This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by O'Toole, L. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

American Public Administration and the Idea of Reform

Auburn University

The conventional wisdom concerning American public administrative thought suggests that a naive orthodoxy in vogue during the first portion of this century, was exposed as ideology a few decades ago and that the demise of the orthodoxy signaled the rise of innumerable perspectives. In this article, however, it is proposed that American public administration has retained an orthodoxy of reform in its continuing series of attempts to reconcile the tensions between democracy and bureaucracy. An analysis of the idea of reform as reflected in several significant administrative writings suggests one reason why the efforts of American administrative theorists have been consistently unsatisfying.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Burnier Erased History: Frances Perkins and the Emergence of Care-Centered Public Administration Administration Society, July 1, 2008; 40(4): 403 - 422. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. H. Svara Complementarity of Politics and Administration as a Legitimate Alternative to the Dichotomy Model Administration Society, January 1, 1999; 30(6): 676 - 705. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Martinez Law versus Ethics: Reconciling Two Concepts of Public Service Ethics Administration Society, January 1, 1998; 29(6): 690 - 722. [Abstract]

				J. P. Viteriftm Public Organization Environments: Constituents, Clients, and Urban Governance Administration Society, February 1, 1990; 21(4): 425 - 451. [Abstract]