Assessing the Relative Merits of Policy Commitments: Is It Possible for Policymakers to Use “Rich” Languages of Rationality?

Abstract

For some time now there has been considerable concern expressed about the dominance of instrumentally rational discourse in government agencies. However, other interpretations of rationality have become present and influential in recent years. If rationality is considered a public administration “meta-value” (i.e., a value in which there is general agreement about its desirability, but contestation over its interpretation), then it is important that there be a variety of interpretations available. In this article, I argue that this variety of interpretation is absent in a crucial area of public administrative discourse—the assessment of relative merits of government commitments that constitutes “whole-of-government” administration. Taking Pieter Degeling's concept of administrative “sacred languages” as a starting point, I argue that the dominance of discourses of instrumental rationality in this arena creates an enormous disjuncture between the sacred (theory) and the profane (practice). Unfortunately, critics of instrumental rationality have largely abandoned this field of discourse. However, unless alternative, “rich” interpretations of rationality are developed, much of the activity of public sector organisations will never be considered valuable as long as it fails to conform with the accountability and budgetary regimes built from instrumentally rational foundations. I suggest that such a language of rich rationality can be developed using some of Charles Lindblom's ideas as a starting point.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.