No time for cynicism

Introduction

‘”Magic” is entertaining. It excites discussion, but when the show is over many hard choices remain.’ With these sentences the late Christopher Pollitt (1946-2018) and the present reviewer concluded their article on the role of ‘magic concepts’ in talking about government (Pollitt and Hupe, 2011: p. 654). Christopher would have been the first to see the irony that the publication of this article in retrospect would appear to have been an agenda-setting activity. The notion of magic concepts has proven to have magical traits itself, in the sense that - broad as it is - peers have adopted, applied and elaborated it (cf. Carey and Malbon, 2018; Bentzen et al., 2024). With his book Magical Thinking in Public Policy, John Boswell has taken the notion seriously, by formulating a critique on the ‘cynical’ (p. 24) and ‘pessimistic’ (p. 161) ‘orthodoxy’ in thinking about public policy and public administration of which he sees Pollitt and Hupe as profiled representatives. Boswell goes further than that, by empirically evidencing how ‘magical thinking’ in policymaking works and what the mobilizing, activating and guiding functions of a particular single concept in policy practice can be.

The book consists of eight chapters. After a grounding start in two theoretical chapters (Chapter 1 ‘Naïve ideals in cynical times’ and Chapter 2 ‘Conceptualizing magical thinking’), each of the next five chapters is dedicated to an empirical analysis of how a particular magic concept works in parts of the health sector in the United Kingdom. These concepts are indicated in the headings of the chapters concerned: ‘Evidence-based policymaking’ (Chapter 3), ‘Prevention’ (Chapter 4), ‘Collaboration’ (Chapter 5), ‘Transparency’ (Chapter 6) and ‘Citizen engagement’ (Chapter 7), followed by a concluding chapter. In each of the five empirical chapters, the author differentiates between three general issues all policy actors in policymaking encounter and need to deal with: uncertainty, complexity and contestation.

In Chapter 8 the fivefold empirical analysis ends up in Table 8.1 headed ‘The profane value of clinging to naïve ideals for better policymaking.’ The Table is informative, for its columns present, for each of the five magic concepts, findings on the substantive value (dealing with uncertainty), the pragmatic value (dealing with complexity) and the procedural value (dealing with contestation) of the magic concept concerned. For dealing with uncertainty, magical thinking refers to the common thread that ‘appealing to reform ideals helps actors to reach for stopgap measures, short-term compromises, incremental baby-steps and gradual learning amid uncertainty’ (p. 151). One could say, the pursuit of a magic concept such as evidence-based policymaking reconciles the policy actors concerned with the inevitable necessity of making no more than small steps at a time, as a form of ‘“muddling through” in a context of “bounded rationality”’ (p. 151). For dealing with complexity, the common thread behind magical thinking in the five cases is that appealing to reform ideals ‘helps actors to pursue instrumental ends through avowedly principled means’ (p. 153). And for dealing with contestation, the common thread is that appealing to apparent ideals ‘manages to sustain collective buy-in while still promising individual pay-off’ (p. 155).

Boswell observes that actors of all sorts ‘cling on or keep coming back to these ideals, not just because they think they represent the best way to reform policymaking, but, as importantly, because they represent the best way in the long run to get their way’ (p. 155; italics from the original). All in all, the author argues that in the messy world of policymaking, the very public and often hotly contested pursuit of key ideals by itself already, helps to generate and sustain productive forms of deliberative practice. ‘The near universal commitment to these ideals provides a fertile common ground for debate, offering greater access and influence to marginal and lesser resourced actors, and ensuring powerful and highly resourced actors are subject to greater scrutiny’ (p. 155).

The relevance of magical thinking

A high degree of abstraction, a strongly positive normative charge, a seeming ability to dissolve previous dilemmas and binary oppositions; and a mobility across domains – these traits give particular concepts their ‘magic’ character, Pollitt and Hupe (2011) argued. That magic concepts have these characteristics in common makes them popular. Such concepts are so broad that they invite diverse interpretations. Their broadness and positive connotation compensate for the fact that these concepts are not always well-defined. It is the other way around: exactly their indeterminate character enables them to be used in a great variety of ways. If the qualification of ‘magic’ refers to any aspect in particular, it would be their highly aspirational character. What intrigues John Boswell is summarized in the book’s subtitle: Why naïve ideas about better policymaking persist in cynical times. In the five case studies he shows how seemingly naïve goals continuedly are being pursued by policy actors who are quite well aware of the idealistic character of these goals. Put in straightforward terms, one can state that Boswell makes a convincing case for the engaging functions magical thinking fulfils in the practice of policymaking: ‘irrational hope appears to triumph over rational experience,’ with policy actors continuing ‘to promote ideals to enhance policymaking that they are, in more private reflections, cynical about’ (p. 1).

