SITUATING ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: A COMPARISON OF MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN AND MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT
| Author | SARAR. JORDAN |
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00602.x |
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (563–581)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
SITUATING ADMINISTRATIVE
RESPONSIBILITY: A COMPARISON OF
MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN AND MEDIEVAL
ISLAMIC ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT
SARA R . JORDAN
Contemporary studies of administrative thought allow only a limited range of
viability for medieval and non-Western thought on the subject of public adminis-
tration. This tendency belies the wealth of thought embedded within this broad
literature. This paper investigates the matter of administrative accountability and
responsibility through the lens of a comparative theorist of historical administrative
thought. In order to assess the explanatory potential of early and non-Western
administrative studies, two texts have been chosen, both previously unanalysed in
conjunction (to the best of my knowledge) from the perspective of the administrative
theorist – John of Salisbury ’ s Policraticus and Abu al-Hassan Al-Mawardi ’ s Al-Akham
al-Sultaniyya w ’ al-Wilayat al Diniyya ( The Ordinances of Government ). Through an
analysis of ideas of delegation and responsibility within these texts, the paper seeks
to develop a critique of the place of revealed religious authority in the solution to
the questions ‘ who are administrators responsible to? ’ and ‘ what are administrators
responsible for? ’
For decades now, public administration scholars have laboured tirelessly to
solve the perennial and pressing questions of administrative responsibility,
namely ‘ who are administrators responsible to? ’ and ‘ what are administra-
tors responsible for? ’ . Neither of these questions, despite the literature avail-
able within the Western context from scholars such as Friedrich (1940) and
Finer (1941) , are suffi ciently resolved.
Due in part to the predisposition of modern administrative studies to
uncritically accept a rationalist ’ s or a progressivist ’ s view of history and gov-
ernment, many of the texts look forward exclusively – without having fi rst
stepped back into the history of thought and practice of public administration –
to uncover potential solutions for some of these questions. This is unfortunate
since viable solutions to contemporary problems are often found in the
wisdom of the past. While no scholar should unabashedly romanticize the
past – there were certainly signifi cant problems that have been resolved as
history has progressed – it is suggested here that the past practices and
thoughts on administration reveal less trodden paths and potential universals
Sara R. Jordan is a postgraduate student in the Department of Political Science, Texas A&M
University.
564 SARA R. JORDAN
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (563–581)
that beg to be explored. This paper argues that the texts of the past must be
explored if public administration theory and, in the broader perspective, po-
litical theory, is going to progress further in any meaningful way.
Concomitant with the exclusive emphasis on modern, rational practices,
there is a surprising degree of Eurocentrism and Americentrism in the
theoretical study of administration. Much, if not most, of the administrative
theory currently produced adopts an unabashed American or European
exceptionalism as its starting point. Despite the push towards the inclusion
of comparative studies of public administration, most studies remain re-
markably narrow in focus, both historically and geographically. Although
there have been some recent studies that defy these trends, such as that of
James W. Bjorman (2003) , the trend seems remarkably stable ( Wollman 2001 ).
As with the benefi ts of historical study, it is also contended here that the
study of administration from differing cultural contexts offers contemporary
scholars innovative solutions to current dilemmas. The pathologies of ad-
ministration in different cultures may be as troublesome as those in America
and Europe; however, some culturally contextualized solutions to organiz-
ational dysfunction may offer previously unseen solutions. Mieczkoski (1987,
1991) , for example, offers an interesting connection between Ibn Khaldun ’ s
assessment of bureaucratic pathologies and the concepts of ‘ borg ’ and
‘ dysborg ’ in organization/administration.
In order to demonstrate the explanatory potential of early and non-Western
administrative studies, two texts have been chosen, both previously unana-
lyzed from the perspective of the administrative theorist – the Englishman
John of Salisbury ’ s Policraticus and the Iraqi Abu al-Hassan Al-Mawardi ’ s
Al-Akham al-Sultaniyya w ’ al-Wilayat al Diniyya ( The Ordinances of Government ).
Through an analysis of ideas of delegation and responsibility within these
texts, we can hope to ascertain whether revealed religious authority offers a
solution to the questions ‘ who are administrators responsible to? ’ and ‘ what
are administrators responsible for? ’
John of Salisbury and Al-Mawardi both served as public administrators
and wrote their texts with the administrative sections of government in
mind. Consequently, the texts represent both practical and academic wisdom
on matters of administrative behaviour, administrative responsibility and
the proper development of an administrative hierarchy necessary for good
governance. These texts have been chosen for the following reasons: (1) the
practical insights into administration developed by the authors – who were
both ‘ administrators ’ themselves; (2) the relative lack of attention that these
texts have received in the administrative theory literature; and (3) the reli-
gious commitment that both authors demonstrate throughout the texts.
This paper progresses in the following way: fi rst, the use of Policraticus
and The Ordinances of Government are defended as relevant works of public
administration theory. Second, a comparison of the two texts and the con-
cepts within them is offered in order to point out differing ways that admin-
istrative responsibility may be determined. Lastly, the critical question for
To continue reading
Request your trial