Making use of an enduring public administration myth

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of the public interest. The central question is whether the public interest is a usable concept in a time of social and political change. A historical overview of the public interest is provided. Two researchers are highlighted: David John Farmer and O.C. McSwite. The paper concludes by proposing the refusal of subjective identification with the public interest. Design/methodology/approach: Discourse theory and Lacanian psychoanalysis are discussed in this paper. The emphasis in both approaches is to examine ethical challenges in politics and administration through new epistemological lenses. A further use of these research strategies is to identify existing institutional practices and situate administrative decision-making within those practices. Findings: The findings in this paper indicate that while institutional resistance is useful, it can also be co-opted or result in retribution. In both cases, power is asserted and maintained by those who hold institutional power. David John Farmer’s work on anti-administration and O.C. McSwite’s work on administrative refusal are effective strategies to address the abuse of institutional power. Originality/value: This paper introduces the concept of subjective identification to the literature of public administration. Subjective identification offers administrators a new approach to the ethical dilemmas they face in the workplace.