Boswell takes Pollitt and Hupe’s account as object of his well-articulated critique, because he sees them as failing ‘to acknowledge the doubt and the cynicism that policy actors share in common with policy scholars’ (p. 16). In the ‘orthodox interpretation in policy and administration’ (p. 17-18), reliance on magic concepts - ambiguous and abstract as they are - is assumed to cause policy actors failing ‘to overcome practical obstacles to reform and progress’ (p. 21). Moreover, these actors are seen to risk ‘depoliticizing complex and contested issues’ (p. 21). Worse still, by adopting magic concepts, policy actors are deemed to convey ‘a false veneer of progress that masks and reinforces inequalities and pathologies in the policy process’ (p. 21). With these assumptions ascribed to the ‘orthodoxy’ Pollitt and Hupe are seen to stand for, in Boswell’s view they tend to neglect a key insight:

namely that policy actors themselves are well aware of the fragility and occasional absurdity of the language and ideas they trade in. Put simply, experienced policy actors are not callow or clueless. They too are cynical about the buzzwords and the jargon. What, then, if policy actors turn to magic concepts not out of some uncritical force of habit or through slavish adherence to fashion, but because these aspirations actually offer valuable resources in dealing with the complex demands of their work? (p. 21).

Boswell (p. 25) refers to Hal Colebatch’s (2006) contrast of the sacred and the profane. The sacred is the official story about how policymaking works, inscribed in policy documents, advocacy briefings, formal announcements and expert testimonies. The profane, in contrast, is the unofficial knowledge that policy actors possess from experience of how policymaking really works. Policy actors’ relationship with ideals such as evidence-based policymaking is more complicated than the cynical orthodoxy would suggest. Boswell remarks that the sacred and the profane go hand in hand. It is possible to believe in ideals while harbouring doubts about manifestations in practice. Most policy actors are, at least to some extent, ‘reflective practitioners well aware of the vagaries and pathologies of the policy process which undermine good intentions’ (p. 25). The success of an aspirational ideal expressed in a magic concept is contingent, Boswell states (p. 162). In the profane practices of policy work a concept remains useful as long as it is (before being succeeded by a new hot magic concept, one could add). Faced with ‘powers-that-be who promise to do “what works” while continuing to allow what doesn’t,’ policy actors sometimes may feel impotent (p. 163). However, their efforts are not in vain, Boswell concludes (p. 163): ‘Little by little, they help to set in place new rules of engagement that can broaden opportunities for access and influence, and subject powerful actors to scrutiny …’

With his book the author wanted ‘to defend the persistence of apparent magical thinking about naïve ideals in cynical times’ (p. 148). Assessing the realization of this aim, the following can be stated. First, it appears to be possible as well as needed to make work of the notion of magic concepts. Taking such a concept seriously implies scholarly work beyond merely marketing activities. A fully-fledged analysis does not only require a substantiation of the concept concerned by embedding the latter in a broader theoretical angle, but also an elaborated empirical research design. The book proves, second, that the list of magic concepts is longer than Christopher Pollitt and the present reviewer in 2011 presumed it to be. They listed a limited range of concepts with the indicated shared features (‘governance,’ ‘accountability,’ ‘transparency,’ ‘networks,’ ‘performance,’ ‘participation’ and ‘innovation’), assuming that this list more or less covered the subject of their article. Since the publication of the latter, the number of magic concepts identified as such has grown. The notion turned out to be a magic concept itself. With its broad meaning and inherent ambiguity, it appeared to create room for adoption, specification, as well as criticism. By now, it seems more realistic to suppose that, over time, magic concepts come and go (which turns the conditions for their life cycle into a potential object of inquiry). Third, the book documents how magical thinking in the practice of policymaking works. This can be seen as a major contribution. However, the question remains largely open how scholarly to proceed, in a programmatic sense. The author is brief when it comes to recommendations for peers on the formulation of a research agenda and on how to set up a design of further (comparative) research.

Where magic does not hold

Boswell’s book focuses on the role of magic concepts in the practice of policymaking. Pollitt and Hupe, however, addressed an audience in a twofold locus: both the practice (‘public administration’ in lowercase letters) and the study of public administration (Public Administration with a capital P and A). Their article in fact can be read primarily as a call to their peers (and themselves) to show a scholarly commitment going further than marketing ever new concepts. The book reviewed here provides original insights on what magical thinking does for policy actors but it is rather silent on the function of magic concepts in academia. Another question needs to be addressed: What do such concepts do for understanding and explaining the working of the state? It is relevant to observe that the author, in one way or another, seems to overlook that Pollitt and Hupe’s argument, at least equally, concerns their fellow-researchers (and themselves) in the study of public administration, public policy and public management. Expressing a particular ideal, magic concepts are normatively attractive but at the same time their explanatory power is limited. That can be the shortest summary of the message Christopher Pollitt and the present reviewer wanted to convey when they presented the notion of magic concepts. Then a differentiation between institutional and cognitive functions is at stake. In public institutions, novel concepts may fulfil mobilizing functions. In academia, they enhance the formation of scholarly niches. At the same time, apart from talking about government, what remains central is understanding and explaining how government works, with its causes and consequences in relation to society. Taking this task seriously in terms of theory formation then implies the development of a tenable analytical approach. In methodological and programmatic terms, it means making more steps in the empirical cycle than merely advertising the concept concerned.

