Locating the modernist state. On whether or not modernist principles govern contemporary policy practice

Abstract

Modernism is the belief in a world that can be understood in objective terms and controlled as such. Even though it is commonly understood to be a naïve worldview, public administration theorists believe it to still aptly describe the modus operandi of modern states—albeit in more subtle forms. This raises the question whether that makes civil servants naïve modernists, or whether theories of the modernist state are oversimplifying government practice. This study explores this question by means of interviews with civil servants involved in decision making processes on infrastructure investments. It finds that modernist norms do not describe an actual practice, but reflect the language used to legitimize a practice in which policy makers are driven by a desire to act rather than objective knowledge about the world. Consequently, the study argues that the question we should be asking ourselves is not why states still operate according to modernist principles, but why civil servants legitimize their practice with a set of norms that does not seem to describe it.

Keywords:

• Infrastructure policy
• knowledge use
• modernism
• technocracy

Acknowledgements

The author thanks 17 respondents for their invaluable cooperation, Robert van Putten, Joram Feitsma, Lennart van Loenen and Willem Trommel for their feedback on earlier drafts of this paper, and Naomi Peeters, Maud Pfeiffer and Julie Bosmans for transcribing the interviews.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Even though some of the studies referenced here are said to be based on a modernist ontology, one could at least expect the insights they provide to inspire modesty about the capabilities of a modernist state to put modernist principles into practice. For example, Simon (1976) does propagate the idea of rational government action, but also suggests that civil servants have limited capacity for such action (Miller & Fox, 1997).

2 A mode of governing in which decision-making is a joint venture between public and private parties. The state steers these processes, rather than making all the decisions herself (Rhodes, 1997).

3 A way of policy making in which bureaucrats decide on behalf of citizens, based on scientific evidence (Feitsma, 2018, based on Clarence (2002)).

4 Own translation. Original Dutch title: “Spelregels van het MIRT.”

5 National Market and Capacity Analysis (Nationale Markt- en Capaciteitsanalyse, own translation).

6 Because of the limited availability of data for cross-border traffic.

7 In the maps generated by the model.

Additional information

Funding

This study was conducted as part of the Research Center Governance Innovation [2016–2020] and funded by the Flemish government.

Notes on contributors

Lars Dorren

Lars Dorren is an assistant professor at the Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University.