The politics of discretion: toward a critical theory of public administration

Abstract

This article explores the possibility of critical theory as a framework for analysing public administration. Critical theory has a tradition of resisting the predominance of instrumental rationality as the building‐block for bureaucracy. The most sophisticated attempt at such an approach is the theory of communicative action developed by Jurgen Habermas. Adapting Habermas's theory to the realities of public administration in the welfare state, the author argues that current forms of administrative action are neither as rational nor as democratically legitimate as they could be. By relying on rules rather than on consensus, and by minimizing the participation of those affected by public administration, bureaucracy under the welfare state has resulted in a general loss of meaning within the public sphere and a high degree of social alienation. By focusing on the potential of discretionary decision‐making to foster a dialogue about the important judgments administrators make, it is possible to see the value of a critical approach to administrative structures. The author concludes by briefly exploring the application of a critical theory framework to the question of discretion in the context of Canadian tax administration. Sommaire: Cet article explore la possibilité d'utiliser la théorie critique comme cadre d'analyse de l'administration publique. Traditionnellement, la théorie critique tend à résister l'utilisation de la rationalité instrumentale en tant que pierre angulaire de la bureaucratie. La version la plus sophistiquée d'une telle approche est la théorie de l'action communicative élaborée par Jurgen Habermas. En adaptant la théorie de Habermas aux réalités de l'administration publique au sein de l'État‐providence, l'auteur soutient que les formes actuelles d'action administrative ne sont ni aussi rationnelles, ni aussi démocratiquement légitimes qu'elles pourraient l'être. En faisant appel aux règles plutôt qu'au consensus et en minimisant la participation de ceux qui sont touchés par l'action administrative, la bureaucratie, dans l'État‐providence, a entraîné une perte généralisée de sens et d'orientation dans le secteur public, ainsi qu'un niveau élevé d'aliénation sociale. En mettant l'accent sur le potentiel qu'offre la prise de décisions discrétionnaires pour amorcer le dialogue au sujet des jugements importants pris par les administrateurs, on conçoit la valeur que revêt une approche critique envers les structures administratives. L'auteur conclut en explorant brièvement l'application du cadre de théorie critique à la question de la discrétion dans le contexte de l'administraiton fiscale au Canada.

"A Stone In The Ocean": A Mixed Methods Investigation Into The Experiences Of Families Trying To Reunite In Canada

“…They work to expose the increasingly complex governmental and non-governmental, and national and international locations of power, as well as (historic and current) relationships between these locations of power and policy discourse and processes (Frazer, 2008;Immergut, 2006;Stone, 1997). Critical policy researchers must be aware of and challenge even the power of 'expertise' upon which their work is based (Dryzek, 2006;Goodin, Rein & Moran, 2006); they promote communicative and deliberative forms of policy analysis and decision-making that work to neutralize power inequalities, create effective dialogue, and turn policy researchers and public administrators into facilitators and coparticipants (Adorno, 1969;Sossin, 1993). They recognize the co-constitutive, dialectic relationships between social scientific 'knowledge', language and society and argue that critical policy research can close the gap between theory and practice (Apel, 1977;Lambright, 2010).…”

“…In turn this supports the policy relevance of research and its goal to enhance social justice (Laforest & Phillips, 2007;Teddlie & Tahsakkori, 2009). Finally, critical policy research methodologies are steeped in self-reflection (Sossin, 1993).…”

“…They argue that the idea of a neutral bureaucracy creates an artificial politics-administration dichotomy that turns individuals from subjects into objects and ignores the pragmatism and cultural, value-laden nature of public administration (Frederickson, 1991;Sossin, 1993;Svara, 2008). Critical researchers reveal conditions of power and dependence within policy implementing organizations, and between organizations and their clients (Ferguson, 1984;Frederickson, Smith, Larimer, & Licari, 2012); feminists, for example, have argued that gendered power relations within institutions exacerbate gender bias built into the tools of policy and programming (Dryzek, 2006;Ferguson, 1984;Hankivsky, 2007).…”

“…An increasing complexity in application processes favours families who can afford to employ lawyers conversant with the immigration system (Sossin, 1993). The various fees, tests and translation of documents demand significant resources, varying access to which can result in intersecting marginalization on class, nationality/race and gender bases (Dean & Wilson, 2009;Gibb & Hamdon, 2010;Hall & Sadouzai, 2010).…”

“…The various fees, tests and translation of documents demand significant resources, varying access to which can result in intersecting marginalization on class, nationality/race and gender bases (Dean & Wilson, 2009;Gibb & Hamdon, 2010;Hall & Sadouzai, 2010). The discretionary authority of visa officers 17 who decide the strength and legitimacy of claims increases the potential for unequal treatment (Sossin, 1993).…”