PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS BETWEEN BUREAUCRACY AND POST-BUREAUCRACY: A PARADOXICAL PERSPECTIVE

Public Administration (PA) operate under multiple institutional logics, shaped by two dominant organizational models: the bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic frameworks. While PAs traditionally adhered to Weberian bureaucratic principles, critiques of this model emerged, and efforts were made to replace the bureaucratic ethos with post-bureaucratic values and principles. However, rather than a mechanical replacement, both models continue to coexist, creating ‘layering’ mechanisms. This coexistence generates enduring tensions in public operations and management, often described as ‘paradoxical’. Paradox theory provides a framework for understanding and addressing these tensions, positing that paradoxes consist of contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time—appearing logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when viewed together. Despite the potential of a paradoxical lens, existing literature on paradoxes in public administration remains fragmented. This PhD dissertation seeks to explore the application of paradox theory within public administration, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in this field. The first chapter is a systematic literature review to categorize and analyze paradoxes within PAs. Beyond offering a conceptualization of the paradoxes that emerge in public contexts, it provides insights into the reimagining of the ongoing debate between bureaucracy and post-bureaucracy. The findings reveal the pervasiveness of PA paradoxes and their relation to bureaucracy-post-bureaucracy contraposition. The second chapter employs a historical approach to investigate how PAs navigate the bureaucracy vs. post-bureaucracy paradox over time and across different yet intertwined organizational domains. The chapter also explores how the varying strengths of the bureaucracy and post-bureaucracy poles influence the nature of the paradox and affect coping strategies. Specifically, it examines whether the strength attributed to these poles manifests similarly or differently across interrelated organizational domains, consequently shaping distinct coping strategies. Finally, the third chapter argues that PAs are multilayered entities characterized by multiple rationalities. In addition to a legal logic rooted in compliance with formal norms (reflecting bureaucratic structures) and a performance logic focused on efficient and effective service delivery (emerging from post-bureaucratic values), a third logic - democratic responsiveness - requires alignment with political mandates to ensure consensus. These three logics coexist and managing them creates constrains for learning and innovation processes. Through four-year ethnography study, this chapter advances the complexity of paradox theory by adopting a ‘trialectic’ lens, thereby enhancing the understanding of paradoxes as composed of multiple simultaneous poles.