American Academy of Political and Social Science

Public Sector Management, Systems, and Ethics by Louis C. Gawthrop

Review by: Leonard P. Stavisky
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 483, Religion and the
State: The Struggle for Legitimacy and Power (Jan., 1986), pp. 158-159
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and
Social Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1045549 .
Accessed: 19/10/2014 00:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:06:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158
THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICAN
it is a pity that out of the massof historical
detail there emergeno generalizationsthat
mightshedlight on the present.
PAULKEAL
AustralianNationalUniversity
Canberra
GAWTHROP,LOUISC. Public Sector Man-
agement, Systems, and Ethics. Pp. 173.
Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,
1984.$22.50.
The Aristotelianthesis that politicsand
ethics are inextricablyentwinedcomes to
mind in reading Louis Gawthrop'slatest
contribution to the literature of public
administration.He unites public manage-
ment,systemstheory,andethicalconsidera-
tions into an integrated, but altered,
metasystem. He perceivesthe impending
bicentennial commemorating theadoptionof
the Constitutionas an auspiciousoccasion
for redesigningan administrativeorderthat
is "capableof enhancingorinhibitingthe...
citizen'srole in governmentandthe govern-
ment'srole in society."
At the outset, he cites Max Weber's
bureaucraticmodelfor decisionmakingand
problemsolving,whichguaranteesadminis-
trative responsibility,continuity,and con-
trol. However,he quicklyacknowledgesthat
the Weberianblueprintunderserves society's
needswheneverthe externalforcespressing
for change overwhelm the public sector
manager'sexpertise.In suchsituations,new
strategiesaredemanded.
In the world accordingto Gawthrop,
administratorsmust be preparedto think
and act independently,critically,and con-
structively.He exhorts them to approach
publicissues througha systemsframework
and an ethicalperspective.He concedesthe
potentialdangerin assumingthateverycor-
poralcarriesan officer'sbatonin his knap-
sack,buthe is preparedto takethe risk.As a
result, the readermust also be willing to
examinethe implicationsinherentin Gaw-
throp's acceptanceof personalvalues and Administration Review and professor of
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:06:28 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ACADEMY
bureaucraticdiscretionas majorguides to
publicpolicyimplementation. I amtempted
to ask, Whatare the acceptableparameters
for allowingindividualmoralsto influence
access to abortions, withdrawal of life-
supportsystems,ortheuseof deadlyforceto
subduecivilianpopulations?Whosemana-
gerialinnovationsand whose social values
will prevail?
In subsequent chapters, Gawthrop
deploresthe tendencyof publicmanagersto
compromiseprivatevirtuesfor the sake of
pragmatism,consensus,orconformityto the
rulesof the game.Thestatusquo is perpetu-
ated by "ethicsof civility"that discourage
debate and the quest for purposefulgoals.
Hedeploresblindobedienceto a systemand
maintainsthat socialequityis as important
as operatingefficiency.
Gawthropwishesto redesignthe system
so that professionalswill be held account-
able for theiractionsand free to searchfor
just solutions without the impedimentsof
structuralauthorityor institutionalbound-
aries.Onemightquestionhisabidingfaithin
this new order of public managersas the
deputies of the citizenry. Unlike elected
officials, appointedadministratorsare not
accountable to the voters. Furthermore,
belowthe levelof exemptpositions,bureau-
cratsareremovableonly afterdemonstrated
proof of malfeasance,misfeasance,or non-
feasance. In bypassingthe nexus between
elected officialsand their constituentsand
transferringthe linkageto administrators,
Gawthropaltersthenatureof representative
government.
Unfortunately,the workseemscaughtin
a time warp-circa 1980. While the book
tracesthe phenomenalproliferationof fed-
eral programsduringthe 1960sand 1970s,
there is no discussionof the relationship
betweentheNew Federalismanddiscretion-
ary ethics. He simply suggests that the
governmentmaybe readyto abandonsome
projects,but he is not convincedthat the
pendulumwill swing back to its opposite
extreme.
His scholarship and credentials are
impeccable.As editor in chief of Public
BOOKDEPARTMENT
public affairs at Indiana University, Gaw-
throp shows full mastery of the literature in
the field. The richness and diversity of his
sources are striking. The notes and quota-
tions are drawn from political science, his-
tory, sociology, economics, philosophy,
theology, psychiatry, and other disciplines.
He weaves them together in a cogent and
impressive manner in espousing a compre-
hensive approach to the public policy
process.
LEONARDP. STAVISKY
Columbia University
New York City
HOLSTI,OLE R. and JAMES N. ROSENAU.
American Leadership in World Affairs:
Vietnam and the Breakdown of Consen-
sus. Pp. xvi, 301. Winchester, MA: Allen
and Unwin, 1984. $28.50. Paperbound,
$9.95.
JONSSON, CHRISTER.Superpower: Com-
paring American and Soviet Foreign Pol-
icy. Pp. viii, 248. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1984. $25.00.
Although both of these books deal with
contemporary international politics, they
are based on quite different assumptions
about why states behave as they do. They
also employ quite different methodologies.
Yet they each encounter similar or related
logical problems, and their conclusions are
not totally dissimilar. It is instructive to
compare them.
Holsti and Rosenau report on their 1976
and 1980 surveys of American foreign policy
leaders, some of whom hold official govern-
mental positions. Their book persuasively
argues that the Vietnam war was a watershed
event because the way in which leaders
viewed that war at its inception, while it was
in progress, and in retrospect has had a pro-
found impact on their general views toward
foreign policy. The book maintains that
Vietnam shattered the consensus among
American leaders concerning foreign policy
and that it is unlikely that a consensus will be
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:06:28 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
159
reestablished easily or quickly. Holsti and
Rosenau obviously assume that what Amer-
ican leaders think is an important factor
shaping United States foreign policy. Their
book, based on extensive, sophisticated anal-
yses of the large body of empirical data
gained through their surveys, is a model of
scholarship and an important contribution
to the literature.
Jonsson, on the basis of an analysis of
existing literature, argues that the United
States and the Soviet Union pursue similar
foreign policies, especially toward the Third
World. He tests and illustrates this argument
by comparing U.S. and Soviet policies con-
cerning aid to Third World countries, the
continuing crisis in the Middle East, and
efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. He attributes the similarities in the
policies of the two countries to their super-
power status, arguing that the United States
acts and that the Soviet Union then emulates
U.S. actions. He attributes differences in the
two countries' policies to the considerably
greater economic strength of the United
States compared to the Soviet Union. The
assumption on which Jonsson's argument is
based is that a state's position in the structure
of the global political system is the funda-
mental factor shaping its foreign policy.
Both books are interesting and enhance
the understanding of contemporary interna-
tional affairs. That the books leave funda-
mental issues unresolved is more a comment
on the unsatisfactory state of theory about
how the foreign policy behavior of states is
shaped than a criticism of the books. With
respect to the Holsti and Rosenau book the
reader must take it on faith that the differ-
ences among the American leaders' views,
many of which are small despite being statis-
tically significant and which exist alongside
substantial agreement on numerous points,
affect what the United States does in interna-
tional affairs. With respect to Jonsson's
book, the reader must accept as an act of
faith that those who make the decisions that
determine the foreign policy of the United
States and the Soviet Union base their deci-
sions on a concept of the role of a super-
power.