Public Money & Management

Public Money & Management (PMM) Theme: Populism and Public Management

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 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).

Contributions of 8000-word research articles, 1000-word debate pieces and 3500-word new development articles are asked to consider, but are not limited to, the following:

• 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 (1) with a value set that is antagonistic to the values of public management (if such exist); (2) antagonistic to the liberal, law-based state; (3) who may be poised to break the law—or make decisions that are likely to be challenged in courts? 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? To illustrate: public management may prize diversity (for example in the NHS in the UK as a formal commitment, even part of performance assessment) but incoming politicians may reject or seek to reverse diversity policies.
• What is ‘extremism’/populism? Can extremism and populism be defined (proscribed) ex ante? Can principles be defined before public managers confront a legitimation crisis?
• Do public managers observe/answer to a code that protects them against orders (short of law-breaking)? Are such codes robust? In the UK, contrast the statutory position of local government officers (Section 151/monitoring officers) with the weakness/generality of the Civil Service Code. Do financial and legal obligations (for example to make public reports about questionable spending decisions) give particular protection?
• 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? How far should public managers including civil servants ever consider ‘guerrilla government’, leaking, obfuscating, delaying orders that they deem extreme?
• What lessons could public managers learn from international and comparative perspectives from the rise of populism in different political systems and architectures? For instance, is the UK a special case showing the deformations of systems that are not codified or formalised, for example the central government/civil service of the UK? Can its ‘studied informality’ /courtier approach survive in the face of Trump-like ministers? Compare and contrast Whitehall with civil service in the devolved administrations of the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), which are more statute-based.

For this PMM theme issue we are seeking both conceptual and case examples to address the questions above. 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.