Public administration can be broadly described as
the development, implementation and study of branches of
government policy.
The pursuit of the
public good by
enhancing
civil society, ensuring a
well-run, fair, and effective
public
service are some of the goals of the field.
Public administration is that type of politics ,wherein
development,implementation and study of various branches of
government policy are done for an effective public service.
Public administration is carried out by
public servants who work in public
departments and agencies, at all levels of government, and perform
a wide range of tasks. Public administrators collect and analyze
data (
statistics), monitor
budgets, draft
legislation, develop policy, and execute
legally mandated government activities. Public
administrators serve in many roles: ranging from "front-line"
positions serving the public (e.g.,
peace
officers,
parole officers,
border guards);
administrators (e.g., auditors); analysts
(e.g.,
policy analysts); and managers
and executives of government branches and agencies.
Public administration is also an
academic
field. In comparison with related fields such as
political science, public administration
is relatively new, having emerged in the 19th century.
Multidisciplinary in character, it draws
on theories and concepts from political science,
economics,
sociology,
administrative law,
behavioural science,
management, and a range of related fields. The
goals of the field of public administration are related to the
democratic values of improving
equality,
justice, security,
efficiency, effectiveness of public services usually in a
non-profit, non-taxable venue;
business administration, on the
other hand, is primarily concerned with taxable
profit. For a field built on concepts (
accountability,
governance,
decentralization,
clientele), these concepts are often ill-defined
and typologies often ignore certain aspects of these concepts
(Dubois & Fattore 2009).
In academia
A public administrator can expect to serve in a variety of
capacities.
In the United States
, the academic field draws heavily on political science and law. In Europe (notably in Britain
and Germany
), the
divergence of the field from other disciplines can be traced to the
1720s continental university
curriculum. Formally, official academic distinctions were
made in the 1910s and 1890s, respectively. Returning again to the
United States, the
Federalist
Papers referred to the importance of good
administration at various times.
Further, scholars such as
John A.
Rohr writes of a long history behind
the constitutional
legitimacy of government
bureaucracy.
One minor tradition that the more specific term "
public management" refers to ordinary,
routine or typical management concerns, in the context of achieving
public good. Others argue that public
management as a new, economically driven perspective on the
operation of government. We will see that this latter view is often
called "
new public management"
by its advocates. New Public Management represents a reform
attempt, aimed at reemphasizing the professional nature of the
field. This will replace the academic, moral or disciplinary
emphasis. Some theorists advocate a bright line differentiation of
the professional field from related academic disciplines like
political science and sociology; it remains interdisciplinary in
nature.
As a field, public administration can be compared to
business administration, and the
master of public administration (MPA) viewed as similar to a master
of business administration (MBA) for those wishing to pursue
governmental or non-profit careers. An MPA often emphasizes
substantially different ethical and sociological criteria that are
traditionally secondary to that of profit for business
administrators. The MPA is related to similar government studies
including public affairs,
public
policy, and political science. Differences often include
program emphases on
policy analysis
techniques or other topical focuses such as the study of
international affairs as opposed to
focuses on constitutional issues such as
separation of powers,
administrative law, problems of
governance and power, and
participatory democracy.
The Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) is a terminal
applied-research doctoral degree in the field of public
administration, focusing on practice. The DPA requires a
dissertation and significant coursework beyond the masters level.
Upon successful completion of the doctoral requirements, the title
of "Doctor" is awarded and the post-nominals of D.P.A. are often
added.
Public administration
theory is the domain in which discussions of the meaning and
purpose of government, bureaucracy, budgets, governance, and public
affairs takes place. In recent years, public administration theory
has periodically connoted a heavy orientation toward critical
theory and
postmodern philosophical
notions of government, governance, and power. However, many public
administration scholars support a classic definition of the term
emphasizing constitutionality, service, bureaucratic forms of
organization, and hierarchical government.
History
Antiquity to the early 19th century
Classic scholars including
Plato,
Aristotle, Vishnu Gupta(
Kautilya) and
Machiavelli are the basis of subsequent
generations of public administration. Until the birth of a
national state, the governors principally
emphasized moral and political human nature, as well as the on the
organization of the governing bodies. Operations were perceived to
be secondary to establishing and clarifying the overall guiding
theory of government. In
Machiavelli's
The Prince, European princes or
governors were offered advice for properly administering their
governments. This work represents one of the first Western
expressions of the methodology of government. As the centuries
moved past, scholars and governors persisted in their various
endeavors explaining how one governs.
Though progress varied across the globe, 16th century
Western Europe primarily ascribed to the
"national-state" model of government and its corresponding
administrative structures. Predominantly imperial Asia, tribal
Africa, and the tribal/colonial Americas were each feeling the
extent of Europe's diplomatic strategies whose emphasis was war,
profit, and proselytizing. In any event, nation-states required a
professional force and structure for carrying out the primary
purposes of government: ensuring stability with through law,
security with a military, and some measure of equity through
taxation.
Consequently, the need for expert civil servants whose ability to
read and write formed the basis for developing expertise in such
necessary activities as legal records,
military prowess, and
tax
administration, and record keeping. As the European imperialist age
progressed and the militarily dominant region extended its hold
over other continents and people, the need for increasingly
conventional administrative expertise grew.
Eighteenth century noble,
King Frederick William I of
Prussia, created professorates in
Cameralism in an effort to service this need.
The
universities of Frankfurt an der Oder
and University of Hallewere
Prussian institutions
emphasizing economic and social disciplines, with the goal of
societal reform. Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi
was the most well-known professor of Cameralism. Thus, from a
Western European perspective, classic, medieval, and enlightened
scholars formed the foundation of the discipline that has come to
be called public administration.
Mid-1800s - 1930s
Lorenz von Stein, an 1855 German professor
from Vienna
, is
considered the founder of the science of public administration in
many parts of the world. In the time of Von Stein, public
administration was considered a form of administrative law, but Von
Stein believed this concept too restrictive.
Von Stein taught:
- Public administration relies on many prestablished disciplines
such as sociology, political science, administrative law and public finance. Further, public
administration is an integrating science.
- Public administrators need be concerned with both theory and
practice. Practical considerations are at the forefront of the
field, but theory is the basis of best practices.
- Public administration is a science because knowledge is
generated and evaluated according to the scientific method.
In the
United
States
, Woodrow Wilson is
considered the father of public administration. He first
formally recognized public administration in an 1887 article
entitled "The Study of Administration." The future president wrote
that "it is the object of administrative study to discover, first,
what government can properly and successfully do, and, secondly,
how it can do these proper things with the utmost possible
efficiency and at the least possible cost either of money or of
energy." Wilson was more influential to the science of public
administration than Von Stein, primarily due to an article Wilson
wrote in 1887 in which he advocated four concepts:
- Separation of politics and administration
- Comparative analysis of political and private
organizations
- Improving efficiency with business-like practices and attitudes
toward daily operations
- Improving the effectiveness of public service through
management and by training civil servants, merit-based
assessment
The separation of politics and administration has been the subject
of lasting debate. The different perspectives regarding this
dichotomy contribute to differentiating characteristics of the
suggested generations of public administration.
1940s
The separation of politics and administration advocated by Wilson
continues to play a significant role in public administration
today. However, the dominance of this dichotomy was challenged by
second generation scholars, beginning in the 1940s.
Luther Gulick's fact-value dichotomy was a key
contender for Wilson's allegedly impractical
politics-administration dichotomy. In place of Wilson's first
generation split, Gulick advocated a "seamless web of discretion
and interaction" (Fry 1989, 80).
