One More Look at (Neo-)Pragmatism in Public Administration

• Date: 01 November 2015
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399715597268
• Published date: 01 November 2015
• Author: David Oliver Kasdan
• Subject Matter: Disputatio Sine Fine

Administration & Society

2015, Vol. 47(9) 1110 –1125

© The Author(s) 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0095399715597268

aas.sagepub.com

Disputatio Sine Fine

One More Look at

(Neo-)Pragmatism in

Public Administration:

Seeing the Forest and

the Trees

David Oliver Kasdan1

Abstract

The continued interest in (neo-)pragmatism for public administration is

a validation of the very kind of democratic discourse that the philosophy

holds dear. Yet the back-and-forth also reinforces a critique coming

from one of its major figures, Richard Rorty: We seem to be jockeying

for position in an analytic language game that will never have a winner.

The matter may not be “settled” per se, but the groundwork of (neo-)

pragmatism’s use in public administration is practically done and, in the

spirit of one of its very basic ideas, administrators should sally forth and

see how it works.

Keywords

neopragmatism, pragmatism, efficacy

Since the truth of an idea is determined by (or is) what it does, it is in some

sense an instrument. Impatience with the “abstract” or “theoretical,” and use of

such terms as scientific, experience, empirical, practicability, experiment—

these characterize the pragmatic temper.

—Waldo (2007, p. 83)

1Incheon National University, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:

David Oliver Kasdan, Incheon National University, 119 Academy-ro, Incheon 406-772,

Republic of Korea.

Email: dokasdan@gmail.com

597268AASXXX10.1177/0095399715597268Administration & SocietyKasdan

research-article2015

Kasdan 1111

Off the Path

Once upon a time, (neo-)pragmatism1 wandered into the woods (Evans,

2010) and got a little lost (Snider, 2011), before issuing a distress call (Salem

& Shields, 2011) that was deprioritized by more pressing issues of gover-

nance. The distress call was revisited (Whetsell & Shields, 2011) and then, a

couple of years later, some search parties (Dieleman, 2014; Whetsell, 2013)

were deployed for a rescue.

I now join the search and rescue efforts (as well as the extended metaphor)

with a touch of trepidation. Is (neo-)pragmatism going to be found? Does it

want to be found at all? There are several recent issues in public administra-

tion that could be contemplated from a (neo-)pragmatist perspective. The

effects of the recent financial crises suggest that administrators’ notions of

truth and the practice of fiscal responsibility could use some alternative

thinking. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act, renewal of the

Patriot Act, and even climate change policy are all subjects that could be

considered by the (neo-)pragmatists. Of course, day-to-day street-level

administrative decision making is also within the purview of a (neo-)pragma-

tist bureaucrat, if only we can identify the kinds of situations that are ripe for

such practices and some way of judging if the outcomes are improved.

In other words, there are plenty of tall trees to climb in this forest to get our

bearings, but the theoretical discourse is acrophobic. The American philoso-

phy of practical utility has been bounced around in the theoretical realm of

the “eminently practical science” (Wilson, 1887) but never directly applied.

Can anybody point to a clear case of pragmatism in public administration?

Indeed, Dieleman (2014) confirms that

insofar as the discussions remain mired in what can be seen as an internecine

philosophical debate regarding the place of experience within pragmatism,

serious forward movement regarding the ways that pragmatism might help

transform the theory and practice of public administration is stymied. (p. 2)

The solutions proffered thus far tend to follow a trite formula that has yet

to find a way out of the woods: Apply a “lens” to “tease out” and “unpack”

some idea that will “inform” an “approach” to public administration and

usher in a “paradigm shift.” At the risk of cynically betraying my own neo-

pragmatist leanings (Kasdan, 2011), the apologetic and nonconfrontational

community building sentiments of new-age administrative theory bandied

about are marginalizing the philosophy out of any hope for contributing to

real practice. I hereby call for a real (neo-)pragmatizing in public administra-

tion, to take the philosophy into action that will result in discernibly improved

outcomes. This will invite criticism as to how to evaluate such action, but I