- gaged—remain hidden but not solved. Thus, we maintain that public administration, as a crucial and unavoidable part of the public policy arena, is inherently about the so- cial constmction of society.

Democracy and Public Administration Today

We are concemed about the condition of democracy in American society and the resulting impact on public ad- ministration. The current environment of public institutions has deteriorated beyond procedural democracy to a mar- ket model in which citizens' primary action outside the household is eaming money, to make product and service choices in the market economy to maximize the satisfac- tion of their desires. The result is a distancing of the citi- zen from her or his public-service institutions and a tacit

614 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 6 1 , No. 5

assumption that interactions in the public sphere (deter- mining what issues will be on the public agenda and how they will be addressed, for example) should also be left to the invisible hand of the market.

We argue, with Curtis Ventriss (1998), that public ad- ministrators and academics should play a part in the re- covery of a substantive democratic ideal. Moving toward a substantive democratic ideal seems difficult because such a powerful dye has been cast. James March suggests that we are locked into a social order that is based on "rational- ity and exchange rather than history, obligation, reason and learning" (1992, 230). Much of the conceptual develop- ment in public administration seems to be locked into this exchange mind-set as well, particularly in the public man- agement movement.

The underlying approach offered by proponents of New Public Management is even more restrictive than the cur- rent trend in economic thinking. March notes, it "reflect[s] not so much an application of contemporary economic theory to government as a naive adaptation of an obso- lescent version of that theory to modem political ideol- ogy" (230). More recent iterations of the economic ap- proach argue that the traditional economic exchange model is complicated by history, "socially constructed institutions," and trust. Two examples of this perspective are North's Institutions, Institutional Change and Eco- nomic Performance {\990) and March and Olson's De/no- cratic Governance (1995).

This newest version of neoinstitutionalism, while still clearly embedded in the functionalist paradigm (Burrell and Morgan 1979), incorporates the language of its crit- ics. In this regard, writers like March and Olson have al- ready responded to the next step in the development of this language game. This post-exchange perspective could eventually surface as an important aspect of mainstream public administration. Some examples include Lynn (1996) and Kettl (1997), both of whom express concern about the narrow foundation and the seeming hyperbole of New Public Management. Their responses, however, call for more rigorous methods of research, consistent with the post-exchange view of economics. This is a new and improved functionalism, a rationalized model that emphasizes predicting and controlling the behavior of institutions by determining the institutional rules. The emphasis is still on prediction and control, which results in an abstracted empiricism (Mills 1967) that is not par- ticularly useful in an applied professional field like pub- lic administration (Box 1992).

The reality of our social experience is a hyper-rational- ized world in which democracy is equated with consumer choice. The problem we face, then, is this: In what ways might we reassert a meaningful democratic context for the practice of public administration in light of such a social

experience? We are aware that we cannot find solace in absolute, foundational principles that hold across time, space, and culture, nor can we retum to the "certainties" of an earlier era. As Fox and Miller (1997, 88) put it, "the toothpaste cannot go back into the tube."

We are not pining for some overarching set of demo- cratic values that will put us back on an imagined high moral plane of Democracy. We are mindful however, that American democracy made possible the idea of collective self-govemance as a political end. As Gardbaum (1992, 760) notes, "For the first time, public life—previously closed to all but the political class—became an arena in which ordinary individuals could through participation and dialogue with others, define and realize themselves."

Let us review what is at stake. We want to assert that public administration does play a role in the social order. At every level of government—federal, state, and local— people in public agencies not only deliver services but also serve as facilitators, interpreters, and mediators of public action (Barth 1996; King and Stivers 1998a; Marshall and Choudhury 1997; Wamsley et al. 1990). This role has clear linkages to the founding period of the na- tion (McSwain 1985; Rohr 1986) and the substantive form of democracy outlined earlier in this essay. It should not be shelved in favor of a limited role for public adminis- tration involving satisfaction of consumer demands through focus groups and customer surveys, in which largely uninformed public opinion is equated with the public interest. Such an attenuated model of democracy suggests that humans are truly economic beings in search of narrow personal satisfaction; we do not regard this as an effective model of govemance.

