Why we need bricoleurs to foster robust governance solutions in turbulent times

The public sector frequently confronts a heightened societal turbulence triggered by an increasing number of unpredictable and disruptive economic, political, and environmental crises. How can the public sector respond to this challenge? This article argues, first, that to continue to provide relevant solutions, public governance must be robust in the sense of adapting and innovating policies, programs, and services in ways that facilitate the achievement of basic public ambitions, functions, and values in the face of challenges, stressors, and threats. Second, to build robust governance, public managers must engage in bricolage and become bricoleurs in order to flexibly combine elements from competing and co-existent public governance paradigms. Doing so necessitates the construction of institutions conducive to bricolage, that is, institutions that are characterized by a high degree of flexibility that allows for experimentation; institutions that foster inclusive deliberation, knowledge sharing and joint learning; and institutions that balance centralization with distributed agency.     

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.