Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Over the past four decades of its existence, Dutch public administration has developed into a science which mainly produces knowledge that either caters to a very specific scientific niche or aims to optimize policy processes in an instrumental fashion. This type of knowledge is not well equipped to provide answers or improve understanding of the challenges of our time. We argue that public administration needs to shift its focus more towards producing reflexive knowledge in the form of what we would call critical public administration. Based on the contributions in this special issue, this article outlines what the contribution of such a critical public administration could be. The article shows that, even though it is theory driven, critical public administration is close to policy practice and can fuel a productive public debate by imagining alternative futures.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Policy is often based on the assumption that people are rational decision makers. Rational decision makers search all relevant information before they make a decision. They list the pros and cons of relevant options and make a well thought choice that best fits their fixed preferences. However, research from amongst others psychology and behavioral economics shows that people decide differently and that they are irrational, emotional decision makers instead. Policy therefore fits people’s decision making strategies worse than expected. It is important for policy makers to gain insight into situational influences on decisions and the influence of the so-called choice architecture on decisions. In this article we discuss research that tested when policy was more efficient, based on behavioral insights and the view of man as an irrational, emotional being.

Public Administration has been confronted with an emerging body of literature on the subject of social engineering and the limitedness of governing society. At the same time, governance is considered to be more greedy. The aim of this article is to consider the implications of the boundaries of social engineering for Public Administration. This article reflects on these implications as follows. Firstly, this article gives an analysis of the relation between governance, policy and feasibility. Secondly, different definitions of feasibility are developed and related to Public Administration. These elements lead to the conclusion that Public Administration is part of the culture of perfecting. Thirdly, after rejecting fatalism, a new perspective for Public Administration can be found in thinking based on practical rationality.