Reasserting the Refounding

• Author: Sara Mattingly-Jordan
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399718770392
• Published date: 01 May 2018
• Date: 01 May 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718770392

Administration & Society

2018, Vol. 50(5) 653 –678

© The Author(s) 2018

DOI: 10.1177/0095399718770392

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Reasserting the

Refounding

Sara Mattingly-Jordan1

Abstract

What is worth reasserting from the tradition begun by Refounding Public

Administration? In this time of reboots and remixes in pop-culture, it may

seem trite to suggest reevaluating an established scholarly paradigm. But, in

the continued absence of a strong theory of Public Administration and the

emergence of new challenges to administrative practice, it is worth revisiting

the key concepts of the Refounding tradition to show how this successful

normative theory might help solve key problems in contemporary public

administration, such as incorporation of algorithmic decision making into

public agencies.

Keywords

Blacksburg manifesto, Refounding Public Administration, public interest, Big

Data

What is worth reviving in the tradition begun by Refounding Public

Administration? In this time of reboots and remixes in pop-culture, it may

seem trite to suggest reevaluating an established scholarly paradigm. But, in

the continued absence of a strong theory of Public Administration and the

emergence of new challenges to administrative practice, it is worth mining

the traits of previous, successful, theoretical efforts to identify paths

forward.

1Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Alexandria, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sara Mattingly-Jordan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1021 Prince Street,

Alexandria, VA 22314-2979, USA.

Email: srjordan@vt.edu

770392AASXXX10.1177/0095399718770392Administration & SocietyJordan

research-article2018

654 Administration & Society 50(5)

The foundational premise of this essay is that the normative perspective

on public administration advanced by the original authors of the Refounding

Public Administration (Wamsley et al., 1990) and, to an extent, Refounding

Democratic Public Administration (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996) is a relevant

source of contemporary guidance for present Public Administration scholar-

ship and practice. In particular, it is a valuable perspective to revisit as admin-

istrators and scholars confront the challenges of algorithmic decision making

in the public sphere. This premise rests on three points, the first point is that

the authors of the Refounding staked out a distinct position on the central

importance of the institution of The Public Administration to American polit-

ical and social balance and the conditions for such institutional relevance

have not changed sufficiently to demand a new theory. The second point is

that the combined authors of the Refounding, in the first work particularly,

posited a normative theory of public administration that stands up to scrutiny

as a productive normative research paradigm (Habermas, 2006; Hasnas,

1998; Palonen, 2002).1 The third point is that the initial arrangement of

Blacksburg theoretical norms and premises suits contemporary scholarship

and practice needs without substantial rearrangement of core concepts. To

flesh out these points, I will review the theoretical character of the Refounding

project, concentrating specifically on the first work (Wamsley et al., 1990),

summarize major concepts in the Refounding and discuss their success as a

normative theoretical paradigm, and posit how this arrangement of normative

theoretical premises can help scholars and practitioners grapple with present

governing challenges.

What Kind of Theorizing Is the Refounding Project?

As described by the editors and authors of the texts, Refounding Public

Administration (Wamsley et al., 1990) and Refounding Democratic Public

Administration (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996) are works of normative political

theory. The first refounding volume, begun in 1983 and published in 1990,

represents the most solid expression of the paradigm (although themes per-

sisted throughout the second work and into the later works of the many

refounding authors). What were these themes, and do they represent a distinct

public administration theory?

First, the refounders were not political theorists as such, but they did fill a

gap in the political theory literature. The refounding texts were not among the

grand narratives of political theorizing associated with the latter years of

American 20th-century scholarship. They did not address directly some of

the canon debates (e.g., liberalism vs. communitarianism), nor did they

explicitly mine the history of political thought for future insights (Ball, Farr,