Luther Gulick and
Lyndall Urwick are
two such second generation scholars. Gulick, Urwick, and the new
generation of administrators stood on the shoulders of contemporary
behavioral, administrative, and organizational "giants" including
Henri Fayol,
Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Paul
Appleby, Frank Goodnow, and Willam Willoughby. With the help of
these specialists and their empirical work on human nature, group
behavior, and business organizations, second generation public
administration scholars had a necessary advantage over the
pre-generation and first generation scholars. That is, the new
generation of organizational theories no longer relied upon logical
assumptions and generalizations about human nature like classical
and enlightened theorists.
Gulick is considered a watershed theorist, a truly unique
administrative scholar credited with generating a comprehensive,
generic theory of organization. During his seven decade career
Gulick differentiated his theories from those of his predecessors
by emphasizing the scientific method, efficiency, professionalism,
structural reform, and executive control. Gulick summarized the
duties of administrators with an acronym;
POSDCORB, which stands for planning, organizing,
staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting.
Finally, Fayol offered a systematic, 14-point, treatment of private
management. Second generation theorists drew upon private
management practices for administrative sciences. A single, generic
management theory bleeding the borders between the private and the
public sector, was thought to be possible. With the general theory,
the administrative theory could be focused on governmental
organizations.
Post-World War II - 1970s
The mid-1940s theorists challenged Wilson and Gulick. The
politics-administration dichotomy remained the center of criticism
in the third generation. In addition to this area of criticism,
government itself came under fire as ineffective, inefficient, and
largely a wasted effort. The sometimes deceptive, and expensive
American intervention in Vietnam along
with domestic scandals including
Watergate
are two examples of self-destructive government behavior during the
third generation. There was a call by citizens for efficient
administration to replace ineffective, wasteful bureaucracy. Public
administration would have to distance itself from politics to
answer this call and remain effective.
Elected officials supported such reform. The Hoover Commission,
chaired by University of Chicago professor
Louis Brownlow, to examine reorganization of
government. Dr. Brownlow subsequently he founded the public
administration service on the university, 1313 E. 60th Street. The
organization PAS provided consulting services to governments at all
levels of government until the 1970s.
1980s
In the late 1980s, yet another generation of public administration
theorists began to displace the last. What was called
New Public Management was proposed by
David Osborne and Ted Gaebler . The new model advocated the use of
private sector innovation, resources, and organizational ideas to
improve the public sector. During the
Clinton Administration (1992-2000),
Vice President
Al Gore adopted and reformed
federal agencies accordingly. New public management there by became
prevalent throughout the US bureaucracy.
Some critics argue that the New Public Management concept of
Americans as "customers" rather than "citizens" is an unacceptable
abuse. That is, customers are a means to an end, profit, rather
than part of the policy making process. Citizens are in fact the
proprietors of government (the owners), opposed to merely the
customers of a business (the patrons). In New Public Management,
people are viewed as economic units not democratic participants.
Nevertheless, the model is still widely accepted at all levels of
government.
1990s
In the late 1990s, Janet and Robert Denhardt proposed a new public
service model . This model's chief contribution is a focus on
Americans as "citizens" rather than "customers". Accordingly, the
citizen is expected to participate in government and take an active
role throughout the policy process. No longer are the proprietors
considered an end to a mean. Whilse this remains feasible at the
federal, state & local levels, where the concept of citizenship
is commonly wedded, the emergence of 'transnational administration'
with the growing number of international organizations and
'transnational executive networks' complicates the prospects for
citizen engagement.
One example of this is
openforum.com.au, an Australian
non-for-profit eDemocracy project which invites politicians, senior
public servants, academics, business people and other key
stakeholders to engage in high-level policy debate.
New public management (NPM)
The critics of NPM claim that a successor to NPM is
digital era governance, focusing on
themes of reintegrating government responsibilities, needs-based
holism (executing duties in cursive ways), and digitalization
(exploiting the transformational capabilities of modern IT and
digital storage).
Human Resources
Public Budgeting
Leading Definitions
Practical: "A plan for financing an enterprise or
government during a definite period, which is prepared and
submitted by a responsible executive to a representative body (or
other duly constituted agent) whose approval and authorization are
necessary before the plan may be executed." ~Frederick A.
Cleveland
Theoretical: The leading question: "On what basis
shall it be decided to allocate
x dollars to activity A
instead of activity B?" ~V. O. Key Jr.
Leading Theorists and Contributions
Frederick Cleveland: constructed a practical
definition of budgeting.
William F.
Willoughby:
describes the purpose of a budget document.
V. O. Key, Jr.: sparked the normative
question regarding how scarce resources ought to be distributed to
unlimited demands.
Verne B. Lewis: argued for a
budgeting theory based on economic values; strongly contributing to
the study of public finance.
Richard A.
Musgrave: the
Father of Public Finance; identified the three roles of government
in the economy: allocation of resources, distribution of goods and
services, and economy stabilization.
Aaron
Wildavsky:suggested that budgetary decision making is
largely political, rather than based on economic conditions.
Allen Schick: outlined
the three functions of budgeting:
1) Strategic Planning; deciding on the goals and objectives of
an organization.
2) Management Control; management's process of assuring
effective and efficient accomplishment of goals and objectives laid
out via
strategic planning.
3) Operational Control; focused on proper execution of specific
tasks that provide the most efficient and effective means of
meeting the goals and objectives ordered by
management
control.
Irene S. Rubin: facilitated the
discussion of the dichotomy between theory and practice of public
budgeting. See also:
Rubin, Irene S. (1997) The
Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and
Balancing. Third Edition, Chatham House Publishers:
Chatham, New Jersey.
Approaches to Budgeting
A brief note on
Systems Theory
applied to Political Science: Inputs enter the governmental system
that produces outputs which--in turn--are related to outcomes. The
conversion of inputs to outputs is a measure of efficiency as the
measurement of contributing inputs to impacting outcomes is a
measure of efficacy.
Line Item Budgeting is arguably the simplest form
of budgeting, this approach links the inputs of the system to the
system. These budgets typically appear in the form of accounting
documents that express minimal information regarding purpose or an
explicit object within the system.
Program Budgeting takes a normative approach to
budgeting in that decision making--allocating resources--is
determined by the funding of one program instead of another based
on what that program offers. This approach quickly lends itself to
the PPBS budgeting approach.
PPBS Budgeting or--Program Planning Budgeting
System--is the link between the line-item and program budgets and
the more complex performance budget. As opposed to the more simple
program budget, this decision making tool links the program under
consideration to the ways and means of facilitating the program.
This is meant to serve as a long-term planning tool so that
decision makers are made aware of the future implications of their
actions. These are typically most useful in capital projects. The
planning portion of the approach seeks to link goals to objects or
expected outcomes from specific outputs, which are then sorted into
programs that convert inputs to outputs; finally, the budgeting of
PPBS helps determine how to fund the program. A leader in the
promotion of PPBS was Robert McNamara's use in the United States
Government's Department of Defense in the 1960s.
Performance Based
Budgeting attempts to solve decision making problems
based on a programs ability to convert inputs to outputs and/or use
inputs to affect certain outcomes. Performance may be judged by a
certain program's ability to meet certain objectives that
contribute to a more abstract goal as calculated by that program's
ability to use resources (or inputs) efficiently--by linking inputs
to outputs--and/or effectively--by linking inputs to outcomes. A
decision making--or allocation of scarce resources--problem is
solved by determining which project maximizes efficiency and
efficacy.