Ray Pawson (2024) calls objectivity, causality and generality the ‘three great methodological challenges in social research.’ This implies requirements for doing such research. Although this book review is not the place for an elaboration, three basic requirements can be identified here. Clearly, in a research design, concept specification is desirable. Where in the practice of policymaking the ambiguity of a concept serves as an asset – after all, vagueness creates freedom and enhances mobilization power – in the study of that same practice it may be misleading. Furthermore, when understanding and explaining empirical phenomena are concerned, more than a single concept is needed. A concept is not a model, a theory or a general analytic framework. Its explanatory power is relative. Magic concepts on their own are not to be mistaken for a full theory. Instead, they may have potential explanatory functions, ‘but only if positioned, specified, operationalized and applied in systematic ways,’ Pollitt and Hupe (2011: p. 654) stated. Finally, there must be a minimum kind of curiosity to encounter deviant cases: the search for the black swan. This induces some form of systematic comparison, in order to avoid idiosyncratic reasoning.

Making a point of craft-like requirements like these may sound trivial, when magical thinking is concerned. As yet, also such thinking can and must be studied in ways as systematic as possible; at least in order to have peers stay in debate with peers. This is important within as well as across the epistemological Great Divide, ultimately with an eye on the accumulation of knowledge (talking about an ideal …). All things considered, Public Administration may be expected to offer more to society than an ongoing marketing of ever novel concepts. The book offers lucid insights where it highlights the engaging functions magic concepts may have in government practice. In the concluding chapter Boswell also offers some thoughts ‘towards a new agenda in policy studies’ (pp. 161-163). While in the five cases he looked at how actors deal with dilemmas, Boswell (p. 162) suggests to do so more systematically from a comparative perspective. Very worthwhile, but also very briefly - what is missed is some more explicit reflection on the theoretical, methodological and programmatic dimensions of what it takes to study the phenomena concerned. A starting point then could be the meta-question of what needs explanation at all, particularly in the kind of socio-political contexts clearly changing today.

Engagement for the common good

In principle, the range of questions worthwhile to address is endless, of course. Making a case for more attention to election administration in the United States, Amanda Clark and Christina Barsky (2026) provide a contemporary example with both academic and societal relevance. They consider election administration as offering a research area, understudied yet, appropriate to examine and test institutional, principal/agent and other theoretical approaches. As a research question with a high socio-political relevance, Clark and Barsky (p. 76) suggest, for instance, to explain the variation in election administration performance as related to the adopted modes of selecting election officials and systems for leadership and management at the level of US states.

The authors point out that the current practice of election administration in the USA is under attack. Despite their success and increasing professionalization, today’s election administrators are facing increased ‘threats from people that do not understand what they do. Worse, popular rhetoric is priming people to blame election administrators for results they do not like, a fundamentally undemocratic activity,’ Clark and Barsky (2026: p. 65) observe. Lower turnout and the capture of offices by individuals unsupportive of their purpose will particularly affect communities with historically and continuingly marginalized identities, such as those of people of colour, persons with a disability, immigrants and members of the diverse Rainbow communities, the authors argue. ‘A mass exodus of experienced election administrators due to a toxic environment, and challenges in recruitment, harms democracy and the values we profess to uphold in our field,’ they state (p. 65). Clark and Barsky make a call to Public Administration scholars ‘to be better partners in creating communities of focus in this critical area of public service.’ These colleagues can be such partners, by placing their Public Administration programmes in the perspective of efforts to ‘humanize the profession of democracy administration.’ More generally, the authors deem it necessary to reflect on possibilities to foster - ‘within the broader concept of civic engagement’ – ‘public administration’s commitment to democracy’ (p. 65).

Clark and Barsky are referred to here, because in their article they highlight a relatively invisible part of practice of public administration, in view of the changed socio-political contexts referred to above. In relation to this, they draw consequences for the study of and teaching about that practice overall. And they appear not to be the only ones. In their introduction to a special issue of this journal, Melissa Hawkins and her colleagues (2025) explicitly address the ‘relevance gap’ in Public Administration. The contributions share a focus on ‘supporting public administrators and service providers to navigate 21^st Century complexities’ (Hawkins et al., 2025: p. 137). In the book central in the present review essay, John Boswell wanted to protect the practice of policymaking he studied, against the cynicism attributed to the perceived ‘orthodox’ way of thinking represented by Christopher Pollitt and Peter Hupe. Boswell did a fine job, but there is more to tell, as indicated in the articles put upfront here. Apart from methodological requirements (on p. 72, Clark and Barsky speak of ‘actionable research’), this goes in terms of theoretical lens, consequences for teaching and research programme.

