Introduction
Durant and Ali (2013) address the issue of citizen estrangement in the United States and explore its historical roots. Written four years ago, the article is particularly topical today, as the recent presidential election has fueled an active discussion about the American citizenry’s perceived representation and participation in political processes. However, the article demonstrates that this issue is not a new development. The authors claim that citizen engagement has been decreasing gradually for decades, and the efforts aimed at improving the public administration system have generally failed to reduce the growing estrangement. Since the authors address an important issue, present valuable data on it, and put forward ideas that they try to support with evidence, it can be beneficial to critically reflect on the article by assessing its purpose, methods, and the validity of arguments and results.
Main body
First of all, Durant and Ali (2013) make two major points about the American public administration system: that it was designed in a way that facilitates estrangement in the early 20th century and that later attempts to promote engagement were not successful. To support the first point, the authors argue that public administration in the United States was initially aimed at creating the image of administrators as “bridge builders” (Durant & Ali, 2013, p. 278) whose purpose was to link citizens to the government, but the connection was rather bureaucratic than democratic. This idea correlates with the general challenge of representative democracy: when decisions are not made directly by the population but based on delegating authority, bureaucracies are likely to emerge, and their internal operation and high level of organization may drive people away from participating in decision-making.
Second, the article provides arguments on the weaknesses of shifts in public administration that were made to increase engagement but rather contributed to the estrangement. Durant and Ali (2013) declare that the old practices of marginalizing citizens have been finding their way through all the efforts to build a system that encourages participation “[l]ike the original images that bleed through when artists paint over earlier canvases” (p. 280). The authors discuss three types of reforms: progressive, associational, and polycentric. The description of reforms shows that they were aimed at creating collaborative governance, which invites participation and engagement by definition. But, with closer analysis, it can be concluded that the implementation of reforms and the circumstances in which they were applied did not allow achieving the goal, and estrangement remained a serious issue.
Conclusion
Upon reflecting on the history of public administration in the United States and analyzing it from the theoretical perspective, the authors conclude that there is a need for focusing on self-governance as a form of public management that effectively promotes engagement, which is an integral part of democratic development and normal functioning of society. As they refer to reliable research data, the authors present reasoning and conclusions that appear strong and convincing. Particular attention is paid to defining terms, as the authors recognize the importance of words used in public administration (e.g. “bridge builders,” according to the article, sounds more meaningful for the public than “collaborative governance” or “networks”). Most importantly, the perspective designed by Durant and Ali (2013)—the connection between the “bridge builders” administration and the reforms that failed to promote collaborative governance—can be used by many researchers for a critical assessment of today’s public management in the United States.
Reference
Durant, R. F., & Ali, S. B. (2013). Repositioning American public administration? Citizen estrangement, administrative reform, and the disarticulated state. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 278-289.