Radical Reform from Its Origin: Decoding the Paradigm Dispute of Public Administration was published on Journal of Political Science Research, 2021, Issue 2.

The article points out that since the late 20th century, due to the vague understanding of the concept of the paradigm of public administration and the unclear analysis of the essence of the "debate on the paradigm of public administration", the "paradigm of public administration" has always been a topic of constant debate in the field of public administration. The author believes that we should start from the source of the concept of paradigm, clarify the context, and find a way to solve the paradigm dispute of public administration.

The article discusses the paradigm of public administration from three aspects: "circle of scholars", "academic consensus" and "discipline norms". From the aspect of "scholar circle", the author discusses whether the paradigm exists, whether it can be transformed and the scene of the paradigm. First of all, there are two kinds of arguments in the academic circle about the existence and non-existence of the paradigm of public administration, which are rooted in the concept of paradigm and its interpretation. Secondly, on the issue of paradigm shift in public administration, the academic community has shown a difference between conservative and open attitudes. The ambiguity of the transition standard is one of the reasons why it is difficult to reach consensus on paradigm shift. The debate has confused the difference between the theoretical change and paradigm shift in public administration, and has wrongly replaced the innovation and reconstruction of the discipline paradigm with the incremental development of the theoretical schools. Finally, in terms of the scene of the paradigm of public administration, the academic community fell into a dialogue or opposition debate on how to construct a Chinese paradigm. The author emphasizes that we must maintain a rational reflection on the localization of public administration with a critical attitude.

In the sense of "academic consensus", the author reflects on the ontology of the paradigm of public administration from three aspects: the ontological dilemma of the paradigm debate, different attempts to break away from the ontological dilemma, and the truth of public administration. First of all, the author points out that the ontological dilemma that is difficult to reach consensus in public administration in academia is mainly manifested in three aspects: ontological weakening, ontological dilution and ontological deviation. Secondly, the ways to get out of the ontological dilemma include the "big problem" approach, "Knowledge Axis" approach and "Research Areas and Issues" approach. The first two ways are to answer "what is public administration", and the third way is to answer "what is public administration". Finally, the article believes that bureaucracy solves the problem of "how to conduct public administration", and publicity explains the problem of "why public administration". Both of them are the basis for the construction of the paradigm of public administration to some extent.

In terms of defining the "discipline norms" of Chinese public administration science and constructing the Chinese discourse of the paradigm of public administration science, we should firstly view the nature of the debate on the paradigm of public administration with a reflective attitude, dialectically look at the localization of Chinese public administration with a subjective attitude to avoid the "blind image", and construct the localization of Chinese public administration science with a scientific attitude. Secondly, we should inherit the fine Chinese tradition and find out its Chinese origin. At present, there is no natural "rupture" between China's public administration and China's administrative thought and system history, which is mainly reflected in the historical space of administrative value filled by Confucianism and Legalism, and the national reason of collectivism deeply engraved in the administrative system by the Sinicization theory of Marxism. The third is to plan a suitable plan for China and find out its way to future. This paper puts forward the Chinese scheme of constructing the paradigm of public administration from four aspects: proposing the true problem, providing the true concept, constructing the collaborative academic ecology and strengthening the practical social function. To be specific, the first is to raise the true question of "evidence can be adduced in experience and self-consistent in logic" in the Chinese context. The second is to "dig out concepts and theories" from the history of China's administrative thought and system practice. The third is to establish a benign academic ecology of interdisciplinary and inter disciplinary interaction. Fourthly, we should strengthen the application and transformation of public administration knowledge achievements, and enhance the social practice function of public administration.