Paul Dragos Aligica, Peter J. Boettke, and Vlad Tarko, Public Governance and the Classical‐Liberal Perspective (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019). 267 pp.

• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Author: Gregg G. Van Ryzin,Galia Cohen
• Date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13374

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 2, pp. 349–350. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13374.

Reviewed by: Gregg G. Van Ryzin

Rutgers University

Paul Dragos Aligica, Peter J. Boettke, and Vlad Tarko,

Public Governance and the Classical-Liberal Perspective

(New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019). 267pp.

Although perhaps not self-evident from the

title, this book clearly aims to speak directly to

the field of public administration. The phrase

“public governance” in the title reflects the emphasis

of the authors—Paul Dragos Aligica, Peter J.

Boettke, and Vlad Tarko—on the diversity of actors,

institutions, and arrangements involved in governing

the public sphere. The book grew out of a research

project of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced

Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics of

the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Although I was familiar with some of the authors’

earlier work, particularly Tarko’s fine intellectual

biography of Elinor Ostrom, this new book was eye-

opening for me in many ways. And it is important

reading for public administration as a field.

Intriguingly, the authors argue that American public

administration as a self-conscious discipline arose at

the end of the nineteenth century at a time when the

original classical-liberalism (represented by thinkers

such as Locke, Smith, and Mill) had faded in the

political imagination but before modern classical-

liberalism (represented by thinkers such as Mises,

Hayek, and Buchanan) had emerged. As a result,

the authors observe that “classical liberalism did not

participate in substantive ways in the intellectual

development of public administration as a field.”

Thus, it is their aim in this book to “articulate a

full-blown, self-aware, and coherent classical-liberal

position on public administration.” But what exactly

does the field look like viewed from this position?

To begin with, as the authors argue, the classical-

liberal perspective emphasizes polycentricity:

involving multiple, often overlapping nodes of

decision-making and responsibility—various general-

purpose governments, special districts, nonprofit

organizations, contractors, civic groups, and other

actors—in complex governance arrangements. These

various institutions and actors cooperate, as well as

compete, in a public economy to solve problems

at different scales and with each employing its

comparative advantages in knowledge and capability.

This configuration of overlapping and interconnected

institutions may seem chaotic, but the resulting

arrangements often meet complex and evolving

human needs much better than a centralized, planned

approach. A wild forest looks chaotic at first glance,

although it is the product of a highly intricate,

interdependent, and functional ecological order.

In addition, the classical-liberal perspective recognizes

that public goods and services involve coproduction

because they depend on vital inputs coming from

citizens and other consumers, not just regular

producers (government agencies). For example, the

efforts of students and their families determine the

success of public schools. The willingness of residents

to trust and cooperate with the police creates a safer

community. Commuters reduce congestion and

pollution by using mass transit. People wearing masks

and social distancing are essential to government’s

efforts to contain the Coronavirus disease 2019

(COVID-19) pandemic. Recognizing the importance

of coproduction for many public goods and services

has profound implications for public administration

the authors contend. They also make the interesting

observation that the framework of democratic

governance itself involves the coproduction of rules.

And the authors point out the importance of social

norms in sustaining coproduction and how such

norms can be squashed if government control is too

heavy-handed. The severe damage done to public trust

of and cooperation with the police from stop-and-

frisk policing is an all-too-familiar example.

Related to the issue of coproduction, the authors

highlight the important distinction between providing

and producing public services. Government may

provide storm victims with blankets, but it does not

produce the blankets; same thing with roads, medical

care, military hardware, scientific advancement,

and psychotherapy. Highlighting this production–

provision distinction can provide useful insights on

important debates regarding the role of government,

Gregg G. Van Ryzin is a professor in the

School of Public Affairs and Administration

(SPAA), Rutgers University, Newark, United

States. His work employs experimental and

behavioral approaches to various issues

in public management, including citizen

satisfaction, coproduction, performance

measurement, and representative

bureaucracy. He is the author (with Dahlia

Remler) of

Research Methods in Practice

(SAGE) and editor (with Oliver James and

Sebastian Jilke) of

Experiments in Public

Management Research

(Cambridge).

Email: vanryzin@rutgers.edu

Book Reviews

Galia Cohen, Editor

Book Reviews 349