First, in the practice of election administration in present USA as pictured by Clark and Barsky, little magic can be observed. As they show, the exercise of plain power politics is at stake. Answering questions about policy means addressing issues of power. Old-school questions, such as ‘who creates it, who benefits from it, who loses because of it, and whose voice is included or ignored’ (p. 65), have anything but lost their relevance. Magic concepts are attractive, but darker parts of the reality of public administration demand attention too. In giving such research attention, classic concepts such as power and conflict cannot be missed. Second, fostering civic engagement indeed needs to be rethought and practised in contemporary forms. This implies fundamental reflection on the Public Administration curriculum. It is also worthwhile to discuss to what extent and in which forms, civic engagement can be asked from academics. Exposing harm, speaking truth to power (Wildavsky, 2018 [1979]), contributing to the public debate on the basis of accumulated knowledge, gained insights and acquired experience – these ideals cannot simply be written-off as modernist naivety.

Third, from academics, if anything, an enhanced scholarly commitment can be asked. Ultimately, social scientists serve society best by practising social science. Deconstructing myths certainly is a scholarly engaging activity (in a straightforward way, it can be fun). Empirically reconstructing functions fulfilled in everyday practice, while those may seem dismissed in theory or in prevailing ideology, may be an academically equally rewarding exercise. This being so, the empirical cycle implies several theoretical, methodological and programmatic steps to be taken and such steps demand long-term and joint scholarly involvement. While conceptual innovation keeps its charm, mono-causal reductionism is to be avoided. Taking stock, assessing what is known and what not yet, before identifying relationships, then are among the more mundane, endurance-demanding activities.

Conclusion

The role of magical thinking in the practice of policymaking has been eloquently evidenced in the book reviewed in this essay. Independent of actual results, for policy actors it is worthwhile to pursue a particular magic concept. It is the aspirational character of ‘evidence-based policymaking’ or ‘transparency’ that counts more than the actual realization of these ideals. With that character these concepts trigger magical thinking that goes beyond, for instance, aiming at specific performance targets. The journey is the destination here. Values such as ‘collaboration’ or ‘prevention’ concern public desiderata which keep a general relevance in state/society relations. Boswell justifiably points out that the ideals expressed in those desiderata-annex-magic-concepts ‘offer vital resources for progress in democratic governance, however partial and piecemeal, slow and frustrating that progress may be’ (p. 8).

In this respect he highlights (p. 8) the ‘civilizing force of hypocrisy.’ With this illuminating insight, Jon Elster (1998) refers to the effect of an audience. People tend to hide their subjective motives under objective rationalizations, while referring to generally accepted values and norms. While this force has a generic character, Boswell sees it particularly at work in the practice of politics and government. In the public sphere there is a need to justify one’s claims and to make such justifications in terms that are widely deemed as legitimate. The powers that be are forced to articulate such claims in terms referring to the common good, rather than in the name of private interests. Also more broadly, policy actors are driven by ideals for better policymaking expressed in the kind of magic concepts central here. Such a concept remains important indeed as expressing an ideal: something to give orientation while functioning as a shared point of reference. The actual results of the actions and interactions of policy actors are secondary; the drive behind them is real and persistent.

Boswell (p. 160) speaks of a ‘near universal commitment’ to such ideals. The adjective ‘near’ cannot be overlooked. Currently, populist authoritarianism is all around. In many countries there are indications that the working of the ‘civilising force of hypocrisy’ at the highest levels of public office no longer can be taken for granted. There still may be hypocrisy, but acts of governing primarily seem to serve private interests then. A bias towards what government stands for is expressed in a particularist view on the public cause. When ideals-for-the-benefit-of-all no longer prevail, what will be the impact on the justifications policy actors give for their actions in policymaking?

If in politics the profane of cynicism tends to become the sacred, the connection between the practice of policymaking and Public Administration scholarship cannot be considered as given. This has implications for Public Administration education. The consequences of what seems to become the ‘new normal’ must be thorougly reflected upon for the teaching of the Public Administration curriculum and the training of current and prospective public servants. Students must be taught the rules of the game, but they must also be educated in civic engagement and the entitlements of human rights and civil rights. Not in the least, they must become knowledgeable about and get acquainted with the requirements of the rule of law. After all, there is a sustained necessity of a rule-based order. Indeed, the sacred and the profane go hand in hand.