While it is easy enough to make this normative argu- ment, the prevailing mind-set of human action is undoubt- edly the market perspective. Many argue that the discourse of the Enlightenment and particularly the themes essential to democratic public administration, such as the public interest, justice, and progress, have been discarded because they have no empirically demonstrable foundational justi- fication (Fox and Miller 1995; Marshall 1996; McSwite 1999). The market mind-set has surfaced in its place as the legacy of modemism. Much of our argument in this article laments the passing of the normative basis on which many public administration writers have legitimated the role of public administration in the govemance process. This nor- mative basis is also, we have argued, the tradition of sub- stantive democracy in America.

It is important to consider that the market model has its own modernist limitations (McSwite 1999, 8). March and others have already identified earlier economic ap- proaches, such as public-choice economics, as naive and outdated. These writers seek to adjust economic ap- proaches in light of current social experience. Indeed, the

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy 615

term "socially constructed reality," once marginalized by mainstream social science, is now commonly used across most disciplines (Barber 1984; March and Olson 1995). Many see the rise of New Public Management as the discipline's chance to regain influence and legitimacy, and there is significant political pressure on public ad- ministrators to adopt its approach.

However, it is encouraging to note the beginnings of resistance to what Stivers (2000) calls "the ascendancy of public management." In their criticism of the National Per- formance Review, which has market-based elements simi- lar to those of the New Public Management movement in the United States, Moe and Gilmour (1995) argue that pub- lic administration must not ignore its normative ground- ing in public law. Kettl (1997) notes that customer satis- faction surveys would not serve as an effective proxy for the public interest. And Terry (1998) makes the point that both the entrepreneurial and the market-driven models of management displace the democratic foundation that is essential to public-sector leadership.

An Alternative The reader may reasonably expect the authors to intro-

duce some better alternative, one that reasserts the norma- tive democratic context of public administration. Why not merely reassert the democratic context we hold dear, re- dressing the imbalance that exists? In the current environ- ment, we are readily able to talk about public management, but we have difficulty discussing the democratic context of public administration. According to Kirlin (1996,417), this context includes achieving a democratic polity; ad- dressing the nexus between larger societal issues and deci- sion making in public organizations; confronting the com- plexity of instruments of collective action; and encouraging more effective societal learning.

In the search for an alternative or addition to the mar- ket-based model of public administration, we wish to af- firm an emerging view that a central element should be a collaborative relationship between citizens and public ad- ministrators. This relationship is based on shared knowl- edge and decision making rather than control or pleasing and placating. It assumes that citizens have the ability to self-govern, even in these complex and confusing times. Further, this relationship between public employees and the public assumes that, while many people choose not to take part in public decision making, all citizens want to believe they could participate and could make a difference if they chose to do so.

This collaborative model of administration has been dis- cussed in various forms by several authors over the past 10 years or so (Adams et al, 1990; Box 1998; King and Stivers 1998a; McSwite 1997; Stivers 1994; White and McSwain

1990). The emphasis in the collaborative model is giving citizens the knowledge and techniques they need to deal with public policy issues and providing an open and non- threatening forum for deliberation and decision making (Box and Sagen 1998), This model is only one way to en- hance substantive democracy, but we focus on it here be- cause it presents a well-developed alternative that could be especially useful and powerful.

