公共行政中的价值多元主义及其批评者——一场学术争论的文本考察

Value Pluralism in Public Administration and its Critic

围绕着公共行政中的价值多元主义学说,多位西方学者进行了论战。奥里姆、沃赫夫和塔利斯认为这一学说缺少逻辑性、完备性和一致性,特别是从缺少规范性的价值多元主义推导不出所谓的行政规定性。这一学说的拥护者瓦格纳、斯派瑟则从事实与价值相统一等方面出发为该学说进行了辩护,后加入的格拉夫认为该学说有助于建构起公共行政的价值视角。在批判性地审视各方观点之后,可以发现价值多元主义实则具有消极规范性,这种规范性可以且应该进入行政价值研究,只是在多元视角中,走出行政价值冲突的有效路径仍有待探索。

A few western scholars get involved in the war about the doctrine of value pluralism in public administration. Patrick Overeem and Robert B. Talisse think this doctrine is illogical, incomplete and inconsistent, and we can't get administrative regulation from value pluralism without normativity. Hendrik Wagenaar and Michael W. Spicer, who are two supporters of this doctrine, think that facts and values are unified and defend the theory. The post-accession Gjalt de Graaf believes that the doctrine can help construct the value perspective of public administration. After?look critically at the views of the parties, the author think value pluralism is negative normative, which may contribute to?administrative study. Bu the effective path that helps us gets out of administrative value conflict still to be explored.