Populism and Public Management

Editors

• Zoe Radnor, Aston University
• David Walker, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust

Description

For this theme issue we are looking for disciplinary eclecticism. We seek contributions that bring together insights from several disciplines, including law, social sciences, public management and the study of politics. Traditionally public management has not engaged in 'constitutional' conversations. However, the rise of what has been identified within the political landscape as 'populism' calls for a cross-disciplinary perspective to understand whether, and how, it is impacting public management and administration.

Populism can be described as a movement rather than a single ideology adopted by any political doctrine, and it often presents complex problems in simple terms, offering direct solutions. In recent times, populism has seen a rise in politicians from the left (for example Julius Malema in South Africa, Lee Jae Myung in South Korea) and the right of the political landscape (for example Donald Trump in the USA, Javier Milei in Argentina and Nigel Farage in the UK).

For this PMM theme issue we are seeking both conceptual and case examples to address the questions raised. Understanding how public managers and administrators are navigating the current context is key to supporting public services and the public good. In addition to research articles, we are also seeking debate and new development pieces to shape the thinking and agenda for further consideration. We would like to understand the implications for both policy and practice.

Potential topics

• Are we facing the limits of traditional thinking in public management? Do public managers have a 'moral personality' with value commitment to liberal democracy and/or state continuity, hence a duty, moral or legal, to protect them?
• Does populism create a challenge for public managers to abide by good governance principles (for example, in the UK, the Nolan Principles of Public Life)?
• Are public managers obliged to defend the state from attack, rhetorical or actual; if so, by what means?
• Have public managers traditionally lacked 'voice' within the political–administrative interface and what challenges do they face with the rise of populism?
• Is there a problem, incipient or actual, facing public managers if they are becoming answerable to politicians with a value set that is antagonistic to the values of public management?
• How anachronistic are those Weberian doctrines of 'responsiveness', i.e. the idea that the primary duty of public managers is to obey political mandates as the sole source of legitimacy?
• What is 'extremism'/populism? Can extremism and populism be defined (proscribed) ex ante?
• Do public managers observe/answer to a code that protects them against orders (short of law-breaking)? Are such codes robust?
• How far do existing doctrines of accountability accommodate answerability for extremist policies?
• Do public managers including civil servants and military personnel have a 'moral' personality and/or ethical commitments that equip them/require them to resist political directives that might subvert existing conventions or constitutional order?
• What lessons could public managers learn from international and comparative perspectives from the rise of populism in different political systems and architectures?