Theory in Public Management

Following an interesting presentation by Don Moynihan earlier this week, I have been thinking about the state of theory in public management research.  My conclusion is not new -- there does not seem to be much theory to speak of in the field.  Part of the problem lies in the various ways that theory is defined in the field.  Let me debunk a few of these.

[1] Theory is not the same as normative argumentation.  When one self-identifies as a "public management theorist", one often means that you focus your attention on issues of administrative ethics.  This is not wrong but is a limited use of the term "theory" and not what most people mean when they complain about the lack of theory in the field.  I will set this style of theorizing aside for my purposes.

[2] Theory is not having a reference to illustrate that your hypothesis has some support in the literature.  This is the key problem with the public management literature.  Having a citation is not the same as being theory-based.  It is often the case the articles clearly started with a significant puzzle or problem, developed a prediction, and then sought theory to support the prediction.  This is not necessarily wrong but it is a recipe for non-accumulative literature.   In one article, one might draw on a theory from sociology and in another the same author may draw from a theory in economics.  The theoretical connections are an afterthought and represent a cultural genuflection in the direction of theory -- but this is not theory-driven research.

So, most of what we see is not theory-driven.  What would theory-driven research look like?  At the risk of trivializing the subject, a theory is simply a machine that generates hypotheses.  If you start with hypotheses and change machines with frequency, your research may be problem-centered but it is not theory-centered.  If you focus on the machine, see what hypotheses come from it, and then select a domain for research -- you may be conducting theory-driven research.  Starting with the theory and following it where it generates hypotheses allows for a transparent and direct connection between theory and the results of empirical research.

This is why I don't think that PSM (public service motivation) is a theory.  It is a measured construct that is applied in a variety of contexts.  There is nothing internal to PSM to direct where the next study will go.  Instead, it is a variable people use when grafting a variety of theories onto research questions (PSM and red tape, PSM and sector choice, PSM and learning, PSM and performance management).  The statement "PSM matters" is not a theory -- though it may be true.  It may develop into a theory of administrative decision-making but it is not there yet.

This being said, I am not always a theory-driven researcher myself.  I sometimes start with a domain of interest (say, emergency management) and then conduct research to address key practical puzzles.  In other research, I am more traditionally theory-driven (say, in my punctuated equilibrium research).  One of the reasons that I do not conduct theory-driven work more frequently is the difficulty of defining a theory of public management.  I am slowly building this up through a combination on problem-centered and theory-centered research but none stands out right now.  I guess I better get to work on that.  Until then, I will complain about the lack of theoretical grounding in public management research and then proceed along similar lines myself.