We are not arguing for greater legitimacy for public administration or a different view of public administration in the democratic order (Spicer and Terry 1993; Wamsley et al, 1990), There are elements of our call for substantive democracy that echo the New Public Administration of the 1970s (Frederickson 1980), with its emphasis on social equity, but our vision lacks that movement's sense of large- scale changes in the purpose and practice of public admin- istration. We do, however, recognize that the old politics- administration dichotomy, born of a vision of public administrators as value-neutral implementors of public policy that is determined elsewhere, has long since been found to be a false description of the world of creation and implementation of public policy (Svara 1999), This is a world in which career public professionals interact with elected officials and citizens as they sense the "public in- terest," however that may be perceived, and work to solve problems and deliver services,

A collaborative model of the administrative role is not universal, in relation to individual public employees or to administrative tasks and situations. Not every career public employee interacts with elected officials or citi- zens or helps others who do. Many carry out technical and professional tasks within public organizations, tasks that are important to the public welfare but do not offer opportunities for the sort of collaboration discussed here. However, public service practitioners who interact with citizens (whether those citizens are leaders or everyday people concerned about the quality of life in their neigh- borhoods), can take incremental steps toward improving the quality of democracy by actively helping people gov- ern themselves.

Adopting one particular model of administrative prac- tice will not automatically result in substantive democracy. We need to move beyond describing our situation to tak- ing what steps we can take now, through the practice of public administration, to recapture the values of substan- tive democracy. This requires the courage to share rather than control knowledge and administrative processes, to create opportunities for meaningful dialogue and decision making, and to listen and facilitate growth of individual understanding of public issues and the people involved in them (Box 1998; King and Stivers 1998c, 203),

Over time, this approach may enable public profession- als to shift the balance, bit by bit, from the metaphor of the

616 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 6 1 , No. 5

market to the values of substantive democracy. Action in this direction might involve, for example, choosing to cre- ate an ongoing structure for citizen administration of a particular program rather than using focus groups to sense relatively uninformed opinion. Or it might involve staffing an office that assists neighborhood organizations, rather than funding a public relations office that seeks to sell an image. It could mean allocating resources for infrastruc- ture or school improvements on the basis of the serious- ness of local problems, rather than formulas intended to spread funds evenly over political districts. And it could mean taking the initiative to fully inform elected officials about available action altematives and their consequences for real people, instead of waiting for policy direction.

In the twenty-first century, there is much for public ad- ministration to do beyond the mandate of perfecting effi- cient mechanisms for service delivery. Our intent is to con- tribute to recrafting a public administration that supports the values of substantive democracy in a time of signifi- cant change in the public sector. We are aware of the nor- mative weight we place upon public administration, which is often thought by citizens and people working in the field to have little normative meaning or purpose (this is high- lighted by the subtext of the message of New Public Man- agement, which is to strip administration of disabling ide- alism and "cut to the chase"—economically efficient results). Despite the odds, we believe the stakes are well worth the effort.

References

Adams, Guy B., Priscilla V. Bowerman, Kenneth M. Dolbeare, and Camilla Stivers. 1990. Joining Purpose to Practice: A Democratic Identity for the Public Service. In Images and Identities in Public Administration, edited by Henry D. Kass and Bayard L. Catron, 219-40. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Appleby, Paul H. 1952. Morality and Administration in Demo- cratic Government. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State Uni- versity Press.

Armstrong, Anona. 1998. A Comparative Analysis: New Public Management—The Way Ahead? Australian Journal of Pub- lic Administration 57(2): 12-26.

Arnold, Peri E. 1998. Making The Managerial Presidency. 2nd ed. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Poli- tics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Barth, Thomas J. 1996. Administering the Public Interest: The Facilitative Role for Public Administrators. In Refounding Democratic Public Administration: Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges, edited by Gary L. Wamsley and James F. Wolf, 168-97. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- tions.

Borgmann, Albert. 1992. Crossing the Postmodern Divide. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 1987. Democracy and Capi- talism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Mod- ern Social Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Box, Richard C. 1992. An Examination of the Debate over Re- search in Public Administration. Public Administration Re- view 52{l): 62-9.

. 1998. Citizen Governance: Leading American Commu- nities Into the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub- lications.

Box, Richard C , and Deborah A. Sagen. 1998. Working With Citizens: Breaking Down Barriers to Citizen Self-Governance.

In Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Gov- ernment Era, edited by Cheryl S. King and Camilla Stivers, 158-72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burrell, Gibson, and Gareth Morgan. 1979. Sociological Para- digms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.

