STRUCTURE AND ACTION AS CONSTRUCTS IN THE PRACTICE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION*

Abstract: In this paper we first examine the dominant instrumental paradigm of organization, and the critique to which it has been subjected from both social action theory and a more structural analysis of organizational life. Secondly, we draw on critical theory to construct an alternative paradigm. This addresses some of the problems left by critiques of the dominant paradigm, focuses on the relationship between structure and action, and the way in which each of these constitutes, and is constituted by, the other. In the final section we outline the implications of this analytical approach for analysis and practice in public administration. Public administration is about what people do, but also about how this activity is perceived and talked about. This distinction between thought and practice is not the same as the distinction between the academic and the practitioner. Although the academic operates largely in the world of thought — through teaching, research and writing — the work of the practitioner also rests on foundations in the world of thought, namely, the perception of the organization as an instrument for the accomplishment of some purpose, and of the administrator as the controller of that instrument for the better achievement of the end. We contend that these approaches to analysis and practice mask significant aspects of the ways that relationships within and between organizational contexts come to be structured and conducted, and do not provide a basis for understanding or evaluating either organizational processes or the activities of managers within these.     

OAKESHOTT AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PHILOSOPHICAL POLITICS

Abstract. Oakeshott offers a radical version of the thesis that philosophy cannot evaluate or recommend political ideas. We criticize each stage of his argument that practical life excludes philosophy's desire for ultimate truth and demands a distinctive form of reasoning. Believing that practice is not susceptible to philosophical guidance because it is composed of actions, subject to change and necessarily inconsistent and uncritical of assumptions, he exaggerates its contrast with theory. Moreover, he wrongly supposes that philosophy has no practical aspect, arguing that while all practical thought must be in terms of certain concepts, philosophy transcends those which it analyses. We contend that the distinctiveness of philosophy and practice does not imply they are separate; rather philosophy is a necessary part of any reasoned evaluation of political concepts.     

THE POLITICS OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE USSR

Book reviewed in this article:
Nathan Leites, The Soviet Style in Management (New York: Crane Russak, 1985).
Bruce Parrott, Politics and Technology in the Soviet Union (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1985).
Bruce Parrott, Trade, Technology and Soviet-American Relations (Bloom-ington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985).     

THE COMPARATIVE POLITICS OF AGENDA SETTING: THE EMERGENCE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AS A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE IN BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES

This article compares the emergence of consumer protection as an issue on the public policy agendas of Britain and the United States in the 1960s. Similar forces caused the emergence of consumer protection in both cases. Governmental responses to consumer protection issues also have been similar, but distinctive features of each country's political system are evident as well. The analysis draws upon existing consumer protection literature for each country as well as the author's interviews with a number of Britons involved in this policy area. The principal conclusion is that consumer protection gained each country's policy agenda as a discretionary item. Events of the past few years demonstrate that it is not yet a durable agenda item in either case.     

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ORDERS AND THE PROCESS AND POLITICS OF SELF-REGULATION

Agricultural marketing orders, put into operation with the initiative and approval of affected producers, are a form of supervised self-regulation. The 47 orders in effect variously authorize quantity controls, quality controls, and market support activities for fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops. Administered by producer committees under the supervision of the Agricultural Marketing Service, for most of their history they produced l i t t l e controversy. In recent years they have been attacked as anticompetitive. The impact of orders on prices, however, seems limited at best. Orderly marketing has largely replaced concern for "parity prices" as the goal of marketing orders.     

THE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

One of the minor curiosities of public sector analysis in Australia is that rather little attention has been paid to the tools and instruments that could provide a more effective management of government research and development. Once government R & D is mentioned, we immediately think of the large statutory bodies such as CSIRO or the Atomic Energy Commission, but the subject extends widely beyond these two bodies. The Australian Government, federal and states, provides 70% of all the funds for Australian R & D, and the government itself performs, in its own laboratories and statutory authorities, 54% of the total R & D carried out in Australia Of OECD countries, these percentages of government activity are exceeded only by Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal and Turkey. Virtually every federal department and every department of each state government performs R&D. Apart from the "big two" of CSIRO and Atomic Energy, the Post Office, Defence, Health, Housing, and Minerals and Energy all have research laboratories, and the last major survey of Australian R & D in 1973 listed 22 federal departments and 130 organizations in the State Governments performing R & D. A recent article in this journal correctly noted a shift from "ends to means" in Australian science policy. The present article proposes a specific means of managing this almost unique public involvement in R & D in Australia.