Critical Theory and the Paradox of Discourse

Abstract

The work of public administration theorists who argue for a broader sphere of administrative discretion falls into three broad paradigms: the legitimacy paradigm, the guardian paradigm, and the critical paradigm. Legitimacy theorists argue for recognition within the Constitutional framework, and guardian theorists argue for more discretion for administrators to govern for the uninformed public. Neither view has much practical impact because neither fits American attitudes toward government. The critical paradigm advocates providing citizens with information so they may take action and free themselves from domination by elites. This critical view involves less, rather than more, formal power for professional administrators and puts them at odds with the elected officials who employ them. The paper seeks to determine whether this view of the role of the public administrator accurately portrays the nature of the relationship between citizens and government and whether the public administrator can be an effective agent of change by becoming an information provider instead of seeking greater institutional power.