Campbell, James. 1996. Understanding JohnDewey: Nature and Cooperative Intelligence. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.

Childs, Richard. 1952. Civic Victories. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Clarke, John, and Janet Newman. 1997. The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Wel- fare. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Gov- ernment. 1949. Report of the Commission. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Conway, David. 1996: Capitalism and Community. Social Phi- losophy and Policy 13(1): 137-63.

Dagger, Richard. 1997. Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dahl, Robert A. 1982. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Au- tonomy vs. Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

deLeon, Linda, and Robert Denhardt. 2000. The Political Theory of Reinvention. Public Administration Review 60(2): 89-97.

Dewey, John. 1985 [1927]. The Public and its Problems. Ath- ens, OH: Swallow Press Books.

Eggers, William D. 1997. The Incredible Shrinking State. /?eo- ion 29(1): 3 5 ^ 2 .

Fox, Charles J., and Hugh T. Miller. 1995. Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

. 1997. Can the Toothpaste Be Pushed Back into the Tube?: The Return of Foundationalism to Public Administra- tion. Administrative Theory and Praxis 19( 1): 88-91.

Frederickson, George H. 1980. New Public Administration. Uni- versity, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Gardbaum, Stephen A. 1992. Law, Politics and the Claims of Community. Michigan Law Review 90(4): 685-760.

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy 617

Hollinger, Robert. 1996. The Dark Side of Liberalism: Elitism vs. Democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Judd, Dennis 1988. The Politics of American Cities. New York: Harper Collins.

Kettl, Donald F. 1997. The Global Revolution in Public Man- agement: Driving Themes, Missing Links. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16(3): 446-62.

King, Cheryl S., and Camilla Stivers. 1998a. Government is Us: Puhiic Administration in an Anti-Government Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

. 1998b. Introduction: The Anti-Government Era. In Gov- ernment Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era, edited by Cheryl S. King and Camilla Stivers, 3-18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

-. 1998c. Conclusion: Strategies for an Anti-Government Era. In Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti- Government Era, edited by Cheryl S. King and Camilla Stivers, 193-204. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kirlin, John J. 1996. The Big Questions of Public Administra- tion in a Democracy. Public Administration Review 56(5): 416-23.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 1996. Public Management as Art, Sci- ence and Profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publish- ers.

Macpherson, C. B. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democ- racy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. The Holding Pattern. Political Theory 27(5): 706-16.

Maor, Moshe. 1999. The Paradox of Managerialism. Public Ad- ministration Review 59(2): 5-18.

March, James G. 1992. The War is Over, The Victors Have Lost. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2(3): 225-331.

March, James G., and Johan P. Olson. 1995. Democratic Gover- nance. New York: Free Press.

Marshall, Gary S. 1996. Deconstructing Administrative Behav- ior: The "Real" as Representation. Administrative Theory and Praxis 18(1): 117-27.

Marshall, Gary S., and Enamul Choudhury. 1997. Public Ad- ministration and the Public Interest: Re-presenting a Lost Concept. American Behavioral Scientist 41(1): 119-31.

Matthews, Richard K. 1986. The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson: A Revisionist View. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

McSwain, Cynthia J. 1985. Administrators and Citizenship: The Liberalist Legacy of the Constitution. Administration and Society 17(2): 131-48.

McSwite, O.C. 1997. Legitimacy in Public Administration: A Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

. 1999. On the Proper Relationship of the Theory Com- munity to the Mainstream Public Administration Community. Administrative Theory and Praxis 21(1): 4-9.

Mills, C. W. 1967. The Sociological Imagination. London: Ox- ford University Press.

Moe, Ronald C. 1994. The "Reinventing Govemment" Exercise: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the Consequences. Public Administration Review 54(2): 111-22.

Moe, Ronald C , and Robert S. Gilmour. 1995. Rediscovering Principles of Public Administration: The Neglected Founda- tion of Public Law. Public Administration Review 55(2): 135- 46.

