Abstract

Much research in the field of public management is distinguished by its rejection of the politics-administration dichotomy and its emphasis on the public manager's responsibility for "political" management. By rejecting the dichotomy, however, scholars in public management have reopened debate over an old question: why it is right for public managers to exercise "political" power in the policymaking process. It is argued that the dichotomy served as a rhetorical strategy for allaying public concern about bureaucratic power, and that public management scholars must now invent a new strategy to take its place. The paper evaluates one strategy, proposed by Mark Moore and Robert Reich, which is premised on the idea that managers may legitimize the exercise of discretion by showing it to be consistent with a "mandate" that is produced "through a fair process of deliberation." It is argued that the new strategy may overestimate the ability to build mandates, the ability to build deliberative processes that are manifestly fair, and the willingness of dissentient citizens to defer to such mandates. The new strategy will also bind public managers to a "demonstration of neutrality" not unlike that imposed by the politics-administration dichotomy.