Why we are so bad,and what we can do about it: On the state and civic virtue

The ‘80s were the decade in which scholars in such diverse fields as ethical philosophy, political science, and public administration rediscovered the importance of character in public life: what another generation called civic virtue. The ‘90s, I hope, will be the decade in which this insight passes from academic journals into the legislative and administrative arenas. Why is the subject so urgent? Reason one. As even James Madison, the theorist of “pitting ambition against ambition,” knew and admitted - and as recent ethical disasters in public life have reminded us - it is simply impossible to design an administrative system that will run both justly and efficiently without any need for civic virtue on the part of the people who run it. Reason two. It is one thing to talk about civic virtue; it is another to do something about it. The practical difficulties are enormous, and need to be both deeply studied and widely discussed. After all, civic virtue is a scarce commodity. To what extent can it be cultivated? And to what extent can it be supplemented with such administrative devices as “pitting ambition against ambition” without, in the end, undermining it? This article addresses both questions, but especially the second, giving particular attention to the unanticipated consequences of state intervention in the development of civic virtue.     

Why are there no more socialists or conservatives?

David Miliband (ed), Reinventing the Left, (Polity, Cambridge 1994). x. + 254 pp. ISBN 0–7456–1390–8 (pb).     

Generalists and specialists in executive politics: Why ambitious meta‐policies so often fail

This article contributes to the politics of policy‐making in executive government. It introduces the analytical distinction between generalists and specialists as antagonistic players in executive politics and develops the claim that policy specialists are in a structurally advantaged position to succeed in executive politics and to fend off attempts by generalists to influence policy choices through cross‐cutting reform measures. Contrary to traditional textbook public administration, we explain the views of generalists and specialists not through their training but their positions within an organization. We combine established approaches from public policy and organization theory to substantiate this claim and to define the dilemma that generalists face when developing government‐wide reform policies (‘meta‐policies’) as well as strategies to address this problem. The article suggests that the conceptual distinction between generalists and specialists allows for a more precise analysis of the challenges for policy‐making across government organizations than established approaches.