Mosher, Frederick C. 1982. Democracy and the Public Service. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Ghange and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Okun, Arthur M. 1975. Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Orchard, Lionel. 1998. Managerialism, Economic Rationalism and Public Sector Reform in Australia: Connections, Diver- gences, Alternatives. Australian Journal of Public Adminis- tration 51{\y 19-33.

Osbome, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1993. Reinventing Govern- ment: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books.

Phillips, Derek L. 1993.Looking Backward: A Critical Appraisal of Communitarian Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press.

Pollitt, Christopher. 1993. Managerialism and the Public Ser- vices. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

President's Committee on Administrative Management. 1937. Report of the Committee. Washington, DC: Govemment Print- ing Office.

Rhodes, Rod. 1996. Looking Beyond Managerialism. Austra- lian Journal of Public Administration 55(2): 106-10.

Rohr, John A. 1986. To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administrative State. Lawrence, KS: University of Kan- sas Press.

Rosenbloom, David H. 1993. Editorial: Have an Administrative Rx? Don't Forget the Politics! Public Administration Review 53(6): 503-6.

Sandel, Michael J. 1996. Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schachter, Hindy Lauer. 1997. Settlement Women and Bureau Men: Did They Share a Usable Past? Public Administration Review 51 {\):9?,-^.

Sheldon, Garrett W. 1991. The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Spicer, Michael W., and Larry D. Terry. 1993. Legitimacy, His- tory, and Logic: Public Administration and the Constitution. Public Administration Review 53(3): 2 3 9 ^ 6 .

Stewart, Jenny, and Megan Kimber. 1996. The Transformation of Bureaucracy? Structural Change in the Commonwealth Public Service 1983-93. Australian Journal of Public Ad- ministration 55(3): 3 7 ^ 9 .

Stivers, Camilla. 1994. The Listening Bureaucrat: Responsive- ness in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 54(4): 364-9.

. 1995. Settlement Women and Bureau Men: Construct- ing a Usable Past for Public Administration. Public Adminis- tration Review 55(6): 522-9.

. 2000. Resisting the Ascendancy of Public Management:

618 Public Administration Review • September/October 2001, Vol. 6 1 , No. 5

Normative Theory and Public Administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis 22(1): 10-23.

Svara, James H. 1999. Complementarity of Politics and Admin- istration as a Legitimate Altemative to the Dichotomy Model. Administration and Society 30(6): 676-705.

Terry, Larry D. 1998. Administrative Leadership, Neo- Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement. Pub- lic Administration Review 58(3): 194-200.

Udehn, Lars. 1996. The Limits of Public Choice: A Sociological Critique of the Economic Theory of Politics. London: Routledge.

Ventriss, Curtis. 1998. Radical Democratic Thought and Con- temporary American Public Administration: A Substantive Perspective. American Review of Public Administration 28(3): 227^5.

Waldo, Dwight 1981. The Enterprise of Public Administration: A Summary View. Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp Publish- ers.

Wamsley, Gary L., and Larkin S. Dudley. 1998. From Reorgani- zation to Reinventing: Sixty Years and We Still Don't Get It. International Journal of Public Administration 21 (2/4): 323- 74.

Wamsley, Gary, Robert L. Bacher, Charles T. Goodsell, Phillip Kronenberg, John A. Rohr, Camilla Stivers, Orion F. White, Jr., and James F. Wolf. 1990. Refounding Public Administra- tion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

White, Orion F., Jr., and Cynthia J. McSwain. 1990. The Phoe- nix Project: Raising a New Image of Public Administration from the Ashes of the Past. In Images and Identities in Public Administration, edited by Henry D. Kass and Bayard L. Catron, 23-59. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

. 1993. The Semiotic Way of Knowing and Public Ad- ministration. Administrative Theory and Praxis 15(1): 18- 35.

Wills, Garry. 1979. Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. New York: Vintage Books.

Wood, Ellen M. 1996. Democracy Against Capitalism: Renew- ing Historical Materialism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Yankelovich, Daniel. 1991. Coming to Public Judgment: Mak- ing Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

New Public Management and Substantive Democracy 619