Zero-based
budgeting is a response to an incremental decision
making process whereby the budget of a given fiscal year (FY) is
largely decided upon by the existing budget of FY-1. In contrast to
incrementalism, the allocation of scarce resources--funding--is
determined from a zero-sum accounting method. In government, each
function of a department's section proposes certain objectives that
relate to some goal the section could achieve if allocated
x dollars.
Flexible Freeze is
a budgeting approach pioneered by President George H. W. Bush as a
means to cut government spending. Under this approach, certain
programs would be affected by changes in population growth and
inflation.
Program
Assessment Rating Tool (P.A.R.T.) is an instrument
developed by the United States OMB to measure and assess the
effectiveness of federal programs that review the program’s purpose
and design, strategic planning, program management, and program
results and accountability. The scores are rated from effective
(ranging between 85 and 100 points), moderately affective (70-84
points), adequate (50-69 points), and ineffective (0-49
points).
Functions of a Budget Document
Traditional Model
Control: using the budget document to control
expenditures to maximize accountability. This function is most
commonly associated with line-item budgets.
Management:using the budget document to manage
organizations and personnel. This function is focused on
performance and efficiency. This function is most commonly
associated with performance budgets.
Planning: using the budget document as a plan to
achieve some goal. The focus of this function is on the outcome and
effectiveness of a program. This function is most commonly
associated with program and PPBS budgets.
Modern Model
Monitoring: as a response to the traditional
control function, the monitoring function focuses on the
consequences of expenditures.
Steering: as a response to the traditional
management function, the steering function serves as a
guide for managing.
Strategic Brokering uses the budget document as a
means of constantly looking for possible directions and reacting to
the environment.
Six Steps Steps of the Budgetary Process;
simplified
Revenue Estimation performed in the executive
branch by the finance director, clerk's office, budget director,
manager, or a team.
Budget Call issued to outline the presentation
form, recommend certain goals.
Budget Formulation reflecting on the past, set
goals for the future and reconcile the difference.
Budget Hearings can include departments, sections,
the executive, and the public to discuss changes in the
budget.
Budget Adoption final approval by the legislative
body.
Budget Execution amending the budget as the fiscal
year progresses.
Organizational theory
The thematic evolution of organizational theory is yet another way
one might capture the development of the field. Modern public
sector organizational theory can be thought of as the product of
two fields of study: management and government. Each of these
disciplines stand upon a foundation built by the theories of
Karl Marx,
Max
Weber,
Sigmund Freud,
Abraham Maslow, and
Robert Golembiewski.
Foundational scholars do not precede the entire discipline and have
emerged by contributing to transformations of the field. The
discipline has undergone at least two major transformations: from
classic, rational managers and political scientists to a humanistic
model of management and increasingly distinct public administration
scholars. Indeed, some argue that the third and possibly fourth
thematic developments are currently under way. That is, new public
management that was popular with the
Clinton Administration (1992-2000)
may soon yield to new public service.
Management and government academic work
In much the same way “pre-generation” scholars provide a foundation
for future governors and administrators, many seemingly unrelated
scholars are important to the developing organizational theory.
Though their respective connections with and relevance to
organizational theory vary, Marx, Weber, Freud, Maslow, and
Golembiewski (Denhardt 104-108) form the foundation for much of
what has become public sector organizational theory.
Karl Marx-”The history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class struggles.” (The
Communist Manifesto 1848, 10)
Max Weber-Government merely
monopolizes the legitimate use of force in a given area.
Weber’s most famous work was The Protestant Work Ethic and
the Spirit of Capitalism (1930).
Sigmund Freud-Subconscious needs
and desires are manifest in everyday human activities; The
Interpretation of Dreams (1900).
Abraham Maslow theorized that
there is a hierarchy of human needs, each level of which must be
fulfilled before one can effectively ascend to the next level.
Toward a Psychology of Being (1968).
The five categories of needs are, in hierarchical order:
physiological needs, safety, love and belonging, self esteem, and
self actualization needs.
Robert Golembiewski- Golembiewski wrote two books of particular
relevance to public administration: Men Management and
Morality (1967 in Denhardt 2001, 104) and Renewing
Organizations (1972 in Denhardt 2001, 106).
In the first, he argues for what has come to be known as moral
management, a “moral sensitivity…associated with satisfactory
output and employee satisfaction” (Denhardt 104).
In the second, Golembiewski takes a “laboratory approach to
organizational change” (Denhardt 106).
The author identifies five metavalues that guide this approach
to organizational change
- “acceptance of inquiry based on mutual accessibility and open
communication
- expanded consciousness and recognition of choice, especially
the willingness to experiment with new behaviors and choose those
that seem most effective
- a collaborative concept of authority, emphasizing cooperation
and responsibility for others
- authenticity in interpersonal relationships“ (Denhardt
106-107).
Golembiewski’s moral management and meta values are highly
compatible with subsequently discussed Theory Y management, Type-Z
Organizations, and a humanist approach to workplace
organization.
Given its interdisciplinary nature, one might visualize public
sector organization theory as a helix of management and government
scholars. Management theory began as a strictly rational,
positivist dogma through a humanist revolution, and includes a
modern reinterpretations and explorations. Similarly, government
scholars in the United States first delineated a border between
politics and administration that has been re-evaluated and
re-interpreted throughout the history of the discipline. Today,
public sector management incorporates developments in private
management theory with a renegotiation of the policy analyst’s role
in the political process.
Early management theory
Due in part to the historic context in which the field of public
administration emerged, early management and government scholars
attempted to be comprehensive rationalists. This required that they
also ascribe to a positivist reality. That is, scholars seek a
factual basis for drawing conclusions based upon observations and
logical deduction. Positivists believe these methods yield factual,
solid, unwavering truths, similar to the laboratory sciences. The
early theorists sometimes lost sight of the unpredictable nature of
social science.
Early management theorists were almost exclusively private sector
scholars. The concept of an employee as a manipulable tool was
another feature of early theorists. By creating the proper
conditions, management could better shape employees to fit the
needs of the organization; the company was primary in early
management theory. Though somewhat naive from a modern perspective,
early management scholars set a precedent for systematic, unbiased
decision-making.
Frederick
Winslow Taylor and
Henri Fayol were
two of the many seminal management theorists of particular
importance to public sector management.
Fredrick W. Taylor is probably most remembered for "scientific
management." This is commonly described as the method by which the
"one best way" to complete a task is discovered. In a 1915 address,
Taylor outlined the mutual advantages of labor saving technology
and processes, implicitly touting the significance of his model.
Taylor argued that objective empirical observation would eventually
yield an optimally efficient process by which a labor task could be
completed. (Taylor in Shafritz and Ott 2001, 61)
Much like Taylor, Henri Fayol was originally a private sector
theorist. In
General and Industrial Management (1916),
Fayol outlined what he called the “General Principles of
Management.” The author acknowledges, from a positivist
perspective, the flexibility of management studies. However, his
fourteen principles use in much the same matter-of-fact tone as
Taylor’s. Fayol’s 14 principles included the division of work,
authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity
of direction, subordination of individual interest to the general
interest, re-numeration of personnel, centralization, scalar chain,
order, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative, and
espirit de corps.
His elaboration upon each principle can be summarized as an
argument for a logically structured organization with an efficient
(non-duplicative) management chain. The author highlighted tension
between individual and organizational interests, a theme that would
be taken up again by subsequent humanists. Finally, his principles
advocated a management style and structure intended to foster a
healthy, spirited workforce, with a sense of loyalty to the
company. Taylor and Fayol represent early, private sector,
management scholars whose work would be succeeded by humanist
managers from both the public and private sectors.
Early political administration theory
Government or political science scholars dominated what would
become the public side of organizational theory.
Woodrow Wilson, PhD. and 28th president, is
remembered as one such political scientist who first distinguished
public administrators from politicians. In an 1887 article, “The
Study of Administration” Wilson called a professional workforce of
public sector employees. He further argued for efficiency and
responsibility to the public as key criteria by which this
workforce would operate.
His work marks the beginning of an era, at least in the United
States, during which public administration has been thought of as a
distinct field of study and practice. Since Wilson, public
administration has been a discipline separate from politics, worthy
of academic study and independent discussion. The idea that
business-like administrators should separate themselves from
politics in daily operations remains Wilson’s chief, most enduring
contribution.
Subsequent interpretations and the eventual development of rival
dichotomies are perhaps a tribute to the importance of Wilson’s
first distinction. The politics administration survived the
mid-twentieth century in the works of
Leonard White,
Frank
Goodnow, and
W.F. Willoughby, but these scholars did not leave
the original dichotomy as they had found it. Leonard White authored
The Study of Public Administration (1948), a standard in
the field for years (Denhardt 2000, 44). In it, the author argued
that “the study of public administration…needs to be related to the
broad generalizations of political theory concerned with such
matters as justice, liberty, obedience, and the role of the state
in human affairs “ (cited in Denhardt 2000, 44). The desire to
restore a degree of reliability, merit, and workability to
modernizing democracy was a major impetus for the continued
division of politics and administration.
In a related work, Frank Goodnow,
Policy and
Administration (1900), takes a local government perspective to
comment on the separation of powers in government. He argues that
the strict interpretation of the separation of powers in the
constitution has been violated many times for good reason (Denhardt
2000, 46). “Therefore, it is appropriate to rethink the formal
theory of separation of powers so that our theory might more
closely match our practice” (46). The unique perspective offers
valuable insight into other trade-offs, including that between
legislative versus administrative centralization at the state level
(Denhardt 47).
W.F. Willoughby,
‘The Government of Modern States (1936),
also contributed to the dialogue. Early in his career, Wolloughby
argued for a somewhat strict separation of government powers. The
executive branch was to enforce laws as they were created by the
legislature and interpreted by the courts (Denhardt 47). However,
he later recognized difficulties in this hard-line position.
Consequently, Willoughby suggested there are five classes of
governmental powers: legislative, judicial, executive, electorate,
and administrative. These classes existed in addition to the three
traditional branches of government. The theories of White, Goodnow,
and Willougby represent nuanced elaborations of a dichotomy much
like that of Wilson. However, this dichotomy would be more directly
challenged with suggested alternatives by the next generation of
public administration scholars.
Emergence as a distinct field
Luther Gulick and
Paul Appleby were among those who argued for
dichotomies that were wholly different from Wilson's. Gulick has
been called a strong personification of public administration in
the United States (Fry 1989, 73). Gulick ascribes to many of
Wilson’s themes, including a “science of administration,” increased
efficiency, structural reform of the bureaucracy, and augmented
executive authority. The chief executive coordinates the otherwise
disaggregate activities of a large, complex organization such as a
government. However, Gulick challenged Wilson’s strict dichotomy by
suggesting every action of a public administrator represents a
“seamless web of discretion and interaction.” “The administrator’s
role is to understand and coordinate public policy and interpret
policy directives to the operating services, but with unquestioned
loyalty to the decision of elected officials” (Fry 1989, 81).
Paul Appleby argued against the
increasingly dominant theory that administrators were somehow
neutral policy actors. He argued that “administrators are
significant policy actors who influence the policy-making process
in several different ways” (Denhadt 49). Administrators are charged
with the execution of public programs, the analysis of data for
decision recommendations, and interpreting the law as it is carried
out on a regular basis. Consequently, administrators influence and
even produce policy on a daily basis. Despite their break with
Wilson on the issue of completely separating administration from
politics, these divergent scholars agreed that a professional
workforce remain educated, skilled, and exist in meritous
competition for public sector employment. Thus, Gulick and Appleby
are major theorists whose theories truly break with Wilson's
original public administration theories.
A consolidated discipline
In addition to Gulick and Appleby,
Herbert
Simon,
Chester Barnard, and
Charles Lindblom are among the
first of those recognized as early American public administrators.
These men ushered in an era during which the field gained
recognition as independent and unique, despite its
multidisciplinary nature. In Simon’s
Administrative
Behavior (1948), the argument is made that decision-making is
the essence of management. The premises with which decisions are
made are therefore integral to management. Simon also contributed a
fact-value dichotomy, a theoretical separation to discern
management, decisions based upon fact versus those made based on
values. Since one cannot make completely responsible decisions with
public resources based solely on personal values, one must attempt
to upon objectively determined facts.
Simon developed other relevant theories as well. Similar to
Lindblom’s subsequently discussed critique of comprehensive
rationality, Simon also taught that a strictly economic man, one
who maximizes returns or values by making decisions based upon
complete information in unlimited time, is unrealistic. Instead,
most public administrators use a sufficient amount of information
to make a satisfactory decision:, they “satisfice.”
Charles Lindblom also expressed
disaffection with the comprehensive rational model in a 1959
article, “The Science of Muddling Through.” He argued for
“successive limited comparison" (81). ” Though the result of this
process was not as rational or ultimately as reliable as decisions
truly rational methods, incremental decision-making is undoubtedly
preferable to making a decision “off-the-cuff” or those that
consume extensive resources. Incrementalism's value lies in the
realistic expectation that practitioners will be able to use
it.
Chester Barnard was also one of the
watershed scholars. That is, his theories would bridge what would
become a gap between managers like F.W. Taylor and Henri Fayol with
subsequent humanists:
Mary Follett,
Elton Mayo, and
Chris Argyris. Barnard published “The Economy
of Incentives” (1938), in an attempt to explain individual
participation in an organization. Barnard explained organizations
as systems of exchange. Low-level employees must have more
incentive to remain with the organization for which they exchange
their labor and loyalty. The organization (and higher level
employees) must derive sufficient benefit from its employees to
keep them. The net pull of the organization is determined by
material rewards, environmental conditions, and other intangibles
like recognition.
Scholars including Gulick, Appleby, Simon, Lindblom, and Barnard
are among the early, independent public administrators. We will
see, however, that many of their ideas and justifications for a
positive, pro-active government are indebted, in fact, to the
contributions of numerous female philanthropists (Acker 1992;
Stivers 2002).
Public management
Several theorists bridged the gap between strictly private and
public sector management.
Luther
Gulick negotiated a generic theory of organization.
Max Weber exploring sociologist, explored the
ideal bureaucracy in
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism(Denhardt 2000, 27). He claimed that bureaucracies
are organizations that manage resources for citizens (Weber in
Shafritz and Ott, 2001, 73). The "physical" characteristics the
organization and the position of public officials were essential to
its structure. Weber held that graduated authority and equitable,
formalized procedures guard against the subjective abuse of power
by bureaucrats.
Weber admired bureaucracy for its trustworthiness. The bureaucracy
was constituted by a group of professional, ethical public
officials. These servants dedicate themselves to the public in
return for security of job tenure among the many advantages of
public employment. By rationalizing the organization of individuals
and recognizing the professional nature of the field, Weber
implicitly supports Wilson's politics-administration
dichotomy.
Humanist era
Humanists embrace a dynamic concept of an employee and management
techniques. This requires a theoretical shift away from the idea
that an employee is a cog in the industrial machine. Rather,
employees are unique individuals with goals, needs, desires, etc.
Mary Parker Follett,
Elton Mayo,
Chris
Argyris are among the most prominent humanists. Mary Parker
Follett claims that conflict is neither good nor bad, it is simply
inevitable (Fry 1989, 98). Elton teaches that humans are social
beings whose individualism is defined in part by participation in
the group.
Chris Argyris, a writer commonly
associated with business management authored
Personality and
Organization in 1957. He argues that “formal organizational
structures and traditional management practices tend to be at odds
with certain basic trends toward individual growth and
development”. Argyris continues,Executives must therefore fuse
basic human tendencies for growth and development with demands of
the organization’s task.
Rethinking power and management
The humanist era ushered in other possible interpretations of such
topics as power and management. One of the most significant was
Douglas McGregor’s “Theory X and
Theory Y.” McGregor's work provided a basis for a management
framework, a structure upon whose rungs the classic and new-aged
management might be hung (Denhardt 99-100). First, commonly held by
early management theorists, Theory X begins with the assumption
that humans possess an inherent aversion to work. Employees must
therefore be coerced and controlled if management expects to see
results. Further, lazy humans prefer direction bordering
micromanagement whenever possible (Denhardt 99).
Theory Y is much more compatible with the humanist tradition. This
begins with the assumption that work is as natural for humans as
rest or play. Further, employees will direct and control themselves
as they complete objectives. Humans learn naturally and seek
responsibility (Denhardt 100). Consequently, managers need only to
steer employees in a cooperative manner toward goals that serve the
organization. There is room for many to create and share
power.
The Z-Organization can be thought of as a complimentary third
element to McGregor's dichotomy. Z-organizations are a Japanese
organizational model. Similar to Theory-Y management, Z
organizations place a large degree of responsibility upon the
employees. Further, relatively low-level employees are entrusted
with the freedom to be creative, “wander around the organization”
and become truly unique, company-specific employees. However,
employees achieve only after “agreeing on a central set of
objectives and ways of doing business” (Oichi 435).
In Z Organizations, decision-making (Simon’s ostensible basis of
management) is democratic and participatory. Despite the many
advantages of this organizational model, there are several
draw-backs. These include the depredation of a large professional
distance--de-personalization is impossible in Z-organizations. A
high level of self-discipline is also necessary. Z-organizations
tend to be homogeneous and In Japan where this organizational form
is popular, management is dominated by males and foreigners are a
rarity.
Organizational power
An organization has an array of options for delegating power to its
lower level employees. Bown and Lawlwer (2006)identify a spectrum
of empowerment possible for service workers in private sector
employment. Low-level workers can either be thought of as belonging
to a production line and given little individual decision-making
freedom (power). These workers can be thought of as individual
actors, given discretion to interpret a situation as it arises, and
make reasonably independent decisions themselves. Most
organizations allow their employees to operate somewhere between
these extremes depending on several criteria the organization has
as a whole.
Henry Mintzburg contributes to the power discussion with his
article, “The Power Game and its Players." He writes that
organizations consist of many individuals, each drawing a source of
power from their position within the organization, knowledge skills
and abilities, and relative role in that organization. Each also
works to increase or maximize his or her power.
Moss Kanter published “Power Failure in Management Circuits” to
address symptoms of unhealthy organizational power struggles. The
reader learns that many symptoms of dysfunctional organizations
can, in fact, be traced to power problems.
New public management
New public administration theories have emerged over the latter
half of the twentieth century. New frameworks increasingly
acknowledge that government is seen by citizens through
administrators, front line, service deliverers. These are the
employees that execute decisions by elected officials.
There has been a rigorous critique and emphasis upon implicit
problems with new public management. First, a reliance upon
competition and market forces assumes that individual self interest
will effectively bring about an equitable social and economic
reality for citizens. Henry Mintzberg’s protests,“I am not a mere
customer of my government, thank you.” (cited by Dendhardt 2001,
77). “I expect something more than arm’s length trading and
something less than the encouragement to consume.” (Denhardt 152
citing Mintzberg 1992, 77). “Do we really want our
governments…hawking products?” While greater government efficiency,
an individual emphasis, and lower cost operations of new public
management may be initially attractive, Mintzberg and Denhardt
highlight many incompatibilities of such values with justice,
equity, security, and other important government values.
Further, encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit in administrators
carries the benefits of innovation and productivity. These benefits
are balanced by necessary costs. An entrepreneurial attitude tends
to be accompanied by a willingness to bend the rules, reduced level
of accountability, and a motivation to take risk with public
resources are potentially costly (Denhardt 152-153). Despite what
might appear to be a destructive criticism of a new model for
public service delivery, Denhardt advocates new public
service, one that carefully navigates the intricate
differences between public and private organizations.
Feminist interpretations
The simple phrase, "feminist interpretation" carries relevant
concepts, often stimulating an emotional response. However, if one
can move past prejudice or negativity popularly attributed to the
word, one might find important challenges to the implicit
assumptions upon which many modern institutions and disciplines are
built. Specifically, feminists uncover and challenge the assumption
that a heritage of male-dominated public administration has yielded
anything other than a "masculine interpretation" of the field. The
simple adjective, feminist, asks the public administrator to
evaluate his or her premises in a search for masculine
interpretations, buried beneath a century of academic dialogue and
practice (Stivers, 2002).
Many of the responsibilities public employees currently carry are
rooted in nineteenth and twentieth century female philanthropists.
Women volunteered their time to contribute to the communal welfare,
innovating the rationale and justifications subsequently borrowed
by paid male advocates of positive government. Government employees
that advocated a public responsibility to assist the poor and
underprivileged with material aid and necessary services. Due in
part to women's role as pioneers, such activities were (and in
actuality still are) perceived to be feminine.
This and other traditional features are used to make the argument
that males have a persistent advantage in professional
organizations. Subtle, gendered processes perpetuate the advantage,
vehemently denied by men and women alike.(Acker 1992). These may be
overt, sexual jokes or discrimination in promotion, or covert,
organizational processes and decisions apparently independent of
gender considerations on their face.
Processes fall into four categories:
- Production of gender divisions-hierarchies are gendered
- Creating "symbols, images, and forms of consciousness that
explicate, justify, and, more rarely, oppose gender divisions”
(Shafritz and Ott, 393).
- Interactions between individuals that “enact dominance and
subordination and create alliances and exclusions.”
- “Internal mental work of individuals as they consciously
construct their understandings of the organization’s gendered
structure”
Comparable Worth is another, related topic . Difficult, unpopular
questions, like whether women are paid less because they ware
women, are explored by contributing scholars. Women might be
victims of discrimination because of societal expectations of their
biological and psychological state of mind. That is, women bear
children and are most often the primary care-taker of children. If
a young, newly-wed women is pitted against a similarly qualified,
young, newly-wed male for a promotion or position, do expectations
of gender roles influence management decisions? Further, to what
degree do women possess sufficient power of
self-determination?
While feminists are often attacked as radical an unfounded in their
claims, the group provides valuable food for thought. That is,
questioning premises and assumptions that have led administrators
to truths is important for judging the value of these truths.
New public service
Among the many new trends in government administration, the
“government scholar” is being rapidly replaced by the “policy
analyst.” The change in specialty reflects a shift in focus toward
policy outputs and outcomes. Government rhetoric would be expected
to yield to measurable impacts of public action. Government
professionals are shifting from a focus upon government actors to
observation and quantification at all steps of the policy process.
For example, domestic social programming and support like senior
center activities, welfare, Medicare, and youth groups have
measurable inputs and outputs that can be quantified and examined.
Effectiveness and efficiency can be estimated with dollars, opinion
surveys, confidence indexes, and the like, to quantify the output,
impact, and value of such programming.
New concepts of administrative roles challenge both the
politics-administration and fact-value dichotomies. In the former
case,administrators serving as policy analysts inevitably influence
the information they generate, thereby impacting policy. In the
case of the former, a newly constructed bureaucracy, representative
of the populace it serves, personal values of administrators my
reflect the values of the citizenry. In such a case, the necessity
of a distinction between fact and value is compromised. A degree of
subjectivity, interjection of personal values into factual
decision-making may be preferred by the population. In place of
alternate theoretical dichotomies, policy analysts and workplace
diversity essentially compromise the value of the dichotomy
mentality.
In the new public service, citizens are expected to develop a sense
of community in addition to personal interests, pushing the
threshold past simple self-interest of the new public management.
Further, public employees draw heavily upon the variety of humanist
management theories that have developed in the private and public
sectors. John Gardner writes that healthy communities consisting of
good community members “deal with each other humanely, respect
individual differences and value the integrity of each person”
(cited by Denhardt 2000, 183). Similarly, Robert Bellah,
The
Good Society , argues that the relationships, the space
between these communities and the government, ought to then be
relevant.
Smaller, intermediary institutions like churches, families, work
groups, and civic associations, are also participants in the
negotiation of the newly recognized space for public activity. Such
commitment carries tangible benefits. Robert Putnam empirically
demonstrates that communities whose citizens are civically engaged
live in communities of reduced poverty, crime, better health and
improved educational systems. Organization thereby represents a
form of “social capital.” Capital being the aspects of social life,
like the aforementioned networks, that “facilitate the coordination
and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Denhardt 185 citing Putnam
1995, 67).
After Wilson’s initial distinction between a professional workforce
and elected officials, nuanced variations maintained his
theoretical trajectory. Taylor and Fayol, Theory-X managers,
initially dominated the management circuit until humanists like
Mayo, Follett, and Argyris hung new concepts of organization and
management on McGregor’s Theory-X/Theory-Y framework. During this
time, truly independent administrators including Gulick, Simon,
Barnard, and Lindblom forged a significant new field.
A fact-value dichotomy challenged Wilson’s politics-administration
dichotomy for dominance, management science was defocused on a
revolutionary new unit of analysis: decision premises.
Organizations, viewed as systems of exchange, had to recognize
employees, even low-level line workers, as partners brokering for
adequate compensation and fulfillment. Even the comprehensive
rational model, the most scientific of all possible decision-making
methods, was challenged as highly impractical. If managers instead
make “successive limited comparisons,” they can make informed
decisions in a timely, affordable manner.
This dynamic evolution, indeed a changing system of intellectual
exchange, continues today as the popular new public management
dominates the field. Public administration should arguably be a
field dedicated to service of its owners, not mere customers.
Indeed, citizens ought to take an active role in their government
as an owner would in a business. A government that is administered
by a meritocracy, professionals with powerful analytic and literary
abilities. Managers might soon find themselves operating with an
ethical commitment to values, serve the public, an empowerment
attitude with a concept of shared power, pragmatic incrementalism,
and a dedication to the public. “Unlike the new public management,
which is built on economic concepts such as the maximization of
self-interest, the new public service is built on the idea of the
public interest, the idea of public administrators serving citizens
and indeed becoming fully engaged with those they serve. (Denhardt
2001, 190).
Decision-making models and public administration
Given the array of duties public administrators find themselves
performing, the professional administrator might refer to a
theoretical framework from which he or she might work. Indeed, many
public and private administrative scholars have devised and
modified decision-making models.
William Niskanen's budget-maximizing
An relatively recent
rational choice
variation, proposed by
William
Niskanen in a 1971 article
budget-maximizing model, argued that
rational bureaucrats will universally seek to increase their
budgets, thereby contributing to state growth, measured by
expenditure. Niskanen served on President Reagan's Council of
Economic Advisors; his model underpinned what has been touted as
curtailed public spending and increased privatization. However,
budgeted expenditures and the growing deficit during the Reagan
administration is evidence of a different reality. A range of
pluralist authors have critiqued Niskanen's universalist approach.
These scholars have argued that officials tend also to be motivated
by considerations of the public interest.
Patrick Dunleavy's bureau shaping
The
bureau-shaping model, a
modification of Niskanen, holds that rational bureaucrats only
maximize the part of their budget that they spend on their own
agency's operations or give to contractors and interest groups.
Groups that are able to organize a "flowback" of benefits to senior
officials would, according to this theory, receive increased
budgetary attention. For instance, rational officials will get no
benefit from paying out larger welfare checks to millions of
low-income citizens because this does not serve a bureaucrats'
goals. Accordingly, one might should instead expect a jurisdiction
to seek budget increases for defense and security purposes in place
of domestic social programming. If we refer back to Reagan once
again, Dunleavy's bureau shaping model accounts for the alleged
decrease in the "size" of government while spending did not, in
fact, decrease. Domestic entitlement programming was financially
de-emphasized for military research and personnel.
Ethics
Government's Ethical Origins
It is recognized that, as government officials, there is an
inherent servitude to the general public. This concept of
ethics, a branch of philosophy which seeks to address
morality, is not a relatively new idea within government.
Niccolò Machiavelli wrote
The Prince, which serves as a manual to
illustrate what a monarchy should do to maintain power. This
treatise is viewed as a springboard for ethical issues in modern
day times.
Paul Douglas, a former United States
Senator from Illinois, argues that while many may secretly follow
Machiavelli in their heart, most do not. “Instead, most men want a
life of integrity and goodwill in which public officials are
stewards rather than masters and treat their jobs as a means of
helping people rather than dominating them” (1952, p. 12).
Douglas further argues why ethical practices are needed. “Our
government is now so huge and affects our lives so directly that we
cannot be content with merely a moderately decent level of behavior
on the part of our public officials. For even a small percentage of
misbehavior on the part of these officials can do a vast amount of
harm” (1952, p. 19).
Further illustrating the bifurcation of thought on ethics in
government, Cody and Lynn discuss the two opposing factors:
utilitarians and deontologists (1992, p. 6).
Utilitarians: Believe that the end sought
justifies the means to that end. In other words, if an ethical
solution is more costly, a utilitarian will argue from a standpoint
of efficiency or effectiveness to justify a less ethical
solution.
Deontologists:
Believe that certain absolute principles should be obeyed,
regardless of the consequences. An example of an absolute principle
would be honesty.
Ethical Standards
John Rohr, in defining bureaucrats as
public administrators approaches ethic standards in government as a
requirement due to the nature of the work of administrators. He
states that “because bureaucrats govern through authority that is
discretionary, and because they are not elected, the ordinary means
of popular control are inapplicable” (1978, p. 4). The assumption
is that public administrators are working to benefit the general
public’s needs. When an elected official does not act in line with
the public’s expectations, they can be removed from office.
However, public administrators are protected with due process
rights as government employees, and ethical violations can be
difficult to justify the removal of a person from an office.
Many questions about how ethics should be addressed in government
exist. According to Cody and Lynn, the debate centers around how
detailed ethical standards should be made. For example, they cite
the general
litmus test for administrators
regarding whether or not they would like to hear about their
actions on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper (1992, p.
3).
The Honest Person Rule: Unless there is an
underlying honesty within people, a set of ethical rules is
meaningless. This supporting argument for the general guidelines
maintains that for ethical standards to be practical an individual
must be ethically sound from the beginning. As Cody and Lynn point
out, it is possible for a public official to act unethically, but
not be personally dishonest (1992, p. 5).
However, broadly defined ethical standards is difficult to assess
regarding concerns of ethical violations. In order to have greater
accountability, more specific standards are needed, or a statement
of
applied ethics.
Rohr classifies ethics in government with some of the approaches
that have been taken.
The USDA
devised a system where employees were asked
questions and then asked to rank the actions as permissible, not
permissible, and permissible with prior written approval.
Rohr argues that this type of approach, known as the
Low
Road merely places an understanding of what not to do in
order to steer clear of trouble (1978, pp. 53-54). This approach
does not assist an employee in providing a standard for what is
truly ethical behavior.
The
High Road, according to Rohr, is the basis of
decisions upon a pursuit for
social
equity, which is based upon
political philosophy and
humanistic psychology.
Rohr finds problems with both the Low Road and High Road approaches
and centers his argument around
regime values, or
“the values of that political entity that was brought into being by
the ratification of the Constitution that created the present
American republic” (1978, p. 59). He contends that regime values
are built upon three considerations:
- Ethical norms should be derived from the salient values of the
regime;
- These values are normative for bureaucrats because they have
taken an oath to uphold the regime; and
- These values can be discovered in the public law of the
regime.
The basic contention upon which Rohr builds his argument is that
rulings by the Supreme Court are sufficient measures upon which an
ethical framework can be constructed.
Levels of Ethical Decision-Making
Terry Cooper states that public administrators make decisions daily
according to a distinctive four-level process. The four levels
are:
The Expressive Level: At this stage, a person
responds to a situation with "spontaneous, unreflective expressions
of emotion ... which neither invite a reply nor attempt to persuade
others" (1990, p. 7)
The Level of Moral Rules: This is the first level
at which we begin to question actions and begin to look for
alternatives and consequences. The responses at this level are
often built upon "moral rules we acquire through the socialization
process from our families, religious affiliations, education and
personal experiences." Decisions on how to handle the situation are
then whittled down based on what we feel is the most appropriate
action within our own personal moral bank (1990, pp. 7-10).
The Level of Ethical Analysis: There are times
when a personal moral code will seem inadequate for the situation,
or that the alternatives and consequences do not feel right. When
this occurs, a person has entered this level and begins to examine
their
ethical principles, or "statements
concerning the conduct or state of being that is required for the
fulfillment of a value; it explicitly links a value with a general
mode of action" (1990, p. 10). Particularly, at this level, one
begins to reexamine their personal values, and may eventually
disagree with actions to such an extent that they will become
"whistleblowers."
The Postethical Level: At this level, questions
center around one's view of the world and human nature, how we know
anything to be true, and the meaning of life. Here there is a
philosophical examination as to why ethical standards are important
and relevant to the individual.
Cooper's Decision-Making Model
Cooper devised a method of moving from an ethical problem to
appropriate alternatives and consequences. This model follows a
sequential, rational approach to ethical decision-making. This
method utilizes
description and
prescription, where public administrators begin to
describe to themselves and others an objective state of affairs,
and then begin to suggest steps to change the situation (1990, p.
17).
The steps to this process are as follows:
- The Descriptive Task: A problem is often
presented in a fragmented, distorted fashion coupled with
judgmental language and inflections (1990, p. 17). Cooper contends
that the administrator is in a position to have more complete
knowledge when an issue is brought forward. Additionally, an
administrator should attempt to describe questionable situations
void of personal feelings (moving beyond the expressive
level).
- Defining the Ethical Issue: Often the most
misinterpreted step, with defining the ethical issue, an
administrator is not charged with defining the problem. Instead,
there is an examination of what is the underlying ethical value
that is being addressed. Oftentimes, there is a decision made
because of a problem, without examination of the ethical issue.
This is damaging to the process of decision-making because it harms
one's ethical analysis skills and ethical identity. This is true
because situations can differ, and practical decision-making may
lead to inconsistencies without an ethical base (1990, p. 20).
- Identifying Alternative Courses of Action:
Using a rationalistic approach, an administrator, with as complete
knowledge of the situation as possible and an assessment of the
ethical issue at hand, identifies all the plausible courses of
action in response to the situation (1990, p. 21).
- Projecting the Possible Consequences: In this
stage, all positive and negative results of each alternative are
examined. When discovering the possible positive and negative
outcomes of an action, administrators use their moral
imagination, or the imagined enactment of how alternatives
will play out. Ideally, as more consequences are enumerated, the
ethical decision-making process will be strengthened (1990, p.
22).
- Finding a Fit: The appropriate solution or
alternative is a balance of four elements (1990, pp. 22-25):
- Moral Rules: Those basic standards that can be
attributed to the alternatives and their consequences.
- Rehearsal of Defenses: The assessment and alignment of
alternatives with the accepted norms of the wider professional
organization and political communities of which we are a part.
- Ethical Principles: In assessing the moral rules, it
may become clear that certain moral values are competitive.
Therefore, it becomes difficult to say that an alternative which
support social justice is more correct than the security of an
individual or the organization. Here, an administrator assesses
alternatives and their moral values under the light of the level of
ethical analysis - deciding how the hierarchy of moral rules is
structured and ultimately influencing the final decision.
- Anticipatory Self-Appraisal: Simply put, this analysis
of alternatives requires an internal reflection of whether an
administrator feels that an alternative fits within what he or she
perceives to be their own personality. This is an examination of
whether an alternative will meet our need to feel satisfied with
the decision.
Politics and Ethics
Public administrators act independent of legislators and most
elected officials. This ensures that those on elections boards can
operate independent of political influence. This is also true of
law enforcement. Unfortunately, enforcing ethical violations can
lead to consequences for the public administrator. While an officer
can enforce a law against an elected official, the elected official
can place pressure on others to force the officer to work a night
shift or decrease the department’s budget. The protection of
positions from political pressure is known as
safe harbor.
Rohr would argue that politics and administration are not separate,
but are present at the same time when a public administrator makes
decisions. He states that the problem with public administrators
“is not that bureaucrats are excessively involved in policy
formulation but that they are involved at all. This is a problem
for a democratic society because to influence public policy as a
public official is to govern” (1978, p. 39). In other words, those
officials who are influencing decisions are taking on the role of
those elected by the public without a responsibility of having to
answer to the public for decisions made.
Whistleblowing: After
using all available means for working within the system, an
employee of a governmental agency reports a problem to other
governmental agencies or to the general public directly. The
problem for whistleblowing on all levels of government (federal,
state, and local) is that there are very few protections for these
individuals (Cody & Lynn, 1992, p. 76).
Ethics and the Personal Life of Administrators
There are several factors of a person’s private life that are often
viewed as something that is not made available to the public. When
a person enters into a public life, oftentimes, aspects of their
private life are made public.
Health: It is important, in the public’s eye, that
a public official be physically sound when conducting the duties of
their office.
For example, when Ronald Reagan had an assassination
attempt
, he was often reporting how healthy he was.
This may have been an attempt to prevent the transfer of powers to
his Vice President. However, because of the mandate of a transfer
of powers, it was necessary for the public to understand his
overall condition (Cody & Lynn, 1992, p. 127).
Finances: A public official may be a strong
steward of public funds, but may have personal financial issues
(i.e. failure to pay taxes, etc.). Disclosure of finances is
particularly important, ethically, for the public to decide an
official’s ability to properly manage public funds and to assess an
individual’s potential for giving into politically charged
financial pressure. Opposing viewpoints to this argue that public
officials should not have to disclose financial information because
they are sometimes linked to personal contacts that prefer to
remain anonymous (Cody & Lynn, 1992, p. 128).
Sexual Misconduct: The common view is that a
public official’s sexual life is subject to scrutiny. This is due
to the assumption that any
sexual
misconduct may lead to the manipulation of the official’s daily
decisions. It is thereby often the subject of attention when sexual
misconduct becomes known to the public (Cody & Lynn, 1992, p.
129).
Appearance of
Impropriety: Officials should make public any possible
conflicts of interest prior to
their actions, in order to avoid public scrutiny when making
decisions that could be construed in favor of a personal
interest.
(Denhardt 127-128)
Denhardt identifies two approaches to ethics in public sector work:
a more rigorous, philosophical studies in ethics that can be
applied to the field.
- Alternately, administrators might simply assume “an ethical
obligation to support ‘regime values.” Essentially, public
employees should refer to the constitution and Supreme Court
decisions for specifics on equity and justice.
- John Rohr, Ethics for Bureaucrats (1978)
- Terry Cooper The Responsible Administrator (1990)
- John Burke-Bureaucratic Responsibility (1986).
- Kathryn G. Denhardt-The Ethics of Public Service (1988)
Notable scholars
Notable scholars of public administration have come from a range of
fields. In the period before public administration existed as its
own independent discipline, scholars contributing to the field came
from economics, sociology, management, political science, law, and,
other related fields. More recently, scholars from public
administration and public policy have contributed important studies
and theories.
For a longer list of academics and theorists, see the
List of notable
public administration scholars article.
References
- Wilson, Woodrow, "The Study of Administration," Political
Science Quarterly 2 (June 1887)
- Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max
Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House
Publishers, Inc.
- Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (May – Jun.,
1996), pp. 247–255
- Denhardt , Robert B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt (2000). "The
New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering." Public
Administration Review 60(6)
- Diane Stone, (2008) 'Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy
Communities and their Networks,' Journal of Policy
Sciences.
- Cleveland, Frederick A.(1915)"Evolution of the Budget Idea in
the United States". The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. 15-35.
- Key Jr., V. O.(1940)American Political Science Review
34. 1137-40.
- Cleveland, Frederick A.(1915)"Evolution of the Budget Idea in
the United States". The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. 15-35.
- Willoughby, William F. (1918) "The Movement for Budgetary
Reform in the States". D. Appleton and Company for the
Institute for Government Research. 1-8.
- Key Jr., V. O. (December 1940) American Political Science
Review 34. 1137-40
- Lewis, Verne E. (Winter 1952) Public Administration
Review 12.1. 43-54
- Walsh, Mary Williams. "Richard A. Musgrave, 96, Theoretician of
Public Finance, Dies". January 20, 2007. New York Times:
Business.
- Wildavsky, Aaron. (Autumn 1961) Public Administration
Review 21. 183-190.
- Schick, Allen. (December 1966) Public Administration
Review 26. 243-58.
- Rubin, Irene S. (1990) "Budget Theory and Budget Practice: How
Good the Fit?" Public Administration Review March/April
1990. 179-89.
- Easton
- Denhard, Robert B. 2000. Theories of Public Organizations.
Orlando Florida: Harcourt Brace & Co.
- Shafritz, Jay M. and J. Steven Ott. 2001. The Classics of
Organization Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Lindblom, Charles 1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.”
Public Administration Review. Spring 19.
- Acker, Joan. 1992. "Gendering Organizational Theory." in The
Classics of Organization Theory. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott
eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 391-399
- Stivers, Camilla.1992 From the Ground(s) Up: Women Reformers
and the Rise of the Administrative State”in Gender Images in Public
Administration. Camilla Stivers ed. Sage.
- Fry, Brian R. 1989. Mastering Public Administration; from Max
Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House
Publishers, Inc.
- cited in Denhardt 2001, 100-101
- William Ouichi. 1981. “The Z Organization." in Classics of
Organization Theory. Shafritz and Ott eds. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
- Bowen, David and Edward Lawler. 2006. “The Empowerment of
service Workers; What, Why, How and When.” in Managing
Innovation and Change David Mayle. Sage.
- Mintzburg, Henry. 2001. "The Power Game and its Players." in
The Classics of Organization Theory. Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven
Ott Eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 353-360.
- Acker, Joan. 1989. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class
and Pay Equity . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
- Douglas, P. (1952). Ethics in government. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
- Cody, W. J. M. & Lynn, R. R. (1992). Honest government:
An ethics guide for public service. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
- Rohr, J. A. (1978). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law
and values. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
- Cooper, T. L. (1990). The responsible administrator: An
approach to ethics for the administrative role, Third edition.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.
Dubois, H.F.W. & Fattore, G.
(2009), 'Definitions and typologies in public administration
research: the case of decentralization', International Journal of
Public Administration, 32(8): pp. 704-727.
See also
Societies for public administration
International public administration
There are several organizations that are active. The oldest is the
International Association of Schools and Institutes of
Administration (IASIA). Based in Brussels, Belgium, IASIA is an
association of organizations and individuals whose activities and
interests focus on public administration and management. The
activities of its members include education and training of
administrators and managers. It is the only worldwide scholarly
association in the field of public management. Visit their Web site
at www.iiasiisa.be/schools/aeacc.htm.
Also the International Committee of the US-based National
Association of School of Public Affairs and Administration
(
NASPAA) has developed a number of
relationships around the world. They include sub regional and
National forums like CLAD, INPAE and NISPAcee, APSA, ASPA. For
general information about these regional networks, visit
www.GlobalMPA.net.
The Center for Latin American Administration for Development
(CLAD), based in Caracas, Venezuela, this regional network of
schools of public administration set up by the governments in Latin
America is the oldest in the region. Information about CLAD is
accessible at www.clad.org.ve.
The Institute is a founding member and played a central role in
organizing the Inter-American Network of Public Administration
Education (INPAE). Created in 2000, this regional network of
schools is unique in that it is the only organization to be
composed of institutions from North and Latin America and the
Caribbean working in public administration and policy analysis. It
has more than 49 members from top research schools in various
countries throughout the hemisphere, www.ebape.fgv.br/inpae.
NISPAcee is a network of experts, scholars and practitioners who
work in the field of public administration in Central and Eastern
Europe, including the Russian Federation and the Caucasus and
Central Asia. Their English Web site is located at
www.nispa.sk/_portal/homepage.php.
The US public administration and political science associations
like NASPA, APSA and ASPA. These organizations have helped to
create the fundamental establishment of modern public
administration. For more information visit the Web sites of
American Political Science Association, www.apsanet.org, and the
American Society of Public Administration www.aspanet.org.
External links
Australia
Austria
Belarus
Brazil
Canada
People's Republic of China
Europe
Finland
Germany
Greece
Philippines
Russia
Holland/The Netherlands
India
Philippines
Poland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Suggested reading
- Smith, Kevin B. and Licari, Michael J. Public
Administration — Power and Politics in the Fourth Branch of
Government, ISBN 1-933220-04-X