Against the rule of man: the Confucian and Western traditions of good administration
| Author | Mark R Rutgers,Lijing Yang |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852315596213 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(4) 789–805
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315596213
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
Article
Against the rule of man: the
Confucian and Western traditions
of good administration
Lijing Yang
Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Mark R Rutgers
Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Abstract
This article investigates the Confucian and Western traditions specifically with regard to
the relation between morality, law and good administration. It is argued that the
common opposition between the rule of man and the rule of law as reflecting the
basic difference between the two traditions is inadequate. Confucianism can be
better characterized positively as the rule of morality. It should also be noticed that
‘the rule of law’ is increasingly being introduced into the Chinese administration.
Similarly, even though the Western tradition can be summarized in terms of the rule
of law, it is acknowledged that ‘the rule of man’ cannot be avoided, and that morality is
important. Both traditions oppose the rule of man, in as far as it refers to someone
acting out his selfish preferences. It is concluded that good administration requires
officials with both good morality and respect for the law; whether this is a kind of
convergence is a matter of debate.
Points for practitioners
This article studies Confucian and Western administrative traditions in relation to the
notion of good administration. It is argued that the common characterization and
understanding of the Confucian tradition in terms of the Western reviled ‘rule of
man’ is misguided. Rather than understanding the positive moral connotations of the
Confucian good administrator it associates them with a specific negative notion; at the
same time, overstressing the Western ‘rule of law’ may obscure the need for moral
persons for good administration.
Corresponding author:
Lijing Yang, Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: l.yang@uva.nl
Keywords
Confucianism, good administration, law, morality, rule of law, Western tradition
Introduction
To oppose Chinese and Western
1
thought in terms of the rule of man vs the rule of
law is common; however, it has not received attention within the increasing litera-
ture on administrative traditions (e.g. Bevir et al., 2003; Boyer, 1990; Smelser and
Baltes, 2001). This article focuses on the different normative starting points of these
two traditions in relation to their ideas of good administration. It is concluded that
the characterization of the two traditions in terms of the (Western) conceptualiza-
tion of the rule of law vs the rule of man hampers understanding of differences and
similarities. Both traditions reject the notion of the rule of man in good
administration.
In the context of this article, we cannot do justice to the wide variety and com-
plexity of the two vast traditions, nor can we make in-depth, broad comparisons.
The aim is to focus specifically on the fundamental differences primarily in relation
to the idea of good administration. Before doing so, some remarks on the nature of
translation and tradition are required.
A specific problem is that we have to deal with concepts in many different
languages when comparing the two traditions. This can result in similarities and
differences that are a construct of translation into English. For instance, are the
terms ‘civil servant’, ‘Verwaltungsbeamte’ and simply cognitive equivalents
denoting similar social (legal, political) phenomena? The more complex and cul-
turally specific a concept is, the more likely it is to be problematic, as Collier and
Mahon (1993: 848) illustrate when discussing the meanings of ‘political participa-
tion’. Translating Chinese concepts into English, and vice versa, is never
straightforward.
2
Cultural differences are often captured in terms of traditions (Painter and Peters,
2010: 4). There are many definitions of ‘tradition’,
3
but for the purpose of this
article we regard it as a normative orientation that can be expressed by means of a
fairly stable basic set of ideas and values, which is relied upon both implicitly and
consciously, is (at least partly) handed down actively and consciously, is protected,
and brings with it moral and intellectual prestige.
In the literature, different administrative traditions have been identified (cf.
Painter and Peters, 2010; Schwartz, 1999; Yesilkagit, 2010). In this article, the
focus is on the two ‘great traditions’ that encompass a large cultural and historical
area: the Eastern or Confucian tradition, and the Western or ‘Socratic’ tradition.
What is more, the focus is limited to Chinese and European thought, for there are
major differences within both traditions that have to be ignored in the context of
this article.
In the next sections we will first characterize the Chinese tradition, followed by
the Western tradition. In both cases the notion of law is used to highlight
790 International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial