RETHINKING
THE IDENTITY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION:
INTERDISCIPLINARY
REFLECTIONS AND THOUGHTS ON MANAGERIAL RECONSTRUCTION[1]
Eran Vigoda
Department of Political
Science
Public administration is in a state of identity distress. Whereas for
many years the questions of politics and policy were those which
unconditionally ruled the discipline, at present public administration as a
science, art, and profession is undergoing far-reaching transformations. Two
major forces of rectification have increasingly augmented the conservative ones
to create a more interdisciplinary orientation of the field. These are cultural
and social inputs and organizational, managerial, and economical influences.
This merger began many years ago, but only recently has it attained sufficient
critical mass to direct the public sector through various necessary changes.
This paper accordingly suggests a revision of the evolution of public
administration in the modern era, and argues that interdisciplinary reflections
may be beneficial for the healthy development of the field in the years to
come. Based on relevant literature the paper explains how a multi-level,
multi-method, and multi-system approach may revitalize our understanding of a
scholarly domain that is currently in a state of some perplexity and in search
of the way forward
The
world of government and public administration has traveled far since the early
days of its struggle for disciplinary independence. Lately, there has been talk
of the advent of a new spirit in the public sector, or at least expectations of
its coming. Some say that such a spirit is already here. Others aver we are
witnessing only the tip of change. The world wide globalization process supported
by stronger orientations towards open markets, open highways of information,
growing levels of organizational learning and interdisciplinarity in the social
sciences have also made their impact on the study of our bureaucracies. Yet by
all definitions public administration in the beginning of the 2000s still lacks
the sense of identity that other fields of the social sciences has long since
obtained. In other words, the field is looking back and down into its
individuality, searching for orientations and signs that can direct it on its
way forward. Today, public administration is already very different from what
it used to be forty, thirty, and even twenty or ten years ago. In the coming
years it is going to be even more different.
This
paper is based on a previous work by the author (Vigoda, 2002). It tries to portrait
the uncertain identity of public administration and possible developments
waiting ahead. Rethinking this identity we should be interested in two main
questions: Which scholarly ground are we stepping on when we talk about public
administration? What is the legacy of the field in its current phase and what
are its ambitions for the future? Naturally, these questions raise many others,
for example, how to improve governments actions; how to revitalize public administrations
services; whether bureaucracies are responding to economical/ social/ political
challenges and changes ahead, and with what tools; what is the impact of a
high-technology environment and the information age on our public agencies; how
to attain the (im)possible goal of effective integration between citizens and
governments in an ultra-dynamic society; and what are the implications of such
transitions for democratic governments, their stability, and legitimization in
the eyes of citizens. I argue that in order to resolve these questions one
should seek better scholarly identity, which may be acquired through
interdisciplinary analysis.
Practically,
such an analysis needs to be presented gradually. Hence, I first suggest a
theoretical entry and rationality for the mixture of analytic levels, methods,
and viewpoints that are proposed by the various mother-disciplines of public
administration. More specifically I focus on the roots and foundations of
public administration in both American and Non-American cultures that furnish
the background and terminology for the discipline in its basic frame, as well
as in its more advanced composition. Next, three academic origins are
discussed, namely (1) policy, politics, and political economy, (2) sociology, culture,
and community and (3) management and organizational studies. Each represents a
separate layer of investigation. The closing section suggests a synthesis and
looks to the future. It attempts to portray areas and orientations for the new
generation of public administration and for its way forward.
The
dilemma of independence and interdisciplinarity in public administration
For many years public
administration has struggled for its independent position in the social
sciences. While in its early years it was part of the more conservative fields
of Law, Politics, and Economy, it has been developed today to a unique field,
independent in many ways but still enjoying mutual contributions of other
disciplines in the social sciences. Moreover, in the last century it has
developed a theoretical but also an impressive practical agenda that created remarkable
achievements in different ways. The public sector, both as a science and as a
profession is responsible for much of these achievements.
At the dawn of the new
millennium, however, various new social problems still await the consideration
and attention of the state and its administrative system. The question of
independency of public administration as a science seems today less important
than in the past. Instead, there are many calls to take advantage of multi
disciplinary orientations in the social sciences and to find better ways to
integrate them in the current ethos of public administration. It is also
suggested that such interdisciplinary ideas, tools, and methods can help to overcome
social problems and create effective remedies for the new type of state
maladies. Interdisciplinarity is also translated into is cooperation,
collaboration, and a share of information and knowledge. The multi-level, multi-method,
and multi-system analysis with a look towards the future are the main frontiers
of modern public administration.
The interdisciplinary
view endeavors to provide an insight into the complexity of the field by
combining different levels of analysis into an integral whole, which better
accords with reality. This knowledge may well serve our understanding of how
the state, and its executive branches, is managed and of the obstacles to
better public performance. An important task is to illuminate cross-disciplinary
principles for greater effectiveness and efficiency of public management in
future generations, when environmental pressures will grow, together with an
increase in citizens’ demands and needs. An interdisciplinary approach to
public administration may thus be of merit for a contentious field in a state
of rapid change. It may stimulate new and viable thinking that can lead to
additional positive innovation in the old type of bureaucracies.
The central
assumption of this essay is that slowly and gradually, but constantly and
extensively, a change is being nurtured in public systems and in the attitudes
of public managers, politicians, and citizens to the conservative role of
public institutions. These transformations carry many challenges, as well as
risks, that citizens, governments, an administrators of the future will have to
confront and address. They all represent new alternatives for the evolution of
public administration as an art, perhaps also as a science and as a profession
(
Public
administration in transition
The evolutionary process
The foundations of modern public administration
can be discerned thousands of years ago, across cultures, and in various
nations around the globe. The Bible mentions a variety of hierarchical and
managerial structures that served as prototypes for governance of growing
populations. Ancient methods of public labor distribution were expanded by the
Greeks and the Romans to control vast conquered lands and many peoples. The
Persian and Ottoman empires in the
All these, as well as other cultures, used a remarkably
similar set of concepts, ideas, and methods for governing and administrating
public goods, resources, and interests. They all employed professionals and
experts from a variety of social fields. They all used authority and power as
the cheapest control system for individuals, governmental institutions, and
processes. All of them faced administrative problems close in type and in
nature to problems of our own times: how to achieve better efficiency,
effectiveness, and economy in government, how to satisfy the needs of the
people, and how to sustain stable political hegemony despite the divergent
demands and needs of sectorial groups. Not surprisingly, all the above cultures
and nations also used similar managerial tools and methods to solve problems of
this sort. They all used, fairly effectively, division of work,
professionalism, centralization and decentralization mechanisms, accumulation
of knowledge, coordination of jobs, complex staffing processes of employees,
long-range planning, controlling for performance, and so on. Intuitively, one
feels that nothing has really changed in the managerial and administrative
process of public organizations for centuries, possibly millennia. But this
feeling is of course exaggerated. Some major changes have taken place in recent
centuries to create a totally different environment and new rules, to which
rulers and citizens must adhere and by which they must adjust their operation.
In fact, a new kind of governing game has taken shape, in which public
administration plays a central role.
Despite basic
similarities, the public administration of our times is entirely different from
public services in the past. These differences can be summarized in 7 key
points:
(1) It is larger
than ever before, and it still expanding;
(2) It is more complex
than in the past, and becoming increasingly so by the day;
(3) It has many more responsibilities
to citizens, and it still has to cope with increasing demands of the people.
(4) It is acquiring more
eligibilities, but must restrain its operation and adhere to standards
of equity, justice, social fairness, transparency and accountability.
(5) Modern public
administration is considered a social science, a classification that
carries high esteem but also firm obligations and rigid constraints.
(6) For many individuals
who decide to become public servants it is also a profession and
occupation to which they dedicate their lives and careers.
(7) Public
administration is one of the highly powerful institutions in modern
democracies.
Thus, it is evident that
public administration of our time wields considerable power and influence in
policy framing, policy making, and policy implementation. Hence it is subject
to growing pressures of political players, social actors, managerial
professionals, and the overall economic market.
An eclectic science
Public administration is
an eclectic science. It was born towards the end of the 19th century
when the business of the state started to attract social-academic attention.
The revolution turning public administration into an independent science and
profession is traditionally related to the influential work and vision of
Woodrow Wilson (1887) and Frank J. Goodnow (1900). These scholars were among
the first who advocated the autonomy of the field as a unique area of science
that drew substance from several sources. In the first years, law, political
theory of the state, and several “hard sciences” such as engineering and
industrial relations were the most fundamental and influential mother
disciplines. Over time, these fields strongly influenced the formation and
transition of public administration but the extent and direction of the
influence were not linear or consistent.
Kettl and Milward
(1996:7) argued that traditional public administration, as advocated by the
progenitors of the discipline, consisted in the power of law. Representatives
of the people make the law and delegate responsibility to professional
bureaucrats to execute it properly. Highly qualified bureaucrats, supported by
the best tools and resources, are then expected to discharge the law to the
highest professional standards, which in return produces good and accountable
managerial results that best serve the people. According to Rosenbloom (1998),
the legal approach views public administration “as applying and enforcing the
law in concrete circumstances” and is “infused with legal and adjudicatory
concerns” (p.33). This approach is derived from three major interrelated
sources: (1) administrative law, which is the body of law and regulations that
control generic administrative processes; (2) the judicialization of public
administration, which is the tendency for administrative processes to resemble
courtroom procedures; and (3) constitutional law, which redefines a variety of
citizens’ rights and liberties. Several legal definitions argue that public
administration is law in action and mainly a regulative system, which is
“government telling citizens and businesses what they may and may not do”
(Shafritz & Russell, 1997:14). However, with the years it has become
obvious that law in itself does not maintain satisfactory conditions for
quality public sector performances to emerge. Constitutional systems furnish
platforms for healthy performance of public administration, but do not account
for its effectiveness or efficiency. Put differently, good laws are necessary
but not sufficient conditions for creating a well-performing public service.
They only highlight the significance of other scholarly contributions.
One such important
contribution came from the classic “hard sciences” of engineering and
industrial relations. In its very early stages public administration was
heavily influenced by dramatic social forces and long-range developments in the
western world. The ongoing industrial revolution in the early 1900s, which was
accompanied by political reforms, higher democratization, and more concern for
the people’s welfare, needed highly qualified navigators. These were engineers,
industrial entrepreneurs, and technical professionals who guided both markets
and governments along the elusive paths to economic and social prosperity.
Various fields of engineering, the subsequent evoking area of industrial
studies, and other linked disciplines such as statistical methods became
popular and crucial for the development of management science in general, and
were also gradually found useful for public arenas. The link between general
management and public administration has its roots in the understanding of
complex organizations and bureaucracies, which have many shared features. Here,
much contribution was made in non-American societies such
With time, dramatic
changes occurred in the nature and orientation of general organizational
theory, and in its application to public administration of modern societies. A
major transition resulted from the exploration by the Hawthorn studies in the
1920s and 1930s, conducted by a well known industrial psychologist from
However, major
transitions still lay ahead. International conflicts during the 1930s and the
1940s wrought immense changes in national ideology and democratic perspectives
in many western societies. Consequently, public administration and public
policy had to be transformed as well. During the Second World War theoretical
ideas were massively supported by advanced technology and higher standards of
industrialization. These were pioneered by professional managers and accompanied
by new managerial theories. Ironically, the two world wars served as
facilitators of managerial change as well as accelerators and agents of future
developments and reforms in the public sector. The political leaders and social
movements of the victorious democracies were convinced that the time had come
for extensive reforms in the management of western states. The assumed
correlation of social and economic conditions with political stability and
order propelled some of the more massive economic programs in which the state
took an active part. The rehabilitation of war-ravaged
In many respects the
utopian vision of a better society generated by the post-war politicians and
administrators in the 1940s and 1950s inexorably crumbled and fell during the
1960s and 1970s. A sizable number of governments in the western world could not
deliver to the people many of the social promises they had made. The challenge
of creating a new society, free of crime and poverty, highly educated and
morally superior, healthier and safer than ever before, remained an unreachable
goal. So during the 1970s and 1980s, citizens’ trust and confidence in
government, and in public administration as a professional agent of government,
suffered a significant decline. The public no longer believed that governments
and public services could bring relief to those who needed help, and that no
public planning was good enough to compete with natural social and market
forces. The promises of modern administration, running an effective public
policy, seemed like a broken dream. Political changes took place in most
western states, largely stemming from deep frustration by the public and
disapproval of government policies. By the end of the 20th century
the crises in public organizations and mistrust of administrators were viewed
both as a policy and managerial failure (Rainey, 1990). In addition, this
practical uncertainty and disappointment with governments and their public
administration authorities naturally diffused into the academic community.
Theoretical ideas for policy reforms in various social fields that once seemed
the key to remedying illnesses in democracies have proven unsuccessful. Within
the last decade the search for new ideas and solutions for such problems has
reached its peak, as premises originally rooted in business management have
become increasingly adjusted and applied to the public sector. Among these
ventures are re-engineering bureaucracies (Hammer and Champy, 1994), applying
benchmarking strategy to public services (Camp, 1998), re-inventing government
(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992), and the most influential movement of New Public
Management (NPM: Lynn, 1998; Stewart and Ranson, 1994). These are receiving
growing attention accompanied by large measures of skepticism and criticism.
Transformations in the academic realm
Throughout those years
public administration as an academic field was also in transition. Today, many
examples exist in universities of independent public administration units; some
operate as schools and some as free-standing faculties. But in at least an
equal number of universities, public administration programs on all levels are
only part of larger units such as Political Science departments, Business and
Management schools, or even Public Affairs schools. This disciplinary
schizophrenia certainly yields a science that is more complex and
heterogeneous, but also more challenging and full of promise.
The scientific
background and identity of public administration in the late 1990s and early
2000s is still not stable and has not overcome its childhood ailments. On the
contrary. Identity conflicts have only intensified with the years. Some 30
years ago, Waldo (1968) noted that ongoing transformations in public
administration reflected an identity crisis of a science in formation. During
the last three decades Waldo’s diagnostics on public administration as a science
struggling with a pernicious identity problem has not changed much. The
evolution of alternative sub-disciplines inside and around the field (e.g.,
policy studies, public personnel management, information management, etc.)
carried promises but also risks for its position and role as a central field of
social study. As recently noted by Peters (1996), modern public administration
greatly reflects lack of self-confidence both as a science and as a profession.
This lack is expressed in many ways, the most significant being incapacity to
guide governments through a safe circuit of public policy change. Much of the
accumulated wisdom in the science of public administration has been obtained
through social experiments, the commission of policy errors, and sometimes even
learning from them about better ways to serve the people. But mistakes cost
money, much money, money from all of us, the taxpayers. Like good customers in
a neighborhood supermarket, citizens should and have become aware of the
services they deserve, of the high prices they are asked to pay, and of
governmental actions that should be taken to produce useful changes. Demands
for better operation are generally aimed at governments, but they should be,
and are, also targeted at the science and at academia. Science has the
potential of exploring new knowledge, generating better explanations for
relevant administrative problems, applying sophisticated and useful
professional methods, and most importantly directing all available resources to
produce successful and practical recommendations for professionals. Its prime
goal is to design a comprehensive theoretical view of public systems that is
clear, highly efficient, effective, thrifty, and socially oriented at the same
time. This cannot be achieved without extensive understanding of the diversity,
complexity, and interdisciplinarity of the science of public
administration.
The contribution of an interdisciplinary view to
public administration identity
In many ways the
persistent public mistrust of governmental services and institutions, together
with the marked instability of public administration as a science, inspired us
in the present venture. The fragile status of the theory of public
administration is a port of departure for a different kind of discussion, which
is broader and multi-perceptional. Our core argument is that one can find many
ways to depict the administrative system, its functionality, and its
relationship with the public. But the identity crisis of public administration
cannot be solved until many approaches are combined and coalesce to explain the
very basic constructs that modern societies encounter at the start of the new
century. A foremost assumption of this paper is that only mutual efforts and
quality combination of critical knowledge from a variety of social disciplines
and methods can yield a real opportunity for overcoming public administration’s
post-childhood problems. Such a crisis of identity, which has existed for more
than a century now, carries risks, but also promises, which must be well
isolated, assessed, analyzed, and only then fulfilled. The translation of
science into operative acts by government must rely on such wisdom, which can
be sufficiently accumulated from various social branches.
The
desired comprehensive understanding of public administration, as portrayed
earlier, should rely on the accumulated wisdom and knowledge of its sister
disciplines (and not necessarily the conventional mother disciplines) in the
social sciences. Unfortunately, so far most writing on public systems has
adopted a uni-dimensional viewpoint. Public administration was frequently
understood through the eyes of policy analysts or political scientists.
Alternatively it was considered a specific field of management science or as an
organizational studies domain. While the roots of the administrative process
are definitely, and with much justification, identified with political science,
policy studies, and managerial constructs of public institutions, it would be
greatly in error to point solely to these arenas in portraying the domain and
nature of public administration. An integrative approach has much merit and
potential in this case, and it must be well developed to conform to the complex
reality of serving the public.
More specifically I argue
that the administrative science is a discipline in transition that involves
politics, but not only politics. It deals with policy, but reaches much farther
and deeper than policy questions. It incorporates sociological and cultural
aspects that change rapidly in a mass communicative global world, but it goes
even beyond these issues. It deals with people as workers, as citizens, as
clients, and as consumers, as leaders and managers, as well as with a variety
of other human constructs that fuse into a unique branch of knowledge. A
multi-disciplinary approach is evidently required to explain better what every
scholar already knows from his or her personal perspective: that the truth
about public administration has many faces and no monopoly exists any longer on
the discipline’s status and orientations.
In light of the above I identify
three main disciplines that serve today as core sources of knowledge in the
study of public administration.
(1)
Policy analysis, Political science, and Political Economy;
(2) Sociology, Cultural
studies, and Community studies;
(3) Management and
Organizational studies;
Policy, Politics, and Political Economy
The
political approach to public administration was depicted by Rosenbloom (1998)
as stressing the values of representativeness, political responsiveness, and
accountability to the citizenry through elected officials. These values are
considered necessary requirements of democracy, and they must be incorporated
into all aspects of government and administration. Wallace (1978) argued that
ultimately public administration is a problem in political theory. It deals
with the responsiveness of administrative agencies and bureaucracies to the
elected officials, and through them, to the citizens themselves. Shafritz and
Russell (1997) provide several politics-oriented definitions of public
administration: it is what government does (or does not do), it is a phase in
the policymaking cycle, it is a prime tool for implementing the public
interest, and it does collectively what cannot be done so well individually
(pp. 6-13). Hence it is impossible to conduct a politics-free discussion of
public administration. This political debate in public administration is also
heavily influenced by the sub-field of political economy. Questions of
budgeting and financing the public sector (Wildavsky, 1984) as well as bringing
more economical rationality to decision making processes usually conflict with
political considerations (Jackson & Mcleod, 1982). However they also put
them under economical restraints and enhance "checks and balances" to
a system mostly monitored and controlled by politicians, political parties, and
other federal or national institutions, rather than professionals and
practitioners.
Yet, politics is
definitely the heart of public administration processes. Politics focuses on
citizens as members of groups or on highly institutionalized organizations that
sound the public’s voice before political officials and civil servants. The
politics approach to public administration involves strategies of negotiating
and maneuvering among political parties, public opinion, and bureaucracies. It
involves an incremental change in society, which relies on open debate, a
legitimate power struggle, distribution and redistribution of national
resources and budgets, and a heavy body of legislation and law to regulate
these processes. Perhaps the most obvious linkage between politics and public
administration stems from policy making and policy implementation processes. It
is naive to distinguish political systems from professional administration
systems in regard to public policy. As Rosenbloom (1998:13) suggested, “public
administrators’ involvement in the public policy cycle makes politics far more
salient in the public sector than in private enterprise. Public administrators
are perforce required to build and maintain political support for the policies
and programs they implement. They must try to convince members of the
legislature, chief executives, political appointees, interest groups, private
individuals, and the public at large that their activities and policies are
desirable and responsive”.
From a somewhat
different perspective, Ellwood (1996: p.51) argued that political science has
simultaneously everything and little to offer public management scholars, hence
also public administration scholars. Everything, because both fields deal with
political behavior, processes, and institutions. Little, because political
science deals only with the constraints forced on the administrative process
with no practical contribution to the managerial improvement of public systems.
Ellwood further concurs that both fields rely on other academic disciplines,
employing techniques of anthropology, economics, game theory, historiography,
psychology, and social psychology, as well as sociology. In line with this it
would be only natural to conclude that the relationship between political
science and public administration is described as an on-again, off-again
romance. Kettl (1993, p.409) suggested that “the importance of administration
lay at the very core of the creation of the American Political Science
Association…when five of the first eleven presidents of the association came
from public administration” and played a major role in framing the discipline.
As Ellwood puts it, with the years, public administration became public but
also administration. It shifted its focus to a more practical and
client-service orientation, which necessarily incorporated knowledge from other
social disciplines like personnel management, organizational behavior,
accounting, budgeting, and so forth. The methodological contribution of a
political approach to public administration studies is also meaningful. Here a
macro analysis is necessary if one seeks an understanding of the operation of
large bureaucracies and their coexistence with political players. A political
approach delivers these goods by means of comparative studies, policy
evaluation methods, rational choice models, and simulations, as well as
content-analysis techniques and other tools useful for observation of the
political sphere.
Sociology, Culture, and Community
Studying public
administration is also a social issue. Thus, another approach that is highly
relevant to the understanding of public administration bodies and processes
rests on a sociological apparatus. It has a very close relationship with the
political approach, so it is sometimes defined as a socio-political view of
public systems or as a study of political culture (Shafritz & Russell,
1997:76). Yet its core prospects are beyond the political context. The voice of
society has a special role in the study of public administration arenas not
only for democratic and political reasons but also because of its fundamental
impact on informal constructs of reality such as tradition, social norms and
values, ethics, life style, work standards, and other human-cultural
interactions that are not necessarily political.
The theoretical
contribution of a sociological and cultural approach to public administration
consists of several elements. An essential distinction must be drawn between
inside and outside cultural environments. An outside cultural sphere
incorporates informal activities and behaviors of small groups as well as of
larger social units which interact with the administrative system. Included in
this category are customers’ groups, private organizations, not-for-profit
volunteering organizations, and citizens at large. Considerable attention has been
turned to communities and to the idea of communitarianism (Etzioni 1994; 1995)
as well as to the emergence of the third sector as rapidly changing
conventional structures and beliefs in modern societies (Gidron, Kramer, and
Salamon, 1992). An inside cultural environment is related to internal
organizational dynamics and to the behaviors of people as work groups. Thus, it
is sometimes termed organizational culture, or organizational climate (Schein,
1985). Like the outside organizational environment, it has some observable
constructs but it mostly expresses many covert phases. In many ways, “culture
is to the organization what personality is to the individual – a hidden, yet
unifying theme that provides meaning, direction and mobilization” (Kilmann et al.,
1985). It includes basic assumptions as to what is right and what is wrong for
a certain organizational community, norms and beliefs of employees, unseen
social rules and accepted codes of behavior, as well as tradition, language,
dress, and ceremonies with common meaning to all organizational members. All
these distinguish “us” from “them”, promote group cohesiveness, and improve
common interests.
Several sociological
sources can be effective in analyzing public administration dynamics. First is group
theory, which is also closely related to the study of leaders and leadership.
Second are ethnic studies, which concentrate on minorities and race questions
such as equity, fair distribution of public goods, and integration in
productive public activity. Third is communication and the technological
information revolution, which have had a radical effect on society, public
policy, and public administration units and structure. Information networks and
communication have become an immanent feature of the cultural investigation of
bureaucracies. For many years a plausible approach in management science and in
the study of public administration called for the formulation of a universal
theory in the field, one that is culture-free and applicable across all nations.
With the passage of time and with giant technological developments this
perception became ever more anachronistic.
Today, the goal of a universal administrative paradigm is
hardly achievable. An alternative viewpoint is more balanced and contingent. It
argues that basic similarities do exist between public organizations and public
administration mechanisms, but at the same time intra-organizational and
extra-organizational culture fulfills a major mediating role. Culture in its
broad context constantly affects the operation of bureaucracies as well as
political systems that interact with them. Examples like Theory Z of W. Ouchi
(1981) and lessons from a more recent Chinese and east European experiences
stimulated the scientific community and initiated culture-oriented ventures in
general management inquiry (Hofstede, 1980). They especially promoted the
investigation of work values and culture-oriented management in private but
also in public arenas. Many scholars became convinced of the necessity of
incorporating social and cultural variables as core elements in the
administrative analysis of public arenas. A sociological and cultural approach
to public administration also made an important methodological contribution. It
initiated culture-focused surveys of individuals and groups who work in the
public sector or of citizens who receive services and goods. Culture-focused
observations and analyses possess the merit of being sensitive to people’s (as
citizens or employees) norms, values, traditions, and dispositions, and
sometimes they overlap other politics and policy-oriented studies the better to
explore dynamics in public organizations.
Finally, several ethical
considerations should be included under any sociological understanding of the
public sector. Ethical dilemmas are frequent in
public administration and relate to cultural aspects, to norms, and most
importantly to the individual behaviour of public servants. For example,
hand-in-hand with governmental operation, questions of ethical standards,
integrity, fair and equal treatment to clients, or appropriate criteria for
rewards to public servants become more relevant. Today, public services in
The third core-stone of
public administration is based on knowledge from management and organizational
sciences. A managerial definition of public administration proclaims that it is
the executive function in government or a management specialty applied in
public systems (Shafritz and Russell, 1997:19-23). Although public sector
management is distinguished from private sector management, in many ways the
two systems share a surprisingly broad area of similarities (Rainey, 1990). For
many years, differences stemmed from the nature of services each sector
customarily provided, from diverse structures and functions, but mainly from
discrepancies in the environment. However, when the environment started rapidly
to change, organizations had to change as well. Modern societies have become
more complex, flexible, and dynamic. Cultural, industrial, technological,
economic, and political environments of organizations have undergone rapid
transformations that are still in progress today. On the one hand, public and
private organizations have to adjust and comply with similar changes in the
environment to safeguard their interests and existence. But on the other hand,
the starting point of public organizations is far inferior and urgently calls
for rethinking and reinventing (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992).
Conventional wisdom accepted
a classic assumption regarding the relatively stable and unshakable structure
of public organizations. Drawing on the Weberian approach, hardly anyone
disputed the need for large bureaucracies in modern democracies. Moreover, the
advantages and disadvantages of large bureaucracies were well known among
academics and practitioners. A weighty bureaucracy was considered an axiom of
public administration. Only with the emergence of new management trends in old
bureaucracy were these basic assumptions questioned. For example, Kettl and
Milward (1996) stated that management in the public sector matters. It matters
because citizens’ demands increase and because the standards of performance
expected from governments are higher than ever before. Performance is related
in the minds of people and in scientific studies to quality of management,
quality of managers, and the administrative process between them. Accordingly,
it has much to do with the human aspects of administration. Perhaps this
perception has led to some recent developments in public administration, making
it client-oriented and more businesslike. Scholars frequently define these
shifts as the principal change in public administration and its transition into
a revised field of study named public management.
Current trends: A public
managerial reform?
What
is the future of modern public administration and what new frontiers are
awaiting ahead? The wisdom of managing states and communities in the 21st
century relies on manifold disciplines and multiple sources of knowledge. The
information era and the immense technological advancement with which our
nations struggle necessarily create higher levels of accessibility, availability,
and transparency to the public. The emergence of e-government is no more a
fantastic dream but blatant reality. Public administration in
Since
the early 1980s much work has been conducted in public administration theory
and practice that claimed to go beyond the conservative approach in the field.
This “liberalization” of public administration is recognized today as the “New
Public Management” (NPM) trend. The self-identity problem of public
administration was greatly aggravated by the launching of the idea of NPM. As
noted by Kettl and Milward (1996: vii), “public management is neither
traditional public administration nor policy analysis since it borrows heavily
from a variety of disciplines and methodological approaches”. Mainly drawing on
the experience of the business/industrial/private sector, scholars have
suggested taking a more demanding attitude to the dynamics, activity, and
productivity of public organizations. However, “competing academic disciplines
dueled to establish bridgeheads or, worse, virtually ignored each other as they
developed parallel tracks on related problems” (p. 5). Consequently, a
cross-fertilization, which could have accelerated learning and improved
performance of public systems, was delayed.
What are the roots of
NPM, and in what way is it actually a new arena in the study of the
public sector? Several theoretical foundations, as well as practical factors,
can answer these questions. The first, and probably the deepest source of NPM
emerges from the distinction between two proximate terms or fields of research:
administration and management. As noted earlier, since the late 1880s the
monopoly on the term administration has been held by political scientists.
Scholars like Goodnow and Wilson were those who perceived public administration
as a separate and unique discipline that should consist of independent theory,
practical skills, and methods. However, the term management referred to a more
general arena, used by all social scientists and mainly by those who practice
and advance theory in organizational psychology and business studies.
Consequently, conservative administration science tends to analyze the
operation of large bureaucratic systems as well as other governmental processes
aimed at policy implementation. Management, on the other hand, refers to the
general practice of empowering people and groups in various social environments
and in handling multiple organizational resources to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in the process of producing goods or services.
NPM has indeed become
extremely popular in the theory and practice of contemporary public administration.
Still, it is not clear if we can define it as a long-range revolution in public
administration theory. Some will say that NPM has only revived an old spirit of
managerialism and applied it in the public sector. Others will argue that this
in itself has been a momentous contribution to public administration as a
discipline in decline. Relying on an extensive survey of public management
research in
Thus, Perry and Kraemer
(1983) stated that a greater impact of new ideas and methods from the field of
public management on the administrative science was essential and natural. It
reflected a special focus of modern public administration that was not to be
ignored. Rainey (1990:157) claimed that this process was a result of the
growing unpopularity of government during the 1960s and 1970s. Ott, Hyde, and
Shafritz (1991:1) also stated that public management was a major segment of the
broader field of public administration since it focused on the profession and
on the public manager as a practitioner of that profession. Furthermore, it
emphasized well-accepted managerial tools, techniques, knowledge, and skills
that could be used to turn ideas and policy into a (successful) program of
action.
During the last two
decades many definitions have been suggested for NPM. Yet nothing seems wrong
with the relatively old perception of Garson and Overman (1983:278), who
defined it as “an interdisciplinary study of the generic aspects of
administration...a blend of the planning, organizing, and controlling functions
of management with the management of human, financial, physical, information
and political resources”. As further discussed by other scholars (e.g.,
While the emergence of
NPM is frequently related to the increasing impact of positivist behavioral
science on the study of politics and government (e.g.,
There is no
doubt that at least some of the accumulated wisdom of the private sector in many
countries is transferable to the public sector (Pollitt, 1988; Smith, 1993). In
an attempt to liberate the public sector from its old conservative image and
tedious practice NPM was advanced as a relevant and promising alternative. NPM
literature has tried to recognize and define new criteria that may help in
determining the extent to which public agencies succeed in meeting the growing
needs of the public. NPM has continuously advocated the implementation of
specific Performance Indicators (PIs) used in private organizations to create a
performance-based culture and matching compensatory strategies in these
systems. It has recommended that these indicators be applied in the public
sector (e.g., Smith, 1993; Carter, 1989) since they can function as milestones
on the way to better efficiency and effectiveness of public agencies. Moreover,
citizens' awareness of the performance of public services was suggested as a
core element of NPM since it can increase the political pressure placed on
elected and appointed public servants, thereby enhancing both managerial and
allocative efficiency in the public sector. Scholars who advocate NPM liken
this process of public accountability to stakeholders/citizens to the role
adopted by financial reporting in the private/corporate sector (Smith, 1993).
As in that sector, increasing exterior-related outcomes can have a profound
impact on internal control mechanisms, as managers and public servants become
more sensitive to their duties and highly committed to serve their public
customers.
Thus,
Moreover, Kettl
and Milward (1996) argue that one of NPM’s most significant contributions to
public administration as a discipline in transition is the focus on the
performance of governmental organizations. According to their analysis, this
scientific orientation needs to draw on “a wide variety of academic disciplines
for the full and richly textured picture required to improve the way government
works. Only through interdisciplinary cross-fertilization will the picture be
rich enough to capture the enormous variety and complexity of true public
management (and administration) puzzles” (p.6).
The
journey continues
This paper has relied on
previous works to describe public administration as a discipline in transition.
In many ways it has always been in continuous movement, but not always in the
same direction. Contrary to the heavy, formal, and inflexible image of bureaucracies,
public sector bodies in
In recent decades the
struggle over the nature and uniqueness of public administration has continued,
some say even intensified. From the very early days of the discipline to the
present its boundaries have been in a state of ongoing debate. To talk of the
“Public”, of “Administration”, and of the integration of the two constructs
into a useful terrain for study holds out promise as well as involving
difficulties. But consensus does exist on at least one issue: the public needs
a better bureaucracy, more flexible, working efficiently and effectively,
moving quickly toward objectives, and at the same time responding to the needs
of the people without delays and with maximum social sensitivity,
responsibility, and morality. The public also expects good and skillful
administrators, versed in the mysteries of quality services and effective
management. Only they can produce better “public goods” and deliver them to all
sectors of society in minimum time and at minimum cost. These goals are
undoubtedly ambitious but they have the potential of safeguarding the structure
of democratic societies. This is a revised version of the ideal type of public
administration systems applicable to modern times.
However, reality seems far more complex. There is growing
concern among scholars today that these goals are way beyond reach. Modern
states across the world face serious problems of adhering to the public’s
needs. Achieving one target is usually accompanied by painful compromises on
others, and limited resources are frequently cited as the main reason for failure
in the provision of services. Moreover, fundamental changes are taking place in
people’s lifestyles, as in their beliefs and ideologies. They are multiplied
through high technology, communication systems, new distribution of capital,
and the rise of new civic values that never existed before. All these lead
citizens to perceive government and public administration systems differently.
The role of the state and its relationship with bureaucracy and with citizens
is undergoing a substantial transformation not only in the minds of the people
but also in scientific thinking. In a rapidly changing environment, public
administration has a major function and new aims that must be clearly
recognized. It remains the best tool democracy can use to create fruitful
reciprocal relationships with citizens, but on a higher and better level. To
uncover the major tasks and challenges facing the new generation of public
administration we require a cross-disciplinary strategy and improved
integration of all available knowledge in the social sciences aimed at
redefining the boundaries of public administration systems in its new era.
Today, at the beginning
of the 21st century, the formation of public administration as an
interdisciplinary academic field seems certain. Still, it is unfinished
business due to the need and demand to make it more of a “harder social
science”, one which is closer to management science, economics, or even
psychology. Hence, the state of the field is in dispute among academics and
practitioners from across the world who seek higher and more extensive
scientific recognition, by applying a higher level of empirical-based paradigm.
It is argued that such inputs may produce a more accurate self-definition and
better applicability of the field to rapid changes in modern life. This process
presents new challenges for public administration. Perhaps the most important
is to integrate more widely existing knowledge of the social sciences with
efficient public action and with quality governmental operation. In the coming
years public administration will be evaluated by higher standards of theory
cohesiveness and by more comprehensive performance indicators rooted in a
variety of scientific fields. The exploration of new interdisciplinary horizons
for public administration is thus essential, and inevitable for the successful
passage of the field into the third millennium. Somewhat contrary to the
concerns of Waldo (1968), the identity crises in its new form may carry a
positive, not endangering, interdisciplinary merit. The interdisciplinary
orientations have the potential of pulling public administration out of its
perplexing-stagnating status and lead it towards a more solid scientific
position.
In light of the above a
consensus exists today among scholars and practitioners that modern public
administration decidedly benefits, and will continue to benefit, from the
seminal inputs of social and cultural motives and mainly from the impact of
managerial and organizational theory. In keeping with these, modern societies
question the current obligations of public personnel toward citizens, and urge
them to put people and social values first. These tasks can be achieved by
treating citizens as customers or clients but also through building a different
value of administrative spirit (Vigoda and Golembiewski, 2001). Yet managerial
tendencies draw fire from those who argue that a client orientation of the
public sector breeds citizen passivity and lack of individual responsibility
toward the state and its agencies. It is further assumed that today these
obligations and commitments are not clearly decoded, manifested, or
satisfactory implied. Consequently they yield an identity problem of the field
and strive for redefinition of its unwritten contract with the people. Scholars
are divided over the best way to obtain missions of good-management together
with good cultural order. Still, they agree that much more can be done to
improve responsiveness to citizens’ needs and demands without forgoing the
active role of citizens in the administrative process.
Moreover, the
information revolution is expected to create a growing impact on public administration
of the future both as a science and as a profession. In referring to the modern
public sector
Finally, in this paper I
proposed that the application of multi-disciplinary approaches (political,
social, and managerial-based) to the public service is essential for somehow
resolving the identity conflict of the field. An agreement over self-identity
is required before any further development can be achieved. It is argued that
some tenets of administrative culture and democratic values need to be explored
before higher levels of social theory synthesis and integration can be reached.
These may also be the milestones on the way to better linkage, partnership, and
cooperation between rulers and citizens in modern societies. Here lies the main
challenge of public administration in the coming years: the invention of a new
vitalized administrative generation that is interdisciplinary in nature and
tightly bounded together with modern participatory democracy. The contribution
of this paper is its effort to bring these views together and to produce a
multi-faceted analysis of modern public administration.
References
Aucoin, P. (1995). The New Public Management:
Camp, R.C. (1998). Global Cases in
Benchmarking: Best Practices from Organizations around the World.
Carter, N. (1989). Performance indicators:
'Backseat driving' or 'hands off' control? Policy and Politics, 17,
131-138.
DeLeon,
L. (1996). Ethics and entrepreneurship, Policy Studies Journal, 24,
495-510.
Ellwood, J.W. (1996). Political science. In D.F.
Kettl and H.B. Milward (Eds.), The State of
Etzioni, A. (1994). The Spirit of Community.
Etzioni, A. (1995). New Communitarian
Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions, and Communities.
Fayol, H. (1925). Administration, Industrielle
et Generale.
Garson, G.D., and Overman, E.S. (1983). Public
Management Research in the
Gidron, B.,
Kramer, R.M., & Salamon, L. (1992). Government and the Third
Sector: Emerging Relationship in the Welfare State.
Gladstone,
D. (ed.) (1995). British Social Welfare: Past, Present and Future.
Golembiewski, R.T. (1995). Practical Public
Management.
Goodnow, F.J. (1900). Politics and
Administration: A Study in Government.
Hammer, M., and Champy, J. (1994). Reengineering
the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution.
Hofstede,
G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related
Values.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations.
Kettl, D.F. (1993). Public admini